Intel slashes price and increase the performances.
Maybe I will choice Intel too. I liked very much AMD, but I am a customer and I have to look my convenience.
Why AMD is so late ? The answer comes from the numbers. Intel is much much bigger than AMD and it was able to make promptly a change in the direction on how to design processors. When AMD realised the design of AMD Athlon they were thinking to a desktop processor able to work very very fast in all conditions. And it is true, who, out of there, can say that his XP 3000+ is too slow for the job he has to perform ? Unless you need to build a multiprocessor server, the AMD Athlon XP can answer to all the request a user can do. The only way to observe performances increase is to run benchmarks. Is it important if a WORD window open in 100 milliseconds or in 120 milliseconds ? Intel understand promptly the importance of benchmark has in the choice of a CPU, while AMD had no time and no resources, between the Athlon XP and the Opteron to put an other processor on the market, and probably the new opteron is not yet as fast as users are expecting at least for 32 bit application.
The new 400 MHz FSB is only the best result attainable with the old architecture, but it costs a lot because the need to realize chip using an extremely high quality silicon, extremely pure and very expensive. Consider that all 333 MHz FSB cpu are already able to operate with a FSB of 360÷370 MHz.
The Pentium 4 core has huge capacity to rise in frequency and it seems that the story between the Athlon and the Pentium 3 is repeating. At that time the Athlon CPU was like a horse against the turtle Pentium 3. Now the story is reversed and AMD invent a code rating similar to frequency to mask the difficulty to rise in frequency. Now the difference is too big and the prices are comparable and the old phrase which accompained the AMD success "You can better perfomnces at lower price" is no more true.
AMD knows that the big obstacle are the memory management and to increase the clock speed. Why the same memory DIMM perform better in a INTEL platform ? Why AMD do not increase the clock even in higher rated CPU (XP 3200+) and tread the expensive road to increase the cache memory ? Probably they reached the top for this architecture and have nothing in the shelf.
However I never had problems from users which had a computer with an AMD CPU inside and I have also a XP 2700+ running absolutely stable at 2.4 GHz (177 x 13.5). The system allows me to perform any kind of job (simulation and modelling as well as office application and some games are my main applications)and I do not have any needs of higher speed. I am in the situation that the computer waits for input and I do not wait for the computer output.
Maybe Microsoft will realize a new OS which will oblige me to buy a 10 GHz Intel processor to boot the system.
...Ahhhh? , ok, ok ...I am turning off the computer.
. I just wish the 400mhz had come out before so i didn't have to buy two cpus right after each other. I bought 3200 ram to accomidate the 400fsb, but even now, its nice to have the extra wiggle room when i clock up the fsb anyway.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram