Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (
More info?)
assaarpa wrote:
> > I'm sure you find them amusing, since you're so good at fanning them. So
> > answer the question, what's your "non-pathetic" way of judging computers?
>
> There are many factors to consider. I would say that for me stability is
> numbe one, second comes performance but it is very rarely an issue because
> the performance and responsiveness has been very good for years. Just
> recently I did try old Octane which used to be a "pretty strong" system,
> hmmm, I didn't remember Netscape took forever to start. On a *cheap* PC
> every chump can afford stuff like that haven't been an issue for years. That
> sort of difference is what makes or breaks it for me.
>
> Then I see fools bickering AMD vs. Intel where performance differences are
> of type: 22.0 vs. 21.2 "points" from some arbitrary benchmark, THAT is
> pathetic.
I wasn't bickering about that performance difference, I was making the point
that the AMD chip with that performance is $103, while the Intel chip is is
$210.
That IS extremely significant.
>
>
> Generally I don't "judge" computers like you guys do so the question is
> essentially meaningless -- see -- what is why I find the bickering
> *amusing*.
>
> > Are you now saying that cost and performance do matter?
>
> They do matter but when the differences are like $140 vs. $165 for roughly
> the same computational throughput yeah it's not really worth getting winded
> over -- ofcourse on this one I obviously go wrong seeing the thread unfold.
I was comparing the $103 Athlon XP3000+ to the $251 P4 3.2 ghz Northwood.
The P4 3.2 Northwood is the Intel chip that comes closest in Performance
to the Athlon XP3000+ in Business Winstone 2004.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6
That is a huge price difference! The AMD chip is only 41% of the price
of the Intel one.
>
>
> > Don't like fractional differences? Give us your lower least significant
> fractional
> > difference beyond which it is non-pathetic.
>
> Well, gee, lemme think.. the fractions or multiplies of performance
> themselves are not really relevant but if the job is getting done and if
> possibly as comfortably as possible for the user. If software starts without
> half a minute loading delay like it does on that old Octane (1 GB of ram on
> it! 2 MB of L2 cache!) that is on the "pathetic" side of the performance and
> umm, lemme think hard, if the software starts virtually immediately that is
> on the "non-pathetic" side of the performance.
>
> I'm trying to answer your arbitrary questions against my principles and
> opinion in general so you just have to do with the answers whether you think
> you got what you bargained for or not, you see I don't *care* what you think
> of my *opinion* but I do see that some of us here are very soft-skinned
> about their Big Important Opinions That AMD Is Twice The Value (heh-heh, JK
> claimed that P4 is twice the price of Athlon .. I'm assuming he means for
> similiar performance otherwise such claim would be easily proven true

>
> Blah blah blah.. so simple little thing and so much resistance, I guess my
> idea is Revolutionary since it gets so much resistance. Here's the idea in
> it's entirely:
>
> I believe that price/performance for Intel and AMD is roughly in the same
> ballpark and bickering about the differences is very closed-minded (at
> best).
>
> Good Heavens, what amazing statement! Everyone take arms and stand firm
> against such herecy! Our Self Importance is At Stake here!