Tom 4, this is for you. And please don't be stubborn man, your Facts are not Facts, they are your Opinion O.K.

Intel is Desperate because of there Terrible Dual Core Design!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
but one more thing intel has a problem with the new dual core and so on
i wonder why i can use my socket 939 board with dual core while intel tells that they cant handle this

Answer:
Because AMD designed there Single Core Socket 939/940 with Dual Core in mind. So all AMD has to do is fuse another CPU onto there Single Core architecture connected via Hyper Transport Link @ the CPU Core Frequency & just plug it into your existing or new S 939/940 mobo.
And that is why AMD has an Integrated Memory controller.

AMD is one of the safest choices when looking into Dual Core CPU’s. All you need is a Bios Update for your system to recognize the Dual Core CPU & away you go with your S 939 & S 940 mobo's.

Intel is doing a rush job with there Dual Core CPU’s which is badly designed. I mean having ONE FSB feeding your Dual Core CPU is asking for trouble, especially when they will be fighting for bandwidth. And to compensate for this terrible bottleneck they jack up the L2 cache to like 2 MB.

Intel is using there marketing scheme to sell there Dual Core CPU’s & to make people feel that you actually need them. Well, there CPU’s are not of the same high quality & innovative class as AMD’s Dual Core CPU’s. Just simple Fact,

Question:
i see, well that answers my question thank you I am going amd.

Answer:
No problem, but I like to add that "Intel" people do have a hard time accepting defeat, so don't be fooled by that little sticker which says "Intel Inside". Until I see something good come out from Intel & not a half ass rush job, I will always go for AMD CPUs.

Question:
i feel the same way and I like to stress that I too did loads of research & found that amd seems to have the upper hand on innovation, architecture, design, price, performance etc many times over.

Answer:
Well, Facts are Facts, no matter which way you look @ them. And right now they are looking @ AMD in the face.

Take Care,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grow Up Tom 4, I work for Intel you dips**t. I should know

Please try to stay on topic and avoid fighting. Thank you.

"...(remember the price vs demand thingie? that could invalidate everything you say regarding pricewatch for the last two pages, as in if there's now demand, price drops... hint?)..."

True, but you also have to remember. AMD and Intel have R&D to pay off, so the increased demand/price drop "curve" will eventually flatten out to where the price simply will not drop past that point.

"...here's some stuff you could read about it as I see you're quite interested:.."

Thanks.

"...first with dual core?"

I know. IBM was, with the Power4 processor in 2001.

"...intel's Xeon pricing (from the mouth of chipzilla itself)..."

Wow! That's helpful... for the 3.3 GHz Xeon with the 8 MB L3 cache. I was referring to the 3.6 GHz processor, which would run you about $610, not including shipping and handling.

"...Most expensive opteron: (Opteron 852 @ 2.6GHz)"

Wrong.

...Most expensive Opteron: (Opteron 875 @ 2.6 GHz) -- $2,655 -- IS OVER $2,600!!!!
http://www.pricewatch.com/

"...I don't need to know which one benchmarks fastest, this is not a concern. I am looking for scalability of architecture as well as, to a lesser degree, initial price/performance..."

I would go with the Opteron, then, if you're not terribly interested in benchmarking numbers. Both the Opteron and the Xeon are both excellent processors, and are extrememly competitive, but the Opteron would be your best bet as far as bang for the buck.

"...I’m sorry did Intel do something that deserved credit ? OMG a once in a life time accomplishment and I some how missed it. O well if Intel ever dose a good thing like a fast as hell low temp low cost cpu like AMD 64 class then ill give them credit where credit is due..."

Check Super XP's next consecutive post after yours. If you don't take my word for Intel's achievements, some of which your beloved AMD has married to it's own processors, then I shall promote you to "even bigger moron."

You don't have many points at all, you just blatantly and flatly refuse to even think about giving Intel a nod of approval. In any way, shape or form. I prefer Intel, but I'm not going around saying AMD's are crap and that they haven't done anything worthwhile to the processor industry. I friggin' used a 1.3 GHz Athlon XP 1500+ prior to this machine, and it performed very well. I just... so... happen... to prefer... Intel.

"...O by the wayy how much did you pay for your dell?"

Monitor, keyboard, upgrades, in all? $1074 came out of my pocket. That was $5 more expensive than my AMD custom built system with the XP 1500+.

"...Tom4, Sean B. was a member of this board, who was banned due to the disturbances and *intense* battles he got into w/ people who disliked Intel.

As someone previously mentioned, it isn't a very good position to be in. You're asking to be banned...."

Hoookay. I wasn't the first person to say someone didn't have a life, but I'm going to get benned? Interesting.

I'm positive the administration of this website banned Sean B. for his "disturbances" and not his pro-Intel mindset. To this, I don't have a problem, as any "warmongers" in forums ought to be banned. I don't percieve myself to be a follower of this method of just stirring irritation and anger. I don't think I've crossed the line, at least, I haven't gone around starting new topics whose content is comprised entirely of: "AMD Sucks Clawhammer Sucks XP1400+,2200+,3000+&3200+ Sucks AMD Dual Core Sucks," nor do I intend to start.

"...Opteron CPU's & Systems are "Cheaper" than Xeon CPU's & Systems..."

This is arguable, but I don't really feel like going into it right now.

"...Plus, if you didn't already read from many of my other posts within HWA, I credited the Pentium M quite a few times along with Intel’s SSE3 & Hyper Threading...."

I'm afraid I've never seen those posts. I remember seeing on numerous occasions, not the least of which is your own website, where you plaster the phrase, "Wherever AMD goes, Intel follows." Sorry if I've never seen you say this, but... I... um... haven't. I'm glad to see you don't disregard that which Intel has achieved, though.

...Don't forget on-chip wifi.

"...Grow Up Tom 4, I work for Intel you dips**t. I should know..."

You... also started a topic whose entire chunk of text was the statement: "Intel Sucks Prescott Sucks P1,2,3&4 Sucks Intel Dual Core Sucks," copied and pasted some unimportant number of times. The title of that topic is "Intel Sucks Big Dogly Balls." Man, I should sure grow up.

Your stupendous maturity was then amplified with the, "I work for Intel, you [friendly, mature word used in a civilized debate]. I should know."

I'm tempted to retaliate on that petty insult in some fashion or manner... but I'd rather not go to that level.

A Agree With Super XP. Opteron CPU’S Are Cheaper Than Intel Xeon.
AMD RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom 4

you're one of those stubborn geeks that keeps trying to sucker the same girl into a date with obsessive talking or not?

besides, I suggest you use more fact/links (instead of the 12 times you linked us to pricewatch's homepage LOL) in your arguement, a crash course in succesfully quoting (http://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/successeva1.pdf LMFAO)

and this could come in quite handy for your real life when you finally decide to pick it back up: (http://www.bachthong.com/vutranchitam/101_Romantic_Ideas.pdf).

some advice: don't take this all so seriously like you're on intel's payroll...

note: my links are truly geniune as always...

Can we have the moderators close this thread already? its blatantly obvious that dual core opterons whup ass...and the stadard opterons beat xeon per dollar spent....opterons go anywhere from single to 16 processors per system on volume produced systems.....weve seen where the numbers have been twisted, the truths revealed ...these guys spend hours typing up replies that are miles long to try and convince us that AMD is in fact Intel is disguise and vice versa simply because it makes sense to them...we know the truths lets let these people go back to......well.....i was about to say lives but forget that.

Hey, Tom 4 you don't know Jack about CPU architecture. And I like to be the one to congratulate you on that accomplishment. Now we all know what you are made of.

16 Opteron CPU's @ 2.20 GHz or 2.40 GHz or 2.60 GHz in a workstation will "KILL" any 16 Xeon system @ 3.20 GHz or 3.40 GHz or 3.60 GHz or 3.80 GHz "BY FAR". And you are wondering why right?!? Well, if you don't know why then you shouldn't be giving CPU advises.

Well, his life is sitting on the computer playing games.


That proves he has no life, except making pointless & senseless debates.

Well I admit, I don't know much at all about server processors, all that I know is that the dual core CPU's that are out now for servers by Intel from my understanding have only ONE Front Side Bus. And what makes it worse is that it's only 800Mhz!!! That's what my old Prescott single core ran at and it had a hard time chewing what I threw at it (by the way, it was a 3.0Ghz). Imagine 2 cores fighting over one mere 800Mhz FSB, that's rediculous. I think they bottlenecked the hell out of the CPU's because of heat issues. That leaves 400Mhz for each core respectively. I remember my 1.8Ghz Pentium 4, it showed that it even had a hard time with a 400Mhz front side bus, much less a 3.2+ Ghz CPU with 400Mhz. The reason I know is because when I OC'ed my FSB on my 1.8Ghz Northwood, performance dramatically increased. Apply this theory to a 3.2Ghz + like I said earlier. Sounds pretty pitiful doesn't it?