Processors Toolkit

Story: Intel confirms chip-naming change

Posted by: Anonymous (Monday 22 March 2004, 5:16 PM)

Whoa!
While I heartily agree that Intel's new naming convention is all about obfuscation, let's not fall prey to the same temptation there anonymous!

Your comparison of an Intel P4 to a 64-bit Athlon applies as much misrepresentation as Intel's new naming system: the P4 is NOT a 64-bit processor, so why are you comparing it to a 64-bit Athlon?

Let's also not promulgate the standard Athlon vs. Intel debate: it helps no one. They both serve a different market segment: Athlons seem to appeal to the builder/gamer while Pentiums abound in the off-the-shelf and business box.

Personally, I prefer the Pentiums, even when building my own game boxes-they consistently out-perform equivalent AMD's, even when compared at the dollar rather than MHz. Value is the key element, since MHz is only ONE characteristic of a system.

This is all my own experience, of course. (You're mileage may vary) I had been a staunch non-Intel user since the days of the old Cyrix 486 chips. Great dollar value there!