Computer Science Canada :: View topic - Athlon or Pentium

Computer Science Canada

Athlon or Pentium

Author:	zomg [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:53 am ]
Post subject:	Athlon or Pentium
This is it! the final showdown between Intel and AMD which do u think is better I personally like AMD athlon's better for a few reasons 1)there more geared to play games 2)AMD realizes processor speed is not clock frequency 3)they make there processors better 4)Intel isnt releasing 64 bit windows processors yet thus screwing its customers for future 64 bit apps 5)AMD processors run alot cooler than Intels im speaking from experience, my friend has p4 3.2ghz while i have an athlon 64 2800+ 1.8ghz... benchmark shows that his comp is just %1 faster than mine and both were running 32bit OS's and benchmarking tool. i cant wait till 64 bit apps are released

Author:	Tony [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:
I hear that in a physical stress test - ie. throwing the processor against the floor AMDs are not as reliable.. but then again I've heard that from a frustraited, overworked and underpaid tech support person who was in a bad mood... so statement is unreliable as for your post - you did not make any points in favour of Intel. So why is it even an option?

Author:	zomg [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:
of course i didnt make any good points about intel because its an opinion answer, i dont like intel therfore i wont say anything in support of them

Author:	josh [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:
I voted for AMD beccause my AMD Athalon 2600 + at home is (from what I have seen so far) way better than the P4 that is in the dells I have at school. However I think for notebooks Intel might be better but I have never owned a notebook so I don't know for sure. I also like AMD becuase I really like the look of the 64 FX line and I am saving up to build a computer with one of those babyes.

Author:	Blade [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:
shadow master wrote: I personally like AMD athlon's better for a few reasons 1)there more geared to play games 2)AMD realizes processor speed is not clock frequency 3)they make there processors better 4)Intel isnt releasing 64 bit windows processors yet thus screwing its customers for future 64 bit apps 5)AMD processors run alot cooler than Intels actually, anymore amd is not the only one gearing it towards videogames. in recent benchmarks the P4 is quite comparable to only the socket 939 version of the athlon 64's .. however in most new games ony the FX is powerful enough to make the p4 look bad intel released some version of the pentium that does the same thing with the clock cycles... i think tony posted it somewheres as of right now 64 bit technology is useless.... everybody knows that intel WILL release it when it becomes popular enough... for the people that speak through Linux, that is still only the minority... all the geeks really used was amd in the beginning and still now thats all they use... intel makes their money off of the majority of people... as in the people that think numbers matter... so they wont go 64 bit until a lot of the software companies and gaming companies start putting out both 64bit and 32bit versions of their software... they might do that to cover everyone because that is what gaming companies are doing - as in releasing games in both cd version and dvd version.. (vhs/dvd you know the deal) the only reason that amd processors run cooler than intels is because intel's clock speed is much higher

Author:	Dan [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Also i blive that intel is doing a better job on the laptop front and amd has some cectching up to do there.

Author:	Andy [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:
pshhhhhh juss wait 4-5 months, then we see whos pwning the mobile field my vote = athlon only cuz turion isnt a option

Author:	Mazer [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:35 pm ]
Post subject:
Yay Intel! vote

Author:	wtd [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Other. My vote goes to the PowerPC.

Author:	Leftover [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:10 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Athlon or Pentium
shadow master wrote: 1)there more geared to play games 2)AMD realizes processor speed is not clock frequency 3)they make there processors better 4)Intel isnt releasing 64 bit windows processors yet thus screwing its customers for future 64 bit apps 5)AMD processors run alot cooler than Intels 1) AMD does own in that department (currently I guess), but I WOULD pick Intel for a photoshop or 3d design box any day. 2) The differences between AMD and Intel speeds are gay, but I believe AMD to be more realistic like you say 3) They are both manufactured in the same way, with the chip it self and the board that you connect your mobo to the chip with. 4) Their customer base will still be large with the professional world 5) Quite wrong, most AMD CPU's run 10-15 degrees C on average hotter then intel PC's. An intel 2.4CPU clocked 600mhz higher still cuns cooler then an unclocked Athlon. The professional world probably contains about the same amount of gamers out there, so both brands will probably be around for awhile.

Author:	Martin [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Athlon or Pentium
shadow master wrote: This is it! the final showdown between Intel and AMD which do u think is better I personally like AMD athlon's better for a few reasons 1)there more geared to play games 2)AMD realizes processor speed is not clock frequency 3)they make there processors better 4)Intel isnt releasing 64 bit windows processors yet thus screwing its customers for future 64 bit apps 5)AMD processors run alot cooler than Intels im speaking from experience, my friend has p4 3.2ghz while i have an athlon 64 2800+ 1.8ghz... benchmark shows that his comp is just %1 faster than mine and both were running 32bit OS's and benchmarking tool. i cant wait till 64 bit apps are released Bullshit. I love AMD, but for different reasons. Back yours. 1. More geared to play games? How so? Intel has its 'Extreme Edition,' which is specifically geared towards gamers. 2. Okay, and your point is? 3. Come now, your backing. 4. AMD released a 64 bit extension of the 32 bit x86 archetecture, for which I am extremely disappointed. Intel was trying to push a real 64 bit (and much better archetecture than x86_64), and AMD came in and added 10 years to the life of this already ancient chipset. BIG thumbs down. 5. Temperature is neglegable, and it has been my experience that Intel processors deal with heat much better than AMD chips. With liquid or compressor cooling though, it doesn't matter. When you are comparing your AMD XP 2800+ and a 3.2GHz Pentium 4, unless a few things are true. 1. You are using a fresh, identical OS install. 2. All other hardware that you are using is identical, and the drivers are the same. If this was true, the P4 would kill the AMD chip.

Author:	Leftover [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Athlon or Pentium
martin wrote: shadow master wrote: This is it! the final showdown between Intel and AMD which do u think is better I personally like AMD athlon's better for a few reasons 1)there more geared to play games 2)AMD realizes processor speed is not clock frequency 3)they make there processors better 4)Intel isnt releasing 64 bit windows processors yet thus screwing its customers for future 64 bit apps 5)AMD processors run alot cooler than Intels im speaking from experience, my friend has p4 3.2ghz while i have an athlon 64 2800+ 1.8ghz... benchmark shows that his comp is just %1 faster than mine and both were running 32bit OS's and benchmarking tool. i cant wait till 64 bit apps are released Bullshit. I love AMD, but for different reasons. Back yours. 1. More geared to play games? How so? Intel has its 'Extreme Edition,' which is specifically geared towards gamers. 2. Okay, and your point is? 3. Come now, your backing. 4. AMD released a 64 bit extension of the 32 bit x86 archetecture, for which I am extremely disappointed. Intel was trying to push a real 64 bit (and much better archetecture than x86_64), and AMD came in and added 10 years to the life of this already ancient chipset. BIG thumbs down. 5. Temperature is neglegable, and it has been my experience that Intel processors deal with heat much better than AMD chips. With liquid or compressor cooling though, it doesn't matter. When you are comparing your AMD XP 2800+ and a 3.2GHz Pentium 4, unless a few things are true. 1. You are using a fresh, identical OS install. 2. All other hardware that you are using is identical, and the drivers are the same. If this was true, the P4 would kill the AMD chip. AMD gears processors towards gaming, and Intel gears processors towards the professional world (photoshop, 3ds, etc). At the price of the EE Intel CPU's, a gamer would have to have one hell of a budget for a gaming PC...

Author:	josh [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Athlon or Pentium
Leftover wrote: martin wrote: shadow master wrote: This is it! the final showdown between Intel and AMD which do u think is better I personally like AMD athlon's better for a few reasons 1)there more geared to play games 2)AMD realizes processor speed is not clock frequency 3)they make there processors better 4)Intel isnt releasing 64 bit windows processors yet thus screwing its customers for future 64 bit apps 5)AMD processors run alot cooler than Intels im speaking from experience, my friend has p4 3.2ghz while i have an athlon 64 2800+ 1.8ghz... benchmark shows that his comp is just %1 faster than mine and both were running 32bit OS's and benchmarking tool. i cant wait till 64 bit apps are released Bullshit. I love AMD, but for different reasons. Back yours. 1. More geared to play games? How so? Intel has its 'Extreme Edition,' which is specifically geared towards gamers. 2. Okay, and your point is? 3. Come now, your backing. 4. AMD released a 64 bit extension of the 32 bit x86 archetecture, for which I am extremely disappointed. Intel was trying to push a real 64 bit (and much better archetecture than x86_64), and AMD came in and added 10 years to the life of this already ancient chipset. BIG thumbs down. 5. Temperature is neglegable, and it has been my experience that Intel processors deal with heat much better than AMD chips. With liquid or compressor cooling though, it doesn't matter. When you are comparing your AMD XP 2800+ and a 3.2GHz Pentium 4, unless a few things are true. 1. You are using a fresh, identical OS install. 2. All other hardware that you are using is identical, and the drivers are the same. If this was true, the P4 would kill the AMD chip. AMD gears processors towards gaming, and Intel gears processors towards the professional world (photoshop, 3ds, etc). At the price of the EE Intel CPU's, a gamer would have to have one hell of a budget for a gaming PC... any real proffesional who needs to do alot of photo or video editing will probobly get a PowerPC processor in a Mac.

Author:	Martin [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:42 am ]
Post subject:
I really don't see where you get this whole AMD gears towards gaming thing. Some evidence?

Author:	Maverick [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:48 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Athlon or Pentium
shadow master wrote: 1)there more geared to play games 2)AMD realizes processor speed is not clock frequency 3)they make there processors better 4)Intel isnt releasing 64 bit windows processors yet thus screwing its customers for future 64 bit apps 5)AMD processors run alot cooler than Intels Lets see you made up number 1,2,3,4 and 5 First of all what mainstream 64 bit apps are out anyway? And isnt the 64 bit processor coming out in the future when you say these apps are, so really its perfect timing. You have no proof for #1 or 2, and you apparently have noi idea how processors are made. And number 5 is completely wrong. Intels run much cooler.

Author:	Leftover [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Athlon or Pentium
josh wrote: Leftover wrote: martin wrote: shadow master wrote: This is it! the final showdown between Intel and AMD which do u think is better I personally like AMD athlon's better for a few reasons 1)there more geared to play games 2)AMD realizes processor speed is not clock frequency 3)they make there processors better 4)Intel isnt releasing 64 bit windows processors yet thus screwing its customers for future 64 bit apps 5)AMD processors run alot cooler than Intels im speaking from experience, my friend has p4 3.2ghz while i have an athlon 64 2800+ 1.8ghz... benchmark shows that his comp is just %1 faster than mine and both were running 32bit OS's and benchmarking tool. i cant wait till 64 bit apps are released Bullshit. I love AMD, but for different reasons. Back yours. 1. More geared to play games? How so? Intel has its 'Extreme Edition,' which is specifically geared towards gamers. 2. Okay, and your point is? 3. Come now, your backing. 4. AMD released a 64 bit extension of the 32 bit x86 archetecture, for which I am extremely disappointed. Intel was trying to push a real 64 bit (and much better archetecture than x86_64), and AMD came in and added 10 years to the life of this already ancient chipset. BIG thumbs down. 5. Temperature is neglegable, and it has been my experience that Intel processors deal with heat much better than AMD chips. With liquid or compressor cooling though, it doesn't matter. When you are comparing your AMD XP 2800+ and a 3.2GHz Pentium 4, unless a few things are true. 1. You are using a fresh, identical OS install. 2. All other hardware that you are using is identical, and the drivers are the same. If this was true, the P4 would kill the AMD chip. AMD gears processors towards gaming, and Intel gears processors towards the professional world (photoshop, 3ds, etc). At the price of the EE Intel CPU's, a gamer would have to have one hell of a budget for a gaming PC... any real proffesional who needs to do alot of photo or video editing will probobly get a PowerPC processor in a Mac. I'd pick PS and Premiere / After Effects for PC over Final Cut any day. martin: Look at all the reviews online, and companies like AlienWare >> "The Best Custom Built Gaming PC's With Athlon MP Processors!" >> "For Sale: Athlon FX-55 Gaming System" It's been pretty standard now to build PC's for gamers using AMD and for professional use using Intel.

Author:	josh [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:
well g, of course they are gunna say that!!! they want to sell you the friking PC don't they!!!! And the fact still remains that you might not like the software, I personally have never tried Final Cut as i don't have a mac, but ot my knowledge most of the proffesional world uses macs. However my point wasn't so much that a mac is better for proffesionals (which it is) it is that the PowerPC is a better processor then the P4 or the 64-FX (and I believe it is 64 bit also)

Author:	Leftover [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:
josh wrote: well g, of course they are gunna say that!!! they want to sell you the friking PC don't they!!!! And the fact still remains that you might not like the software, I personally have never tried Final Cut as i don't have a mac, but ot my knowledge most of the proffesional world uses macs. However my point wasn't so much that a mac is better for proffesionals (which it is) it is that the PowerPC is a better processor then the P4 or the 64-FX (and I believe it is 64 bit also) Yeah, but what are mac's really good for other then those few points? Unless you run Linux on one, the MacOS is pretty limited as to other applications you can run on it. Whereas a P4 machine for a company would be much more productive using Premiere / AE, and having the ability to use any other Winblows based software, whereas, without an Emulator, MacOS is limited to MacOS software.

Author:	josh [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:03 pm ]
Post subject:
I would in no way call the mac OS limited. That is just ignorance on your part. The only thing it might be limmited in is tha games you can buy on it but have you ever walked into an apple stoer? Most software you can find there in a mac compatable version. I would tottaly disagree that a windows machine is more productive then a mac, unless the goal of your company is to study computer crashes!!!! Go do some reaserch, most types of software you would want can be bought on a mac and it is just as good or better for the most part. -= waits for wtd to step on it and back me up =-

Author:	shorthair [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:
I hope you all know that Jobs cofounded Pixar , and since the beginning they have only used Macs ( a given ) and they have the toughest and most gruling movie making procedures in the world ( mabye aside form LOTR ) And dude ADOBE IS ON THE MAC ... also i have BF1942 , unreal 2004 and Rainbow 6 on my mac, THe power pc ises simplified instruction set which has one instruction per cycle , and owns any other processor in efficiency .... THe complex INstruction set that x86 is based on just cant compete , And how is MacOS limited , il agree when you tell me somthing you can do on your Windows machine that i cant do equally with the same or different app on my Mac. And then il give you a nice big list of what i can do on my Mac that you cant do under windows... GO UNIX

Author:	josh [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:
thank you shorthari!!!!! However I could not find that newest editon of premier pro (1.5) as a mac versoin, but there are many alternatives (after effects has a mac version).

Author:	zomg [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:
i wont deny that macs are the best, but for PC's AMD has it with the Athlon 64 4000+ and the athlon fx55, (fx57 should be coming out soon at 2.8ghz ) I will admit Intel is definitly killing the laptop department which reminds of this time i was a the sony store looking at their laptops, and this guy and his wife were beside me, and the lady says "o that laptop looks nice (centrino 1.7ghz, 1 gb ram) and he's looking a celeron laptop 2.5ghz and says that the centrino is shitty because it has, and i quote "less millahertz" lol. its great what some ppl make up just to look like they kno what there talking about

Author:	wtd [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:
Though I agree with most of what has been said about the Mac, a lot of it has a fanboy ring to it. It's just as important to know why a chip is superior as it is to know that it is. The PowerPC actually has a fairly complex instruction set. It's a RISC chip, but a very CISC-y one. Similarly, most modern x86 chips are very RISC-y at their heart, with a CISC layer for compatibility. The primary area where the PowerPC is simpler is in how it addresses memory. the x86 instruction set allows many instructions to operate directly on memory. The PowerPC ISA requires that operands be loaded into registers first. The PowerPC also has far more registers, and always has, meaning that programs don't have to target a lowest common denominator, making many of them unable to take advantage of the extra registers added to modern x86 CPUs. PowerPC also has a cleaner 64-bit migration route. It was originally designed as a 64-bit chip, and the 32-bit version is a subset of that. AMD and Intel may be relatively new at building 64-bit CPUs, but IBM is not by any means.

Author:	josh [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:
lol, that is the problem, as long as people are missinformed and unknowledgable (I think i just made that word up), companies like M$ will still dominate the market becuase that is what ppl think they know or are familirar with.

Author:	wtd [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:39 pm ]
Post subject:
shadow master wrote: i wont deny that macs are the best, but for PC's AMD has it with the Athlon 64 4000+ and the athlon fx55, (fx57 should be coming out soon at 2.8ghz ) I will admit Intel is definitly killing the laptop department which reminds of this time i was a the sony store looking at their laptops, and this guy and his wife were beside me, and the lady says "o that laptop looks nice (centrino 1.7ghz, 1 gb ram) and he's looking a celeron laptop 2.5ghz and says that the centrino is shitty because it has, and i quote "less millahertz" lol. its great what some ppl make up just to look like they kno what there talking about For x86 laptops, if they're not getting a ThinkPad, they should be looking at a Toshiba.

Author:	josh [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:
yeah, my dad just got a nice toshiba from work, huge widescreen, fast P4, it is just beautiful.

Author:	Maverick [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Eep AMD labtops are just gonna burn your scrotum.

Author:	shorthair [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:
Side note : Spotlight and Dashboard just put me over the edge and into hte Apple pit , anyone who is intersted in switching , take a look at Steve Jobs 2005 Keynote , its unbelieveable where they are taking OSX Tiger. BUt in no way am i an UBER 31337 LINUX HATE WINDOWS DIE DIE DIE I still have my XP machine , and Suse 9.2 on my laptop . Whatever your using they all have pros and cons. But for Processors , We seem to be comparing x86 to x86 to PowerPC Which is just unfair to start with

Author:	Leftover [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Oh well, you can't right click on a mac I don't see Premiere being existant on a Mac without right click.

Author:	shorthair [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:12 pm ]
Post subject:
ummmmmm i can right click on my mac......... so i dont know what your talking about , Why is it that people feel the need to jump into discussions about things they have no clue about , at least have some basic knowledge and dont go making huge assumptions pfft No right click But i dont see why you would need premiere , anyone here who has worked with FCP will be more than satisfied and if your not , you can move into apples Motion , but that is one insane app that does almost everything in real time ( ohhh yeah talk about minimum requirements )

Author:	josh [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:42 pm ]
Post subject:
what dso you mean as in real time? rendering as you go?

Author:	Leftover [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:35 pm ]
Post subject:
Well I wouldn't go that far as what you said... And I've met many more people less compitent then me comming from your side. (like people saying a geforce card requires minimum 1000 watt power supply...) But I have used Macs before, and I've never heard of right clicking on a mac, atleast without modification. Final Cut was a bad experience for me as I was always trying to right click but couldn't, and I was helping my friends on a project they had no idea how to do. I've never heard of Motion as my school... well every school that you don't pay for is damn cheap... There were a few features that FCP had that Premiere didn't, and vice versa. and yes josh, just like in a game you render frames in real time, so does Motion by the way SH describes it

Author:	josh [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:40 pm ]
Post subject:
I think you right click on a mac by holding a button on the keyboard and pressing the mouse, or you can use a standard 2 button mouse with the mac 9although you may need special drivers). I am sure that if you got used to using Final Cut and a mac you would probobly like it better than premier (Not saying this from exprerince, just there is a reason why proffesional studios use macs and final cut). Maybe I am saying this just as a home user, but I don't see the real advantage to real time, I know I am being ignorant but for me, I could walk over and read for 10 minutes while my little 5 minute video project is rendering.

Author:	Leftover [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Rendering in real time would be useful for Final Cut, as I noticed whenever I made the slightest change, even if it wasn't to the footage it self, it had to be re-rendered. Or if I did something, then un-did it, it would have to be re-rendered. Not a super huge deal, but was kind of annoying to watch the video, then be like whops gotta re render that part, watch, whops that part too. Oh and the mac designers picked a BAD spot for the PC speakers, freaking kids thought it was a button, all our G4's (I think G4, the tower one with seperate monitor) have the speaker puched in or completly wrecked. I was always kind of interested in getting a Mac as I was thinking of alternate career choices, and a Mac would be needed most likely, but wow their prices are so high these days... 2 grand for a used 800mhz power book, and I know the differences betwen ppc and intel/amd cpu's but still, that's alot of cash for a laptop

Author:	josh [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:
here is your answer to your mac woes

Author:	Leftover [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:
That's actuially pretty hot... Too bad the specs are a tad below average... 256mb ddr 333 is kinda pushing it, and a radeon 9200 @ 32mb? That's kind of rough. Sub total online for decent specs: $1,917.00 One of these days I will get one, just not today Edit: I also really like the design of the motherboard, looks like it's pretty much all in 1, no bus's aside from ram, must make it a lot faster in that fasion

Author:	josh [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:17 pm ]
Post subject:
if you search a little (or go to ww.kevinrose.com) I think you will find that it would be much cheaper to upgrade the RAM yourself after you buy it. From what I have read, it is not that hard to do, if you are carefull with it.

Author:	Leftover [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:31 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, their 1gb stick of DDR 333 was freaking $550 some odddollars, kind of crazy when (if it would support) you could get a decent brand of DDR400 1gb for around $300. I'd imagine it would be quite picky about which type / brand though.

Author:	josh [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:22 am ]
Post subject:
this was a link from the blog of a host on the tech TV show The Screen Savers (one of the old hosts who actually knows about tech) http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.asp?Mfr%2BProductline=Apple%2BMac+mini&mfr=Apple&cat=RAM&model=Mac+mini+%28G4+-+1.25GHz%29&submit=Go You may want to do a little more reaserch into it, his blog is www.kevinrose.com

Author:	wtd [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:
Leftover wrote: That's actuially pretty hot... Too bad the specs are a tad below average... 256mb ddr 333 is kinda pushing it, and a radeon 9200 @ 32mb? That's kind of rough. Except that you have to consider that PCs in the same price range typically come with integrated video which uses shared memory. The Mac mini uses 32MB of dedicated video memory, which will be a darn sight better than any integrated video card.

Author:	josh [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:
I don't think they had the mac mini in mind for high end gaming when they desoigned it. As much as I want a mac, from what I have seen , windows is better for gaming just becuase more developers focus on windows). The mac mini is for small video editing and other routing PC tasks. It is also to convert people to mac and they won't be as reluctant to try it with the lower price.

Author:	shorthair [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Litte off topic but a good debate I cant seem to understand why alot of people are saying " I can get a dell with better specs for like 50 - 100 less AND A MONITOR " Really people , look at hte design specifications , find me a dell thats 6.5x6.5x2 ( LxWxH ) and then i might listen but even then , how can you compare a Power PC to an x86 , ive seen numerous forums of peole saying dude " the mac is 1.25 Ghz and that dell is 2.8 " people dont seen to know what there talking about , and also the biggest thing is that a Dell cant run OSX these things make comparisons completly stupid , its not just about hte amount of ram video card and hdd size. Think of ergonomics , ase of use FLIPPEN COOL ASS BOX that its shipped in

Author:	wtd [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Of course not. I'm just saying that your typical $499USD Windows PC is going to come with 32MB of "Intel Extreme 3D Graphics" or such, and the vast majority of games want hardware acceleration, so there's a good chance the Mac mini is the best gaming PC in its price range.

Author:	josh [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:
you are probobly right about that, although I think for gaming you would need a different mouse, can't see using the apple mouse for an FPS game.

Author:	Andy [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:
man.. i wana get one of those with a 30 inch lcd monitor lol.. too expensive tho

Author:	josh [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:
I hope you are refering to the powermac, I don't think the mac mini will even support the G5 shorthair, I just watched the 2005 keynote, it looks really kool what they have planned for the future. I highly recomend you all watch it, (got to the quicktime section of apples website to find it)

Author:	Kyle [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:
ya iv watched some stuff on the mac Mini, looks cool and very afordable but if you want to upgrade internal harware for that "good luck" it will be hard to find the right stuff that you want and that can fit into it. "Biger is better". looks cool if i was not saving up for an Alienware notebook i would think of one of thow. pluse you can get some cool mice for macs to suport FPS.

Author:	josh [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:
I know you can get new mice for the mac, you know you could buy a nice powerbook instead of that alienware notebook..... Just for discussion sake, whta kind of notebook are you looking at right now? what processor type? EDIT: just found this article on how the new cell processor is gunna work, havent read much yet, but it looks pretty cool http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell0.html

Author:	Andy [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:02 pm ]
Post subject:
yea... the ps3s are going to have it.. quite interesting how the gpu and spu can help with the cpu.. and you can borrow processing power from a local network

Author:	shorthair [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:
About hte Mac mini parts The HDD is easily upgradable The Ram is easily upgradable Wireless and Bluetooth is a little more complex but still an easy task Optical drive can be changed in seconds its one of hte most accesable macs ever ( cube and powermac beat it ) and about hte mice , the mini does not come with a keyboard or mouse , and i have a 3 button mouse for it , all features work like a windows pc , i also have a one click that is just fine for most apps. Wtd : i wasnt trying ot get on your back , you jsut reminded me of hte stupid people who compare apples to oranges. Your point is more than valid Andy : the xbox 2 is using Dual Power Pc processors Everyone else : Keynote , look into Dashboard , Spotlight , Iwork

Author:	josh [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:
iWork and Dashboard look like some pretty neat new apps. Finder looks neat also.

Author:	wtd [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:25 pm ]
Post subject:
josh wrote: you are probobly right about that, although I think for gaming you would need a different mouse, can't see using the apple mouse for an FPS game. The Mac mini comes sans keyboard and mouse. Plug in any USB keyboard and mouse you'd like.

Author:	wtd [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:41 pm ]
Post subject:
shorthair wrote: its one of hte most accesable macs ever ( cube and powermac beat it ) The iMac G5 certainly qualifies as more accessible.

Author:	josh [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:22 am ]
Post subject:
Oh, I am aware that it commes without a keyboard or mouse, I would probobly buy one n e way cause I love the apple keyboard and mouse and it wouldn't feel like I had a mac without them. But I would probobly replace it to play games. Just a question about macs, when you do things like updates to the OS, do you often have to restart your PC? Cause windows you have to resart all the time and Linuxz rarely ever.

Author:	wtd [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:
josh wrote: Oh, I am aware that it commes without a keyboard or mouse, I would probobly buy one n e way cause I love the apple keyboard and mouse and it wouldn't feel like I had a mac without them. But I would probobly replace it to play games. Just a question about macs, when you do things like updates to the OS, do you often have to restart your PC? Cause windows you have to resart all the time and Linuxz rarely ever. Generally you reboot when doing OS updates, but not for application installs. When doing any major OS update with a Linux system you're going to want to reboot as well.

Author:	josh [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:
I was just wondering if it is like windows, for example, I installed Adobe premier, and it had to reboot, then I unistalled it, it had to reboot, then I installed it again and it had to reboot.

Author:	wtd [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:05 pm ]
Post subject:
If you're running Windows 2000 or XP you probably didn't have to.

Author:	josh [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:
I am running XP and I got the message, "In order for the software to be available, you must resart your computer" or something like that EDIT: I just read an article on slashdot that the prices for mac mini upgrades have dropped aread, the RAM upgrade two 1 GB has dropped fairly significantly and the price for a HD upgrade is much lower now.

Author:	brenn [ Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:10 am ]
Post subject:
tony wrote: I hear that in a physical stress test - ie. throwing the processor against the floor AMDs are not as reliable.. but then again I've heard that from a frustraited, overworked and underpaid tech support person who was in a bad mood... so statement is unreliable Eerr-- That 'person' would probably be me, wouldn't it? ._. Said processor was not thrown on the floor per say--merely.. uh.. dropped--four feet--onto a concrete floor. The Pentium survived. I've seen a pentium processor be okay after being completely squashed between a heatsink and another processor. On the other hand, AMD gave us little booklets on how to properly install their CPUs; including a section on handling the 'CPU Installation Tool' (i.e. 3/8" flathead screwdriver -_-)! The AMD athlon is much more susceptible to physical damage. Anyways, this is seemingly off topic to this thread now, so no more contributions from me

Author:	Blade [ Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:
haha, i found an interesting story comparing athlon to pentium in the gaming world http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/ can you say.... pwnt?

Author:	Genesis [ Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Ahh why isn't PowerPC an option? As previously stated, a processor superior to Intel and AMD, though for a PC, I would buy an Athlon. And I don't know what all that about not being able to right click on a Mac is all about? If you're using the one button Apple mouse, just hold Ctrl and click, or else plug in any 2 button USB mouse and right click all you want. As for the Apple keyboard, I love it, 2 USB connections and the "Command" button, I would never replace it. As for Premier, why would you want to use that if you have a Macintosh? Final Cut Pro is better in every aspect. Premier may be a Windows application that gets the job done if perhaps you don't own a Mac, but FCP blows it out of the water. Motion is a sweet application as well, I just got it, very awesome. As for wtd's post about the iMac G5 being more accesible, it's very true. The new iMac's are extremely easy to upgrade or add/change parts. And ya, for major OS updates you have to reboot, I installed Panther on some Macs at school the other day, but it was a fairly easy process. It's not like it's much of an inconvienence, how often do you update the OS anyways. For applications and such though, I've never had to reboot.

Author:	Artimes [ Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:
I have an AMD Athlon 64 bit in my system.

Author:	betaflye [ Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:46 pm ]
Post subject:
wtd wrote: Other. My vote goes to the PowerPC. Ditto!

:

You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy