AMD Processors

Message

Antix · #1 Post by **Antix** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:52 am

Why is it that some some processors that are an older model are faster than some of their newer ones? I know that the newer ones either have a faster FSB or more cache, but still...

And if I were to do a DYI job what 64-bit would be the best one?

Also, which AMD chip has ok power for a LOW LOW price? I just wanna use it for a kinda junker...

Guest · #2 Post by **Guest** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:32 am

Give an example-- and yeah, AMD is good and cheap. If your going to get a 64-bit CPU, get the ATHLON 3000+, it's like the best bang for the buck in the 64-bit market. I think Windows XP 64-bit Edition is already out.

Oh and the 3000+ (64-bit) is like tied with the Intel P4 3.0GHz (I think).

Most people just think it's...
AMD = gamer
Intel = video-editing

#3 Post by **palmboy5** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 12:17 pm

yeah thats pretty much it

except its more like 64 3000+ is tied with 2.8GHz

Antix · #4 Post by **Antix** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:14 pm

2.8 GHz OC'ed or reg? umm... get back to you on that example. I need to go to a site where I can look at a few AMDs so I can copy it.

#5 Post by **palmboy5** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:26 pm

OC'ed or reg is such a broad way to put a good question that it doesnt work.

Antix · #6 Post by **Antix** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:46 pm

Oh, sry. well I was just wondering how u were comparing it that's all.

Guest · #7 Post by **Guest** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:10 pm

palmboy5 wrote:OC'ed or reg is such a broad way to put a good question that it doesnt work.

PWNED

#8 Post by **palmboy5** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:20 pm

um forget i said it was better

Guest · #9 Post by **Guest** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:20 pm

Antix · #10 Post by **Antix** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:38 am

palmboy5 wrote:um forget i said it was better

ok... well is it something other than actual clock speed kinda performance, like and AMD can perform as well as an Intel that's at a higher clock speed? Something like that?

#11 Post by **palmboy5** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:53 am

AMDs are more efficient

Antix · #12 Post by **Antix** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:22 am

and MUCH MUCH cheaper...

#13 Post by **palmboy5** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:25 am

well actually they jacked that up just simply cuz so many ppl go by "its too cheap to be good"

Antix · #14 Post by **Antix** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:50 am

Oh... that sucks. Still cheaper than Intel though.

Guest · #15 Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:42 am

WTF palm? IMO AMD didn't do what palm said. AMD probably was TRYING it, but didn't like it. That's most likely why they decreased all their A64's prices by $100. *cackle* Now I can get the 3000+ for $220 (CAD).