Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21629 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (13 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
Okay, reasons pro PowerPC:
+ much more torque, so less RPM required
+ well-suited to emulate other machines (even multiple ones)
+ greater choice of OSes (all PC + MacOS(X) + LinuxPPC)
+ only CPU to support Unix with proper user interface
+ low power dissipation (excellent battery life for portables!)
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13754 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (13 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1494 times:
I was having a dilemma as to what to get. the P4 2Ghz or the AMS XP1900+. I got the latter, mainly because the computer co. didn't have any more P4s
Anyway, it gives better performace (fact) than the 2Ghz, even the XP1700 gives better performance thatn the 2Ghz.
So, if you want good quality at a low price, go AMD. If you have snobby computer friends, go for Intel. If you want the fastest speed, go for the Intel 2.2Ghz (NOT the 2Ghz). That is the fastest around at the moment. It used to be my XP1900+ but you know what the computer world is like.
Sharpnfuzzy From Canada, joined Jun 2001, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 12 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
only AMD for me. With intel you pay 2x as much for 1/2 the performance, well it's not a half... but you get the idea.
Me and a friend ran 2 cpu and multimedia tests using Sisoft Sandra 2001te Pro, and my 1Ghz tBird smoked his 1.2Ghz P3. WE have practiaclly the same setups 256mb pc133 ram, 20 gig hds, sblive, geforce2 cards....
I had screenshots of the tests but i can't find them right now.. i'll post them here if i do
Joona From Finland, joined May 2001, 1038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (13 years 12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1460 times:
With intel you pay 2x as much for 1/2 the performance
Exactly. I've seen tens of tests showing clearly how slower AMDs have beaten faster Intels.
but get more quality from Intel
More quality? Just how do you define quality? My Duron 850 MHz runs at 1012 MHz with no problems at all. Do you think it has quality enough? I'd say it's very good quality as it still works
It's the brand (Intel) which costs.
PS. My Duron "1012" MHz beats my friend's P3 1.2GHz or whatever it is. 1.2 GHz and Intel at least
AMD is almost just as fast as the Intel, in some cases even faster, and it costs only half of Intel's respective processor.
I will never buy an Intel anymore. There's just no point in bying Intel. Of course if I were working in a compnay and had a computer there, I'd take Intel for it's reliability. For home use, AMD is many times better than Intel.
Dasa From East Timor, joined Aug 2001, 760 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (13 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1430 times:
174thwff, my thoughts exactly.... I will always stay away from Intel.. overpriced and underpowered. When i budgeted my computer with an Intel processor of similar speed, my budget came a good 300 dollars over the AMD Duron processor, which made all the difference.
CPDC10-30 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4945 posts, RR: 21
Reply 23, posted (13 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
Quite honestly, the best system performance I have ever had is with a Motorola processor..an Apple Macintosh IIfx, running System 6.0.7. When first introduced in 1990, it was priced around $10,000...now you can pick them up on eBay for $30 or so...which I intend to do very soon
The processor was a (mind numbing at the time) 40Mhz Motorola 68030 with a FPU. The IIfx also had unique features such as SCSI DMA and a proprietary (unfortunatley) type of RAM which were all way ahead of their time. There were two processors just to handle floppy drives Also, it had a 40mhz main bus, how often have you seen a main bus running at the same speed as the processor clock? Almost never.
System performance was simply amazing with System 6...I remember it took only about 15 seconds for boot-up. Performance was blunted a bit with System 7 but still very fast.
I have been disillusioned with Apple's product quality and strategy since 1995 and work on PCs now, but am now starting to make a collection of older hardware. The older models have truly stood the test of time and show remarkable build quality and usability.
After I get a IIfx, the next on my hit list are the SE/30 (another amazing performer) and the infamous backbreaking but rock-solid Mac Portable. And a Lisa would be nice too, but they're getting scarce
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21629 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (13 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
CPDC10-30: I have been disillusioned with Apple's product quality and strategy since 1995 and work on PCs now,
You might want to look again...
AMD have indeed managed to squeeze a lot more juice out of the completely braindead x86 design than Intel themselves; That´s an admirable feat.
But even Intel has recognized the x86 is nearing the end of its useful life. (As evidenced by the (largely failed) attempt with the "Itanic" design.) Lengthening pipelines and increasing clock rates can only do so much.
The Motorola/IBM PowerPC, however, is a very different concept and a different story...
: I have a Compaq Presario with an AMD Duron K6 600mHz, with 248mb RAM. Do you guys think I could upgrade to an AMD Athlon 1900? Or is there anything el
: I do keep looking and I'm not impressed. Apple now makes products that are nice and shiny and even stylish, but are not practical. Look at the iMac: w
: CPDC10-30: I do keep looking and I'm not impressed. Apple now makes products that are nice and shiny and even stylish, but are not practical. Look at
: My old Compaq has an AMD, and I can't afford to replace it yet, so AMD for me! But honestly, I've never had a problem with it. On a side note, what ev