SS5_Majin_Bebi wrote:dwchang has hit the nail right on the head there. Intel wants to please people in the short term, AMD is more interested in long term satisfaction.
Hey hey, the stages still do stuff >_> <_<. The problem is getting enough instructions in to use them :\ Sorta >_> <_< something like that.
A P4 w/ 1066RDRAM & Hyperthreading is a pretty sweet deal. Cost effective- not really.
Also Intel does have SpeedStep technology in their processors, that in the VERY RARE case your cpu fan/heatsink die, the cpu slows itself down enough so it won't burn up. AMD still has the price performance crown tho :\
I would prefer to have the main pieces assembled. I know I can plug in a few drives, and the video card, but it's the whole mother board to case to fan thing and plugging in memory or what ever that freaks me.
SS5_Majin_Bebi wrote:O...k....jbone, if you knew your computer history you would know that AMD have been making chips as far back as the 486!! Ever heard of the AMD K6-2? My dad had one, it out-performed his equivalent Intel chip in just about everything.
jbone wrote:I read up on the architectures. I know what is inside each CPU. I know why one is faster than the other, and I know how I can get the best bang for the buck. There is nothing anyone here can tell me that I don't already know, or that I don't know how to find out.
I care about what I can do with the computer once it's built.
Neither an Athlon nor a P4 is any better at performing any of the tasks I'd want to do.
One may be a few percent faster. Hells, one may be significantly faster. But, in real-world applications, neither does anything that the other doesn't. And that is what I care about.
jbone wrote:SS5_Majin_Bebi wrote:O...k....jbone, if you knew your computer history you would know that AMD have been making chips as far back as the 486!! Ever heard of the AMD K6-2? My dad had one, it out-performed his equivalent Intel chip in just about everything.
I was talking about 1GHz+ CPUs, I wasn't talking about the CPU wars. Do not belittle my computer knowledge simply because you don't understand what I'm talking about.
And, cycle for cycle, a K6-2 was most definitely *not* faster than an equivalent P-II - I know because I used a K6-2/33 for a long time, and it was always outperformed by a comparable P-II in all my graphic and multimedia applications.
DWChang: I couldn't care less about architectures, about pipelining, about cache, about long-term expandability - a computer is simply a tool.
I read up on the architectures. I know what is inside each CPU. I know why one is faster than the other, and I know how I can get the best bang for the buck. There is nothing anyone here can tell me that I don't already know, or that I don't know how to find out.
I care about what I can do with the computer once it's built.
Neither an Athlon nor a P4 is any better at performing any of the tasks I'd want to do.
One may be a few percent faster. Hells, one may be significantly faster. But, in real-world applications, neither does anything that the other doesn't. And that is what I care about.
kthulhu wrote:The K6-2 was an "OK" value chip, but one could consider it to be nothing more than a really souped up Pentium-level chip (no offense to dwchang's employer). Hey, it's called the K6-2, meaning it's a second version of the K6 (AMD's Pentium MMX comparable chip), in a sense.
Still, not bad for the money compared to other chips in its league (especially the Cyrix ones). A P-II or Athlon of the time would've still pretty much blown it away.
kthulhu wrote:Now we're an all AMD house.
Return to Video Hardware Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest