Scotty Fast Track

Poopy Poopy this isnt AMD we are talking about its Intel shesh where the hell have you been for the last 35 years?

-Jeremy

:evil: <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5341387" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:
:evil: <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1400777" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:
 
have you ever seen a64 benchmarks?
We can be fairly sure he hasn't :smile: ... But then again, it looks like he hasn't seen the Opteron V Northwood ones either :wink: .. Either that or the section of his brain that draws conclusions is damaged...

---
The end is nigh.. (For this post at least) :smile:
 
So it looks like we can get ready for another hyped up Intel processor that fails to perform and in a months time there will be an AMD processor that is 1000Ghz slower and can still out perform it.

Has it ever occurred to you that Intel designed P4 to reach high clock speeds, not to get high IPC? It seems to be working - Intel has 3.2 GHz out, while AMD can't get over 2.2 GHz.

If AMD had a 400 MHz processor that performed like a 2 GHz P4, and Intel had a 3 GHz P4, both were difficult to overclock, and they were similarly priced, which would you buy?
 
Actually Intel did not "design" P4 to have low IPC. It was only a compromise due to heat issues that could arise.

Additionally, the P4 had a low IPC to kick off due to 2 years scratched off the developpment process thanks to competition. Wilamette is the CPU that couldn't...

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=yellow><b>Craptastica</b></font color=yellow></A>