Iv currently got an AMD ethlon 2400+ and it works for me, I havent ever used pentium.
which is better
Iv currently got an AMD ethlon 2400+ and it works for me, I havent ever used pentium.
which is better
Chew E. Bakke
AMD, no questtion.
There isn't a bargepole long enough for me to work on [a Sony Viao] - clocker 2008
Shovel Ready
Better for what/whom?
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
A 2400+ will suit you fine for today's apps.
Blargh
Neither is better or worse, both of them have their plusses and their minuses.
Chew E. Bakke
Of course, the major plus for AMD is incidentally the major minus for Intel; namely that your $200 gets an AMD that pisses all over a $200 Intel.Originally posted by orcutt989@6 July 2004 - 17:17
Neither is better or worse, both of them have their plusses and their minuses.
There isn't a bargepole long enough for me to work on [a Sony Viao] - clocker 2008
Blargh
Of course, the major plus for AMD is incidentally the major minus for Intel; namely that your $200 gets an AMD that pisses all over a $200 Intel. [/b][/quote]Originally posted by Chewie UK+6 July 2004 - 23:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chewie UK @ 6 July 2004 - 23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-orcutt989@6 July 2004 - 17:17
Neither is better or worse, both of them have their plusses and their minuses.
Unstoppable
Of course, the major plus for AMD is incidentally the major minus for Intel; namely that your $200 gets an AMD that pisses all over a $200 Intel. [/b][/quote]Originally posted by Chewie UK+6 July 2004 - 23:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chewie UK @ 6 July 2004 - 23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-orcutt989@6 July 2004 - 17:17
Neither is better or worse, both of them have their plusses and their minuses.
Being minimally biased here, Intel understandably dominates the consumer processor market (in all probability, the enterprise sector, too), notably due to their reputation in supplying consumers with processors that are renoun for defeating their counterparts, namely AMD and their false naming schemes. For instance, AMD's recent Athlon 64 product range was christened the 2800+, 3000+, 3200+, 3400+ and then the ... 3700+?
On what basis was it given this name? Was it an effort to, perhaps, by AMD, to baffle the common processor purchaser – who is probable to be considerably computer-illiterate, but simultaneously populates the vast majority of the consumer processor market. From AMD's perspective, the answer is no; they persist in thinking negatively in that the 3700+'s performance is to be comparable to that of an Intel Pentium 4 ~3.6GHz – which is highly doubtful.
This example accounts for just one of the numerous marketing errors that AMD is guilty of comitting – allowing Intel to grasp the lead, with ease.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks