AMD Processors

im all my computers i have always trusted AMD's from desktop to now mobile which i find awesome on the Turion64 i've used amd's back when the K-6 350MHz was used it was a awesome CPU then went from there to AMD Durion 1Ghz which i upgraded to a AMD Athlon (Thunderbird) 1.40GHz which i still running at the current time as we speak so now in my notebook which is the Turion ML-32 which i find awesome and might upgrade later on to a faster Turion but overall i have trusted AMD which my technology and will continue today if anyone elese have any feedback on the AMD processors please post

 

I'm currently using an Athlon 64 FX-60.

By far the best CPU I have ever used. Never seen something so responsive. This CPU smokes everything else. Period.

I've also had an Athlon 64 3400+ and a Turion ML-30, liked them as well.

 

l hope you didn't pay for the FX-60. You could have bought a Opteron for ~$330 and OC it like mad (the opterons have higher quality silicon so they overclock like crazy).

 

Currently dont have a desktop. So I have a DTR Athlon64 3200+ and a LV Sempron 3000+.

I've also previously had desktops with the K6-2 500, Athlon XP 2400+.

 

yeh yeh enough of the AMD advertising...

 

Pentium M > Turion

Athlon 64 / X2 > Pentium 4 / Extreme Edition

Thats just how it goes...

 

He is reviewing it....

 

Didn't know, sorry...

 

What exactly is the point of this post? It's not a question, it's nothing more than hype about AMD processors, I'm not saying they are bad or good, but this is just drivel...

Can we close this thread?

 

No it might provide something to new computer users who are unsure about AMD, in australia its almost unheard of in most computer retailers because they dont advertise. Ive owned a athlon and a amd 3000+ 64, A couple of months ago I baught a 4600+ just before they lowered in price But even so It is the fastest encoder Ive ever used I can do a Hour of divx video in just a few minutes on extreme quality settings.

 

I used to have a HP zv6000 with a Athlon64 4000+ - excellent at number crunching and at CPU intensive tasks. The only thing that I didn't like about it was that it had a weak GPU - the X200M just didn't cut it for my needs, so I got rid of the whole thing. The Athlon of course had nothing to do with the GPU performance though.

 

Actually AMD processors have 3DNow! technology which helps 3D apps. Doesn't do a whole lot, but is a nice feature.

Yeah, I'm reviewing a notebook with an FX-60. I plan to buy one for myself. . . I have been corrupted by power.

 

Why would you want this thread closed? Closing threads is just another form of censorship. I think since AMD is not the default computing solution of the world and the extreme minority in laptops that this thread is absolutely important because it allows other users to hear from first hand accounts of users' experiences with AMD's products.

I currently use an FX60 on my desktop as well and it absolutely is the fastest processor I have ever seen. Truly amazing. And when I dualbooted to Windows x64 Edition (you can download it free from Microsoft) and benchmarked it with SiSandra, the CPU scores went up another 15-20%.

If anyone is at all considering AMD chips, go for it, they offer by far the best performance for your dollar and are the only 64bit-Ready chip available. And if you are not considering an AMD chip because you've never used one before, then you should read more about them. Google had never used an AMD chip before either, and Intel's CEO sit's on their board of Directors. But they are also smart guys and even Intel's CEO on your board wasn't enough to stop them from converting to AMD.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/02/google-amd-0302markets15.html?partner=yahootix
This is why Google switched.
http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmin...=2&nct=4&cpcf=2&cpct=2&mf=250&mt=3800&o=0&o=1

 

Moderators only close threads they deem will spiral out of control, as if they are not, members might escalate arguments from being software/hardware related to being personal attacks. Anyways, AMD's server chips and desktop chips are the best out there - no one can argue that. However, for notebooks, Intel currently offers notebook CPUs that perform much better than their AMD counterparts.

 

AMD CPU's are awesome, I have an AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton in my desktop with an Nforce2 board.

AMD offers great bang for your buck. I have a mobile version of this CPU coming in the mail.

I don't have money for a new setup yet, so that'll have to do for now.

Intel mobile processors are great. My 2.0ghz Dothan/Banias whichever you wanna call it in my Z70Va is awesome. Surpasses my desktop cpu that's overclocked to 2260mhz in some cases.

Just can't wait for my mobile processor comes in so I can hopefully clock it to 2400mhz+ speeds. I've read some people have gotten it up to 2700mhz~!

Hope mine hits 2600mhz though. I HOPE~!

Both companies offer great stuff, but I think AMD is a greater bang for your buck thus far.

I miss the Pentium 3's though, they were powerful.

Cheers,
Mike

 

Hey while we're talking about amd processors i could use some help. i'm custom building a new notebook and i have a choice of two. my comp knowledge is fairly limited so i'll just take the stats sheet i was given. i have a choice of either the amd turion 64 MT M 2.2Ghz cpu, or the pentium M 770 2.13ghz cpu. i know intel has a good rep so i'm just after comparisons as the choice is limited to these two. i have heard the amds are a little heavy on battery life but are much cheaper. i am more interested in performance than price at this stage. any help would be usefull as i'm stuck!

 

Turion for sure. The PM 770 is overpriced IMO. The MT 2.2GHz is gonna be FAST (just as fast or faster) for a very reasonable price. And the battery life difference is not that great to justify the extra $

 

I'd say intel are better for notebooks and AMD are better for desktops.

 

Except the FX-60 is dual core silly