Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

My CPU is faster than yours! Who Cares?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 21, 2001 1:33:25 PM

This CPU forum is littered with P4 vs. Athlon (XP) arguments. The question is, who needs all that speed? If we want good gaming, a graphics card is more important. If you're truly serious about video editing, you'd spend the money to get an expensive MPEG2 encoder. If you need more 2D performance, you can upgrade to Windows 2000/XP and add RAM and setup a RAID. If you want superior sound quality, you can get yourself an Audigy or another semi-professional sound card. My point is, nowadays, PC tasks are regulated and managed by the several parts of the PC system. The CPU just isn't as important as it used to be. So what's all the fuss about?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AMD_Man on 10/21/01 09:34 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : cpu faster cares

October 21, 2001 1:50:19 PM

Im thinking its like a Car or something. Well in my old P3 733 system i stuck my Radeon 8500 in my other Dual Tually system is a server now. Well i stuck the radeon 8500 to replace my Radeon 32mb ddr. Well lets say this a P733 w/ Radeon 8500 can whip a P4 1.5ghz w/ Radeon 32mb ddr.

Nice Nvidia and ATi users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
October 21, 2001 1:57:35 PM

CPU is an important piece of the cpmputer, one of the expansive parts in the system, i dont understand what do you mean to say by this post?

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
Related resources
October 21, 2001 2:33:30 PM

2 words:
Unreal Tournament

<font color=red>It is the weakest link. They are not ready yet many have tried and failed with it.</font color=red>
October 21, 2001 4:41:21 PM

Unreal Tournament is NOT CPU Intensive! I just discovered it's Texture Intensive and therefore AGP bus intensive. Therefore, the CPU is not the prime limitation. What we need is 8X AGP to truly speed up UT. Like rct84 said, a Radeon 8500 and P3733MHz will be faster in games than a Pentium4 1.5GHz with a Radeon 32MB DDR. The problem is, the CPU is NOT the main bottleneck of the PC any more! A 1.33GHz Athlon for example has 1 and 1/3 billion cycles a second. It probably spends half the cycles idling, waiting, for the system bus, RAM, graphics card, PCI bus, hard drive, etc. Buying a faster CPU without upgrading the other components is a waste of money AND CYCLES!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 21, 2001 6:24:24 PM

So true!

The speed limit is 65mph (my state) but some crazy people drive cars that go 170! That is just plain stupid but some people are gonna do what ever they want. BTW my car is faster than yours.

Remember if you ain't Muslim you ain't Shiite.
October 21, 2001 7:03:43 PM

well the p4 is the best cpu to have right now, since amd's don't support sse-2 or rambus dram.. and by the time they do.. there will be sse-5 and better rambus dram
October 21, 2001 7:17:18 PM

DDR RAM is usually faster than RDRAM in most tasks because most apps are more latency intensive than bandwidth intensive. SSE2 isn't even used in 99.9% of the apps out there so who cares about SSE2? I, as a programming hobbiest, never did like any of the SIMD technology (MMX, 3DNow!,SSE, SSE2). SIMD technology just makes life harder for programmers.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 21, 2001 8:34:21 PM

Ah those lazy programmers sure dont need to do more work not for the 80 bucks a hour they make eh?

-Spuddy

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
October 21, 2001 8:37:24 PM

yup, and if someone is making that kind of money, you think they would pay the higher prices for higher quality hardware (p4's, rambus) instead of the cheap inefficiant kind (athlon's, ddr-ram)
October 21, 2001 8:38:44 PM

One of the reasons I just recently chose a Pentium 4 based system for my work was that I didn't had to pay for it myself. Actually, initially I had my mind set for an AMD Athlon 1.4 GHz based system, which was the fastest AMD at the time (4 weeks ago). I spent a lot of time reseaching, reading all the articles and reviews I could get hold on in order to find the best solution. My problem was that the VIA KT266A and the nVidia nForce chipset would not get availble in time and the upcoming Atlon XP CPU was certainly out of reach, as I had to buy before the 20'th September. So I decided to settle for a SiS735 based motherboard, the ECS K7S5A. The board was really cheap and apparently it performed well. My only concern about the AMD solution was the CPU heat problem which would require efficient cooling and therefore most likely would result in a lot of noise. One of my main objectives apart from having a high performing system, was also to have a low noise system, as my colleagues also has to put up with the noise. The solution was to order one of the best (and most expensive) heatsinks availble, the Swiftec MC462-A together with an extreemly low noise, low RPM fan, the Papst 8412NGL (1500 RPM, 19.4 CFM, 12 dB(A)) or the Papst 8412NGML (2050 rpm, 26.5 CFM, 19 dB(A)). When I added all the things together the system was becoming relatively expensive (due to the low noise requirement) so in the last moment I switched strategy and platform.

I went for an Intel 850(ICH2) chipset based board with 2*128MB PC800 RDRAM, the Abit TH7-II RAID which had some really nice extras. Also the price difference between DDR RAM and RDRAM is really no longer an issue. 256 MB PC2100 DDR RAM cost about 42$ and even more if you go for the expensive Crucial RAM which cost about 100$, whereas 256MB PC800 RDRAM goes for about 110$. One month ago, the Socket 478 Intel P4 seemed to be the best choise, noise and performance taken into account, and I still belive it was. Now the ballgame is different with AMD Athlon XP around. Here and now there is no doubt that the AMD Athlon XP 1800+ is the best choise.

So the morale is, take a look at the options at the moment you have to make your buy, and see what fits best into your particular requirements. Most likely in the furure things will change, but you can't really do anything about that, other than taking a look at Intel's and AMD's roadmaps at the moment you decide which platform to go for.
October 21, 2001 10:18:27 PM

Actually, being completely unbiased, you have to admit, the Athon (the Athlon XP especially) with DDR is a lot more efficent than the P4. Why? Efficiency is basically what you can get done with a specific amount of resources. Clock for clock, the Athlon (XP) does more work per clock than the Pentium 4. But that's not what this thread is about anyway. This thread is about why we don't need the latest and greatest CPUs anymore. Crashman, FatBurger, I consider you guys as very unbiased and just, help me out here. I think we have an AMDMeltdown in the making (IntelInside).

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 21, 2001 10:42:24 PM

Quote:
Actually, being completely unbiased, you have to admit, the Athon (the Athlon XP especially) with DDR is a lot more efficent than the P4.

no, no i don't. Which p4 are you talking about? i like amd, but you have to be specific and provide links...as i see it, and as tom's benches prove, the athlonXP and the p4 are rather neck and neck right now.

Quote:
well the p4 is the best cpu to have right now, since amd's don't support sse-2 or rambus dram.. and by the time they do.. there will be sse-5 and better rambus dram

lol sse-5. got a link buddy? and as to sse-2, we could go on about that all night.

Quote:
The question is, who needs all that speed? If we want good gaming, a graphics card is more important. If you're truly serious about video editing, you'd spend the money to get an expensive MPEG2 encoder. If you need more 2D performance, you can upgrade to Windows 2000/XP and add RAM and setup a RAID. If you want superior sound quality, you can get yourself an Audigy or another semi-professional sound card.

all true, but the cpu has always and always will be the flagship of the system. and, all those different aspects of computing are boosted by their respective components, but no other component boosts <b>all</b> application performance.

~steps off soap-box~

no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end, when we all disintegrate, it'll all happen again.
October 21, 2001 11:14:01 PM

Quote:

no, no i don't. Which p4 are you talking about? i like amd, but you have to be specific and provide links...as i see it, and as tom's benches prove, the athlonXP and the p4 are rather neck and neck right now.

Sorry, maybe, I'm not making myself clear. Efficiency is not necessarily performance. I was talking about pure efficiency not performance. As in, clock for clock, the Athlon (XP) is faster than the P4. Yes, I agree, there are exceptions but they are rare. On average, the Athlon gets more work done per cycle than the P4. I’m talking about IPC (instruction per cycle). We all know this fact so I don’t need to give any links.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2001 1:30:47 AM

Lets go back a few years.... no more than that.... keep going... allright we are now in the 80's!!!
Today is the heyday of the 8086 processor, when the entire ram of the system is only an 8th of the cache on my hard drive. Why am i doin' this? Simple: i had (and still have)(and no i am not that old, it was an antique and an experiment) an 8086. Guess what: it was not processor limited. The biggest beef back then was the amount of Ram and the amount of storage space. Hell those things didn't even come with hard drives. The best i've ever seen is a 20MB *(Megabyte) hard drive that was mounted on its own controller, sideways, in an ISA slot, ok?
Lets skip ahead: 286's- biggest challenge = EGA monitors. In the era of the 386 performance depended on an external Math unit. The 486 was probably the only cpu that ever was the limiting factor of performance because it was before the day of the 3d accelerator, but if you stick a nice voodoo 1 in there it runs fine.
So as you can see the processor never did matter (that much)

Oh and as for performance:
It matters to me!!! I spent $$$$ on that processor and if it aint the best i'll be mighty ticked off.

:eek:  <font color=blue>I for one run Quake 3 on a P133(No MMX)</font color=blue>I have no affiliatioin w/ Intel
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2001 1:34:35 AM

Wouldn't a true efficiency analysis compare the amount of instructions completed per energy consumed? I agree that instructions per clock is a good indication of performance, but efficiency?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2001 1:38:23 AM

As usual an ignorant Intel zealot. Rambus isnt the holy grail for ram and it has limitations and cost problems. Its limitations lie within the chain like design of the bus the chips sit on. As you add more modules the latency increases as you add more chips to the bus. Plus the 400MHz signaling rate makes it difficult to have more then 2 rimms on a channel. Rambus is an excellent idea for space confined devices like handheld devices because of the low pin count of the chips. DDR is cheaper and nearly just as fast in realworld applications.

As for SSE2 and the P4 core; no real mainstream software is yet optimized for it and the Athlon does a fine job at keeping up with it in the benchmarks. So for now I am happy with my Athlon and maybe I might soon buy a P4 with DDR ram for my bedroom (I dont care who makes the CPU just as long it does the jobs I ask of it!).
October 22, 2001 1:38:58 AM

The most power hungry Athlon CPU in existence (the T-bird 1.4GHz) consumes less power at maximum (~75W) than the P4 2.0 GHz consumes on average (~76W). The P4 2.0GHz at maximum draws over 100W of power.

The AthlonXP PR1800 consumes about 66W of power at maximum.

Oh, and Melty's going to love this...the P4 2.0GHz runs as hot or hotter under load than an Athlon XP PR1800. A <A HREF="http://www.gamepc.com/reviews/hardware_review.asp?revie..." target="_new">P4 2GHz with a GlobalWin VAW32</A> hits 51C under full load--which, coincidentally, is the same temperature my T-bird 1.33GHz hits under full load with a GlobalWin FOP32. AthlonXP PR1800 draws the same amount of power and runs at the same temperatures as a T-bird 1.266GHz.

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2001 1:58:01 AM

Your numbers are most likely correct, or at least they sound ballpark to me, but I haven't had a look at any of the data sheets. That wasn't my point. It just seems like AMD_man is saying efficiency when he means performance.

Efficiency doesn't really mean all that much to me, but performance does. After all if my games are playable I'm willing to shell at that couple of bucks/pennies/whatever per month to the electric company just for that.

P.S. a process upgrade will make possible huge gains in efficiency, with no other changes, i.e. lower miller capacitances etc. I don't think you AMD fans will be so quick to point out efficiency numbers when this 0.13 micron stuff from Intel is showing up way before AMD has any, but you will always have your performance numbers to fall back on. That is what we all care about any way.
October 22, 2001 2:05:08 AM

knewton, you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the efficiency of power consumption, as in performance you're getting for the power it consumes, I'm talking about the amount of work the processor does on average per clock cycle. That is also a type of efficiency. It is the efficiency of the use of clock cycles.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2001 2:26:53 AM

There is only one type of efficiency as applied to machines. It is, as defined by Webster: the ratio of work done by a machine to the energy supplied to it, usually expressed as a percentage. It is a very clearly defined property. Sure I'm being a little picky, but it is less confusing if everyone agrees on using terms in the same way.
October 22, 2001 2:46:55 AM

Yes, that's true. It's how much of the energy a machine consumes that actually gets converted to useful work rather than heat. Hmmm, anyone know the IPW (Instructions per watt of power consumed)of the Athlon (XP) vs. the Pentium 4? Even in IPW, the Athlon would probably be superior, especially the Athlon XP which is 20% cooler at any given clock speed than an Athlon!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 22, 2001 2:56:52 AM

Ok, so lets call power : electricity, like in "hey i know 'stristy!" what amd want to say, and i agree with it, is that someone with a p4 1.7, or even a 2ghz, can say "i have the speediest processor, or more faster than yours!!" yeah, and who care anymore about that now. you have to know a few things, and if you know, you'll understand. that guy with the p4, he may say he have the fastest, but a athlon 1800+ in comparison is more efficient. i mean he have the ultimate machine, and he understand that Mhz (or Ghz now) doesnt means tha most powerfull now. Those who think that are out of it. Its funny to have a speedy processor, but it matter much if you have a computer that handle the work better, with a slower processor, or Ghz. I, for one, buy a computer not for the fuc.... processors (b-coz its a dually) but for the charge of work it can handle. And yes, i'm a gamer too. Due to the price of the athlon MP and the one of the motherboard, i have choosed a P3 system, but hey, with my dual p3 a blow up my friend with its P4. You can say that intel P4 is the best processor ever. i'll say yes, until another one show up with a better, wich have already happenned. i'll think too that your that you don't care about the price, and that you're a naĩve dummy in the hand of intel. It's not your fault, you have fallen under their supperb publicity. rest in peace.

P.S. I dont care if its written intel or amd on my CPU. What i care about is the amount of work it can do in a second, not the cycle per second. A big difference cut each other appart.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2001 3:10:48 AM

There you go, IPW. I have no idea what this would be for the various processors, but you could probably do some quick and dirty comparisons based on benchmarks and power figures given.

I don't think comparing IPW's would be all that useful for typical PC users, but if you're on a power budget it would be.

I bet your right though, Athalons are probably more efficient, however this is just based on my gut feeling not any real world data. I hate trying to figure out math stuff, so that's the best I can do for you. Your on your own for something more concrete.
October 22, 2001 3:20:24 AM

do you even know what sse2 is? do you even understand the architecture of rdram and what makes it so "great" according to you? do you even have a clue about computers and it's architecture and how it all works?

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2001 3:21:16 AM

I never said I thought one processor was better than another. Just making sure that is clear. Personally I like Athalons and Pentiums. Call me a slut. For what I need done the fastest version of either is wayhayhay more than I need.
October 22, 2001 7:39:38 AM

Do any of you guys read the articles or do you just look at the pictures?

From Tom's page written by Tom:

"I'll list Palomino's added features over Thunderbird once more:

Implementation of the full Intel SSE instruction set. The SSE processor flag is set (if the motherboard BIOS supports Palomino) so that software can recognize AthlonMP as a SSE-capable processor. AMD calls its SSE-implementation '3Dnow! Professional'."

Read the whole article at <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011009/athlonxp-0..." target="_new">link</A>


From AMD:
3DNow!™ Professional technology for leading-edge 3D operation

21 original 3DNow!™ instructions—the first technology enabling superscalar SIMD
19 additional instructions to enable improved integer math calculations for speech or video encoding and improved data movement for Internet plug-ins and other streaming applications
5 DSP instructions to improve soft modem, soft ADSL, Dolby Digital surround sound, and MP3 applications
52 SSE instructions with SIMD integer and floating point additions offer excellent compatibility with Intel’s SSE technology
Compatible with Windows® XP, Windows 98, Windows 95, and Windows NT® 4.x operating systems

Remember if you ain't Muslim you ain't Shiite.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by lakedude on 10/22/01 04:05 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2001 8:18:59 AM

>The CPU just isn't as important as it used to be. So
>what's all the fuss about?

Well, thats what they have been saying ever since Intel launched the 486-DX2 66 Mhz. I remember the cover of Byte magazine, that said somehting like "Who needs this kind of power ?". That was back in the Win3.1 days.




---- Owner of the only Dell computer with an AMD chip
October 22, 2001 8:33:48 AM

You should try Descent 3. I love the power to use dual joysticks at once.
October 22, 2001 9:52:56 AM

This CPU forum is also littered with P4 vs. Athlon (A & B & C) arguments.
October 22, 2001 11:46:37 AM

I'm not talking about ancient CPUs like the 486. I'm talking about arguments between the Athlon XP and Pentium 4. Who cares if you have an Athlon or Pentium!!!!!! We DON'T NEED ALL THE SPEED OF TODAY'S PROCESSORS. The hard drive is still the worst bottleneck, followed by any device on the PCI bus (forget PS/2, ISA, etc, that's legacy technology).

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 22, 2001 12:51:08 PM

"P.S. a process upgrade will make possible huge gains in efficiency, with no other changes, i.e. lower miller capacitances etc. I don't think you AMD fans will be so quick to point out efficiency numbers when this 0.13 micron stuff from Intel is showing up way before AMD has any, but you will always have your performance numbers to fall back on. That is what we all care about any way."

What is your definition of "way before AMD"?

Intel has apparently pushed their .13 P4 release (Northwood) back a couple months.

AMD says they are on track with their conversion to .13 for 1h02, which means it should be available within a few months of Northwood. That doesn't sound to me like Intel's .13 stuff is showing up way before AMD, but it could be due to our differing definitions of way before.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2001 1:09:30 PM

>We DON'T NEED ALL THE SPEED OF TODAY'S PROCESSORS.

Thats exactly my point. But, we have been saying this for 10 years, and yet I dont know of anyone who still uses his 386 that was way too fast back then.

As always, for joe average that surfs the web, uses email, plays MP3 and uses some office applications, current high end CPU's are about 3-4x faster than required. But for high core gamers, people who enjoy editing digital video, 3D rendering, ripping DVD to DivX, etc, a cpu simply cant be too fast. Do you know how long it takes to rip a dvd and convert it divx on a athlon 1.4 ? Around 1O hours ! If sometime next year a cpu comes out that is 3x as fast, it will still take 3 hours.

As for games.. most current games will run fine on a 800-1000 Mhz cpu with a decent videocard; but game developpers are always exploring new ways of making good use of all this processing power. Current high end cpu's will be outdated in 2 year, and current "mainstream" cpu's (say, an 800 Mhz Duron/athlon/P3) will not be fast enough to cope with games comming out in a year or so. Have a look here:
<A HREF="http://www.appeal.be/html/TLP/Media.htm" target="_new">http://www.appeal.be/html/TLP/Media.htm&lt;/A>
Not sure whether you know "outcast"; a 2 year old superb game that didnt use 3D acceleration, but used pure software to render voxels (maximum 512x340 something resolution !!).
(
THese are screenshots of its succecor. Im sure that wont run decently on a 800 Mhz celeron. But man, do they look good..

---- Quote of the day: "I hope admin can delete massages.."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2001 1:47:29 PM

>AMD says they are on track with their conversion to .13
>for 1h02, which means it should be available within a few
>months of Northwood.

Intel already has .13 out.. the tualatin. Hardly in mass quantities, but still it proves they got it working.. I also suspect AMD to release .13 mobile cpu's first to iron out the last .13 issues, and with desktop cpu's following in maybe Q302

---- Quote of the day: "I hope admin can delete massages.."
October 22, 2001 2:21:08 PM

Tualatin is moot.

Here I ewas thinking you meant the mainstream processors of the two companies.

Intel has stated Tualatin is not mainstream; that P4 is their main CPU for the future. Based on that logic, whether INTC has .13 already is kind of moot since their mainstream CPU won't see it in the stream until Q1/02.

By the time Intel starts getting mass quantities of P4/Northwoods in production, chances are AMD will be producing their own .13. So, what's the advantage? A couple months...maybe...not enough to matter in the greater scheme of things I suspect.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
October 22, 2001 3:54:18 PM

Quote:

But for high core gamers, people who enjoy editing digital video, 3D rendering, ripping DVD to DivX, etc, a cpu simply cant be too fast. Do you know how long it takes to rip a dvd and convert it divx on a athlon 1.4 ? Around 1O hours ! If sometime next year a cpu comes out that is 3x as fast, it will still take 3 hours.

As I said, if you're serious about video editing, you'd get am expensive hardware MPEG2 encoder card. There are probably hardware MPEG4 encorders cards out there too. It's just they are very highly priced.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 23, 2001 9:20:51 AM

I'm not serious about.. just trying it out, since I happen to know someone with a DV camera. There is no way I can justify the purchase of an encoder card.

Also, there is no alternative to a fast cpu for rendering, for gaming (in combination with a fast video card), dvd ripping, image editing of large images, or voice recognition. If none of these apply, a low end cpu will do just fine.

---- Quote of the day: "I hope admin can delete massages.."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 23, 2001 11:09:42 AM

"way before AMD"

A few months, or whatever is a heck of a long time for something that will only be on top for a few weeks/months at a time. Also by the time AMD has released working parts Intel will have had time to work out many of their kinks, and should be pumping out relatively more parts. I'm not saying it will be the end of the world or anything for AMD, just that it would have been nice if they could have had this at the same time to help them stay competetive.

I hardly think Intel will be content producing smaller feature parts just for the added efficiency they could provide, rather they most likely will start bumping clock speed again. Though most here know that clock speed doesn't necessarily mean everything, the rest of the world is willing to pay top dollar for it. On top of that, no matter what kind of instruction per clock count advantage the Athalons have, enough raw clock speed advantage on the PIV's will allow them to outperform them.
October 23, 2001 12:40:21 PM

If the P4 gained a significant performance advantage over the Athlon XP for those few months, you could be right. However, with a new speed grade of XP, perhaps TWO, I don't see P4 gaining much performance advantage for that short period. Meanwhile, until Northwood comes out in...January? Athlon XP holds a performance advantage.

So, what do I see maybe?

3-4 months of XP performance advantage, then 3-4 months of Northwood advantage, THEN back to the Athlon Thoroughbred advantage for several months.

In the scheme of things, this is no revelation and likely will not have much effect on either CPU's sales or dominance.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 23, 2001 7:04:41 PM

I agree that this battle for the lead will probably continue to shift, and you gotta love it. I remember spending close to $900 on my P2-400MHz like the day after it was released. Now even the fastest Intel parts are released at a little over half that cost. I seem to be reaping the rewards of this competition.

Depending on the 0.13 micron yields we may see very fast parts from Intel very soon. Although it seems like Intel doesn't really try to push the envelope as much as AMD does, and are content to release parts which just barely take the performance lead. I see this as a tactic similar to bluffing in a game of poker. I guess the bean counters down at Intel would have it that way. I'll probably never understand the bean counting logic.
October 23, 2001 8:36:38 PM

900$?
just a year ago i spent 300$ for 256 MB SDRAM-kinston Valueram..
arg...
now it cost 10 times less as much..at the most..

<font color=green>
*******
*K.I.S.S*
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
*******
</font color=green>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 23, 2001 8:48:30 PM

Dude, don't get me started. Have you ever seen magnetic core memory? Companies used to pay multiples of $1000's just to get a few K of it. Ahhh, the bad old days. Takes me back.
!