So, My laptop is in the boxing stage..

Umm how about we ignore the difference in ghz and cache in do some basic math.


So the t7200 (with its seemingly insignifcant 4mb cache and 200mhz difference) scores a total of 152 seconds to encode the song. The amd tl-52 took 196 seconds. That is a 29% increase in performance. Thats over 1/4 better performance, close to 1/3 better.

 

What? Bro..I can compare ghz when the price difference is $450+ all day long.

 

its actually *400mhz difference as I went and re-checked the review #1. 29% increase with 400 more mhz of proc power and a seemingly USEFUL 3mb more of l2? only 29%? I'd rather wait 196 seconds which equals to 44 seconds more and have realistic stats and more money in my wallet.

The END-ALL point here ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls: 400 mhz of proc, 3mb of l2, more money only equals 40 seconds. Have a good day.

 

I am saying... If your comparing the ghz to see how much difference in performance your getting... isn't accurate. If you want to compare 2 cpu chips from different companies, then comparing benchmarks would give you a better result.

I used to be an AMD fan, but after seeing conroe... It was over for AMD.

 

i understand what you're saying bro. I'am not comparing ghz and cache to prove the final point, it's just more leverage to show that the lowest end turion which is like 700 mhz slower than the high end intel with like 3mb LESS L2 only does 1:10 better on an encode..and for $450+

 

It was in boxing for like 2 - 2 1/2 days...and was shipped FedEx Overnight w/ Morning Delivery Guarantee

 

Lets see... It box for approximately 2 days and overnight shipping can take at 1-2 days. Basically they gave you regular shipping, 3-5 day ground.

 

in the end catness, we both have our opinions. I will not stand behind intel because I disagree with their prices, their inflated stats which have no backbone, their advertising budget and other reasons. AMD has no advertising budget. There is no marketing campaign. No "AMD-inside" here fellas. All their money goes into their product/research and it has proven itself to me by providing me with processors that have done only one thing, perform. ALL day and night long.

Will I sit here and say "intel sucks ass!"..nope. Cause they dont, I just dont agree with their practices, I think as the older corp, they should set a standard. This is like the mac and the pc deal..all those stupid ass commercials proving what? that they are spending money on commercial time to bash another company? whatever. I dont disagree with your points, they are valid and im glad you can sit like an adult and lay them out..but for the money it makes no sense.

+1 rep for holding it down and being an adult about it.

 

I don't care, they built it in 24 hours for me...took 2 1/2 days to box, and I have a guarantee by FedEx it'll get here by 3PM tomorrow...so I'm not complaining that it's IN MY HANDS less than 1 week after ordering

 

ok thats fair enough...anyways i wish my vostro 1500 would go into boxing stage already

 

Just completed my daily call and it's finally in the boxing stage! Which means testing took less than 24 hours. Oh well, at least it's looking like it'll meet the ship date now!

 

Well, I don't know if by "outperformed" you mean sales or processor performance, but 2 or 3 years ago, the HP I bought with a Turion 64 outperformed the then current Intel processors signficantly ... of course, then is then and now is now, and I wouldn't buy a lappie without a c2d in it.

 

I thought the Pentium M's were UBERLEET for their time? Less power consumption and more performance? w/e off topic.

 

Real world, ownership experience: I have an HP TX 1000 series with the TL-52, 2 gb of RAM and HP's usual, last generation graphics processor, and a Dell Latitude D630 with the 7300 (4mb cache), 2 gb of RAM and the Intell x3100 integrated gpu. Each run Vista with the aero interface. Both are for business use running Office 2007 and Adobe Professional 8.0, etc. The D630 does everything virtually instantaneously, even with 10 windows of work running simultaneously, while the TX1000 is comparatively sluggish. The difference is so mindboggling I'm looking to off the 3-month-old TX1000 -- wanna buy it?

The AMD Turion 64 (I have one of the first examples and it was the best at its inception) to my understanding initially beat intel to the punch, but became limited to 1mg L2 cache due to its architecture, meaning AMD now has to go back to the drawing board and come up with an entirely new chip in order to get the edge over Intel again. Processor wars suck, and we're all guilty. If AMD comes out with a chip that beats Intel again, I'll go AMD. But until then, AMD needs to get back to the drawing board because Intel is the clear winner at the moment.

 

Exactly, and something to add on. AMD doesn't have the money to produce. Their losing so much sales and they owed money (from what I read few months back). Also they couldn't borrow money due to the fact that they just borrowed to by ati.

 

What are you even saying bro? ROFL. AMD doesn't have the money? They just beat out intel in the stock market a month ago or whatever it was. AMD BOUGHT ATI..they didn't "borrow" money from them lol. Intel hasn't "Bought" Nvidia yet..probably because they are in that little jam with trying to stick the market to one price and now have something like 50 class action suits against them for doing so. AMD has the money they need to do whatever they please, MINUS their "advertising package" so they save even MORE money.

AMD is a word of mouth company. And if they were doing so horrible regardless..no one would buy them. I ALREADY threw stats on the table, and anyone willing to pay 400 bucks for 1 minute (sounds like paying a prostitute) is crazy. Performance is performance. Price is price.

 

Corporate buyouts aren't usually "cash" deals. AMD may (I don't know any details) potentially have borrowed billions for the deal in the form of loans, deferred payments to ATI executives, stock options, whatever. Generally, there's a whole lot of money going to and/or owed to executives at the bought out company. Perhaps it's my cynical mind at work, but I believe that buy outs look much nicer to the execs of a company faced with a takeover when they can personally make millions. In any case, I highly doubt that Joe AMD whipped out his wallet, pulled out a wad of million dollar bills and just handed it to Joe ATI for a bill of sale.

 

Well my laptop has been sitting at a house for 24 hours and I have yet to open it... i must have like "+10 Blue Boxers of Willpower" or something like that...

Or its just not at MY house... and i'll see it tonight

 

Box stage - in counting 2 days !!! (of course after today)
Does anyone know if Dells work tomorrow? LOLLL It would be nice if they do work saturday and sunday so I can get my shipped on Monday

 

I used to always buy AMD because they were better at the time. I am a computer engineering student but I don't have the time to keep up on the latest trends and what is good to get, so I asked around and all of my computer engineering friends told me the same thing: the core 2 duo is the way to go.

 

Ok, I wasn't planning on posting at all in this thread because I really could care less to have an e-peen fight over processors.

But HOLY CRAP @Bor

You are the whiniest-foot stomping-fan boy I have ever encountered.

 

I wanna see some reviews pretty pretty please

 

"Whatever they please" apparently doesn't include their own expansion plans:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2121204,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

Short version: AMD doesn't have enough cash to finance their own expansion plans, and debt is growing from the ATI acquisition, as you can see in their balance sheet:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AMD&annual

I don't think it's a coincidence their debt increased by more than a billion dollars after the ATI acquistion. The Extreme Tech article also outlines their plans to borrow more money to pay for the ATI acquisition.

Also, I don't know how you define "beat out Intel at the stock market", but look at their last quarterlies:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AMD
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=INTC

Short version: In the same time period (Dec 06 - Mar 07), AMD lost $611 million, while Intel earned $1.636 billion (net loss/income for both companies).

There is little point in Intel acquiring Nvidia. AMD wanted ATI for their chipsets and integrated graphics in order to market a complete AMD solution -- like Centrino. Intel already has both. The consumer video card market is not a huge money maker and isn't likely to factor in their decisions for a takeover.

 

Thank you, my point proven.

 

Lol, It's most unfortunate you needed SOMEONE ELSE to grab links from google to "prove your point".

As far as the bandwagoner that said something about a "foot-stomping fanboy"; Please don't be mad that people like myself save hundreds on processors that perform SLIGHTLY less than a processor that is $400 more. Forget stocks, forget earnings, forget plans..If you have half a brain you'd realize that saving money=win. Who spends $400 for 1 minute?

I'm sure I threw this analogy out there before..

"Hooker 1 (intel) This beauty costs $600 and will make you explode in 1 minute"

"Hooker 2 (AMD) This beauty costs $200 and will make you explode in 2 minutes"

If you enjoy getting your e-peen off quick, you can opt for a WELL performing processor from intel. If you enjoy getting the MOST for your money, without sacrificing MUCH pleasure WHATSOEVER, you buy AMD. It's as simple as that. It is only obvious that the future holds $800 processors from intel performing slightly better than a $300-400 processor from AMD.

Heat, power consumption and all that aside, 1 minute does NOT make up $400..end of discussion.

 

His point was still proven wasn't it?

Bush needed the entire government and numerous other organizations to prove that Saddam was an immediate threat to the world and.... he still hasn't proven that point

 

Ok I wasn't going to comment on this any further, but now I have too. b0r you are seriously one very close minded person. The whole discussion from the beginning was the fact that the Intel out performs the AMD. There is absolutely no logical argument you can make that disproves this. The numbers are there, the Intel does outperform the AMD. a 30% performance boost for $100 bucks more (see my post comparing tl-52 to t7200) is a pretty good investment in my books.

And if you do want to whine about prices well what can you do. It is like this, AMD offers the inferior chip, therefore they KNOW they need to have lower price points with less profit margin. If they didn't lower their prices so drastically they wouldn't even have any sales. Then there is Intel, who KNOWS they have the superior chip. Therefore they get to decide how much profit they want to turn on it. There is no other competition in the market to say otherwise. And ill agree as you go up in the chips they do get outrageously priced, but for something like the current t7300 it is only $285 dollars to buy the processor which is not a $400 jump from the AMD. This t7300 processor is a slight upgrade from the t7200 and costs a little less, so it is safe to say it would again perform 30% better. AMD can lower their prices all they want, but if they keep loosing $600 million every quarter you want have a company to make love to anymore

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's amazing how things work in this world. You just let it go and other people do it for you.

 

Is this guy serious?

I'm starting to think ALL of us are getting trolled by a Pro!



...It's either that or mommy didn't hug him enough

 

ROFL @ THREAD

 

You're a Hooker

Go Intel!

 

Are you serious? Because doubling performance is significant by anyone's standards. I guess maybe you are only going to use the computer for a single 1-2 minute task then throw it away then it wouldn't matter...