Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD)

[morrowinder]

Mas:

Oh it really takes it to the Pentium 4 here...

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1203&cid=2&pg=4

Oops wait thats not right.

Here? Wait no....

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1203&cid=2&pg=13

Oopsy. 2.4 beats it.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1203&cid=2&pg=16

Here we go. No wait...

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1203&cid=2&pg=12

It does do well in games. But few of the games benchmarked showed particularly meaningful game play differences in all the processors measured. Well, I guess someone should mention that Quake III and Jedi Knight II benchmarks don't really show much about todays/tommorows games anyway.

A lot of obsolete benchmarks like Sysmark 2002 here as well. Of course viewperf and lightwave matter alot to value buyers. But then again I know a lot of buyers that put Geforce FX 5700 in Celeron machines lol.

Funny that you keep focusing on the 1.8ghz k8 part. Which do you think will be more prevalent. Probly the k7 stuff dontcha know:) I pity the Athlon xp owner that "upgrades" to a Sempron 2800+ thinking its better...AMD is pretty much hiding the cache size too. PC world has it down as 128k for the 2600+/1.6ghz for notebooks? Not that they are very knowledgable but think what Joe six pack might have to go through:)

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117121,00.asp

No confusion at all in this processor line;)

The above links show why one number is a stupid way to gauge performance...performance is a spectrum not single data point.