From what I have seen that probably about sums it up. Your presentation is a bit caustic though, he he.
Not sure I agree about the ee and fx 51 statement, though. They don't look all *that* much better on the benchmarks from what I have seen. The difference in performance appears to me to be almost negligible in most cases compared to the difference in price. So it is, as I see it at least, back to the hype you are denouncing in your post with those ultra high priced chips.
p.s. not flaming, more or less just ammusing myself.
Tom's benchmarks *do* look to me to be a bit weighted to intel lately, some of the other sites show the athlon 64 as better. I was leaning strongly towards p4 mostly based on "Tom's end of the year round up" even though I have gone amd on my two previous builds. I am starting to see the argument for athlon 64 now though especially for gamming. I think if that new msi k8n neo platinum board with the nforce 3 250 chipset that I keep reading about was out I might switch gears and go athlon 64 instead of p4. As it is I am wondering if it is worth the wait or what.
Anyway, I am no means an expert. Looking for advice myself. Just calling em as I see em.
I would have to say it must be just about impossible to compare the chips one for one as the chipsets/mobos and in some cases the memory are different between the different makes and models of cpus tested. Further complicating the matter is the fact that there is no universal standard test set up even for the things that could be used in common like video cards, hard drives and so forth. So from site to site and even sometimes from article to article in a site the benchmarks can be confussing (at least to me, he he)
I guess I am leaning towards the p4 2.8 northwood chip or else wait for that new mobo and go athlon 64 3000 or 3200. Better yet I should just forget about all this nonsense and keep my cash.
peace
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram