Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
11-23-2006 4:20am
test
X2 939 vs AM2 Pricing charts side by side with thanks to Phil (Bullrider) from iHUB for clueing me in on how to do side by side.
The charts are live not static. The charts below are showing only retail prices but the text at the labs.anandtech URLS will show OEM and retail. It's also worth noting that the Y axis has a non zero base so each chart is it's own animal and does not make for the easiest 1:1 comparison. Unfortunately I didn't generate the charts so I have no control over the Y axis.
It is most usefull if you bookmark this post and look at these charts every 3-4 days or write notes about interesting prices and check back later.
For example the 4000+ AM2 part is currently more expensive than the 4200+ AM2 part. As volume ramps up you can expect that to reverse.
Cheapest Retail prices on ATRTP + S&H compaired by hand at time of post make a static list of:
939 AM2 AM2 Preorder
------------------------------------
3800 297 335 300
4000 --- 382 324
4200 357 369 365
4400 460 --- 463
4600 547 580 550
4800 632 --- 635
5000 --- --- 780
Thanks that is exactly what I needed to know. It turns this post in to a side by side comparison so you don't have to scroll up and down so much:
X2 939 vs AM2 Pricing charts side by side
The charts are live not static. The charts below are showing only retail prices but the text at the labs.anandtech URLS will show OEM and retail. It's also worth noting that the Y axis has a non zero base so each chart is it's own animal and does not make for the easiest 1:1 comparison. Unfortunately I didn't generate the charts so I have no control over the Y axis.
It is most usefull if you bookmark this post and look at these charts every 3-4 days or write notes about interesting prices and check back later.
For example the 4000+ AM2 part is currently more expensive than the 4200+ AM2 part. As volume ramps up you can expect that to reverse.
Cheapest Retail prices on ATRTP + S&H compaired by hand at time of post make a static list of:
939 AM2 AM2 Preorder
------------------------------------
3800 297 335 300
4000 --- 382 324
4200 357 369 365
4400 460 --- 463
4600 547 580 550
4800 632 --- 635
5000 --- --- 780
Does anyone know how to make these two charts show side by side instead of above and below each other?
X2 939 vs AM2 Pricing charts
The charts are live not static. The charts below are showing only retail prices but the text at the labs.anandtech URLS will show OEM and retail.
It is most usefull if you bookmark this post and look at these charts every 3-4 days or write notes about interesting prices and check back later. If there is a particular combination of charts you want to see next to each other or if anyone knows how to make two charts show side by side on iHUB let me know.
For example the 4000+ AM2 part is currently more expensive than the 4200+ AM2 part. As volume ramps up you can expect that to reverse.
Cheapest Retail prices on ATRTP + S&H compaired by hand at time of post make a static list of:
939 AM2 AM2 Preorder
------------------------------------
3800 297 335 300
4000 --- 382 324
4200 357 369 365
4400 460 --- 463
4600 547 580 550
4800 632 --- 635
5000 --- --- 780
Apology for sgolds:
From the talk on SI and looking at quotes from articles around the web it looks like I was wrong about Fab 30 not shutting down for conversion.
I'm sorry for implying you were the one with the misconception when it was really me...
OK, let me fully qualify that:
90nm at Fab 30 will be completely phased out by mid 2007.
Your note about 90nm at Fab 36 wasn't part of what I was talking about.
Further it may be I misread, I could have sworn I saw Q1-Q2 as end of fab 30 90nm in one of the press releases or articles. Now looking back either I can't find the right one or they've been edited to say "begin ramping down" instead of the wording I remember.
Good questions but, I think, a few misconceptions:
2. Fab 36 and Fab 38 will both be 100% 65nm at some point. 90nm will be completely phased out by mid 2007.
4. Fab 30 will never close. There will be no point where Fab 36 is producing alone. Some 90nm lines will be taken down and other 65nm lines will be put up. At some point they will just change the name. No full plant shutdown is needed.
5. FAB 30 doesn't have too much 200mm equipment. Much of the equipment they bought was 300mm capable even though they are running 200mm wafers. There will be some leftover and I have no idea what they will do with it but they have spefically mentioned numberouse times how forward thinking they were with their equipment purchases. If need be I might be willing to google some links up but right now food is more on my mind :)
You might notice that my answer to 5 partially explains why they can convert fab 30 to fab 38 without shutting it completely down. Not as much machine replacement as you might have imagined.
With a W2K or Win9x OEM license you owned the disc and the key and could use it on one PC and only one PC at a time. The only real restrictions were antipiracy oriented.
With XP you own a lease on the OS and the lease has restrictions that vary from OEM to OEM and even retail package to retail package.
It might say something like "The SOFTWARE may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on the COMPUTER, unless a higher number is indicated on the Certificate of Authenticity."
Some copies are specific to the PC they were first installed on. Heaven forbid you install it on a test PC for a week then format the drive and wait a few months before installing it on a different PC once some parts arrive. If that first PC dies you can't install it on any other PC ever. The license key would still work but it is theoretically illegal for you to use it.
Of course if you don't mind thumbing your nose at MSFT and risking the ire of the software police its a non issue. But the reality is that MSFT is being way WAY over the line of reasonable terms in many ways on many copies of WXP. And they've gone way over the line of what is reasonable when auditing corporations.
And Dell or any other big OEM doesn't want to tell you up front what the EULA says in it, nor do they want you to compare theirs vs anyone elses.
As far as I'm concerned I should be able to buy a XP license for each area of my house (or a company should be able to buy per employee) I'm concerned about and build an infinite number of PCs out of random parts over the years and reinstall 2 or 3 times a year just so long as I'm not running more copies concurrently than I paid for. As far as MSFT is concerned they would like to see me buy a new copy of windows every year or two.
They'll keep changing the EULA until they can find enough technicalities to eventually force us all to a software subscription model. (Assuming we don't to move to Mac OS or Linux instead).
Also worth noting that with the Windows XP and above licenscing the license is non transferable. With the thought that they will be able to eventually force you to buy another OS some point down the road...
And yes it is a whole new level of non transferable above and beyond anything ever done with Win 2K or Win9x.
AMD Issues Statement on Dell Decision to Offer Customers a Choice
Thursday May 18, 4:36 pm ET
SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2006--AMD (NYSE:AMD - News) released the following statement today regarding the announcement Dell Inc. made in its quarterly earnings statement that it intends to offer AMD Opteron(TM) Dual Core processor-based servers.
"We welcome Dell, and Dell customers, to the world of AMD64," said Marty Seyer, AMD senior vice president, Commercial Business. "Dell is a customer-focused company and we're pleased to see that they are listening to their customers and providing them the choice of innovative AMD products. We look forward to working closely with Dell and bringing the benefits of AMD's leading performance-per-watt solutions to Dell's customers."
For AMD Digital Video and Images
AMD digital video and images may be accessed by members of the news media at: http://www.thenewsmarket.com/AMD/br/Login/LoginPreRegistration.aspx
About AMD
Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE:AMD - News) is a leading global provider of innovative microprocessor solutions for computing, communications and consumer electronics markets. Founded in 1969, AMD is dedicated to delivering superior computing solutions based on customer needs that empower users worldwide. For more information visit www.amd.com.
AMD, the AMD Arrow logo, AMD Opteron, AMD64 and combinations thereof, are trademarks of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Other names are for informational purposes only and may be trademarks of their respective owners.
It is my understanding that most consumer grade motherboards do NOT support cool n quiet with dual core opterons (or that the dual core opterons don't have it). Either way they are not an option for the use I have in mind if they won't go low power without me having to buy a special low power SKU. I already have a high end 939 motherboard so I'm not in the market for a complete new setup.
I don't have the URLs handy but I had read several issues with dual core opterons on consumer grade motherboards that are not an issue if you are overclocking but are an issue if you plan to go for default or lower voltage operation.
X2 pricing still holding up more than I expected.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=11110156
X2 pricing?
To my way of thinking there are these levels of non sempron, non FX AMD desktop parts:
1. socket 754 small cache
2. socket 754 large cache
3. socket 939 small cache
4. socket 939 large cache
5. socket 939 X2 small cache
6. socket 939 X2 large cache
Since pricing overlaps so much among those groups I am just watching for sweet spots to simplify the picture. That means I'm only paying attention to prices for 4, 5, and 6 even though I bought a small cache 939 processor in the past.
http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=athlon%2064%20San%20Diego&price=yes has the current prices for the San Diego parts but there are only two parts that matter the 3700+ and 4000+ because those are the parts that are the overlap with the X2 939 parts that are the tipping point for dual core adoption.
It's also worth noting that the low price for the sandiego is about $235 for a retail box. The text view at the URL above is showing OEM and retail. The charts below are showing only retail. Also the dual chart for the 3700+ is for ADA3700CFBOX and ADA3700BNBOX. Presumably one is a newer core rev and a no brainer to buy vs the other but the difference in price is almost unoticable so I'm putting both here for the historical comparison.
Prices for 939 X2 used to range from $300 to $1100. Current range is at http://labs.anandtech.com/products.php?sfilter=265&price=yes and at time of this post it was $300 to $950 presumably making room for the FX-62 to take over the $1100 price point.
I didn't expect the X2 3800+ to hold it's price as long as it has and the 3700 vs 3800 comparison is $235 or so vs $300 or so. There is still a noticable premium for the DIY builder to go dual core.
In the past I've posed the question: When will there be a $200 dual core desktop part? Now I'll add an optional rewording, When will the cheapest 939 X2 become a no brainer choice over the single core 939 San Diego parts?
Any idea when those price changes will filter to retail? Specifically pressure on AMD reacting by changing prices on these:
http://labs.anandtech.com/products.php?sfilter=265&price=yes
thanks, just didn't know if I was missing something more significant.
Forgive my ignorence but what do you mean?
How is http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2006q2/cpu2000-20060320-05795.html more signifiganct than http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/res2005q2/cpu2000-20050610-04216.html for example?
Does that include your Windows Update time or Shavlik deployment?
I'll agree a Ghost image cuts the time greatly but if you are setting up a machine from scratch it can take a while to patch it up and add non Microsoft apps...
Desktop CPU Power Survey, April 2006
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article313-page1.html and further pages. I'll grab some interesting excerpts but the article is 8 pages with pictures, tables, data, etc...
It began as a follow-up to Turion 64 on the Desktop article, posted in mid-February. But then, the piece ballooned into something more ambitious, into an attempt to answer the question,
"What is the best power efficiency achievable with current AMD and Intel processors that can be used on a desktop PC?"
In the process, we ended up examining more than 15 processors in half a dozen family groups on six different test platforms, and took a stream of power measurements that kept our heads spinning for a couple of weeks. We have some answers. They comprise a snapshot of the fast-changing processor scene, taken from a particular angle, at this point in time.
AMD says that the average TDP of most of their processor models has been dropping steadily over time. This is the result of a conscious effort, of continuous refinement in the manufacturing process. It means that while you might still find 89W 4000+ samples, the number of such parts coming off the line is much lower today than when the part was first introduced. The 50W samples, on the other hand, may not even have existed when the model was first introduced.
Intel does not embed individualized TDP information with its current line of Prescott, Smithfield, and Presler core processors. Variances certainly exist among Intel processors, but we have never had many of the same model to get any sense of how much they vary in thermally. The Prescott P4 is infamously hot, and while there have been improvements to help manage the heat better since their initial release, increasing clock speeds and memory cache sizes have not helped much. Enhanced Intel Speedstep (EIST) dynamic clock/voltage adjustments similar to AMD's Cool'n'Quiet, has helped, along with C1E halt state support. Both help reduce idle power but do nothing for power draw at load. While idle power consumption is more important for overall energy efficiency of the PC, it's the maximum CPU power peaks that the cooling system must be capable of handling. The tendency toward very high maximum power demand of the Intel desktop processor line has not changed, with the exception of the mobile offshoot Core Duo / Solo processors. We will have to wait for Conroe later in the year for an Intel desktop processor with TDPs boasted by AMD processors today.
NOTES:
A. Each and every platform is a minimalist system. There are no extras of any kind. This is realistic for the low end or low power processors, but not so realistic for the higher power / performance ones. Few users would buy a high performance processor and only use onboard graphics or a 5400 rpm notebook drive. We know that. The objective of this article required the most minimalist setups, however, and consistency in the test platform configurations.
B. The AOpen 975Xa-YDG Lab Sample preproduction board is not equipped with onboard graphics. There were no other options for Core Solo / Duo boards at time of writing, certainly none on the retail market. An outboard PCIe graphics card was used, the AOpen Aeolus PCX6600-DV128LP. Based on X-bit Labs' recent roundup of graphics card power, we'd estimate that this card has a minimum (idle) power draw of 10~14W and a maximum of 25~30W. For our testing, only the idle power matters.
Step Four: Once the minimum stable Vcore was found, we confirmed it by running CPUBurn for 20 minutes before taking measurements.
The DC power measurements do not take the efficiency of the voltage regular module (VRM) on the motherboard into account. VRM efficiency does vary somewhat from board to board, and also with power level. The average VRM efficiency is not much higher than 80%, but not likely to be lower than 75%. So the actual CPU power draw is probably around 20% lower than the 2x12V current we're reporting. Little is known about VRM efficiency at very low power levels, like <10W in idle. We suspect VRM efficiency could drop substantially below 75%..
FYI, if we could measure power right at the CPU socket, we could characterize not only CPU power demand but also the VRM efficiency of motherboards at different power levels. However, taking voltage / power measurements directly at the CPU socket requires an investment we cannot justify. We know of a system developed by a power engineering team at Intel; the components would cost US $3,000 for basic equipment plus ~$3,000 per CPU socket type.
Test results tables start at http://www.silentpcreview.com/article313-page5.html
The top two-thirds of the table (table A) (<60W) contains only AMD processors and two mobile Intel processors. There is only one AMD processor, the X2-4800+, arguably the most high performance CPU in the entire group, that reaches 60W. Five Intel processors make the bottom ranks; the 670, a single core P4-3.8, requires more than double the power of the dual core X2 4800+.
This is not the result of us choosing processors to bias the test. The Intel 630, just about the slowest desktop P4 Intel offers at this time, draws more power than the AMD A64 X2 4800+, the second most powerful desktop processor AMD offers currently. To top it off, the 630 is a single core processor while the X2 4800+ is a dual core.
It is true that Celerons are missing while there is a Sempron in the mix. However, this would have made little difference. All the current 2.4~2.8 GHz Celerons have 60~68W TDP, while our Sempron 3400+ sample measured 31.9W including VRM losses. Also, retailers FrontierPC and NCIX in the Vancouver area reported that there was no demand for Celerons — and hardly any supply at this time.
Power consumption at idle is similarly one-sided. At the top with 1~2.2W power consumption are the mobile processors. At the bottom are the Intel desktops at 21.6~33.6W. AMD desktop processor systems ranged from a low of 4.1W to a high of 10.4W, which is pretty narrow, given the performance range represented — Sempron 3400+ to X2 4800+.
A64X24800+ Toledo 1.0GHz CNQ 1.18Vcore 6.6W CPU Pwr 53W Sys Pwr
Research by the US Environment Protection Agency for the Energy Star program shows that computers are in idle 95% of the time that they are powered on.
But that raises our hackles. Most of us are enthusiasts here; surely we must stress our PCs a little harder than that (we all say with a little machismo and swagger). So let's say 90% idle and 10% full load for PC enthusiasts like us.
NOTE: SLEEP MODE VS. HIGH EFFICIENCY PSU - The jury is still out on whether high efficiency PSUs or full implementation of effective sleep and advanced idle modes is a more effective means of reducing energy consumption by computers. For various points of view on this matter, please see the relevant PDF presentations at the Energy Star Computer Specification web page. HP, for one, contends that effective, universal implementation of Sleep Mode is not only much cheaper than a more efficiency power supply, it actually leads to much greater energy savings all around.
Our focus on thermals, power and energy efficiency led to mostly predictable results: Mobile processors are best, followed by AMD desktop processor in general, and then Intel desktop processors. The power efficiency of AMD Athlon 64 single and dual core processors is excellent, even for their highest performance models. The Intel desktop processors suffer from inefficiency, even on the 65nm die. We are not sorry that the upcoming Intel Conroe will soon sweep the Netburst generation away.
It was disappointing that many of the Intel processors and boards seemed to disallow downward adjustments of the CPU core voltage. Small reductions in Vcore cannot improve power demand dramatically, but even small power reductions in power and heat would be welcome.
The Core Duo is a delightful exception in Intel's camp, with probably the highest performance-per-watt ratio of all the processors in our survey.
The one set of data that surprised us was the estimated watt-hour rating of the various test systems. There was a greater than 1:2 ratio between the lowest and highest power system in idle. The ratio jumped to 1:4 when the systems were in full load. But in estimated W-hr, a good measure of energy consumption, the ratio dropped back down to 1:2. It tells us that idle power consumption is the single most critical aspect of energy conservation in computers. Sleep mode may be even more important than improved power supply efficiency.
-------
Tons more I didn't quote and couldn't possibly represent with plain text.
yah, but from the "setting up CPU and RAM in the BIOS attitude" the closest thing to the old 400 mhz FSB from the K7 is the memory clock.
Go figure, when you make analogies they only hold up to certain comparisons. There is no perfect analogy.
Conroe advantage at 20% instead of 41%
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2716&p=1
*BIOS update on AMD system gave 4% increase in fear benchmark.
*DDR2 settings change made a 1% increase on the INTC system.
*Mistake on resolution difference between the two systems made the rest of the difference.
While our intention was to test both the AMD and Intel systems at the “Maximum” Computer settings and “High” Graphics settings, only the Conroe system was configured as such. We inadvertently left the AMD system at a higher resolution (1280 x 960) instead of the default resolution (1024 x 768) when you select the “High” Graphics defaults. The oversight was entirely our own doing as Intel was not running the benchmarks or configuring them, it simply happened while we were setting up both systems at the same time. We played with different resolution settings and while deciding that we would go with one, managed to configure the two boxes differently.
Of course this means that our initial F.E.A.R. tests were incorrect, and below we have the correct results with the settings we intended to run both systems on:
F.E.A.R. - Average Frame Rate
The performance advantage of Conroe makes a lot more sense now, at 20% instead of 41%. With performance in Quake 4, UT2004 and HL2 in the 20 - 30% faster range on Conroe, the F.E.A.R. results now make a lot more sense.
Athlon64 doesn't have a FSB. Are you confusing the 1.8GHz clock speed with a FSB because it doesn't match the 2000+ model number?
The closest thing to a FSB clock speed on an Athlon64 setup is the memory clock which is most likely 200mhz (doubled to 400mhz by the DDR).
ooooh scary, you know every single core part is a defective part too. You know there used to be a defective part on the same wafer with it before it was cut. They should just throw away all those dice and not try to market single cores until they make a perfect wafer.
Along the lines of "if a tree falls in the woods...", what do you call a core that is next to an edge on a dual core wafer? What is the shape of a quad core CPU? Is there more than one shape? Can I sell irregular parallelogram quad cores under a square heat spreader? How aobut diamond shape quad cores under a square heat spreader? How about L shapes or straight lines? Once you determine how many shapes are allowed should you just cut all the cores around the edges of the wafer and turn them into single cores? Why bother trying to sell them as dual core or tri core we know they'll sell as single core. Oh wait they are defective because the wafer is round and doesn't yield nothing but quad core processors.
I'm just going to have to visit every person on the planet and inform them how computers really work and why they shouldn't purchase these defective rectangular parts that are cut from a round wafer.
I think you are confused. AMD has no plans to advertise them as defective so 3 core parts will apear to be 3 core parts to Joe Schmoe.
"Thus all 3-core parts would be known to be partially defective quad-cores by default."
Known to who? The consumer won't know unless you tell him. Are you worried INTC would start a smear campaign to discredit the 3 core processors? Short of that the consumer won't have any reason to think twice about it.
Furthermore anyone able to figure it out on their own should be able to figure out if the price makes it worth paying for the extra core.
Aren't easily identified? When listings on pricewatch and other search engines mention toledo, manchester, etc you don't think the buying public isn't aware what they are getting?
Are you saying that the pricewatch crowd are a niche and don't count?
Or do you think some joe schmoe is going to hit CTRL-Shift-ESC and wonder why he has 3 CPU graphs insted of 4?
Surely you don't expect them to pry the heat spreader off and count the number of dies and then compare vs the number it reports on bootup.
If they don't know the difference between Toledo and Manchester they won't know the difference between 3 active cores and 4 active cores. Sure they might know the difference between the part name but they won't think its deffective because they will assume it is a completely different part until somone tells them otherwise.
Joe schmoe still thinks the faster processors are a different part than the slower ones. They don't know about binning in any shape or form.
And Toledo cores with half cache disabled aren't considered defective either.
The thing is you are starting with the presumption that an X3 would be considered defective but I and many others don't agree with that.
And some don't think the market would want Durons or Semprons. I assure you it will be easier to market an X3 than it is to market a Sempron.
Besides the number of X3 and X4 parts will be so much lower than X2 that they'll sell themselves with no marketing required.
business notebooks (14" for the US, 15.4" for Europe)
Can anyone tell me why the distinction? I'm in the US and I'd rather have the 15.4 than the 14.
I've noticed over the years that people don't like to hold stock going into a 3+ day weekend. If the markets closing early or staying closed longer than 2 days they tend to want to liquidate before hand...
Athlon X2 3800+ power use when undervolted
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=28920
ok, no big deal. Can I assume the ones saying 2 weeks are the back order ones and the ones saying a couple of days are in stock?
what made you say that? They don't look sold out now.
The cleaning of dust is a good idea, your motherboard/video card/etc aren't going to have fan/temp sensors in every possible spot so you aren't likely to know what component is overheating.
Once you have cleaned the dust out you need to look for bad capacitors. Look at www.badcaps.net for examples. A swolen or leaky capacitor could easily explain that behaviour. If you do have bad caps the easy answer is to buy a new motherboard if you are a do it yourself kind of guy or buy a new PC if you aren't.
If it isn't dust or badcaps then you get into the messy stuff:
If you are overclocking it move the settings to be less agressive. If you aren't overclocking the symptoms are similar to overclocking with issues ranging from:
PSU supplying voltages out of spec.
BIOS/Jumper CPU voltage set too high
BIOS/Jumper CPU voltage set too low
BIOS/Jumber FSB speed too high
RAM delay too low (low equals fast)
there are a lot of settings that could be off and affect stability.
The not so fun of all of this is that the part requests a voltage, the BIOS can overide that request, and the PSU can mishandle the request.
You can try experimenting with values in the BIOS or you can pick up a mulitmeter and do the dirty work of making sure the voltages are correct. Myself I don't use a multimeter for anything but testing a battery.
positive - as in healthy levels. If it were too low they would use words like shortage.
I was looking for $200 X2 parts, looks like I'll be waiting for a while yet (though it is nice to see price drops).
This message below has the price history of the X2 processors (in general, I did leave out the duplicate parts that have higher street prices).
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9274594
as it is I'd be buying a X2 4200 at $350-$400 if I was buying an X2 anytime soon...
The 30" Dell 3007FPW is currently selling on Dell.com for $2,298 USD, but Canadians can purchase the monitor for $1,400 USD
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=341
So much for that dip in X2 pricing, all the prices that went down last week have gone back up.
http://labs.anandtech.com/products.php?sfilter=265&price=yes
wbmw says instead of buying amd common before it goes up he'll wait for it to be overbought and buy puts instead.
seems like a convoluted way to make a profit on a rising stock to me...
Re: it´s way too much, you have to listen to it, analysts are just stunned. They can´t believe it, especially the bears.
It's exactly what makes a put position so attractive. AMD vastly exceeded their expectations, so rather than finding a context for the quarter, the analysts will probably convince themselves that their long term expectations on AMD are seriously undercalled. If they start raising their positions to strong buy, it will inflate the balloon to incredible heights that AMD won't possibly be able to live up to. My strategy is to wait for the daze to clear and for hopes to be higher than the sun and moon. Then I'll buy some Jan 07 puts and sit back and wait.
I haven't noticed any issues with flashblock on Mozilla (though occasionally flashblock on Firefox doesn't handle a flash intro page properly).
I keep firefox, mozilla, and IE up to date. When I hit an issue with one I usually test it in all 3 to see where the limitations are. Usually a page that doesn't render properly in Firefox will work ok in Mozilla. Rarely, and I mean very rarely, IE will be the only browser that will work.