At 8:30 AM -0700 12/13/05, Robin Laing wrote: ... >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? Ease up on the advocacy (from another AMD user). Note that AMD has been able to raise their prices and still keep a useful cost/benefit ratio over Intel, but at a higher cost. >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. ... AMD started that fight in the first place, and had to switch to PR (Performance Rating, Public Relations, you pick) when their next faster chips got more performance at an initially lower clock rate. Intel hasn't said a word about AMD PR, because AMD PR compares performance to an original Athlon, not any Intel chip. Intel chose the P4 architecture over several alternatives because 1) the architect thought it had legs and 2) it would always trounce AMD in the clock speed race. Intel left the P4 (and the architect left Intel) when the P4 ran out of legs. ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
