Forum Home
Press F1
 
Thread ID: 30552 2003-02-23 04:46:00 ARGH, my rant - stop flogging AMD DangerousDave (697) Press F1
Post ID Timestamp Content User
123349 2003-02-24 04:11:00 >
> Then she asked why she should buy from them rather
> than generic model. It appears that generic computers
> are often made from either second hand parts or grey
> market imports, they do not last long, the ram and
> other parts would usually not be compatible and the
> software would most likley not be genuine and if it
> was it would only be demo version.
>
> And the price difference..................just over
> $2000 between the two systems.
>
> Guess which one she is buying.

It is a common misconception that a new computer system is new. If you check out paragraph 10 of Dell's Terms and Conditions of Sale (www.dell.com) you can see that -

The parts and assemblies used in building Dell products are selected from new and equivalent-to-new parts and assemblies in accordance with industry practices. Spare parts may be new or reconditioned.

I believe that this is standard across all the manufacturers. Obviously, this does not mean that all systems are made from bits off the scrapheap :D, but is a standard disclaimer for the odd occasion when non-new parts may be required.

Cheers
Miami 		Miami Steve (2128)
123350 2003-02-24 04:58:00 > Then she asked why she should buy from them rather
> than generic model. It appears that generic computers
> are often made from either second hand parts or grey
> market imports, they do not last long, the ram and
> other parts would usually not be compatible and the
> software would most likley not be genuine and if it
> was it would only be demo version.
>
> And the price difference..................just over
> $2000 between the two systems.
Interesting sales pitch, while its not so prevalent these days, it use to be that the brand makers such as IBM, HP etc used obscure components that made upgrading difficult such as cases that couldn't be upgraded, ram that couldn't be upgraded (unless you bought there ram at double the cost)
But now days it does seem that they use the same components as everyone else.................. mostly 		roofus (483)
123351 2003-02-24 05:02:00 Oh i forgot to add, Ghz is a bad measure of a PC's performance, as most people are aware it is a whole system that must be good, not just a CPU as you can only go as fast as your slowest bottleneck.

I would imagine in the next couple of years intel and AMD will move away from using Ghz as a measure, the problem is they need to agree on a standard rating (which is so subjective its possible they will never be in agreement)
AMD's for exampl are 1.5ghz but is called a 1800+ the reasons behing this are slightly complicated but it involves how many pipelines there are, how they get to there destination etc. But it's been well documented that a AMD 1.5Ghz does perform just as good as an intel 1.8Ghz in a desktop environment 		roofus (483)
123352 2003-02-24 09:07:00 > Oh i forgot to add, Ghz is a bad measure of a PC's
> performance, as most people are aware it is a whole
> system that must be good, not just a CPU as you can
> only go as fast as your slowest bottleneck.
>
> I would imagine in the next couple of years intel and
> AMD will move away from using Ghz as a measure, the
> problem is they need to agree on a standard rating
> (which is so subjective its possible they will never
> be in agreement)
> AMD's for exampl are 1.5ghz but is called a 1800+ the
> reasons behing this are slightly complicated but it
> involves how many pipelines there are, how they get
> to there destination etc. But it's been well
> documented that a AMD 1.5Ghz does perform just as
> good as an intel 1.8Ghz in a desktop environment
>


Amen to that! 		Chilling_Silence (9)
123353 2003-02-24 19:25:00 hi,
I reckon mhz ratings become inaccurate after the 1ghz mark. I think what AMD is doing now with the XP+ system is quite good way of comparison. I believe that in the PC World benchmark in August last year or something that the Athlon XP 2200+ compared to the 2.53ghz P4, only thing it was losing a bit on was the video editing, but for games it was slightly ahead! I think they are able to push through more data through the pipelines therefore creating the mhz rating different and maybe the higher temperatures

- David 		DangerousDave (697)
123354 2003-02-24 19:30:00 Well infact the p4 has more pipelines, but they aren't utilised fully hence there is a bit of redundance. It's also to do with the instruction set within the CPU that helps differentiate the two. It's a known fact that intel always is better at calculating floating points.
Hence why i say AMD is better in business, but not necessarily in number crunching 		roofus (483)
123355 2003-02-24 20:34:00 Oh Im will your allthe way on this.

What about comparisons between the P4 and Celeron CPU? Both from intel, but the P4 outperforms the Celeron in the majority of studies when conducted with CPU's of equal Mhz ratings!

My AMD Athlon XP 1700+ will convert a 50minute long Wav to an MP3 in about a minute.

My family's Celeron 933Mhz will take approx 4-5 minutes.

Only difference is Ive got 512MB RAM in my Athlon PC, as opposed to 256MB!

I wonder what difference the Hammer chips will have on the way people read the 'Mhz/Ghz ratings'?? 		Chilling_Silence (9)
123356 2003-02-24 20:35:00 Doesn't Intel deliberately "cripple" the celerons through limiting the cache?

Lo. 		Lohsing (219)
123357 2003-02-24 20:37:00 > > Adding to that, if I am indeed correct:
> >
> > AMD Athlon XP2400+ (1.93GHz) $319.50 Starlyte
> > Computers
> > Intel Pentium 4 2GHz (2GHz) $336.38 QMB Computers
> >
> > Not really twice the price.
>
>
> Yes but the AMD XP2400+ will perform like an Intel P4
> 2.4GHz.
> Seen lots of benchmark tests and this would seem to
> be true. The P4 2.4GHz might win on a couple but
> then you can say 'but the AMD is only running a
> 1.93GHz!'

Thanks - that it the sort of response I wanted (not an "I'm right and you're wrong! nah-nah-nah nah naaaah-naaaah). Thanks for the info.

(I almost made a valid point!) 		honeylaser (814)
123358 2003-02-24 23:50:00 > Doesn't Intel deliberately "cripple" the celerons
> through limiting the cache?
>
> Lo.

Yes thats the point chilling was making, While a p4 and celeron can have the same Ghz rating, we all know a P4 will kick the celeron's ass.
Hence why the ol Ghz measure isn't really that accurate in reporting real life performance. 		roofus (483)
1 2 3 4 5