Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Technical Related


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-15-2003, 10:35 PM   #1
TalvaranRW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 155
Default AMD or Intel?

I just got a AMD Athlon XP 2800+ and my friend started ragging on me about not getting a intel CPU. Personally I have read some nice things about this processor on Tom's Hardware Guide specifically in combo with my motherboards chipset but anyways do you guys think AMD or intel and for what reasons because I'm wondering if i made a mistake.
__________________
I wish to die as I have lived: back against the wall, weapons in hand and enemies before me - Puffin
TalvaranRW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2003, 03:07 AM   #2
zechsiths
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Burnaby, B.C, Canada
Posts: 104
You friends an idiot... Alot of Motherboards wont even work with Intel anymore. I personally would get an AMD Processor above all. Espcially with MSI Motherboards.
Intel is just stupid now.
__________________
Zechsith Slowen
65 Ranger of the Tunare

I am the Crazy Ranger
zechsiths is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2003, 07:34 AM   #3
TheClericBanton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 503
Send a message via AIM to TheClericBanton Send a message via Yahoo to TheClericBanton
I use to be an Intel only person, even had a P4 but my recent upgrade went to AMD. I so love my AMD64 3200+, Its $100 cheaper then the P4 3.2Ghz and offers better performance

I have a Biostar Motherboard for my CPU and im having no issues at all! Not even with my ram (which many claim to have when getting AMD CPU's).
__________________
Banton BladenŽKerst
High Priest of Brell Serilis
Retired Member of Affliction
[EGBT]|MaguS| - [EGBT]
Click Here for a FREE Ipod!
TheClericBanton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2003, 04:20 AM   #4
Kerryn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Keren, Naboo
Posts: 1,030
AMD all the way.
Kerryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2003, 06:03 AM   #5
FanonFaythunder
ThreadKiller, Bitches
 
FanonFaythunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,874
Send a message via ICQ to FanonFaythunder Send a message via AIM to FanonFaythunder
Price Vs. Performance = AMD.

Absolute, Raw, Unhindered Performance (Money is no object) = Intel.
__________________
Fanon
Pinhead of Whit`s End

No, I don't play... except when I do.
FanonFaythunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2003, 06:11 AM   #6
TheClericBanton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 503
Send a message via AIM to TheClericBanton Send a message via Yahoo to TheClericBanton
Fanon, No offense but you are incorrect, Intel is officially slower and more expensive then AMD. With AMD's new 64bit line, both the fx and 3200+ cpu's are faster then the standard p4 3.2GHz. Even the P4 EE cant beat the AMD64 FX which is acouple bucks cheaper...

Intel will be behind in performance till they release the prescott next year...

I saw a HUGE boost when I went from my P4 to my AMD64...
__________________
Banton BladenŽKerst
High Priest of Brell Serilis
Retired Member of Affliction
[EGBT]|MaguS| - [EGBT]
Click Here for a FREE Ipod!
TheClericBanton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2003, 06:29 AM   #7
Kerryn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Keren, Naboo
Posts: 1,030
Sorry, didn't have much time to post before. Thats about the size of it.

I've always loved the "intel" factor. Theyve had the slower of the two chips for about 5 years now but their marketing has been amazing and has kept them on top. I have still to see an AMD advert on TV though.

The problem was that AMD were a) notoriously maintenance intensive with motherboards that needed constant updating and b) largely un-upgradable ( due to a change in socket size ).

The final problem was the heat issue. They do run hotter, they do need more cooling but somehow a good majority of the community decided hot was bad. It was not bad, it was high but controlled.

Once they got those problems sorted they were the better deal. Still the Intel had the hyper threading and whilst the chips were technically faster they still did stuff slower. So it's objective.

Raw benchmarks but the AMD ahead yet most users would notice a better system speed with the Intel.

The XP and MP line sorted it and the 64 blows it away.
Kerryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2003, 03:18 PM   #8
Azraelwrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 3,102
So then why does something like an AMD 2100 have a 1.73 ghz speed?
__________________
SOE Applicant: Here is my resume.
SOE Interviewer: It's half finished.
SOE Applicant: So are your products.
SOE Interviewer: You're hired.
Azraelwrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2003, 03:32 PM   #9
Ice Weasel X
Banned User
 
Ice Weasel X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,799
Send a message via AIM to Ice Weasel X
Raw clock speed isn't everything, Azrael.
Ice Weasel X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2003, 04:01 PM   #10
TheClericBanton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 503
Send a message via AIM to TheClericBanton Send a message via Yahoo to TheClericBanton
The AMD64 3200+ is clocked at 2GHz but has better performance then the P4 3.2Ghz, It's only numbers. You gotta look at the architecture.
__________________
Banton BladenŽKerst
High Priest of Brell Serilis
Retired Member of Affliction
[EGBT]|MaguS| - [EGBT]
Click Here for a FREE Ipod!
TheClericBanton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2003, 04:14 PM   #11
Azraelwrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 3,102
Ok I think I get it now.
__________________
SOE Applicant: Here is my resume.
SOE Interviewer: It's half finished.
SOE Applicant: So are your products.
SOE Interviewer: You're hired.
Azraelwrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2003, 06:01 AM   #12
Kerryn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Keren, Naboo
Posts: 1,030
And that ladies and gentlemen is a classic example of why AMD are the losers in a battle they should be winning.

Banton - The 3200 isnt rated at 2gig. It's 2.2ghz yet the equivalent intel is rated at 3.2.ghz. My bus speed is 400mhz but Intels is 800mhz.

Where do you think the uneducated buyer is going to go?

AMD need to get their shit together in this respect.
Kerryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2003, 06:19 AM   #13
Muertissimo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 1,264
Send a message via AIM to Muertissimo
AMD need to get their shit together in this respect.
That's very true. I just purchased a 2800+ last weekend, when I was initially doing research on it I came across the fact that it only runs at a little over 2 ghz. It had been a while since I kept up on the happenings in the processor industry so obviously I was pretty perplexed. I had to ask some friends and do a little research on that aspect before I was convinced I was making the right choice in AMD (again ).

They really need to work on the marketing aspect of it to let people know the difference (instead of trying to hide the fact by naming their chips 2800, 2600, etc.) Up until then I had thought the number designation was the speed of the chip, which is probably what they were going for to lure the uneducated buyers. Personally I think they'd be better off making the discrepancy known so people know the difference. But then again, I suck at sales so who knows
__________________
Muertissimo Drachmarr
Pain Dread Blood Lord......Thingy
Proud member of Greylords
Greylords EQ2 too!
Retired member of
Midnight Fury (r.i.p.)


"And I looked, and behold a pale horse. And his name that sat upon him was Death, and Hell followed with him."--Revelation 6:8
"Your greatest creation, is the life you lead."
Muertissimo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2003, 06:21 AM   #14
TheClericBanton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 503
Send a message via AIM to TheClericBanton Send a message via Yahoo to TheClericBanton
No the AMD64 is rated at 2GHz, dont try to tell me otherwise because its in my machine...

From Sandra..

SiSoftware Sandra

Processor
Model : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3200+
Speed : 2.00GHz
Model Number : 3200 (estimated)
Performance Rating : PR2999 (estimated)
Type : Standard
Package : FC ”PGA754
Multiplier : 10/1x
Minimum/Maximum Multiplier : 10/1x / 10/1x
Generation : G8
Name : M4 Athlon 64 (K8 ClawHammer) 1.4GHz+ 1.45-1.55V
Revision/Stepping : 4 / 8 (10A)
Stepping Mask : SH7-C0
Core Voltage Rating : 1.500V
Min/Max Core Voltage : 1.500V / 1.550V
Maximum Physical / Virtual Addressing : 40-bit / 48-bit

Co-Processor (FPU)
Type : Built-in
Revision/Stepping : 4 / 8 (10A)

Processor Cache(s)
Internal Data Cache : 64kB Synchronous Write-Back (2-way, 64 byte line size)
Internal Instruction Cache : 64kB Synchronous Write-Back (2-way, 64 byte line size)
L2 On-board Cache : 1024kB ECC Synchronous Write-Back (16-way, 64 byte line size)
L2 Cache Multiplier : 1/1x (1999MHz)

Upgradeability
Socket/Slot : Socket A
Upgrade Interface : ZIF Socket
Supported Speed(s) : 2.00GHz+

Environment Monitor 1
Model : Winbond W83697HF ISA
Version : 6.00
Mainboard Specific Support : No

Power Rating(s)
CPU Core Power : 90W (estimated)

Sensors
CPU Temperature : 36.0°C / 96.8°F td
Auto Fan Speed Control : No
CPU Fan Speed : 3125rpm
CPU Voltage : 1.50V

Features
FPU - Co-Processor Built-in : Yes
VME - Virtual Mode Extensions : Yes
DE - Debugging Extension : Yes
PSE - Page Size Extension : Yes
TSC - Time Stamp Counter : Yes
MSR - Model Specific Registers : Yes
PAE - Physical Address Extension : Yes
MCE - Machine Check Exception : Yes
CX8 - Compare & Exchange Instruction : Yes
APIC - Local APIC Built-in : Yes
SEP - Fast System Call : Yes
MTRR - Memory Type Range Registers : Yes
PGE - Page Global Enable : Yes
MCA - Machine Check Architecture : Yes
PAT - Page Attribute Table : Yes
PSE36 - 36-bit Page Size Extension : Yes
PSN - Unique Serial Number : No
CLF - Cache Line Flush Support : Yes
DS - Debug Trace & EMON Store : No
ACPI - Software Clock Control : No
MMX Technology : Yes
FXSR - Fast Float Save & Restore : Yes
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SS - Self Snoop : No
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
TM - Thermal Monitor : No
SBF - Signal Break on FERR : No
IA-64 Technology : No
SSE3 Technology : No
MON - Monitor/MWait : No
DSCPL - CPL qualified Debug Store : No
TM2 - Thermal Monitor 2 : No
EST - Enhanced SpeedStep Technology : No
CID - Context ID : No
DAZ - Denormals Are Zero : Yes

Extended Features
SYCR - Extended Fast System Call : Yes
EMMX - Extended MMX Technology : Yes
3DNow! Technology : Yes
Extended 3DNow! Technology : Yes
NX - No-execute Page Protection : Yes
AMD64 Technology : Yes

Power Management Features
STC - Software Thermal Control : No
TM - Thermal Monitor : No
TTP - Thermal Trip : Yes
VID - Voltage Control : Yes
FID - Frequency Control : Yes
TS - Thermal Sensor Built-in : Yes

Advanced Settings
System Ack Limit : 1 request(s)
System Victim Limit : 0 request(s)
Extended MTRR Types : Yes
I/O Type Range Registers : Yes
Top of Memory : 40000000 (1024MB)
__________________
Banton BladenŽKerst
High Priest of Brell Serilis
Retired Member of Affliction
[EGBT]|MaguS| - [EGBT]
Click Here for a FREE Ipod!
TheClericBanton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2003, 11:27 PM   #15
FanonFaythunder
ThreadKiller, Bitches
 
FanonFaythunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,874
Send a message via ICQ to FanonFaythunder Send a message via AIM to FanonFaythunder
I wasn't counting the FX64's because they're not really available in quantity right now.

They are the (arguably, and barely) dominant chip right now, but it's pretty much paperware.

Also, I believe the P4 EE's can be slapped into a current intel chipset (I'm not boned up on their current numbering schemes) motherboard whereas the 64's require a whole new chipset.

I'm personally an AMD fan. Both of my rigs are AMD, and so is my brother's. I have a 2800+ (Running it as a 3200+) in one box and a 2200+ in the other.

(edited because Muert already mentioned the marketing tactic)

The real trick is that AMD CPU's do more work per-clock cycle than intel chips, hence why they get away with such low clock speeds. It would take a complete redesign of AMD's core technology to match their clocks MHz-for-MHz with intel, and that could easily spell doom for a company already having financial issues.

In the end, we'd likely not get much performance boost out of it, either, because in order to get that level of clock frequencies, they'd have to reduce the amount of 'work' the chip does per cycle... so in the end we'd be right back where we started, with a CPU that does a little more than an equivalently-rated into chip, but with the same Mhz rating.

What would be fun to see are some brute-force AMD chips. High-output high-pin count Barton cores clocked at 3Ghz or more... AMD seems to have their efficiency down, now we just need some raw power
__________________
Fanon
Pinhead of Whit`s End

No, I don't play... except when I do.

Last edited by FanonFaythunder; 11-21-2003 at 11:35 PM.
FanonFaythunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 12:55 PM   #16
Tuan00Dorf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,224
Alot of Motherboards wont even work with Intel anymore
..................... wow, you might want to stay out of the techincal forum.

Fanon, No offense but you are incorrect, Intel is officially slower and more expensive then AMD. With AMD's new 64bit line, both the fx and 3200+ cpu's are faster then the standard p4 3.2GHz. Even the P4 EE cant beat the AMD64 FX which is acouple bucks cheaper...

Intel will be behind in performance till they release the prescott next year...

I saw a HUGE boost when I went from my P4 to my AMD64...
Intel is officially slower and more expensive? Wow I must have missed that declaration. Just where are you getting that from?

There is fairly negligable difference between AMD and Intel when you are looking at anything close to higher end chips. They both have their tradeoffs, and that crap about AMD being so much cheaper is not true anymore. If you are going to say it is, just try and back it up with benchmarks and prices.

Take a look through the AnandTech review http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=1 which has many different performance tests. Do you see the AMD 64 FX, AMD 64, or Athlon XP 3200 consistent beating the Intel 3.2EE/C or 3.0C? No, you won't. They are all over the place and go back and forth between varios benchmarks, all generally very close. Not even taking in account the price differences, which Intel has the cheapest chip on that benchmark (3.0C).

The FX at $731 & P4 EE at some similarly high price aren't even really relevant to comparing anything else. That is way way out of 99% of peoples ranges just for a CPU.

I so love my AMD64 3200+, Its $100 cheaper then the P4 3.2Ghz and offers better performance
Actually they are just about the same price, and the AMD64 does not offer better performance overall.

Now let's look at prices, these are popped from pricewatch.com and the cheapest showing for each type.

Athlon 64 FX: $731
Athlon 64 3200: $399
Athlon XP 3200: $333

Intel P4 3.2C: $391
Intel P4 3.0C: $265

You can even drop a step lower in Intel and look at the P4 2.8C for $208. The comparable price is Athlon XP 3000 for $207, yet hop down to the next review and you'll see the P4 2.8C is consistently better than even the XP 3200+.

Going by those numbers, I say that currently Intel is less expensive for better performance, especially when looking at an average price range someone wants to spend for a CPU of ~$200.

Check out these benchmarks for more medium end Intel and AMD http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834

You'll see the P4 2.8C+ is consistently above the Athlon XP's. Hmm, 2.8C @ $208 vs. XP 3200+ at $333 when the 2.8C has better performance, with HT and you can throw it on a dual channel 400mhz bus. Decisions decisions eh?

All I'm trying to get at is you guys sitting here claiming that AMD is some god over Intel holds absolutly no water. I don't want to sit here and debate AMD vs. Intel back and forth, so I won't respond to anything like that. I just wish people would stop telling someone who asks a question of AMD vs. Intel that one is always 100% better than the other. That is not the case, and you are saying things that are just plain wrong.

No one either bothered to ask TalvaranRW the obvious and only relevant questions. How much did he buy the AMD Athlon XP 2800+ for, what intel processor does his friend have and how much did that cost? When did each of them buy their processors?

If you feel like answering those TalvaranRW, then I could let you know if you could have gotten a little better deal. But the answer will probably be that for the price you paid you got a good deal.
__________________
Tuan {Cupcakes} the Vicar
Tuan00Dorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 01:40 PM   #17
Ojuillean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 350
Tuan makes me hot.
__________________
Hunter Ojuillean Masque
Forest Stalker
Ojuillean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2003, 04:51 PM   #18
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
I personally prefer Intel chips ever since my old AMD K6-2 had serious lockup issues with EQ. I zoned into ShadowHaven on Luclin's release date...

I like Intel better anyway. I've had better compatability with addons (thinking video cards and network cards here). The only thing that really gets me excited about AMD is the new 64-bit chip. From a technical perspective, that's the next generation in CPU technology. In theory it can run at half the speed (in GHz) of a comparable 32-bit chip, but get the same "work" done. That's not entirely the case as various other factors comfound it (bus speeds, RAM, etc., but it's a very enticing prospect.

I'm not sure about Intel 64-bit chips and their availability, but I have seen more talk about the AMD64 so I'm assuming it's either more common or more affordable. I'd stick with a 3.2GHz P4 for the time being. It's rarely beneficial to the home computer user to be on the bleeding edge of new technology like that. Let it get established, resolve compatability issues, and become more price-efficient. Then, splurge in the glory of a 64-bit system

It's the same reason I choose NVidia over ATI, Windows over Linux. Sure, there may be advantages to using the other brands of technology, especially if you're computer savvy (I am). But I don't like being hassled with incompatability, and razor-thin advantages in benchmark scores aren't as alluring as smooth performance in anything I can think of. Modern software is generally designed to be 100% compatable with the more common systems; you don't see many Mac games, simply because Mac only accounts for a minority % of computer users. That's just an example, but you get my point. AMD will have more unresolved software problems in general just because of the technology. And it's probably true that most issues, even in older chips, remain unresolved. It's more profitable to create newer, faster chips than to go back and make sure your existing ones work well. And software is best designed to take full advantage of "new" technology. No matter that it may be obsolete or outdated in a few months.

What am I trying to say here, I'm not exactly sure. But I'll stick with my P4. 64-bit is attractive, but not $700 attractive
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2003, 03:32 AM   #19
FanonFaythunder
ThreadKiller, Bitches
 
FanonFaythunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,874
Send a message via ICQ to FanonFaythunder Send a message via AIM to FanonFaythunder
Intel's 64-bit chips are almost undeard of because they are strictly server parts. AMD 64's are designed for all applications.
__________________
Fanon
Pinhead of Whit`s End

No, I don't play... except when I do.
FanonFaythunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2003, 09:46 AM   #20
Kerryn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Keren, Naboo
Posts: 1,030
Tuan. He's not asking those questions and we're not giving him those answers. He wants to know what we prefer and why.

Do you think he really wants to answer how much he paid for his CPU so you can tell him he could have got that model or one similar for $50 less?

Benchmarks to me aren't the only thing that make me choose a component. It's ease of installation, it's customer service, and it's the general attitude of the company involved.

For as long as I can remember Intel have had in my eyes an inferior product in practical terms. You can take all the benchmarks you want but when you have hundreds of customers explaining that their Intel processor is causing them grief, or returning them because they broke them on the install and getting no help from Intel you'll understand those decisions. When you have people explaining to you day in day out that their machine locks up when they try to do x yet all the machines in the office with AMD can do it flawlessly every time, then you might see where I'm coming from.

Now I do consider myself out of the loop to some extent in that I took a huge career decision 4 years ago and got out of retail computing and things may have changed but I still put together rigs for various people and I still have a preference.

I really like your theory but my experience is what tells me then when someone snaps out the question AMD or Intel I say AMD.
Kerryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2003, 10:39 AM   #21
FanonFaythunder
ThreadKiller, Bitches
 
FanonFaythunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,874
Send a message via ICQ to FanonFaythunder Send a message via AIM to FanonFaythunder
AMD
Go for: Any in the K-7 Series or newer. (Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon MP, Athlon64)

Avoid: K6-2 or older, but why you'd be looking at them I have no idea. If you want to overclock, avoid Thoroughbred/Palomino cores in favor of Barton cores.

Intel
Go for: Anything Pentium 3-4 including EE.

Avoid: Celeron. Celeron has been gimped to hell. The days of this OC-able value beast are long over.
__________________
Fanon
Pinhead of Whit`s End

No, I don't play... except when I do.
FanonFaythunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2003, 12:20 PM   #22
Abrucx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 854
Avoid: K6-2 or older, but why you'd be looking at them I have no idea. If you want to overclock, avoid Thoroughbred/Palomino cores in favor of Barton cores.
Tbred B's are good for overclocking. Bartons are good too, but the newest ones are now multiplier locked.
__________________
"On the edge of paradise, tears of woe fall cold as ice. Hear my cry. Renounce, have you, thy name. Eternal is the pain. Eternal is the pain that leads me to the thrones of temptation."
Abrucx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2003, 06:15 PM   #23
TheClericBanton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 503
Send a message via AIM to TheClericBanton Send a message via Yahoo to TheClericBanton
While your post is good why did you bring up a comparison between AMD XP and P4 3.2 when I was comparing the 64bit version... The benchmark you posted had NOTHING to do with the AMD64's.

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0LDE=

Theres a good comparison between all the top AMD's vs the Top Intels.

Man, am I the only one who isn't getting confused that the AM64 3200 and the AMD 3200 XP are NOT the same CPU? Shheeesh
__________________
Banton BladenŽKerst
High Priest of Brell Serilis
Retired Member of Affliction
[EGBT]|MaguS| - [EGBT]
Click Here for a FREE Ipod!
TheClericBanton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2003, 09:59 PM   #24
FanonFaythunder
ThreadKiller, Bitches
 
FanonFaythunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,874
Send a message via ICQ to FanonFaythunder Send a message via AIM to FanonFaythunder
If you're going to compare the new FX64's to anything, it needs to be the new intel "Extreme Edition" line, which intel is touting as their direct competition to the Athlon64's. You'll notice very similar pricing between the two (Read: build a system for the price of a decent used car)
__________________
Fanon
Pinhead of Whit`s End

No, I don't play... except when I do.
FanonFaythunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2003, 05:30 AM   #25
Kerryn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Keren, Naboo
Posts: 1,030
“Man, am I the only one who isn't getting confused that the AM64 3200 and the AMD 3200 XP are NOT the same CPU? Shheeesh”

Seems that way. I’ll be honest and say I was getting the two confused hence my post that the 3200 is rated at 2.2gig as the XP is.

It kind of highlights the flaw in their marketing plan that as the processors get more expensive they decrease in clock speed.
Kerryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:13 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.