Laptops with Using AMD
FC
Hi,
I was wondering if there are any Athlon based laptops
out there. I am assuming that they would be cheaper
than Intel ones.
They certainly don't seem to be many out there.
Thanks
Felix
lew...@lycos.com
less a laptop. But people want to cut corners no matter what it seems.
lcopps
much faster per MHz than the Pentium 4. The ALU is better, and I have
one in my desktop that runs circles around the Intel processor I
replaced. The only disadvantages I see with the Athlon is the higher
temperature they run at. They are cheaper, and a good deal. However I
believe Intel processors are better on power with Intel's speedstep
technology. My IBM T30 has a Mobile P4. My Athlon can still run circles
around it.
Todd D. Diers
circles around the P4, including
Athlons (no brainer here), PIII (yes, you heard it). This has been well
documented since the test reports
first came out. And Intel still hasn't produced a logical reason (bad
engineering perhaps). Their excuse is
the bench mark programs can't test it's new features to the max so it looks
like it runs slower. YEAH RIGHT.
Anyone want to buy some swamp land?!?!
Yes it does a very good job on games and multimedia. So does the Athlon and
others. But the Athlon is
the boss in business apps now. Intel has been caught covering up the design
flaws twice in the past. Yet
some suckers still won't buy anything else. Intel: "Prove to us that the
flaw is causing problems in your
business and we'll talk about maybe replacing your CPU." Then after they
admitted the problem and a
redesigned chip was manufactured......Yeah Right AGAIN. 1 Plant makes the
new chip, 2-3 plants still
making the old chip. Both labeled the same, so you can't tell which is the
good one.
Just my 2 cents.
Todd Diers
"lcopps" <l...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3E62FCC3...@nospam.com...
drgr...@hotpotato.com
just flat out faster than anything Intel has on the table today. In a
desktop, they do pump out some BTU's but they are manageable with a
good HSF. I run a dual MP system and a straight XP system here, and
I'm pleased as punch. Business graphics/tasks fly... Powerpoint,
Premiere, Photoshop, Corel, Office.... awesome.
While there are AMD based notebooks... I haven't had the pleasure of
using one, so I can't comment on whether the heat is an issue in those
mobile cpus. But performance wise... you'd have to expect that they
would blow away any Intel-based notebook.
Put it this way... if IBM offered a choice of a AMD Mobile 2600XP vs a
3GHz Intel in the ThinkPads... I'd go with the AMD. And so would a
big majority of users I suspect.
Mike
Jus
I got it last year.
I can't really comment on it's performance since I have only used slower
laptops.
My desktop has an Athlon 1.2GHz and I think it runs a little quicker than
the laptop. Can't really tell.
"FC" <chu...@alum.rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.18cc8ce4a...@171.69.11.157...
Andrew
: I do not know what you have based your opinion on, but the Athlon is
So what? "faster per MHZ" means nothing. It's like saying your car's
V8 engine is better than my V6 because the V8 can go the same speed at
lower RPM. Who cares? All that matters is all out performance. The
P4 was designed to have more pipe stages, so it takes more clock ticks
to do the same work, yet this allows them to scale up the clock
frequency much higher than older designs.
Sure, the Intel CPUs cost more. But AMD has been losing money hand
over fist for years now except for a few profitable quarters in the
last five years. Has it ever occured to anyone that AMD is taking a
*loss* on the CPU's they sell you just to stay competitive? Intel has
never lost money in the last 15 years; if they wanted to lose money
like AMD, they could sell their CPUs even cheaper than AMD does.
: The ALU is better, and I have
: one in my desktop that runs circles around the Intel processor I
: replaced.
What were you replacing? Could you even *buy* a new CPU today (Intel,
AMD, or otherwise) that doesn't run circles around any old CPU you are
replacing?
As far as I know, Intel's P4 is the fast "Windows CPU" you can buy
today. AMD's Athlons are not far behind - it's competitive. See
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-32.html#comparison_table
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Andrew
: I'd have to agree with the AMD side of this discussion. AMD chips are
: just flat out faster than anything Intel has on the table today.
Hmm - Tom's Hardware seems to disagree with you. See
drgr...@hotpotato.com
switched to AMD a few years agao and haven't looked back. Here's a
report from IT World that might interest readers:
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1986/030210barton/
And here's AMDs perspective:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_1274_3734,00.html
Perhaps the issue isn't whether AMD is .005% faster than Intel or vice
versa, but whether or not the use of one or the other in my system is
going to cost me more. Intel is running ads on TV which cost millions
a minute. AMD does a print camapign. I know the cost of advertising,
and shooting commercials... I've done it. That overhead (and plenty
more) gets built into the price of the product (in this case the CPU)
and the user suffers. If you feel comfortable paying a premium for
the Intel name that's fine... but if I can get equal... or maybe
better performance for less with an AMD, me... I'll go that route.
Here's another snippet noting that AMD and IBM are collaborating on
new CPU designs:
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1986/030108amdibm/
Don't get me wrong, Tom's is a good resource, and perhaps when he gets
his hands on the latest and greatest from AMD he'll give everyone an
update.
Mike
On 4 Mar 2003 22:34:14 GMT, usenet...@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew)
wrote:
Andrew
: I think it's all about who is paying who to endorse what chip. I
: switched to AMD a few years agao and haven't looked back. Here's a
: report from IT World that might interest readers:
: http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1986/030210barton/
: And here's AMDs perspective:
: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_1274_3734,00.html
: Perhaps the issue isn't whether AMD is .005% faster than Intel or vice
: versa, but whether or not the use of one or the other in my system is
: going to cost me more.
Sure, people love to save money. Just realize that the Athlon is not
a better CPU just because they are losing money to sell it to you
cheaper than an Intel CPU that makes money. The Athlon is really an
amazing achievement - AMD did it in a lot less time than Intel did the
P4 with fewer people, so I don't want to sell it short. And it
shocked the hell out of Intel by beating Intel CPUs on most benchmarks
at first. Intel had to jump through amazing hoops to avoid being
overtaken completely. You are getting Intel chips cheaper today
thanks to AMD.
The biggest knock I have heard about the Athlon is that runs hotter
than Intel CPU's at the same performance level. I'm not arguing that
Athlon is better or worse than an Intel chip, but too often people
knock Intel unfairly because they love to hate the big guy. They have
trouble being objective. People on this thread have said, for
example, that AMD chips are faster (lots faster) than Intel chips but
as of today that isn't true at all.
: Don't get me wrong, Tom's is a good resource, and perhaps when he gets
: his hands on the latest and greatest from AMD he'll give everyone an
: update.
Tom obviously likes AMD cpus - I'm sure the first he gets an AMD cpu
that is faster than an Intel chip test results will be on his site
ASAP.