Utter arrogance? have you been sleeping under a rock these last few years, because your comment is nothing but a load of rubbish. Please stop with your childish Intel bashing. If you like AMD fine - nobody is forcing you to change. The reality is that there is something better. When AMD came out with the 64bit - they jumped ahead of Intel and it looked like Intel would take ages to respond. When they launched the Core Duo - they got back the top spot because it really was a good processor.
This is not about jumping ship as your "lazy to change my motherboard" argument is about. This is about how late AMD are to the party. In terms of technology - why would you want a triple CPU when a Quad one is available? And if you don't need a triple, then a quad one would do fine.
I currently have 3 PCs in my home - all running AMD processors - theres no arrogance here. I'm just pointing out the reality. I'm a fan of the underdog like anybody else, but even I had to say bye to my Ati card and get Nvidia when its clear that the Nvidia card is just better for the money and performance. Maybe as an AMD fanboy - you need to wake up. AMD have a lot of catching up to do and this isn't going to help them. They ned to be concentrating on Quad CPUs and not be salvaging their damaged triple core CPUs and passing them off. If their production lines are really that bad to warrant enough triple core CPUs - then the future for them isn't looking bright.
Given that Intel have a number of quad based processors to suit a variety of budgets and then they also have their regular dual core CPUs in a variety too - so whether you wan't to spend $50 on a cheap dual CPU or $600 on the top quad core CPU - you have a choice.
Now tell me - where the hell will AMD's 3 core CPUs fit in? Intel have dual and quad CPU's spanning a wide price bracket - who needs 3 cores? As you said - most people won't see the difference between using a triple or a quad core CPU - then tell me - what is so good that you need to upgrade your dual core CPU to a triple one?
At the end of the day if you have a dual core and see no reason to upgrade - then fine, but if you need to justify going up to a Quad based CPU (perhaps for video encoding etc) - then why bother with a triple core when a quad core exists? The point is if you can justify needing more cores - then who the hell will want triple over quad? There is really no place these AMD processors will benefit because intels dual cores serve the lower end in terms of price/performance and their quad cores serve the higher end, and given that even the quad cores come in a budget variety (Q6600) - who would bother with anything less if they can afford it?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Shan @ Sep 18th 2007 9:54AM
@John B
Utter arrogance? have you been sleeping under a rock these last few years, because your comment is nothing but a load of rubbish. Please stop with your childish Intel bashing. If you like AMD fine - nobody is forcing you to change. The reality is that there is something better. When AMD came out with the 64bit - they jumped ahead of Intel and it looked like Intel would take ages to respond. When they launched the Core Duo - they got back the top spot because it really was a good processor.
This is not about jumping ship as your "lazy to change my motherboard" argument is about. This is about how late AMD are to the party. In terms of technology - why would you want a triple CPU when a Quad one is available? And if you don't need a triple, then a quad one would do fine.
I currently have 3 PCs in my home - all running AMD processors - theres no arrogance here. I'm just pointing out the reality. I'm a fan of the underdog like anybody else, but even I had to say bye to my Ati card and get Nvidia when its clear that the Nvidia card is just better for the money and performance. Maybe as an AMD fanboy - you need to wake up. AMD have a lot of catching up to do and this isn't going to help them. They ned to be concentrating on Quad CPUs and not be salvaging their damaged triple core CPUs and passing them off. If their production lines are really that bad to warrant enough triple core CPUs - then the future for them isn't looking bright.
Given that Intel have a number of quad based processors to suit a variety of budgets and then they also have their regular dual core CPUs in a variety too - so whether you wan't to spend $50 on a cheap dual CPU or $600 on the top quad core CPU - you have a choice.
Now tell me - where the hell will AMD's 3 core CPUs fit in? Intel have dual and quad CPU's spanning a wide price bracket - who needs 3 cores? As you said - most people won't see the difference between using a triple or a quad core CPU - then tell me - what is so good that you need to upgrade your dual core CPU to a triple one?
At the end of the day if you have a dual core and see no reason to upgrade - then fine, but if you need to justify going up to a Quad based CPU (perhaps for video encoding etc) - then why bother with a triple core when a quad core exists? The point is if you can justify needing more cores - then who the hell will want triple over quad? There is really no place these AMD processors will benefit because intels dual cores serve the lower end in terms of price/performance and their quad cores serve the higher end, and given that even the quad cores come in a budget variety (Q6600) - who would bother with anything less if they can afford it?
Eating your words now aren't you?