You're a nightmare

You're a nightmare

Post by Judd » Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:51:50


Try going through AMD's friggin lineup. That's a hell of a lot worse.

Intel's lineup is pretty simple now. No one does Core solo because that's
like buying a 2 wheel drive truck. You have Core Duo (server, desktop, and
laptop versions) and Quad Core CPUs. Your choice of chipsets are pretty
limited. You have 2 to choose from right now (3 if you include nVidia's new
chipset). Forget the 900 series and 800 series CPUs because they aren't
worth the price.

There really hasn't been a simpler lineup of CPUs from Intel. You have
various speed dual CPUs and just 1 offering of a quad CPU. Xeon's are for
servers. Even a mental midget like you could figure it out! Then again,
maybe not :-(
 
 
 

You're a nightmare

Post by Carlo Razz » Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:19:11


Personally I don't see how either Intel's or AMD's lineups are at all
confusing...

 
 
 

You're a nightmare

Post by Bill David » Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:26:41


Change the network connection, if you had one unplug it, or vice


Actually, that's not quite true. They're not worth the price if you are
building a new system. But if you have a m/b which supports the 930 or
so, you may find it worth while to replace that hot old 32bit CPU with a
hot aging dual core CPU with support for 64bit, virtualization, and nx.

I would argue that unless you absolutely must have a new system right
now, better to wait until 3Q07 when the 45nm chips start shipping. Then
you will have a choice of the same Core2Duo you would buy today, but
cheaper, or a faster, lower power, more overclockable CPU at about the
same price, with a slightly better instruction set. I forget what float
stuff works better, but supposedly it helps engineering, rendering, and
gamers.

The winner today is definitely Core2Duo.

--
Bill Davidsen
He was a full-time professional cat, not some moonlighting
ferret or weasel. He knew about these things.
 
 
 

You're a nightmare

Post by Judd » Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:15:32


Sheesh Bill, you could always do better by waiting 6 months on CPUs. Only
during the stagnant time of 2004/2005 did things not turn over very quickly.
I think every year there will be a compelling new series of CPUs now that
the competition has really heated up again. The new 45nm CPUs sound awesome
with their power management ability, but man, three will be something a lot
better than that in 3rd quarter/4th quarter 2008 ;-).
 
 
 

You're a nightmare

Post by Bill David » Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:38:46


You can always do "better" on cost, but frequently the new CPUs may have
been only faster, or more cache, or hyperthreaded. In other term,
evolutionary rather than revolutionary. In which case the benefits of
waiting were not so great.

But in this case there will be the first ship of a whole new chip
technology, not just a shrink or more cores, but a change like P3 to P4.
It looks as if hafnium gates will allow faster, smaller, and less power
all at once. Based on that, and AMDs coming attractions to hold the
prices down, I expect a real dislocation in the pricing this fall, so
this is a particularly good time to wait.

I won't be offended, but not all six month waits are created equal. ;-)

--
bill davidsen < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
Beer blog: http://www.yqcomputer.com/
Unsigned numbers may not be negative. However, unsigned numbers may be
less than zero for sufficiently large values of zero.
 
 
 

You're a nightmare

Post by Carlo Razz » Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:46:54


If you were willing to look beyond Intel that era wasn't so stagnant. Intel
just wasn't ready to give up on Netburst and actually enter the real world
performance race yet, they still thought marketing could win it all :P

Nice to see they came to their senses and released a real show stopper for
the first time in a *long* time.