AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by e=mc², Aug 8, 2004.

  1. e=mc²

    e=mc² Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. The GHOST of WOGER., Aug 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. e=mc²

    Invisible Guest

    Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 15:18:15 +1200, The GHOST of WOGER.
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:29:29 +1200, "e=mc²" <> wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >Yes Utter Crap, also Intel wins again for Stability.
    >
    >Why not compare Apples with Apples.
    >


    But Woger, he posted a LINK with FACTS! Ohhhhhhh
    ;-)
    Invisible, Aug 8, 2004
    #3
  4. e=mc²

    cowboyz Guest

    Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    The GHOST of WOGER. wrote:
    > On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:29:29 +1200, "e=mc²" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > Yes Utter Crap, also Intel wins again for Stability.
    >
    > Why not compare Apples with Apples.


    Can't compare apples with apples cause Intel don't make a CPU equivalent to
    AMDs. Oops.. did I just start a war?
    cowboyz, Aug 8, 2004
    #4
  5. > Yes Utter Crap, also Intel wins again for Stability.
    > Why not compare Apples with Apples.


    Where in the article did it say that AMD (or Intel for that matter) was
    unstable ?

    It simply showed that the AMD cpu's worked this *one* prog quicker than
    Intel.

    Perhaps this should be filed in the NZ TiVO folder for you Woger ? Facts
    going against what you believe !! hahahahaha.

    ~!@#$%^&*()_+

    Millhouse: "We started out like Romeo and Juliet but it ended in tragedy."
    ..Waylon Smithers.., Aug 8, 2004
    #5
  6. Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    In <> The GHOST of WOGER.
    wrote:
    > On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:29:29 +1200, "e=mc?" <> wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > Yes Utter Crap, also Intel wins again for Stability.
    >
    > Why not compare Apples with Apples.


    Can't. The Mac version isn't out yet.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
    http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
    ________________________________________________________________________
    No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

    Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
    Roger Johnstone, Aug 8, 2004
    #6
  7. e=mc²

    ardz Guest

    Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    "Roger Johnstone" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In <> The GHOST of WOGER.
    > wrote:
    > > On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:29:29 +1200, "e=mc?" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Yes Utter Crap, also Intel wins again for Stability.
    > >
    > > Why not compare Apples with Apples.

    >
    > Can't. The Mac version isn't out yet.
    >
    > --


    Ha ha ha ha :)
    ardz, Aug 8, 2004
    #7
  8. e=mc²

    e=mc² Guest

    Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    "The GHOST of WOGER." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:29:29 +1200, "e=mc²" <> wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

    >
    > Yes Utter Crap, also Intel wins again for Stability.


    Please provide us links which a) contradict the Anandtech results. b) Show
    the Intel CPUs are more stable.
    Im keen to see these as I was considering upgrading going the Intel way but
    now Im swayed towards AMD.

    > Why not compare Apples with Apples.


    What are you on about ? They compared all the CPUs with each other. Thats
    what the graphs show !
    Or is it you mean the AMDs are Apples and the Intels are Lemons ?
    e=mc², Aug 8, 2004
    #8
  9. Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:57:19 +1200, "e=mc²" <> wrote:

    >"The GHOST of WOGER." <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:29:29 +1200, "e=mc²" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

    >>
    >> Yes Utter Crap, also Intel wins again for Stability.

    >
    >Please provide us links which a) contradict the Anandtech results. b) Show
    >the Intel CPUs are more stable.
    >Im keen to see these as I was considering upgrading going the Intel way but
    >now Im swayed towards AMD.
    >
    >> Why not compare Apples with Apples.

    >
    >What are you on about ? They compared all the CPUs with each other. Thats
    >what the graphs show !
    >Or is it you mean the AMDs are Apples and the Intels are Lemons ?
    >




    No its the other way around..

    AMD's are Lemons..
    The GHOST of WOGER., Aug 9, 2004
    #9
  10. Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    The GHOST of WOGER. wrote:
    >>>Why not compare Apples with Apples.


    >>What are you on about ? They compared all the CPUs with each other. Thats
    >>what the graphs show !
    >>Or is it you mean the AMDs are Apples and the Intels are Lemons ?


    > No its the other way around..
    > AMD's are Lemons..


    So intel suck worse than lemons at Doom3, wow, they must be really bad,
    and prescotts burn down houses :)

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 9, 2004
    #10
  11. Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    In article <>,
    says...
    > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:57:19 +1200, "e=mc²" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"The GHOST of WOGER." <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:29:29 +1200, "e=mc²" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    > >>
    > >> Yes Utter Crap, also Intel wins again for Stability.

    > >
    > >Please provide us links which a) contradict the Anandtech results. b) Show
    > >the Intel CPUs are more stable.
    > >Im keen to see these as I was considering upgrading going the Intel way but
    > >now Im swayed towards AMD.
    > >
    > >> Why not compare Apples with Apples.

    > >
    > >What are you on about ? They compared all the CPUs with each other. Thats
    > >what the graphs show !
    > >Or is it you mean the AMDs are Apples and the Intels are Lemons ?
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > No its the other way around..
    >
    > AMD's are Lemons..


    Nothing wrong with AMD CPUs, we have heaps of them at work. They are nice
    stable machines that get the work done.
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 9, 2004
    #11
  12. e=mc²

    Nik Coughin Guest

    Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    The GHOST of WOGER. wrote:
    > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:57:19 +1200, "e=mc²" <>
    > wrote:
    >>
    >>> Why not compare Apples with Apples.


    It's a comparison of how well different CPUs run Doom III Woger, how would
    you have them compare the two?

    >> What are you on about ? They compared all the CPUs with each other.
    >> Thats what the graphs show !
    >> Or is it you mean the AMDs are Apples and the Intels are Lemons ?

    >
    > No its the other way around..
    >
    > AMD's are Lemons..


    Where do you get that idea from? In what way are they lemons? I've been
    running AMD chips of one kind or another for years, never had any problems.
    The only processor I have any trouble with at all is an Intel P4 3Ghz...
    besides which the AMD 3Ghz sitting next to it is noticably faster.
    Nik Coughin, Aug 9, 2004
    #12
  13. Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    In article <vwBRc.10844$>, nrkn!no-spam!
    @woosh.co.nz says...
    > The GHOST of WOGER. wrote:
    > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:57:19 +1200, "e=mc²" <>
    > > wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Why not compare Apples with Apples.

    >
    > It's a comparison of how well different CPUs run Doom III Woger, how would
    > you have them compare the two?
    >
    > >> What are you on about ? They compared all the CPUs with each other.
    > >> Thats what the graphs show !
    > >> Or is it you mean the AMDs are Apples and the Intels are Lemons ?

    > >
    > > No its the other way around..
    > >
    > > AMD's are Lemons..

    >
    > Where do you get that idea from? In what way are they lemons? I've been
    > running AMD chips of one kind or another for years, never had any problems.
    > The only processor I have any trouble with at all is an Intel P4 3Ghz...
    > besides which the AMD 3Ghz sitting next to it is noticably faster.


    Some of the chipsets used with AMD processors were crap(TM) e.g. Aladdin
    5. But then Intel did some pretty crap chipsets as well e.g. 810/815 and
    Rambus.
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 9, 2004
    #13
  14. e=mc²

    Glenn Guest

    Glenn, Aug 9, 2004
    #14
  15. Re: AMD Kicking Intels butt @ Doom3 CRAP..

    > Where do you get that idea from? In what way are they lemons? I've
    > been running AMD chips of one kind or another for years, never had
    > any problems. The only processor I have any trouble with at all is an
    > Intel P4 3Ghz... besides which the AMD 3Ghz sitting next to it is
    > noticably faster.


    Ahh, it's just a Woger post, I wound't worry.

    With Woger, facts are an optional extra, he just likes to troll.

    Become quite a net bully lately.

    ~!@#$%^&*()_+

    Millhouse: "We started out like Romeo and Juliet but it ended in tragedy."
    ..Waylon Smithers.., Aug 9, 2004
    #15
  16. e=mc²

    Tim Guest

    Itanium on a home PC? Ok Mr Lotto.

    - Tim


    "Glenn" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:29:29 +1200, e=mc² wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

    >
    > interesting. how do Intel's 64 bit processors compare with these results?
    > anyone? different kettle with bigger fish I feel...
    Tim, Aug 9, 2004
    #16
  17. Tim wrote:
    >>>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7


    >>interesting. how do Intel's 64 bit processors compare with these results?
    >>anyone? different kettle with bigger fish I feel...


    > Itanium on a home PC? Ok Mr Lotto.


    errr, what about EM64T or whatever they are calling it...
    although from what I have read it doesnt perform any better, just gives
    64bit memory addressing.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 9, 2004
    #17
  18. Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>>> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7


    >>> interesting. how do Intel's 64 bit processors compare with these
    >>> results?
    >>> anyone? different kettle with bigger fish I feel...


    >> Itanium on a home PC? Ok Mr Lotto.

    >
    > errr, what about EM64T or whatever they are calling it...
    > although from what I have read it doesnt perform any better, just gives
    > 64bit memory addressing.


    http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2158&p=2
    may be of interest...

    Its the 3.6GHz Xeon with 64bit extensions vs an Athlon64 3500+.
    Not exactly a fair comparison(server chip vs entry level{entry level
    64bit at least}), but interesting anyway.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 10, 2004
    #18
  19. Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>>>> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    >>>> interesting. how do Intel's 64 bit processors compare with these
    >>>> results?
    >>>> anyone? different kettle with bigger fish I feel...
    >>> Itanium on a home PC? Ok Mr Lotto.

    >> errr, what about EM64T or whatever they are calling it...
    >> although from what I have read it doesnt perform any better, just
    >> gives 64bit memory addressing.


    > http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2158&p=2
    > may be of interest...
    > Its the 3.6GHz Xeon with 64bit extensions vs an Athlon64 3500+.
    > Not exactly a fair comparison(server chip vs entry level{entry level
    > 64bit at least}), but interesting anyway.


    also this article(german)
    http://www.heise.de/ct/04/08/020/

    or google translated here.
    http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=mozclient&u=http://www.heise.de/ct/04/08/020/
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 10, 2004
    #19
  20. Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>>> Itanium on a home PC? Ok Mr Lotto.


    >>> errr, what about EM64T or whatever they are calling it...
    >>> although from what I have read it doesnt perform any better, just
    >>> gives 64bit memory addressing.

    >> http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2158&p=2
    >> may be of interest...


    > or google translated here.
    > http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=mozclient&u=http://www.heise.de/ct/04/08/020/


    a quote from the (translated)article.
    "After first, very provisional realizations over the performance in the
    64-Bit-Modus of the Nocona AMD however no grey hair needs to be grown to
    be able. "It sucks" - so the abschaetzige comment of a beta tester - in
    particular if larger address ranges are addressed. Perhaps the processor
    must still emulate 64 bits here and there, who knows. Intels
    64-Bit-Partner HEWLETT-PACKARD will know it anyhow - and that decided
    only once for Opteron."
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 10, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mort

    Doom3 Beta2

    mort, Apr 23, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    514
    Boomer
    Apr 24, 2004
  2. Johnny8977

    5.1 sound on Doom3

    Johnny8977, Aug 22, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    951
    magnulus
    Aug 24, 2004
  3. Morituri-|-Max

    Doom3 Resur. of Evil Expansion Problem

    Morituri-|-Max, May 31, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    468
    Morituri-|-Max
    May 31, 2005
  4. Ingot
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,020
    Ingot
    Jun 1, 2007
  5. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    interesting thoughts on Intels changes...

    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Aug 22, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    407
Loading...

Share This Page