intel e1300 vs amd 4400+
Jure Sah
I convinced a friend of mine to get an AMD 4400+ instead of an Intel e1300.
Now I want to proove it to him that the cpu is better. Alas, I cannot
find any comparable benchmarks between the two CPUs or even standalone
Intel e1300 benchmarks. When I google up "Intel e1300", it says 0 results.
Can someone help?
Rich Billionaire
wrote:
Did you check out Tom's Hardware web site? They have comparisons of
all the AMD & Intel cpus.
R. C. White
Very few experienced Usenet readers will open an attachment from a stranger,
especially if there is no text at all in the message body. You'll have a
much better chance of finding help if you will just type your question into
your message. I've copied it for you from your Message Source:
<paste>
Hello,
I convinced a friend of mine to get an AMD 4400+ instead of an Intel e130=
0.
Now I want to proove it to him that the cpu is better. Alas, I cannot
find any comparable benchmarks between the two CPUs or even standalone
Intel e1300 benchmarks. When I google up "Intel e1300", it says 0 results=
=2E
Can someone help?
</paste>
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
r...@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Live Mail 2008 in Vista Ultimate x64 SP1)
"Jure Sah" <dust...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g64fpl$eh2$1...@localhost.localdomain...
Benjamin Gawert
> Very few experienced Usenet readers will open an attachment from a
> stranger, especially if there is no text at all in the message body.
There is no attachment and there is text in the message body. It's just
your crap newsreader (Windows Mail aka Outlook Express) that doesn't
show any text and shows an attachment when there is none. You should
really get a better news client.
Benjamin
Jure Sah
I have to agree.
What you see is not an attachment, it's just a PGP signed message (a
certificate that makes sure that my content has not been tampered with
after I sent it and prooving that I sent it).
I suggest you use Thunderbird. It works a lot better and it's free. The
Enigmail addon for it will also verify the PGP signature.
Jure Sah
I just find it suspicious how nobody ever reviews shitty Intel CPUs.
Tom's hardware has reviews of even the AMD Sempron 3200+, but no mention
whatsoever of the E1300, or even the slightly less sucky E1400 (which
seems to exist on Google unlike the E1300).
No wonder so many people are convinced AMDs suck.
Andy
wrote:
>Hello,
You're talking about a processor that exists (AMD 4400+) to one that
does not exist (Intel E1300). It's no contest; the processor that
exists beats the one that doesn't.
Jure Sah
> You're talking about a processor that exists (AMD 4400+) to one that
> does not exist (Intel E1300). It's no contest; the processor that
> exists beats the one that doesn't.
Funny how something I can buy in the local store for 50 € doesn't exist.
Jure Sah
From:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/247939-10-buyers-guide-updated-2008
--- Begin quote ---
Intel Celeron E1200*
Speed: 1.6GHz
Number of Cores: 2
Cache: 512KB
FSB: 800MHZ
Supported features: SpeedStep, 64bit computing, and NX disable bit.
Not supported features: Virtualization
eSpec: SLAQW/Stepping: M0
* This processor has 2 revisions: L2 and M0
E1300
Speed: 1.8GHz
Cores: 2
Cache: 512KB
FSB: 800MHz
Supported Features: N/A
Not supported Featurs: N/A
Rev: M0
eSpec: N/A
E1400
Speed: 2GHz
Cores: 2
Cache: 512KB
FSB: 800MHz
Supported Features: N/A
Not supported Featurs: N/A
Rev: L2
eSpec: N/A
---- End quote ----
How's that. Specs for a non-existent CPU!
The wonders of internet.