Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (83044)	12/15/1999 4:49:00 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1572510

Petz, <Who cares about 800 CrapperMine -- for games its slower than an Athlon 700. ... They are run on CuMine 600 and 700 on the finest BX board, so it is easy to extrapolate the results to get a frame rate for an 800 MHz CuMine.> Well, I guess that explains everything. I think it's well known that Coppermine looks a lot better on the 820 chipset with RDRAM. Running it on a BX chipset is like putting Pinto wheels on a Ferrari (to paraphrase an Intel PR guy). Now before you say, "Well, RDRAM's too expensive anyway, and you can't get a decent 820 motherboard yet," remember that it's the whole system that counts in performance, not just the processor. Sure, if Athlon had RDRAM (or DDR SDRAM) and an on-die cache, then even Coppermine on 820 won't be able to beat it. But Athlon isn't quite there yet, now is it? In any case, if I had the money to buy a Coppermine 800, I'd also have the money to buy an 820 motherboard with RDRAM on it. Of course, an Athlon 750 system with SDRAM may be cheaper, but then we go back to the old "AMD has the better price/performance" strategy that didn't seem to work in the past. Tenchusatsu