PDA

View Full Version : Amd or intel


ostov
05-05-2003, 07:29 PM
Hey guys:)

I was thining of buying a new computer. Should I get a |AMD Athlon XP2600+ 2.083 GHz 333 MHz bus Socket A (Thoroughbred) prosessor| or |a Intel Pentium 4 2.4 GHz Boxed PC400 Socket PGA478, 512kB "Northwood"|??



ostov

DaForce
05-05-2003, 11:56 PM
AMD, and make sure you get an Nforce2 motherboard to compliment it. The Asus A7N8X Deluxe is one of the best, try to get revision 2.0 of the board.

MadMax
05-06-2003, 02:48 AM
Get a Barton core chip, not the Thoroughbred.

Barton has a 512k cache as opposed to the Tbreds 256k cache.

One thing you might want to consider, AMD is shipping new 400 mhz. FSB Bartons this month.

AS was previously mentioned, get nForce2. nForce2 features are way better than anything Intel has.

Wancieho
05-06-2003, 12:35 PM
Ostov I have been quiet knowledgable with choosing a processor for my own use over the years but recently am not sure myself anymore. So i'm also here to add to your thread.

Basically AMD's Athlon processor's seemed to perform more than Intel and the price was always way more competitive. Lately Intel has jacked up and integrated HyperThreading which makes the processor actually perform tasks as a dual-processor. I stand corrected in this info but basically what i'm getting to is that Intel seem to be really good as of recent. Problem is AMD still have 3D Now so the only way to really know which will perform more is to build both machines and test render.

As far as I saw even though Intel have jacked themselves up the AMD's still out performed on UT2k3!!!!

So after all this I myself am at a loss to choose my next upgrade :surprised

Anyone got some feedback?

Pryanik
05-06-2003, 03:10 PM
Of course it's better to choose an AMD processor, the P4 2.4 is not good. You can laugh at me, but in some cases Athlon XP 2800+ works faster then a P4 3.06 with HT.

Wancieho
05-06-2003, 03:34 PM
Here's what i'm talking about:

Application benchmarking (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-19.html)

Quake III benchmark (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-14.html)

Conclusion (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-23.html)

Thalaxis
05-06-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Wancieho

As far as I saw even though Intel have jacked themselves up the AMD's still out performed on UT2k3!!!!

So after all this I myself am at a loss to choose my next upgrade :surprised

Anyone got some feedback?

Intel has a bit of a lead now (the AMD PR rating is falling farther and farther behind with every platform and core revision), but they're still definitely competitive, and they cost less.

Yes, HT does add to the P4's performance non-trivially, but it's not like having a 2nd CPU, it's like have 1/3 of a 2nd CPU at best, and in single-threaded applications, not useful at all. At least it no longer hurts single-threaded performance, though.

nForce2 alone is a good reason to go for an Athlon, though.

ostov
05-06-2003, 04:29 PM
I want a intel!! Here in norway a amd 2.0ghz cost as much as a intel 2.5ghz...



ostov

Nocturn
05-06-2003, 04:34 PM
I want a intel!! Here in norway a amd 2.0ghz cost as much as a intel 2.5ghz...

Well.....then why ask?:)

ostov
05-06-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Nocturn
Well.....then why ask?:)

I wanted to know if amd was super good



ostov

Thalaxis
05-06-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by ostov
I want a intel!! Here in norway a amd 2.0ghz cost as much as a intel 2.5ghz...


The Athlon there is probably a better value... unless you wait another week or two and get a P4 2.5 GHz w/ an Intel 875P chipset motherboard -- which will almost certainly cost more than a nice nForce2 board.

acidboy
05-06-2003, 05:38 PM
Ahhh, the eternal question - AMD or Intel.
Kinda Brings be back to when I was little when it was Sega Vs Nintendo.

Ummm... yes...anyway :hmm:

Yeah Wancieho AMD is faster with games, but if you check out benchmarks in Lightwave 3DSmax etc, you'll notice Xeons are still faster.

But as you guys have said, overal AMD is better value for money.

Though it is interesting that the Opteron seems to be the leader with server based machines\software, while Xeons still have the edge if you have a visual workstation (3d apps etc). Though the opteron is targeted towards the server market.


Just adding some more fuel to the fire :rolleyes:

ICY
05-06-2003, 05:57 PM
Intel is never going to be as good as AMD. AMD is the one that does all the researches with 2d and 3d graphics and build processors based on it. Intel can be in some cases faster, but when we talk about graphics - there is nothing can win Athlon. This is one most of the companies buy Intel based servers but always AMD based graphics machines.

Thalaxis
05-06-2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by ICY
Intel is never going to be as good as AMD. AMD is the one that does all the researches with 2d and 3d graphics and build processors based on it. Intel can be in some cases faster, but when we talk about graphics - there is nothing can win Athlon. This is one most of the companies buy Intel based servers but always AMD based graphics machines.

In light of the fact that most of those studios you're talking about are using Xeons, I find that entire statement, filled with obvious fallacies as it is, rather amusing.

acidboy
05-06-2003, 06:26 PM
:thumbsup:

DaForce
05-07-2003, 12:10 AM
ostov:
Just in case you didnt know, AMD mhz are faster than Pentium mhz.
So an AMD 2ghz is equal to about a 2.6/2.8ghz P4.

So the that AMD on a nforce2 board would be quite abit faster than the 2.4ghz p4 that you are looking at.

Get the AMD :-)

Some Guy
05-14-2003, 12:27 AM
ostov:
Just in case you didnt know, AMD mhz are faster than Pentium mhz.
So an AMD 2ghz is equal to about a 2.6/2.8ghz P4.

So the that AMD on a nforce2 board would be quite abit faster than the 2.4ghz p4 that you are looking at.

Get the AMD :-)


LOL really since when did AMD figure out a way to change a time constant????????
Lets see hmm 2ghz = 2ghz, not 1.8ghz, not 2.2ghz, it is 2ghz.

MadMax
05-14-2003, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by Some Guy
LOL really since when did AMD figure out a way to change a time constant????????
Lets see hmm 2ghz = 2ghz, not 1.8ghz, not 2.2ghz, it is 2ghz.

It's called IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) The name is rather self explanatoryu so I won't go into a long winded explanation of it.

AMD has a much higher IPC rating than the equivalent Intel prcessor. What this means is that an AMD processor executes and completes more instructions per cycle at a given clock speed than Intel does.

Has nothing to do with changing a time constant. mhz is a myth.

I bet you would be surprised to hear that a 1.8ghz. Opteron is about as fast as a 3.06ghz P4 in most tasks.

mhz is a marketing ploy, nothing more. It has no bearing on actual performance.

dvornik
05-14-2003, 02:10 AM
Intel. Intel supports our (Israeli, that is) economy. :p

Some Guy
05-14-2003, 03:04 AM
mhz is a marketing ploy, nothing more. It has no bearing on actual performance.

Really ok if that is so. You are saying that a 233Mhz processor is not slower than 2Ghz processor.

Im sorry but yes it is.
Now the instruction set that they run for each processor is different. One better at certian tasks compared to the other yes, So it may seem one is running faster, but it just processes the instructions for that given task more effiecntly.

MadMax
05-14-2003, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Some Guy
Really ok if that is so. You are saying that a 233Mhz processor is not slower than 2Ghz processor.


No, I didn't say that at all. The numbers you just gave are just arbitrary out of thin air and make no sense.

What I did say is that the AMD 2.2ghz chip, the XP3200+ is roughly the same "speed" in that it acomplishes the same tasks (such as a render) in about the same time as the Intel at 3ghz.



Now the instruction set that they run for each processor is different. One better at certian tasks compared to the other yes, So it may seem one is running faster, but it just processes the instructions for that given task more effiecntly. [/B]


Honestly I think you shoudl look at the various real world benchmarks posted on various sites. at matched clock speeds, AMD is much faster.

a 1.2 AMD is faster at almost everything that a 1.2 Intel.

likewise a 1.6 AMD is faster than a 1.6 Intel and so on.

It has generally proven accurate that Intel needs about a 700 mhz. lead on any given AMD processor to run equivalent performance.

DaForce
05-14-2003, 04:09 AM
Some Guy:
Ok, so my statement was not 100% precise but i made it nice and simple to understand for the guy who started the thread. As he seemed new to it all. I realise that the AMD have a higher IPC rate, and they are more efficient, and have a better FPU than Intel chips.

So basically a AMD 2ghz is faster/more powerful (whatever you want to call it) than a p4 2ghz. And you cant argue that.

celezionka
05-14-2003, 05:35 AM
What program are you planning to use? Some of them are optimized for P4. As far as Cinema4D goes, this is an interesting thread: http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46752&highlight=cinebench

John

Thalaxis
05-14-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by MadMax
Has nothing to do with changing a time constant. mhz is a myth.


MHz is not a myth, not by any stretch of the imagination; it is a
measurable physical quantity.

It is ONE measurement that affects performance, but as anyone with a clue knows, it's not a particularly good indication of how well a given processor architecture will perform; it is, however, a a very good measurement of how two implementations of a given architecture will perform, so calling it a myth doesn't accomplish anything of value, but it does serve to confuse an already unclear issue further.

Thalaxis
05-14-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by MadMax
What I did say is that the AMD 2.2ghz chip, the XP3200+ is roughly the same "speed" in that it acomplishes the same tasks (such as a render) in about the same time as the Intel at 3ghz.


That's only true some of the time, and more of the time said P4 outperforms said Athlon, and in a few cases trounces it.

So what's your point?

Real world benchmarks aren't useful if you ignore the ones that don't provide the results that you want them to.

MattClary
05-14-2003, 03:06 PM
A lot of your decision should be based on the apps you use. The renderer in LightWave is heavily optimized for the P4 extensions that AMD does not have. Renders are faster on a P4 2.4 than on a AMD 2400+. In older versions of LightWave, it was the other way around. I currently have an AMD processor, but will soon move to Intel due to the performance gain. Don't get caught in the fanboy mentality that one is always going to be better than the other.

MadMax
05-14-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
MHz is not a myth, not by any stretch of the imagination; it is a
measurable physical quantity.


Intel has promoted the more is better approach for years. Even to the point of fraudulent advertising saying that using a P4 made the internet faster.

As for being a measurable physical quantity, not a very good one when it is not accurate, at least across dissimilar platforms.



It is ONE measurement that affects performance, but as anyone with a clue knows, it's not a particularly good indication of how well a given processor architecture will perform; it is, however, a a very good measurement of how two implementations of a given architecture will perform,

Translated for the average guy who doesn't understand this:

it is only useful when comparing one Intel processor to another Intel processor.

It is a useless measure if you wish to compare Intel to Athlon, Opteron PPC or other processors.


so calling it a myth doesn't accomplish anything of value, but it does serve to confuse an already unclear issue further.


The issue is only unclear since Intel has been driving the myth that mhz is everything, which is clearly incorrect. I find it more than slightly amusing that someone would argue in favor of a point of view that is one of the leading causes of confusion to buyers in the industry.

It is clear by some of the responses that people think that because the number is higher, it MUST be faster. and yet Intel generally needs about a 700mhz. advantage to perform at an equal level as an Athlon processor in almost all tasks. The issue is further clouded by hardware sites who rig tests in favor of intel to make them look faster.

More than half of the people I talk to have never even heard the term IPC.

How do you derive trying to educate someone as further clouding an issue?

Amazing..........

MadMax
05-14-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by MattClary
A lot of your decision should be based on the apps you use. The renderer in LightWave is heavily optimized for the P4 extensions that AMD does not have.


Not entirely true. Lightwave is optimized for SSE2, if you direct thsi inquiry to Paul Lara at Netek he'll tell you that Lightwave is just as fully optimized for Athlon as Intel.


Renders are faster on a P4 2.4 than on a AMD 2400+. In older versions of LightWave, it was the other way around.


By about 10 seconds. Lightwave on Intel does seem to have improved somewhat. It used to require a solid 700mhz or better lead to beat AMD in the benchmarks, now they are about even.

Of course the story is quite different with Maya. Intel requires almost a full ghz. lead in speed to match rendertimes with XP's

Don't get caught in the fanboy mentality that one is always going to be better than the other.


True. I'll jump ship if I see something that is a better all around deal. However for the moment, it is still Athlon.

Fingolfin
05-14-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by MattClary
A lot of your decision should be based on the apps you use. The renderer in LightWave is heavily optimized for the P4 extensions that AMD does not have. Renders are faster on a P4 2.4 than on a AMD 2400+. In older versions of LightWave, it was the other way around. I currently have an AMD processor, but will soon move to Intel due to the performance gain. Don't get caught in the fanboy mentality that one is always going to be better than the other.

Great point!
Not only do proccessors change all the time (Intel has hyperthread now but didn't before) but applications change too. Some applications are becoming more or already more optimized towards different processors taking adavantage of new technology and developments.
Basically, apps change too.

If you compare 2Ghz Intel with 3Ghz Intel, of course the 3Ghz is faster. But when comparing a 2Ghz AMD with a 2Ghz Intel, they might not be the same. I think the point made earlier is like measuring temperatures:
Some people use Fehrenheit, some use Celsius. They both measure temperature but 100 degrees C is not the same as 100 degrees F. They are on different scales. They are actually arbitrary anyways. What the heck is 100 degrees F? The only absolute is using the Kelvin scale which uses the absolute zero as it's bases of scale.

MadMax
05-14-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Fingolfin

Some people use Fehrenheit, some use Celsius. They both measure temperature but 100 degrees C is not the same as 100 degrees F.


oooooooohhh......

I like that.

Thalaxis
05-14-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by MadMax
The issue is only unclear since Intel has been driving the myth that mhz is everything, which is clearly incorrect. I find it more than slightly amusing that someone would argue in favor of a point of view that is one of the leading causes of confusion to buyers in the industry.


Clearly, you've not been reading my posts very well.


How do you derive trying to educate someone as further clouding an issue?


Trying to educate people is a good thing... but you're doing an exceptionally bad job of it by essentially doing exactly what Intel's marketing is doing, only in the opposite direction. That's not education.

Thalaxis
05-14-2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Fingolfin
I think the point made earlier is like measuring temperatures:
Some people use Fehrenheit, some use Celsius.

And since every processor's clock speed is measured in MHz, that still isn't a good analogy.

The problem isn't that MHz is a myth (which is patent silliness), it's that MHz is not the measurement that people should be interested in.

A more accurate analogy would be attempting to determine windspeed with a thermometer.

AMD's True Performance Initiative is on the right track, but apparently rather behind schedule, and their PR ratings are falling apart, because just like MHz, it's not a particulary good meansurement of real-world performance.

MadMax
05-14-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
Clearly, you've not been reading my posts very well.


I read just fine thank you.


Trying to educate people is a good thing... but you're doing an exceptionally bad job of it by essentially doing exactly what Intel's marketing is doing, only in the opposite direction. That's not education.


No, what I did was to provide a basis of fact for him to do his own research on. I even recommended it.

Any bad job of anything here is all on you.

Thalaxis
05-14-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by MadMax
I read just fine thank you.


You've yet to demonstrate that.


I'd say you have done a very poor job of proving that.

Your statement, "MHz is a myth" is so obviously false that it should suffice for anyone who bothers to think about it for more than a second or two.

Combine that with real world data, and there you go.

Of course, you deny that the real world data contradicts any of your claims... but that's only because you're choosing to ignore any data that doesn't support your claims.

singularity2006
05-14-2003, 05:27 PM
are u advocating a MHz approach as opposed to a MHz performing equivalently to a higher MHz approach?

In any case, I've noticed that systems that I've worked with using a slower clock speed, AMD of course, tend to outperform the higher clock speed Intels ... but overall system config has a lot to do with that too.

But from PC World Mag, I remember seeing Athlons running a slower clock outperforming a Pentium 4 running a higher clock ... or something like that. yeah?

What real world data are u looking @ it from?

Thalaxis
05-14-2003, 05:45 PM
Check out the CineBench 2003 thread in the Cinema4D forum here, and TechReport's review... actually, most of the reviews of the Athlon XP 3200+.

It would be more useful to compare performance at a given price point than at a given clock speed, since platform and architecture make comparisong at a given clock speed inaccurate, at best.

It is true that the Athlons generally perform better than equivalently clocked P4's... given their design methodologies, that's pretty much a given.

But the fact is that overall, the flagship P4 is faster than the flagship Athlon... the margin isn't particularly large in most cases, and in a few cases the Athlon comes out ahead.

It's also true, however, that at a given price point, the Athlon performs better in general than the P4 -- especially since dual Athlons are considerably less expensive than dual Xeons.

MattClary
05-14-2003, 06:02 PM
MadMax, 10 seconds or 10%?

Everyone, see for yourself:

http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/

MadMax
05-14-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Thalaxis
You've yet to demonstrate that.



Your statement, "MHz is a myth" is so obviously false that it should suffice for anyone who bothers to think about it for more than a second or two.

If the best you can do is to reply with a condescending and insultory tone then take it somewhere else, your comments are not welcome here.

If you want to present your points intyelligently then do so, I'll be more than happy to converse the subject.


Combine that with real world data, and there you go.


I did use real world results. Using things like Lightwave, Maya and Digital Fusion as a reference. Graphics applications that are applicable to the very nature of this forum.


Of course, you deny that the real world data contradicts any of your claims... but that's only because you're choosing to ignore any data that doesn't support your claims.


I would certainly appreciate if you ceased with the personal attack and stick to facts. You are in no way qualified to provide commentary on what I think or know if I have not implicitly stated it.

As for your last jab at me, I only ignore irrelevant information. Doom, Quake, UT and things that really do not pertain to what this forum is about.

What I am concerned with is how aplications like Lightwave, or Maya or Digital Fusion and hardware/software combinations like the VTNT run.

Based on those, your arguments really don't hold up much. You see, real world benchmarks support what I have said.

If as you state that mhz is not a myth then why do render comparisons between AMD and intel on an app like Maya show such a close finish when the mhz difference between the 2 chips is so large?

Clearly mhz. the way it is promoted is, to use your favorite term, a fallacy.

Thalaxis
05-14-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by MadMax
If the best you can do is to reply with a condescending and insultory tone then take it somewhere else, your comments are not welcome here.



So you prefer misinformation?


I did use real world results. Using things like Lightwave, Maya and Digital Fusion as a reference. Graphics applications that are applicable to the very nature of this forum.


Those same real world results do not (in most cases) support your assertions.


I would certainly appreciate if you ceased with the personal attack and stick to facts.


You've made it very obvious that you have no interest in facts many times.


Based on those, your arguments really don't hold up much. You see, real world benchmarks support what I have said.
[quote]

Like I said, you've demonstrated no desire whatsoever to stick to facts. That statement only supports that assertion, since the data out there from most 3D rendering applications doesn't support it.

[quote]
If as you state that mhz is not a myth then why do render comparisons between AMD and intel on an app like Maya show such a close finish when the mhz difference between the 2 chips is so large?


One exception doesn't prove your point.

singularity2006
05-14-2003, 06:31 PM
so that's what this is all about ... I was wondering what was going on. Yes, agreed. Personal attacks don't seem to carry much weight. It's something known as poisoning the well or ad hominem. Take ur pick. Anyhow maybe the know it all has some vested interest in stock w/ Intel?? I dunno. Anyhow, Intels and AMD's these days for the average joe user like myself generally make no difference. What power can Microsoft Word have? :beer:

Actually, what annoys me at times is people that I work with here on campus that say "my computer is too slow, there isn't enough processing power ..." and they say this while running just basic Microsoft office, maybe powerpoint, outlook, and IE..... in that case, you probably need no more than a 1GHz.. and even that may be a bit much.... unless they are of course, running every single one of those apps at one time and are multitasking and flipping back and forth between windows like mad. I think in those cases, people just need more RAM..... it seems pointless to have a system running a GHz and only having 128MB of RAM on WinXP home edition (which lags horribly with 128).... that seems rather... even hopeless. What was Dell thinking? And what were our IT guys thinking? They never took into account the abuses of noobs running into all sorts of spyware from websites, kazaa, and junk like that that bogs down the system. MORE RAM... *buaHahaHHA!!!* >=D But even that peaks out too fo the average joe user ....

On the other hand, the rate at which my computer can process through my archives of images, which I process on a bimonthly basis, will notice ... but AMD, Intel .... yeah. In terms of personal preference without any consideration of third party benchmark tests, there is no use arguing over it.:shrug:

MadMax
05-14-2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by MattClary
MadMax, 10 seconds or 10%?

Everyone, see for yourself:

http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/

I look at that site all the time.....


Pentium4 2600 Raytrace 120 sec.

AthlonXP 2500 Raytrace 121 sec.


All that proves is a point I conceded earlier when I stated It used to require a solid 700mhz or better lead to beat AMD in the benchmarks, now they are about even.

However I don't see a 10% difference there. Looks like less that 1% to me, and it supports what I stated.

You will get that 10% that you imply if you look at radiosity benchmarks. however, then you are using something for a basis in comparison that an XP does not have, and that is SSE2. And SSE2 isn't used all that much by professionals due to it's very slow execution.

It seems to be most popular with people who want their models to look like grey plastic model kits.

In Maya which I presume from the test scores do not use SSE2, the Athlon test results by far exceed substantially higher clocked Intel processors.

Thalaxis
05-14-2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by singularity2006
Actually, what annoys me at times is people that I work with here on campus that say "my computer is too slow, there isn't enough processing power ..."

I ran into an admin type who complained about how slow her computer was, whent he root cause turned out to be that she kept minimizing Word instead of closing it, and then opening new instances constantly... so she has 30-40 instances running.

Naturally, the machine was only slow because it ran out of memory...

Thalaxis
05-14-2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by MadMax

You will get that 10% that you imply if you look at radiosity benchmarks. however, then you are using something for a basis in comparison that an XP does not have, and that is SSE2. And SSE2 isn't used all that much by professionals due to it's very slow execution.

It seems to be most popular with people who want their models to look like grey plastic model kits.


I thought you said that you wanted to stick to facts?

MattClary
05-14-2003, 06:56 PM
...

whatever.

singularity2006
05-14-2003, 07:00 PM
c'mon now folks ... i think we can stop mud slinging here. -.-" Just LEAVE IT BE. Let the other guy believe what he wants to believe. Post your benchmarks but don't bother explaining them. Let the other fool read them for how they are. :annoyed:

MadMax
05-14-2003, 07:03 PM
If the best you can do is to reply with a condescending and insultory tone then take it somewhere else, your comments are not welcome here.

Originally posted by Thalaxis So you prefer misinformation?

I find it amusing that you insult peoples reading skills when you post nonsense like this.

How did you derive the implication that I prefer misinformation when I politely asked you to refrain from flinging insults to make your point?


Originally posted by Thalaxis Those same real world results do not (in most cases) support your assertions.

You've made it very obvious that you have no interest in facts many times.

One exception doesn't prove your point.


I asked nicely for you to show some courtesy and to refrain from hostile and insulting responses.

However for the benefit of people who started the thread or those who actually have an interest in the subject outside of petty squabbling, I'll respond to this, even though it is against my better judgement.

Point 1: Those real world results do support my "assertions" I quote directly from those benchmarks. You'll note that I pulled a couple of results from the lightwave benchmark page.

Maya benches absolutely back me up.

So does DFBench.

In any benchmark there are variances. The Lightwave page is a great example of this when you see such a differnce in speed among similar hardware, even in the same product group.

the skill of the builder of said system coes into play as well obviously.

Point 2: a complete and utter misrepresentation on your part. I base responses on facts.

Point 3: Not much to say there. One exception? I've made 3 verifiable references so far and there are many more. you have yet to make even one.

Stick to topic and keep the insults to yourself. that garbage doesn't belong on a public forum.

singularity2006
05-14-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by MattClary
...

whatever.

agreed. :beer:

Thalaxis
05-14-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by MadMax

Stick to topic and keep the insults to yourself. that garbage doesn't belong on a public forum.

There are all sorts of benchmarks that disprove your assertion out there, and they're remarkably easy to find. You obviously don't want to learn, since you've also made statements like "professionals don't use SSE2", which isn't exactly factual or informed.

MattClary
05-14-2003, 07:24 PM
He acknowledges the greater speed then dismisses the need for it. There is no sense in arguing past that point.

ambient-whisper
05-14-2003, 07:37 PM
oh yeah? well mac is 10x faster than pc :D

open, and shut case johnson!