Processor Question
Posted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 12:41amPage 1 of 1
Posted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 12:41amPosted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 12:56amPosted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 1:05amPosted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 4:02amPosted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 6:22amPosted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 6:44amway to buy into the hype-lie-bs-marketing...
Posted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 6:48amWell it has been true for ever, just look at every benchmark. AthlonXP's run at a lower clock rate but perform the same as Pentium4's at higher clock rates. I don't know why you consider that a lie or bs when the evidence is in every single review from every single reputable website on the internet 
However, the latest AthlonXP 3000 is not as fast as even the Pentium4 2.8GHz, as AMD is falling behind, their manufacturing process is old and their die construction needs reworking. They've used practically the same plans from 800MHz up to 3000XP
However, the latest AthlonXP 3000 is not as fast as even the Pentium4 2.8GHz, as AMD is falling behind, their manufacturing process is old and their die construction needs reworking. They've used practically the same plans from 800MHz up to 3000XP
Posted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 6:56amevery single review? from every single reputable site? since forever?
Where do you want to start? AMD broke off from Intel when the 486 came out. At the time, Cyrix was more compatible with the x86 instruction set than AMD...because AMD sucked...and overheated...and ran slower. This all followed through the Pentium I. By the Pentium II I will admit that they recovered from their previous failings in compatibility...
The benchmarks are complete bullshit. It is application dependent. Compiling on a Windows machine today is a more complicated thing than you think it is. If something takes advantage of the branch-prediction of an Intel chip and not some optimization in an AMD, then speed (within relative constraints) is irrelivent.
Most compilers take advantage of ALL Intel optimizations, but few take advantage of AMD.
I've owned 3 AMD chips...and I'm done with them...
The price difference is so slim at this point there is no reason not to go Intel.
The bottom line is that AMD will never be more than a reverse engineered Intel chip.
Where do you want to start? AMD broke off from Intel when the 486 came out. At the time, Cyrix was more compatible with the x86 instruction set than AMD...because AMD sucked...and overheated...and ran slower. This all followed through the Pentium I. By the Pentium II I will admit that they recovered from their previous failings in compatibility...
The benchmarks are complete bullshit. It is application dependent. Compiling on a Windows machine today is a more complicated thing than you think it is. If something takes advantage of the branch-prediction of an Intel chip and not some optimization in an AMD, then speed (within relative constraints) is irrelivent.
Most compilers take advantage of ALL Intel optimizations, but few take advantage of AMD.
I've owned 3 AMD chips...and I'm done with them...
The price difference is so slim at this point there is no reason not to go Intel.
The bottom line is that AMD will never be more than a reverse engineered Intel chip.
Posted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 1:40pmPrice difference? Slim???
From pricewatch.com:
Tbred 1700+ (1453 Mhz): $55
Pentium 4 @ 1.5 Ghz: $109
And yes, the Athlon is faster in this case, trust me.
By the way, the Athlon XPs have branch prediction too.
From pricewatch.com:
Tbred 1700+ (1453 Mhz): $55
Pentium 4 @ 1.5 Ghz: $109
And yes, the Athlon is faster in this case, trust me.
By the way, the Athlon XPs have branch prediction too.
Posted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 3:49pmPosted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 11:30pmPosted: Mar 5, 2003 @ 11:43pmPosted: Mar 6, 2003 @ 12:20am