OK, Greg, I'll take your challenge. Here are your four points which you use to back up your claim that AMD is ahead in the mobile market:
1. less expesnsivE by $200
2. AMD offers 3Dnow. iportant for full motion video.
3. most battery life manuf specs indicate AMD operate considerably longer than the PentiunII 300's, or Dixon
4. for intel to overcome the lasck of 3D now it has to use expensive Graphic accelerator cards with more memory which boost notebooks cost up higher than the chip price differential.
Now let me address each one, point-by-point
1) Yes, price is AMD's only advantage over Intel, but what else is new? Though low prices helps AMD gain marketshare, low prices also makes it very difficult for AMD to make a profit.
2) Even with 3DNow, the K6-2 can't beat even a Celeron. Here's the link to Tom's Hardware Guide, a respected Web site, which shows that an AMD K6-2 running at 400 MHz and with 3DNow enabled still can't even beat a CeleronA running at 300 MHz:
tomshardware.com
3) Show me the proof that the K6-2 laptops run longer than Pentium II or Dixon laptops. Meanwhile, I have a PC Magazine article here (Feb. 23, p. 110) showing that the Winbook XL 300 w/ the mobile K6-2 running at 300 MHz scored 3:00 on the ZD BatteryMark 2.0. Unfortunately, the Dell Inspiron 3500 w/ the mobile Celeron running at 300 MHz scored 3:09. And on page 23, the Compaq Armada 7400 and the Toshiba Tecra 8000 scored a 3:31 and a 3:10, respectively. Both of them have the 366 Pentium II (Dixon). (To be fair, the K6-2 notebook did win Editor's Choice, beating five other Value Notebooks.)
4) See #2. Celeron soundly beats the K6-2 even with 3DNow. It has been nine months since the introduction of 3DNow, and AMD still has a tough time convincing developers to release timely 3DNow-optimized drivers.
So where are your hard facts which categorically prove me wrong? And why do you accuse me of pure conjecture and innuendo, when right here I have given you references which back up my arguments?
Tenchusatsu |
