Man I should be charged for theft but this guy I do alot of work for sold me a Compaq F500 with a AMD 64x2 cpu, 1 gig of ram Nvidia 6100 video, broadcom modem, 160 gig hd, dvdrw, 15.4 wide screen win xp pro all for $175.00. It looks like brand new. I am so glad i do favors for him on his store computers.
The pigs have been informed about your theft, but are to busy hassling granny for her medicam pot. Thats an awesom score for 175$ -Jedite
I hate you. I hate you. I hate you. And your luck too. But that's a damn fine deal, and it makes me sad to look at my obsolete piece of shit dell dimension blarney that can't even RUN company of heros much less Crysis. Arrgh, I need money!
Hmmmm AMD chips? X2 is nowhere near as good as Dual Core = he prolly couldnt wait to get rid of it maybe a coupla years ago AMD were riding high but now they are in second place again
Intel Conroe 2.3Ghz - 65 watts power usage - $170 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115030 AMD Brisbane 2.3Ghz - 45 watts power usage - $100 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103204 Actually, that is a matter of opinion. AMD and Intel are neck and neck and there is no way to determine which is "better". Each manufacturer has there own benchmarking techniques that can prove one chip better than another. Technically speaking, each chip is designed for a specific application. Generally, Intel makes better processors for desktop/mobile applications. AMD makes better desktop/workstations processors. I am not just speaking out of my rear, either. Lets take two leading chips from each manufacturer. The Intel socket LGA775 Core2Duo Conroe 2.3Ghz processor uses 65 watts of power. It costs $170 USD for the retail processor. The AMD socket AM2 X2 Brisbane 2.3Ghz uses 45 watts of power to create 2.3Ghz of dual core, real-time 64-bit processing. It does all that for a smaller price of $100 USD. A lot of people don't realize the watt usage on a processor can make a huge difference in performance and stability. The more wattage a processor needs, the more heat it produces. More heat also means less stability and less performance capacity in an overclocking environment, obviously. As we can infer, 64-bit processing capability is faster and more powerful. It allows a computer to use more than 4Gb RAM and has larger CPU registers for programs. AMD processors are genuine 64-bit processors. Intel processors are limited to 32-bit processing and must emulate AMD instruction sets to achieve 64-bit processing. Emulating anything, for any reason, uses resources and reduces performance. Considering what Microsoft and other vendors are expecting out of hardware, we need every bit of RAM we can get. Eventually, 4Gb will be chump change and 64-bit registers will be the standard. I could rant more about AMD and Intel but it would be a long article.
Hmm well when i run dxdiag.exe it shows it as having 2 1704 CPUs thus dual core when I do the same on this computer it shows as having 2 2300 CPUS and its an intel P4 Dual core so I can only figure the laptop would be dual core too. My newest toy for me is a Phenom 9600 going into an Asus socket AM2 MB.
If your intent is overclocking AMD is the way to go. If you want price - AMD. If you want your computer to run hotter, less stable and have a shorter life span all while emptying your wallet - Intel is your choice. I have ran servers and desktops on both Intel and AMD and I will never go back to the overprices POS Intels. Also last I herd Intel was made over seas in 3rd world country's, unlike AMD which is made in the US - another 3rd world country, but at least it's OUR 3rd world country. -Jedite
I have never gotten an AMD chip made in America. Although, there must be some that were manufactured in America. I think my X2 Brisbane was made in Taiwan-ish.
Yeah, X2's are dual-cores. I have an AMD Turion64 X2 TL-50... would that be a 64 bit processor or just a name "Turion64"?
It is 64 bit. Also I have looked, and se that AMD has fabs (manufacturing plants) all over the world, with some big ones in germany and it sound like building them in NY. I stand corrected if I am wrong about wwhere they are built.
OK in the fight between X2 technology and Dual Core sales figures and motherboard sales show that Dual Core is the clear winner AMD have been left twirling round in the dust as Intel overtook them at high speed. The differences in wattage are actually trivial in a way because regardless of what heat is pushed out your thermal output has to be matched by your ability to cool the chip so theres no real obvious gain to competing on a few watts here and there. I think the real competition is to see how miniature you can make your chips - Intel is bringing out an X8 chip - thats right it will be manufactured at 45nm and the chip itself will handle video and audio processing, Dual core is far more configurable than people imagine and the intel chipsets can be tweaked to a far greater extent than previously - with Quadcore intel is comparable to AMD for gamers and tweakers. AMD is so far behind intel at this present time it is reeling and taking Alkasaltsa's
You have been thinking deeply about this. Deep thinkers are great for conversations like this. You're wrong about the wattage not being relevent. If a processor can run at 2.3Ghz and run at less wattage, that means it can potentially be overclocked and overvolted much higher than 2.3Ghz. 45 watts @ 2.3Ghz is more efficient than 65 watts @ 2.3Ghz. Efficiency defines performance potential. X2 vs Dual Core is a null perspective. X2 is dual core. They are both the same. AMD is working on X8 and X16 chips, just as Intel is doing so. We can't really state that one is better than the other. The moment we think one is better is the moment we are wrong.
http://bigtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/12/12/has-intel-crushed-amd/ Believe me AMD is in a bad way right now
This has gone a bit off topic but may be somewhat productive. Stocks, hearsay, fanboyism, and propaganda will only express trendy arguments. The technical specifics and operational limits will promote the actual performance of the chips. I am referring to how the chips perform. From the link you provided, I would be much quicker to assume you are discussing the company, not the actual product. That link may be correct in explaining the company, but not the real-time performance of the chips. And to make matters worse, you cannot compare the AMD dual core chips to the Intel quad core chips. Apples and Oranges, both are fruits. To make a real comparison, use the AMD quad core chips VS the Intel quad core chips. Or the AMD dual core VS the Intel dual core. Studies show that Intel quad core can out perform AMD dual core. Studies also show that AMD quad core can out perform Intel dual core. Not really a fair comparison.
