+ Reply to Thread
Results 21 to 25 of 25
May 26th, 2003, 03:03 PM #21
I had a feeling that someone was going to point that out as soon as I started writing ... let me then rephrase to say that the official line is as samwhichse says but that it's really a marketing ploy in which AMD are aware that comparison in most peoples' minds is to P4s ... wouldn't you agree?
June 21st, 2003, 12:14 AM #22
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
Bruneau, your claim is bordering on insanity a little bit..
it may have been 1/2 way correct way back in the pre-1800+ days, but no longer..
The 3200+ cant even come close to the p4 3ghz, let alone if you had a p4 running at 3.8.. the AMD would be shat on!
June 21st, 2003, 12:53 AM #23
1. that post made no sense as you contradicted yourself..twice
2. no need to bring up old/dead threadsAsus A7N8X Deluxe | AMD AthlonXP 2600+ | 512mb Corsair XMS Extreme DDR
June 21st, 2003, 03:33 AM #24
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- The Other Side
He's just out for a TROLL! LOL
June 24th, 2003, 03:52 PM #25
Eladijaz: When AMD first released the AXP, they published a PDF showing how they arrived at these ratings, by benchmarking XPs against Tbreds and taking the average between them. the P4 wasn't even mentioned. The reason the ratings are close is that the P4 hasn't sped up how quickly the instructions execute in terms of ticks, AMD has altered that part of the architecture to make this happen. It is because of the addition of SSE etc. Not to make it look like a P4.
/* Another old thread. Who's doing this??_____
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)