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.
Maybe I'm off base but I was under the impression that when socket M2 (940 pins) became the new mid/high end socket, AMD would then relegate socket 939 to the mid/low end. Of course I'm thinking entirely in terms of the desktop market not laptop or server.
Do you exepect M2 and 754 to be the only two desktop sockets at some point down the road or do you expect the number of sockets to increase?
isn't AMD trying to flush socket 754 out of the channel? Wouldn't you expect a higher priced socket 939 sempron to replace that underpriced part?
Yep, price of the CPU, price of the heatsink, price of the power supply, price of the electricty. No reason a consumer would ever figure out the difference. Let them pay the idiot tax.
yep, nothing to see here. Celeron wins this benchmark if higher is better.
They are sorted by in stock status with a secondary sort on price. It isn't sorted by quantity sold.
Unfortunately this one doesn't have the AMD logo plastered on it nor is it green.
http://akimages.crossmediaservices.com/dyn_li/600.0.90.0/Retailers/RadioShack/050922_25_587.jpg
PIC at $299 vs eMachines Sempron at $369 makes me think that the emachines is a way better value
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7438374&type=product&productCategoryId=cat0117...
PC3200 DDR and a 7200 RPM drive mean this system is faster than the avge <$400 PC.
and the lower cache saves on the power draw by a noticable amount.
If you have an extremely up to date version of Ghost you can back up the drive and dump it back to the original and that will defrag it completely. Of course you have to be darn sure the utility you do it with supports your OS(s) and file system(s) before starting and pay attention to command line switches to avoid makeing a change you didn't intend.
If you have access to another drive at work in a desktop or server you can ghost to it and back. Assuming you can leave the image there you even have a backup in case something goes wrong.
So you are saying the 3700+ goes at the top end of the scale like this?
(presumably sorted by performance)
3700+ cheapest
ML-42 +392.20
ML-40 +200.93
ML-37 +99.50
ML-34 +52.16
So if you configure the system with the 3700+ its the best bargain but it'll be noisier? edit: the system is fanless so it'll just use more electricity?
In case you didn't look at the configurator it is http://www.voodoopc.com/system/quotekitchen.aspx?productID=1082
AMD Athlon 64 Mobile ( SOI; 3DNOW!; SSE3; 754 pins )
3700+ 2.4GHz 1 MB 62W
AMD Turion 64 (90nm; SOI; 3DNOW!; SSE3; 754 pins; 114 m. transistors )
ML-44 3700+ 2.4 GHz 1 MB 35 W
ML-42 3400+ 2.4 GHz 512 KB 35 W
ML-40 3400+ 2.2 GHz 1 MB 35 W
ML-37 3200+ 2.0 GHz 1 MB 35 W
ML-34 3000+ 1.8 GHz 1 MB 35 W
Where in that lineup does the 3700+ go? Is the ML37 identical in performance but lower power or is there a tradeoff and a different scale in use?
I saw a double sided memory for a Dell Latitdue D600 the other day. It was a 1GB module with about 5-7 chips on each side.
I should probably mention that it was from Silicon Mountain not Dell.
again, for those that don't read SI.
That is 2 to 10, not 2 in 10. That is there has been more than one but less than eleven machines known to be infected by this trojan.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21601184
That would be UT not TU.
As in the Univeristy of Tennessee.
There is a ETSU (East Tennessee State University) and a TSU(Tennessee State Univeristy) but no TU.
And UT is way bigger (land, students, money, etc) than TSU and ETSU.
Monitor does not equal CRT. You could buy a 19 inch LCD to go with a smaller laptop and probably still save money.
While I wouldn't recommend giving chips to him, you could change the name and URL to that to a nuetral site and it'd still have some truth to it. Namely AMD's PR and Marketing dept need to step it up a notch...
AMD and NASCAR
How about this?
http://us.st7.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/directron_1851_26617602
I'm sure he knows, its more of a wry comment than a joke...
other processor models correctly supporting the same instruction set as those listed are expected to work.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=21498970
links to
http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/compilers/cwin/220009.htm which clearly suggests that intel's compiler can be used on Athlon PCs. Not only does it specifically mention Athlon as supported but it also says this:
The above lists of processor model names are not exhaustive – other processor models correctly supporting the same instruction set as those listed are expected to work.
My dad has a 3 or 5 day delay on his cash account with Ameritrade (I don't remember which). They told him he'd have to upgrade to a margin account to have access to "daytrading".
He never wanted to sell and buy back on the same day but he used to be able to sell and buy back the next day. Not any more.
I haven't sold a stock in several years so I don't know if I'm in the same boat. Guess I'll find out the next time I sell something...
I'm not catching the meaning of the penny dropping. Guess I'm just not in the right frame of mind...
I've asked before and last time I did I got nonsensical responses like "never" and "you don't want them to". Does anybody want to try answering this question again?
When will a dual core processor from AMD drop below $200 retail?*
*Retail as defined by any CPU a true end user could buy (no matter if it is a tray part or boxed part) so long as anyone could fork over the $200 or less to buy a dual core AMD part to fill a single socket.
I can't find my orginal post easily but here are some posts with my thoughts on cheap CPUs.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6880810
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4966930
I guess it was 9-12 months back when I asked the first time but I don't see the message here, it might be on SI instead.
A long time ago I used to buy $40 CPUs (Athlon XP 1700+), I stepped up and paid over $100 for a socket 939 part this year. You might get me to step up again to $200 for a dual core part, but I'm patient and can afford to stay single core if needed.
I'm not asking for it to happen soon, but I am asking if anybody is willing to make a reasonable guess.
2.0 GHz with 512 cache should be enough to beat the old 939 pin 3000+ (1.8 GHz single core same cache) in single threaded apps and beat the 2.4 GHz single core 3800+ in a couple of multithreaded apps. Though it won't beat the 3800+ in every test, it'd be good enough for me.
The next question is: Will the 3200-3800 single core parts come down in price at the same time or will AMD lead/nudge the customer to dual core?
There will be some users that would prefer to have a 3500 single core instead of the 3800 dual core.
RE: Lower-priced Athlon 64 X2 coming
It's needed too. We absolutely need the low end Athlon X2 to be cheaper than the high end Pentium D. That price crossover would end most of the price complaints.
Of course personally I'll wait for the waterfall pricing to bring the 4200+ down to the <$300 level before I consider buying one, but that's just because the 3000-3500 single core parts will stay cheaper than any X2 part for a long time. It's when the X2 price gets down far enough to make me not look at the single cores at all that I'll actually jump on an X2.
I've seen 15.4" widescreen before. What confuses me is how the 2nd one is labled 14.0" instead of 14.3". I mean how can you call it widescreen and still have it the same size as a non widescreen 14"?
I know other laptops have a non widescreen 14" lcd though none here do...
widescreen 14" Pavilion L2005cu
Width: 13.2 in
Depth: 9.1 in
nonwide 15" Aspire AS5002LMi-XPP
Width: 14.3 in
Depth: 11.0 in
widescreen 15.4" Ferrari 4005WLMi
Width: 14.3 in
Depth: 10.5 in
Those are all total size of the computer not just screen dimensions so it isn't an apples to apples comparison. It'd be nice to see LCD dimensions in addition to total size.
Dell shouldn't be on the cheap side of the board, surely they are worth more than Netscape? What's up with both Netscape and AOL being on the board?
I don't beleive any software fits a) or b), nor do I think that will be the case any time soon. I don't beleive in the mythical "killer app".
I just didn't agree with you implying that 64 bit support didn't exist yet or if it did that it didn't matter. There is already a base of x86-64 and as such x>0. What percent cares at this point I don't know, I'm just saying y>0. It exists, it is a value added point to consider, people care.
#msg-6698068 = chipdesigner saying Intc won't have 64 bit mobile until 2007
#msg-6698996 = you saying Atari's Jaquar failure was equivalent to AMDs situation with 64 bit computing in x86.
#msg-6699359 = Me saying that that was an invalid comparison
#msg-6700146 = You saying you are asleep about the current status of 64 bit computing.
#msg-6702480 = Me asking you to wake up now, since software support is here now and has been for some time. I figure now is before 2007.
#msg-6703823 = You spouting about workstation and server stuff and ignoring the existing software for desktop and laptop computers. Apparently you had prejudged me at this point and didn't want me to give you a more detailed answer.
#msg-6706656 = Me tired of you putting words in my mouth or spouting about unrelated topics. Since you seemed to have lost the focus of the discussion (64 bit laptops) I just thought I'd give you some sarcasm.
#msg-6708163 = You not catching a clue and spouting about XP, Longhorn, FUD, and trying to put words in my mouth.
If you were the least bit civil in your replies to my messages I would have stayed on topic and addressed your concerns. Instead you judged me before you understood where I was coming from. All you had to do is stop, smell the roses, and politely ask me to clarify my position.
I'll let someone else play word games with you from this point on.
Give me a clue how to do a href equivalent like you did in that post and I'll try to put it in context for you...
Don't put words in my mouth.
Just because I tried to dispell your FUD doesn't mean I want to spread opposing FUD. If you paid attention you'd see that I have dispelled FUD from both sides of the AMD/INTC issues.
I assure you next time happy hour comes around I'll put you on ignore.
Look since you don't want to upgrade to a 64 bit OS here are some support dates to consider.
Windows 98 Critical security updates will be provided on the Windows Update site through June 30, 2006.
There are events that will happen to the support policy for Windows 2000 after June 30th 2005.
Support for both IE 5.01 SP3 and IE 6 SP1 on Windows 2000 SP3 will expire. Users running IE 5.01 or IE 6 SP1 on Windows 2000 should upgrade to Windows 2000 SP4 in order to continue to receive security updates.
We will of course continue to keep our Windows 2000 SP4 customers secure with security updates through the life of Windows 2000 (through 2010).
It should be no surprise that we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000. One reason is where we are in the Windows 2000 lifecycle. Another is that some of the security work in IE7 relies on operating system functionality in XPSP2 that is non-trivial to port back to Windows 2000.
To make it as easy as possible for customers to maintain the security and stability of their Windows 2000 systems, Microsoft will produce an Update Rollup for Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 (SP4), with a planned release in mid-2005.
The Update Rollup will contain all security-related updates produced for Windows 2000 between the time SP4 was released and the time when Microsoft finalizes the contents of the Update Rollup. The Update Rollup will also contain a small number of important non-security updates.
Because Microsoft believes the Update Rollup will meet the needs of customers better than a new service pack, there will be no Service Pack 5 (SP5) for Windows 2000. Therefore, SP4 becomes the final service pack for Windows 2000. Customers who have not yet deployed SP4 should consider deploying SP4 as soon as possible, especially since SP4 will be a prerequisite for deploying the Update Rollup.
How about you just wake up now, as you are obviously asleep at the wheel.
The software support already exists in this case. Totally diffrent than your silly gaming console example.
Jaguar wasn't x86 compatible. Nor would it run Playstation or Nintendo games. In the end it was software support not hardware that decided the fate of Atari/Jaquar.
as such Jagaur is more comarable to clarisworks than to any PC item (and even that is a piss poor analogy).
You might want to look into it more deeply before trying to make the analogy.
Wrong, next topic!
SNL doesn't do John McLaughlin anymore, is he still on PBS?
More GMA900 Doom 3 performance data:
http://computershopper.com.com/4520-8902_7-5690464-1.html
When Doom 3 first came out, CNET Labs put it on a budget PC with an Intel 915 Graphics Media Accelerator 900 (GMA900) integrated graphics chip--just to see what would happen. Our tests were purely anecdotal, and it wouldn't play at a resolution higher than the minimum of 640x480
http://www20.graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050208/geforce_6200-11.html
Low scores in most tests and "crash" on another. With a Very Bad/Unplayable rating in all tests (see the next page).
"and anything below 20fps is basically unplayable, as the video output is no longer fluid and will stutter noticeably."
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050524/vga_charts-05.html
Out of 33 GPUs tested the Intel 915G - GMA900 is the absolute slowest on any chart it shows up on. On several it couldn't even be ranked as it wouldn't run the benchmark.
and don't let Doom 3 be the only focus. You'll see it at the bottom of the chart in 3Dmark2005 and Halflife 2 as well.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050524/vga_charts-02.html#3d_mark_2005
you suspect wrong, or at least that is my opinion. You see there are many features in DirectX. If a graphics core can't support a feature in hardware then DirectX will emulate the hardware.
Even you should know that software emulation is less effecient than dedicated hardware.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1741218,00.asp
Intel's integrated graphics has never been much to shout about—and certainly not good enough to play 3D games very well. This year, the company made a huge leap forward with the introduction of its new GMA 900 integrated graphics core in the 915G chipset. Though it's a major leap over its previous "Extreme Graphics 2" offering, including more than twice the total fill rate and support for DX9's Pixel Shader model 2.0, it still falls short in practice. You can play many modern games at a fairly modest resolution if you're willing to settle for medium settings, but that's not exactly a great starting point. Games will continue to grow more advanced, and those with GMA 900 graphics will quickly find that they have to turn all the visuals in their games down to the lowest setting in order to run that game at all.
wow, look at the frame rate comparisons! The Ferrari is definately good enough for gaming.
is users.pandora.be related to toms in any way?
look at http://www.tomshardware.com/stresstest/intel.html and it looks like the system is up and running.
I've tried it in 3 different browsers on 2 different OSes. No luck for me.
what is that broken link supposed to be?