New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kash" data-source="post: 388361" data-attributes="member: 23444">Ok, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion and mis-information in this thread.For starters, let's debunk the Intel=hot thing. Yes, back during the Pentium 4 days, Intel processors ran hot, more so with the last revisions because of the Prescott core (lovingly called the Preshott). The thing was just inefficient and suffered from major heat issues. However, Intel has revamped its processor architecture with the Conroe cores (CoreDuo/Core2Duo). These processors are far more efficient than their Netburst predecessors. They also run MUCH faster despite the lower clockspeed. They are also much cooler than the older Pentiums. One last thing I wanted to point out is jakeroberts' claim that AMD processors run hotter than Intel. That simply isn't true, at least it hasn't been for quite some time. Back during the Athlon XP days with the Thunderbird core, the AMD processors ran hot. But with the Bartons and then subsequently with the arrival of Athlon64 processors, heat simply has not been an issue with AMD's line of processors. In fact, this was touted as one of the many reasons why one should avoid an Intel Pentium 4 processor. Steve Jobs wasn't lying when he said the G5 processor ran too hot to put into a laptop. Like Giulio said, the things ran so hot that Apple had to water cool them. Also, IBM had essentially thrown in the towel for making chips for Apple since it was getting bids from Microsoft and Sony to build them chips for their upcoming consoles, which would have made them FAR more money than selling chips to Apple. SO, to conclude, the Core2Duo processors run both faster and cooler than the G5 processors <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification: Name this item 🌈