AMD or INTEL?

If our tests showed anything, it's that you can't predict which combination of applications will offer significant performance boosts. We even discovered a couple of circumstances where a few applications actually performed slower under Hyper-Threading.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/comp...0270038,00.htm

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here's a page on how hyperthreading works:

http://www.extremetech.com/print_art...a=31739,00.asp

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

my point is to be realistic... most of the time you will reap the benefits... cuz ur gonna run more then one program at a time.. i always start out pulling out AIM, IE, winamp, and outbox as soon as i get to my computer.. tahts 4 applications.. i tried it disable and enabled.. and i see a difference.. its faster with it enabled... if u truely are taht frugal with running programs and only run one.. then i dont think u really need a fast computer at all.. get a Duron... if all u use is IE or word

with games it benefits.. as u can see from the 3dmark scores... so if ur a gamer you will benefit.. if u rip songs or video then u will also benefit with already compatible with HT softwares...

please... i understand it can be slower in some instances.. but realistically you will benefit.. and those links u give also say the same thing i've been trying to say the whole time... that it is realistically more beneficial... i just dont understand why you guys keep saying that it slows downt he computer.. because overall it doesn't.. it improves performance... i dont know what u have proved to me.. other then that on some programs it is slower.. but in most cases it will benefit as Cnet mentioned on ur link...

and u mentioned windows 95 and old games... but seriously.. who gets a new 2.4c or higher cpu and runs windows 95? are u being serious? XP SP1 benefits from HT.. so i dont understand ur point on OS.. and old games isn't going to use cpu that much anywaz.. so who cares if its slower.. it doesn't even use half of the cpu power in the first place...

my point wasn't that it was always faster no matter what.. but my point was that overall it is faster.. and even over time it will only continue to get better not worse... and even now windows xp sp1, games, and multitasking are major things that people do and have, so you will usually benefit...

the key word to ur 2nd to last post is "few" applications... that means most applications do benefit... which doesn't mean its slower... its only slower on "few" applications... why you looking at the few if most applications are faster? so if AMD was faster on a "few" applications compared to intel.. that means AMD is faster? i dont think thats the case... few means little... like 3.. not a very significant amount.. so why even consider making a point with few applications...

and why are u providing an old link that explains hyperthreading? it didnt even come out when they talked about it... so they themselves barely knew what it would be like... but now we have it.. so find a current link that says its overall slower to have HT

Definately AMD. Intel's chips are overpriced and under quality lately.

__________________
St Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.