On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html


The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html


The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.

You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell chip?

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?
AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.

You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell chip?

Yup. But unless you are a high-end gamer or use certain
processor-optimized apps (of which there are almost none), you're not
going to notice any speed difference between a high-end Intel and a
high-end AMD CPU. The only computer game I have installed on this
desktop is MS Golf.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:40:07 -0400, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?
AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.

You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell chip?

Yup. But unless you are a high-end gamer or use certain
processor-optimized apps (of which there are almost none), you're not
going to notice any speed difference between a high-end Intel and a
high-end AMD CPU. The only computer game I have installed on this
desktop is MS Golf.

Well! That explains both.

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:40:07 -0400, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?
AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html
The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.
You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell chip?
Yup. But unless you are a high-end gamer or use certain
processor-optimized apps (of which there are almost none), you're not
going to notice any speed difference between a high-end Intel and a
high-end AMD CPU. The only computer game I have installed on this
desktop is MS Golf.

Well! That explains both.


Better greens fees with MS Golf. I shoot in the low 60's.

HK wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:40:07 -0400, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?
AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several
years. Using benchmarks, AMD has given Intel a run for the
money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html
The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong
with them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.
You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell
chip?
Yup. But unless you are a high-end gamer or use certain
processor-optimized apps (of which there are almost none), you're not
going to notice any speed difference between a high-end Intel and a
high-end AMD CPU. The only computer game I have installed on this
desktop is MS Golf.

Well! That explains both.


Better greens fees with MS Golf. I shoot in the low 60's.

yes, but what do you tip the caddie?

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:26:52 -0400, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:40:07 -0400, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?
AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html
The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.
You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell chip?
Yup. But unless you are a high-end gamer or use certain
processor-optimized apps (of which there are almost none), you're not
going to notice any speed difference between a high-end Intel and a
high-end AMD CPU. The only computer game I have installed on this
desktop is MS Golf.

Well! That explains both.


Better greens fees with MS Golf. I shoot in the low 60's.

Per hour, per day, per 18, or what?

Now I know how you got that 79 the first time you played a round! If, as
many seem to think, golf is so boring in the real world, wouldn't it be
totally boring in the virtual world?

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:29:22 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?
AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

The cheap AMD chips are cheap indeed, but there's nothing wrong with
them, and the high-end AMD chips are as thunder sez.

You are undoubtedly correct. But, when you were telling us about the
computer you were building, didn't you say you were using an Intell chip?

I am cheap and NEVER buy the state of the art chip. I normally buy one
or two one step below the state of the art. You pay a hefty premium for
a small increase in performance.

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:35:47 -0500, John H. wrote:


I defer to your expertise. But why go with a cheap AMD?

AMD is no longer the "cheap" chip, and hasn't been for several years. Using benchmarks, AMD
has given Intel a run for the money. It seems, lately, the speed lead has been switching back
and forth, with every new generation of chip.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

Sort of like Cameras. For years Canon had a slight edge over Nikon.
Today (especially with the D300 and D3 coming out) Nikon has the slight
edge over Canon.

Gamers have preferred AMD for a long time, but I think part of that is
they could tweak and overclock AMD better than Intel.