High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

For Those Of You With Intel Inside, There is a New Gimped Crisis Coming Out For You!

kamspy
07-01-2008, 07:33 PM
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/01/crysis-warhead-preps-for-battle-with-debut-trailer/

Here ya go Rail!

Now you can enjoy what AMD owners have been enjoying for over a year.;)

railven
07-01-2008, 08:19 PM
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/01/crysis-warhead-preps-for-battle-with-debut-trailer/

Here ya go Rail!

Now you can enjoy what AMD owners have been enjoying for over a year.;)

Haha, nice!

I haven't read up much on this game, is it actually a different storyline or just a port of the original Crisis for AGP systems?

kamspy
07-01-2008, 08:39 PM
Haha, nice!

I haven't read up much on this game, is it actually a different storyline or just a port of the original Crisis for AGP systems?

Remember the console versions of FarCry? The decent one on 360? It looks kinda like that. Samish game, but with specs for Intel users.

Lkr
07-02-2008, 12:13 AM
I don't get the flaming of Intel users. The Core 2 line is lightning speed better than anything AMD has to offer.

Mattie_B
07-02-2008, 12:54 AM
I don't get the flaming of Intel users. The Core 2 line is lightning speed better than anything AMD has to offer.

I think he meant for those of you that have AMD inside.

All he needs to do is look at the benchmarks and he will realize Intel Core 2 Duo's and Quads own all of Amd processors.

Ntruder
07-02-2008, 10:29 AM
Remember the console versions of FarCry? The decent one on 360? It looks kinda like that. Samish game, but with specs for Intel users.

I think Warhead is actually a full sequel; parallel to the events of Crysis, but played by a different character.

And the way I understood it, they demo'd the game running on a "$600" PC to show that it could be done. I don't think the point was to say it was a dumbed down version of Crysis.

Alpha1
07-02-2008, 10:46 AM
Intel CPU's vastly out perform AMD processors. Since the Core2 line came out.

I find it quite funny you think AMD are better. Don't you build systems? You should know that I would have thought.

Oliver

Mase
07-02-2008, 11:04 AM
Wow I didnt know there was such beef between intel and AMD users.. I have no idea which is better but I have heard AMD might be faster but Intel is more of a work horse. Whatever that means :lol:

railven
07-02-2008, 12:10 PM
There really isn't a beef...at least not here. Go to a real tech forum and get ready to see bench after bench and users stress how AMD outperforms Intel here and vice versa yatta yatta yatta.

Anyways, Kamspy is a registed Sex-Off...I mean vicious AMD fanboy and I'm a polite well mannered Intel supporter, and we got it into one day. Hehe.

Just playful banter.

Still, I read up on this game - it is definately being touted as a watered down Crysis game. One article I read it can still push Crysis visuals if you have the system for it, but the game's engine was scaled down alot.

I guess because Crysis sales were so low.

kamspy
07-02-2008, 02:15 PM
Intel CPU's vastly out perform AMD processors. Since the Core2 line came out.

I find it quite funny you think AMD are better. Don't you build systems? You should know that I would have thought.

Oliver

Intel has better specs on the chips they send to review sites, but they also have a much larger tolerance for bad transistors leaving the plant as 'good chips'. Something like 15% I think. AMD's tolerance for bad transistors is 2%.

Enjoy reading the benchmarks though:hithere: They must make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Those who actually have spent time in Electrical Engineering school will never ever ever ever ever ever ever buy a Intel chip. The quality control is just too loose. 15% transistor failure tolerance in ONE chip and it passes? Please.

Ntruder
07-02-2008, 02:20 PM
Intel has better specs on the chips they send to review sites, but they also have a much larger tolerance for bad transistors leaving the plant as 'good chips'. Something like 15% I think. AMD's tolerance for bad transistors is 2%.

Enjoy reading the benchmarks though:hithere: They must make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Those who actually have spent time in Electrical Engineering school will never ever ever ever ever ever ever buy a Intel chip. The quality control is just too loose. 15% transistor failure tolerance in ONE chip and it passes? Please.

http://www.whatischurch.com/mustardseed/uploaded_images/tom-cruise-at-yahoo-729660.jpg

You > *

kamspy
07-02-2008, 02:28 PM
http://www.whatischurch.com/mustardseed/uploaded_images/tom-cruise-at-yahoo-729660.jpg

You > *

Poor Tom. He's become Ntruders only weapon when he is confronted with the truth and he can't formulate a proper argument to articulate his feelings. Let me guess....a communications major?:lol: :lol:

junehhan
07-02-2008, 02:40 PM
Intel CPU's vastly out perform AMD processors. Since the Core2 line came out.

I find it quite funny you think AMD are better. Don't you build systems? You should know that I would have thought.

Oliver

Many of us are die hard AMD fans like myself, and others are also like myself and occasionally like to root for the underdog. Lets face it, the market isn't exactly easy for AMD at all because of Intel's ability to muscle them out of the turf that Intel has traditionally controlled. Even when AMD was on the top not too long ago, they still had trouble gaining and had to fight for any gains in market share they were able to get outside of their typical budget computer manufacturers.

AMD isn't that far behind right now, but they will be in trouble if they can't do something about the performance gap. At least AMD's current processors can be considered a bargain. I also like to support AMD because they are necessary to keep Intel honest and to keep consumers from getting screwed. Intel got arrogant last time, and they are forced to head back to the drawing board because they were for the first time threatened by AMD. The result is this incredible processor called the Core. However, I think it is almost crazy that people are willing to dump so much money for those Extreme Core processors, no matter how fast they are considering that gaming is still limited by the GPU

kamspy
07-02-2008, 03:07 PM
Not to mention that Intel "benchmarked" speeds from hand picked CPUs can't even flow properly through any mobos FSB with a decent GPU running with it.

So what's the point?

oleviarules
07-02-2008, 03:50 PM
Intel has better specs on the chips they send to review sites, but they also have a much larger tolerance for bad transistors leaving the plant as 'good chips'. Something like 15% I think. AMD's tolerance for bad transistors is 2%.

Enjoy reading the benchmarks though:hithere: They must make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Those who actually have spent time in Electrical Engineering school will never ever ever ever ever ever ever buy a Intel chip. The quality control is just too loose. 15% transistor failure tolerance in ONE chip and it passes? Please.

can you explain this a little more? my understanding is that chips have lots of transistors. are you saying that Intel allows chips with up to 15% bad transistors while AMD only allows for 2% failure?

KEEBS1984
07-02-2008, 06:23 PM
AMD chips are awesome... if your willing to actually do the research on why they are the way they are. It's true that Intel's new line ups are benchmarked higher than AMDs new line up but there are very specific differences in the architecture that provide a different experience. I prefer AMD much more than Intel and the only way I'd be caught with an Intel computer is if it was given to me (Macbook :o).

Also let us not forget the extensive monopolistic policies Intel has employed for the better part of two decades. Does anybody here know how hard AMD had to struggle to break into the US marketplace because Intel was strong arming them so badly? They were nearly out of business...

railven
07-02-2008, 06:34 PM
AMD chips are awesome... if your willing to actually do the research on why they are the way they are. It's true that Intel's new line ups are benchmarked higher than AMDs new line up but there are very specific differences in the architecture that provide a different experience. I prefer AMD much more than Intel and the only way I'd be caught with an Intel computer is if it was given to me (Macbook :o).

Also let us not forget the extensive monopolistic policies Intel has employed for the better part of two decades. Does anybody here know how hard AMD had to struggle to break into the US marketplace because Intel was strong arming them so badly? They were nearly out of business...

Just as bad as Apple struggled. And look how good they are doing hehe.

AMD is set, they are the only platform that covers all the markets. Intel can't offer that yet, and if AMD were smarter (actually bigger) they can start strong arming Intel in the business sector by offering a very competitive OEM slim factor against Intel's line up. AMD would crush them since they acquired ATI.

mshulman
07-02-2008, 07:12 PM
I don't think it matters these days as processors are rarely the bottleneck.

When I build systems at home though I tend to use AMD as they always seem to end up cheaper.

Pinoy
07-02-2008, 10:43 PM
Intel has better specs on the chips they send to review sites, but they also have a much larger tolerance for bad transistors leaving the plant as 'good chips'. Something like 15% I think. AMD's tolerance for bad transistors is 2%.

Enjoy reading the benchmarks though:hithere: They must make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Those who actually have spent time in Electrical Engineering school will never ever ever ever ever ever ever buy a Intel chip. The quality control is just too loose. 15% transistor failure tolerance in ONE chip and it passes? Please.

Meh. If the chip doesn't work you RMA it and get a new one, end of story. At the end of the day AMD is still getting their collective ass's whipped by Intel right now, and a couple of bad chips here and there aren't going to change that.

railven
07-03-2008, 05:26 AM
I don't think it matters these days as processors are rarely the bottleneck.

When I build systems at home though I tend to use AMD as they always seem to end up cheaper.

Processors now more than ever are the bottlenecks.

With GPUs running at god-like speeds, and RAM almost hitting the speed of light in terms of response time, CPUs are usually the slowest part of the system - and the blame is on the software that they have to run.

AMD knows this, now, since their new pipeline isn't what they wanted it to be and their bad yield rate [that's right Kamspy, AMD has awful yield rates too] is causing them to have too many cores running under what they wish and they are selling them to consumers as a different model.

Quad core with one dead core == AMD New Triple Core :lol:

And the AMD fanboys lap it up!!!

They were having trouble breaking 2GHZ on the new phenom, why they had a shit load of 1.8GHz ready, all that didn't make it (say they settled at 1.96ghz) were scaled back to 1.8ghz and sold as 1.8ghz. Granted, this is understandable but it sure does work against Fanboy Kamspy's claims! Hehe, I'm done here. Good day sir! :cool: ;)

Alpha1
07-03-2008, 06:50 AM
Intel has better specs on the chips they send to review sites, but they also have a much larger tolerance for bad transistors leaving the plant as 'good chips'. Something like 15% I think. AMD's tolerance for bad transistors is 2%.

Enjoy reading the benchmarks though:hithere: They must make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Those who actually have spent time in Electrical Engineering school will never ever ever ever ever ever ever buy a Intel chip. The quality control is just too loose. 15% transistor failure tolerance in ONE chip and it passes? Please.

I'm not bashing, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. I'd love to see a recent review where AMD processors have outperformed Intel. That was the case 18 months + ago, not so now.

Oliver

Alpha1
07-03-2008, 06:51 AM
Many of us are die hard AMD fans like myself, and others are also like myself and occasionally like to root for the underdog. Lets face it, the market isn't exactly easy for AMD at all because of Intel's ability to muscle them out of the turf that Intel has traditionally controlled. Even when AMD was on the top not too long ago, they still had trouble gaining and had to fight for any gains in market share they were able to get outside of their typical budget computer manufacturers.

AMD isn't that far behind right now, but they will be in trouble if they can't do something about the performance gap. At least AMD's current processors can be considered a bargain. I also like to support AMD because they are necessary to keep Intel honest and to keep consumers from getting screwed. Intel got arrogant last time, and they are forced to head back to the drawing board because they were for the first time threatened by AMD. The result is this incredible processor called the Core. However, I think it is almost crazy that people are willing to dump so much money for those Extreme Core processors, no matter how fast they are considering that gaming is still limited by the GPU

Very well said!

Oliver

Alpha1
07-03-2008, 06:53 AM
can you explain this a little more? my understanding is that chips have lots of transistors. are you saying that Intel allows chips with up to 15% bad transistors while AMD only allows for 2% failure?

I'd love to see an article on that too. 15% is a ridiculous percentage, and something that I, SysAdmin of two DataCentres with over $4 million USD of both Intel and AMD kit has never seen.

Oliver

Alpha1
07-03-2008, 06:55 AM
AMD chips are awesome... if your willing to actually do the research on why they are the way they are. It's true that Intel's new line ups are benchmarked higher than AMDs new line up but there are very specific differences in the architecture that provide a different experience. I prefer AMD much more than Intel and the only way I'd be caught with an Intel computer is if it was given to me (Macbook :o).

Also let us not forget the extensive monopolistic policies Intel has employed for the better part of two decades. Does anybody here know how hard AMD had to struggle to break into the US marketplace because Intel was strong arming them so badly? They were nearly out of business...

Competition is great. Intel got VERY lazy. There is no doubt in my mind if AMD hadn't kicked their arse so hard prior to Core2 that Intel would still be lethargic on processor evolution.

Oliver

railven
07-03-2008, 10:24 AM
I'm not bashing, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. I'd love to see a recent review where AMD processors have outperformed Intel. That was the case 18 months + ago, not so now.

Oliver

AMD's better memory controllers are still handing Intel their ass in server hardware. The New Opterons have been spanking the new Xeons at some of the tests. Intel has made great strides with their Xeon processors, but they still don't flat out beat a Operton.

:eek: Why am I defending AMD, I'm an Intel boy!?

Alpha1
07-03-2008, 10:34 AM
AMD's better memory controllers are still handing Intel their ass in server hardware. The New Opterons have been spanking the new Xeons at some of the tests. Intel has made great strides with their Xeon processors, but they still don't flat out beat a Operton.

:eek: Why am I defending AMD, I'm an Intel boy!?

I thought we were talking about home/desktop kind of kit though.

I have to say i've never seen a pooped processor from either vendor either.

Oliver

railven
07-03-2008, 11:17 AM
I thought we were talking about home/desktop kind of kit though.

I have to say i've never seen a pooped processor from either vendor either.

Oliver

I thought we were talking about AMD and Intel in general?

Oh well, Intel RULEZ!!!! Too bad ATI sold out!

Pinoy
07-03-2008, 12:59 PM
Competition is great. Intel got VERY lazy. There is no doubt in my mind if AMD hadn't kicked their arse so hard prior to Core2 that Intel would still be lethargic on processor evolution.

Oliver
Undoubtedly true. I personally love AMD's, but I will go with whatever offers me the most bang for the buck and delivers what I want.

AMD's better memory controllers are still handing Intel their ass in server hardware. The New Opterons have been spanking the new Xeons at some of the tests. Intel has made great strides with their Xeon processors, but they still don't flat out beat a Operton.

:eek: Why am I defending AMD, I'm an Intel boy!?

It's that damn objective view of yours :lol:

kamspy
07-03-2008, 01:04 PM
Intel would fall into the same category as light beer rail.

Just so ya know;)

Pinoy
07-03-2008, 01:08 PM
Intel would fall into the same category as light beer rail.

Just so ya know;)

You mean it doesn't fuck you over the next morning :haha:

junehhan
07-03-2008, 02:48 PM
Competition is great. Intel got VERY lazy. There is no doubt in my mind if AMD hadn't kicked their arse so hard prior to Core2 that Intel would still be lethargic on processor evolution.

Oliver

That is exactly why AMD must not go bankrupt. Intel only got their act together when they actually felt threatened for a change. If AMD goes under, we can go back to expecting POS like the overheating Pentium 4's that underperform and are overpriced. Competition is a very good thing, and is the only thing that is currently keeping Intel honest, even if those higher end Core processors are incredibly expensive.

AMD's better memory controllers are still handing Intel their ass in server hardware. The New Opterons have been spanking the new Xeons at some of the tests. Intel has made great strides with their Xeon processors, but they still don't flat out beat a Operton.

:eek: Why am I defending AMD, I'm an Intel boy!?

Because you know deep in your heart what the path of light is, and what the path to darkness is. AMD has such a following because they are the company and underdog that we want to like. Some people simply hate Intel. Some of us simply like the underdog. Others look at how AMD has to struggle in an Intel dominated market that is bullied and extorted by the world's #1 chip manufacturer, and can't help but admire AMD's efforts in such a hostile market. Even when AMD was on top the last generation, they still couldn't really break into the more profitable sectors as they were controlled by Intel.

railven
07-03-2008, 05:04 PM
It's that damn objective view of yours :lol:

Well, I always try to see things from all possible sides, even if at times my fanboyness blinds me - I won't let that interfere with me offering advice to someone building. Haha, I try, I do, really.

Intel would fall into the same category as light beer rail.

Just so ya know;)

Intel makes you gay? Of course it does! Who wouldn't be gay if they owned an Intel. I'm always gay when I power on my Quad Core beast. Hell, I'm gay right now!

So I take it owning an AMD doesn't make you gay? I guess I can understand, with their lacking in performance and failed cores...who could blame you for not being gay.

It's all in the context:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay
1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.

Because you know deep in your heart what the path of light is, and what the path to darkness is. AMD has such a following because they are the company and underdog that we want to like. Some people simply hate Intel. Some of us simply like the underdog. Others look at how AMD has to struggle in an Intel dominated market that is bullied and extorted by the world's #1 chip manufacturer, and can't help but admire AMD's efforts in such a hostile market. Even when AMD was on top the last generation, they still couldn't really break into the more profitable sectors as they were controlled by Intel.

I remember the K5 and the headaches I had with matching it with compatible RAM. I also remember the DX486 I had from Intel and it always being rock stable, well at least when I compared it to a Cyris system and a K4 386 system. My Intel's always worked and I didn't have memory dumps on Windows either.

My fanboyness for Intel came from their reliability when I was first getting into computers. Of course, I didn't know the history of this juggernaut, and at the time Windows was king (course now they are nothing but a monopoly trying to control all aspects of our lives, but I digress.)

Anyways, during the NetBurst vs K7 days I'd never openly recommend an Intel for a PC as the K7's were better bang for the buck. But that didn't mean I didn't own an Intel or still preached Intel will one day return to greatness. I was also a hardcore ATI fanboy never owning an nVidia card, but then ATI got eaten by AMD and now I can't get any ATI love for an Intel based PC. And that breaks my heart...I still cry at night, especially with the new HD 4x00 series delivering strong performance. I'd love to get an Intel E8x00 with Cross-fire rig and two 4870s going.

But it was never meant to be. Unless...I buy an AMD, which until Intel dies or stops supporting third party GPUs, I doubt I'd do. [Note: I was ready to go AMD with my newest build but then the Core 2 hit and we all know how those fair.]

I ramble too much.

Pinoy
07-03-2008, 11:59 PM
So I take it owning an AMD doesn't make you gay? I guess I can understand, with their lacking in performance and failed cores...who could blame you for not being gay.



Now now... AMD cores don't fail, they're just slow compared to the current Intel lineup.
I'll be honest though, I do root for AMD: I do NOT want them to fade away, and the moment they come out with a chip that is actually worth a damn I will own one again.

railven
07-04-2008, 01:31 AM
Now now... AMD cores don't fail, they're just slow compared to the current Intel lineup.
I'll be honest though, I do root for AMD: I do NOT want them to fade away, and the moment they come out with a chip that is actually worth a damn I will own one again.

Hehe, just a slap at Kamspy's undying AMD love.

They don't fail when they leave the factory, but they do fail internally. Look up how AMD got their new line up - The Triple Core Phenom.

Hint, 4 - 1 == 3.

Hehe.

Pinoy
07-04-2008, 02:37 AM
Hehe, just a slap at Kamspy's undying AMD love.

They don't fail when they leave the factory, but they do fail internally. Look up how AMD got their new line up - The Triple Core Phenom.

Hint, 4 - 1 == 3.

Hehe.
Oh yes, I do know about that origin of the triple core. It's actually a great idea except that it had to be put into effect on a core architecture that's getting creamed badly. Let's say if the was a Core 2 triple at a decent price I'd consider it ;)

oleviarules
07-04-2008, 03:00 AM
Hint, 4 - 1 == 3.

Hehe.

you a coder?

edders
07-04-2008, 07:35 AM
like osmosis or something. The things janitors pick-up!

railven
07-04-2008, 09:03 AM
you a coder?

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...

Found it to be a tad too boring, left and am now a Lab Assistant. Weird how I went from looking over C++ and about to blow my brains out due to syntax errors (I swear when you're exhuasted and checking 1,000+ lines of code "," look like ".") I'm now stabbing people with needles.

Life is interesting.