Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Intel "Northwood" vs. Athlon XP 2000+ 311

Posted by timothy from the alright-you-two-cut-that-out dept.
Augustus writes: "LinuxHardware.org has just published their results in the Pentium 4 verses Athlon XP war. In this review, the new Pentium 4 'Northwood' 2.2GHz is pitted against the Athlon XP 2000+. To level the playing field, both platforms use DDR memory which make for some interesting results."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel "Northwood" vs. Athlon XP 2000+ More

Intel "Northwood" vs. Athlon XP 2000+

Comments Filter:

  • Need better testing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Triode ( 127874 )
    We need better testing. You can not (really)
    expect the same test to give you a good judgement, and then on the other hand, having different test for each CPU would obviously not give you a good judgement... Hmm, perhaps some speed testing on regular apps. I know they do that on quake and the like, but then that was written for a specific architecture also. Just a thought.

  • Why DDR on P4? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kawaichan ( 527006 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:13PM (#2890015)
    P4 was designed with Rambus ram in mind.

    They should really use Intel's i850 motherboard to pit against the Athlon.

    The p4 platform is simply not designed for DDR in mind, adding DDR in the i84x boards are afterthoughts and IMO I would much rather use Intel boards with Intel processors.

    Athlon is doing quite well right now, seems like there might be a delay for the .13 Athlons, hopefully it will work out ok.

    • Re:Why DDR on P4? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:15PM (#2890025) Homepage Journal

      For these comparisons to really be valid they should base them on price : i.e. "We have $2000 to spend on each platform", and if the Athlon gets to use an 8MB cache HD because of the money saved on the RAM, well then so be it. Most people do vary their options based upon the price, so it does seem to be the most pertinent factor.

      • Re:Why DDR on P4? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by liquidsin ( 398151 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:21PM (#2890061) Homepage
        But the test isn't about biggest bang for your buck...AMD wins that test hands down every time. The test is about comparing performance. If we had to do it by dollars, we'd be running the Athlon 2000 XP against a P4 1.9Ghz (according to pricewatch).

        • Re:Why DDR on P4? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ergo98 ( 9391 )

          Well my contention is that the processor alone does not a PC make. Perhaps the AMD processor requires a more expensive motherboard and more esoteric cooling system, meaning that they'll have to sacrifice elsewhere. Perhaps RDRAM exacts a cost penalty that hurts the Intel elsewhere.

          Money is never "no object", and just about anyone who states that quickly changes their tune when the $s add up. Why don't the big comparison tests include 15,000RPM hard drives and U160 SCSI? What about some of the high performance server backbones? They don't because those features exact some hefty costs, and when Joe Average who thinks he's going to max out his system sees what that costs with his GeForce3 Ti500 64MB video card, super 16 channel 24-bit soundcard, etc, something always gives. I've done that classic spreadsheet game a million times where I settle on a lesser harddrive but up the RAM, etc.

          In the end the $ is always the deciding factor. Just because a Nissan Altima and a Ferrari Testarossa have 4 wheels doesn't mean that they're directly comparable.

          • Re:Why DDR on P4? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by liquidsin ( 398151 )
            I agree with you one hundred percent. I'm currently trying to build myself a new system and constantly weighing options. However, from what I can tell from the story on slashdot (linuxhardware.com is *still* inaccessible) the testers were simply comparing the processors. You can always add more bells and whistles, but plugging high-end scsi drives into both systems *shouldn't* produce a larger performance gap on the test systems. The point I was originally making is that this test isn't to see if you get more performance out of AMD or Intel based on the same budget - it's to see which company's top of the line processor performs better on relatively similar hardware. We could put an 80Gb, 15,000 rpm scsi harddrive on both. Hell, we could add a dvd burner and a twelve foot flat screen monitor, but it won't change the system performance of one system relative to the other (or at least it shouldn't).
        • Actually, I believe the Northwood P4 w/DDR is the overall leader just at the moment. And I believe Tom's Hardware just managed to get it cranked up to 3.1GHz...

          As for using Rambus and the i850 -- nobody really wants it. Notice: as long as the P4 was tied to Rambus, it was a flop. These days a P4 is not particularly expensive (largely because practically every P4 consumer system on the market is SDRAM-based).

          /Brian
        • Why didn't they test price/performance? A hundred other sites have already done raw performace comparisons, and they don't mean anything to me because I don't have an unlimited budget. I already know that different processors have different performance so what use is the information they are providing? I don't follow the benchmark scene closely but it seems to me that no-one ever compares price/performace, yet that is by far the most important measure for 99% of computer buyers.

      • For these comparisons to really be valid they should base them on price : i.e. "We have $2000 to spend on each platform"

        That's a good idea if you are comparing the options for the general user looking to buy a computer. In this case, they are reviewing the top-of-the-line processors (which people on a budget won't be buying anyway.) Only those with a large budget will be buying a machine with one of these processors anyway, so price shouldn't be an issue.

        Also, their decision to use DDR RAM for both platforms is misguided. Those who pay the big bucks for the fastest processors won't skimp on the rest of the PC, so the comparison really should be done using the RD RAM the Pentium 4 is designed for. Instead of trying to artificially force the platforms to be as similar as possible, they should compare real-world hardware configurations.

      • Re:Why DDR on P4? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by bbqBrain ( 107591 )
        That would turn out really ugly for the Intel products involved. The amazing thing is that one can build a damn fine, complete AthlonXP 2000+ system (sans monitor/keybd/mouse) for about $1000. With Intel, that same $1000 gets you a 2.2GHz P4, nice mobo, 512 MB RDRAM, and case/PS. Save those pennies, and you can eventually get your video card, sound card, CD-RW, and HDD. And you'll still only see performance on par with your friend's XP2000+ system.

        Intel certainly seems capable of producing some really nice products, and they aren't even pushing the 0.13u chips yet, from what I've read. You'd think that if they wanted to show AMD up, they'd just clock them at > 2.5GHz now and keep going. I'm puzzled.

        • Re:Why DDR on P4? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by VAXman ( 96870 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @07:24PM (#2891383)
          You'd think that if they wanted to show AMD up, they'd just clock them at > 2.5GHz now and keep going. I'm puzzled.

          You're confusing sports with business. Intel's job is to make money, not to show up its competition. Don't assume that Intel's profits would be boosted by having the fastest part around. Indeed, in 2000, Intel made $10 billion in profit which is more than any other tech company has made -- before or since -- in a single year, but for at least half of the year, their fastest part was appreciably slower than AMD's (AMD, meanwhile, who is highly interested in showmanship, is losing money every quarter).

    • Re:Why DDR on P4? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by aminorex ( 141494 )
      Because nobody with an ethical bone in their body
      would buy RAMBUS.

      Nor, for that matter would anyone who cared about
      getting a fair value for their dollar.
      • Because nobody with an ethical bone in their body
        would buy RAMBUS.

        Or go see a movie.

        Or buy a new cd.

        becareful, you might be labelled a commie...

    • Re:Why DDR on P4? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ryusen ( 245792 )
      i've got an idea.. why not run the test on BOTH rdram and ddr? that way we can actually see what the difference in the two chipsets are? and then add in a little thing about th eprice differences so we cna judge that for ourselves too

  • Level playing field? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:14PM (#2890017)
    Wouldn't it be more of a level playing field if both processors were allowed to use their optimum RAM types? Sure, keep the rest of the system honest, but don't handicap one processor by forcing it to use a RAM type it wasn't initially designed for.
    • Maybe both machines should use EDO RAM? =)

    • Re:Level playing field? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mr qix ( 546712 )
      i think if a chip manufacturer is going to not only make it possible to use multiple types of RAM, but also endorse that (i.e. Intel's switched stance on non-RDRAM mobos) it's only fair to use whatever type of RAM you want to test the processor.
    • As someone else said, the P4 is memory bandwidth hungry, but it wasn't really designed with the requirement for RDRAM in mind. It should be able to use any memory access method as well as or better than the Athlon. However, due to it's 20 stage instruction pipeline, it takes more of a performance hit when a program branch is mis-predicted. This is magnified more when you use slower memory - likely the cause of the Athlon being able to keep up with lower MHz.

      Soko

      • Re:Level playing field? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @04:04PM (#2890309) Homepage
        Well, to a degree. To a first order, the Athlon keeping up is just because it is more of a "brainiac" (high IPC) than the P4 "speed-demon" (high clk freq.), though the P4 also doesn't resemble any of the machines normally called speed-demons. Memory access is certainly a factor in this, but the fact that the XP "keeps up" is due to its higher IPC (which is more complicated than just branch mispredictions, though that certainly is a big factor for the P4).

        The P4 wins in streaming benchmarks because it can use the higher bandwidth RDRAM (and by use I mean not only capatability but having the FSB bandwidth to not throttle the memory). There is no reason to think that it should be able to use any memory access method "as well as or better" than an Athlon, because no matter what it will be limited by its inherently lower IPC.

  • Reason for DDR (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FileNotFound ( 85933 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:16PM (#2890028) Homepage Journal
    The reason DDR was used is because there have been COUNTLESS tests done with RAMBUS.

    The whole goal was to see how well it'd do with DDR now that it supports it.

  • Tom's Hardware Did This 2 Weeks Ago (Score:5, Informative)

    by LuxuryYacht ( 229372 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:18PM (#2890041) Homepage
    Take a look at

    http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/ind ex .html

    They posted the results of their showdown 2weeks ago.

  • In an effort to remain accurate... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Restil ( 31903 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:20PM (#2890060) Homepage
    I would check the website so I know what I'm talking about when I comment. But since I can't access the site due to the (I assume) brutal slashdotting, I feel almost compelled to comment without any supporting information to base my wildly inaccurate opinions on. If at least the article summary had summarized (probably incorrectly) the article content beyond saying it was "interesting" then at least we could get the debate rolling, at least until the page became accessible again. At which time, everyone else would join the fray complaining that nobody reads the articles.

    -Restil

  • But... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Matt2000 ( 29624 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:23PM (#2890084) Homepage

    ... they're not really levelling the playing field because DDR memory is a mature option for AMD whereas it's brand new on the Intel boards, and apparently has some problems.

    If you're going to compare just CPU power then use synthetic benchmarks that test just that, otherwise if it's system performance you're going after why not compare AMD DDR to Pentium 4 RDRAM, at least those are two mature configurations.
    • It's not just that DDR is a mature tech for AMD but not so much for Intel. It's that the two memory types work very differently, and how the processor expects data to arrive is going to be affected by the memory. P4's are designed to expect the higher bandwidth and latency of Rambus -- they expect to wait longer, and to get more in one chunk.

      So no, I think that this would skew results in AMD's favor. I actually think that a fair comparison would require Rambus on the P4 system, and DDR on the AMD system.

  • Pretty irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:29PM (#2890121)
    I don't see why hardware sites insist on seeing which chip "is fastest." I'd be more interested in an acceptable price/performance ratio. The Athlon XP 2000+ (which can still hold its own fairly well against a P4 2200) costs LESS THAN HALF of a P4 2200. Why anyone would spend the extra $350 on a P4 for the minimal performance gains (relative to the cost) is beyond me. And for those who want absolute, unforgiving, raw performance.. For the same price as a P4 2200 with a decent motherboard, you can buy a Tyan Tiger MP with a pair of Athlon XP 2000s and a bunch of DDR memory (AMD reccomends you use Athlon MPs but there's no reason the XPs won't work.) Sure, graphs and kernel compile times are pretty and all, but eventually you have to think about what is practical..

    • Re:Pretty irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)

      by agurkan ( 523320 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:38PM (#2890179) Homepage
      well,

      for one thing CPU is not the only part of hardware you buy. eg. if you are building a cluster, and need a certain computing power having a performance increase of 10% might be significant since it will save you 10% of nodes which might include a gigabit ethernet card or a myrinet card which cost ~$1500 (i am not sure about the price, but it is in the right ballpark). and, this is not counting all other things that go in a cluster node. that is why dual processors are not such a bad idea in clusters :)

      so, IMHO it is pretty relevant.

      • so, IMHO it is pretty relevant.
        How many people build clusters in their bedrooms? Anyone serious about a cluster will be doing their own benchmarks using the apps they intend to run on the cluster. So IMHO it is not relevant, at least for anyone interested in clustering.
    • I'm looking at RAM prices now, and for the $350 difference, that means about a gig-o-ram.

      I think I would save the cash and rather have the gig-o-ram than have no RAM at all.

      Of course you can also go the dual-cpu route, and that seems nice too. But for someone who wants a computer to do whatever on, get the AMD and gig-o-ram.

      I just like thinking gig-o-ram. A few [3-4] years ago I upgraded to 64MB and was like "wow! this is smoking!"

      gig-o-ram :-)

    • Re:Pretty irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rgmoore ( 133276 ) <glandauer@charter.net> on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @06:11PM (#2890987) Homepage

      There are reasons that you might want to consider spending the extra on a really hot processor. The main one I can think of is if there's something else very expensive as part of the setup. The biggest, most obvious one I can think of is software licenses. I've encountered software with licenses of as much as $8000 per processor, which obviously places a very large premium on having the fastest possible processor running it. I'm sure that there are other applications with even more outrageous prices, too. When you're forking out that much for your software, hardware costs start looking pretty tame.

      • I've encountered software with licenses of as much as $8000 per processor, which obviously places a very large premium on having the fastest possible processor running it.

        We aren't comparing Xeons or even IBM's latest supercomputer. All these tests show is, "hey look, I have the fastest consumer level chip on the block regardless of cost". How does a $550 chip's speed have any relevance in a ~$175 chip market? It's like comparing a $2000 3D graphics board in a SGI workstation to a Geforce 3 ti500.
    • If you were building a central database server, and one option delivered 5,000 transactions per day, at a cost of $1 each, and another delivered 500,000 transactions/day at the cost of $1000 each, and you had demand for 1,000,000 transactions a day @ $1,000,000 each in revenue, which server would you choose?

      If you choose the one with better price/performance you will get fired in a heartbeat.

      Get a clue: price/performance is a bogus benchmark because it assumes the cost of lower performance is $0. Period.

  • DDR only doesn't make much sense. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macinslak ( 41252 ) <macinslakNO@SPAMmac.com> on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:29PM (#2890125)
    Given that the P4 costs more than twice as much as the Athlon ($548 versus $263 on PriceWatch), why would they bother with only DDR? Just by including the P4 they've pretty much thrown price/performance ratios out the window anyway.

    A better question to ask of the P4 might be whether it could beat the Athlon with any kind of memory, and if so, by how much?

  • New Intel Processor (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mignon ( 34109 ) <satan@programmer.net> on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:31PM (#2890138)
    In other news, Intel released their Pentium "Morningwood" processor which is optimized for displaying porn.

    Just killing time while my program compiles and the site becomes available again.

  • With processing power up at the level it is today, how much of a difference in these two chips' performances is really notable? Even if the Athlon "XP" outperformed the intel (as I am told is often), it probably wouldn't be much, at least not enough worth talking about, and it sure wouldn't negate the fact that there have been several AMD "bugs" which notably inflict Linux users. They are, however, much cheaper. So I guess for me, the comparison isn't "price/performance", it's "price/functionality". Just my .02

  • Non-slashdotted review of 2000+ at anandtech.com (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Anonymous Coward
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1574 [anandtech.com]

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1574

  • It's nice to see a review that is NOT by tom's hardware on slashdot... nice to see a little variation in the works

  • verses?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by cswiii ( 11061 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @03:50PM (#2890248)
    ...the Pentium 4 verses Athlon XP war...

    'Pentium 4 verses'? Are they anything like Spam Poetry [slashdot.org]?

    It's 'versus', Mr. Editor Sir.

  • Upper Headroom? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @04:16PM (#2890367) Homepage Journal

    How do the next few months look in terms of the ability of either Intel or AMD to improve upon these products?

    While I'm a fan of AMD's price/performance ratios, it looks as if they will be hard pressed to keep increasing the clock on the Athlon, while the Pentium 4 seems to have a lot more potential for higher clock rates.

    Then, too, I'm wondering about the news reports that suggest that Athlons won't be paired up with the new DDR 333 MHz memory.

    It may mean that the highest performance x86 architecture this summer will be from Intel and will be able to command more of a premium in price than if AMD were breathing down their necks, which has been the case over the past year and a half.

    • Re:Upper Headroom? (Score:3, Informative)

      by steveha ( 103154 )
      How do the next few months look in terms of the ability of either Intel or AMD to improve upon these products?

      The Pentium 4 is now being made with a .13 micron process, vs. the .18 micron process still being used to make the Athlon. When AMD starts selling Athlon chips made with the .13 micron process, they will once again be beating the Pentium 4 in benchmarks.

      That is, assuming AMD gets the .13 micron process version out in a reasonable amount of time. If AMD takes too long getting their act together, Intel may be able to push the Pentium 4 to some ridiculous level (5 GHz or something) and win.

      However, the Athlon will continue to rule in price/performance. Those of us who pay for their own computers will likely keep buying Athlons.

      The latest I have seen on the AMD website is that the .13 micron chips should be out in "1H 2002", which presumably means June this year. That shouldn't be too late by any means; I doubt that Intel can do much with the Pentium 4 by that time.

      P.S. Who among us really needs more performance than current Athlons? Even when Doom III comes out, current CPUs will have adequate performance (it's the 3D graphics card you will need to drop money on, not your CPU). I'm looking forward to buying a .13 micron Duron chip, to use in low-heat/low-noise computers.

      steveha

  • Results (Score:5, Informative)

    by Derkec ( 463377 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @04:25PM (#2890412)
    For those of you wondering what the results are, here's the summary of what Tom's did, I still can't get to LinuxHardware


    A comparison of the two top products from AMD and Intel reveals the astonishing: although the processors are as different from one another as apples and oranges, the difference is much less obvious in the benchmark results, when taken from an absolute standpoint.


    In any case, one thing is visible: in the majority of performance tests, the new Pentium 4/2200 is ahead. After all, the top AMD processor has to make do with 1666 MHz, while its archenemy steps in with 2200 MHz. A closer look at the comprehensive benchmarks reveals that in Office performance as well as Linux Kernel compiling, the Athlon XP still takes the lead, despite its 32% clock speed disadvantage!

  • question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jon_c ( 100593 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2002 @04:27PM (#2890424) Homepage
    While reading through the results an idea came to me. Is it possible that the reason the P4 generally does better on 'one algorithm type of tasks is because its long pipeline wouldn't get busted as much, meaning that the branch prediction worked, which is based of past branch statistics (right?).

    This makes since to me actually, in speaking with my friend about this last night I was asked 'well, what do you need a fast CPU for, when does it matter?', I replied 'Well, games, anything to do with multimedia, like Photoshop effects, ray tracing, mpeg encoding, but ya for general use, the CPU doesn't as much'.

    but wait, lets look at that list in how it relates to the pipeline idea:
    games: probably a good deal is going on here, AI, 3d pipelines, IO, networking probably not something a branch predictor would excel at

    Photoshop effects ray tracing, mpeg encoding: all relatively contained algorithm that (if I'm right) would work well with the brand prediction.

    So actually maybe having such long pipelines isn't that bad of a thing, because the majority of your day to day would doesn't care that much anyway, and most of the time when you need something as fast as possible its a small repetitive algorithm that could be predicted.

    no?

    • Re:question (Score:3, Funny)

      by glwtta ( 532858 )
      I would love to believe that the long pipeline was an engineering decision, but for some reason I can't shake off the feeling that it's just:

      Long Pipeline == High Clock == Layman Buy!

      And hey, it worked.

      (sure call it flamebait if it so seems to you, it is nonetheless what I think; not that I am original in any way about it)

    • but wait, lets look at that list in how it relates to the pipeline idea: games: probably a good deal is going on here, AI, 3d pipelines, IO, networking probably not something a branch predictor would excel at

      Actually, most of what you mentioned do involve small, tight loops over many iterations -- perfect fodder for a branch predictor.

      Long pipelines do have drawbacks. A stall on a long pipeline, especially if it keeps happening over and over, can really hurt your performance. I'm more excited about this "hyperthreading" [intel.com] stuff, personally. I think CPU makers should start putting more resources toward these new ideas instead of just extending and re-extending the old. Longer pipelines and more cache can help to a point, but I think there's a barrier that needs to be broken through. Once manufacturers start to do it, I think we'll start seeing all kinds of scary-cool CPUs.

      • right, but those together and in different threads, like: T1: AI task/game logic, T2: vector math/rendering pipline: T3: network polling, switching between those 3 constantly. i would think means that the pipeline gets screwed. but maybe the OS and compiler we're smart enough to somehow know to do X amount of each so the pipeline wouldn't getting flushed all the time, i'm not sure.

        anyway i find the suject interesting and would like to know more.

        -Jon
        • When you say "switching constantly" you are talking about simple threading. In this case, pipeline length does not matter much because the time it takes to finish a pipeline's worth of instructions is much shorter than the time between task switches. The biggest problem for this kind of heavy threading is keeping all of the appropriate data in cache. It's tricky, but not impossible.

          A hyperthreaded processor actually has multiple instruction streams. Each of these has its own pipeline. An instruction executes whenever the necessary chip circuits become available. This isn't quite the same as having two processors, because the sum of the clock rates (roughly the same as instruction throughput) for the two hyperthreads must add up to at most the chip clock rate -- perhaps less if stalls and cache misses are common. It's an elegant idea, but you could probably spend much less money and get far more processing power by simply buying two processors.

  • What about stability? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by azrix ( 398353 )
    I've not read the article because it's still /.'ed, but...

    I was wondering about the stability of P4 vs. Athlon platforms. The awsome overclock-ability of the P4's has gotten me very interested in them, so I've been reading up on the recent reviews. Reading them carefully, I've caught a few interesting lines about the Athlon systems locking up some when running benchmarks, but the P4 system running like a rock. Makes me wonder if a P4 wouldn't be a better choice when you want performance and stability, with the Athlon being a better choice when you want performance and low cost. While this doesn't sound like a big deal, it is if you're like me and like to leave your computer running 24/7.

    Just wondering if anyone had any comments on this as it's not something that I've seen anybody mention anyplace and it seems very relevent.

    • Hmm... I seem to recall a few places mentioning some stability issues with the P4, sorry I couldn't be more specific, but just saying I didn't get the same "like a rock" impression.

      On the other hand, I've heard plenty of bitching about Athlon stability, all I can offer here is my personal experience - during the year or so that I've had this system (T'Bird 1.2 + ABIT KT7) it's locked up twice - once when I naively tried to get my Vortex 2 working (I run Linux) and the other was one of my Maxtors acting up with the Promise controller - seems to be pretty common too.

      In other words, in a year of heavy use - pretty much on during the day, and frequently left on over nights - I've never heard a peep of instability from anything CPU/Platform related. Maybe I got lucky, maybe the good RAM makes a difference (not like you have to pay for it nowadays), but that's been my experience.

  • Is there any sort of realistic forecast? And I mean not just the chips, but good mobos to go with them.

    Was hoping to upgrade this summer...

    Oh and so we are on topic: it sure is interesting about all them Athlon vs. P4 comparisons!

Slashdot Top Deals

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Close