OT: Bizarre 64-Bit Processor Story

You know, a few years ago I used to admire Tom's Hardware's web site, but these guys just get stranger and stranger every day. This is one of the most obnoxioius stories I've ever read: http://www20.tomshardware.com/column/20040218/index.html -Larry

Ya pretty sad. They certainly hate AMD. "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YBuZb.6797$iB.3278@lakeread06...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> You know, a few years ago I used to admire Tom's Hardware's web site, but > these guys just get stranger and stranger every day. > > This is one of the most obnoxioius stories I've ever read: > > http://www20.tomshardware.com/column/20040218/index.html > > -Larry > >

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:12:39 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You know, a few years ago I used to admire Tom's Hardware's web site, but >these guys just get stranger and stranger every day. > >This is one of the most obnoxioius stories I've ever read: That is appaling. Intel are definitely playing catch up with AMD right now and Tom is still spouting crap like that. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Larry wrote: > these guys just get stranger and stranger every day. > > This is one of the most obnoxioius stories I've ever read: > > http://www20.tomshardware.com/column/20040218/index.html Yeah, well... Who cares about those Repentium clones anyway? ... G5 is where the 64-bit action is ;) (No Intel or AMD CPU-powered machine beat Virginiatech's 'Big Mac' G5 supercomputer on the Super rank - and that one has FEWER CPU's than those ranked below and it wasn't even running real optimised code! Now that's something to think about, eh ;) Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -21)

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 05:00:50 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote: >(No Intel or AMD CPU-powered machine beat Virginiatech's 'Big Mac' G5 >supercomputer on the Super rank - and that one has FEWER CPU's than >those ranked below and it wasn't even running real optimised code! Now >that's something to think about, eh ;) Talking about cluster with 11,000 CPU's isn't exactly relevent to this discussion. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:12:39 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You know, a few years ago I used to admire Tom's Hardware's web site I have no idea why. You're much better off reading a site like anandtech where the reviews tend to be objective and aren't blatantly wriitten by hacks. Speaking of 64-bit, I just bought an Athlon 64 3200+ and it's great. It also kills any Intel chip currently available, based on Tom's own gaming benchmarks from a few weeks ago. I have no idea how anyone can view AMD's move to 64-bit architecture as a bad thing when Apple, Sun, IBM, HP, SGI, and Compaq have sold 64-bit systems for years. I sometimes wonder if there isn't a gene that evolution somehow isolated in north america which causes everyone to fear any sort of technological advancement (or change in general, but that's a larger issue). Jason

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 08:20:40 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote: >I sometimes wonder if there isn't a gene that evolution somehow >isolated in north america which causes everyone to fear any sort of >technological advancement (or change in general, but that's a larger >issue). Yea, when I saw the authors name, I remember thinking how North American it sounded.

Tim O wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 08:20:40 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) > wrote: > > >>I sometimes wonder if there isn't a gene that evolution somehow >>isolated in north america which causes everyone to fear any sort of >>technological advancement (or change in general, but that's a larger >>issue). > > > Yea, when I saw the authors name, I remember thinking how North > American it sounded.

So, what does a North American name sound like, maybe Sitting Bull? How can you stand living among all those people with funny sounding names...? l8er ronny

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 06:16:14 -0500, Tim O <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yea, when I saw the authors name, I remember thinking how North >American it sounded. I didn't realize North America had a lot of unique names. Being from this continent I intended that as a jab at myself as well, but I guess I forgot to mention that. Jason

I don't know much about 64-bit stuff, but I have a P4 1800 and an Athlon 1800, so I feel relatively well placed to offer my opinion, and I won't be getting another AMD machine for a long, long time...

On 21 Feb 2004 14:06:38 -0800, [email hidden] (Nick) wrote: >I don't know much about 64-bit stuff, but I have a P4 1800 and an >Athlon 1800, so I feel relatively well placed to offer my opinion, and >I won't be getting another AMD machine for a long, long time... Feel free to share your other views on any other subjects you know nothing about. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

The AMD experience is greatly dependent on the Chipset you are using. My early experiences sucked, and that was mainly due to the VIA Chipset. Then, the ABIT KG7, with the AMD chipset came out, and I was extremely pleased. The next time I wanted to upgrade, there was no AMD chipset available, so I went back to Intel with an IT7-Max2, with a P4 2.53Ghz. That is my current machine, and I've been quite pleased with it too. It's NOT the processor. It's the Chipset and Motherboard that defines the experience. I am not in the least impressed with the new P4 Prescott Processors. Intel has gone back to the old game by lengthening the pipelines, which hinders performance, just for the sake of opening up for future higher clock speeds. They had to DOUBLE the cache just so the Prescott could match the performance of the current P4's. Not to mention the damned things run HOT. So, my next upgrade may be an Athlon 64 3400. Or it may just be a Northwood P4 at 3.2. I'd like to have a P4 3.2 extreeme, but at $1000 Intel is out of their minds. $600 more money for what amounts to an extra 1MB of Cache is outright thievery. The choice of an Athlon 64 3400 may well be the choice simply because it's the least offending to the mind. That choice, of course, will depend on what Motherboards/chipsets will be available. If VIA is the only thing there is, it's going to take a hell of a lot of convincing by people smarter than me that it's stable and trouble-free. -Larry "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I don't know much about 64-bit stuff, but I have a P4 1800 and an > Athlon 1800, so I feel relatively well placed to offer my opinion, and > I won't be getting another AMD machine for a long, long time...

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:26:17 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>The choice of an Athlon 64 3400 may well be the choice simply because it's >the least offending to the mind. > >That choice, of course, will depend on what Motherboards/chipsets will be >available. If VIA is the only thing there is, it's going to take a hell of >a lot of convincing by people smarter than me that it's stable and >trouble-free.

I have an AMD 64 3200+ and the best mobo out for it is probably the VIA based Asus K8V Deluxe. I dunno, I can't imagine being happier with a PC purchase. It runs incredibly cool (well under 100F) and is totally stable with my Radeon 9800 Pro. Jason

Im still stinging from my Pentium 60 purchase. I think Ill wait for gen2 :-) "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:26:17 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >The choice of an Athlon 64 3400 may well be the choice simply becauseit's > >the least offending to the mind. > > > >That choice, of course, will depend on what Motherboards/chipsets will be > >available. If VIA is the only thing there is, it's going to take a hellof

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >a lot of convincing by people smarter than me that it's stable and > >trouble-free. > > I have an AMD 64 3200+ and the best mobo out for it is probably the > VIA based Asus K8V Deluxe. I dunno, I can't imagine being happier > with a PC purchase. It runs incredibly cool (well under 100F) and is > totally stable with my Radeon 9800 Pro. > > Jason

Larry wrote: > > So, my next upgrade may be an Athlon 64 3400. Or it may just be a Northwood > P4 at 3.2. The 3.2 OC's very nicely btw, I didn't expect it to OC as well as the 2.8, and it doesn't, but it comes fairly close, my 2.8 ran at 3.4 and the 3.2 runs at 3.7, both with little more than stock cooling :-D Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Andrew wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>(No Intel or AMD CPU-powered machine beat Virginiatech's 'Big Mac' G5 >>supercomputer on the Super rank - and that one has FEWER CPU's than >>those ranked below and it wasn't even running real optimised code! Now >>that's something to think about, eh ;) > > Talking about cluster with 11,000 CPU's isn't exactly relevent to this > discussion.

Actually, being 1100 G5 Macs, it can't have been more than about 2200 CPU's. More to the point though, it used that number while slower Intel-based supers with MORE cpu's were s...l...o...w...e...r ;) ...and it wasn't even using an optimised operating system, since Panther is still only 32-bit and although Unix-based, it's not a real specialised Super-OS either.. Not that this makes "the Mac is the better machine" btw, it's just testimony of IBM's more than competitive engineering; after all, they make the CPU's. In the 64-bit world, there's actually more to choose from than just Repentium clones :) Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -21)

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:05:01 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote: >Not that this makes "the Mac is the better machine" btw, it's just >testimony of IBM's more than competitive engineering; after all, they >make the CPU's. In the 64-bit world, there's actually more to choose >from than just Repentium clones :) Of course there is, but they are usually much more expensive and don't run x86 software natively, which is where the 64bit AMD comes into its own as it can run 32bit code very well. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Andrew wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>Not that this makes "the Mac is the better machine" btw, it's just >>testimony of IBM's more than competitive engineering; after all, they >>make the CPU's. In the 64-bit world, there's actually more to choose > >>from than just Repentium clones :) > > Of course there is, but they are usually much more expensive and don't > run x86 software natively, which is where the 64bit AMD comes into its > own as it can run 32bit code very well.

True, but if the software itself is OK there's no real NEED to run x86 software natively. After all, suppose you want a machine that runs MS-Office, NR2003, Unix/X11 programs and Mac software thrown in as a bonus. You can do all that on an OS X machine these days (with a 64-bit Intel-beater as an add-on ;). Come to think of it, I guess it's the only kind of machine where you can run both MS-Office and Unix programs natively. AFAIK the G5 is just as good at running 32-bit software on a 64-bitter as the AMD, so using NR2003 is no bother either. Personally, I only tried NR2002 but at 2 GHz it ran like.. well, wildfire ;) Not too surprising though since Apple's G5's use Dual CPU's, except the low-end model. Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -21)

It'll be a cold day in hell before I would ever purchase anything from the over-priced, over-hyped, ultra propietary Apple Computer. If S.Jobs had half a brain he'd forget the proprietary hardware and focus on the OS for X86. Mitch "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c1d1tp$9fs$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (34 lines)

> Andrew wrote: > > >>Not that this makes "the Mac is the better machine" btw, it's just > >>testimony of IBM's more than competitive engineering; after all, they > >>make the CPU's. In the 64-bit world, there's actually more to choose > > > >>from than just Repentium clones :) > > > > Of course there is, but they are usually much more expensive and don't > > run x86 software natively, which is where the 64bit AMD comes into its > > own as it can run 32bit code very well. > > > True, but if the software itself is OK there's no real NEED to run x86 > software natively. > > After all, suppose you want a machine that runs MS-Office, NR2003, > Unix/X11 programs and Mac software thrown in as a bonus. > > You can do all that on an OS X machine these days (with a 64-bit > Intel-beater as an add-on ;). > > Come to think of it, I guess it's the only kind of machine where you can > run both MS-Office and Unix programs natively. > > AFAIK the G5 is just as good at running 32-bit software on a 64-bitter > as the AMD, so using NR2003 is no bother either. Personally, I only > tried NR2002 but at 2 GHz it ran like.. well, wildfire ;) Not too > surprising though since Apple's G5's use Dual CPU's, except the low-end > model. > > Regards, Rudy > (GPLRank -21) >

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:07:51 GMT, [email hidden] (Jason Moyer) wrote: >I didn't realize North America had a lot of unique names. > >Being from this continent I intended that as a jab at myself as well, >but I guess I forgot to mention that. Unique, no. Common? Absolutely. If we can guide this away from the perilous edge of Political Correctness, all you need is a phone book. Look up the last names Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones and Brown. Now look up Rahmat. There are about 600,000 people in my county. There are 4 pages of Smiths and Johnsons, but there are no Rahmats. As far your North American technophobe comments, I only wish you were correct. Perhaps then I wouldn't have to endure an endless stream of rude people prodding PDA's and yelling into picture taking, video game playing cell phones every time I try to enjoy a meal and beer in a restaurant.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:56:34 +0100, Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote: >So, what does a North American name sound like, maybe Sitting Bull? > >How can you stand living among all those people with funny sounding >names...? Perhaps you should ask yourself, since I didn't say it was funny sounding.

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I don't know much about 64-bit stuff, but I have a P4 1800 and an > Athlon 1800, so I feel relatively well placed to offer my opinion, and > I won't be getting another AMD machine for a long, long time... CPU chip comparisons alone say nothing. The motherboard and it's chipsets are where the rubber meets the road. I've been building AMDs since I got my first AMD 486DX2/66 chip in the early 1990s to replace a crapped out Wintel chip and haven't looked back. My current system smokes (not literally, actually runs quite cool) is based on a 2800+ AMD with a nice A7N8X deulxe mobo with an apparently decent Nvidia chipset on it. Of course you also said "won't be getting another AMD machine" which means you don't build your own. We know what that means, Dude, you're getting another stale old, hard to upgrade, obsolete before you ever receive it, Dell.. LOL! In that case, go right ahead. You're getting exactly what you're paying such low bucks for...

"SimRacer" <nospam@[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<Yfv_b.27456$%[email hidden]>... > Of course you also said "won't be getting another AMD machine" which means > you don't build your own. We know what that means, Dude, you're getting > another stale old, hard to upgrade, obsolete before you ever receive it, > Dell.. LOL! In that case, go right ahead. You're getting exactly what you're > paying such low bucks for... Actually, I didn't expect for every single word of my post to be analysed in that much detail, but yes I do build my own. I used to because of the massive savings you could make, but nowadays that doesn't seem to be the case. All I know is the AMD 1800 (which runs at, uhh, let me try to remember... 1.53Ghz?) is a hefty chunk worse than the P4 1800 (which actually runs at 1.8Ghz, even though Ghz ratings are meaningless in the CISC world). And they've both had the same graphics card too, because I bought a GeForce FX and took the opportunity to test my old card in both machines. I know saying "I'll buy Intel" is like saying "I'll buy Microsoft" or "I'll support ManYoo" or "I love the Yankees", but in my experience, even dating back to the K6-2s and the race to 1Ghz, I've always thought Intel were better. Their philosophy of testing each chip after manufacture and branding the speed as a result stuck better with me than AMD's 'we'll get to 1Ghz first by slapping a massive heatsink on a 800Mhz processor and overclocking the crap out of it. Who cares if people need to buy more powerful PSUs just to get the thing to run...?' <PUTS FLAME SUIT ON>

Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On 21 Feb 2004 14:06:38 -0800, [email hidden] (Nick) wrote: > > >I don't know much about 64-bit stuff, but I have a P4 1800 and an > >Athlon 1800, so I feel relatively well placed to offer my opinion, and > >I won't be getting another AMD machine for a long, long time... > > Feel free to share your other views on any other subjects you know > nothing about.

I thought that's why the internet existed ;-) Anyway, not knowing much about 64-bit chipset battles doesn't mean I can't comment on what is sitting on my desk. Nick

Nick wrote: ... > I thought that's why the internet existed ;-) > > Anyway, not knowing much about 64-bit chipset battles doesn't mean I > can't comment on what is sitting on my desk. <tongue in cheek mode ON> ;) The thing is, you probably didn't want that initial comment to be interpreted in as limited a way as it needs to be interpreted (unless you wanted to say something like 'well my experience with an old outdated Athlon system which perhaps wasn't configured so well and of course doesn't mean anything for anyone intending to buy a system today, wasn't as good as what I saw from my P4 system which perhaps was configured with more luck (and money?)')... ;) Since hence your initial comment, if read the way it should be read, didn't say much relevant for the discussion, one could assume that you intended it to imply something that it cannot imply ...and Andrew may not have been entirely wrong :) <tongue in cheek mode OFF> Please read all of the above with a lot of ' ;) ;) ' - I have no intention to start a flamewar or anything :) That said, my experiences with the Athlons are mixed. The first one I got working only after getting inofficial BIOS upgrades for the mobo. And it wasn't entirely free of little problems, mainly due to the fact probably that all the hardware/software makers didn't know these systems very well yet and were still learning the technology. Since then I've stuck to Athlons as they give better bang for the buck, and have mainly been happy with them, although not all Athlons were equally good. There were models and chipsets which were less good, and the 1800 for me personally was one of those (which chipset are you using with it?). Right now I'm using an XP3200 on an A7N8X which is an excellent system. I'll get an Athlon 64 3700 as soon as the socket 939 is released, again because of the better bang for the buck. (And yes, obviously I'm having too much leisure time at hand today <g>) Achim

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:25:28 +0100, Joachim Trensz <[email hidden]> wrote: >Since hence your initial comment, if read the way it should be read, >didn't say much relevant for the discussion, one could assume that you >intended it to imply something that it cannot imply ...and Andrew may >not have been entirely wrong :) That was my point, most anti AMD posts are by people who used a K6 years ago, or an Athlon on a crappy mobo, and then think they can generalise about every past and future AMD system and think the sun shines out of Intel's corporate butt, ignoring the fact that there are just as many crap Intel based mobos as there are AMD based ones. Like you I am using the NForce 2 based A7N8X, and the system works great. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Andrew wrote: ...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> That was my point, most anti AMD posts are by people who used a K6 > years ago, or an Athlon on a crappy mobo, and then think they can > generalise about every past and future AMD system and think the sun > shines out of Intel's corporate butt, ignoring the fact that there are > just as many crap Intel based mobos as there are AMD based ones. > > Like you I am using the NForce 2 based A7N8X, and the system works > great.

I usually try to avoid being anyone's fanboy, but soberly weigh my options and put my money where I get most for it. But apart from the fact that the modern AMD systems are as compatible and stable as Intels, their second huge value to the community is that they're the only ones putting up anything resembling a competition to Intel. And competition is not just the icing on the cake for us end users, it's an essential component for progress - and especially for affordable progress. Achim

Some of us just don't like AMD period. I dont do AMD for the same reason I don't do Hyundai. Yea it's a way cheaper car, still runs 65 as good as any car, but it's a fn Hyundai.... If you want a Hyundai fine, just don't tell me that I should buy one too :-) Mitch "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> That was my point, most anti AMD posts are by people who used a K6 > years ago, or an Athlon on a crappy mobo, and then think they can > generalise about every past and future AMD system and think the sun > shines out of Intel's corporate butt, ignoring the fact that there are > just as many crap Intel based mobos as there are AMD based ones. > > Like you I am using the NForce 2 based A7N8X, and the system works > great. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:01:51 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I dont do AMD for the same reason I don't do Hyundai. Yea it's a way >cheaper car, still runs 65 as good as any car, but it's a fn Hyundai.... What a ludicrous comparison. Maybe there should be a new Intel case badge "F***wit Outside*. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

..l.. Go fuck yourself you fucking dipshit. PLONK "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:01:51 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > What a ludicrous comparison. Maybe there should be a new Intel case > badge "F***wit Outside*. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:01:51 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Some of us just don't like AMD period. > >I dont do AMD for the same reason I don't do Hyundai. Yea it's a way >cheaper car, still runs 65 as good as any car, but it's a fn Hyundai.... > >If you want a Hyundai fine, just don't tell me that I should buy one too :-) I bought an Athlon 64 3200+ because it kicks the shit out of any Intel product in every gaming benchmark, and cost half as much as the 3.06gHz P4. =p Jason

ROTFLOL!!! You deserved that one Mitch :) -Larry "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:01:51 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I dont do AMD for the same reason I don't do Hyundai. Yea it's a way > >cheaper car, still runs 65 as good as any car, but it's a fn Hyundai.... > > What a ludicrous comparison. Maybe there should be a new Intel case > badge "F***wit Outside*. > -- > Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. > Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, > please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. > Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

In article <[email hidden]>, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> writes: >That was my point, most anti AMD posts are by people who used a K6 >years ago, or an Athlon on a crappy mobo, Really? I had a K6 (two, actually) because it was cheaper than Intel. Got an Athlon for the same reason. Seemed like performance was equal to Intel(present haunted system notwithstanding). As long as the performance is seen to be the same, I'll purchase the less expensive product. Simple economics, no particulat brand loyalty. Eldred -- http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Screamers League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH:na N2k3 rank:in progress Slayer Spektera lvl 68 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro US East

Joachim Trensz wrote: > But apart from the fact that the modern AMD systems are as compatible > and stable as Intels, their second huge value to the community is that > they're the only ones putting up anything resembling a competition to > Intel. Bzzzt - wrong. Sorry Joachim, but IBM's 970 ("G5") is every micron a fierce competitor to both Intel and AMD, and is basically a better design, megahertz for megahertz. Otherwise, the Big Mac super would never ever have come out on top of both all Intel AND AMD-based supercomputers in all the world - using fewer cpu's and at lower cost. Even PC magazines like, um, PC Magazine had to admit the G5 is at least as powerful a computer as every Repentium clone (in most of their tests, the G5 came out on top). Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -21)

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 05:15:44 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote: >Sorry Joachim, but IBM's 970 ("G5") is every micron a fierce competitor >to both Intel and AMD, and is basically a better design, megahertz for >megahertz. Could you point me to where one can buy a G5 based PC along with benchmark comparisons running x86 code? -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Ruud Dingemans wrote: ... > Bzzzt - wrong. Better think twice before calling someone wrong so bluntly... just about all who've ever called me wrong in this way have been mistaken <g> The G5 may be every bit as fast as a P4 or Athlon XP, but how many people use it for playing the current state of the art sims like Lomac, IL2-FB, N2k3, GPL, or F1C? Potential makes a potential competitor. But only actual usage makes it an actual competitor in the market sector you're discussing... Achim

EldredP wrote: > ...I had a K6 (two, actually) because it was cheaper than Intel. Got an > Athlon for the same reason. Seemed like performance was equal to Intel(present > haunted system notwithstanding). As long as the performance is seen to be the > same, I'll purchase the less expensive product. Simple economics, no > particulat brand loyalty. Seems like you agree 100% with Andrew :) Achim

My ABIT KG7/AthlonXP 1800 was a wonderful, trouble-free machine as well. -Larry "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, Andrew > <spamtrap@localhost> writes: > > >That was my point, most anti AMD posts are by people who used a K6 > >years ago, or an Athlon on a crappy mobo, > > Really? I had a K6 (two, actually) because it was cheaper than Intel.

Got an > Athlon for the same reason. Seemed like performance was equal toIntel(present > haunted system notwithstanding). As long as the performance is seen to bethe

Quoted text (15 lines)

> same, I'll purchase the less expensive product. Simple economics, no > particulat brand loyalty. > > Eldred > -- > http://www.umich.edu/~epickett > Screamers League > IICC League > GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 > Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 > Hist. +82.34 MoH:na > N2k3 rank:in progress > Slayer Spektera lvl 68 assassin > Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro > US East

Andrew wrote: >>Sorry Joachim, but IBM's 970 ("G5") is every micron a fierce competitor >>to both Intel and AMD, and is basically a better design, megahertz for >>megahertz. > Could you point me to where one can buy a G5 based PC along with > benchmark comparisons running x86 code? Well.. I'd say the answer for "where to buy" is pretty obvious (unfortunately, Apple is the only one who IBM makes them for, AFAIK), and as to benchmarks the "biggest" ranking would be a good start: http://www.top500.org/list/2003/11/ My main point is though, there's more to choose from than just Repentium and Repentium AMD clones, these days. Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -21)

Joachim Trensz wrote: > The G5 may be every bit as fast as a P4 or Athlon XP, but how many > people use it for playing the current state of the art sims like Lomac, > IL2-FB, N2k3, GPL, or F1C? Oh I dunno, NR2003 seems to run on a G5 just fine! No, not every piece of x86 code is also available for the Mac; but on the other hand, being a Unix (OS X is a BSD Unix-based system) it runs plenty of *nix apps that Windows in turn doesn't have direct access to, unless you're willing to install Linux of course - which would be the best thing to do on a Repentium anyway ;) Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -21)

Ruud Dingemans wrote: ... > but on the other hand, being a Unix (OS X is a BSD Unix-based system) it > runs plenty of *nix apps that Windows in turn doesn't have direct access > to, unless you're willing to install Linux of course - which would be > the best thing to do on a Repentium anyway ;) *nix apps - I want Lomac, IL2-FB, GPL, N2k3, F1C... ;) Achim

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 23:40:04 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote: >Well.. I'd say the answer for "where to buy" is pretty obvious >(unfortunately, Apple is the only one who IBM makes them for, AFAIK), >and as to benchmarks the "biggest" ranking would be a good start: So therefore it is totally pointless bringing up G5's in a discussion about PC x86 64bit chips. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

Andrew wrote: > So therefore it is totally pointless bringing up G5's in a discussion > about PC x86 64bit chips. Ah yes - you mean discussing x86 chips in a simulators forum *is* actually on-topic? Thought so. Regards, Rudy (GPLRank -21)

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:43:51 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> wrote: >Ah yes - you mean discussing x86 chips in a simulators forum *is* >actually on-topic? It is directly about the subject of a thread clearly marked OT. -- Andrew. To email unscramble [email hidden] & remove spamtrap. Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text. Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:43:51 +0100, Ruud Dingemans <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Ah yes - you mean discussing x86 chips in a simulators forum *is* > >actually on-topic? > > It is directly about the subject of a thread clearly marked OT. > --

Which is not off topic anyway since fps is the holy grail to simheads. :)