built for dx9 means it was created in mimd for dx9 and nuthin less

everything before that can use dx9 but it just doesnt use it as well

 

:nono:
the 9600pro doesn't run HL2 better than the FX5900...it runs at higher framerates only because it defaults to lower image quality.

I wish it did, that would make me very happy about my 9600pro purchase.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863

now the price difference is much bigger than the performance gap

 

my bad...I read the article wrong. h:

they had to develop a certain code to "cheat" for the FX5900 to make it run closer to the 9800pro...:chuckles: NVidia = wned:

 

damn... do us a favor and go back to your AMD fan board... quit misinforming pple on this board.

ATi's 9700/9700 Pro, was made for DX9 long before Nvidia went DX9. and the 9800Pro/9800Xt has busted so much owerage on 5900FX it isn't even funny. Run Aquamark on both systems and you'll see the difference.

Intel has actually done some good changing itself around, look at the notebook market, the Centrino technology did an awesome job for heat/power saving.. a lot more than what I can say for the mobile athlon 64. And no, its not a conspiracy, support for AMD sucks... you don't know what a bish it is to get any help at the ODM/OEM level. Both companies have pluses and minuses.

btw, DakarM ... dual 2400+ ownz j00 :fawk:

 

Stupid AMD activists. You do realize that Intel has had 64bit CPU's for a few years now? AMD's a n00b here and just running the hype.

Granted the only diffrence is that intel's 64bit cpu's are aimed at servers and AMD is saying that theirs is for desktops. Sure, whatever. Doesn't matter. AMD is, once AGAIN, behind intel by years.

I'll try putting it in some perspective.... last year AMD let out some sneak peeks that showed they are just a few years away from technology similar to Intel's hyperthreading. Intel already has this out for some time.

AMD said the highest speed cpu they were working on was around 6ghz.... Intel was already working on getting multiple 10ghz+ cores on one chip.

AMD said they are going to be coming out with 64bit cpu's, 64bit cpus have been around for years. It's nothing new. Just AMD's entrance into the game is what's new.

I rest my case.

Yes, AMD is cheaper. heh heh... cheaper. They cut corners and build quality and rebadge them so they seem like they are under estimating the speed. Bah, AMD has a LONG way to go to catch up to Intel.

 

geez, why so many amd haters? intel and amd both make great cpus. just cuz someone comes in here talking trash about something they don't even understand doesn't mean u have to bash amd.

 

i really want an amd now but i dun have enough money....i would get a barton 2500+ buh i need a new laptop
current desktop proc is 2.4C @ 3.0

it should last me a while

 

Actual the rebadging has been done by shady distros... we got stuck buying a bad batch and had to report it. Someone somewhere is screwing things up... so I don't think its AMD, otherwise they wouldn't have added holographic security to all their new chips.

Itanium doesn't quite run on x86 instructions... but otherwise yes, Intel was in the 64bit market a bit earlier