"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"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.

Apparently the latest high-end AMD chipset is a distant second to the
latest high-end Intel chipset with which it competes.

I wouldn't say distant. 5-10%. But each on the top end processors, AMD is
also about 5% less watts which is less heat last I looked.

I get a kick out of the people who buy the top notch new processor that adds
$500-700 to the tag for that extra 10% in CPU speed. Which is never
realized as increasing video, RAM and hard drives are the bottle neck. Many
PCs today are like Volkswagen beetles with Pratt and Whitney turbofans in a
70mph capable chassis.