| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 74765 | 2006-12-04 17:22:00 | Intel eats AMDs Frankenstein for lunch (and spits it out) | SurferJoe46 (51) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 504194 | 2006-12-04 17:22:00 | :waughh: Here. (blogs.zdnet.com):D | SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 504195 | 2006-12-04 18:25:00 | I knew there was a reason I stay loyal to Intel chips. | Greg (193) | ||
| 504196 | 2006-12-04 19:04:00 | Good article - thanks Surfer. I especially like this bit: (AMD)...just senselessly guzzles power while delivering inferior performance on every application……When I asked AMD about the massive power consumption, they said that the enthusiast doesn't care about power consumption which seems kind of hypocritical every time I drive down the freeway and and I see the AMD sign criticizing Intel for wasting billions of dollars in energy. |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 504197 | 2006-12-04 21:25:00 | Good article - thanks Surfer. I especially like this bit: (AMD)...just senselessly guzzles power while delivering inferior performance on every application……When I asked AMD about the massive power consumption, they said that the enthusiast doesn't care about power consumption which seems kind of hypocritical every time I drive down the freeway and and I see the AMD sign criticizing Intel for wasting billions of dollars in energy. You're welcome...I get to surf the net whilst youse guys are asleep and finding little tidbits like this kinda makes my day..I try to find interesting things to post. Again..thanks for the thanks. |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 504198 | 2006-12-04 21:50:00 | Read this (www.theinquirer.net) article and you will see the one you posted from Zdnet is a load of crap | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 504199 | 2006-12-04 22:00:00 | Thank YOU SurferJoe for thanking us for the thanks. ;-) |
chainey (9225) | ||
| 504200 | 2006-12-04 22:15:00 | Read this (www.theinquirer.net) article and you will see the one you posted from Zdnet is a load of crap This review seems just a shade more objective, but it appears there is a major hit coming up on the wallet in the next 6 months. :waughh: |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 504201 | 2006-12-04 22:37:00 | I am not qualified to actually comment on the validity of either claim . . Intel or Muscatel . . . . but I just found an interesting article and thought it might be good to get it out . . . . . . . after all, there's always room to discuss, hope and dream about things like chips and processors . Anyway . . . good to see that there are loyalists :rolleyes: and thinkers :dogeye: reading these things . . . . and ready to comment . . . . ;) . . . that's all . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 504202 | 2006-12-05 01:17:00 | Read this (www.theinquirer.net) article and you will see the one you posted from Zdnet is a load of crap agreed, that article is much more objective (and fair), and actually tells you the difference, rather than just selectively taking some phrases that put intel infront. i'm no amd fanboy, but also i think that first article was crap |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 504203 | 2006-12-05 01:34:00 | What everyone is forgetting is that it is comparing Intels Quad Core CPU with AMDs Dual Core/Dual CPU offering. AMD has not yet released their Quad Core. AMD will introduce its first generation 65 nm products on December 5, which paves the way for a future quad core CPU. The initial 65 nm processors will target the entry level and the mainstream, though, and we will have to wait several more months before high-end 65 nm AMD processors hit the shelves. The 65 nm quad core Agena FX, with dedicated L2 caches and a unified L2 cache, is not expected before summer 2007. Until then, AMD had to come up with a solution to keep Intel's pace and show off innovation, because the first 45 nm Intel processors are very likely to arrive as soon as late 2007. So it remains to be seen.... |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||