Hardware Analysis Community Forums http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/ 2009-01-08T01:48:12-05:00 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/ http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif text/html 2003-03-06T02:09:18-05:00 Wyatt Hatfield http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/?o=20#25542 RIGGGGHHHHT. text/html 2003-03-05T06:33:13-05:00 1 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/?o=20#25443 Yeah baby Yeah.....couldnt get an austin powers wav in here could I?<img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile1.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":-)" title=":-)"> text/html 2003-03-05T06:19:06-05:00 Wyatt Hatfield http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/?o=20#25439 Well if you were to compare mhz to mhz AMD would eat Intel for shnootzinflogin. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Just settle it all down with a little generals. text/html 2003-03-04T09:48:11-05:00 Mr Koh http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#25295 I dont know, the independent benchmarks iv seen show the p4 3ghz on PC1066 to outperform the Athlon 3000+... im sure that AMD is still the value leader, but &quot;Fastest Processor&quot;? I think AMD is stretching the truth a bit there... text/html 2003-02-28T05:45:05-05:00 1 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#24632 Well, its obvious that someone has drawn a line.......dont get to pumped on your intel mumbo jumbo as they have frequently found themselves in the same pool as nvidia and the fx. Granted with a gpu prometieas (mythical) you might get your money's worth. <br /> Bottom line is if ya wanna have some fun and you can afford it then do what you will, on the other hand if you are one of those wishing to waste more time waiting for a chip thats going to stay on top for 5 minutes longer then the rest then fine.....wait for your .9 micron intel. My theory is that if you have the cash to buy that bad boy when it comes out then why not have some fun oc'ing the underdog in the meantime?.......its more rewarding and more of a challenge! Just my 2 cents! text/html 2003-02-24T23:21:44-05:00 gavin stanton http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#24136 Its a day late and a dollar short IMHO. The athlon FSB's are too slow, ddr333 runs asynchronously with the bus and AMD is migrating to hyper transport bus support anyway. I will hold off on my urges to build until prescott and hypertransport systems on a supporting .09 micrometer chip from AMD have a go head to head. Hyperthreading combined with support for dual channel ddr400 on an 800 MGz FSB (6.4 gb memory bandwidth) could quite possibly blow AMD out of the water for a while to come. Also, DDRII is on the horizon and im sure Intel will eventually offer a hypertransport option as well...one word, rediculous!! text/html 2003-02-20T21:10:29-05:00 Kronosei - http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#23462 same core, more cache. had photos of the core @ <a class="ext" target="_blank" href="/action/r/http://2cpu.com">2cpu.com</a>. OC'd the same as 2700+ text/html 2003-02-20T18:09:57-05:00 David Anderson http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#23422 2.16 for a new processor isn't that bad...when Mhz dont mean that much any more...The heat issues of AMD's new processors have always been a major problem that gets fixed after the initial release. Intel does the same thing. text/html 2003-02-20T05:07:59-05:00 Wyatt Hatfield http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#23351 Cheaper than Intels Best. text/html 2003-02-19T10:12:08-05:00 ben davies http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#23216 Well if you are rich get one, I think they are well to over priced...<br /> text/html 2003-02-15T00:23:42-05:00 Wyatt Hatfield http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#22591 I believe they just wanted to start the Barton Core at this Clockspeed. Alls that matters really is if the CPU performs better. Expect an increase on the clock speed later and even more when the hammer core comes out. text/html 2003-02-13T08:09:43-05:00 Casanova http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#22400 The only thing I don't understand is why they made the core speed only 2.16 ghz <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile2.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":(" title=":("> 2.33 ghz would have been cool <img src="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/smilies/smile1.gif" width="14" height="14" border="0" alt=":)" title=":)"><br /> <br /> Casanova<br /> Happy Gaming<br /> text/html 2003-02-13T05:56:59-05:00 Wyatt Hatfield http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#22393 Because it is a different core. Besides that would be a lame name and it performs 3000+ text/html 2003-02-13T01:55:32-05:00 Caveman017 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#22360 if it is the basic same as the 2800+ then how come it isnt the Athlon XP 2800+ SE? text/html 2003-02-13T01:46:58-05:00 Wyatt Hatfield http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4860/#22356 Yeah I believe its the same as the 2800 but With more cache and a new core. Hm I will wait to see what happends.