JAGedlion - Wednesday, Decemlink you know someone's in denial when they start to spam the boards like arejerjejjerjre.AMD offers faster processors for less in every price segment, not just the value one. The 3200+ costs about $20 less than a 3.2GHz P4 when configured, and the FX-51 is as fast or at least nearly as fast as the extreme edition for $200-$300 less. The Athlon 64's control the high performance sector already, and the 3000+ should extend that advantage into the upper mid-range segment. The Value segment is completely obvious, and that's because AMD offers mid-range performance processors at value prices. A 2800+ ($145) will do almost as well as a 2.8C P4 ($215).ĪMD really has Intel beat in all price segment. The problem is you're comparing the AMD processors to Celeron ones based on their ratings which were meant for P4's. I think you would be even more surprised. You should do a comparison of the 2500+ and 2800+ Athlon XP's and the 2.4C, 2.6C, and 2.8C Intel P4's. ![]() What are you talking about? Intels mid-range segment, 2.4-2.8GHz P4's, offer the same performance as AMD's value segment Barton processors. Skandaloes - Saturday, Decemlink "so while Intel is quite competitive in the mid-range and high-end segments, their value processors are inexcusably slow compared to AMD.".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |