Talk about a long read. It's funny, this guy seems to know his stuff about OLD chip designs, but proves complete ignorance about new chip designs, which is really the entire point of his rant in the first place.
Statements such as that you should buy the Celeron instead of a P3 because it's the same chip, and such as cutting the L2 cache in half was the dumbest thing that they could have done just prove he doesn't really have a clue.
We all know that the Celeron's cache and FSB suck compared to a P3. And we all know that the halved L2 cache on the P3s and Athlons actually performs BETTER than the cache on the previous versions of the chips because even though it's only half as large, it's on the die with the CPU and thus running at a much higher speed.
His knowledge of MMX and SSE also seems to be completely and utterly lacking.
And for that matter, his knowledge about the Celeron, P2, and P3 is severely incorrect. The timing is right, and the details about the chips are mostly right, but he's again completely failing to consider the 66MHz FSB of the Celerons compared to the 100MHz FSB 512KB cache of the first P3s, which made the P3 a heck of a lot better than a P2 or a Celeron.
He even makes it sound as though Intel's work into the Itanium was to compete against the Athlon as a desktop chip because they knew that their P3 and P4 weren't good enough. WTF is he on? Since the first day I heard of the Itanium I knew it was a server chip, not a desktop chip. Why didn't he?
And now a P3's price/performance ratio is pretty much on-par with the Athlon's price/performance ratio up to 1GHz CPUs. Not that I'd go with ONLY a 1GHz CPU these days, but the P3 certainly didn't lose out as badly as he makes it sound.
This guy is good at making it sound like he knows a lot, but when it comes to applied reality most of what he says is totally wrong. To me he sounds more like an AMD Troll trying to bash everything Intel. How could a person who sounds like they know so much have so many things totally wrong, unless it was intentional?
And while I agree with him that it's easy to see that the Williamette P4 is a hacked-up PoS that should be avoided by most people, I don't think I've seen a single benchmark yet that would put a P4's speed at the same level as a Pentium2. A P3, sure. An Athlon beating it in several ways, sure.
But then it also beats the Athlon in a few ways already, and we all know that it's a hacked up PoS. He completely fails to mention the Northwood, which we've all known about it being planned for almost as long as the Williamete has been on the market. If Intel fixes even half of what was hacked out of the P4 in the Northwood, the Northwood is going to make AMD wish their ClawHammer chips had been rushed to market a bit sooner.
I'm not saying I think Intel is better than AMD or visa-versa. I'm just saying that either this guy doesn't know a hole in the wall from his own arse, or he's just talking out of his arse and intentionally lying.
If you don't take his article with at least a shaker of salt (as opposed to just a grain), then you're probably just as biased as he is.
Is it too much to ask that people just go with whichever computer best fits their needs and not jump onto a company's mob bandwagon with a flaming torch in one hand and a pitchfork in the other?
<pre><font color=orange>Sunnova</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Beach</font color=blue>, <i>ain't life a beach?</i></pre><p>
<font color=green>I wonder...what is the speed of gravity!<font color=green> 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram