"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
. com...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:57:31 -0700 (PDT), penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Apr 15, 11:47 am, "D-unit" wrote:
Actually we needed another workstation
here at work rather quickly ( for my new replacement)
Im keeping a desk and my pc here for the time being.
I went up to the TigerDirect store in North Raleigh
Sunday to see what they had.

I got:

Acer Veriton M410
Windoze Xp Pro SPII
1GB DDRII
AMD Sempron 3800+
160GB SATA
Built in video/LAN/sound

Brand new, not a refurb.

$379.00 plus tax.

After 2 hours of downloading/installing "updates"
...She works fine.

db

After studying and then the advice of a real, genuine person that is
degreed and works in the IT field (not plays one in rec.boats!), I
also went with the AMD chip. It consitently clocks faster than Intel
chips of the same variety. Never had a problem with it.

I haven't owned an Intel chip since my first experiences with AMD....

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats



They are indeed fast but tend to run hotter than Intel..........cooling is
always an issue especially if you overclock them.

Depends which group of CPUs we are talking about.

For single core, it was a mix.

Dual core CPUs AMD generally runs faster and cooler than Intel.

With the advent of quad cores, power consumption is generally slightly lower
for AMD, but the performance goes to Intel.

If I was buying a laptop dual core, I would favor AMD. If a desktop with
quad cores, I would buy either but if cost be even, do Intel. For dual core
though, AMD.