Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jmac" data-source="post: 3635931" data-attributes="member: 545486"><a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/15/amd_radeon_hd_3800/page8.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/15/amd_radeon_hd_3800/page8.html</a>&quot;System Software &amp;amp; DriversOperating System&nbsp; &nbsp; Windows XP ProNvidiaForceWare 169.04&nbsp; &nbsp; ForceWare 169.05 (every GeForce under Crysis)ATI&nbsp; &nbsp; Catalyst 8.43 (7.11 beta)&quot;Like I said, I have both the 8800 GTS and HD 3850, they perform pretty d*mn close until you ramp up the resolution and the HD 3850 starts to run out of memory.&nbsp; Dispute w/ a certain administrator.&nbsp; Why would you want to go Intel if you&#039;re not overclocking ?&nbsp; AMD offers better stock performance for the dollar up to the 6000+ (The E6750 and Q6600 are better than their respective AMD counterparts and AMD doesn&#039;t have anything to compete w/ Intel&#039;s CPUs above that) and, performance aside, Intel is a bullshit company w/ sleezy business tactics.&nbsp; I&#039;ll still buy their CPUs if they&#039;re better for the applications and price, but if it&#039;s close or in favour of AMD, I&#039;ll choose AMD every time.&nbsp;The Pentium Dual Core E2180 overclocks like a mofo.&nbsp; Nothing wrong w/ it except AMD is faster at stock speeds and the limited cache makes it an inferior multitasker compared to similarly-clocked C2Ds.&nbsp;Umm ...&nbsp; There&#039;s a huge difference in performance between 2 GB and 3.xx GB in Vista 32-bit (not much in XP 32-bit, though).&nbsp; Also, considering there&#039;s more memory overhead for programs and services in a 64-bit OS, 3.xx GB in 32-bit Vista is generally going to perform relatively equal to 4 GB in 64-bit Vista.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jmac, post: 3635931, member: 545486"] [URL="http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/15/amd_radeon_hd_3800/page8.html"]http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/15/amd_radeon_hd_3800/page8.html[/URL] "System Software & Drivers Operating System Windows XP Pro NvidiaForceWare 169.04 ForceWare 169.05 (every GeForce under Crysis) ATI Catalyst 8.43 (7.11 beta)" Like I said, I have both the 8800 GTS and HD 3850, they perform pretty d*mn close until you ramp up the resolution and the HD 3850 starts to run out of memory. Dispute w/ a certain administrator. Why would you want to go Intel if you're not overclocking ? AMD offers better stock performance for the dollar up to the 6000+ (The E6750 and Q6600 are better than their respective AMD counterparts and AMD doesn't have anything to compete w/ Intel's CPUs above that) and, performance aside, Intel is a bullshit company w/ sleezy business tactics. I'll still buy their CPUs if they're better for the applications and price, but if it's close or in favour of AMD, I'll choose AMD every time. The Pentium Dual Core E2180 overclocks like a mofo. Nothing wrong w/ it except AMD is faster at stock speeds and the limited cache makes it an inferior multitasker compared to similarly-clocked C2Ds. Umm ... There's a huge difference in performance between 2 GB and 3.xx GB in Vista 32-bit (not much in XP 32-bit, though). Also, considering there's more memory overhead for programs and services in a 64-bit OS, 3.xx GB in 32-bit Vista is generally going to perform relatively equal to 4 GB in 64-bit Vista. [/QUOTE]

Verification