|
Intel vs. AMD
|
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
13. August 2006 @ 12:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
13. August 2006 @ 13:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. August 2006 @ 13:58
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2006 @ 13:59 |
Link to this message
|
Notice on the Sony website it says:
Quote:
NVIDIA® GeForce® Go 7600 with 128MB dedicated VRAM
That's what you want.
However from the link you gave, it says Quote:
NVIDIA GeForce Go 7400 TurboCache supporting 256MB
Those links you're giving me are the VGN-FE21M. The dabs link is the 21B. That may be the difference, it's probably not the same laptop, hence why it's cheaper.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. August 2006 @ 14:00
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
13. August 2006 @ 14:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
ah yes.quite right.it only has 80gb storage.well dabs is out of the question.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2006 @ 14:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thought it was cheap!
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
13. August 2006 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2006 @ 14:47 |
Link to this message
|
Quite good performance but irritating screen res, for any games you're effectively limited to 1024x768, since no games I know of support 1280x800. 1680x1050 laptops are better because not only is that res supported by some games, but ones that aren't can be run in 1280x1024.
Trouble is they now seem to be in short supply, manufacturers voting in favour of the vastly inferior 1440x900 and 1280x800 screens. Only decent 1680x1050 one I found was this
http://www.savastore.com/productinfo/product.aspx?catalog_name=Sa...
and that's absurdly expensive for what it is.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. August 2006 @ 14:54
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
13. August 2006 @ 14:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
im not really bothered about screen res.as long as it will play the games i want(some new ones such as hitman blood money,splinter cell ct,graw and some old ones)(pre 2005)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2006 @ 14:55 |
Link to this message
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. August 2006 @ 15:00
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
13. August 2006 @ 15:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
that sony is well better than that hp(in graphics wise)my cousin has a nvidia 7400 gc and plays hitman blood money on normal quality on his sony oh and also graw
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2006 @ 15:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
an X1600 will equal a 7400, easy. I also dislike the high contrast screens on Vaios. They look cool but are utterly impractical.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. August 2006 @ 15:04
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
13. August 2006 @ 15:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
yeah but its a 7600 which also helps.you can dull the screens on vaios(they have like 6 brightness settings).i bet if sony used normal screens the battery would last like an extra hour as the screen has 2 lamps.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. August 2006 @ 15:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Our cheap HP Celeron M has 16 brightness settings, and I can actually see that in bright ambient light. With a Vaio I can't.
|
Member
|
13. August 2006 @ 20:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
sam
I see your point on my post sorry. I tell you what though. Now is the time to do custom builds.Most people would think you are a genious and pay good money for old tech so to speak. Yes we are in the drivers seat. I see that tiger has a big price difference in core 2 chips but the 6600 an d6700 are still"out of stock". I give it 1 more month and we should get what we want. I am still concerned about mobo still I think it will be longer to finally get one that is "plug and play" pardon the pun. I am sure abit and asus is hard at work.
p-4 3.2 prescott HT curently at 3.6/Abit IC7-G (Abit rule!)/2 Gig Mushkin extream 2.5-2-2-6
LG 20.1 FLATRON WIDESCREEN/BFG 6800 ultra@450 mgz/2 wd raptor 150 raid/Ultra 500 watt Direct connet ps
NZXT GUARDIAN CASE(BLUE)
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
13. August 2006 @ 23:01 |
Link to this message
|
baltekmi,
Quote:
I am sure abit and asus is hard at work.
Throw in MSI, DFI, Gigabyte and you name it. They all want a piece of that Conroe pie! At present, Asus only has one really good MB for the conroe and it's expensive as hell! There are presently 4 others but they don't OC near as well.
Mostly because of the motherboard situation, I going to wait and see what AMD does next. It will be most interesting to see what Intel has pressured AMD into doing next. Right now the lack of chips is hurting motherboard development because there are no potential sales to help pay for the cost of that development. Add to that how many people are waiting for chip availability before they chose a MB for that new build, so MB sales are down. Check Tiger Direct and you will see more motherboard\CPU combos than ever before. Some very good prices as well!
I just bought an Athlon 64 3200+ on a BioStar GeForce6100-M9 MB for $99! Fastest on-board video I've ever seen! A week earlier I bought an Athlon 64 3800+ on a mid-priced MSI board, also for $99! Both customer builds for office work. Now is definitely the time to build a back-up computer!
Happy computering,
theone
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2006 @ 00:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
The lack of Conroes means lack of sales an dlack of mobo support, when more people are buying them (because of availability) motherboards for resonable prices will appear. Look how well 939 has advanced in its time - those deals theone found are bargains!
|
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
14. August 2006 @ 00:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2006 @ 00:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well that'll keep our DFI fanboy Crowy happy, anyway! An nForce 590 you say... Hmmm.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. August 2006 @ 03:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
sammorris & baltekmi,
I didn't really mean to say that the clock speed was the only advantage. And I guess I was wrong about the L2 cache on the X6800. But I do mean to say that it is pointless in comparing the current generation of processors to the next.
AMD has actually yet to release a direct competitor to the Conroe. So comparing the FX-62 to the E6600 and the X6800 is like comparing a 1972 Monte Carlo to a Millenium Corvette. The Monte Carlo was never made to compete with the Corvette(being from the same maker aside.) So it's just like laughing at the 1972 Monte Carlo because it's old.
It's kinda dumb to start doing comparisons with a product that was never built to compete. Wait until AMD releases their new platform. I said if AMD didn't have an answer in six months I would get an E6600. But I now know it's probably not going to be until around July of next year(at least that's what I'm told. Anyone got a different date?) So I'm willing to wait for it a few extra months and see what it can do.
When the Conroe is out-pacing a product that is actually meant to compete with it, then you can tell me that intel is better and I won't argue. But I'm going to wait patiently until then. So just calm down until you actually have something to gloat about.
And yes, I'm a hardcore AMD fanboy if you were wondering. And I'm proud of it :P
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2006 @ 03:46 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
But I do mean to say that it is pointless in comparing the current generation of processors to the next.
Is it? Not in my book. Comparisons are still valid because old tech is becoming so cheap that the good overclockers of the old generation are still worth having. I kind of see what your car analogy is about, but Intel have in fact produced the better product on this occasio. I could have been termed an AMD fanboy before, but I was really just someone who was a bit slow to accept the new reality. I've now seen proof Intel's product is better, and for those who can afford the E6600 or E6700, I will recommend it to them.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. August 2006 @ 03:46
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. August 2006 @ 04:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well if AMD can't bring it to the table I will indeed buy an intel processor because I do have the money and I'm willing to buy the fastest available(in this case the X6800 or E6600.) I'd just like to be open-minded and let AMD catch up first. And I see your point. The Pentium 4 was quite a bit faster than the Athlon XP and created a lot of intel followers. That is, so far, happening again. But then the Athlon 64 blew away the Pentium 4.
I never even had a decent computer until about early February this year and when I finally got one it was the fastest available on the $500 budget I had. Then I got the beginning of the rig I use now and it was currently the fastest for the money. AMD remains that way and will for a while still.
It does give bragging rights to have the down-right fastest but it doesn't matter when slower processors are fast enough for every program on the market. The Athlon 64 4000+ plays all games perfectly. Just because the X6800 is faster doesn't mean the FX 57 and down are now too slow for anything. It just means that the Conroe performs better.
I simply find it pointless to compare until AMD actually puts out a processor that is actually meant to compete. So be patient and we'll see.
AMD fanboy or not I won't diss the Pentium 4 or the Pentium D because in their own right they are very fast. But the fact remains that AMD is currently the best for your money and they have intelligently dropped their prices on EVERYTHING because they knew that with Conroe out their prices didn't make sense. They are all now in the general realm of the Pentium 4s and Pentium Ds. IMO the Pentium 4 is badly priced compared to the Athlon 64. But the Pentium D's prices and performance are very competitive.
So don't get me wrong. I'm not a hopelessly blind fanboy trying to defend a dying product line. I just see it a bit differently.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2006 @ 05:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
You're not trying to defend a dying product line, that product line is alive and well. Up to £200 AMD still has the advantage because X2s are still better than the E6300 and 6400. Only the E6600, E6700 and X6800 overclock competitively on numerous boards, and the X6800 is just too expensive. Even the E6700 is a lot here in the UK, at the equivalent of $780. Consequently for those who don't want to spend a fortune, AMD are still the winners (and let's face it, that's the case for most PC users). Intel has only taken the high performance crown, not the crown overall. Intel and AMD have swapped markets, in effect.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. August 2006 @ 05:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
True! Very true! That's what I meant to say. intel may hold the high end but AMD is just plain better for the money and still has competitive performance. Just because the two fastest are faster than AMDs entire line doesn't mean intels are instantly faster across the board. The E6600 thru the X6800 aren't all intel has to offer. Like I've been saying, intel's mid-range still has to compete with AMDs mid-range. (finally someone isn't too bigheaded to listen.)
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. August 2006 @ 05:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Lol as you know, I was a strong AMD supporter previously. Anyone who still thinks AMD are the best at everything needs to wake up and smell the Conroe, but for the lower end where most PC sales are made, the Sempron64 is better than the Celeron D and the Athlon64 better than the Pentium 4, performance and price-wise. Manufacturers like Dell are starting to realise that AMD offers a competitive product, and although their production figures aren't high enough to ship to major retailers (I think that's partly why AMD have fewer vapourware problems) they can at least offer good products as competition to intel to numerous PC builders, and the major manufacturers are starting to notice. As far as overclocking goes, exactly the same applies, except that few people overclock machines like Dells, for obvious reasons!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
14. August 2006 @ 09:01 |
Link to this message
|
Intel C2D E8400|Asus P5Q Pro|Diamond Radeon HD 4850|WD 640GB SATA 2| Pioner DVR-215BK|2GB Corsair PC 6400| Corsair HX-520|Antec Three Hundred
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. August 2006 @ 09:01
|
