Nazo said:Erm, I'm going to have to say that getting a 2500+ to run at 3200+ for probably even less than half the price of a 3200+ is, indeed, a smart choice...
With normal multitasking in a true multitasking OS, you won't notice a difference. It's heavy stuff where you can tell with hyperthreading and such. I still remember back when I had Windows 9x and tried to do several things at once, often it would cause MP3s to skip or something like that when I started a program that had to work a lot. These days you don't see that.
Burner27 said:What speed/Model of AMD will outperform my 3.4c?
Spectre said:In gaming or in productivity? Probably with out knowing which iwould say the 3800+ and 4000+. Maybe the 3500+ but that would probably be close.
darkpark said:I've gone AMD over 4 years ago and never turned back but I would like to know how or why others switched to AMD. I'm just curious.
food for thought: if AMD one day becomes top dog and starts throwing their weight around like intel will you still stay with AMD or switch to a competitor?
kirbyrj said:The ONLY thing I still wish I had from the Intel machine was Hyper-Threading. I don't know what it was, but the computer ran everything smooth as butter.
Asazman said:mostly common sense. enough said.
If you were to ask the average dipshit computer shopper (99.99% of people) if they would like a 2.0Ghz AMD 64-bit processor or a 3.2Ghz Intel Pentium 4 processor, they will always, 100% of the time go with the pentium.
I'm not dissing Intel or anything, but they're expensive and not my cup o tea. AMDs are much more effecient and cost-efficient.
IceBawx said:Naa, I just wanted to try somethin' different, and I liked it.