dwchang wrote:More importantly, the Athlon 64's and Opterons "PWN" anything Intel has at the moment both in performance and price.
Okay, gotta ask: what's the difference between the Athlon 64 and the Opteron?
</newb-y question>
dwchang wrote:More importantly, the Athlon 64's and Opterons "PWN" anything Intel has at the moment both in performance and price.
Zarxrax wrote:dwchang wrote:Zarxrax wrote:AMDs suck compared to P4s. I dunno what benchmarks you are looking at, but on the one's I see all the time, the althlons loose bigtime, especially at video encoding and such.
You must be reading Tom's Hardware benchmarks. Everyone knows how "subjective" and "fair" they are.
What's wrong with tomshardware? I mean they aren't biased against AMD or anything... In fact its the site that convinced me to buy an AMD processor in my older system, 600mhz athlon. The tests they perform seem accurate. Whats the problem?
Scintilla wrote:dwchang wrote:More importantly, the Athlon 64's and Opterons "PWN" anything Intel has at the moment both in performance and price.
Okay, gotta ask: what's the difference between the Athlon 64 and the Opteron?
</newb-y question>
dwchang wrote:For example, Athlons are better for sorting an excel doc with ~1000 entries (I belive this was the #), P4's are better when sorting 60000 entries. You tell me which one is more realistic.
trythil wrote:dwchang wrote:For example, Athlons are better for sorting an excel doc with ~1000 entries (I belive this was the #), P4's are better when sorting 60000 entries. You tell me which one is more realistic.
Actually, from the perspective of worst-case analysis of algorithms, the sort test with 60,000 entries WOULD be better.
Kalium wrote:trythil wrote:dwchang wrote:For example, Athlons are better for sorting an excel doc with ~1000 entries (I belive this was the #), P4's are better when sorting 60000 entries. You tell me which one is more realistic.
Actually, from the perspective of worst-case analysis of algorithms, the sort test with 60,000 entries WOULD be better.
Yes, but precious few home computers will be doing that. Worst-case isn't always the most useful of tools.
trythil wrote:I was just pointing out that larger input sizes can sometimes give a better picture of an algorithm's performance.
dwchang wrote:Either way, my point is you shouldn't trust benchmarks. Sadly the next question is "what should I trust?" and sadly unless you work in the industry or have a degree in this, sadly... <b>nothing.</b>

Scintilla wrote:dwchang wrote:Either way, my point is you shouldn't trust benchmarks. Sadly the next question is "what should I trust?" and sadly unless you work in the industry or have a degree in this, sadly... <b>nothing.</b>
What about <i>you?</i>
dwchang wrote:Scintilla wrote:dwchang wrote:Either way, my point is you shouldn't trust benchmarks. Sadly the next question is "what should I trust?" and sadly unless you work in the industry or have a degree in this, sadly... <b>nothing.</b>
What about <i>you?</i>
I thought we already went over this. I have a bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering and work for AMD as an engineer. Obviously biased, but at the same time, I'd like to think I work for the lesser or two evils
.
trythil wrote:dwchang wrote:Scintilla wrote:dwchang wrote:Either way, my point is you shouldn't trust benchmarks. Sadly the next question is "what should I trust?" and sadly unless you work in the industry or have a degree in this, sadly... <b>nothing.</b>
What about <i>you?</i>
I thought we already went over this. I have a bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering and work for AMD as an engineer. Obviously biased, but at the same time, I'd like to think I work for the lesser or two evils
.
So long as you touch x86, you are a bearer of evil.
dwchang wrote:....and work for AMD as an engineer....

dwchang wrote:Zarxrax wrote:What's wrong with tomshardware? I mean they aren't biased against AMD or anything... In fact its the site that convinced me to buy an AMD processor in my older system, 600mhz athlon. The tests they perform seem accurate. Whats the problem?
Are you being serious?
Within our industry everyone knows that Tom is a big Intel fanboy and to put it in "non-technical terms"...sucks their dicks.
Zarxrax wrote:dwchang wrote:Zarxrax wrote:What's wrong with tomshardware? I mean they aren't biased against AMD or anything... In fact its the site that convinced me to buy an AMD processor in my older system, 600mhz athlon. The tests they perform seem accurate. Whats the problem?
Are you being serious?
Within our industry everyone knows that Tom is a big Intel fanboy and to put it in "non-technical terms"...sucks their dicks.
Well I don't know about athlon 64 stuff, but I got proof here that back in the day, Tom's Hardware published data that said Athlons seriously kicked Intel's ass: http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/19990823/index.html
And as far as benchmarks go, i could care less about bullshit "benchmarking programs"... i don't even look at those scores. I likewise dont look at stuff like excel or autocad or whatever. I look at the stuff that pertains to me. Video encoding, audio encoding, 3d rendering, games (though I don't play games anymore I still like those benchmarks for some reason :p).
madmag9999 wrote:what is a program i could run to run benchmarks on my 2 comps. i have a p4 and a amd 2800+ and id like to see the differences. i went on what everyone was telling me that athlon is better and dicieded to get one for my new comp and it dose seem to be better then the p4 but id still like to run some benchmarks and see for myself
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest