Re: AMD vs Intel performance
- From: "zara" <zspook@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:18:34 -0500
"Travelinman" <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nowhere-878171.21531521112005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <1132631334.756810.259130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> steve.travis@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Travelinman wrote:
>> > In article <1132630100.368341.194070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > steve.travis@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >
>> > > Travelinman wrote:
>> > > > In article <1132623597.423117.302240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > > > steve.travis@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
>> > > > > > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051121/the_mother_of_all_cpu_ch
>> > > > > > arts-28.html
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Any questions?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ragosta will now tell you that, AMD has heat issues (actually AMD
>> > > > > runs
>> > > > > cooler than Intel), and that AMD cannot make enough to meet
>> > > > > Apple's
>> > > >
>> > > > Which high end AMD processor runs cooler than the Pentium-M chips
>> > > > that
>> > > > Apple will be using?
>> > >
>> > > And you know what Apple will be using because....Oh that's right,
>> > > you're the same clown who, the day before Apple announced their move
>> > > to
>> > > Intel, claimed that OS X would never EVER run on x86. IOW, you know
>> > > as
>> > > much/little about Apple's next move as any of us here do.
>> >
>> > Except for one thing - I'm capable of reading. Maybe you'll get that
>> > skill some day.
>>
>> Is that why you claimed that OS X would never run on x86? LOL...
>> That's right, bring up your 'reading' skills as backup... LOL...
>
> Are you too stupid to understand the difference between speculation and
> reading?
>
> Figures.
>
>>
>> > > > > needs (LOL) and that AMD just isn't up to the level of Intel...
>> > > >
>> > > > AMD would need to increase production of their high end chips by
>> > > > several
>> > > > hundred percent to meet Apple's needs. Not to mention that their
>> > > > high
>> > > > end chips are $1,000 each (probably due to the supply limitations).
>> > > > Not
>> > > > what I'd want to base a platform switch on.
>> > >
>> > > You keep saying that, but the fact of the matter is, that high end
>> > > systems like the Dual G5s and Quad G5s are NOT the machines that
>> > > Apple
>> > > sells in huge quantities. Therefore, their need for high end
>> > > processors are much more limited than you indicate.
>> >
>> > It doesn't matter. There aren't enough high end AMD chips for the
>> > PowerMacs.
>>
>> Prove it!!!!!
>
> The numbers have been provided in this group in just the past day or so.
>
> But, then, since you're incapable of reading, that probably doesn't help.
good answer - ya really "got" him on that one. For a PHD you sound more
like a fourteen year old in these discussions. Fin back to you eel hidey
hole, bottom feeder.
.
- References:
- AMD vs Intel performance
- From: Lefty Bigfoot
- Re: AMD vs Intel performance
- From: steve . travis
- Re: AMD vs Intel performance
- From: Travelinman
- Re: AMD vs Intel performance
- From: steve . travis
- Re: AMD vs Intel performance
- From: Travelinman
- Re: AMD vs Intel performance
- From: steve . travis
- Re: AMD vs Intel performance
- From: Travelinman
- AMD vs Intel performance
- Prev by Date: Wintrolls...
- Next by Date: Re: AMD vs Intel performance
- Previous by thread: Re: AMD vs Intel performance
- Next by thread: Re: AMD vs Intel performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|