Warin 0 Posted August 26, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (eh remraf @ Aug. 26 2002,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey, I got a few of those in the proc bin. Want some : ) Anyways, gone are the dyas of 50%+ OC. However, AMD's getting up their with their Thoroughbred B chip. Tom's already got the AMD 2600+ to the equivalent of 3400+ using the icing method (He gets his down to -44 degrees celcius... I'm jealous, then again, he was the first to get a P4 above 3GHZ using liquid nitrogen) We'll just have to see how far the AMD 2800+ can clock and if it's going to go faster than the 2.8ghz P4. That is in pure speed tests rather than memory thorouput.<span id='postcolor'> I am not a processor zealot. Right now, AMD gets the best bang for the buck. I am hoping that with whatever Intel ends up with for the P5 (What are they gonna do with that. The Pentium Pro was the 'P5 Architecture' ), they go back to the drawing board and work on actual performance rather than numbres. Because while the P4 scales rather well in clock speed, it's actual performance is less than stellar. Heck it took the 533mhz bus and 512k of L2 cache to unseat AMD as the highest performer. And even then, the price/performance comparrison is still tilted dramatically to AMD. But then there ARE die hard Intel zealots and AMD xzealots that cant see things objectively. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruud van Nistelrooy 0 Posted August 26, 2002 I know this guy who has a snazzy computer like you guys have (although snazzy as in 4 months ago snazzy) with a water cooling system and he says he wishes he never got it, he keeps his computers in this little custom built cupboard, and he presses these buttons like a little remote control to open the cd drive and stuff, it was in there for about 3 months and he was gonna upgrade, so he took it out and there was mould and stuff everywhere and it turns out the water cooling system had conked out ages ago because he didn't maintain it and mould was clogging up the device. Nice. He didn't bother getting it replaced because even though it had naffed up ages ago he didn't notice much difference and spent the few hundred euro's on games instead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eh remraf 0 Posted August 26, 2002 Yeah, price/performance is almost atrocious. Amd averages about $220 per 1000mhz Intel, averages about $490 per 1000mhz Big difference. The 2.8 right now is nearly $500 per 1000mhz. Intel still wins performance wise, with high end hardware, but I'm still waiting for AMD to undercut intel and make intel lower their prices. Competition is always good for the consumer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
