Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD, clock speed and PR raitings

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 11:55:00 AM

My idea to solve the problem of AMDs clock speed but not performance disadvantage. IF everybody is saying that clock speed doesnt matter than the only thing AMD can do and not run in to truble is not to mention the those MHz and GHz.
Well but it needs to label the procesors so that everybody will know which is faster. I think AMD should label its procesors with combinations of letters and numbers, Athlon 1400 would be Athlon A4- A stands for 1 GHz and 4 means 400MHz, but they dont necesarily need to use the number to represent the megahertz but just speed grades. Athlon 1GHz-Athlon A, Athlon 2,1GHz-Athlon B1. ANd when the customer asks how many megahertz does the procesor have, you give him a brochure which explains that MHz dont matter and contains those benchmarks AMD has on their site. Problem solved.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 12:43:25 PM

A little hard to grasp what yer talking about, but AMD already has code letter and numbers to represent its capabilities.

Medication helps :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 1:34:03 PM

I just finished reading the article on AMD's struggle with the frequency war. I think that PR.. or anything like that will cause more confusion then it is worth. People will learn about performance from articles and word of mouth anyway when they go to purchase. I think however AMD can take the Athlon a different direction by labeling it with the date. Most people love "new" things. Comparing a Pentium 4 2GHz to a Athlon 2001 will let shoppers know that they are getting the best they can when they buy a Athlon. This will also force Intel to prove that the 2GHz performs better then a 2001 model Athlon. I definitely believe that the clock should be displayed at startup... it is just something I expect to see.
Related resources
August 29, 2001 4:43:52 PM

It's unfortunate for AMD. It is fortunate for people that are "in the know". We can go out, buy a 1.4 GHz processor for $130 that is a tick slower than an over-priced P4 2 GHz at over $500.

:tongue: The new signature still sucks! :tongue:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 5:56:06 PM

What if AMD used some non-MHz rating for their processor, like a MIPS of MFLOPS measurement? Wouldn't that be more descriptive of the processor's actual ability anyway? Kinda like DDR was named using numbers that reflect throughput rather than MHz -- throughput's a much more useful rating on RAM than MHz anyway. Isn't there something like this that AMD could use?
August 29, 2001 5:56:56 PM

The public is to stupid to go for that.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 6:06:00 PM

Well if they went for mhz then why not mflops???

If intel did it too then they'd seen learn

Your nice new PC might be faster then my 286, but my 286 makes a better door stop :smile:
August 29, 2001 6:07:54 PM

Ah.. but intel will never do that grasshopper

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 7:05:09 PM

Why don't they try advertizing in Benchmarks. First explain what they are. Then give some websites of the popular ones. Then display a benchmark comparison between Athlon and P4. Once the public sees these benchmarks in practically every review they find in magazines and internet, AMD will be viewed in a better light for giving such a powerful consumer aid, the advantage of Athlon will clearly be reflected, the clock speed problem will be remedied, and consumers will feel safer to buy.
August 29, 2001 7:08:12 PM

No bank, they don't have the cash to do that and they won't anytime soon with these new pricecuts.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
August 29, 2001 9:08:05 PM

AMD should do both, give the frequency of the CPU and then compare equivalent speed to a P4. Example:

<b>1.5ghz <font color=red>Athlon 4</font color=red>
2.1ghz <font color=blue>P4 speed</font color=blue></b>

This will let the customer know that this baby is indeed faster where it counts over a P4. I mentioned this some time ago in another thread and actually used it in my Signature for awhile. Then people will start to ask why in the hell is the P4 slower then a Athlon 4 when it is running at a faster rate? Hmmmm, sounds like Intel chip is less efficient. It could actually help AMD out showing that its chips are more efficient.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 08/29/01 05:10 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 29, 2001 10:48:36 PM

I think the PR idea could definitely help AMD in the public relations war, but only if they do it perfectly! I do not think the PR model number should replace the mhz rating in the bios! AMD must not in any way compromise their appearance of honesty! For one thing Intel would likely have an easy opportunity to capitalize on an AMD appearance of dishonesty. AMD is still the smaller player. But, recently AMD has also been playing well. They can get their performace point across while maintaining an image of intergrity by including both the PR rating and the true mhz speed on each chip. Specifically, I would project the best total result to come from a large print PR rating number and the true mhz speed listed in smaller print on each chip. My one assuption in this equation is that PR stands for something like PR = Pentium Rating resulting in the customer easily understanding an explanation from a seller that an Athlon PR1700 (1400mhz) performs as well as a Pentium 1700mhz. This solution emphasises performace while maintaining the perfect integrity needed for future customer relations as well as a general simple understandability. AMD looks to soon have a performance gap between the best Athlons and the Pentium 4. This may have to temporarily be accepted by AMD, but the PR idea combined with straightforwardness is a good way to maximize the best out of the postion they do have.

"long live the fighters"
August 29, 2001 10:53:09 PM

Hail, Hail!!

"long live the fighters"
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2001 11:05:49 PM

Problem with PR rating is that it deliberately tricks the consumer. Remember that PR150 that couldn't hold it's own with a P133? It allows them to manipulate their numbers any way they want. And earns them a reputation as a cheap rip off company.

I'm so tired of cookies I'd settle for spam!
August 29, 2001 11:19:38 PM

AMD will always be considered second-rate by the general public, if they have to say "the same performance as Intel xMHz" That's like me saying I build an auto that's "just as good as a Rolls-Royce"

And as long as AMD has to compare themselves to Intel this way, they will struggle for sales.

The PR rating stinks, especially if AMD forces BIOS makers to hide the chip frequency. The P-rating on Pentium-class processors was a joke, and so is this.

AMD simply can't afford to fall too far behind in clock speed, or they'll get killed - even if they do have a comparable or better product.
August 30, 2001 12:12:10 AM

I agree with the idea that PR ratings suck since there is no standard test. The PR for one app will be different then another. I like the Mflops idea myself, but even that will mean little to the average user. One thing we must face is (being nice) 95% of the world population is just plain stupid when it comes to tech stuff........
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 12:26:40 AM

I completely agree with Mad Mike. To themselves MAKE Intel the reference is a stupid move worthy only of a loser of a company. Sad. I thought AMD had changed for the better, but I suppose that hope was false. They will always be the also-rans, until their attitude changes and they set out to be the leader rather than the follower.

Just dont put the GHz and put the GFlops.. that's the way to do it.. DUH! It's a fairer measure and everyone will understand it eventually if they use it. It's just like using horsepower rather than RPM. You can have all the RPMs in the world and make no power. The P4 proves the same is true in the processor world. AMD's LOSER mentality just keeps them a loser.. PERIOD!

They are desperately in need of competent leadership at AMD. Poor marketing is the result of poor leadership at the top.
August 30, 2001 1:22:12 AM

You should have to take a test before getting a permit to buy a pc, kinda like a drivers permit =)
August 30, 2001 1:22:20 AM

i think you're a loser ... ;p

It's an idea AMD has. if AMD's one idea makes them a loser then you must be the king of losers as i'm sure you have had some pretty dumb ideas eh?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
August 30, 2001 1:54:41 AM

This sounds pretty stupid with the differences in architecture and all but why can't we compare the speeds to a standard unit. Sort of like how CD-ROMs are just listed as ?x instead of the true speed.

:cool: :eek:  :redface: :frown: :lol:  :mad:  :eek:  :smile: :tongue: :wink:
August 30, 2001 2:00:40 AM

This is a comparsion of a chip performance, obviously it should be broken down into actual tests of some sort. Something has changed significantly with the P4, mainly is that its MHZ rating does not reflect corresponding performance increase. Meaning a 1.3ghz P3 would be faster then a 1.3ghz P4. So by accurately and objectively showing the real performance of a chip in comparson to each other would help the public in at least understanding what they are getting or what the choices are. To ignore the performance aspect and just state a mhz spec is what is misleading and in certain aspects very misleading now between these two processors. Actually the comparsion puts Intel in the spot light not AMD. A 1.5ghz Athlon 4 would toast a 2.0 ghz P4, why not inform the public. Why allow Intel publicity of a speed mark (mhz) when it isn't a performance mark?

Another line of argument, what two choices does a person have in a high end IBM PC compatiable computer? AMD and Intel, it is only natural to compare the two. Does anyone think Intel would compare their P4 to a speed rating of a Athlon 4? If they did it would be obvious that AMD is making a much more efficient chip, it does more per clock then the P4 in other words.

Now consider this, as the speed of the P4 increases as in megahertz the delta or difference of the megahertz and the Athlon 4 for the same performance of the Athlon 4 will also have to increase. Here is an example in what I am talking about:

1.4ghz T-Bird = 1.8ghz P4. So it takes 1.8/1.4 = 1.29 times the speed of the T-Bird in order for the P4 to equal the peformance of the T-Bird => a 400mhz difference

Now lets calculate a few future delta's of mhz between the two processors assuming only a speed change is the difference but equivalent performance is being calculated:

2.5ghz-P4/1.29 = 1.94 ghz T-Bird (now the delta of mhz is 560mhz for the same performance).

3ghz-P4/1.29 = 2.33ghz T-Bird (now the delta of the mhz is 670 mhz for the same performance).

So in brief:
1. As the Mhz of the P4 increases the difference of mhz between the P4 and Athlon for the same performance will only increase
. . . 1.8ghz P4 - a 400mhz delta
. . . 2.5ghz P4 - a 560mhz delta
. . . 3.0ghz P4 - a 670mhz delta
Calculating a 5ghz P4
. . . 5.0ghz P4 - a 1.12ghz delta!!
2. I hope you see the pattern
3. The Athlon 4 with its more efficient design will only magnify this effect with even higher deltas for the same performance between the two processors.

Really AMD is in the stronger position as far as I see it, they need to properly relay this to the public, I cannot see how Intel can justify the excessive price of their cpu's over a AMD cpu for virtually the same performance. This is utterly insane and shows how Intel uses the public ignorance to its own advantage if the oppuntunity knocks.

I see no choice for AMD but have some sort of PR (performance rating) because the mhz speed delta's will only grow more and more over time. Maybe the .13micron P4 will get things back into prospective between AMD and Intel per clock speed. Which will make this all mute eventually if that is the case.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 08/29/01 10:27 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 30, 2001 2:01:01 AM

You'd need a new way to test all the units of the CPU and give a single number to rate with. Even then it wouldn't be accurate. For example say one CPU has a powerful ALU and a weak FPU while the other is the opposite and each would have the same overall performance rating. Depending on what apps you use one CPU will seem faster than the other.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
August 30, 2001 2:14:54 AM

This thread, along with several others, is pretty interesting.

Do you suppose there's a food discussion group out there somewhere with gourmets bemoaning the fact that MacDonalds sells so much food, even though it tastes like sh*t?
August 30, 2001 2:21:57 AM

Thats just substituting number for an alpha-numeric system. It leaves you back at square one. I disagree with AMD's current stance with the model numbers. That will alienate new users even more. If GHZ is the thing a new user relies on, getting rid of the GHZ rating entirely is like AMD shooting itself in the foot. I think they should retain the GHZ rating and just add on the box (and in their advertising) "Performance equivalient to 1.x GHZ Pentium 4"
August 30, 2001 2:29:43 AM

Yes agreed. I said that further down, i feel like i've re-invented the wheel.
August 30, 2001 2:30:39 AM

Sounds right on to me. Plus some advertising to inform consumers not to be mislead by bloated mhz/ghz speeds but to go by actual performance.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 08/29/01 10:31 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 30, 2001 2:31:56 AM

Yeah, that definitley makes sense. The PR rating was abused way back when. I remember getting a 686-100mhz that had a PR of 120. But my friends pentium100mhz still out performed it.
August 30, 2001 2:32:15 AM

MIPS and FLOPS are useful...
but you have to remember that the general buying public is so uninformed that it has trouble distinguishing between a floppy and a CD!
(i sincerely hope i exaggurate)

and for as long as the PC has been around they have been fed the diet of "more Mhz is better".

it would literally take billions of dollars of PR to change that perception... if thats even possible.

best thing to do is for US to explain to people that Mhz isnt everything.

ive done that with a couple of people.
NOTE: to the anti AMD zelots that DOESNT mean anti intel advice.
i just ask them what they need to do, their budget, and in all 5 cases so far suggest that for what they want (office, net, games) they can get a better deal by avoiding the P4, getting a athlon or p3 and getting a decent graphics card. (or whatever solution suits)

i know of one poor person who was being pressured/influenced by a sales person to buy a pentium 4. i asked what they were doing to do with it. their answer:
word, excel, email, and a bit of web browsing.
tell me you need EITHER a athlon 1.4 or a pentium4 for that!

(i believe they eventually got a duron 650 and on my advice upgraded their ram to 128mb, and couldnt be happier)

I'll respect your comments & opinions, even if i disagree with them, Provided you display maturity.
August 30, 2001 2:36:12 AM

but then can't intel sue amd for illegally using there name. I'm sure intel won't let that slide.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
August 30, 2001 2:40:25 AM

Hmm not sure, now i wish i did legal studies in Yr12. Intel might like the free advertising :)  I disagree with the GFLOP (whatever it is) rating though. Its useless creating a new rating if only one of the companies adopts it. Consumers will then be wondering, "how many GFLOPS does this Pent4 do?".
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 3:55:10 AM

skater boy wrote:

"i think you're a loser ... ;p

It's an idea AMD has. if AMD's one idea makes them a loser then you must be the king of losers as i'm sure you have had some pretty dumb ideas eh?"


That's nice. When you get old enough to think clearly we can discuss things like adults.

AMD's technology is excellent. AMD's marketing strategy is completely wrongheaded. It pains me to say, but after following this game closely for over a year as an AMD stockholder, I have come to the conclusion that the company is just poorly managed. That's a painful thing to face about a company that has so much going for it. If you want to read more extensive thoughts from me on this subject, I direct you to a long post I made to the AMD board on the Motley Fool a few days ago (which got post of the day, I might add). I don't really want to go through it again. Suffice it to say, great ideas and great technology aren't all that matters. It's about being profitable with that technology. Look at Alpha: great chips, the best technology available, and where are they? Being buried by Intel's money after being bought out. You have to think in terms apart from just what technology is best. It's about the company's mindset and a winning attitude. When you defer to your competitor as being the de facto standard, that is, in my opinion, a LOSING attitude.

Now shove your pea-brained comments, kiddie.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kvhagedorn on 08/30/01 00:01 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 4:25:03 AM

Right on the money. But what you failed to mention is that soon after dropping their bullet train commercial, AMD went back to selling their processors as a cheap substitute for Intel's processors. AMD lacks the self confidence needed to make them a market leader.

I'm so tired of cookies I'd settle for spam!
August 30, 2001 4:25:25 AM

PR Rating Sux... Yes my system get PR Rating 2500 wow supercomputer nope just a normal comp.

Nice Nvidia and ATi users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 8:19:47 AM

A PR rating or a P4-equivalent rating makes no sense. If even none of the "independant" hardware sites can agree which is faster (Athlon 1.4 or P4 1.8 /2.0).. it depends on so many things, like platform, memory subsystem (should AMD compare to a P4/SDR/DDR/RDRAM system ?). And most of all, of the choice of benchmarks.

Comparing benchmarking has become such a complicated thing with all these cpu extensions and optimizations, there really is no comparing. There will ALWAYS be apps that run better on one cpu or the other. And no one can come up with an industry standard, generally accepted benchmark.

I mean, could you blame AMD not to compare Q3A scores ? Could you blame intel not to compare ProEngineer scores ?

If anything, AMD might come up with a numbering like 100, 120, 150 not related to anything at all .. like some car manufactures.. or like some computer vendors.. I mean, how fast is a IBM Aptiva 300 ?

---- Owner of the only Dell computer with an AMD chip
August 30, 2001 11:10:32 AM

Heh, buy the processor which is a tick slower than the 2ghz p4, and buy a 40 dollar quality heatsink and overclock the processor till its way more than 2 ticks faster than the p4, the average overclock for a 1.4ghz tbird is 1.6ghz.........aircooled.

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
August 30, 2001 12:28:26 PM

Well, if it was in Australia, and it was up to me... this is how I would advertise it.

- Screen fade in -

Two blokes, sitting on a couple of dunnies, having a wank. (Or choking the chicken for the americans :)  ) The guy on the left is whacking away like there is no tomorrow. He's heaving. He's puffing. He's doing the five knuckle shuffle so fast, his hand is a blur. A little caption underneath - "Intel".
The guy on the right is taking it nice and easy. He doesn't whack slow, but he definitely taking it a little easier than the guy on the left. And enjoying himself immensely more. A little caption underneath him - "AMD".
They then both ejaculate at the same time.
- Screen fade out -

- Screen fade in, text -
"It's not the speed... it's the techniques."
- Screen fade out -

- Screen fade in, text -
"AMD. Because speed isn't always performance."

All the wassailing in the poad will not maketh the cracken bend any fustier. Think about it.
August 30, 2001 2:14:51 PM

I don't think that would go over well, but it would stick in peoples minds. no pun intended.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 2:32:45 PM

What is needed is an independant set of benchmarks that fairly compare different chips across a range of applications and some overall average indicating average chip performance.
I beleive Tom wanted to develop a common set of benchmarks ages ago.
The obvious problem is that a benchmark can be made to favour one chip and system performance is dependant on lots of things not just the chip.
Clearly though AMD need to do something to educate the unwashed masses...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 3:23:03 PM

A central unbiased organisation is needed to setup and rate the individual cpu's

Your nice new PC might be faster then my 286, but my 286 makes a better door stop :smile:
August 30, 2001 3:29:19 PM

Yeah that's gonna happen in the next century.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
August 30, 2001 4:05:33 PM

AMD already markets their processors as having 200 and 266 mhz FSB's. Now when a newbie is explained that the Mhz rating is calculated by the multiplier times the FSB and tries to apply this knowledge to AMD processors they see that AMD is not playing fair in advertising. Now it can be argued that the P4 is actually using a 100 Mhz FSB and they claim it is quad pumped (X4) to get their high P4 Mhz rating to advertise. Now AMD doesn't use it's double FSB calculation to determine its advertised speed so why can Intel? In conclusion a fair representation of their top line processors would be Tbird 1.4 gig and P4 500Mhz and AMD would have to state 1/2 of their currently advertised FSB.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 4:35:11 PM

I like this PR rating. It will show that amd processors can match the p4 even if its mhz are a bit lower. So calling a Tbird 1.4ghz a PR2000 Athlon would make average users that buy there dell's and Gateway's would say why amd makes a better product then intel. I cant wait for the PR rating to come back help the market shift even more to AMD.

AMD user's always have the edge !
August 30, 2001 8:41:03 PM

If I was totally clueless about cpu performance it would be pretty easy to con me into buying the much more expensive Intel setup. I would also get pretty mad finding out latter that I could have the same performance at 1/3 to 1/2 the cost. Any performance rating can reflect (in small print) what tests where conducted to come up with the equivalence as in Microsoft products, Adobe paint etc.. Games would be really a variable benchmark since it is more dependent upon the graphics card, yea at 640x480 the P4 has some advantage over the T-Bird with a 400-600mhz speed advantage with Quake III but at real playing resolutions it is more graphics card limited then anything else. I really don't see what choice that AMD has, Intel is bragging about Mhz or Ghz, not performance and sticking a hefty price on their top CPU. It would be hard to a number of sales persons to tell someone that this 1.5ghz processor (Athlon4) is faster in a majority of benchmarks compared to this Intel inside 2ghz advertise machine. Basically AMD is left to set the record straight.

A PR (performance rating) is a very good idea as long as the true cpu speed is also known. A break down to justify the speed rating on the AMD site should be sufficient to back up the basis for the rating. Let the public make the decision if they want the 1.5ghz Athlon 4 or the 2ghz P4 bases on true performance and not misleading Mhz/ghz speed only. Thats my say in the matter.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 9:23:16 PM

Well we are all arguing what is the best way for AMD to get the massage acros to the ignorant PC buyer, but we haVe all forgot that the ignorant buyer Knows that he doesn`t have a clue about PCs and that is why all of them are relaying on the salesman to tell them what is best for them and what they should buy.
It all starts with the need for a new PC. Someone might make an effort and reserch the products, but AMD thoesnt need to wory about them, they need to concentrate on those people who go straight ahead to the shop. It has been a long time since I have been in a PC store but when I did go I FOUND all those broshures abut how good the Intel CPUs are. That is what AMD should do.
When You have the technology IT IS UPON THE MARKETING TO MAKE OR BREAK YOU. What hapens when the best technology and the best marketing unite-NVIDIA.
NVIDIA doesnt spend much on advertizing but everyone buys their product when the come out of the store.
THE RULES SALESMEN WHO SELL PC COMPONENTS SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE IN MIND.
1.ADVERTISE TO YOUR DIRECT BUYER AND NOT TO END BUYER IF THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
2.ALWAYS USE THE WORD BETTER, THE BEST AND NEVER AS GOOD AS
3:o FFER THE BUYER SOMETHING MORE NOT JUST THE PRODUCT MAKE
HIM FEEL SPECIAL AND MAKE HIM HOLD ON TO YOU.
4.ALWAYS START WITH THE BIGEST
THE FACT: THE ONLY WAY AMD CAN BEAT INTEL IF WE ASUME IT CAN BEAT IT IN TECHNOLOGY IS TO GET BIG AND A LITLE SMALLER PC FIRMS ON THEIR SIDE.
And if they do that, it doesnt matter how they label their procesors as long as they do not compare them with Intel.
MAKE OTHERS ADVERTIZE FOR YOU - THAT IS WHAT NVIDIA IS DOING AND THEY ARE MAKING A LOT OF MONEY
August 30, 2001 10:40:57 PM

Intel_meltdown mentions the folks buying Dells and Gateways...

I was already pretty sure, just looked at these guys' web sites to be certain:

Dell: I see nothing but Intel procs
IBM: All Intel procs
Compaq: AMD procs available for home PCs, all Intel for Business PCs
Gateway: AMD procs available for both home and business PCs, but leaning toward more intel chips, especially in large business boxes.

Forget about Mom & Pop for a moment and think about the companies that buy tens or hundreds of PCs at a clip. IT departments buy from these companies because of solid warranties and onsite repair policies. (I can mess with my home PC all I want. But at work, I want the manufacturer to come and fix it for the first three years - especially in remote offices.)

If businesses buy mostly Intel, that's a big chunk of the market. If anyone knows why these manufacturers are so tight with Intel, I'd like to know. (No BS please.) Do they make a bigger profit on Intel? Do they believe Intel has better quality? Is Intel pressuring them somehow? Does the Intel name just sell better? All of the above? Something else...?
August 30, 2001 10:53:27 PM

people are lemmings... they think they are smart by saying " intel is better than AMD its more stable..... those who know about pc's dont make them comments...

ma and pop can really care less what CPU is in there machine..... my ex girl had a AMD k6-2 350... and didnt even know what that was....

its people with a little knowledge who are dangerous
August 31, 2001 12:00:30 AM

That indeed would be great, but I dont think they could get many stations to air it =)
!