Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is it with all the Phenom "sucks" responses....

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 23, 2008 4:05:23 PM

I mean how subjectively would you be able to tell the difference (if you were blind to the components within a PC) between a Q6600 and a Phenom.
At work I use a P4 3.0 machine, my PowerBook (1.5GHz single core PowerPC CPU) and a £2500 ($5000) QX6850 machine and at home (although it doesn't work at the moment! :(  ) the system in my sig. So, a large variation!
Subjectively in everyday use there is no difference between my 6000+ (stock) and the QX6850 (stock, for obvious reasons!)
Let alone the difference between a Phenom 9600 & Q6600 with similar performance & price points....
The only time that there is any tangible difference is during rendering that I do in CS3, heavy video-conversions of uncompressed AVIs (usually smallest 5Gb, normally more like 10-30Gb), Photoshop rendering and stuff like that.
That time to me is valuable (and for my employers! :D  ) and there is a benefit with such a machine.
The average user (or even enthusiast) is not going to be able to tell the difference between identical systems (other than CPU) in gaming/word processing or net surfing...
So perhaps, we could have less of the "Phenom sucks"/"Intel sucks" and associated fanboy/girl-isms...
Thanks! :D 

More about : phenom sucks responses

January 23, 2008 4:08:07 PM

LukeBird said:
I mean how subjectively would you be able to tell the difference (if you were blind to the components within a PC) between a Q6600 and a Phenom.


Benchmark it. Try to encode video with it. Try to do any intensive task that takes a long time to complete...
January 23, 2008 4:18:07 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Benchmark it. Try to encode video with it. Try to do any intensive task that takes a long time to complete...

Wow TC, of all people you disappoint me with that response...
I don't benchmark all the time, because I don't give a **** about 500 3DMark's, I've done it, because I can, not because I'm bothered about the outcome...
The processors are not so far apart, video-encoding may be a few seconds difference.
I bet the difference between my QX6850 & 6000+ is minutes (I know there is a large price difference).
I meant subjectively in normal use. I mean can I really tell the difference between say 40fps & 60?
I very much doubt it, so is it really worth arguing about?
Related resources
January 23, 2008 4:19:21 PM

LukeBird said:
I very much doubt it, so is it really worth arguing about?


You do realize this is a website and forum for computer enthusiasts, right?
January 23, 2008 4:25:14 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
You do realize this is a website and forum for computer enthusiasts, right?

Indeed I do, I guess you can't introduce logic to kids :kaola: 
Perhaps I am wrong in understanding both sides & trying to be more realistic about it....
January 23, 2008 4:25:32 PM

Just to encode 2 minutes of a movie, Intel's proc is 26 seconds faster.



Let's say it's a 90 minute movie:

26 seconds * 45 = 19.5 Minutes


The Intel machine, with a lowly Q6600 finishes encoding 18 minutes quicker than AMD's best quad core.


You're telling me you wouldn't notice something taking 19 minutes longer?
January 23, 2008 4:27:30 PM

Like I posted in another thread, the reason why people despite Phenom is not because of its marginal performance gap between itself and Q6600, but the fact that it was supposed to bring competition back to the market. Well guess what, it did the exact opposite: take competition away from the market.

AMD screwed up this one, just like how Intel screwed up their Prescott launch. Now AMD should do something to salvage the situation, or face the fact that it will walk down Intel's Prescott road.
January 23, 2008 4:31:29 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
You do realize this is a website and forum for computer enthusiasts, right?


In other words, what's normal in Tom's Forums may be considered OCD or OCPD by the average Joe.
January 23, 2008 4:33:46 PM

Well I stand corrected, with figures like that!
To be honest, I will put my hands up here and admit that I didn't realise the performance was that different!
It's just **** annoying seeing Phenom is **** in every bloody thread! :wahoo: 
Guess I'd better get over it, as it certainly ain't going to get any better until B3....
January 23, 2008 4:33:59 PM

We could always get rid of all the objective benchmarks and replace them with subjective ones:

Was it "fast enough"?
Do you like the color of the box it came in?
Was the cpu shiny when you inserted it into the socket?
What was your mood when installing the CPU?
Has the CPU negatively affected any relationships in your life?
January 23, 2008 4:34:06 PM

The Phenom is not a bad CPU, it's just not as good as the Intel.
January 23, 2008 4:34:28 PM

That point seems to being arguing more the lack of difference between processors of different price points. You do get noticeably better performance off of a better performing CPU obviously. If AMD are charging a price which is incongruous with how well it performs people have a right to complain, especially considering how most enthusiasts are very pro a competitive market which is a direction we are moving away from.

Just my two pence
Chris
January 23, 2008 4:35:14 PM

LukeBird said:
I mean how subjectively would you be able to tell the difference (if you were blind to the components within a PC) between a Q6600 and a Phenom. So perhaps, we could have less of the "Phenom sucks"/"Intel sucks" and associated fanboy/girl-isms... Thanks! :D 

LukeBird said:
... so is it really worth arguing about?

Then why start this thread?
January 23, 2008 4:35:29 PM

LukeBird said:
Well I stand corrected, with figures like that!
To be honest, I will put my hands up here and admit that I didn't realise the performance was that different!
It's just **** annoying seeing Phenom is **** in every bloody thread! :wahoo: 
Guess I'd better get over it, as it certainly ain't going to get any better until B3....


LOL. Yes there is a difference. But you do have a point. Joe Schmo that calls up Dell doesn't care what proc he gets.

However, the performance of K10 has pushed all K10 procs into the value and low-midrange end.
January 23, 2008 4:35:55 PM

The thing AMD screwed up was mentioning the errata at launch. Most people will newer find it, show me someone who has been able to reproduce it besides AMD, and yet because they mentioned it people are afraid that the Phenom is more faulty than other processors(Which it is not).

The Phenom 9500 and 9600 could easily be for processors, what the ATi 3850 and 3870 is for graphics, a good choice for most people.
January 23, 2008 4:36:24 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
We could always get rid of all the objective benchmarks and replace them with subjective ones:

Was it "fast enough"?
Do you like the color of the box it came in?
Was the cpu shiny when you inserted it into the socket?
What was your mood when installing the CPU?
Has the CPU negatively affected any relationships in your life?

Oh come on, don't get smart with me sunshine! ;) 
I put my hands up and admitted I was wrong (unlike most of the rest of this forum could do...)
and you just have to twist the knife!! :lol: 
And just for FYI, the 6000+ box just wasn't pretty enough...
January 23, 2008 4:36:59 PM

"Indeed I do, I guess you can't introduce logic to kids :kaola: 
Perhaps I am wrong in understanding both sides & trying to be more realistic about it...."

Gosh, you know what? You're absolutely right. I think everyone in Nascar and any other "enthusiast" arena should start to screw their head on right just like you. I mean, why should someone who is .5s faster at 0-60 win the prize? :-/

/sarcasm off

"Enthusiast" basically means we get ridiculously serious about stuff that you might consider small potatoes, such as a processor that will encode a 300mb zip file 5s faster and overclock to 4GHz on air.
January 23, 2008 4:38:49 PM

LukeBird said:
Oh come on, don't get smart with me sunshine! ;) 
I put my hands up and admitted I was wrong (unlike most of the rest of this forum could do...)
and you just have to twist the knife!! :lol: 
And just for FYI, the 6000+ box just wasn't pretty enough...


LOL, I'm glad you have a sense of humor, I wasn't trying to get smart with you, just trying to prove my point that we have to use objective benchmarks to measure performance.

It's those objective benchmarks that cause AMD's top quad core to be stonewalled at a $260 price tag.


Wait for B3, things will hopefully get a little bit better. Also, if AMD starts cranking out higher clocking tri and dual cores, you'll see much better performance in single threaded applications and games.
January 23, 2008 4:38:56 PM

I believe the Phenom chip is very shiny.
January 23, 2008 4:40:22 PM

My heatsink is shiny too. They would be good m8z.
January 23, 2008 4:41:31 PM

leo2kp said:

"Enthusiast" basically means we get ridiculously serious about stuff that you might consider small potatoes, such as a processor that will encode a 300mb zip file 5s faster and overclock to 4GHz on air.

So, in effect, you're saying that because I don't give a stuff how long it takes to encode a file (the files I handle at home are so small, my PB would probably be more than good enough) and I don't OC that I'm not an enthusiast?
My machine for me is pretty much all I need.
My PB is great for just picking up and using and my PC (when she works again :( ) is mega for crysis and big photoshop files and stuff like that.
January 23, 2008 4:43:10 PM

Hell Luke, get a cheap dual from AMD or Intel. Those will probably do you fine.

The only thing I recommend against is buying a pre-B3 K10.
January 23, 2008 4:43:51 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
LOL, I'm glad you have a sense of humor, I wasn't trying to get smart with you, just trying to prove my point that we have to use objective benchmarks to measure performance.

It's those objective benchmarks that cause AMD's top quad core to be stonewalled at a $260 price tag.


Wait for B3, things will hopefully get a little bit better. Also, if AMD starts cranking out higher clocking tri and dual cores, you'll see much better performance in single threaded applications and games.

He he I'm glad someone can fight AND justify their corner, I very much appreciate it TC (I should have researched mine a touch more! ;) 
I'd very much like a Phenom at 2.6 or higher on my system and then I'd be really happy :) 
Although going from PB back to the 6000+ when it's working again, will feel like going from errrr a 1.5 single, to a 3.0 dual-core... :D  :D 
January 23, 2008 4:45:18 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Hell Luke, get a cheap dual from AMD or Intel. Those will probably do you fine.

The only thing I recommend against is buying a pre-B3 K10.

I bought my 6000+ precisely for that, (I bought it in oct '07) because I didn't want to wait for Phenom.
I'm glad I was impatient, as otherwise I'd probably be really disappointed to see the B3 come out when I have a B2!
January 23, 2008 4:48:20 PM

I'd keep the 6000+ for now, it actually hands any Phenom its butt in single threaded apps(and most games).










January 23, 2008 4:49:41 PM

"So, in effect, you're saying that because I don't give a stuff how long it takes to encode a file (the files I handle at home are so small, my PB would probably be more than good enough) and I don't OC that I'm not an enthusiast?
My machine for me is pretty much all I need.
My PB is great for just picking up and using and my PC (when she works again :( ) is mega for crysis and big photoshop files and stuff like that."



Nope, it just means don't knock the way another cat swings, that's all. Some enthusiasts care, some don't :-/ I don't care if you don't care, but I care that you care what I care about ^.^
January 23, 2008 4:55:44 PM

The only gaming benchmark that the Phenom beats the Athlon 6000+ in is Supreme Commander, a high multi-threaded game.

Tom's did not include Crysis, but I would imagine that Phenom would do better in that one too because it is multi-threaded.


January 23, 2008 5:14:13 PM

leo2kp said:

Nope, it just means don't knock the way another cat swings, that's all. Some enthusiasts care, some don't :-/ I don't care if you don't care, but I care that you care what I care about ^.^

Fair enough, and I respect OCers because I'm too scared to do it!! :lol:  ;) 

TechnologyCoordinator said:

I'd keep the 6000+ for now, it actually hands any Phenom its butt in single threaded apps(and most games).

Well thank you squire, I sip my hat to you :) 
I was thinking exactly the same, the 6000+ isn't a bad chip and a Phenom would be an unwise up(down)grade at the moment.
See how B3 performs.
January 23, 2008 5:16:38 PM

TC provided the facts and the OP goes running for the hills. None of those charts take into account the overclocking headroom the Intel CPUs have... once that's taken into consideration, the gap between the 6600 and the top-clocked Phenom becomes even greater. Like TC said... this is a forum dedicated to enthusiasts and (generally speaking) we want to best bang for the buck possible... and the numbers don't lie... a Phenom isn't that processor. Is it fast enough for most tasks? You bet your ass it is... is that good enough for most people here? No.
January 23, 2008 5:17:24 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
We could always get rid of all the objective benchmarks and replace them with subjective ones:

Was it "fast enough"?
Do you like the color of the box it came in?
Was the cpu shiny when you inserted it into the socket?
What was your mood when installing the CPU?
Has the CPU negatively affected any relationships in your life?


Sorry, I think these are benchmarks designed for Macs. :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2008 5:19:50 PM

uguv said:
Sorry, I think these are benchmarks designed for Macs. :kaola: 



Yah - Charge you twice the money 'cos it "Just Works", but nobody can quite explain why..... :lol: 
January 23, 2008 5:21:15 PM

LukeBird said:
I mean how subjectively would you be able to tell the difference (if you were blind to the components within a PC) between a Q6600 and a Phenom.
At work I use a P4 3.0 machine, my PowerBook (1.5GHz single core PowerPC CPU) and a £2500 ($5000) QX6850 machine and at home (although it doesn't work at the moment! :(  ) the system in my sig. So, a large variation!
Subjectively in everyday use there is no difference between my 6000+ (stock) and the QX6850 (stock, for obvious reasons!)
Let alone the difference between a Phenom 9600 & Q6600 with similar performance & price points....
The only time that there is any tangible difference is during rendering that I do in CS3, heavy video-conversions of uncompressed AVIs (usually smallest 5Gb, normally more like 10-30Gb), Photoshop rendering and stuff like that.
That time to me is valuable (and for my employers! :D  ) and there is a benefit with such a machine.
The average user (or even enthusiast) is not going to be able to tell the difference between identical systems (other than CPU) in gaming/word processing or net surfing...
So perhaps, we could have less of the "Phenom sucks"/"Intel sucks" and associated fanboy/girl-isms...
Thanks! :D 


If you can't tell the difference, then maybe you made the wrong purchase.
If you don't care about heavy CPU crunching on apps that scale beyond 2 CPUs, then you
For just over $70 you can grab a E2140, Clock it to over 3.0Ghz.

The Phenom can't clock as high as the X2 Chips and therefore will be trounced pretty hard by those chips on applications that don't use 4 cores. Which is the most. So for most people in most cases the Phenom will be slower and cost lots more.

The Q6600 G0 can clock to 3.6Ghz w/o too much problems with the Dual C2D chips only getting slightly faster.
As a result it is only marginally slower (Instead of much) in some cases while much faster in others.

Still you need to make the choice for Dual vs Quad. The E8400 is a better choice for some.
Heck, the E8400 which can be grabbed for about $200 will clock to about 4.2-4.5 Ghz.
It is also about 20% faster clock for clock than the Phenom. which puts it relatively at over 5.0Ghz.
More than twice the Speed of a Phenom.
In this case, it would beat a phenom in ALL tasks.

There is just no point to a phenom.
It's a failure.
January 23, 2008 5:22:57 PM

rodney_ws said:
TC provided the facts and the OP goes running for the hills. None of those charts take into account the overclocking headroom the Intel CPUs have... once that's taking into consideration, the gap between the 6600 and the top-clocked Phenom becomes even greater.

I'm not going to get annoyed by that comment....
But explain it...
Where did I go "running for the hills", I provided my personal experience of several machines, subjectively and not objectively as benchmarks and the varying stats of CPU's are.
I admitted I was wrong and commended TC for his useful information and structured argument.
Perhaps you can point out where I went wrong?

Oh and macs aren't so bad ;) 
I bought my first a few weeks ago and it is fantastic! :) 
January 23, 2008 5:31:19 PM

zenmaster said:
I
said stuff....

Right, I didn't purchase the QX6850 based machine. I made a business case for what I wanted and it was paid for (within reason I could have had anything) the only change I would have made would be Quadro graphics card, but they are a little pricey! :D 
I said I could tell the difference between the QX & my 6000+, but they are vastly different CPU's.
I was comparing a 9600 & Q6600.
On this, you'll have to try and look from my perspective, yes, I absolutely realise the Q6600 is faster, better thermally efficient, better OCer, but I don't OC so I don't care about that, I had originally argued that I believed that the difference wasn't so great between a Phenom & 6600, TC pointed out to me that it was, and I conceded that he was in fact correct.
I was only pointing out there is much talk of benchmarks, but for most people, they are not even vaguely close to important.
I use various machines for very different jobs and they all do a fine job and are great for what I need.
January 23, 2008 5:55:55 PM

What is interesting however...

Xvid:
2.3GHz Athlon X2 - 193 s.
2.3GHz Phenom - 155 s.

2.4 GHz E6600 - 137 s.
2.4 GHz Q6600 - 129 s.

Either K10's core is that much more efficient than K8. Or it scales better to 4 cores than Core. Thinking it's a combination. So much potential, but so little results.
January 23, 2008 5:56:48 PM

Although LukeBird may not be an enthusiast in the same manner as some of us...there's no reason to go and try to bash the guy.

He asked for an objective answer to a subjective perspective. Give him a break.

Btw, without OC'ing there isn't a huge difference that a user such as him would see. Let it go...

Btw, good job at answering without going down the same road as some of these other kids TC *good game*


EDIT: typo
January 23, 2008 5:58:45 PM

I believe we talked about that in another thread BS.

Many people seem to think there's an issue with the processor not being in sync with itself and ruining much of it's potential.
January 23, 2008 5:59:45 PM

I liken Phenom to Bush.
We love to hate it.
We are disappointed on important benchmarks.
It's not disappointing at everything. (If we are honest)
It'll blow away anything made in France ... :sol: 
(Except that French author that writes for thg. That's good stuff)
January 23, 2008 6:20:48 PM

cfvh600 said:
The Phenom is not a bad CPU, it's just not as good as the Intel.


it's like a dual dual Opteron, with 4x 512K cache instead
of 4 x 1 MB like if i had a dual 275.

with the motherboard, Asus M2N32 for example, the
combination is about $400.

that's a great CPU. in 2006 we would have paid a lot more.
and salivated.

but the Q6600 is a fantastic CPU. $450 with a decent
motherboard.

i would compare the Phenom to the Datsun 240Z original.
except for the fact that one is brand new and the other
is 34 years old, and that one is a CPU and the other is
a car.

overlooking these minor differences, even if you can
go faster in a Porsche, the original 240Z has neck-snapping
whip-cracking acceleration, and is fun to drive.

maybe we should run this by Click and Clack, the Car Guys.
January 23, 2008 6:29:20 PM

justjc said:
The thing AMD screwed up was mentioning the errata at launch. Most people will newer find it, show me someone who has been able to reproduce it besides AMD, and yet because they mentioned it people are afraid that the Phenom is more faulty than other processors(Which it is not).

The Phenom 9500 and 9600 could easily be for processors, what the ATi 3850 and 3870 is for graphics, a good choice for most people.

And therein lies the mystery. You say most people will never find it. In the posts Ive read at other forums with retail owners deliberately trying to replicate the TLB bug (havent checked in a week) not a single one has been able to conclusively duplicate it. In the single possible replication, the guy was unable to conclusively prove the failure was or wasnt the TLB bug, and in that case, he actually had the TLB bug fix in place. The one instance Ive seen (still cant find the link) where someone claimed an actual TLB failure was on an ES at the Tahoe media circus, by the french hardware site En Numerique...and that could have been a mis-interpretation of a different failure mode.

So if the bug isnt going to rear its little head, as the evidence we've seen seems to indicate and many people (now including myself)are inclined to beleive, then why pull the 9700? Of course, the bug supposedly wont occur at or below 2.3GHz, but the guys who have been testing have been OCing their procs up to 2.77GHz. So that seems to rule out a 2.3GHz TLB limit, which would indicate the 9700s would have been fine. But it doesnt answer the question.

So, again, why pull the 9700? I still cant help but feel that there is something more going on that AMD isnt talking about. With more retail owner experiances surfacing, it seems as if the TLB bug is really a non issue, and no reason for stop ships or product delays. But since AMD did these things, either the problem must be worse than we are seeing, or there is something else going on. Some people have suggested that AMD over reacted, and while that certainly is possible, I really dont think AMD knee jerked this. They desperately needed the 9700s and high end barcy's shipping, and as such, I just cant see them freezing shipments for a minor problem. Its conjecture, but if TLB isnt an issue, and AMD didnt over react, then there must be another problem. A mystery.
January 23, 2008 6:55:07 PM

I800C0LLECT said:
Although LukeBird may not be an enthusiast in the same manner as some of us...there's no reason to go and try to bash the guy.

He asked for an objective answer to a subjective perspective. Give him a break.

Btw, without OC'ing there isn't a huge difference that a user such as him would see. Let it go...

Btw, good job at answering without going down the same road as some of these other kids TC *good game*

Why thank you :) 
I was just trying to look at a different side of the argument, I am very much a gamer and enthusiast, but I don't overclock - I have no desire to, I know how to do it, but I would sooner buy an end product where I want it to be. i.e. I'd buy the 6000+ again instead of OCing a 5000+ BE.
I guess because of my experience with a multitude of different systems (not just what I compared above) I was interested to see how arguments can come about over benchmark scores that are pretty close.
I've had my system bench to 10550, (not as it is in my sig though) but as I have nothing to compare back to, it means nothing to me! :) 
I guess I'd sooner keep my components stock than chase a few more fps here and there if everything is playable anyway.

a b à CPUs
January 23, 2008 7:01:00 PM

I do believe ppl know the Phenom is a little better then an X2 at the SAME speed. But that's where the problem is. With the 6000+ and 6400+, that's FASTER then the phenom cpus (no phenom is clocked that high). That's just sad when you can't even beat yourself!!
Now with programs that actually take advantage of quad cpus, it will run faster, but not many programs like that. Hell, there's still alot of programming still designed to run on SINGLE cpus. And with the Intel OLD q6600 stomping the phenom, it's not excactly the fanboy result ppl were looking for.
The only thing that would change it for me is if the phenom can actually BEAT an amd cpu (6400+) AND beat at least the q6600, AND my motherboard actually released a bios for an upgrade, would i consider the phenom cpu.
January 23, 2008 7:27:56 PM

Turpit.

I agree with your mystery theory.

However, to continue the conjecture, there is no way that AMD could have tested the CPU on a large enough scale to determine the true % of instances that the TLB bug would have shown up. Imagine the bad press if AMD has release the procs, knowing full well that the bug exsisted, but still sold the CPU while sweeping the issue under the rug. With AMDs luck, had they launched, and not said anything, 50% of the CPUs would have failed, and AMD would have a huge problem on their hands.

Again, just conjecting your conjecture.
January 23, 2008 7:41:17 PM

LukeBird said:
Oh and macs aren't so bad ;) 
I bought my first a few weeks ago and it is fantastic! :) 


ATTENTION ALL HANDS, ATTENTION ALL HANDS,
AWAY THE MAC CRYSIS INTERVENTION TEAM, AWAY THE MAC CRYSIS INTERVENTION TEAM.

MAC CRYSIS INTERVENTION TEAM MUSTER WITH LUKEBIRD FOR A LEVEL ONE INTERVENTION. PRODUCT HAS BEEN CONSUMED. BRAIN WASHING HAS OCCURED. USE OF FORCE AUTHORIZED.
ALL NON ESSENTIAL HANDS REMAIN CLEAR OF PASSAGE WAYS AND LADDER WELLS.
UP AND FORWARD ON THE STARBOARD, DOWN AND AFT ON THE PORT.

I SAY AGAIN

AWAY THE MAC CRYSIS INTERVENTION TEAM, AWAY THE MAC CRYSIS INTERVENTION TEAM.

MAC CRYSIS INTERVENTION TEAM MUSTER WITH LUKEBIRD FOR A LEVEL ONE INTERVENTION. PRODUCT HAS BEEN CONSUMED. BRAIN WASHING HAS OCCURED. USE OF FORCE AUTHORIZED.
ALL NON ESSENTIAL HANDS REMAIN CLEAR OF PASSAGE WAYS AND LADDER WELLS.
UP AND FORWARD ON THE STARBOARD, DOWN AND AFT ON THE PORT.


January 23, 2008 7:44:47 PM

rallyimprezive said:
Turpit.

I agree with your mystery theory.

However, to continue the conjecture, there is no way that AMD could have tested the CPU on a large enough scale to determine the true % of instances that the TLB bug would have shown up. Imagine the bad press if AMD has release the procs, knowing full well that the bug exsisted, but still sold the CPU while sweeping the issue under the rug. With AMDs luck, had they launched, and not said anything, 50% of the CPUs would have failed, and AMD would have a huge problem on their hands.

Again, just conjecting your conjecture.


Not only a valid point, but in and of itself, part of the mystery. How much did they test it?
January 23, 2008 7:58:56 PM

turpit said:

AWAY THE MAC CRYSIS INTERVENTION TEAM, AWAY THE MAC CRYSIS INTERVENTION TEAM.



My wife has 2 macs. It's a school teacher thing.

She makes me fix them. (Sometimes she can't get something deleted... so I have to go in using xterm and manually whack them.)

The OS isn't bad. It IS loosely based on FreeBSD, which is MY operating system of choice.

The hardware... eh.. blech. They switched from a superior CPU platform to an inferior CPU platform.
January 23, 2008 8:01:08 PM

With all due respect to all you benchmarking fools........"WHO CARES" It is all relative and that is that end of story.

How many times have I benchmarked my system....................zero...........

It does what I want it to do and I am happy with it and that is all that counts.
January 23, 2008 8:11:56 PM

keithlm said:
My wife has 2 macs. It's a school teacher thing.

She makes me fix them. (Sometimes she can't get something deleted... so I have to go in using xterm and manually whack them.)

The OS isn't bad. It IS loosely based on FreeBSD, which is MY operating system of choice.

The hardware... eh.. blech. They switched from a superior CPU platform to an inferior CPU platform.

I shall start with, why thank you Turpit! ;) 

It's great for what I need, powerful, small, fantastic battery life and leaves my PC for the more fun stuff and bigger number-crunching! :)  I shall not apologise for it.... :kaola:  ;) 
And keithlm, you're absolutely right with the inferior stuff....
As you can see from my sig I have a PB 12" 1.5Ghz, it's great and performance is way beyond what you'd expect of an old 1.5 single-core. I was always surprised they didn't cuddle up with AMD, as Intel is always seen as the leading manufacturer of "Windows" PC's in the non-technically minded people.
But heyho, I shall not be changing my PB for anything in the foreseeable future!
Just wish my gaming rig worked so I could have a go on crysis, it's been bust for nearly 2 months :( 
January 23, 2008 8:16:22 PM

caamsa said:
With all due respect to all you benchmarking fools........"WHO CARES" It is all relative and that is that end of story.

How many times have I benchmarked my system....................zero...........

It does what I want it to do and I am happy with it and that is all that counts.



It's ok that you dont benchmark your system, no problem.

But bashing those that do benchmark is simply ignorant.

Take for example, the automotive world. For some a stock honda civic might be ok, and they dont care what the horsepower is because it "gets the job done."

But not everyone is content with a stock Honda Civic. Some add suspension and engine mods, then run it on the dyno to see what their horsepower is.

Heck, the are some "people" that squeeze 1000hp per cylinder from V8, and spend millions of dollars to race it 1/4 mile for just a few seconds.

These people are called "enthusiasts."

But calling them "fools" or commenting "who cares"..you simply wont win the arguement.
January 23, 2008 8:16:34 PM

LukeBird said:
I shall start with, why thank you Turpit! ;) 

It's great for what I need, powerful, small, fantastic battery life and leaves my PC for the more fun stuff and bigger number-crunching! :)  I shall not apologise for it.... :kaola:  ;) 


Dear god.....its worse than I thought. Dont worry. We can help you. Were going to need a priest, a cross, a gallon of holy water, a length of rope, some garlic, a live chicken......

<<<<<<<EDIT and a henway >>>>>>>
!