So what the hells going on, AMD, Nv, Mad Onion...

Joe · 02-11-2003, 11:55 PM

So Nv:
the GFFX is a Flop.. POS overpriced card. So they really screwed up on that launch.. which was more hype than technology.

Then because the new 3Dmark makes its cards seem shitty or something... they start SLAMMING old buddy mad onion... weird...

So AMD:
Barton, the much hyped CPU... didnt live up to its dreams... its nice but way expensive for what you actually get.

Its 64 bit chips are being pushed futher into Vaporware hell...

So it seems the 2 companies I HATED just a year ago are doing real well... ATi and Intel. ( since then I have started to really like the new Intel chips.. ever since they got to the socket 478 its all good).. But ATi still sucks ass to me

damn french canadians

Down with Nv and ATi - Up with 3Dfx!

gmat · 02-12-2003, 03:50 AM

I think the marketing hype virus (did i say [H]ype ?) totally caught those companies.
Instead of investing in a better engine for the race, they invested in more public relations.
Also there's (mainly) the matter of release rate. To keep their respective release rates and deadlines, they all rushed their products. To please the marketing guys who want figures and immediate releases.
As an engineer i live that everyday. Marketing guys sell not-yet-coded products to big-ass customers. Then if the product is not ready for yesterday, the company will file chapter 11. This product one was planning to do it well in 6 months. It will have to be rushed in 2 months, working overnight. Do you think one gets good products ? Nope.
The same goes for every company. When the technical guys lose their influence to the marketing dept., the company starts producing sh*t. Always.

bigben2k · 02-12-2003, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe
damn french canadians

Nothing personal, eh?

I think Intel is like Microsoft: it's a company you love to hate...

I used to be an Intel "purist", but just because the other offerings showed odd incompatibilities, back then.

I'm getting more and more miffed about AMD not having SSE2: it's not relevant now, but it might be, depending on what I end up doing on my PC.

airspirit · 02-12-2003, 09:56 AM

That, Ben, is one of the reasons I'm waiting impatiently for the Hammer chips: It has SSE2. It's just a matter of AMD actually shipping them ... it's not like many of us would give a flying fsck whether or not M$ actually has released Windows XP x86-64 yet. There is always Linux, and it'd still run regular Windows anyway.

nicozeg · 02-12-2003, 11:46 AM

But don't be too optimistic about SSE2 in hammer. Remember that AMD implementation of SSE in XP's was a lot less effective than the intel version.

bigben2k · 02-12-2003, 12:05 PM

Googling... I can't find a list of SSE2 optimized applications.

Anyone?

gmat · 02-12-2003, 12:29 PM

Most notably, LightWave, Maya, 3DSMAX, then UT2K3 or other recent 3D games, the 3DMark... the list goes on

bigben2k · 02-12-2003, 12:36 PM

Let's not forget Tom's favorite: PhotoShop!

gmat · 02-12-2003, 01:58 PM

Ah Photoshop is optimized for SSE2 ? I'd think that sacrified portability on MacOS. Modern compilers do wonders...

nicozeg · 02-12-2003, 02:24 PM

I use sometimes Lightwave 3d to do rendering stuff, and up to version 7 amd beat every Intel CPU. Thanks to close collaboration of intel developers, in LW 7.5 P4's bumped performance in about 50%, now leaving Athlons in the dust. If you consider that is very easy to setup an animation that requires days to render, that difference is really big.

That's why a good SSE2 support in hammer will be more important than the 64bit thing at the beginning; The first benchmarks are going to use aplications like this, where intel has made big efforts to promote SSE2 coding. If AMD engineers do a good job with this, the main advantage of intel is going to disapear, and AMD FP strenght will shine again.

Ahh, and most gfx card drivers have SSE2 code, so games should also improve.

nicozeg · 02-12-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gmat
Ah Photoshop is optimized for SSE2 ? I'd think that sacrified portability on MacOS. Modern compilers do wonders...

Remember that G4's have their own SSE2 version, it's called Altivec or something.

TerraMex · 02-12-2003, 07:20 PM

One thing at a time :

>the GFFX is a Flop.. POS overpriced card. So they really screwed
>up on that launch.. which was more hype than technology.

Really? you dont have a decent set of drivers, no compression, and that heat remover sucks. And those benchmarks are from reference boards.

>Then because the new 3Dmark makes its cards seem shitty or
>something... they start SLAMMING old buddy mad onion...
>weird...

The boys at 3dmark always made bogus tests. They say its gaming benchmark. I say its a few tests , with a whole lot of variables that arent accounted for. Dont give it much credit.

>Barton, the much hyped CPU... didnt live up to its dreams... its
>nice but way expensive for what you actually get.

That depends. If its cheaper then the 3.06 from Intel or the 3.2 then its worth it. I bet the 3.06 with DDR vs Barton and Dual DDR , barton would win. Its a processor with 33% less clock and still goes up there. Where's the problem? I cant see it. It's what they said it would be, more cache, and a few more instructions. The rest is a Tbred B . Oh yeah and no SS2.

>Its 64 bit chips are being pushed futher into Vaporware hell...

I think AMD had problems making them, and then, decided to wait until there is a bit more 64bit OS support. Nevertheless Opteron is out, and sold for a shit load of money, didnt wait long to go out of stock.

Arcturius · 02-12-2003, 08:52 PM

Joe: Don't forget how long Intel has been working on their 64-bit chips, and how badly they have missed deadlines (over ten years and still dropping the ball, if I recall correctly) and clockspeed speculations (McKinley debut @ 1600MHz

).

Not to mention, Intel 64-bit demo machines are SGIs, since SGI is the only company to get IA64 chips to run reliably. 8)

Joe · 02-12-2003, 10:24 PM

well the Merced was not THAT Delayed. The Mckinley was a bit delayed, but you forget, the Merced was Intels design and the McKinley was HP's design. And I think HP also has some 64bit EPIC chips working well.

Also AMD has a nice brain trust of people who worked on one of the best 64 BIT cpu's of all time.. the AXP core. Also you forgetting that AMD's CPU's run on a bus that was originally designed for the AXP core? and the Hypertransport is just the full comming to light of the DEC started EV8 bus I believe? AMD has a ton of 64 bit knowledge in their company from the DEC collapse and IP that AMD was able to aquire soon after that through deals with API and Compaq.

And yes the GFFX is a flop. if Drivers can improve its performance enough to out pace the boards out now and the boards that are soon to come from ATi, I will be DAMN impressed... but I am not all about that Dustbuster.

Barton isnt slow... but it isnt fast either for the money. you are paying just a hair under 3.06 prices and getting performance thats not above what you pay for. This is a problem, since the real only reason to buy an AMD is for price... ( cummon admidt it... the shitty VIA chipsets arent a reason!) hehehe If AMD isnt drasticly cheaper than Intel at the same "theoretical" speed... I dont think they have a chance.

SSE2 is nice, but I dont miss it on my current AMD stock.

Hallis · 02-12-2003, 11:58 PM

and another point, how far can you overclock the 3.06, and how far can you take the barton? for the money, i'm all on Intel, and i never thought id hear myself say that. And i was REALLY pissed when i saw the first GFFX benchmarks. the ONLY way id get a GFFX is if they cut the price by almost half and if I ran only Linux. (for driver reasons). I'll stick with my GF4 for now and save for a new P4, that is unless AMD pulls something out of its ass like at least a 25% price cut on the barton,, AMD calims its because they are at the limits of their "affordable" range of die size, they claim 50-100mm keeps the cpu's cheap as the barton is 102,, well, thats what they get for trying to wiener their way into a faster processor by putting more L2 on it.

Hallis · 02-12-2003, 11:59 PM

But on a final thought, the larger die size might help heat transfer. so who knows.

iroc409 · 02-13-2003, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nicozeg
Remember that G4's have their own SSE2 version, it's called Altivec or something.

yes, i'm a die-hard pc man, but mac's kick ass. they are so freaking fast, like that dual g4 1ghz they released.. wow. truly amazing, someday if i get all my pc stuff together, i'm buying a mac to add to the collection

TerraMex · 02-13-2003, 02:00 AM

>Barton isnt slow... but it isnt fast either for the money. you are
>paying just a hair under 3.06 prices and getting performance
>thats not above what you pay for. This is a problem, since the
>real only reason to buy an AMD is for price... ( cummon admidt
>it... the shitty VIA chipsets arent a reason!) hehehe If AMD isnt
>drasticly cheaper than Intel at the same "theoretical" speed... I
>dont think they have a chance.

That also depends how much money will you spend to take advantage of all the 3.06 potential . And those rimms aint cheap.
A barton motherboard, decent ddr, and well, the barton, still is a cheaper system than an Intel one.

Either way, i said it once, i'll say it again. The average computer uses doesnt care and wont buy top systems, he still buys the cheap stuff, uses all default, with everything onboard (cause its cheaper) and uses windows and office and plays the sims cause its nice and on the news. The Barton and p4 3.06 is not for the budget desktop market. Just that.

Besides, 2002 was a crappy year for computer sales, alot of makers/distributers/resellers went negative. Nobody was buying, due to the "recession" happening. Even AMD with those lower prices had losses. The problem now is the price. They have to increase the prices, because its getting more and more expensive to build the processors, even more true with the Opteron and the Athlon 64. It's a fact. If she doesnt , the losses will just add up and well... puff?

You guys are still comparing apples and bananas. the chips arent at the same speed, they have alot of architectural differences, and they're not at the same price. And barton with ddr vs p4 3.06 ddr and equivalent remaining systems, i think barton wins.

On a side note, don't have VIA chipset, SIS here. Cheap, stable, problem free. Whats not to like?. Ok , if i was buying today, probably nforce2, but im not

.

TerraMex · 02-13-2003, 02:05 AM

>yes, i'm a die-hard pc man, but mac's kick ass. they are so
>freaking fast, like that dual g4 1ghz they released.. wow. truly
>amazing, someday if i get all my pc stuff together, i'm buying a
>mac to add to the collection

I've got a few friends with Mac's, and here in Europe, they are somewhat rare.

My personal opinion is that... who has a Mac, bought it because its a Mac, Its not work related. Its not because they're faster, its because it's a ... Mac.

You can build a pc nowadays with a alot less money, that is compatible with a ton of programs, games, and has more applications and possibility to upgrade. While with a mac... you dont. You're pretty much stuck with whats available.

I've always been said they rock on image and graphics processings. A PC with a professional graphics card, like a P10 from 3dlabs , maybe it's just me, but i'd go with the PC.

Antimatter · 02-18-2003, 07:23 PM

i still dont understand why everyone thinks that the geforce fx is a flop. sure its not way faster than the radeon 9700 pro, but it is faster. and it does actually perform better than the 9700 pro on 3dmark2003, just not by a lot. and from what i have read, 3dmark2003 is somewhat different from real games. clearly, it would have been better if the geforce fx had been released earlier. the .15 => .13 micron switch was more dificult than anticipated. however, ati is going to have to make this switch sometime soon as well.

and the nforce2 chipset from nvidia is certainly the best if you have a amd cpu.

about amd, i think they are doing just fine. the jist of all of the reviews i have read on the xp 3000+ is that while it does not nuke intel, it does keep up. the fasterst bartons are about as fast as the fastest p4s, and the bartons cost like $200 less.

gmat · 02-19-2003, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Antimatter
i still dont understand why everyone thinks that the geforce fx is a flop.

Like, 5 to 10% more in performance (once the drivers are settled, for now it's uncertain) for *twice* the price, a ludicrous cooling system and hairdryer noise ?

Quote:

Originally posted by Antimatter

and the nforce2 chipset from nvidia is certainly the best if you have a amd cpu.

What's the relation ?

Quote:

Originally posted by Antimatter

the fasterst bartons are about as fast as the fastest p4s, and the bartons cost like $200 less.

The 3000+ performs like a 2700+ or a 2800+ if you're generous. The p4 @ 3.6 still has the lead.
as for the prices (here in EU):
Barton 3000+ = 759€
p4 3.06 = 769€
That's not $200 less...

(FYI 1€ ~= $1)

Antimatter · 02-19-2003, 11:30 AM

the gffx is still the fastest gaming graphics card you can buy...

the nforce 2 is related be cause its also made by nvidia, and shows that nvidia is not bombing.

on newegg, the barton 3000+ costs $380, and the p4 3.06ghz is $630... thats more than 200$ less.

starck · 02-19-2003, 11:50 AM

$380 is for barton 2800+
3000+ is $598.......

gmat · 02-19-2003, 11:53 AM

No one said NVidia was bombing. Neither does AMD by the way.

And the barton 3000+ is at $598 at newegg.

Antimatter · 02-19-2003, 12:41 PM

oh. um... well, its a 32$ difference then... oops.

02-11-2003, 11:55 PM	#1
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	So what the hells going on, AMD, Nv, Mad Onion... So Nv: the GFFX is a Flop.. POS overpriced card. So they really screwed up on that launch.. which was more hype than technology. Then because the new 3Dmark makes its cards seem shitty or something... they start SLAMMING old buddy mad onion... weird... So AMD: Barton, the much hyped CPU... didnt live up to its dreams... its nice but way expensive for what you actually get. Its 64 bit chips are being pushed futher into Vaporware hell... So it seems the 2 companies I HATED just a year ago are doing real well... ATi and Intel. ( since then I have started to really like the new Intel chips.. ever since they got to the socket 478 its all good).. But ATi still sucks ass to me damn french canadians Down with Nv and ATi - Up with 3Dfx! __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

02-12-2003, 09:56 AM	#4
airspirit Been /.'d... have you? Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,986	That, Ben, is one of the reasons I'm waiting impatiently for the Hammer chips: It has SSE2. It's just a matter of AMD actually shipping them ... it's not like many of us would give a flying fsck whether or not M$ actually has released Windows XP x86-64 yet. There is always Linux, and it'd still run regular Windows anyway. __________________ #!/bin/sh {who;} {last;} {pause;} {grep;} {touch;} {unzip;} mount /dev/girl -t {wet;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} {fsck;} echo yes yes yes {yes;} umount {/dev/girl;zip;} rm -rf {wet.spot;} {sleep;} finger: permission denied

02-12-2003, 12:05 PM	#6
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	Googling... I can't find a list of SSE2 optimized applications. Anyone? __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

02-12-2003, 12:36 PM	#8
bigben2k Responsible for 2% of all the posts here. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas, U.S.A. Posts: 8,302	Let's not forget Tom's favorite: PhotoShop! __________________ WBTA (Water Block Testing Alliance) Nordic Hardware WC 101

02-12-2003, 07:20 PM	#12
TerraMex Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portugal, Europe Posts: 870	Well, Joe... One thing at a time : >the GFFX is a Flop.. POS overpriced card. So they really screwed >up on that launch.. which was more hype than technology. Really? you dont have a decent set of drivers, no compression, and that heat remover sucks. And those benchmarks are from reference boards. >Then because the new 3Dmark makes its cards seem shitty or >something... they start SLAMMING old buddy mad onion... >weird... The boys at 3dmark always made bogus tests. They say its gaming benchmark. I say its a few tests , with a whole lot of variables that arent accounted for. Dont give it much credit. >Barton, the much hyped CPU... didnt live up to its dreams... its >nice but way expensive for what you actually get. That depends. If its cheaper then the 3.06 from Intel or the 3.2 then its worth it. I bet the 3.06 with DDR vs Barton and Dual DDR , barton would win. Its a processor with 33% less clock and still goes up there. Where's the problem? I cant see it. It's what they said it would be, more cache, and a few more instructions. The rest is a Tbred B . Oh yeah and no SS2. >Its 64 bit chips are being pushed futher into Vaporware hell... I think AMD had problems making them, and then, decided to wait until there is a bit more 64bit OS support. Nevertheless Opteron is out, and sold for a shit load of money, didnt wait long to go out of stock. __________________ "we need more cowbell."

02-12-2003, 03:50 AM	#2
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	I think the marketing hype virus (did i say [H]ype ?) totally caught those companies. Instead of investing in a better engine for the race, they invested in more public relations. Also there's (mainly) the matter of release rate. To keep their respective release rates and deadlines, they all rushed their products. To please the marketing guys who want figures and immediate releases. As an engineer i live that everyday. Marketing guys sell not-yet-coded products to big-ass customers. Then if the product is not ready for yesterday, the company will file chapter 11. This product one was planning to do it well in 6 months. It will have to be rushed in 2 months, working overnight. Do you think one gets good products ? Nope. The same goes for every company. When the technical guys lose their influence to the marketing dept., the company starts producing sh*t. Always.

02-12-2003, 11:46 AM	#5
nicozeg Cooling Savant Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 403	But don't be too optimistic about SSE2 in hammer. Remember that AMD implementation of SSE in XP's was a lot less effective than the intel version.

02-12-2003, 12:29 PM	#7
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	Most notably, LightWave, Maya, 3DSMAX, then UT2K3 or other recent 3D games, the 3DMark... the list goes on

02-12-2003, 01:58 PM	#9
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	Ah Photoshop is optimized for SSE2 ? I'd think that sacrified portability on MacOS. Modern compilers do wonders...

02-12-2003, 02:24 PM	#10
nicozeg Cooling Savant Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 403	I use sometimes Lightwave 3d to do rendering stuff, and up to version 7 amd beat every Intel CPU. Thanks to close collaboration of intel developers, in LW 7.5 P4's bumped performance in about 50%, now leaving Athlons in the dust. If you consider that is very easy to setup an animation that requires days to render, that difference is really big. That's why a good SSE2 support in hammer will be more important than the 64bit thing at the beginning; The first benchmarks are going to use aplications like this, where intel has made big efforts to promote SSE2 coding. If AMD engineers do a good job with this, the main advantage of intel is going to disapear, and AMD FP strenght will shine again. Ahh, and most gfx card drivers have SSE2 code, so games should also improve.

02-12-2003, 08:52 PM	#13
Arcturius Cooling Savant Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Posts: 294	Joe: Don't forget how long Intel has been working on their 64-bit chips, and how badly they have missed deadlines (over ten years and still dropping the ball, if I recall correctly) and clockspeed speculations (McKinley debut @ 1600MHz ). Not to mention, Intel 64-bit demo machines are SGIs, since SGI is the only company to get IA64 chips to run reliably. 8)

02-12-2003, 10:24 PM	#14
Joe The Pro/Life Support System Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,041	well the Merced was not THAT Delayed. The Mckinley was a bit delayed, but you forget, the Merced was Intels design and the McKinley was HP's design. And I think HP also has some 64bit EPIC chips working well. Also AMD has a nice brain trust of people who worked on one of the best 64 BIT cpu's of all time.. the AXP core. Also you forgetting that AMD's CPU's run on a bus that was originally designed for the AXP core? and the Hypertransport is just the full comming to light of the DEC started EV8 bus I believe? AMD has a ton of 64 bit knowledge in their company from the DEC collapse and IP that AMD was able to aquire soon after that through deals with API and Compaq. And yes the GFFX is a flop. if Drivers can improve its performance enough to out pace the boards out now and the boards that are soon to come from ATi, I will be DAMN impressed... but I am not all about that Dustbuster. Barton isnt slow... but it isnt fast either for the money. you are paying just a hair under 3.06 prices and getting performance thats not above what you pay for. This is a problem, since the real only reason to buy an AMD is for price... ( cummon admidt it... the shitty VIA chipsets arent a reason!) hehehe If AMD isnt drasticly cheaper than Intel at the same "theoretical" speed... I dont think they have a chance. SSE2 is nice, but I dont miss it on my current AMD stock. __________________ Joe - I only take this hat off for one thing... ProCooling archive curator and dusty skeleton.

02-12-2003, 11:58 PM	#15
Hallis Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 469	and another point, how far can you overclock the 3.06, and how far can you take the barton? for the money, i'm all on Intel, and i never thought id hear myself say that. And i was REALLY pissed when i saw the first GFFX benchmarks. the ONLY way id get a GFFX is if they cut the price by almost half and if I ran only Linux. (for driver reasons). I'll stick with my GF4 for now and save for a new P4, that is unless AMD pulls something out of its ass like at least a 25% price cut on the barton,, AMD calims its because they are at the limits of their "affordable" range of die size, they claim 50-100mm keeps the cpu's cheap as the barton is 102,, well, thats what they get for trying to wiener their way into a faster processor by putting more L2 on it.

02-12-2003, 11:59 PM	#16
Hallis Cooling Savant Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 469	But on a final thought, the larger die size might help heat transfer. so who knows.

02-13-2003, 02:00 AM	#18
TerraMex Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portugal, Europe Posts: 870	>Barton isnt slow... but it isnt fast either for the money. you are >paying just a hair under 3.06 prices and getting performance >thats not above what you pay for. This is a problem, since the >real only reason to buy an AMD is for price... ( cummon admidt >it... the shitty VIA chipsets arent a reason!) hehehe If AMD isnt >drasticly cheaper than Intel at the same "theoretical" speed... I >dont think they have a chance. That also depends how much money will you spend to take advantage of all the 3.06 potential . And those rimms aint cheap. A barton motherboard, decent ddr, and well, the barton, still is a cheaper system than an Intel one. Either way, i said it once, i'll say it again. The average computer uses doesnt care and wont buy top systems, he still buys the cheap stuff, uses all default, with everything onboard (cause its cheaper) and uses windows and office and plays the sims cause its nice and on the news. The Barton and p4 3.06 is not for the budget desktop market. Just that. Besides, 2002 was a crappy year for computer sales, alot of makers/distributers/resellers went negative. Nobody was buying, due to the "recession" happening. Even AMD with those lower prices had losses. The problem now is the price. They have to increase the prices, because its getting more and more expensive to build the processors, even more true with the Opteron and the Athlon 64. It's a fact. If she doesnt , the losses will just add up and well... puff? You guys are still comparing apples and bananas. the chips arent at the same speed, they have alot of architectural differences, and they're not at the same price. And barton with ddr vs p4 3.06 ddr and equivalent remaining systems, i think barton wins. On a side note, don't have VIA chipset, SIS here. Cheap, stable, problem free. Whats not to like?. Ok , if i was buying today, probably nforce2, but im not . __________________ "we need more cowbell."

02-13-2003, 02:05 AM	#19
TerraMex Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portugal, Europe Posts: 870	my 5 cents for a Mac (and thats about it) >yes, i'm a die-hard pc man, but mac's kick ass. they are so >freaking fast, like that dual g4 1ghz they released.. wow. truly >amazing, someday if i get all my pc stuff together, i'm buying a >mac to add to the collection I've got a few friends with Mac's, and here in Europe, they are somewhat rare. My personal opinion is that... who has a Mac, bought it because its a Mac, Its not work related. Its not because they're faster, its because it's a ... Mac. You can build a pc nowadays with a alot less money, that is compatible with a ton of programs, games, and has more applications and possibility to upgrade. While with a mac... you dont. You're pretty much stuck with whats available. I've always been said they rock on image and graphics processings. A PC with a professional graphics card, like a P10 from 3dlabs , maybe it's just me, but i'd go with the PC. __________________ "we need more cowbell."

02-18-2003, 07:23 PM	#20
Antimatter Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New England Posts: 43	i still dont understand why everyone thinks that the geforce fx is a flop. sure its not way faster than the radeon 9700 pro, but it is faster. and it does actually perform better than the 9700 pro on 3dmark2003, just not by a lot. and from what i have read, 3dmark2003 is somewhat different from real games. clearly, it would have been better if the geforce fx had been released earlier. the .15 => .13 micron switch was more dificult than anticipated. however, ati is going to have to make this switch sometime soon as well. and the nforce2 chipset from nvidia is certainly the best if you have a amd cpu. about amd, i think they are doing just fine. the jist of all of the reviews i have read on the xp 3000+ is that while it does not nuke intel, it does keep up. the fasterst bartons are about as fast as the fastest p4s, and the bartons cost like $200 less. __________________ Asus A7N8X Delux Athlon 1700+ 512MB Crucial PC2700 XFX Geforce 4 TI4200

02-19-2003, 11:30 AM	#22
Antimatter Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New England Posts: 43	the gffx is still the fastest gaming graphics card you can buy... the nforce 2 is related be cause its also made by nvidia, and shows that nvidia is not bombing. on newegg, the barton 3000+ costs $380, and the p4 3.06ghz is $630... thats more than 200$ less. __________________ Asus A7N8X Delux Athlon 1700+ 512MB Crucial PC2700 XFX Geforce 4 TI4200

02-19-2003, 11:50 AM	#23
starck Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: HKG Posts: 12	$380 is for barton 2800+ 3000+ is $598.......

02-19-2003, 11:53 AM	#24
gmat Thermophile Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: France Posts: 1,221	No one said NVidia was bombing. Neither does AMD by the way. And the barton 3000+ is at $598 at newegg.

02-19-2003, 12:41 PM	#25
Antimatter Cooling Neophyte Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New England Posts: 43	oh. um... well, its a 32$ difference then... oops. __________________ Asus A7N8X Delux Athlon 1700+ 512MB Crucial PC2700 XFX Geforce 4 TI4200

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)