I'm sorry, but an article that leads by saying you cannot get better performance for under $150, then closes with a statement that
Quote :
A price comparison of the two processors looks like this: The AMD Duron 1100 has a sensationally low retail price of $102 - you can't get more performance for so little money.
when right now Athlon T-Birds are selling for $99 is insanely wrong. Frank and Bert should be struck off for this sort of rubbish!
I respect the amount of testing they did, and I'm sure there are many arguements against components thereof, but for me, overclocking the Celly at the end by FSB, then only raising multiplier, not FSB, on the Duron is completely wrong too! Giving the Celly a memory advantage in what could have bean a totally fair comparison. I'm also not sure about not using DDR on the Duron at least since the solutions quoted do not stack up. The only AMD motherboard listed in the test was a GA-7DX (AMD760) - isn't that a DDR memory board only? What mobo did they use?
While we are only the subject - what happened to the P4 2G on the P4X266 Shuttle board? It was listed in the test and apparently no results posted?
Hey - I don't have time to get off my backside wnd write this kinda stuff - but if you do have the time, or are getting money for it, you could at least try not to make conclusions and testing mistakes that a 5 year old would pick up on.
Really - this was a piss-poor attempt at drawing conclusions from what were, in the whole, interesting tests - I was very impressed at the stock comparisons of cpus - but didn't need incorrect information around it leading people all over the place!
Can you imagine - you read this, look at the performance, look at the comments, and then decide to buy a Duron 1100, then you find out that on the same day you could have had a 1.4G Athlon for $3 less - I'd go nuts!!!!
END
-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
I agree with what you said but the author did quote a retail price for the Duron 1100 and you are quoting a pricewatch price (presumably).
However, even using retail pricing I would still prefer an Athlon 1.4, myself (but it would cost $27 more than the Duron 1100).
See AMD's official pricing (in lots of 1000) as of October 1, 2001 below. <A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609,00.html" target="_new">(Click for current pricing).</A>
The pricing schedule will put the Duron (Morgan) in a different light when we finally see the Athlon 4 pricing. Who know's how pricing will change as the Athlons (Thunderbird) and old Durons (Spitfire) are phased out of service.
One still wonders what the author was thinking considering an Athlon 1.4 is well under $150.
<b>AMD's official pricing (in lots of 1000) as of October 1, 2001</b>
Would you like a Quarter Pounder?
No, thank you. Just give me the BIG heatsink. It's an Athlon.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 10/03/01 03:05 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
I've argued points for/against many people but I have never stooped to name calling of any form.
You must have me confused with someone else.
As for reviews at Tom's site, I can't say I have a complaint with testing methods. I may have complaints with timeliness (or lack of) and with poor conclusions.
Would you like a Quarter Pounder?
No, thank you. Just give me the BIG heatsink. It's an Athlon.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.