# AMD sux



## i.am_mayur (Sep 11, 2004)

AMD reallyyyyyyyyy sux man. 

1) AMD is a sore loser. They 've ried everything to overtake the Intel bosses but failed miserably .Just check out he stats

2) The very fact that AMD likes to measure the performance of its chips wih PR ratings does not speak a lot of good for the company 

3) Even the performance of the (so called) revolutionary 64FX is being compared to P4's .AMD is still stuk with the PR rating. This is a clear indication that they r not confident of  their own products.

4) AMD chips r absolutely unsuitable for gaming . Even the  64FX being touted as the gaming chip loses hands down to the P4 EE .

5) of course theres the ubiquitous fact that AMD chips overheat .AMD users  do u like ur chips medium ,rare or well done ?

INTEL RULEZ any day . P4 RULEs . 
*Try to prove me wrong .. .*


----------



## oldmonk (Sep 11, 2004)

Whats wrong with you? 

If you dont like amd dont buy!!!!!

Anyway who asked you????????


----------



## alib_i (Sep 11, 2004)

everybody is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## rakesh_1024 (Sep 11, 2004)

he doesn't have any proof to backup what he says.
We can't argue with maniacs. 
So just leaave him guys.


----------



## blade_runner (Sep 11, 2004)

i.am_mayur said:
			
		

> AMD reallyyyyyyyyy sux man.
> 
> 1) AMD is a sore loser. They 've ried everything to overtake the Intel bosses but failed miserably .Just check out he stats
> 
> ...



Hahah !! thats the worst shit i have heard since a long time. Looks like the d00d copy pasted sumthng over frm Intel Fanboy forums. Dont get me wrong dude i have a Intel proccy that doesnt mean that AMD sucks. Look @ the value for money that AMD offers. Looks like u forgot abt the money part absolutely. Actually proving u wrong is matter of posting a few quik links. But then u r not worth the effort dude.


----------



## mariner (Sep 11, 2004)

well lets wait n watch for batty or raven to satisfy his curiosities


----------



## mail2and (Sep 11, 2004)

firstly, nice joke mate... i hope u saw the jokes post... u shud post it there... 

what do they say...

kutte to bhonkte hi rehte hain par haathi nikal jata hai....

mate thats nuff for u...


----------



## cooljeba (Sep 11, 2004)

well m8
here r some links
*forums.devhardware.com/archive/t-3424
*forum.pcstats.com/archive/index.php/t-24282.html

if you want more links post it there.

BTW AMD Me 

..:: peace ::..
Jeba


----------



## Kl@w-24 (Sep 11, 2004)

Who da hell asked u for ur opinion ? And for ur info, Intel has also stopped using processor speeds as an identification method. What do u say now, o worshipper of th Pentium ?


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 11, 2004)

Due to heat issues on Prescott, I m not going any further in Intel, I have 3.06 GHz Northwood with HT, & If I ever upgrade in the next year, I will go for AMD Athlon64 3400+ or high

Now try to prove me wrong

AMD AthlonXP was hot, we all know, but intel prescott is hotter more then that.

However, one thing even I will say that AMD64's 64 bit part is all a marketing hype, we don't have 64 bit OS (not talking about Windows XP 64 bit edition), they say it's future proof, well, I will buy it when I need it in future, but not now just because I can use 64 bit in the future

Again, AMD is saved, cos they are providing more performance in 32 bit apps with Athon64
----------------------------------------------
3 discussion will never end

1) Pandav or Kaurav
2) ATI or NVIDIA
3) AMD or Intel


----------



## din (Sep 11, 2004)

.

Only one thing to say

AMD Rocks 

but there r people who still believe that PC means Pentium PC LOL.

Oh God , forgive em 

.


----------



## EinSTeiN (Sep 11, 2004)

lol:  thats the best joke of the week. Hey AMD is the only processor which can be overclocked correctly. try overclocking ur intel processor. And abt overheating of cpu, a good heatsink will take care of it. 

AMD Rocks.    anytime.


----------



## mariner_5147 (Sep 11, 2004)

here's my $0.01

I use a amd athlon xp 2000+...it give saround 1.67 GHz. when i upgraded i went through all the processor performance and prices..amd seemed to be the most cost effective, thats not to say that i sacrificed performance. coupled with a P&Y GForce4 440 MX i play almost all the games.
But yes the temperature problem with amd gave me sleeples night, as i myself assembled the system. the temp kept rising.However its running fine for these 5 months and i am satisfied.

price wise amd beats intel.also if u refer to past processor comparison in digit( which i consulted before buying my chip) amd is somewhat better than intel


----------



## cooljeba (Sep 11, 2004)

BTW EinSTeiN nice banner who did it      

AMD me 
..:: peace ::..
Jeba


----------



## krish (Sep 11, 2004)

Yeah blade_runner is right. The price/performance ratio for AMD is the best. And try to compare the processors with the same price range between Intel & Amd and then post. The only processor of intel in the price range of 3000-4000 is celeron. And on AMD counterpart it is AMD 2600+ or even 2400+. Compare Celeron and Athlon 2400+. Celeron doesn't even touch the performance of AMD. BTW AMD me tooo!!


----------



## svenkat83 (Sep 12, 2004)

I guess mayur will not return now.Anyway Intel fan here.But I agree that next time I'll go for AMD.Not  'coz of ratios or performance,but just to check how it is.


----------



## ujjwal (Sep 12, 2004)

Another day ... another useless post


----------



## cruisetjj (Sep 12, 2004)

Man, don't u have anything else to post?  AMD and Intel have their own Pros and Cons..  You buy the one you like.


----------



## indranilmaulik (Sep 13, 2004)

go for the best CPU ur budget allows. Keep life simple . . . . .


----------



## EinSTeiN (Sep 13, 2004)

Oh and COOLJEBA did this banner for www.thinklinux.uni.cc
thx jeba.. i remember u


----------



## girish_b (Sep 13, 2004)

i like amd very much my sys is an AMD 2100 . works very well


----------



## rakee (Sep 13, 2004)

MEE TOO AMD


----------



## Ethan_Hunt (Sep 13, 2004)

i dont see the poit in arguing so much.Intel sucks and is hyped so much in India that none of the dealers even quote for Amd processors but the truth is that Amd processors are the best and can deliver more than a punch performance (don't need to go into the technical data stuff will take a day or two) and Intel charges way too much compared to Amd and as for the 64 Fx tecnology it is still the first and better than Intel's 3.2Ghz with HT technology.I mean lets face it Intel has got goosebumps after it.The main point is the dude tha posted this message has runaway and made an arguementative issue over this forum so its better not to answer to these maniacs who are just one post Messengers.(God Help Them).Peace.


----------



## girish_b (Sep 13, 2004)

hyper threrading is not much good on some grafitty softwares... in digit there was a topic or something on that... i think...


----------



## sidewinder (Sep 14, 2004)

AMD=Another meaningfull day.....
I love AMD and intel sucks
My AMD 2100+ Never had a heat problem but my friends P4 2.8 with 4 fans have.
Now what about that?


----------



## adorablesrini (Sep 21, 2004)

Hey man get a hike!!!!!!!!!!!!   Ever tried anything new.Just try it man and then talk.Sucker i.am_mayur  dont read DIGIT much.They have proved so many times that AMD64FX is a beauty for GAMING. Seesh this is such a blunder u've made


----------



## netcracker (Sep 21, 2004)

amd me to any time


----------



## demoninside (Sep 21, 2004)

Hey That was a nice joke for me
YA INTEL ROCKS?????????????
a very very very nice joke.


----------



## cnukutti (Sep 22, 2004)

Buy Digit and read the reviews. 
please dont bug us in this forum.


----------



## teknoPhobia (Sep 22, 2004)

In Calcutta in the middle of the summer my AMD Athlon XP 1800+ Palomino reaches all of 54 degrees...
so much for the heat problem


----------



## pankyprk (Sep 22, 2004)

*AMD has fleshed out its mobile chip catalogue this week by shipping the Mobile AMD Athlon 64 3000+ processor.*

It joins a range of mobile models, from 2800+ to 3400+, but is the first to be built using 90nm technology. Aimed at 'thin and light' notebooks, the first commercial use of the chip will be in new models of Acer's Ferrari range of laptops due in Europe later this month and worldwide in October.

The Athlon 64 architecture includes full compatibility with Intel Pentium 32-bit software as well as new 64-bit features and antivirus protection that prevents illicit code from running in some situations. However, mainstream 64-bit software and operating support is still limited with Windows XP 64-bit not due until next year. AMD claims that the new mobile chip goes faster than earlier versions while taking no more power, and is pricing the part at $241 in lots of 1,000.

Intel has declined to comment on when it might introduce 64-bit features to its Pentium-M processor line-up, currently marketed as part of its Centrino brand of notebook components, other than to say that it is monitoring the market and can produce a 64-bit part if conditions warrant.

*AMD has consistently introduced features before Intel of late, launching its 64-bit Pentium-compatible chips in September of last year with Intel catching up five months later.*

*Earlier this month AMD's dual-core Opteron 800 was demonstrated days before Intel showed a dual-core Itanium, and in recent benchmark tests ZDNet UK has found that for mainstream applications AMD's products have an edge in performance over comparable Intel parts.*

source: ZDNet.com


----------



## pankyprk (Sep 22, 2004)

*AMD desktop chips edge ahead of Intel*
By Matt Loney CNET News.com August 24, 2004, 10:35 AM PT

*Advanced Micro Devices' top-end desktop processors are faster than Intel's for most applications, according to benchmarks from ZDNet Germany's labs.*

In a test, Intel's Pentium 4 560 running at 3.6GHz and the 3.4GHz Pentium 4 550 failed to outperform alternatives from AMD. The Pentiums, both with the new Prescott core and 1MB of onboard Level 2 cache, were pitted against the Athlon 64 3800+ running at 2.4GHz and the 2.2GHz 3500+.

The benchmarks indicated that the Athlon 64 has an advantage in office and Internet applications, and with 3D games, said Kai Schmerer, the senior editor who conducted the tests for ZDNet Germany, which is part of CNET Networks.

But AMD's processors did not come out on top in all tests. "The Pentium 4 scored with optimized software--particularly 3D and video rendering," Schmerer said. "The multitasking tests also show an advantage for Intel's Pentium 4."

In Winstone benchmark tests, which measure performance in business and content creation tasks such as converting video files or delivering a PowerPoint presentation, the AMD chips were 10 percent to 16 percent faster than the Intel ones. But with multitasking switched on to take advantage of Intel's hyperthreading technology, the Intel chips took up the lead by 9 percent.

Read the full benchmark review here.

Overall, the test results tended to favor AMD's chips for mainstream applications. That's a potential challenge for Intel, given that the AMD parts are cheaper and cooler. The 3800+ chip consumes 91 watts of power at idle, rising to 172 watts under a full load. That compares with 155 watts at idle and 258 watts under a full load for the Pentium 4 560.

The lower power consumption of the AMD parts arises from their lower clock frequency, as well as from AMD's use of silicon-on-insulator technology.

AMD's 64-bit chips also support the NX (No Execute) feature, which safeguards them from certain virus attacks. Intel has announced that the Pentium 4 is to support the NX feature later this year. 


for Latest Processor benchmarks: Intel versus AMD click here
 Please read here about AMDs latest moves, Dual-Core & all that....


----------



## nikhilesh (Sep 23, 2004)

AMD ruleezzzz. no two thoughts about it.


see man if u dont like it dont buy it .as simple as that.


----------



## gxsaurav (Sep 23, 2004)

AMD AthlonXP will be beaten by a P4 northwood anyday, however AMD 64 will beat Prescott & Northwood anyday, so don't compare Northwood with AMD64, compare it with AthlonXP


----------



## Wildstyle (Sep 25, 2004)

i.am_mayur said:
			
		

> AMD reallyyyyyyyyy sux man.
> 
> 1) AMD is a sore loser. They 've ried everything to overtake the Intel bosses but failed miserably .Just check out he stats
> 
> ...



*Mayur, dearest of all my friends! What is wrong with you?*

I think this is all a case of sour grapes. Lemme guess... your vendor got you into buying a Pentium and now you realised you got duped into spending more money. So all you can do is rant, rant and rant... all of five times. Or just maybe, you're a GID (Genuine Intel Dealer)

I don't need to speak much as the number of replies proves what the majority of people think about AMD. AMD doesn't even advertise on television like Intel, and yet you have more and more people converting to it. *Do you still say they are inconfident about their product??*



			
				i.am_mayur said:
			
		

> AMD is still stuck with the PR rating



What do you mean by "still stuk"? PR ratings is a newer way of measuring a chip's potential, so how can someone be "still stuck" with it when it's a newer concept?????



			
				i.am_mayur said:
			
		

> AMD chips r absolutely unsuitable for gaming . Even the  64FX being touted as the gaming chip loses hands down to the P4 EE .



Well, from first-hand experience, I beg to differ. As would anyone who reads the tests on Digit, or elsewhere. You, dearest of all my friends, haven't even posted a single statistic to back your claims.



			
				i.am_mayur said:
			
		

> of course theres the ubiquitous fact that AMD chips overheat .AMD users  do u like ur chips medium ,rare or well done ?



AMD chips do have a higher core temperature, but that's not overheating. "Over" implies crossing the predefined limits. Unless someone is overclocking his chip without adequate cooling, it will never overheat. (Personally, I just love that warm draft of air that circulates my cabinet and I use it to warm my hands after my hands get sore from typing replies to dumb posts.)

I am not saying Intel sucks, or Pentium sucks. In fact, their products are great. However, you are politically and factually incorrect in saying that AMD sucks. It is hot!


----------



## djmykey (Sep 25, 2004)

Ya man AMD rulez. I asked the price of an AMD mobo+proccy of abt 2.8 GHz 64 bit he said that it will cost me 14500/- but an Intel p4 2.8 HT + Intel original board will cost me 15600/- so is there anything more 4 me to say.


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 23, 2004)

gxsaurav u know nothing about amd.My 1800+ comfotably beats p4 1.8gig in pcmark and freshdevice benchmark.It opens photoshop in 4 secs with a pata 5400 rpm hdd


----------



## Deep (Oct 23, 2004)

i.am_mayur said:
			
		

> AMD reallyyyyyyyyy sux man.
> 
> 1) AMD is a sore loser. They 've ried everything to overtake the Intel bosses but failed miserably .Just check out he stats
> 
> ...



ok i agree intel rules but i dont agree that AMD sucks..

if you think AMD sucks then keep it within yourself... no need to start new topic for that...

if everyone starts posting..this sucks...that sucks..then soon we will have to open one forum for sucking posts lol

we purchased 10 AMD machines for our office...and i have no problems with any of the machines...totally satisfied with the perfomance...

it is cheap and *it is good*...

i agree that you can not compare it with P4 2.8 GHz but still is is decent enough

in other terms i can definitely say it is "*Paisa Vasool*" thing....

I did not meant to flame you but this is the fact....grow up..think twice before you post anything...dont just start any topic which comes in your mind...

cheers
Deep


----------



## theraven (Oct 24, 2004)

pretty old thread
talk abt resurrections
is this guy still ard ? i think hes had his share of warnings ...
anyways .. he starts a thread and doesnt even have the guts to follow up with it!!
shows how much he knows ...
mods .... this aint going nowhere ... a lock is in order i suppose .


----------



## klinux (Oct 24, 2004)

is this like "My computer can do make faster calculations than urs " kinda argument ?? 

well processor is processor . one aint gonna launch a rocket to mars with one and create an earth simulator with the other . its just a tool and it does ur work for u . whats the point in amd vs intel . if its s/w like win vs lin , one person can switch between the other . home processing , u change the processor like once in 3-4 years . so y the fight anyway . its how effectively u use the pc that counts . 

Any way i got an intel inside for around 7 years now and amd me right now . so have best of both worlds .


----------



## Deep (Oct 24, 2004)

klinux said:
			
		

> is this like "My computer can do make faster calculations than urs " kinda argument ??
> 
> well processor is processor . one aint gonna launch a rocket to mars with one and create an earth simulator with the other . its just a tool and it does ur work for u . whats the point in amd vs intel . if its s/w like win vs lin , one person can switch between the other . home processing , u change the processor like once in 3-4 years . so y the fight anyway . *its how effectively u use the pc that counts .*
> 
> Any way i got an intel inside for around 7 years now and amd me right now . so have best of both worlds .



exatcly..
but i still don't know why people argue over and over...

anyways i think someone should close this topic...its kind of dead now.. haha

cheers
Deep


----------



## suave_guy (Oct 24, 2004)

saying that AMD sux and intel rules is like saying....Paris Hilton sux n her s*x tapes rules....!.period. 

Got my pt. of view??

Just coz intel is more souped(read se*ed) up doesnt mean that AMD is not better, rather its a workhorse....

Enjoy


----------



## cooljeba (Oct 24, 2004)

lol @ ashish 

..:: peace ::..
Jeba


----------



## saROMan (Oct 25, 2004)

wll memme ..give u a small example.......
i have a P2 533EB n 256 MB SDRam ......n bro has a AMD atlon 2000+ , 256 DDR ...but my Xp boots in under 1.5 min.....but even aftr applyin the same tweaks to his comp...his XP never boots under ....2/3 min ....

BTW did i tell u tat i have XP SP2 n he has SP1


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 25, 2004)

All depends upon the soft that are loaded at the time of booting.....XP can boot in 35 secs if nothing is loading even with a p2 233 mhz and can take 1 min 20 sec with a p4 1.8 when nav 2005 loads.I think ur bro is more clever to have security pro @ startup or stupid enough to have spyware malware  etc............. It s impossible for a 1.67 gig amd to take such time


----------



## Dipteshghoshroy (Oct 26, 2004)

I simly want to say , U sux


----------



## indro (Oct 26, 2004)

AMD me , i did answered to mayur's query earlier ,i dont want to say aything to him anymore .


----------



## [flAsh] (Oct 27, 2004)

if u don't like AMD n think AMD "SUX" go 4 P4. nobody stops u. Intel with soaring speeds and HT certainly makes good buy but athlon 64 (3500+ or more rating) with integerated dual channel controller and extrenal cache overpower P4 90nm. u must b knoing DDR2 r slower than DDR1 due 2 high latencies.
athlon 64FX r a boon 2 overclock as they r multipliers r not locked. moreover P4 extreme ed. are even more costlier than FX-53 which beats it in every performance oriented benchmarks even in tru life benchies.
and mayur u  hav alwez been a MAAAADDDD Intel Fan.


----------



## allajunaki (Oct 27, 2004)

Well to tell u I was a P4 fan myself... But in due course of time AMD has managed to impress me... 
Looks like Intel lost out big time on 64bit processing... Intel's Itanium Series(64-bit) was not backward compatible and slow... No One bought it!! 
Where as AMD is concerened they made 64bit processor as an extention to x86... That is the best way as it allows to run 32bit mode for Legacy compatiblity... Also AM64 Beats left and right and between the legs of P4 as far performance is concerned... Just Have a look at Anandtech's site. *www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2249

Now while i do sound like an AMD fan boy, Understand that Im not... I run on Overclocked 1.6Ghz (now @ 2Ghz) Northwood P4....
@ that point of time P4 were Faster... But now i guess Intel is Losing out....

Oh By the way, Intel is launching 'Dorhan' series with AMD's 64bit extentions... Ironic, Isnt it..? Leader now following the chase...


----------



## xenkatesh (Oct 27, 2004)

Who the hell we asked u the opnion??


----------



## darklord (Oct 28, 2004)

> Oh By the way, Intel is launching 'Dorhan' series with AMD's 64bit extentions... Ironic, Isnt it..? Leader now following the chase...



There is no such thing as Dorhan.Intel launched The Xeons based on Nocona core some time back.These have the EMT64 technology which is essentially a reverse engineered AMD64 technology.
Intel has recently launched  EMT64 based Pentium 4 chips based on Prescott core.
These start from 3.4 GHz onwards i guess and are availableonlyto OEMs.
Dothan is a Mobile CPU yet to be launched by Intel.It has low clock speeds but plenty of cache [2MB L2cache]  and Centrino Technology.

It is alsoa well known fact that ALL Prescott core based Pentium 4 CPUs , even the 2.4A are EMT64 capable,its just that Intel has disabled it.


----------



## [flAsh] (Oct 28, 2004)

dark lord is right Intel is using EM64T 2 make prescotts 64bit processors. dothan is a mobile processor core.
But one question here 
Intel Pentium 4 r 2 b compared with Athlon XP (as both r tru & only 32bit processors). Compare Amd athlon 64 with pure 64bit processors like Itanium or G5 or Xeon


----------



## darklord (Oct 28, 2004)

[flAsh said:
			
		

> ]dark lord is right Intel is using EM64T 2 make prescotts 64bit processors. dothan is a mobile processor core.
> But one question here
> Intel Pentium 4 r 2 b compared with Athlon XP (as both r tru & only 32bit processors). Compare Amd athlon 64 with pure 64bit processors like Itanium or G5 or Xeon



I agree that P4 & AMD Athlon XP areboth purely 32bit CPUs.
Athlon 64,though 64bit doesnt runin 64bit mode since there is no software for it.All benchmarks compared with P4 are run in 32 bit mode.
So i guess it is fair when you consider that both P4 & AMD64  are compared when AMD64 is run in 32 bit mode.
Isnt it?


----------



## [flAsh] (Oct 28, 2004)

hey darklaord dont u know winxp 64 bit beta is out along with Sisioft Sandra64 which is the one we use for benchmarking. Why don't any one realises that competing P4 with AMD64 line of processors is wrong!!! b'coz AMD 64 makes both of 2 world and that is its biggest +point. isn't it. anyway where's our gr8est"Mayur baby"???(jst jokin)


----------



## Chindi_Chor (Feb 3, 2006)

AMD is Best......P4 suxxxxxxx


----------



## .:deadman:. (Feb 4, 2006)

ok......dont bump threads


----------



## Ablenwill (Feb 4, 2006)

I my self have AMD and Quite satiesfied but will like that the onboard graphics improves in low range motherboard As my one VIA K8MM-V Mobo with onboard graphics of 64 MB su**s, in that matter Intel is having many mobo options with Intel original, or with intel chipset mobo from third party companies like Asus. My AMD is superior then P4 2.4 Ghz but then you should also consider that 400 Mhz Ram, Hyper transport, SATA HDD, and advance technical advantages but then Intel is also giving all this at a fare price in some scenario the equation is revers and if you compare with the right counerpart then AMD goes expensive when you take 939 pin proccy with Nvidia or ATI chipset.
So I think there is no meaning in comparision of prices. Otherwise its proved all over that game performance is mostly dependent on the Graphic card so no meaning in saying AMD works better with games. A 1.6 Ghz P4 or 2000+ AMD performance will be almost same when having same amount of ram and same Graphic card. And after all its your money and faith take what u belive... Long Live ME


----------



## mohit (Feb 4, 2006)

i have a personal experience to share .. amd sucks in multitasking and its no match for intel's hyperthreading. i was using a prescott 2.8 ghz + intel d915gav + 512mb ddr 400 ram previously and now i upgraded to amd 3000+ (venice) + dfi lanparty ut nf4 ultra d + 1 gb ddr 400 ram and it still is slow compared to my previuosly owned intel in multitasking (even after another 512mb ddr ram and buying a mindblowing mobo ) .. like if i burn a cd at the same time and open wmp 10 and then try opening IE i can feel the sluggishness of my pc .... my prescott was better at handling multiple tasks. this is a tested result and opinion  of me and some of my frnds who have switched to amd after intel. 

ya amd does not heat as much and offers good o/c capabilities but then they should improve their multitasking capability. its seriously slow. and gone are the days when amd procc were all really cheap.

PS :- I am not a newbie here and guys dont think I have a virus or faulty drivers of etc etc kinda crap and dats why my system is slow. I can just feel it.

so i have decided neva to go for an amd again .. and this is just my opinion after experiencing the above mentioned. so i dont really expect you people to start flaming me with intel sucks kinda things. lol. and intel did not pay me to praise them or something.


----------



## Nemesis (Feb 4, 2006)

@Chindi_Chor: There's no need to bump up old threads for no rhyme or reason. It's considered bad forum etiquette.

@Ablenwill, mohit: Please don't encourage people to bump threads by posting replies in bumped up threads. Pay attention to the post date!!

Thread Locked.


----------

