AMD or Intel?

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 11 Jan 2007, 19:47

bradavon wrote:Talking specifically laptops are Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD's better? I've only ever seen AMD Turion's which aren't the best.

The Core 2 Duo. AMD have never had any partcually good mobile chips, too much power use. Core 2 Duo performs excellent as well.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Jan 2007, 19:57

I thought exactly that. Thanks for the second opinion.

AMD seems to stick with desktops. I need a laptop as space will be a major issue when I move out. I should be selling my desktop pc (AMD XP 2500+) in 1-3 months.

Unrealnils · Post by **Unrealnils** » 27 Jan 2007, 01:05

I voted intel, my core2duo rules!

Unrealnils · Post by **Unrealnils** » 27 Jan 2007, 01:07

what no mac lovers, wheres the linux love :drunken:

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2007, 01:09

Kurgan loves his Mac. AFAIK we have no Linux lovers here.

The Core 2 Duo is 32-Bit right?

Unrealnils · Post by **Unrealnils** » 27 Jan 2007, 01:14

Use unix for work, stable but much prefare using windows at home becuase of games and such......

Gonna have to get some sort of dual booting on my pc though so i can start using unix commands at home

Dont know if its 32-bit but core2dou is the fastest chips around

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 27 Jan 2007, 01:15

As far as I know, it's a 64-bit chip. Intel with the P4 had 64-bit emulation, but with its newer chips moved over properly. Plus, with MacOS X being 64-bit for ages, I can't see the Core2Duo being anything less.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2007, 01:17

Kurgan wrote:As far as I know, it's a 64-bit chip. Intel with the P4 had 64-bit emulation, but with its newer chips moved over properly.

I'm surprised to hear that. I thought Windows and 64-Bit had lots of driver issues?

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 27 Jan 2007, 01:29

I'm sure I've said this before, but it's Windows XP64 that had the driver issues, not the processors.

Games are the only reason that I would get Vista and this now depends on the games that come out, and whether or not they'd be available of the 360. For example C&C 3 - Tiberium Wars is due out on both platforms. I'm not sure if the 360 takes a USB mouse and keyboard, but if it does, there's no way I wouldn't get it for the console over the computer. Aside from avoiding the constant upgrading bollocks that goes with playing a game on a PC (which, frankly, after 12 years of PC ownership, I'm tired of), why would I choose to play a game like that on a (albeit very nice Sony) monitor rather than a big fuck-off 50" screen?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2007, 02:00

Kurgan wrote:I'm sure I've said this before, but it's Windows XP64 that had the driver issues, not the processors.

No you said Windows hence the confusion. They're one in the same as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to have a computer without Windows no matter how good Linux or Mac OS gets. I'm not really interested if it's a Windows XP 64 for or processor problem the net result is Windows drivers issues.

Which brings me back to my original query if XP 64 has problems with 64-Bit chips it means it also does with the Intel Core 2 Duo which is worrying and especially when it seems to be in loads of computers now.

Surely the problem therefore is exaggerated?

Having asked the questions loads of times I'm still confused whether 64-Bit chips work properly under Windows or not, irrespective of what is causing the problem hardware or software.

Kurgan wrote:Games are the only reason that I would get Vista and this now depends on the games that come out

Playing games hasn't even entered my head as far as upgrading to Vista

. There are stacks of other reasons that have though.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 27 Jan 2007, 02:40

bradavon wrote:No you said Windows hence the confusion. They're one in the same as far as I'm concerned.

Hardware and software are one and the same? O...K...

Which brings me back to my original query if XP 64 has problems with 64-Bit chips it means it also does with the Intel Core 2 Duo which is worrying and especially when it seems to be in loads of computers now.

Surely the problem therefore is exaggerated?

The problem wasn't exaggerated as far as I can tell; driver problems existed with Windows XP64, which never got a widespread release. Those that used it had some problems with drivers. With Vista, Microsoft should've sorted out the problems.
I can't believe you're looking for reassurance about the stability of Windows with current processors. From me, no less; someone who can only see one advantage to using Vista over other OSs.

Playing games hasn't even entered my head as far as upgrading to Vista . There are stacks of other reasons that have though.

Like what? Any specifics?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2007, 02:54

Kurgan wrote:The problem wasn't exaggerated as far as I can tell; driver problems existed with Windows XP64, which never got a widespread release.

Which reminds me you must be able to run 32-Bit Windows with a 64-Bit processor. Sony Vaio sell the Intel Core 2 Duo with Windows MCE.

The Core 2 Duo can't be fully 64-Bit as all but Vista 64 are still 32-Bit. I'm just trying to figure out if when I get Vista Home Premium on my laptop will I run into driver and software issues. I don't reckon I will.

Kurgan wrote:Like what? Any specifics?

I knew you'd ask that

. Most things listed in the original Wikipedia article tbh. Security, efficiency, new features all that kind of stuff.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 27 Jan 2007, 04:08

Now you just sound like a Microsoft press release (:)): "Yes, that's right, Vista is more secure and more efficient." Reminds of the scene in South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut where the general demands to see Bill Gates.

General - "Fucking Windows 98! Get Bill Gates in here! You told us that Windows 98 would be more secure with better access to the Internet!"
Bill Gates - "It is, with over -" BOOM!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2007, 04:39

I do don't I

. I can't remember specifics at 4:30 in the morning but there is definitely lots of new exciting stuff in Vista. There should be with 5 years code inside it.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 27 Jan 2007, 05:32

Exciting? Well, maybe. New? That's contentious. New to Microsoft, perhaps

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2007, 19:52

Kurgan wrote:New to Microsoft, perhaps

Ergo new to me and most other people. I really don't care if MS copied lots of ideas from Apple. I've no interest in what Apple are doing, not in the slightest.

Actually reading what's new there is as much new as copied ideas.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2007, 20:01

It seems the Intel Core 2 Duo is 64-Bit but will run on 32-Bit versions of Windows:

http://developer.intel.com/technology/intel64/

Surely that will mean it's running in 32-Bit mode if you will. What an odd thing to do, sell a 32-Bit version of Windows with a 64-Bit OS. All version of Windows XP and Vista re 32-Bit except for the one 64-Bit version.

XP 64 is based on Pro but unsure what Vista 64 is based on.

Surely that means all those Windows desktops and laptops out there which run a 32-Bit version of Windows are not making use of 64-Bit in the slightest.

From a PDF on that page:

"Platform Specifications for 64-bit Desktop Computing:

For 64-bit computing you need a 64-bit enabled platform that meets the following specifications:

* OS Microsoft Windows XP Pro x64*, or RedHat* and Novell* desktop OS’s that support 64-bit computing Drivers 64-bit drivers required.
* Memory 4 GB of RAM or more recommended for apps that can benefit from high system memory.

*Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others."

In other words all those laptops running Intel Core 2 Duo are running it in 32-Bit, especially as none have 4Gb of RAM.

Oh well seeing as Windows driver support is so buggy it looks like I'll be doing the same soon enough!

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 27 Jan 2007, 22:21

bradavon wrote:Ergo new to me and most other people. I really don't care if MS copied lots of ideas from Apple. I've no interest in what Apple are doing, not in the slightest.

Don't really care about your opinion, not in the slightest. Just pointing out the facts

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 27 Jan 2007, 22:28

bradavon wrote:Surely that will mean it's running in 32-Bit mode if you will. What an odd thing to do, sell a 32-Bit version of Windows with a 64-Bit OS.

Eh?

Also, doesn't this last section of this thread need splicing off? I'm pretty sure that the original AMD vs. Intel thing's been done and answered

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Jan 2007, 23:34

Kurgan wrote:Don't really care about your opinion, not in the slightest. Just pointing out the facts

How nice.

The facts that some of the aspects of Vista but certainly not all have been copied from Mac OS X? Yep I already knew that as does everyone else. It's old news, move on.

Kurgan wrote:Eh?

You knew full well I meant 64-Bit processor.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 28 Jan 2007, 00:15

bradavon wrote:How nice.

I was only using the same snotty tone you were

You knew full well I meant 64-Bit processor.

I had to be sure. You've shown confusion between hardware and software before

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Jan 2007, 00:22

Kurgan wrote:I was only using the same snotty tone you were

Snotty at Apple not at you personally, unless you suddenly work for Apple?

You've shown confusion between hardware and software before

Nope. You've shown confusion between my simple question of what I meant by Windows 64-Bit and compatibility issues, keep repeating yourself that it's a driver not hardware issue when I clearly said the root cause is of no concern when Windows goes with Intel/AMD as far as I'm concerned.

To get any deeper is symantecs when I've no interest (like most other people) with what Apple are doing.

Anyway I managed to find the answer for myself in the end that the issue is with 64-Bit Windows driver support so just put 32-Bit Windows (of some type) on and job done. Which is exactly what all the Desktop/Laptop manufacturers seem to be doing, even if it's far from ideal.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 28 Jan 2007, 00:26

Brad wrote:To get any deeper is symantecs

I suppose you meant "semantics".
You'll probably say it's another one of your famous typos.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Jan 2007, 00:32

Is that how you spell it? Seriously I've been wondering for ages. I knew it was spelt wrong but couldn't work out how it was spelt.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 28 Jan 2007, 00:34

Yeah, when people are talking about irrelevant stuff: it's "semantics".

Can't believe I speak english better than you do.

Bullets 'n' Babes

AMD or Intel?

So, which is it?