- Average user rating: 3.5 stars out of 16 reviews Back to product review
- My rating: 0 stars
Full user review
-
5 out of 11 people found this review helpful
4.5 stars
"We have an Intel Fan Girl"
Pros: Well its fast for gaming and everything else
Cons: Price is too high, not that much difference from 4800 x2
Summary: Well, here we go again, the first reviewer is obviously an Intel kid. One of those rich kiddos who doesnt inderstand value. The bottom line is that even though the FX-60 seems powerfull the price is too expensive. But I have to correct the Intel kis who said AMD is only for gaming. First of all high end gaming is the most taxing thing for a processor. So obviously if Amd always beats Intel in gaming, then of course its going to beat Intel in other programs that require less processer value. Amd offers valuable processors, like the 64 3000, 3200, 3500, and 3800, which are cheaper than their intel counterparts. ANd the funny thing is that a 3500 beats the intel dual core Extreme edition in some programs. The fact is that Amd offers cheaper prcessors that outperform Intels expensive processors. ANd if you are budget consious, then of course you would go with amd (more power for less). And who cares if apple is going to intel. Apple is for rich uptight people who live in some rich suburbs. Since they are the only ones that can afford apples high prices, Apples look great, but the compatability, and lack of programs, as well as having to pay alot for programs, since there arnt alot of alternitives makes apple a piece of junk. Maybe those rich kids can afford it. But if you stay on the other side of life you would rather get a $800 PC, that was pretty powerfull compared to a lower end apple for that price. Plus upgrading is hard on apples. And seriously, I havnt known any person with an apple period. Maybe its couse i dont know any rich kids in the suberbs. lol
- 5 replies to this review
-
He is not a intel fan as you say, he's saying how goodd Amd are when compared to Intel.
Amd are so much better than Intel, everything after the frist line is correct, however I do live in the suburbs and know only one person who has a apple -
It seems your comments are more directed at why someone should buy Wintel instead of Apple. If Apple had picked AMD as their supplier instead of Intel, would suddenly extol the virtues of Apple?
What happens if someone figures out how to take out the Intel proc. and put in an AMD? Then does an Apple become something desirable?
Of course, I live in the suburbs. My kids are probably considered rich kids in the suburbs. My wife and kids us Apples at work and school. We all use Wintel or Apple at home, whichever is available. HOWEVER, my Wintel machines are ALWAYS AMD for the same reason I also buy Apples. More features per dollar spent, NOT total dollars spent. I would rather spend less money on an AMD and get more features than more money and less with an Intel.
BTW, I do occasionally run into software that doesn't have an Apple counterpart. Generally this is from smaller developers that need the Windows marketshare to survive. This arguement is a two-edged sword. I frequently run into software that I can use on an Apple that doesn't exist on the Wintel platform! In both cases, I normally find a similar product that does the same job.
Apples cost more up front, but provide more immediately useful features. That's called value, not cost! AMD does the same thing.
If you subscribe to the philosophy that everyone should buy Wintel because that's what ninety percent of people use, why would anyone ever buy AMD?
I think Linux on AMD makes the most sense for COST and VALUE, but not ease of use. XP is still easier for the new user, and OSX is even easier(er). Every year this becomes a closer race as the OpenSource community chips away at ease of use and features for Linux
So, AMD vrs Intel? Is performance the issue? What about power consumption? What about market share? What about earnings on their respective stocks? What about long term management strategies? How about support for developers? How hard is it to get assemblers or compilers? How much do those cost? How difficult to overclock? Availability, manufacturing capacity, foreign ownership, environmental impact. The list goes on.
For most people, it seems value as an end-user, performance compared to cost, is paramount. Seems to me AMD has this won hands down. At the same time, we have all seen the "leap frog" effect in this industry. I expect Intel will come out with something that surpasses AMD in performance. I would be surprised if they do this at a lower cost! -
I'm really sorry to hear you are poor.
-
As usual there is going to be FANS of different opinions, buy really as said before, from my first build with AMD 486-100 Mgz. I have not crossed the line to INTEL and going to be patient on new cores, and not to pay full price like when new socket 754 and Atholon64 3000+. Lets keep it cool.
-
This is obvisously a person whom has studied the facts, and not spouting off because of their preference!
