Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question?

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 27, 2004 6:31:44 PM

Ok, I just finished reading the review for the athlon 64 and the EE and I dont think its very accurate the EE has way more cache and its at a way higher clock, it isnt right that they should beef on AMD like that considering it didnt do much worse than the heat machine intel.

More about : question

February 27, 2004 9:20:12 PM

?? say what?
Bob
February 27, 2004 9:27:23 PM

think of it they did the review and they wrote uncertain 64-bit future for AMD but, they tested the 64s against the EE p4 which really wasnt matched lol Im just saying that they shouldve praised AMD for having less cache and clock and still being a coupl hundred points behind in everything that wasnt gaming
Related resources
February 27, 2004 9:50:20 PM

Or they could praise the EE for having a lower IPC and still winning. Clock speed and cache are HARDLY the only two variables for performance. The 2.2GHz FX-51 is AMD's FLAGSHIP processor...it is designed to compete (and frankly beat) the EE in overall performance, even if the EE has double the cache and a ~50% increase in clockspeed.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
February 28, 2004 4:08:25 AM

Quote:

it isnt right that they should beef on AMD like that considering it didnt do much worse than the heat machine intel.

Stop reading reviews on Toms Hardware Site, they are intel bias and you will think P4/celeron is the best buy if you read a review from Tom.
Read anyware else, but not here.


Toms Hardware Site is a joke !
!