SLCentral Forum - View Single Post - AGW #30: AMD Now More Expensive Then Intel Clock For Clock

Quote:

Originally posted by anon_dave
If your going to attempt to post an article in an intelligent fashion, at least make sure you provide your readers with a working understanding of the mechanics of both the AMD Athalon XP, and the P4 Northwood. Make sure they understand that while the P4 may operate at a higher frequency, due to its pipelines, it actually performs fewer instructions per clock-cycle (IPC). Also make certain that your readers are aware that the AMD Athatlon XP's do support MMX and SSE, but that they *do not* support SSE2, and that while SSE is currently the industry standard, SSE2 is quickly replacing it and that this will become a factor in the future.

I can understand the point and counter-point view and style, and I can appreciate it, however, before you launch into this hotly debated topic, you really should provide your readers with a solid foundation.

Peace, love, and general happiness.

Thank you for posting constructive criticism. I acknowledge the errors of my ways and will not attempt to make "generalized points" to such a hostile crowd in the future.

Frankly, I still use the 1800+ myself. As I stated in the column, it IS faster in 90% of benchmarks that the 1.6A running at 2.13. The best part (only part) of the P4 is that I was able to run it at 33% overclocked.

I know a lot of people that overclock for the sake of overclocking and I made the assumption I may be addressing some of that crowd. I guessed wrong.

I was overclocking Celeron 300As to 450 for the hell of it 4 years ago, but at the time I still preferred to run a mildly overclocked K6-III 400!

Maybe I'm more crazy then I thought I was and people don't overclock for the sake of overclocking. Perhaps I'm out of touch... DON'T ANSWER THAT.