I STILL SUPPORT AMD
Phoenix
1800+, i think they really need it, at least for the moment, to fight the
gigahertz battle against intel.
Athlon XP 1800+ sure sounds much more appealing than athlon 1.53Ghz....
also, pls read important updated news on www.cyberpolice.ws if you are
interested.
thanks.
Phoenix
CSO (Chief Security Officer)
Head, Global Operations
CyberPol
http://www.cyberpolice.ws
http://www.cyberpolice.nu
ICQ: 130436985
Ryan
"Phoenix" <pho...@p.com.sg> wrote in message
news:9q28du$rvs$1...@violet.singnet.com.sg...
> Though some people oppose AMD's naming convention for its athlon XP eg.
> 1800+, i think they really need it, at least for the moment, to fight the
> gigahertz battle against intel.
Yeah, but it sucks that it had to come to that. There really needs to be a
new performance benchmark than just MHz. Then again, if Joe Consumer would
take the time to read up on the product he was about to drop $1,000 or more
on, he'd know that MHz isn't the only performance indicator.
> Athlon XP 1800+ sure sounds much more appealing than athlon 1.53Ghz....
right... so if i make my car *sound* fast, it will be much more appealing
too.
E2001
"Ryan" <lum...@lummer.com> wrote in message
news:tsbid4q...@corp.supernews.com...
>so if i make my car *sound* fast, it will be much more appealing too.
>
because of it's improved performance; but because of it's sound, it's
appearance, and it's 'feel for the road'.
Having been in the computer industry for some time, I can state from
experience that I will sell more junk computers in pretty cases than I will
super-computers in white boxes.
When Intel first marketed the Pentium III, they had pictures of the CPU
plastered all over their advertising. When viewed alongside any other CPU on
the market, the PIII appeared to be the "sportscar". It was an effective
marketing strategy, because the numbers weren't all that relevant to the
general consumer. Image can sell more product than numbers could ever hope
to.
Paul Tiseo
says...
> new performance benchmark than just MHz. Then again, if Joe Consumer would
> take the time to read up on the product he was about to drop $1,000 or more
> on, he'd know that MHz isn't the only performance indicator.
There are plenty of performance benchmarks. Take SPEC for example.
The problem lies in picking one way to benchmark that everyone agrees
with. You'd have a better chance of peace in the Middle East...
(Any opinions expressed are stricly mine only and not my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Tiseo, Intermediate Systems Programmer
Birdsall 3, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville
4500 San Pablo Rd, FL, 32224
tiseo...@mayo.edu -- (904) 953-8254
Ryan
"E2001" <el...@NOSPAMneo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6fkx7.1317$Rw2.7...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Ryan" <lum...@lummer.com> wrote in message
> news:tsbid4q...@corp.supernews.com...
> >so if i make my car *sound* fast, it will be much more appealing too.
> >
> Actually, that's not far from the truth. A sports car is not more
appealing
> because of it's improved performance; but because of it's sound, it's
> appearance, and it's 'feel for the road'.
sadly, I think you're right about this. that's probably why those
aftermarket exhaust systems sell so well.
> Having been in the computer industry for some time, I can state from
> experience that I will sell more junk computers in pretty cases than I
will
> super-computers in white boxes.
I'm guilty of this one. only I have the best of both worlds -- good
computer in a Lian-Li PC60 case! :)
> When Intel first marketed the Pentium III, they had pictures of the CPU
> plastered all over their advertising. When viewed alongside any other CPU
on
> the market, the PIII appeared to be the "sportscar". It was an effective
> marketing strategy, because the numbers weren't all that relevant to the
> general consumer. Image can sell more product than numbers could ever hope
> to.
The first time I saw the first Coppermine Pentium III (s370), I admit, it
looked *really* cool!
Yousuf Khan
> sadly, I think you're right about this. that's probably why those
> aftermarket exhaust systems sell so well.
And let's not forget those purple neon lights under the car, and those
extra-high wings on the back of the cars.
Yousuf Khan
Ed Wilk
much cheaper and runs programs just as fast as a P4 2GHz. But for
average Joe consumer these retail stores should have posters with
benchmarks from the top 3 web sites and let them decide.
Intel is misleading consumers more then AMD is with numbers.
I'd like to see.... P3-2GHz vs P4-2GHz. :)
Cheers,
Ed
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 03:48:53 +0800, "Phoenix" <pho...@p.com.sg>
wrote:
E2001
"Ed Wilk" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:qh8dsto5pt9rc2qar...@4ax.com...
> Intel is misleading consumers more then AMD is with numbers.
> I'd like to see.... P3-2GHz vs P4-2GHz. :)
>
Actually, I think there's a better way to guage this than simply measuring
the core speed; since actual performance is really equal to something like
"cycles-per-second - processor overhead". AMD chips have less overhead, so
naturally they perform better.
If someone could work up an accepatable method of guaging "processor
thru-put", I think that would be a more acurate rating system. Since CPU
output roughly equates to "bus instructions (whether those instructions be
to draw a pixel on the screen; send a tone to the soundcard; or draw a text
character in notepad)", you could have a rating system such as "Pentium
800Gi (Giga-instruction)", or "Athlon 933Gi". I really have no idea what the
numbers would presently work out to. But considering CPU overhead, such
chips as these might well have the same internal clock speed under the
current system. So it would make more sense to guage actual CPU output,
rather than it's internal processing speed.