three guesses

[Testin da Cable]

 

[Embattle]

A chip

 

[Testin da Cable]

well duh =P
/me twats hembackle in the pods
which chip?

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by testin_da_cable
well duh =P
/me twats hembackle in the pods
which chip?

Well duh...its a computer chip...don't quiet look like a potato chip

 

[Testin da Cable]

sometimes you don't impress me at all Emb
btw, I know you're working up to it so...that was strike 2 =P

 

[Embattle]

Happens to be an athlon xp...tsk

 

[Testin da Cable]

yay

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by testin_da_cable
naxp4.jpg

Tsk

 

[Testin da Cable]

could have been nax p4.jpg heh
any idea why the IMG code is off btw?

 

[Perplex]

I heard a rumour that along with AMD putting fake clock speeds on the chip (not core speed, but the PR (anyone say Cyrix?) speeds like 1800+ for a 1500mhz chip) that they will also be selling the XP for the same price as the P4 - pound for pound.

Can anyone substantiate that? This was rumoured to be one of the many reasons many top flight PC vendors told AMD to fuck off and are stopping selling their products (Gateway, Tiny, et al)

 

[Embattle]

Save resources

 

[Embattle]

Yes Perplex I heard they were going to do a rating system since Athlons are generally faster they wanted to stop peoples love of raw numbers affecting sales and thus create a system that compares it to a faster, Mhz, P4

 

[Perplex]

Errr, isn't that like a Fiat Uno Turbo 1.3 being souped up to beat an Astra GTE 2.0, then Fiat turning round and changing the badge to read Fiat Uno Turbo 2.0?

Yes, it's exactly the same. Bottom dollar is that the industry has always used core speeds to rate CPUs, and AMD along with being skanky cunts and using the XP brandname to steal sales, are further confusing customers in the hope of achieving a few more cheap sales.

We can see why AMD feels it needs to stress that it's chips are faster than they seem from reading only their clock speed, but coming up with specious terminology isn't going to solve the problem one little bit. ®

 

[Testin da Cable]

aye, tis true.
thing is, in the tbird the 'rating' is more or less correct so that is good enough for me.
however, if the 'xp' turns out to be obscenely expensive, I shall be well miffed

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Perplex
Bottom dollar is that the industry has always used core speeds to rate CPUs, and AMD along with being skanky cunts and using the XP brandname to steal sales, are further confusing customers in the hope of achieving a few more cheap sales.

Intel isn't really any different...tbh both are as bad as each other.

If AMD try to push there prices up they will have trouble since AMD still offer the better price/performance package, their main selling point.

 

[Perplex]

On the pricing front, better get the kleenex out TDC.

Web site OC Workbench has piccies of the Athlon XP 1500+ (ie. 1.33GHz) having spotted the part on sale in Taipei for NT$4800 ($135).

vs

·1.5GHz P4 - $133

Both chips are as fast as each other (even tho the AMD is only 1.33ghz) but the P4 will clock up to over 1800mhz (easily) - for the same money

AMD have got a cold cold winter ahead of them, especially with several major vendors giving them the middle finger

 

[Perplex]

More fuel:

$260 - Athlon XP 1800 (1.53GHz)
$225 - 1.8GHz P4

How can I say this....the 0.13 Micron P4 (which clock MUCH higher than their official speeds - XP doesn't clock much at all, core is at it's limit) is CHEAPER than the AMD product

 

[Embattle]

Chip prices may be equaling out but one fact remains...P4 has over priced mobos and memory which will still make it less actractive to the home builder.

 

[Perplex]

RDRam prices are dropping like crazy, and added to that, it makes DDR ram look nothing more than standard RAM when used in a P4 system

 

[Embattle]

Still costs three times as much and doesn't do much for system performance overall.

 

[stu]

AMDs are for paupers

end of

 

[stu]

Originally posted by Embattle
Still costs three times as much and doesn't do much for system performance overall.

Utter horseshit. Brookdale (the new SDRAM P4 mobo chipset) is almost 20% slower than an RDRAM system. Added to which 1mb RDRAM != 1MB SDRAM in terms of performance - 256MB of RDRAM is sufficient for a high end workstation, and 512MB is power server territory.

 

[Perplex]

Originally posted by Stu-
AMDs are for paupers

end of

Not any more, the XP chips (an inferior product by all measures) is MORE EXPENSIVE than the P4 (a NEXT GEN cpu, with shitloads of scalability)

I'll enjoy watching all the snivelling pikes come crawling back to intel

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Stu-


Utter horseshit. Brookdale (the new SDRAM P4 mobo chipset) is almost 20% slower than an RDRAM system.

Statistically yes in reality doesn't do much and brookdale stinks.

 

[Perplex]

Originally posted by Embattle


Statistically yes in reality doesn't do much and brookdale stinks.

A highly reasoned and scientific argument there :/

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Stu-


Utter horseshit. Brookdale (the new SDRAM P4 mobo chipset) is almost 20% slower than an RDRAM system. Added to which 1mb RDRAM != 1MB SDRAM in terms of performance - 256MB of RDRAM is sufficient for a high end workstation, and 512MB is power server territory.

Just in case you found it hard to read...Per was talking RDRAM and DDR, never mind

 

[stu]

Statistically? What the fuck are you on about? ok, so "statistically" a Thunderbird 1.5GHz is faster than a P3 (ie, it is). But not really!!!

Why does Brookdale stink? Because of SDRAM. P4 platform is optimised for RDRAM, and it demonstrates just how superior it is.

Besides, RDRAM has dropped massively in the past few months, it's now at the same price SDRAM was about 4 months ago. It'll drop further, but tbh even if it doesn't big deal? £160 (ie 512mb) isn't going to break my bank, but then I guess that's the point at the end of it. I can afford the best, so I'll pay for it. Those that can't will stick with AMD.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Perplex


A highly reasoned and scientific argument there :/

I'm talking about Sisoft memory benchmark type stats against real world performance where memory bandwidth etc doesn't play a big part in most programs.

 

[stu]

ps: just in case YOU find it hard to read, DDR RAM gives a TINY advantage over SDRAM. Check Anandtech, for example. So don't patronise me when you don't know what you're on about.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Stu-
Statistically? What the fuck are you on about? ok, so "statistically" a Thunderbird 1.5GHz is faster than a P3 (ie, it is). But not really!!!

Why does Brookdale stink? Because of SDRAM. P4 platform is optimised for RDRAM, and it demonstrates just how superior it is.

Besides, RDRAM has dropped massively in the past few months, it's now at the same price SDRAM was about 4 months ago. It'll drop further, but tbh even if it doesn't big deal? £160 (ie 512mb) isn't going to break my bank, but then I guess that's the point at the end of it. I can afford the best, so I'll pay for it. Those that can't will stick with AMD.

No you're a mug...the end