GAMES: Well, duh...! 80% VIDEO: An urgent need to edit and
render all those holiday family videos, so they can be
given as gifts in time for next December.
8% WINDOWS XP: So that it actually will
boot 10 seconds faster.
7% AUDIO: The ability to encode more MP3's
in less time before MusicCity
is eaten alive by the big record companies.
4% SECURITY: For real-time
criminal/terrorist face recognition software that
actually works. 1%
Selected visitor comments:
Eric: Second is the increased ability to make fast backup copies of all those lovely DVD movies from my friends library.
wobegong: At the end of the day it's games which drive most performance barriers - most companies still use old Celeron
400MHz or lower as desktops, but at home? - I don't think so.
Just look at graphic cards also - a Voodoo5 or GeForce3 isn't produced for office workers-- oh no! Try a limp MatroxG200 instead with
3D GAMING is what's
getting parents to buy that P4 2.2GHz PC their kids are haunting them about. THE LAST 4 PC'S I HAVE PURCHASED WERE DUE TO THE RELEASE OF A GROUNDBREAKING GAME LAUNCH!
(Intel's newest Pentium 4)
NO: Still too expensive and too
MHz-hyped compared to the competition. 59% YES: Finally! A CPU that I can overclock
almost as easily as in the good ol' Celeron days.
33% MAYBE: For business (office use), not
5% APPLEWOOD ONLY: Make mine an iMac. 3%
YES: Will definitely get one of these
right away. 30% MAYBE: Only if my boss buys one for me.
29% NO: Wouldn't touch one with a ten-metre
24% OVER-WARMED: Nobody needs this much speed in
their laptop. 16%
YES: Now everyone can easily compare
AMD's models numbers with Intel's clock speeds and know
what they are buying. 57% NO: AMD should dump model numbers and
promote the efficiencies of their lower clock speeds.
18% OVERLY CAUTIOUS: AMD needs to boost
their model numbers by at least 200+ to provide a valid comparison
with Intel's clock speeds.
14% JURY STILL OUT: Wait and see what
happens if Intel's 'Northwood' trounces AMD's upcoming
'Thoroughbred' CPUs. 11%
Selected visitor comments:
LeS: If someone asked me to choose a car that:
1. Could run as fast as another brand,
2. Received great reviews from reputable sources, and
3. Costs a lot less that its competition,
Why would I choose the competition?
Only reasons: I am too rich and like to waste money or I don't know what I'm doing. Either way, I look bad.
Intel is much more better than
amd. Amd really sucks. Stove makers no more.... Intel performance is better and more
stable. And if you haven't got enough money then its your problem just find job and you
don't say anymore that amd is better....
AmdudeThose who choose to buy Intel are clearly of a lower intelligence. This is proven by their adamant protests that Clock Cycles apparently do not matter, and Clock Speeds are the determining factor. AMD Microprocessors almost run at the same performance level, and proceed to do so at a fraction of the cost. An example of this lower intelligence is proven by
inaccess. His words “Intel is much more better than amd”
(More better?) and complicated sentence structure of “Amd really
sucks”, not to mention the meaning of “Stove makers no
more”. We must dig deeply into the human psyche to understand what this computer user meant. Perhaps it was there are no more stove makers, or perhaps AMD Microprocessors are nothing more than stove makers. Either way, this user’s intelligence is clearly reflected in his speech and his choice to choose an expensive and inferior processor.
Even AMD's latest
Athlon XP cannot match Intel's fastest Pentium 4.
Is the race finally over (winner: Intel)?
NO: AMD still has some surprise
speedsters in store (can anyone say "ClawHammer"?). 51% PRICE, NOT SPEED: Who cares about the
fastest CPU? I just want the best
34% YES: And about time, too.
10% MAYBE SO: Unless AMD discovers some alien
Selected visitor comments:
AmdudeI was disappointed with the new Thoroughbred. The performance leap expected by the reduced micron didn't happen. But
it's still early in Thoroughbred technology. The lower micron should make them capable of higher speeds. I'm personally waiting for the "Barton" which is basically the Thoroughbred with a LOT of cache, and more gates. Intel is still ahead, but for how long? And for the price,
1.4TBirdIt took Intel this long to catch back up to AMD. AMD will have no problem showing Intel who's best once again.
IT'S A BAD THING: Reduced competition
and consumer choice is always bad. 32% WHO CARES?: There are enough other
hardware makers and computer builders already. This
merger will neither raise nor lower my opinion of
HP/Compaq or its products.
25% IT'S A GOOD THING: The result will be a
more stable company with better long-term product
support and increased R&D resources.
24% MAYBE GOOD, MAYBE BAD: I'll wait and
see what parts of the two companies are combined and how
they continue to operate before rendering an opinion. 19%
YES: I would love to toss out my TV/VCR and use my PC instead to
record and playback shows. 42% MAYBE LATER: When I can afford a
36" LCD monitor, I'll consider it.
28% NO: PC's are PC's and TV's are TV's.
I'll always want both to do what each are meant for.
16% I CARE TO SHARE: What is the point of DVR
if I can't burn to a DVD for playback on my home theatre