Gilboa Davara wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 14:23 -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
Gilboa Davara wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 16:42 -0800, Ezra Nugroho wrote:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/index.html
Eeeek! Not Tomshardware.
In my experience, his views always seemed to follow how-ever advertises
the most on this site. (Which is usually Intel)
Well this article does not have a pro Intel conclusion.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/index.html
I am also an AMD man and from what I have read, AMD is not producing
more cutting edge and top line processors than Intel.
Umm...? By "more cutting edge" you mean what?
Your own link seem to suggest that Intel is behind the performance
curve.
(And I still don't trust THG [Tom's Hardware Guid])
Gilboa
To me the cutting edge is better dual core functioning and better
memory handling. Also lower power consumption is a nice feature. How
about 64 bit processors? How easy is it to get an Intel 64 bit
processor? At what cost/benefit ratio?
I like how Intel is now following the AMD line stating that processor
speed isn't as important as processing power. Hasn't AMD been stating
that for years? And hasn't Intel been bashing them over it for years.
I cannot comment on THG as I rarely look at it.
I will add that the best processor depends on the code and usage. For
most of what I do, AMD wins hands down in the real world.
