So? The P4EE has a 3MB L3 Cache, which is the biggest for a desktop CPU, bu I doubt that it makes much difference. One of the reasons I will not purchase an AMD CPU is because of their CPU labelling. I mean the "AMD 2000+" that only runs at 1.6GHz is false advertising however you justify it. It confuses the common computer user, who thinks that he is getting a 2GHz chip for a bargain price. Then of course, you have these people walking around saying "What kind of CPU do you have? Mine runs at more than 3.4GHZ (AMD 3400+)!" Idiots. Damn AMD! They make me mad.

Yeah. 64-bit is not available to us without applications and OSes that are ported to it or purpose built for it. Although, if you are an Appler, truth be told, they already do have 64 bit of a sort and an OS with applications that make use of it. .

I cannot find an ETA from MS on a Windows XP port to 64 bit. Anyone know of it?



Edited by - Indy11 on 2/24/2004 2:07:56 PM

There is an Alpha out, but the 64-bit version is being delayed, presumably to coincide with the Prescott's entry into the market.

If something runs on a higher voltage, but the same resistance, then isn't the current lower? so in effect the AMDs would be cooler?!? or am i just confuzzled

-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

http://www.cardamine.net/ - The home of Freelancer: Rebirth, the prequel to Freelancer!

According to the spec's that have been published......

There should be no real difference in voltage between Athlon Thoroughbreds and Pentium Northwoods. Both being manufactured at .13 micron thickness, the respective core voltages are at 1.5v.

Intel's Prescotts are .09microns or 90nm so the core voltages are expected to be lower, around 1.25v.

The initial batch of Athlon 64s are made with .13 micron wafers so they will not run as cool as later production runs which are to be .09 microns once AMD upgrades its production equipment.

Usually, though, as soon as the core voltage heat generation is lowered, they ramp up the operating herz to take up the new "give" so there's no actual net heat reduction.

@Cardamine

---

or am i just confuzzled

---

I like that word, confuzzled! It's great!

Sir S

Yeah, you would like it SS. I prefer the Shakespearean form "Alas, I am confus-ed!" .

@esq It's not that hard to figure out AMD's speed also why is it the AMd can run games faster yet is only at 2.2ghz i belive but intel is at 3.4 dosen't that say perhaps thath ghz don't neccesarily matter

Demouser: I have no wish to join the play, but rather to see it enacted. My only concern is to avoid having the lands of Microsoftia bare down on myself.

If you can't read this you are a retard

That's true, raw CPU speed is no longer as important as it once was, especially since the introduction of the modern GPU, and AMDs CAN perform better in some games. Every CPU varies, and some Intels will run games faster than some AMDs, and vice-versa. Remember than AMDs are aimed more towards the game playing/budget and overclocking/"enthusiast" demographics. The P4s are also aimed at the same group, but they also designed mainly for the business market, and the mainstream user. That's why P4 almost always beat AMD in Application benchmarks.

My grudge against AMD is this; although the speeds are "easy to work out" as you put it, the labelling is misleading. Indeed, some could even argue that it is false advertising. That is what irritates me, because it appears to be offering something that it isn't. Then, all of the computer illiterate people come up to people like me and say "My CPU is rated at 3400, why does my friends PC faster? It is only a 3.2!".

@Esqy

Don't forget the salesman factor. People walk into stores and buy computers from salesmen who, next to used car dealers, are the absolutely worst liars I have ever seen. They will tell a would be buyer anything to make the sale because they are not pushing what's a good buy, they are pushing what they have the most stocked up in inventory.

Some poor soul will have been sold an AMD NNNN mHz based unit and will not know what it means in comparison to an Intel of comparable gHz rating and will have been told that they're all the same anyway except that AMD's are better priced, of course.

Also, though, I think Intel is still banking on raw horsepower to push past any finesses AMD can put into a chip. And when the Northbridge P4s first came out with the 2+ gHz chips, they did just that.... of course, this go round, with the 64-bit factor, the equation has been changed but I still see Intel assuming that it will overtake AMD in the gHz race.

Too true, Indy. It's like that Simpson's episode;

"That machine is three months old. Only suckers buy out-of-date machines. You're not a sucker are you sir?"

Classic, yet depressingly true. I love it when people assume that I know nothing about computers and try to sell me dodgy stuff. It's great fun!

Is computer technology dated after 3 month's anymore for anyone except gamers and those who edit photos or make movies. My 1.4ghz Athlon does everything I tell it just fine that includes play chess ,freelancer ,defragmenting , using 5 browser windows all at once!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS tell the next illiterate user that it's lik golf the lowest score wins then give them a 286 and claim it's the fastest yet after a week of it they will not complain about Cpu speed again

Demouser: I have no wish to join the play, but rather to see it enacted. My only concern is to avoid having the lands of Microsoftia bare down on myself.

If you can't read this you are a retard

Sounds like a plan! The only problem is that when they try and install Windows ME ("The guy in the shop said it was the best!", it won't run properly. then I could just tell them that need a screen with a faster refresh rate...

I bought Me I fell for the hype and for the free speakers anti-virus and digital camera