I think its horrible that Intel came out with a crappy chip, but not the fact that its crappy, but because this gave AMD some breathing room. Had the p4 kicked arse AMD would have been forced to drive its prices even lower than they already are. And had AMD had to make its prices lower, Intel would have to have done the same. This would have been great for us all. Maybe if the next processors are equal in some way, AMD and Intel can make their prices lower and lower, while we benefit. I don't care who comes out with what next, I care about what I can get for the budget I run on, which isn't very large. It's not about Intel vs. AMD and who made what first or whos is faster at what, it's about who can deliver the better price/performance ratio, which is currently AMD. Intel is (slowly) catching up and hopefully it will surpass AMD, and the cycle can start all over.
one other thing to consider is that as the chips are becoming even faster, the common user isn't seeing much of a performance difference. example: playing QIII on a system with a 1.1 athlon and a 1.33 atlon w/same video, sound etc. not much difference and especially not worth spending the money for the extra speed you don't even notice.
:tongue: <font color=green> I LOVE INTEL. It tastes like chicken </font color=green>
The cycle will start very soon. Northwood is a Kick-ass processor. Using a mpga(2x smaller then socket A) socket will drive down prices. Heck even im thinking about northwood. Heck this crashes then its all over.
one other thing to consider. if i was intel i would love this because after microsoft & apple, intell was next on the goverment's hit list. with amd doing so well the chances are the goverment won't bother and that's great news for intell in the long run.
I still can't fathom owning a gigahertz (and above) processor based computer, yet. I'm happy at 600Mhz, as I can run every game out there on the market, and not feel compelled into upgrading because of performance issues.
You're probably right there. But it's a fine edge, and ntel is tettering.
I am interested to hear what everyone has to think about this. I too am happy with a 500 celeron that cost me $100... I have 256 megs of ram and I have no problems what so ever. I have been observing the Intel vs. AMD wars for so long, and its funny to see that it has been the same all along. Did anyone notcie that there was no war when AMD's k6-2 was being spanked? I am not pro Intel or AMD but its wierd to observe that had AMD not created the athlon maybe we'd all still be looking at the new "high end" pIII 800 mhz or something. Just some food for thought.
If that is all you need, the okay - a satisfied customer.
I for one know that whilst I am re-encoding my home video to send to my folks on CD, running large print montages of 12.3Mb image files and generally crunchig seti at a kick arse rate that my 1.6Ghz AMD, 768MB memory, 64MB GeForce Ultra Pro and 150Gig raid10 array are being used properly.
There is no best fit solution, it's good that you are happy - but I know I couldn't run the speeds and resolutions of games I wanted to with a PIII@815/148FSB. Certainly I cannot (and still cannot) crunch video as fast as I want. When a stable SMP Athlon comes out, I'll buy it - and I'll probably stick a GeForce3 in there too.
PCs are also a hobby, as well as a tool. I'm happy to spend time and cash on them.
-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
My compile times are down to just under 1 minute with a TBird 900. My Celeron 450 took over 6 minutes for the same task. There is not much more of an advantage for me to up the speed of the processor at this time. It's simply not worth the cost of a faster processor to gain 10 or 15 more seconds.
<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>