Warming up to the new iMac (or my computer's cooler than your computer).

[Panag]

hi ,

why did you not wait for the new EMAC , ...??

have a nice day

[Kyle]

Re: *pops in*

Originally posted by Asher
Well, you may think it's got style, but it looks like it's a Fischer Price toy to me. Performs like it, too.

Myself, my new gaming computer is an Athlon XP 2100+, 1GB of DDR333 RAM, GeForce 4 Ti4600, 120GB HD w/ 8MB cache, SB Audigy, and a very very cool case. Image attached (note that the blue part is actually mirrored!)

You're using an Athlon? Quite surprising.

[monolith94]

a. getting the emac would have been a hassle (they're only selling them for education)

b. the imac is more compact, more stylish, and had more of what I wanted in the design

Don't get me wrong, the emac is a great machine, it jus wasn't the best machine for me...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
From what I've seen, Prescott will absolutely lay waste to the *Hammer chips when it comes out in 2H03. But it's half a year after the AMD chip comes out anyway.

Prescott? That's about as vapourware as you can get. There's nothing remotely detailed about the thing while the Hammers are in silicon.

Fat chance that Intel is going to produce that with any significant abilities to challenge the Hammers in 2H03. 2H04 is a more likely goal, if at all.

On the other hand, if Prescott is just the next revision of P4, it can make the deadline just about, but wouldn't be 64-bit capable.

[That's right, nobody outside of Intel knows what it is ]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't see AMD giving its Hammers an 800MHz system bus and 1MB of full-speed L2 cache and starting at 5GHz anytime soon.

Castles in the sky are surely neato, eh?

Originally posted by Asher
Find me a better one.
Factors include:

• Cost
  
• Airflow
  
• Bay space
  
• Clean design

It is not exactly awful, but still no match for Apple's new designs.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LightEning
UR: I would be happy if I only could run icewm, xmms (mp3) and at least six windows inside Opera at the same time without notable slowdowns... But no! Resources are always too scarce...

One of the perks of having a job I still much prefer to be a student, though. Those care-free days.

[Ecthy]

monolith - shouldn't your friend be moderating us? what ishe up to?

[Akka]

Why am I not surprised to see that Asher loves Intel ?
Well, people that supports P4 always made me laugh hard, and saying that Prescott will crush Hammer is even more funny
(let me see... Intel is trying to build a 64-bits processor for SEVEN years now, and still has not reached the final stage, right ? And AMD was able to make a better processor in just, what, two, three years ?

Oh, and about the bench on how P4 are SUPPOSED to be better than Athlon...



And remember that RDRAM is twice as expensive than DDR
And remember that motherboard for P4 are a little more expensive than MB for Athlon

And see that :



Wow, what a surprise, the Athlon 2400+ beat P4 2,6 GHz
Of course, I selected THE bench that give Athlon an edge (too bad there was not a bench about floating performance, the P4 would be vanished in the air), but Asher, in his famous objectivity, also selected the bench that make the Athlon seems underpowered

On a general basis, an Athlon is a bit more powerful than a P4 with a frequency equal to the PR-Rating of the Athlon. When you remind that a 2000+ is in fact working at 1666 MHz, and it require 2100 MHz for a P4 to beat it...

[Urban Ranger]

Don't bother, Akka. Glonk (Asher) was complaining that the THG is biased, and the Register are a bunch of losers.

Any website that doesn't support his POV are automatically losers who are obviously biased.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Don't bother, Akka. Glonk (Asher) was complaining that the THG is biased, and the Register are a bunch of losers.

Any website that doesn't support his POV are automatically losers who are obviously biased.

Not surprising. Someone who is the lackey of Microsoft and Intel HAS to be biaised

[Thue]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
HAHA! Glonk buys AMD

/me surfs on on his intel celeron based PC

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Prescott? That's about as vapourware as you can get. There's nothing remotely detailed about the thing while the Hammers are in silicon.

Fat chance that Intel is going to produce that with any significant abilities to challenge the Hammers in 2H03. 2H04 is a more likely goal, if at all.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense.
Adding x86-64 support is trivial. It adds about 2-3%% to diespace, and only certain parts of the processor actually need to be upgraded (because of SSE2, much of the parts already work at 64-bit precision).

On the other hand, if Prescott is just the next revision of P4, it can make the deadline just about, but wouldn't be 64-bit capable.

[That's right, nobody outside of Intel knows what it is ]

You incorrectly assume it's hard to add x86-64. You don't think Intel could add x86-64 in the 1.5-2 years they've been working on the chip? Give me a break...

It is not exactly awful, but still no match for Apple's new designs.

Sandbag-esque desklamps (I don't care what monolith says) with about a 15 degree swivell radius on the arm? It blows Apple's designs away.

[Asher]

Oh boy, another kid who thinks he knows something...

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Why am I not surprised to see that Asher loves Intel ?
Well, people that supports P4 always made me laugh hard, and saying that Prescott will crush Hammer is even more funny
(let me see... Intel is trying to build a 64-bits processor for SEVEN years now, and still has not reached the final stage, right ? And AMD was able to make a better processor in just, what, two, three years ?

IA-64 is far, far more than a simple 64-bit processor. It is radically different than x86-64. x86-64 is s cheap kludge to add 64-bit registers to x86 and corresponding instructions. That is insanely easy to do. The reason why Intel didn't want to go there is because most developers want x86 dead. It's old, it's obsolete, it's kludgey, it's got a stack-based FPU which is simply horrible to work with, it spends about 30% of its clocktime overcoming inherent shortcomings of x86.

IA-64 was a radically new instruction set and architecture based upon 20 years of University research.

Saying that AMD was able to build a 64-bit processor in far less time than Intel is an absolute joke, you're implying that AMD is more skilled than Intel.

It's like this: If you take someone else's 30-page essay and add on 1 paragraph to it and change some spelling, you can do it far faster than the kid who had to research, think about, and then write his own 30-page essay from scratch.

Oh, and about the bench on how P4 are SUPPOSED to be better than Athlon...

The 2.53GHz is the undisputed speed king.

And remember that RDRAM is twice as expensive than DDR
And remember that motherboard for P4 are a little more expensive than MB for Athlon

Twice as much? Where did you take math?
512MB RDRAM: $124
512MB PC2700 DDR: $113
The price different is staggering! (From PriceWatch)
And you do know that the P4 supports SDRAM, DDR, and RDRAM, right? Not just RDRAM?

And about motherboards:
KT333 chipset: $72
i850: $65
How do you figure P4 motherboards are more expensive? Is 65 > 72 now?

Wow, what a surprise, the Athlon 2400+ beat P4 2,6 GHz
Of course, I selected THE bench that give Athlon an edge (too bad there was not a bench about floating performance, the P4 would be vanished in the air), but Asher, in his famous objectivity, also selected the bench that make the Athlon seems underpowered

Of course.
Your benchmark is from an obsolete program that was made before the Pentium 4 came out, obviously optimized towards P3/Athlon cores rather than all three.

On a general basis, an Athlon is a bit more powerful than a P4 with a frequency equal to the PR-Rating of the Athlon. When you remind that a 2000+ is in fact working at 1666 MHz, and it require 2100 MHz for a P4 to beat it...

That doesn't matter, AMD intentionally made the PR ratings conservative so people like you can say "Hey! Match at the PR ratings the Athlon is faster! GO AMD! WOO!".

The 2.53GHz P4, even with PC800 RDRAM (Performance hits 5-10% higher with PC1066), is the undisputed speed king.

Don't try to spin it another way, facts are facts.
To quote Anand:

Intel was creeping ahead of AMD in the performance tests when they released the 2.4GHz Pentium 4, but now with 533MHz FSB parts and bumping the clock speed up to 2.53GHz the performance crown is undeniably Intel's. Intel will claim the right to the highest performing desktop microprocessor.

Also note that this was with PC800, not PC1066 RDRAM which should be available shortly.

[Thue]

Originally posted by Asher
IA-64 is far, far more than a simple 64-bit processor. It is radically different than x86-64. x86-64 is s cheap kludge to add 64-bit registers to x86 and corresponding instructions. That is insanely easy to do. The reason why Intel didn't want to go there is because most developers want x86 dead. It's old, it's obsolete, it's kludgey, it's got a stack-based FPU which is simply horrible to work with, it spends about 30% of its clocktime overcoming inherent shortcomings of x86.

I think the x86-64 has a new FP unit that isn't stack-based. The stack-based unit will still be used by old programs, but new programs will use the new one. (all IIRC)

[Ari Rahikkala]

Now is time to put your differences aside and actually be helpful again, people: Save a poor student some money by visiting http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=50006 !

[SpencerH]

Even though I think the P4 are faster at this moment, I still wont buy one. I've had too many conflicts with video cards and ram and intel processors and chips.