If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Keith wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote: Keith wrote: [...] True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood. You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you. Not a mistake. The Northwood was quite a good choice everything considered. The performance issue is not as clear cut as you seem to suggest, you can probably find favourable benchmarks in both directions, depending on which team you belong. You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as another cartoon character, to be named later, once said) I have also built using Northwoord, but belong to neither team. Now there is a laugh! ...and on many levels! ;-)) Once the computer was completed, the processor type was not foremost in my mind. Well, duh! You're saying that once you made your decisions youu didn't look back? At least you make *some* sense. -- Keith I know you're winding me up and it's stupid to answer your post. But what's the big deal? Are the AMD light years ahead of the Intel Northwood at the same affordable price? I doubt it. As I said, there are certainly arguments and official benchmarks both ways - yes I said both ways. So far I've had no problems with my Northwood system, not even minor niggles. It works and I'm now getting on with interesting software projects. Have a nice day. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Lee Waun wrote:
No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need you AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater for I computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the prescotts which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once again Intel is superior. No, actually it's more like, historically comp.sys.intel was *never* just about Intel. It was always about the architecture that Intel started. So competing products that are compatible with Intel's products are on-topic. When the group was originally started it seemed like a good idea to call it "Intel", it seemed generic enough while being descriptive enough at the time. Similarly, a group called comp.sys.IBM.PC.hardware is not limited to the discussion of IBM products, let alone IBM PC products. In fact, very little IBM products discussions actually ever goes on in this group. Again, at the time the group was created, it seemed like a good description, but that market has evolved since then. Yousuf Khan |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith" wrote in message
news On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote: You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as another cartoon character, to be named later, once said) You're obviously referring to Amadeus Mozart Drobnik. Having failed (despite his parents' expectations) as a professional musician, he learned that there was a B-25 Mitchell twin-engine bomber stuck in the side of the Empire State Building, a few floors beneith King Kong's former perch. So he donned a colorful leotard-cap outfit, and rode the elevator to the location of the stuck bomber. Alas, while struggling heroically to displace the B-25, he slipped and fell. The cape, a cheap Chinese knock-off, bore a label stating "If cape fails to function properly, return to Pei Ping for free replacement." Wouldn't you know it, the cape did malfunction in an aerodynamic sense. Poor Drobnik. [Sternly] Keith, you know better to bring up this Drobnik episode! Obviously, AMD belongs in another newsgroup! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:10:54 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message news On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote: You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as another cartoon character, to be named later, once said) You're obviously referring to Amadeus Mozart Drobnik. Felger, you're always giving answers for free! Where's the fun in teasing kidz when you soil the punch line? I doubt the kidz of today even read Drobnik's strip in the Sunday comics. ...much less anything more sophisticated. Having failed (despite his parents' expectations) as a professional musician, he learned that there was a B-25 Mitchell twin-engine bomber stuck in the side of the Empire State Building, a few floors beneith King Kong's former perch. So he donned a colorful leotard-cap outfit, and rode the elevator to the location of the stuck bomber. Alas, while struggling heroically to displace the B-25, he slipped and fell. The cape, a cheap Chinese knock-off, bore a label stating "If cape fails to function properly, return to Pei Ping for free replacement." Wouldn't you know it, the cape did malfunction in an aerodynamic sense. Poor Drobnik. Felg! We all know how badly GWB has screwed up the economy by sending cape manufacturing off-shore, but can you really blame the Chi-Comms on the Mitchell's navigation system too? oops, that was Clinton that sold the INS stuff [Sternly] Keith, you know better to bring up this Drobnik episode! Obviously, AMD belongs in another newsgroup! comp.sys.alternate.reality? -- Keith |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:37:35 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
Keith wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote: Keith wrote: [...] True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood. You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you. Not a mistake. The Northwood was quite a good choice everything considered. The performance issue is not as clear cut as you seem to suggest, you can probably find favourable benchmarks in both directions, depending on which team you belong. You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as another cartoon character, to be named later, once said) I have also built using Northwoord, but belong to neither team. Now there is a laugh! ...and on many levels! ;-)) Once the computer was completed, the processor type was not foremost in my mind. Well, duh! You're saying that once you made your decisions youu didn't look back? At least you make *some* sense. -- Keith I know you're winding me up and it's stupid to answer your post. NOt as long as we understand each other. ;-) But what's the big deal? Are the AMD light years ahead of the Intel Northwood at the same affordable price? I doubt it. Other than some specific uses, your doubts would be unsubstantiated. The only place a P4 has *ever* had an advantage over an AMD processor is in video streaming. ...and that advantage evaporates when one brings in price. If you've been around the block here (.chips) a few times you would have understood this. In short, if your business is video and graphic-arts, buy an Apple. ;-) As I said, there are certainly arguments and official benchmarks both ways - yes I said both ways. So far I've had no problems with my Northwood system, not even minor niggles. SO far my AMD64 system has had nothign but clear-sailing too. So? Oh, and my K6-II before that, and my IBM (Cyrix) before that (my Intel P5 *sucked*). OTOH, I do this stuff for a living, so understand the issues more than common folk. It works and I'm now getting on with interesting software projects. Have a nice day. That's pleasing to know. You have lots-a-money doing what you do. Be happy. ;-) ...but no one here is convinced that your Northwoord was the best solution, at least based on your arguments so far. It is now, since you've gone for it (sorta the "existance theorem"). -- Keith |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Johannes H Andersen wrote: Keith wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote: Keith wrote: [...] True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood. You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you. Not a mistake. The Northwood was quite a good choice everything considered. Everything considered? Did you consider a 64 bit OS and 64 bit software???? The performance issue is not as clear cut as you seem to suggest, you can probably find favourable benchmarks in both directions, depending on which team you belong. Read this review. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1 Notice that in most instances a $290 Athlon 64 3400+ outperforms a $420 Pentium 4 3.4ghz, often by a large margin, and the Athlon 64 3400+ even beats the $1,000 Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE chip in some benchmarks. Keep in mind that the review only rates 32 bit performance with a 32 bit OS. That is the lowest level of functionality of an Athlon 64. The next step up is 32 bit software with a 64 bit OS, then the ultimate performance is with 64 bit software using a 64 bit OS. You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as another cartoon character, to be named later, once said) I have also built using Northwoord, but belong to neither team. Now there is a laugh! ...and on many levels! ;-)) Once the computer was completed, the processor type was not foremost in my mind. Well, duh! You're saying that once you made your decisions youu didn't look back? At least you make *some* sense. -- Keith I know you're winding me up and it's stupid to answer your post. But what's the big deal? Are the AMD light years ahead of the Intel Northwood at the same affordable price? Yes. What will you do when you want to run 64 bit software? Throw out your CPU and motherboard? I doubt it. As I said, there are certainly arguments and official benchmarks both ways - yes I said both ways. So far I've had no problems with my Northwood system, not even minor niggles. It works and I'm now getting on with interesting software projects. Interesting software projects? It is a pity that none of them are 64 bit. Have a nice day. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
JK wrote: Johannes H Andersen wrote: Keith wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote: Keith wrote: [...] True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood. You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you. Not a mistake. The Northwood was quite a good choice everything considered. Everything considered? Did you consider a 64 bit OS and 64 bit software???? No I didn't. I can't afford to buy new OS and new 64 bit compilers which will cost a fortune, so I stick to what I've got at the moment, and it does the job to everybody's satisfaction The performance issue is not as clear cut as you seem to suggest, you can probably find favourable benchmarks in both directions, depending on which team you belong. Read this review. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1 Notice that in most instances a $290 Athlon 64 3400+ outperforms a $420 Pentium 4 3.4ghz, often by a large margin, and the Athlon 64 3400+ even beats the $1,000 Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE chip in some benchmarks. Keep in mind that the review only rates 32 bit performance with a 32 bit OS. That is the lowest level of functionality of an Athlon 64. The next step up is 32 bit software with a 64 bit OS, then the ultimate performance is with 64 bit software using a 64 bit OS. I don't have any of those Pentiums as described. My system is on a budget, hence it's an P4 2.8/800 Northwood. The price of this CPU is predicted to fall even further in this month, so I've probably paid over the odds, but that's life in computing. I needed the system up and running and couldn't wait. [...] I know you're winding me up and it's stupid to answer your post. But what's the big deal? Are the AMD light years ahead of the Intel Northwood at the same affordable price? Yes. What will you do when you want to run 64 bit software? Throw out your CPU and motherboard? When the software comes - If I can afford it - If I really need it - But then the old system will still be useful, just like my oldie computer at present. I doubt it. As I said, there are certainly arguments and official benchmarks both ways - yes I said both ways. So far I've had no problems with my Northwood system, not even minor niggles. It works and I'm now getting on with interesting software projects. Interesting software projects? It is a pity that none of them are 64 bit. Maybe for you, but my software is solving real problems in the real world. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Keith wrote: On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 11:37:35 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote: Keith wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote: Keith wrote: [...] True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood. You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you. Not a mistake. The Northwood was quite a good choice everything considered. The performance issue is not as clear cut as you seem to suggest, you can probably find favourable benchmarks in both directions, depending on which team you belong. You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as another cartoon character, to be named later, once said) I have also built using Northwoord, but belong to neither team. Now there is a laugh! ...and on many levels! ;-)) Once the computer was completed, the processor type was not foremost in my mind. Well, duh! You're saying that once you made your decisions youu didn't look back? At least you make *some* sense. -- Keith I know you're winding me up and it's stupid to answer your post. NOt as long as we understand each other. ;-) But what's the big deal? Are the AMD light years ahead of the Intel Northwood at the same affordable price? I doubt it. Other than some specific uses, your doubts would be unsubstantiated. The only place a P4 has *ever* had an advantage over an AMD processor is in video streaming. ...and that advantage evaporates when one brings in price. If you've been around the block here (.chips) a few times you would have understood this. In short, if your business is video and graphic-arts, buy an Apple. ;-) As I said, there are certainly arguments and official benchmarks both ways - yes I said both ways. So far I've had no problems with my Northwood system, not even minor niggles. SO far my AMD64 system has had nothign but clear-sailing too. So? Oh, and my K6-II before that, and my IBM (Cyrix) before that (my Intel P5 *sucked*). OTOH, I do this stuff for a living, so understand the issues more than common folk. It works and I'm now getting on with interesting software projects. Have a nice day. That's pleasing to know. You have lots-a-money doing what you do. Be happy. ;-) ...but no one here is convinced that your Northwoord was the best solution, at least based on your arguments so far. It is now, since you've gone for it (sorta the "existance theorem"). Well, eh yes in a way. Maybe I should also build an AMD system, just to keep people happy and be able to support that I've nothing against AMD. On the contrary, the Prescott flamed grill seems to be a roasted pig. I hope that Intel will eventually develop the Pentium M into a desktop processor. Perhaps the market will split into 32 bit low power and 64 bit high power consumption processors. The arguments here seem to always take a strange turn. If I can paraphrase the line of battle: P: "I've now got a P4C 2.8/800 that support dual channel" A: "AMD64 has also dual channel support and it's on chip and much better" P: "But that's only the higher range" A: "But then you should get the higher range, we pros don't bother with low end stuff" P: "But my Intel chip works fine, and I've seen benchmarks in favour" A: "But higher AMD64 beats higher Pentiums, i.e. my dad can beat your dad" |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Johannes H Andersen wrote:
JK wrote: [SNIP] Interesting software projects? It is a pity that none of them are 64 bit. Maybe for you, but my software is solving real problems in the real world. I've solved some real world problems that didn't need 64bit addressing but they *really* flew SIMD style with 64bit registers as opposed to 32bit... That was back in 1996 too, pretty sure printing presses are still running so I figure that real world problem will still be there too. If your business is compiling you might want to consider AMD (XP or A64) in preference to P4 chips anyway. The AMD chips seem to offer far better bang for buck in that department. Cheers, Rupert |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:09:14 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
wrote: Everything considered? Did you consider a 64 bit OS and 64 bit software???? No I didn't. I can't afford to buy new OS and new 64 bit compilers which will cost a fortune, so I stick to what I've got at the moment, and it does the job to everybody's satisfaction Tony dons his flame-proof suit Well the obviously answer here is that you should be running Linux and using the free GCC compiler! : ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why 2200+ & 2800+ in both model 8 & model 10 Sempron? | Michael Brown | Overclocking AMD Processors | 3 | September 27th 04 07:07 AM |
Why 2200+ & 2800+ in both model 8 & model 10 Sempron? | [email protected] | General | 3 | September 27th 04 05:40 AM |
Why 2200+ & 2800+ in both model 8 & model 10 Sempron? | Michael Brown | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | September 27th 04 05:40 AM |
AMD SEMPRON CPU | patrick | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | July 29th 04 12:59 PM |
AMD Sempron - New processor | johny | Overclocking AMD Processors | 6 | June 12th 04 05:02 PM |