🚀 go-pugleaf

"Ari Oppenheimer" <ak79@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:3c9213fc.0@news1.mweb.co.za...
> Hi,
> I've noticed that the new AMD Proccessors are call XP 1600, XP 1700, XP
1800
> etc, but the actual speed of the XP 1600 for example is only 1.4 GHz.
>
> Now does this compare to a P4 1.6Ghz or a P4 1.4Ghz. Also, consider the
fact
> the the P4 runs at a 400Mhz bus. To me it seems as if Intel comes out as
the
> sure winner over here. After all it seems as if P4 1.6Ghz is better than
AMD
> 1.4Ghz,.
>
> Please let me know if my deduction is right, or should I go for the AMD
>
> Thanks
>
>

Generally speakin ghte Athlons' rating (say that XP1600) will perform around
10-percent faster than the Pentium-4 of the 1.6 Ghz speed.

The new Northwoods look to halve that to around 5-percent slower than the
comparible XP rated Athlon.

We know the "official" speel about the XP rating to relate the the T-bird,
but honestly many have already forgotten about that older version if the
Athlon. The "real world" effect (and I beleive the true- and unstated one)
is that the XP ratings line up with the clock speeds of the p4 and are rated
a little on the conservative side so as the p-4 gets more code optimized for
it and Athlon's rating will still be valid. (unlikes Cyrix's years ago).



--
An unjust king asked a devotee what kind of worship is best? He replied:
'For thee the best is to sleep one half of the day so as not to injure the
people for a while.'

I saw a tyrant sleeping half the day.
I said: 'This confusion, if sleep removes it, so much the better;
But he whose sleep is better than his wakefulness
Is better dead than leading such a bad life.'