Help Cloud9 make a decision about what kind of computer to buy

[Asher]

MHz means nothing, Fez, MHz * IPC is speed.

P4 speed > Athlon XP speed.
Wake up.

And AMD's new line isn't going to change much. Intel has a high end 64-bit workstation/server processor that outpowers the Hammer chips (Itanium 2), and the Prescott Pentium 4s will come out 3-4 months after the Clawhammer on a faster bus, with more cache, and higher clockspeeds (just like P4 vs Athlon XP now).

[Giancarlo]

No.

[Asher]

You seem to think that AMD is the only company coming out with new chips, Gian...

Considering Intel's R&D budget is 6x that of AMD's, I'm willing to bet they'll continue to lead.

Edit: The numbers

http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/a/amd.html

http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/I/INTC.html

In Q1 2002, Intel spent $982,000,000 on R&D
In Q1 2002, AMD spent $171,882,000 on R&D

Earnings are amusing as well.
Intel made $936,000,000 in Q1 2002, AMD lost $9,163,000.

[Boris Godunov]

I had an AMD chip in my old computer. Sucked.

[Q Classic]

all AMD proved with its athlon line was that it can provide decent performance for a lower price. it did manage to be better than intel, but now that the AMD thoroughbred core has come out and failed to keep the lead above intel, it's safe to say that intel is probably going to remain at the top for a while longer.

[Kaak]

doood, your getting a dell...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Asher
You seem to think that AMD is the only company coming out with new chips, Gian...

Considering Intel's R&D budget is 6x that of AMD's, I'm willing to bet they'll continue to lead.

Edit: The numbers

http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/a/amd.html

http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/I/INTC.html

In Q1 2002, Intel spent $982,000,000 on R&D
In Q1 2002, AMD spent $171,882,000 on R&D

Earnings are amusing as well.
Intel made $936,000,000 in Q1 2002, AMD lost $9,163,000.

And who generally spends their money better? AMD. And the only reason why AMD lost money is because they sell low cost. I am stunned AMD is releasing a new ASS KICKER PROCESSER THAT WILL KICK YOUR ARGUMENT SO FAR IT WOULDN'T EVEN BE FUNNY.

Now you have pissed me off bringing completely irrevelant facts.

Boris, maybe it is because you don't know how to maintain computers. AMD do not suck.

[Asher]

Fez...AMD does not spend its money better. Intel spends its money upgrading fab plants for future chips (300mm wafers -- allows twice as many chips per wafer as AMD's 200mm). AMD spends their money giving Sanders and the VPs huge payouts (last time I checked, he gets the most money of any CEO in a major US corporation in terms of percentage of revenue).

You keep talking about AMD's new processor coming out, but I'm willing to bet you don't know much, if anything, about it. And I'm also willing to bet you know even less about Intel's upcoming processors.

AMDs do not suck anymore, it's just that they're simply not as good as Intel's.

[Giancarlo]

Blahblahblahlha... more crap here... more arbitrary statements.

[Asher]

Do you know what arbitrary means, Fez?

You remind me of a biblethumper.

[Giancarlo]

Baby want a bottle?

[Asher]

Coming from the boy screaming "lalala, I can't hear you, lies all LIES" in so many words?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
Boris, maybe it is because you don't know how to maintain computers. AMD do not suck.

Oooh, yes, I'm a stoopidhead...

No. I know full well how to take care of a computer. I don't treat things I invest money in shabbily. The AMD chip was a lot of trouble. It was an older one, from 1999, so perhaps they have improved since then. But I find my current Pentium far superior as a processor.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, as Asher has shown...why continue to fight unarmed?

[Giancarlo]

They have vastly been made superior.

But I have been on AMD since the K6 and never had problems with it.

[Boris Godunov]

Mine was a K6.

They may now be vastly superior to older AMDs, but they sure aren't superior to Pentiums.