Cpu war ?

[Herbal Influence 10]

Whenever you behave like a fan of Intel bear this in mind:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/745&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

My personal experience of this was:

In late 2006 I went to the big shops in my big hometown to buy a new PC.

I was informed that AMD cpus do consume much less power while having quite the same and even better performance. You can still find a learned article on that on Tom's Hardware pages.

After I saw only a vast number of "Intel inside" PCs everywhere I asked whether they don't sell AMDs.

"No, we don't."

I had to go to some hideous place to get an AMD PC nevertheless, the "Broadway" was plastered with Intel CPUs.

Many people didn't and don't even know that you can buy something different.

It was like asking for a PC without Microsoft on it. :eek:

Try to find a notebook today without Microsoft! - I know of enterprises, bureaus of free lancers (lawyers, tax accountants) whole cities governments with more than 30.000 PCs like Munich, who eagerly try not to use Microsoft.

And it seems to me that Intel tries hard, even, following the EU Commissions decision, with illegal contracts, to get a monopolist like Microsoft.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Herbal Influence
Correction: Munich still uses Microsoft but tries hard to get away

[maddogx 13]

My old employer (a fairly large municipality) got investigated for failing to make large hardware acquisitions via public bidding (which is required by law) and exclusively favoring Intel. There was apparently some kind of "special contract" with certain hardware suppliers, but none of us in the IT department knew much of the details - except that we were getting discounts on certain CPUs. Anyway, whenever new hardware was supposed to be procured, the guys in the purchasing department were told to split up the orders into small chunks (to avoid the public bidding, which was mandatory above a certain size) and always go with these same suppliers.

I never did find out how the investigation went.

[echo1 0]

Try to find a notebook today without Microsoft! - I know of enterprises, bureaus of free lancers (lawyers, tax accountants) whole cities governments with more than 30.000 PCs like Munich, who don't use Microsoft at all.

And it seems to me that Intel tries hard, even, following the EU Commissions decision, with illegal contracts, to get a monopolist like Microsoft.

If you buy a computer, and you don't want Windows on it, you can ask the manufacturer for a refund, and as long as you haven't used the computer before you call them, they are legally obliged to give a refund, which can be worth over €100. But most manufacturers won't sell you a PC without Windows (although a lot of them are slowly moving towards offering Linux as an option)

The license agreements that Intel and (particularly) Microsoft make with manufacturers are absolutely shocking. You can quite literally go out of business if you turn on MS and offer other OSes - one of the main reasons that IBM lost it's No. 1 spot in the PC market (and eventually was forced to sell their PC business to Lenovo) was because they didn't give into Microsoft's demands to kill off OS/2 and Lotus Office, despite the fact that neither were anywhere near as popular as their MS counterparts.

Edited September 1, 2009 by echo1

[MehMan 0]

Hmm, I remember a review of computer stores around my place where the reviewer set himself of getting the cheapest student's PC. He pretended to be a clueless student looking for a PC for essays etc and the occasional movie. He needed the PC with everything, printer, screen and an OS plus office. Nobody even thought of linux, which was acceptable because he was pulling the computer retard thing, but then again nobody even thought of offering him open office instead of MS office which would cut down on costs considerably. Only one shop out of twenty or so gave him the option of open office.

[Herbal Influence 10]

Thanx for your posts.

I think Intel - cpus are simply overrated in commercial public media and I think that BI did and do use AMD and wasn't - like close to everyone - aware about this "Intel" - performance hype.

I think it is most recommandable to be nervous about any cpu-performance-test that could be influenced in any thinkable way by Intel - e.g. are there/have there been advertisements in the same media? etc. etc.).

The most serious german print journal on politics (spiegel.de) reported lately that Intel uses a misleading "test" to measure the power consumtion of laptop computers too.

Big companies pay people to max out anything.

They pay psychologists to max out the possibility to influence consumers decision.

They pay payed students to "edit" wikipedia - so I think it is our task to be very nervous.

Why would they NOT pay some specialists to troll in forums and blogs?

Why would they NOT pay people to open "hardware test" internet sites or even print media?

Will a media online or print ever get an advertisement when delivering a test that shows "bad results"?

I think it's like the marketing hype on Codemasters Dragon Rising ... sure not only, but hot air to the max.

The outcome is the same: frustrated users.

Newest trick:

Create a slogan to make people believe in that you are "good", like "Do no evil!"

And collect data about persons like the world has never seen it before.

Hey, I like a free econonmy - but citizens are treated in EVERY thinkable and many "special" ways only to get them only to buy something.

Intel saw the punishment of 1 Billion Euros coming - since years.

That is well documented.

They also knew that even if they pay it they are the winners - in financial terms.

And they are. To them this seemingly enormous amount is something to be payed out of the pocket, i.e. peanuts.

I believe US tax systems even allows them to deduct it from their tax obligation though it is payed by the EU company sites of Intel - but I am not sure about that.

And I don't think AMD has better ethics or better products but they've been lame i.e. couldn't simply compete in marketing strategies since 2004.

And I think the effect is: Intels are overrated, AMDs tend to be underrated.

Just that.

Just my overall impression when I see so many Intel users complaining about performance issues.

(This is OT here and there are lots of other threads, so don't let us discuss this here: Arma 2 is very cpu demanding - this for good reason and not because of a non-optimized engine. People shouldn't compare Crysis, Codemaster Dragon Rising or whatever with Arma 2. They are simply different genres. Crysis etc. don't need so much CPU. They are simpler games for a cpu.)

Edited October 9, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[TimRiceSE 10]

Having had bad experiences with AMD in the past, I stay away from them...

However to the point of marketing, in the stores here whenever I go around I see almost as much AMD logos splashed around as Intel...

[Herbal Influence 10]

When did you last see "Intel inside!" ?

It's all over Dells pages, german advertising prospects of the biggest PC sellers ...

And WHY do they post it so much - the hardware sellers?

For free? For sympathy?

I cannot even remember having seen something of that from AMD.

Seriously.

---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 ----------

And ... click here:

http://www1.euro.dell.com/de/de/unternehmen/Desktops/ct.aspx?refid=desktops&s=bsd&cs=debsdt1

You see:

They show first of all: INTEL ...

If you click there your page is plastered all over with Intel logos.

And this under the nice words to compare cpus.

Sorry - at last this example shows ... how well balanced Dell treats AMDs.

[echo1 0]

Having had bad experiences with AMD in the past, I stay away from them...

Which were?

[Herbal Influence 10]

Another example:

What do you see on the first page here?

AMD or Intel?

http://www.alternate.de/html/index.html

On the first page of this distributor you find:

"Intel - genial schnell!"

(english: "Intel - geniously fast")

[echo1 0]

I think people over-estimate the importance of AMD. I mean, a single other company that sells pretty much the same product as the monopoly holder doesn't really count as competition. From a technical viewpoint, I'm more concerned by the fact that Intel has pushed out any competing architecture from the market, and we're stuck with what is effectively a 1970s design.

[Beagle 684]

Having had bad experiences with AMD in the past, I stay away from them...

My last "bad experience" with AMD CPUS was back in 1999 with a AMD K-6-II, the first FSB 100 CPU.

The bad Experience was bad performance with INTEL OPTIMISED GAMES, and a incompatibility with NVidia TNT GPUs.

The 3Dnow optimizes Games were just to few.

Team Apache was one of them. Team Apache did run better on the K-6-II 350 compared to my other PC, a Pentium-II 450.

[jw custom 56]

When did you last see "Intel inside!" ?

On the loading screen of Dragon Rising :D

I've jumped on the AMD CPU and ATI gfx cards wagon a few times now and everytime i've been disappointed, so i have promised myself not to get tempted again :)

[Herbal Influence 10]

On the loading screen of Dragon Rising :D

LOL ... yep, I remember myself ...

I've jumped on the AMD CPU and ATI gfx cards wagon a few times now and everytime i've been disappointed, so i have promised myself not to get tempted again :)

no-LOL ... ;-) ... well, you see .... there a lot about ATI gfx here too, isn't it?

I do nvidia ....

[4 IN 1 0]

AMD CPU are great uptill XP, afterwards they just cant came up to bar with Intel

[Herbal Influence 10]

AMD CPU are great uptill XP, afterwards they just cant came up to bar with Intel

Mmm .... did you read the posts before?

Or is it your signature text to explain this? ;-)

[Nowyoudie 0]

Intel is just that better.

But if you're tight on budget, AMD is good if you overclock it. The Phenom II are pretty overclockers, but so are the Intel counterparts.

Yeah, I know this post doesn't have anything good in it... just a fanboy's words. :p

[echo1 0]

I've jumped on the AMD CPU and ATI gfx cards wagon a few times now and everytime i've been disappointed, so i have promised myself not to get tempted again :)

AMDs CPUs are very good value for money, even if they don't have any high end parts that can match Intel's finest. The latest ATI cards are pretty nice too.

[4 IN 1 0]

They are very good value, but from most of my friends words for the past few years the price to performance ratio drop rapidly(bear in mind that the friends i am talking about were AMD fans).

[Heatseeker 0]

i5 750 2.66 Gh Quad lynnfield FTW, its the one im looking at currently.

Why AMD? :confused: .

[4 IN 1 0]

they was cheap, they were easily overclockable, and they aint came from the evil Intel, thats why

[Shadow NX 1]

So far as good as all my CPUs were AMDs and i always was pretty happy with them.

I think one of the points that make me use a AMD rather than a Intel is the usual problem that in most of the cases you have to upgrade your whole board if you wanna use a new Intel CPU... at least thats how it seems to me.

On the AMDS usually i can upgrade it at least 2-3 times before a new CPU wont fit anymore

And the new Phenom IIs seem not bad for their price... wonder how they run ArmA2 though as somehow it seems ArmA2 favors Intel CPUs like the i7 extremely.

Fits to a old BIS interview where they said they support AMD better this time, in the end my not too old AMD CPU runs the game so so and my HD4870 tends to show graphical artifacts in demanding missions while in every other game it runs super nice still.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Shadow NX

[Herbal Influence 10]

(...)

I think one of the points that make me use a AMD rather than a Intel is the usual problem that in most of the cases you have to upgrade your whole board if you wanna use a new Intel CPU... at least thats how it seems to me.

On the AMDS usually i can upgrade it at least 2-3 times before a new CPU wont fit anymore

Yes. I do not know how it is with Intel sockes, but it did surprise me that it's possible to even put the newest AM3-CPUs into my old AM2-Board.

(Whereas it's not possible to put an old AM2-CPU into a new AM3-Board.

This way i still have "reserves" ... (see my spoiler).

And the new Phenom IIs seem not bad for their price... wonder how they run ArmA2 though as somehow it seems ArmA2 favors Intel CPUs like the i7 extremely.

I should possibly open a special thread for the up-to-date AMDs to see how they are doing. I will edit in here, if I do.

But why do you think Arma2 favors Intel CPUs?

I got the opposite impression for their are so many Intell-ers blaming BI not to "have optimized the engine". (Something I cannot believe still - it's just what it is ... it's cpu-demanding and not for no reason).

Fits to a old BIS interview where they said they support AMD better this time, in the end my not too old AMD CPU runs the game so so and my HD4870 tends to show graphical artifacts in demanding missions while in every other game it runs super nice still.

That's interesting. I didn't know that.

Perhaps this time AMD is the winner therefore ...

[Heatseeker 0]

they was cheap, they were easily overclockable, and they aint came from the evil Intel, thats why

The i5 750 costs less than the older Q9550 and is about about the price of the PII X4 955.

I think both the PII 955 and i5 750 are great choices and the 1156 socket mobos got intel back into competition :) .

[Madus_Maximus 0]

Yes. I do not know how it is with Intel sockes, but it did surprise me that it's possible to even put the newest AM3-CPUs into my old AM2-Board.

(Whereas it's not possible to put an old AM2-CPU into a new AM3-Board.

This way i still have "reserves" ... (see my spoiler).

I should possibly open a special thread for the up-to-date AMDs to see how they are doing. I will edit in here, if I do.

But why do you think Arma2 favors Intel CPUs?

I got the opposite impression for their are so many Intell-ers blaming BI not to "have optimized the engine". (Something I cannot believe still - it's just what it is ... it's cpu-demanding and not for no reason).

That's interesting. I didn't know that.

Perhaps this time AMD is the winner therefore ...

You can put AM3 CPU's on AM2/AM2+ boards because they have 2 fewer pins than the AM2 CPU's, and thus still fit and function. AM3 CPU's have the memory controler built onto the CPU die and as such require no North Bridge for said task. AM2 CPU's don't have this and require the memory controler on the Chipset that the North Bridge is on. To avoid people putting them into AM3 boards they made them physically not fit by not having the 2 extra pins on the socket like the AM2 sockets have.

Even if you physically managed to put an AM2 CPU onto an AM3 board it won't work as you'll be lacking the memory controler. This obviously isn't an issue the other way around, as AM2 boards have the controler on them, but it's also on the CPU too of AM3 chips. It just simply isn't used, the chipset controler is used instead of the one on the CPU.

OK I hope I didn't over complicate that explination lol.

[echo1 0]

I should possibly open a special thread for the up-to-date AMDs to see how they are doing. I will edit in here, if I do.

It's called the PC Discussion Thread... We don't need a dedicated AMD fanobi thread for that.