AMD models - any good?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

I'm looking for a new system,and considering switching from Intel to the new
Athlon64.I'm not into building a system,and from what I've found,having one
built at one of the local shops cost just as much if not more than the name
brands.Since Dell doesn't use AMD's,and every Gateway owner I've know had
major problems,that leaves Compaq/HP.Though I didn't like the lack of
upgrade options,my Presario has been trouble free for over 2 years
now.Anyone had experience with their new AMD systems?

 

[hh]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

While not exactly new (Sept 2003), my Presario S5200CL (a Sam's Club model
with an Athlon XP 2600+ processor) has been flawless. It's running 24/7 and
hasn't burped once.
HH


"Gojira" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:JPQ_c.4361$dC4.1031@trndny06...
> I'm looking for a new system,and considering switching from Intel to the
new
> Athlon64.I'm not into building a system,and from what I've found,having
one
> built at one of the local shops cost just as much if not more than the
name
> brands.Since Dell doesn't use AMD's,and every Gateway owner I've know had
> major problems,that leaves Compaq/HP.Though I didn't like the lack of
> upgrade options,my Presario has been trouble free for over 2 years
> now.Anyone had experience with their new AMD systems?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

"Gojira" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:JPQ_c.4361$dC4.1031@trndny06...
> I'm looking for a new system,and considering switching from Intel to
> the new
> Athlon64.I'm not into building a system,and from what I've
> found,having one
> built at one of the local shops cost just as much if not more than the
> name
> brands.Since Dell doesn't use AMD's,and every Gateway owner I've know
> had
> major problems,that leaves Compaq/HP.Though I didn't like the lack of
> upgrade options,my Presario has been trouble free for over 2 years
> now.Anyone had experience with their new AMD systems?
>
>

AMD is every bit as capable and reliable as Intel, and at substantially
reduced cost. The AMD 64, while not *fully* supported by Windows quite
yet (MS appears to me to be favoring Intel's position by delaying the
completion of the 64 bit XP), does run 32 bit applications significantly
faster than a 32 bit CPU. AMD is poised to eat Intel's lunch since
Intel is behind the price/performance curve currently being dictated by
AMD. See www.tomshardware.com and Google AMD 64 Intel for additional
information (much of which is mindless hype).

Q

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

"Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
news:qYmdnaf17Yjl6qHcRVn-sA@comcast.com...
>
> "Gojira" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:JPQ_c.4361$dC4.1031@trndny06...
> > I'm looking for a new system,and considering switching from Intel to
> > the new
> > Athlon64.I'm not into building a system,and from what I've
> > found,having one
> > built at one of the local shops cost just as much if not more than the
> > name
> > brands.Since Dell doesn't use AMD's,and every Gateway owner I've know
> > had
> > major problems,that leaves Compaq/HP.Though I didn't like the lack of
> > upgrade options,my Presario has been trouble free for over 2 years
> > now.Anyone had experience with their new AMD systems?
> >
> >
>
> AMD is every bit as capable and reliable as Intel, and at substantially
> reduced cost. The AMD 64, while not *fully* supported by Windows quite
> yet (MS appears to me to be favoring Intel's position by delaying the
> completion of the 64 bit XP), does run 32 bit applications significantly
> faster than a 32 bit CPU. AMD is poised to eat Intel's lunch since
> Intel is behind the price/performance curve currently being dictated by
> AMD. See www.tomshardware.com and Google AMD 64 Intel for additional
> information (much of which is mindless hype).
>
> Q
>
One of the things that has swayed me towards AMD are the reviews at Toms and
other sites.While the new technologies being pushed by Intel(the new
Prescotts,PC Express,ect.)seem to offer no real performance boost,and won't
perhaps for quite some time(at the cost of future hardware upgrades}AMDs 64
processors appear much superior in performance right now,with the 64 bit XP
said to be coming before the end of the year.And game companies are already
working on 64 bit titles.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

"Gojira" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
news😱f1%c.880$9P4.868@trndny02...
>
> "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:qYmdnaf17Yjl6qHcRVn-sA@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Gojira" <nospam@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:JPQ_c.4361$dC4.1031@trndny06...
>> > I'm looking for a new system,and considering switching from Intel
>> > to
>> > the new
>> > Athlon64.I'm not into building a system,and from what I've
>> > found,having one
>> > built at one of the local shops cost just as much if not more than
>> > the
>> > name
>> > brands.Since Dell doesn't use AMD's,and every Gateway owner I've
>> > know
>> > had
>> > major problems,that leaves Compaq/HP.Though I didn't like the lack
>> > of
>> > upgrade options,my Presario has been trouble free for over 2 years
>> > now.Anyone had experience with their new AMD systems?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> AMD is every bit as capable and reliable as Intel, and at
>> substantially
>> reduced cost. The AMD 64, while not *fully* supported by Windows
>> quite
>> yet (MS appears to me to be favoring Intel's position by delaying the
>> completion of the 64 bit XP), does run 32 bit applications
>> significantly
>> faster than a 32 bit CPU. AMD is poised to eat Intel's lunch since
>> Intel is behind the price/performance curve currently being dictated
>> by
>> AMD. See www.tomshardware.com and Google AMD 64 Intel for additional
>> information (much of which is mindless hype).
>>
>> Q
>>
> One of the things that has swayed me towards AMD are the reviews at
> Toms and
> other sites.While the new technologies being pushed by Intel(the new
> Prescotts,PC Express,ect.)seem to offer no real performance boost,and
> won't
> perhaps for quite some time(at the cost of future hardware
> upgrades}AMDs 64
> processors appear much superior in performance right now,with the 64
> bit XP
> said to be coming before the end of the year.And game companies are
> already
> working on 64 bit titles.
>
>

MS has announced a delay in XP64 until February of 2005. Intel isn't
ready, too busy with the problems of the new Prescott core.

Q