AMD Sempron ships

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> wrote:

>> OTOH, I didn't buy a G5 because that was too "expensive". ;-)
>
>I thought Americans are rich, average income is nearly $50,000 per capita,
>so even average guy could easily afford to use few K's in electronic gadget.
>With that income I am amazed that price is always the #1 issue in the NG,

Price is not "always the #1 issue". I think you'd find that quality
and stability is most important to most of us. As for the money, even
if you have it, you don't want to throw it away. Indeed much of the
fun of spec'ing-out a new machine is the choosing of each component
for optimal price/performance.

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:12:12 +0300, "assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net>
wrote:

>> OTOH, I didn't buy a G5 because that was too "expensive". ;-)
>
>I thought Americans are rich, average income is nearly $50,000 per capita,
>so even average guy could easily afford to use few K's in electronic gadget.
>With that income I am amazed that price is always the #1 issue in the NG, I
>take most participants are from Cuba?
>

Why spend more then you have to? , on anything?!?

Just because I have money doesn't mean I have to spend it like a fool
does it?

Ed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> wrote:

>> and stability is most important to most of us. As for the money, even
>> if you have it, you don't want to throw it away. Indeed much of the
>
>Easiest way to hold on to your machine would be not to spend it at all.
>Miniscule differences in price/performance in such cheap things like
>computers surely aren't very interesting issue?

Maybe not for you, but for some of us yes, it is interesting. I will
agree with your point, however, that the cost difference isn't great,
and that buying Intel is not a horribly bad decision.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

assaarpa wrote:
> It's pathetic when I see grown up men arguing that X is better than Y
> because it is 7% cheaper and 12.8% faster. Sure, statistically that
> would make a difference.. say, someone did buy a lot of 5,000
> computers the saving would be statistically significant. For a
> consumer the 7% price difference, for example, is not very
> interesting atleast in this price range (let's say $4000 top price
> for a PC compatible rig). The 7% is significant to the corporations
> that earn money doing this, for the consumer, *yawn*.

Okay, simple question, what's your non-pathetic way of judging computers? If
you're eliminating cost and performance, then that just leaves rumours and
uneducated recommendations.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Not if he wants to play Doom 3. A $160 Athlon 64 3000+ beats an $825
> Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE in Doom 3. The Pentium 4 2.8 C is a very poor
> performer in Doom 3.

I knew some idiot would mention EE, it just had to be you didn't it? That's
a flag-ship product which has only one purpose to exist, and that is not to
have a good price-performance ratio. If the comparison was made between $800
and ~$200 processor then sure, there would been a point. But such comparison
wasn't made, you pulled it out of your ass to make a point. Alright you made
your point: EE has inferior price/performance ratio.

It is still true, though, that ~3 Ghz P4's and ~3000+ class AMD Athlon XP
and 64 processors have roughly equivalent price/performance ratios and the
performances are neck-to-nect, okay, one application is 15% faster, some
other is 10% slower.. big deal! If you think anyone with a brain would
consider nearly $1000 P4 EE in the same class I don't know what to say about
the guy without insulting him.

Sheesh, Pentium4 EE... get a clue!

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

assaarpa wrote:

> > Not if he wants to play Doom 3. A $160 Athlon 64 3000+ beats an $825
> > Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE in Doom 3. The Pentium 4 2.8 C is a very poor
> > performer in Doom 3.
>
> I knew some idiot would mention EE, it just had to be you didn't it? That's
> a flag-ship product which has only one purpose to exist, and that is not to
> have a good price-performance ratio. If the comparison was made between $800
> and ~$200 processor then sure, there would been a point. But such comparison
> wasn't made, you pulled it out of your ass to make a point. Alright you made
> your point: EE has inferior price/performance ratio.

The $250 P4 3.2 ghz Prescott also has a poor price/performance in
Business Winstone 2004. The $105 Athlon XP3000+ beats it.
The $160 Athlon 64 3000+ outperforms it by a huge margin in Doom 3.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

>
>
> It is still true, though, that ~3 Ghz P4's and ~3000+ class AMD Athlon XP
> and 64 processors have roughly equivalent price/performance ratios

Not in business software. Look at Business Winstone 2004 for example.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

> and the
> performances are neck-to-nect, okay, one application is 15% faster, some
> other is 10% slower.. big deal! If you think anyone with a brain would
> consider nearly $1000 P4 EE in the same class I don't know what to say about
> the guy without insulting him.
>
> Sheesh, Pentium4 EE... get a clue!

You get a clue. All the Pentium 4 chips offer very poor value compared
to the Athlon 64 chips for those who want to run Business software or
play games. It is especially true for Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

The Athlon XP chips offer the best value for someone who just wants to run
business software.

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:08:58 +0300, assaarpa wrote:

>> Certainly! When you're *wrong* it pays to keep silent. There are vary
>> few excuses to buy Intel at this particular point. There are many reasons
>> to go elsewhere.
>
> $70 price premium out of total of $1600 for a full assembled system being
> the best reason that springs to mind. Certainly! That is a good reason to
> have flamewars over!

If you paid $1600 on an Inntel system *you* paid too much (which is the
whole point). I spent about $1100 on this Opteron system, complete with a
19" "professional" grade monitor. Ok, I reused the keyboard and the
secondary 19" monitor. ..and no, I didn't include the $30 I spent on the
KVM switch to reuse the Win system. And yes that did include my OS.

You just can't get it through your think head that there are better
solutions out there than what Intel is fobbing off. There have been for
*years*.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:12:12 +0300, assaarpa wrote:

>> OTOH, I didn't buy a G5 because that was too "expensive". ;-)
>
> I thought Americans are rich, average income is nearly $50,000 per capita,
> so even average guy could easily afford to use few K's in electronic gadget.
> With that income I am amazed that price is always the #1 issue in the NG, I
> take most participants are from Cuba?

NO, there are many here from Canukistan, but that doesn't change the
fact that your point is simply silly, even if it were true (it's not).
Even if it were, are you jealous? Perhaps you jetttison your commie
government and join us in prosperity. Go fer it!

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Judd wrote:
> Are you the unofficial spokesman for AMD? Why is this posted to the Intel
> site... just curious.

What Intel site was it posted to? I only see the newsgroups, which are
Intel and compatible in topic.

--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 04:38:11 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Keith wrote:
>> Only the impatient kidz on Christmas morning who couldn't wait for a
>> hammer. I don't see Intel racing for 6GHz (as promised) either.
>
> True, though they're still trying to stretch towards 4Ghz. Eventually, this
> entire Ghz thing will be a distant memory, after Intel switches over to its
> Conroe core (Pentium-M for the desktop), or perhaps *two* Conroe cores.

Yes indeedy (and that was my point). Reality sets in eventually. ...and
believe me it hurts.

> Anyways, technical management issues aside, now that Intel has got its
> 64-bit Xeons,

DOes it? DO they have an OS to run on? I thought they still had "issues"
('NX', DMA, and RA address size).

> and now that it's even evident that it's released 64-bit
> Prescotts, one of the marketing advantages of AMD is completely gone.

Really? Is it really AMD64 compatable? Interesting irony, eh?

> I suppose AMD could try to claim that it was "the original 64-bit"
> processor maker, which would sound great, but would be booed off the
> stage by people claiming everything from MIPS and Alpha to Nintendo got
> there before it. Then they might change the slogan to "the original
> 64-bit x86 processor", which would be received with blank stares by
> people who would ask "what in the heck is an x86 processor?" More
> factually accurate, but less marketingly attractive. Perhaps they would
> go for, "the original Microsoft Windows 64-bit processor?" Which could
> be challenged by Intel saying that since Microsoft Windows for 64-bit
> extended systems isn't here yet, by the time it actually arrives, Intel
> will be there alongside AMD. Ah the life of a marketeer.

No need to make silly claims. Just make sure Intel stays on the ropes.
They will stay there as long as they continue the Itanic wet dream. If
they announce that Itanic is dead, then it's time to sell AMD. ...unless
AMD buys them first. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 07:59:27 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
>
>>Anyways, technical management issues aside, now that Intel has got its
>>64-bit Xeons, and now that it's even evident that it's released 64-bit
>>Prescotts, one of the marketing advantages of AMD is completely gone. I
>>suppose AMD could try to claim that it was "the original 64-bit" processor
>>maker, which would sound great, but would be booed off the stage by people
>>claiming everything from MIPS and Alpha to Nintendo got there before it.
>>Then they might change the slogan to "the original 64-bit x86 processor",
>>which would be received with blank stares by people who would ask "what in
>>the heck is an x86 processor?" More factually accurate, but less marketingly
>>attractive. Perhaps they would go for, "the original Microsoft Windows
>>64-bit processor?" Which could be challenged by Intel saying that since
>>Microsoft Windows for 64-bit extended systems isn't here yet, by the time it
>>actually arrives, Intel will be there alongside AMD. Ah the life of a
>>marketeer.
>
> None of that matters. In the constantly-changing CPU market, what you
> did last year is irrelevant. All that matters is the performance and
> price of what you are selling today. I don't see any reason to
> believe that there will be a change in the pattern of the last decade,
> i.e. Intel, being the market leader, sets prices, and AMD follows with
> somewhat lower prices for any given level of perceived performance.

The big difference is that now AMD is driving Intel where they do *not*
want to go. Were it up to Intel we'd all be buying RamBus, 500MHz Itanics,
and whatever else Intel decided to foist on us. Now Intel is slit right
down the middle by AMD54. They don't know what to do (they've lost the
lead, but don't want to follow). ...a very good thing for the consumer.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:06:42 +0300, assaarpa wrote:

>> I hear the Cubans love living there too. Perhaps you should think this
>> trough before commenting again.
>
> What is the first amandment anyway? Any reason why should give a ****?


Perhaps you should educate yourself. ...you can start with Geroge's
article below. But assuming you're honest (a big stretch):

From the US Constution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Being from (apparently) the third world, you might note that while "only"
being the supreme US law, the Constiution is rather unique
in spelling out the fact that the government is a servant of the people.
The "first ammendment" is the primary basis of this otherwise upside down
power pyramid. The second is the muscle behind the first, in case anyone
forgets. I won't bother you with links. Any third grader can find a
gazillion sites with the entire text and well documented commentary.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Okay, simple question, what's your non-pathetic way of judging computers?
If
> you're eliminating cost and performance, then that just leaves rumours and
> uneducated recommendations.

There is nothing pathetic about choosing best performance/price ratio,
you're failing to grasp the point even though it was written in plain
English. I merely find flamewars which are about fractional differences
amusing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

assaarpa wrote:
>> Okay, simple question, what's your non-pathetic way of judging
>> computers? If you're eliminating cost and performance, then that
>> just leaves rumours and uneducated recommendations.
>
> There is nothing pathetic about choosing best performance/price ratio,
> you're failing to grasp the point even though it was written in plain
> English. I merely find flamewars which are about fractional
> differences amusing.

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?
Are you now saying that cost and performance do matter? Don't like
fractional differences? Give us your lower least significant fractional
difference beyond which it is non-pathetic.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> in Doom 3, it takes an $825 P4 3.2 EE to come close to

> In Business Winstone 2004, it takes a $1,000 P4 3.4 ghz EE

> Many games besides Doom 3 take a much more expensive P4

> the $210 Athlon 64 3200+ beats the $825 Pentium 4 3.2 EE

I see that you are obsessed about Pentium4 3.2 EE and Doom III, strange
fetishes but very little to do with the point presented. If you extrapolate
that I mean that 4-5x more expensive processor is necessarily the thing to
have you're sorely mistaken and this demonstrates how stupid you really are.
It says nothing about my intelligence, you see, I don't mention P4 EE and I
already replied to you why I don't feel that it is a relevant processor. I
think it is a niche product which is never meant to be a seller, Intel just
wants it in their inventory for PR value / bragging rights. If you want to
constantly talk about P4 EE, you're a moron.

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

What about the comparison of a $105 Athlon XP3000+ to a $250 P4 3.2 ghz
for running business software? Are the P4 3.2 ghz chips also niche products?

assaarpa wrote:

> > in Doom 3, it takes an $825 P4 3.2 EE to come close to
>
> > In Business Winstone 2004, it takes a $1,000 P4 3.4 ghz EE
>
> > Many games besides Doom 3 take a much more expensive P4
>
> > the $210 Athlon 64 3200+ beats the $825 Pentium 4 3.2 EE
>
> I see that you are obsessed about Pentium4 3.2 EE and Doom III, strange
> fetishes but very little to do with the point presented. If you extrapolate
> that I mean that 4-5x more expensive processor is necessarily the thing to
> have you're sorely mistaken and this demonstrates how stupid you really are.
> It says nothing about my intelligence, you see, I don't mention P4 EE and I
> already replied to you why I don't feel that it is a relevant processor. I
> think it is a niche product which is never meant to be a seller, Intel just
> wants it in their inventory for PR value / bragging rights. If you want to
> constantly talk about P4 EE, you're a moron.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Maybe not for you, but for some of us yes, it is interesting. I will
> agree with your point, however, that the cost difference isn't great,
> and that buying Intel is not a horribly bad decision.

Only thing interesting for me is that the prices keep falling and
performance rising. It is not interesting who happens to any specific moment
to be 'on top', buying Intel or AMD at this time is cheap and you get plenty
of power to run DOOM III as far as CPU is concerned even JK wouldn't find
flaw in that statement. Someone _else_ buying a P4 or Athlon* is not making
me think, or Goodness Gracious, go to the extremes of saying that there is
something wrong in the head for buying any specific brand.

I couldn't care less which CPU it is as long as it is fast enough, and if
someone thinks P4 2.8 Ghz isn't fast enough I don't think for him anything
will be. Sure A64 3400+ would be few tens of percents faster but if 2.8 Ghz
isn't fast enough I find it very unlikely fastest AMD product possible would
suddenly be enough. In this context the bickering about that is silly. Okay,
so that divx encodes in 13 minutes instead of 15 minutes.. dramatic
differences.. the stuff dreams are made of. 😉

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Just because I have money doesn't mean I have to spend it like a fool
> does it?

So you are saying everyone who buys Intel products is a fool? In that case
there are more fools than intelligent people in USA (in Finland btw. AMD is
out-selling Intel by a large margin, by your logic Finns are more
intelligent than Americans on average). I would think that is a very stupid
claim to make but hey, whatever you say.

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:44:35 +0300, assaarpa wrote:

>> Just because I have money doesn't mean I have to spend it like a fool
>> does it?
>
> So you are saying everyone who buys Intel products is a fool?

I won't answer for Ed, but I will say that for every class of
papplications except perhaps two (mobile and video streaming), yes.
Anyone that buys Intel is a fool.

> In that case there are more fools than intelligent people in USA
> (in Finland btw. AMD is out-selling Intel by a large margin, by your
> logic Finns are more intelligent than Americans on average). I would
> think that is a very stupid claim to make but hey, whatever you say.

I'm not going to disagree with your logic. Most consumers are fools.
We're trying to educate those who are a cut above the big-mac (sorry
George😉 consumers. Intel has been caught with their pants down for many
years. Indeed, so much so that they've lost their belt. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

chrisv wrote:
> None of that matters. In the constantly-changing CPU market, what you
> did last year is irrelevant. All that matters is the performance and
> price of what you are selling today. I don't see any reason to
> believe that there will be a change in the pattern of the last decade,
> i.e. Intel, being the market leader, sets prices, and AMD follows with
> somewhat lower prices for any given level of perceived performance.

If that were only true, i.e. price and performance were the only things that
mattered. In actual fact, it's perception that matters, and that's set by
marketing. The marketeer with the most money always wins.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Keith wrote:
> NO, there are many here from Canukistan, but that doesn't change the
> fact that your point is simply silly, even if it were true (it's not).
> Even if it were, are you jealous? Perhaps you jetttison your commie
> government and join us in prosperity. Go fer it!

Uh, that's Canuckistan (with a "ck"), we're very sensitive about our fake
name.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Perhaps you should educate yourself. ...you can start with Geroge's
> article below. But assuming you're honest (a big stretch):

I think I don't just plain care, why should I?


> From the US Constution:

A piece of toilet paper as far as I am interested.


> Being from (apparently) the third world,

Yup, I sure am, here in the third world we consider $1000-$2000 for a
computer to be peanuts go figure.


> forgets. I won't bother you with links. Any third grader can find a
> gazillion sites with the entire text and well documented commentary.

I saw a propaganda film the other day where they made ridiculous claim that
school children sing a song to the flag every morning in schools, incredible
stuff they expect rational people to believe!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> 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.

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.


> 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!

 

[jk]

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!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Anyone that buys Intel is a fool.

Interesting I just called Americans fools and no one got angry yet, at this
rate you will have restraint to not invade countries first and ask questions
(such as WTF did we invade in the first place) later.