Intel's 64 Bit

[Mad Cat]

Intel reveals new 64bit server chip.

Read the whole article.

Source 1
Source 2

Take note:

Although this means that Intel could bring a 32/64-bit chip to PCs soon, Barrett said the company has no plans do so in the near future. There are a few good reasons for this, PC executives and analysts have said for some time. Very little desktop software exists for 64-bit desktops, and the amount of memory that would go into a 64-bit desktop would greatly escalate the price.

All you waiting for 64 bit Intels really are wasting your time right now, unless you want a half supported workstation/server 64 chip.

[bigdawgfoxx]

Intel Prescott Benchmarks

Hey, here is a review on the new prescott. It also has benchmarks...so far the 3.2 Northwood beats the 3.2 Prescott...hmm hopefully the higher frequincies will make them faster!

[Mad Cat]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@19 February 2004 - 20:55
Intel Prescott Benchmarks

Hey, here is a review on the new prescott. It also has benchmarks...so far the 3.2 Northwood beats the 3.2 Prescott...hmm hopefully the higher frequincies will make them faster!

Whats that all about ?

Read the title

[muchspl2]

tom's hardware is intel biased, so you can't trust them

[bigdawgfoxx]

Well..when the review is an intel based review...and they have AMD winning in a lot of things..i dont think it is biased at all. I was just adding some prescott stuff along with the 64Bit stuff you listed

[tesco]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@19 February 2004 - 18:25
Well..when the review is an intel based review...and they have AMD winning in a lot of things..i dont think it is biased at all. I was just adding some prescott stuff along with the 64Bit stuff you listed

they are biased towards intel, but they also tell you the truth too.

look on the hardnews page, they have multiple articles about intel products and great htings about them but the only article there about amd is that dell is not going to use amd's in their computers....

[bigdawgfoxx]

Ok...well do you mean that they just say intel is better in articles? cuz thats fine with me...

or do they actually change numbers to make intel look better? that i do have a problem with.

[muchspl2]

they have been busted cooking the book's over benchmark test's among other things
take everything from them with a grain of salt

[bigdawgfoxx]

Originally posted by muchspl2@19 February 2004 - 18:08
they have been busted cooking the book's over benchmark test's among other things
take everything from them with a grain of salt

didnt understand the first thing...or the second...maybe in english? haha

[tesco]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx+19 February 2004 - 20:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigdawgfoxx @ 19 February 2004 - 20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-muchspl2@19 February 2004 - 18:08
they have been busted cooking the book&#39;s over benchmark test&#39;s among other things
take everything from them with a grain of salt

didnt understand the first thing...or the second...maybe in english? haha [/b][/quote]
lol it means that thye were caught changing the results on intel processor benchmarks etc. and you shouldnt beleive what they say.