Duron or Athlon

[old.Predster]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TUG
PIII


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


errr there?

Learn to read.

Fuckwit.
>


Nice to see that kids are allowed to post in here



Predster


Ohh and I see your quoting Toms Hardware as well Bohdi, shows how dumb you really are eh fuckwit


[Edited by Predster on 07-12-00 at 21:44]

 

[Mr B]

*sigh*

Anyone ever heard of the phrase "Fight fire with fire?"

 

[old.[GA] Shovel]

Yup.
I think it tends to be used more in relation to open warfare though, rather than your standard chip pan jobby.

This SETI, as in the SETI@Home aliens business?

 

[Testin da Cable]

yes



-tdc

 

[old.TUG]

If all the babies (hiya Bodhi) wanna argue, fuck off and start your own thread

PIII vs. TBIRD @ same speed for dnet... my shit PIII 650 @ 820 does about 2.28 mkeys a sec. A TBIRD @ same speed would probs do 2.5/6 mkeys a sec, and that builds up the more units u do. My m8 with a 900MHz duron gets about 850 units a day done, mine can only do about 775 a day... :/

 

[Stazbumpa]

so there

 

[Testin da Cable]

yeah

 

[bodhi]

Oh dear. The moral majority who unfortunately lack the intellect to grasp such things as sarcasm and banter are out in force again. At no point was I trying to start an argument, I was pointing out a fact.

I personally wouldnt go near an AMD processor, as they overheat like a bitch unless you cover them in superfluid helium and appear to be about as stable as a double decker bus racing round Silverstone. Now before AMD users unite and say "But but but mine is fine, now I must get to the post office to pick up my dole cheque", this is my own personal experience of AMD's "wonder chip".

As for pointing out that Tom's Hardware indicates a lack of intelligence, that is just stupid Predster. He seems to offer the most balanced judgements out there, and is infinitely preferable to Anandtech's "highly dubious" verdicts. I think that your comment does show however, that you appear to have a chip on your shoulder after the DTX thread. I hope you can find the proper method of taking out your anger in being made look silly by the entire (non-DTX) community without hurting anyone.

Bodhi

PS: AMD SUX COK AHEAHEAHEHAEHEAHEAH!!!!!11!!!1!1!1!!11!!

 

[Mr B]

I've had more problems with Intel chips than AMD (had a PIII-500 which overheated regularly, a PII-350 which used to die every so often).

It's all subjective really.

AMD's are mainly for "tinkerers" rather than the "just stick it in the slot and have done with it" fraternity (a technique I have developed since getting married).

I suppose it's down to whether you have more money than sense...why pay out 25-40% more for a chip that only gives you 5-10% better performance...

When you hit the top end of the chip scales (anything by anyone over 700Mhz) the REAL limiting factor for anything USEFUL (ie. not processing a SETI unit, but actually playing a game or something) is the GFX card (even the top of the range Nvidia Ultras) still have a LONG way to go before they cause the CPU to be the bottleneck).

ffs how many parenthesis?

:/

B

 

[Testin da Cable]

lol B

 

[old.TUG]

Bodhi doesn't know much about hardware does he

 

[old.Listy]

Maybe some one should also tell Bodhi that "superfluid" is just another term often used to discribe a plasma-roughly bout 60,000 degress C and more-why would the processor work better if we melted it????

 

[Testin da Cable]

mebbeh he ment a liquid biochip aiiii?


heh sorry /me shuts up

 

[Testin da Cable]

or even a drop of spank w/red cape and blue tights


sorry, not had my regular caffiene dose yet )

 

[old.sjp]

its a funny old world isent it ?

Bodhi starts acting normal then bang!, we are back to acting ........


first off, Toms Hardware is a steaming pile of ..... the guy talks shite plain and simple, he seems to have a problem acknowledging intels strong points and his anti 3dfx stance when the V2 was king was disgusting. He miss represents "data" in his reviews (remeber the slapping he got from id ???) and he talks shite when ever frame rates are mentioned (they are one of the 30fps is enuff sites i mentioned in a seperate post).


now thats out of the way .... heres my take on the amd vs intel front (i own a amd k7 btw)


the P3 is QUICKER than the K7 run Q3 on either system and the p3 is quite abit quicker, plus (or maybe because) EVERYONE optisers there code to run on intel systems. On the el-cheapo front the Duron pisses on a Celery from a gr8 height (not everyone likes overclocking TUG )


the k7 is not particually unrelliable (power supply might be tho ).


where amd do win out (and the reason i got a k7) is in the value for money stakes, you can pick a k7 up for not much, its plenty quick enuff and it gives you a few quid extra to spend on a better vid card (lets be honest, thats where you u get big fps increases from nowadays).


in reply to the original post if you can afford it get the Athlon, if not get the quickest Duron you can afford.




==================================
SJP aka Jag.
if its spellt rong woh cares

 

[old.Quorthon]

lo sjp M8

agree about Toms, in particular the recent 628,456 part P4 fiasco with its "recounts" and "final recounts". This was the greatest pile of plop I have had the misfortune to read. I think aside from Q3 though with its SSE optimizations, most webbies have shown the K7 to be faster than the P3 in the majority of tests (clock-for-clock). It is amazing however how many people keep going on about unreliability and so on when this is not something that has affected AMD for quite some time.

Personally, I currently have a p3-600 (not cumine) and will probably get a P3900 next whenever price falls sufficiently (following on from Mr B's logic above ). If I was starting again from scratch at the moment though I think the KT7-Raid & Athlon/Duron combos at overclockers.co.uk are unbeatable in terms of price/performance.

I also think from seeing the various Athlon/Duron reviews on the web, that If you are going to run games at higher resolutions then the Duron is fine once you get 750mhz+. It can be overclocked and then spend the saved munzo on a GF2 or ultra (or nv20 in Jan/Feb). At 800x600 and above in Q3 certainly, most processors seem to score roughly the same, with the vid card being the limiting factor.


Q

[Edited by Quorthon on 11-12-00 at 14:49]

 

[bodhi]

Originally posted by Listy
Maybe some one should also tell Bodhi that "superfluid" is just another term often used to discribe a plasma-roughly bout 60,000 degress C and more-why would the processor work better if we melted it????

Oh dear....guess you havent got to that part of the course then have you?

Superfluid is a term used mainly for helium, cooled down to about .03 degrees Kelvin.

Right, about Tom's. Granted I disagree with some of his verdicts (he does get a bit Pro-AMD at times), but the fact that he cant see any good points in Intel is a festering pile of horseshit. Try reading the review of the P4 instead of just looking at the pretty pictures. And as for being anti-3dfx....well seeing as every GFX card theyve done since Voodoo 2 has been shit, I can understand this.

 

[old.TUG]

The Voodoo 3 was a good card you tit... the V5 5500 is a good card in it's own right too.

You're more biased than tomshardware!

 

[bodhi]

Yes the voodoo 3 was fine as long as you dont like 32-bit colour or q3 or sharp 2D or........

And the voodoo 5 is fine as long as you dont mind Geforce performance for Geforce 2/ Radeon price.....

BTW how can I be anti 3dfx when I have a pair of voodoo 2's in my machine? I just think they've lost the plot unfortunately.....

 

[old.TUG]

Who cares if the V3 didn't do 32 bit? It aint a quick enough card to run 32bit colour depths anyway IMO and neither was the TNT2 or anything of that era. Only GF1 DDR's and upwards (IMO) are powerful enough to run 32bit at a decent res.

The V3 had pretty good 16bit rendering though due to it's ability to internally render @ 32bit then scale down to 16 bits for increased performance. The 32 bit rendered image runs through the RAMDAC which interpolates it and then renders it as an 'external' 16 bit image. But, the image will actually have more colours than a standard 16 bit rendered image (16 bit = 65536 colours) due to the internal rendering at 32 bit bringing the end 'external' result to approximately a 22 bit colour depth. This is 3dfx's own kind of texture compression if you want to think of it in that way. Hence, due to this internal 32 bit rendering, the V3 has good 16bit image quality and IMO, better than the TNT2 had. I owned both cards and I'm an nvidia user @ the mo.

By the way, if anyone would like to read a V3 review I once wrote about 18 months ago, lemme know and I'll upload it somewhere so you can see it

 

[Mr B]

Superfluid helium is a liquid with unique and fascinating properties. Below a temperature of about 2 Kelvin 4He, the most common isotope of helium, it completely looses its viscosity. Once set in circular motion, for example, it will keep on flowing forever - without external forces necessary. Unlike all other chemical elements helium does not solidify when cooled down near absolute zero. Physicists explain this phenomenon by extremely weak attractive forces between the almost "perfectly round" atoms and by their rapid motion which is due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Oh, and the Voodoo3 was pants - performance not much above and beyond 2xVoodoo2's - Anyone who buys anything other than a GeForce card (unless they play a lot of simulations and can actually use the wanky FSAA) needs their heads read.

B (Phrenology examinations available at £50 per hour, retro-phrenology available at no extra cost.)

 

[old.sjp]

so this is now a TOMS HARDWARE IS SHITE thread ?


the V2 (sli) ripped every card arround at the time to itsy-bitsy peices (the fact that it lasted me untill the geforce2 came out said alot about the speed of it .....) it was one hell of a card , uet mr Tom always slagged it off .....

the V3 initailly WAS quicker than a v2 sli and tnt2 at USEABLE resolutions/color depths (i dont want to start this argument again, but i PERSOANLLY find me Geforce2 to SLOW to be practcal in 32bit color over 800x) ALSO a lot of shit was spread about 3dfx's image quality -> V2 -> Geforce2 did NOT blow me away .........

instead of simply showing the stats (which at the time favoured 3dfx) mr Tom always went off ant a tangent and said at blah/blah/blah the tnt(blah) was quicker - the fact that it only gave out 10fps didint mater .... also (if u remember) i.d. made him retract some of his "reviews" where he slagged off 3dfx ...... not a good sign.

K, Review rant over


personally i am not baised when it comes to hardware, i simply want the fastest X, that i can afford, the current graphics speed king is Niv, but iam sure that will change , on the cpu front I say its intel BUT iam baised in favour of Q3 so .....

Now Bodhi , i DID specifically say VOODOO 2 dident I?, but i have to agree that its a shame 3dfx HAS arsed up, it certanly doesnt help us (the consumer).

if 3dfx had shipped the V5000 on time, it would have been alot different.........................



PS. the bit about superfluid's was v funny please keep up the good work


[Edited by sjp on 12-12-00 at 13:08]

 

[Testin da Cable]

I had VII-sli. it 0wned. I couldn't believe the fps,res,color,clarity,sharpness,unameit.
and Glide. Glide truly rocked. it was tons better than d3d, and GL neeeded [then] waay too much power I thought.

now I have a GF-DDR. other peeps might say different but I like this card. I run 800x600x32bit openGL and I like it fine the only thing I wish was different was linux support [tho that seems to be shaping up nicely too ]


-tdc