AMD Sempron ships

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Even if it were, are you jealous? Perhaps you jetttison your commie
> government and join us in prosperity. Go fer it!

How could I be if for me $1K for a computer would mean "low-end" and
Americans themselves think it is Too Expensive. I didn't have this opinion
prior to seeing reactions to my (or so I thought) valid claims that $50-$100
and that class price differences in overall system price are neglible. So I
was wrong, $100 is a lot of money!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> 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

If I could someday get a PC I would be satisfied with for even as low as
$1600 that would be the day. Btw. Intel vs. AMD has NOTHING to do with the
overall price, I just go with large storage and latest graphics card there
are on the market at this time that would be GF 6800 U unless I wasn't
getting workstation class GPU. $1100 is ridiculously low but if you say so
the machine is up-to-spec for your uses. :)


> 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*.

This has gone far from P4 2.8 / 800 vs. Athlon64 2800+, you think? Bickering
about that was stupid. Ofcourse now that we argue your and my computer
systems I am with the opinion that it is very reasonable and intelligent
thing to do to rationally and calmly discuss our computer systems.

Anyone who spots the fallacy of above argument raise your hands.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

assaarpa wrote:

> > 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
>
> If I could someday get a PC I would be satisfied with for even as low as
> $1600 that would be the day. Btw. Intel vs. AMD has NOTHING to do with the
> overall price, I just go with large storage and latest graphics card there
> are on the market at this time that would be GF 6800 U unless I wasn't
> getting workstation class GPU. $1100 is ridiculously low but if you say so
> the machine is up-to-spec for your uses. :)
>
> > 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*.
>
> This has gone far from P4 2.8 / 800 vs. Athlon64 2800+, you think?

Why should those chips be compared? Choose the application you
plan to run, then compare chips that perform very close based on benchmarks
for that. Now compare the prices of those. It might mean comparing an
Athlon XP3000+ to a P4 3.2 ghz Northwood if you plan to run business
software. If you plan to run several types of applications, then you could
somehow figure out a way to calculate a weighted average
score for each chip. Now compare chips with similar scores.

> Bickering
> about that was stupid. Ofcourse now that we argue your and my computer
> systems I am with the opinion that it is very reasonable and intelligent
> thing to do to rationally and calmly discuss our computer systems.
>
> Anyone who spots the fallacy of above argument raise your hands.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Allow me to save you the trouble of replying, I know precisely what you
would reply! Here it is:

JK: "Yeah but the Pentium 4 3.4 ghz is $837.25, what you say about that?"
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

assaarpa wrote:
> 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.

If you had paid attention to the thread, instead of being interested only in
showing what an annoying prick you are, then you would have realized that
nobody here argues about tiny little differences like that. One guy even
gave you an example a processor which costs $160 beating out another
processor costing $800 -- now that's impressive, non-insignificant, and
*non-pathetic*. Instead, all you were interest in was jumping down his
throat for the performance, did you even look at the price difference?

Then there's the constant diatribe you do against worrying about the price
of a processor when it's insignificant in the overall system costs. How do
you know we're all buying complete systems? I myself haven't bought a
complete desktop system in years (maybe decades by now), but my PC is still
relatively uptodate. Why? That's because I upgrade component by component.
When the processor is the only component (or one of the few components)
you're upgrading at a time, then of course it's individual price and
performance is going to matter -- big time. Same goes for video cards,
motherboards, etc.

And even for people who are buying complete systems instead of just
components, the individual components do matter. So say you're buying a $900
system from some OEM. This OEM offers both Intel and AMD systems at that
price. But you'll inevitably find that even though the two systems cost the
same overall, they don't come outfitted to the same levels. You'll find the
one with the cheaper processor might come with twice the RAM, or a larger
disk, or DVD burner instead of a CD burner, or wi-fi built-in, or a gigabit
ethernet, or whatever.

> 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).

The only thing that's closed minded here is that you started your diatribe
without even knowing the full context. Or even without thinking through all
of the reasons why people are suggesting weighing the price and performance
of components even if it seems insignificant in the overall system costs,
because nothing is really insignificant. The overall system price doesn't
exist in a vacuum from its component prices.

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

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

> Congratulations you did just prove that there is a wide range of
> differently priced processors in the market, well done! But I
> recall the topic was 2.8 Ghz P4 vs. AMD's offerings at *cheaper*
> price, you will be hard-pressed to find anything that is both
> cheaper AND significantly faster. Since this is too difficult a
> task for your little pea-brain you pull

go bark some cat you ass monkey

--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> 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.
> 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.

That is obviously a case which isn't "ridiculous" one, excluding the fact
that Business Winstone isn't something I would base *my* buying decisions
with. I take a leap of faith and assume you got the prices and interpret the
chart correctly.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Why should those chips be compared? Choose the application you
> plan to run, then compare chips that perform very close based on
benchmarks
> for that. Now compare the prices of those. It might mean comparing an

Yeah and if your goal isn't just to make a point in Usenet you will look
more than one benchmark, not only the only where Athlon does better than P4.
There are BabCo and FM benchmarks (and others) where the P4 does
fantastically (relatively speaking) compared to the one benchmark you tout
as your "holy weapon". If I was as desperate as you are I would post charts
where P4 shines above AMD for similiar performance rated products but why
bother? If you don't have the integrity to acknowledge the facts we both are
aware of I don't see the point of rubbing it into your face.

Everyone can see for themselves, afterall, they don't need you posting URL's
to benchmarks you have established as "qualified" (for your cause).
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

assaarpa wrote:

> > Why should those chips be compared? Choose the application you
> > plan to run, then compare chips that perform very close based on
> benchmarks
> > for that. Now compare the prices of those. It might mean comparing an
>
> Yeah and if your goal isn't just to make a point in Usenet you will look
> more than one benchmark, not only the only where Athlon does better than P4.

Okay, for some video and other niche applications, some P4s do provide
slightly better value than some Athlon 64s, so if someone wants to run those
primarily then a P4 might be their best choice. There may be a few other
niche applications where the P4s excel. For most users though, and Athlon XP
or Athlon 64 will give them the best value.

>
> There are BabCo and FM benchmarks (and others) where the P4 does

> fantastically (relatively speaking) compared to the one benchmark you tout
> as your "holy weapon". If I was as desperate as you are I would post charts
> where P4 shines above AMD for similiar performance rated products but why
> bother? If you don't have the integrity to acknowledge the facts we both are
> aware of I don't see the point of rubbing it into your face.

I did acknowledge that there are some niche applications where the P4
chips do very well.

>
>
> Everyone can see for themselves, afterall, they don't need you posting URL's
> to benchmarks you have established as "qualified" (for your cause).

Someone should do their own research for benchmarks, however my
methodology is quite sound. They should come to their own conclusion
why to buy. I am stressing the methodology here. The specific benchmarks
that are important will vary from person to person.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Keith wrote:

> Now Intel is slit right down the middle by AMD54.

AMD54? Did AMD purchase a disco night club?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
[...]
>
> If someone wants to run business software, why should they
> buy a $250 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz instead of a $105 Athlon XP3000?
> The Athlon XP3000+ edged out the p4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone
> 2004.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

And the Athlon XP3000+ falls to the bottom of the list in the second
'Content Creation Winstone 2004' test.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

JK wrote:
>
> 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?

But I got a P4 2.8/800 Northwood, not a P4 3.2!!! Business software might well
have been dependent on many other factors than raw cpu speed. In the tests I
posted here in another thread was from COMPUTER SHOPPER (UK) No 197 July 2004;
the P4C 2.8/800 was significantly ahead of the Athlon XP3000+ in ALL test.
Hence the P4C 2.8/800 was declared 'best buy' by the magazine. They commented
that memory and motherboard was chosen optimally for each processor tested.

Secondly, fitting a good heat sink & fan to a P4 is slightly simpler, although
that is probably no obstacle for the pros in this group as they do it all the
time... while I perhaps will do it once every 2-3 years or so. The P4 also has
full proof thermal protection just in case. All these factors determined my
choice.

It is s certain that when looking back from next year hence, either choice AMD
or Intel will look a feeble choice, but the computer will still trundle on and
do a good days work.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 00:44:35 +0300, "assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net>
wrote:

>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.
>

You missed THE point entirely. forget it!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"assaarpa" <redterminator@fap.net> wrote in message
news:ceu9ol$bc7$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> > 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.
>
As a Finn living in USA... I do have AMD system. Have had AMD-only systems
for long time... Is that a coincidence?

I just have come into conclusion that I do get better price/performance
value with it. As of today I have had no reason to regret my decisions...
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> You missed THE point entirely. forget it!

I think you missed the point: it is fashionable to take someone's own
statement and strangle him to it, the Usenet Way.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> Someone should do their own research for benchmarks, however my
> methodology is quite sound. They should come to their own conclusion
> why to buy. I am stressing the methodology here. The specific benchmarks
> that are important will vary from person to person.

... and in general the differences between contemporary products are not very
dramatic, but as it has been proven some people find the differences worth
arguing day after day after day. :)
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:05:18 +0200, Nudge wrote:

> Keith wrote:
>
>> Now Intel is slit right down the middle by AMD54.
>
> AMD54? Did AMD purchase a disco night club?

LOL! No, there is something funky with this keyboard, but I can't put a
finger on it (missed keystrokes, extra type-o-matics). There was supposed
to be a 'p' in the "slit" there too. Maybe it's the Belkin KVM switch. I
didn't have the problem with just one machine. Hmmm.

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

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 07:15:08 +0300, assaarpa wrote:

>> 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?

It would figure that if yo don't care about on-topic discussions that you
wouldn't care about OT discussions either, troll.

<snip-n-plonk>

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

Keith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:05:18 +0200, Nudge wrote:
>
> > Keith wrote:
> >
> >> Now Intel is slit right down the middle by AMD54.
> >
> > AMD54? Did AMD purchase a disco night club?
>
> LOL! No, there is something funky with this keyboard, but I can't put a
> finger on it (missed keystrokes, extra type-o-matics).

It may be years of collected pizzas, pot noodles, cola, KFCs, MDs, biscuit
crumbs, earwax and other bits and pieces.

But old keyboards are nice, they were also more expensive. One evening I
took my 15 year old keyboard completely to pieces and cleaned it out; very
nice indeed.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:30:15 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:

>
>
> Keith wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:05:18 +0200, Nudge wrote:
>>
>> > Keith wrote:
>> >
>> >> Now Intel is slit right down the middle by AMD54.
>> >
>> > AMD54? Did AMD purchase a disco night club?
>>
>> LOL! No, there is something funky with this keyboard, but I can't put a
>> finger on it (missed keystrokes, extra type-o-matics).
>
> It may be years of collected pizzas, pot noodles, cola, KFCs, MDs, biscuit
> crumbs, earwax and other bits and pieces.

Maybe, but I didn't seem to have these (same) problems before. You forgot
*hair*. I took one apart a few years back and wondered if it was gowing
the stuff.

> But old keyboards are nice, they were also more expensive. One evening I
> took my 15 year old keyboard completely to pieces and cleaned it out;
> very nice indeed.

Yeah, but this is a "new" Model-M (07/31/91 😉. My '87 finally died (a
section of keys stopped working). Expensive? Why're free when you buy
the system, kinda like Windows is free. though unlike Windows, one can
still use them on many systems, legally. ;-)

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

Keith wrote:
> LOL! No, there is something funky with this keyboard, but I can't
> put a finger on it (missed keystrokes, extra type-o-matics). There
> was supposed to be a 'p' in the "slit" there too. Maybe it's the
> Belkin KVM switch. I didn't have the problem with just one machine.
> Hmmm.

It wouldn't happen to be a wireless keyboard too would it? I find sometimes
if the wireless basestation is too far away or hidden beneath a desk or
something, that wierd problems arise both for the keyboard and the mouse.

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

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:53:25 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Keith wrote:
>> LOL! No, there is something funky with this keyboard, but I can't
>> put a finger on it (missed keystrokes, extra type-o-matics). There
>> was supposed to be a 'p' in the "slit" there too. Maybe it's the
>> Belkin KVM switch. I didn't have the problem with just one machine.
>> Hmmm.
>
> It wouldn't happen to be a wireless keyboard too would it?

Umm, Yousuf, You should know me better! Have you ever seen a wireless
Model-M. ;-)

> I find sometimes if the wireless basestation is too far away or
> hidden beneath a desk or something, that wierd problems arise both
> for the keyboard and the mouse.

My mice are wireless (my son gave me a Logitec rechargable something700
for Father's day - very nice!). ...keyboards are a all Model-Ms.

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

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:53:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>Keith wrote:
>> LOL! No, there is something funky with this keyboard, but I can't
>> put a finger on it (missed keystrokes, extra type-o-matics). There
>> was supposed to be a 'p' in the "slit" there too. Maybe it's the
>> Belkin KVM switch. I didn't have the problem with just one machine.
>> Hmmm.
>
>It wouldn't happen to be a wireless keyboard too would it? I find sometimes
>if the wireless basestation is too far away or hidden beneath a desk or
>something, that wierd problems arise both for the keyboard and the mouse.

Keith using a wireless keyboard? Geez, they had barely invented
*electricity* when they made Keith's keyboard's, let alone wireless
connectivity! :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Similarly, a group called comp.sys.IBM.PC.hardware is not limited to the
> discussion of IBM products, let alone IBM PC products. In fact, very little
> IBM products discussions actually ever goes on in this group. Again, at the
> time the group was created, it seemed like a good description, but that
> market has evolved since then.

Yousuf,

IBM launched the original IBM PC, the IBM 5150, on August 12 1981. From
the start, the IBM PC platform was an open architecture, and only a few
months later, several clones had already appeared.

As far as I can tell, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.* has never discussed
IBM's hardware exclusively. The topic has always been IBM PC compatible
computer systems, i.e. computer systems based on the IBM PC platform.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC

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

Keith wrote:

> assaarpa wrote:
>
>> What is the first amendment anyway?
>
> 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:

Keith,

Do you realize that your words might be considered arrogant?

Why would the whole world know about the American Constitution?

Do you know the first Article in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights? Do you know the first article in the Finnish Constitution, where
assaarpa is apparently posting from? Do you know the first article in
the forthcoming European Constitution?

You cannot, and should not, expect people from a different country to
know your culture better than you know theirs.

--
Regards, Grumble
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom