Francisco H Tapia
my.lists at verizon.net
Wed Jun 9 11:02:07 CDT 2004
jwcolby wrote On 6/8/2004 1:59 PM: >>My opinion is that Intel makes a fine microprocessor as does AMD. >> >> > >Yes, Intel is a fine company and makes fine processors. AMD is the little >guy making slightly better processors for slightly less. Add the two >slightly and you get a fair "bang for the buck" advantage going with AMD. > > > I disagree, although Intel was at one point a "fine" company, they have long pushed their weight around as the dominant processor. Even w/ the leaps and bounds that AMD has done, Most people still think of AMD as a 2nd rate chip. While having experianced both P4 and Athlons, I can w/o a doubt say that ALL AMD ATHLON systems I've worked on are faster than that of their Intel P4 counterparts. I've seen it with machines w/ RAMBUS which are supposed to boast and brag about high performance and I've seen it w/ the later P4's that went DDR (and even dualchannel) >>It's just my humble opinion that day in and day out I get more bang for my >> >> >buck with AMD. > >Mine too. Unlike MS where there is no competition, the processor market has >some. I buy AMD for two reasons. > >1.) Their product is good, slightly better (for the price) than Intel's >and.. >2.) If Intel ever does "own" the market as MS does, their prices will go up. >So I support the competition. > > > My boss recently picked up a 3.x ghz P4 for the office (I say x because I'm unsure if it's a 3.2 or the later 3.4... :|, in any case it's a Dell), and the system IS fast, it IS zippy, it does get off it's duff and run Windows XP like a champ, and it should w/ what 1gig of dual channel 400mhz (800mhz) DDR. However it isn't MUCH faster than my Athlon 2000+ XP NOR is it much faster than some of the other boxes I've put together running 2600+ Athlons. The true test will be when I finally get my hands on an AMD Athlon 3400+ and run it up against the P4 w/ real benchmarks... because all the systems I mentioned above can process DivX (among other software) withing frames of each other... I support AMD not to keep Intel from winning more marketshare, (no I brag about how fast AMD processors are for that ;o)). I do however BUY AMD because it does "OFFER" more BANG for the BUCK. I can get "better" performance on an AMD processor for the same money (or less) than it cost to go w/ Intel. Example...If I want to spend under $200 bucks for a an Processor+Mobo combo, I will end up with more processing power when I choose the AMD route. For me it's not about keeping Chipzilla tamed, it's about earning more processing power w/ my $$. With the Extra cash I save I can apply to get a better video card. :o) >Microprocessor design / production is not something you can do in your >garage and create a competitor for the giant company. It takes bucks, BIG >bucks. Intel has BIG bucks to throw at research / design as well as fab >plants. > > because Intel has "SUCH" big bucks, it is very disappointing to see them struggle to come up with a truely superior chip. I'm not Anti-Intel, I'm just not gonna buy something that sucks and pay more for it., I remember in the days of 386/486 chips, you HAD to go w/ Intel.. in fact PII and PIII's were all in Intel's domain, however it wasn't until the screwed around w/ trying to provide a crippled version of the PIII that they went to hell, w/ their Celeron processors running cooler and faster than the later PIII's, :O. My first AMD processor was an AMD 300mhz 3D. I bought this puppy w/ the promise that it could deliver graphics at a better price factor. there's also all the propaganda that surround AMD chips, is that they are not as stable. While there are chipset manufactures that suck, namely PCCHIPS, and then SIS in it's former years (pre-Dragon). That's not to say that Intel hasn't had it's share of problems with it's OWN chipsets, (Intel Brand). k, better get off this soapbox before I fall off :D -- -Francisco