.
It's a goodness measure based on features.
Not even based on performance, never mind clock speed.
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
woowoo
I think them haivng names like "735, 745, and 755" are just going to confuse people, more specifically, me. i hate intels chipset naming, 975, 815, 8l, 9t67, etc. its so annoying, they say they are releasing new 875i or something like that, and im like 'hey they released that a month ago', then theyre like 'no that was the 875e' lol.Originally posted by adamp2p@10 May 2004 - 18:27
here
so ocnfusing, which is why ive stopped learning intel stuff. sticking to amd. nforce 2, easy to remember, nforce 2 ultra, also easy. via k266, easy. xp 2200+ is easy.
remembering 2.4e and 2.4c, etc.
might just be because I know a lot of amd stuff, but to me intels is a lot more confusing.
thats my opinion though, others may find intel easier to remember...
Big Dawg
Rossco, I share your feelings exactly lol
What the hell are these numbers? 735? 745? 755...what the hell does this have to do with the chip at all? lol its just a made up number...kinda wierd.
How fast is the 2.0Ghz Chip or 755 supposed to be? like whats its Pentium 4 equivilant I wonder.
[SIZE=1]AMD 4200 X2 @ 2.65Ghz, ASRock 939-VSTA
1.75GB PC3200, 2 X 160GB Seagate w/ 8MB Buffer
HIS Radeon X800 Pro, Antec Super Lanboy Aluminum
woowoo
yes exactly, these numbers relate in no way to the chipOriginally posted by bigdawgfoxx@10 May 2004 - 19:22
Rossco, I share your feelings exactly lol
What the hell are these numbers? 735? 745? 755...what the hell does this have to do with the chip at all? lol its just a made up number...kinda wierd.
How fast is the 2.0Ghz Chip or 755 supposed to be? like whats its Pentium 4 equivilant I wonder.
maybe they could name that new 2.0ghx chip a 3200+ or something
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks