Should I go Athlon64 or Barton?

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:18:34 +0200, jack wrote:

keith wrote:
: On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:33:58 +0000, Scott Alfter wrote:
snip

: ...just another example of what leftists consider free
: speech/thought. If you don't agree with them, your rights don't
: exist.

And so Vswm No. 2 steps up to spew his usual rhetoric. You're even
a bigger right-wing asshole than Vswm No. 1.....plonk!

See? The looney-left cannot stand anyone who disagrees with them. Their
heads are going to pop on Nov 3.

--
Keith

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Franklin wrote:
A Barton 2500+ (with maybe an Asus A78NX mobo) is more than enough
power for me but am I buying into obsolescence? Athlon64 is where
the growth will be and furture residual values will be higher than
for Barton.

Future residual values? These are computers, not real estate -- odds are by
the time you need to get a new machine, you'll have trouble getting more
than beer money for the machine.

I've had trouble giving away some of the machines I've had.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer

*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:58:21 +0100, Daniel James wrote:

Compare that with the Z80 (8+16[1]+16+16=14 bits) the 6502 beloved of
Apple II and PET user (8+8+8+16=10 bits) and the 68000 (32+32+32+24=30
bits). Considering that these chips were all available when the PC was
designed: I know which chip *I'd* have used!

Me too, but the 68000 only had a 16 bit data bus. And at the time, cpu's
were rated rated by the data bus width. Then 68000 which was defined by
Motorola as a 16 bit cpu is now define as a 32bit cpu.:-)
8088 (8/16) was defined by Intel as an 8 bit cpu. Today it's defined as a
16bit CPU. One can no longer take anything for granted as the companys
have started fudging and cludging numbers for marketing hype. Here's the
best BS I've ever seen. NEC compares their NEAX 2000 pbx to Toshiba's
(forgot the name) calling their processor a powerful 32bit bit compared to
Toshibas 16bit. NEC was using a 486SLC (8 bit data bus) while Toshiba used
a 68000 (16 bit data bues).:-)
Now if you have ever used the 2, you know what I mean.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:06:51 -0400, keith wrote:

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:12:39 +0200, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:

It is well publized that IBM chose a lower-end CPU for the PC in order
not to compete with other business divisions.

Not really. The reason the 8088 was chosen was for cost. A 16b bus would
have doubled the cost of the bus and the minimum memory configuration.
Remember, memory was *expensive*. ...as was SSI/MSI TTL and packaging.

Hmmm... Cost played a part in ti, but the 80xx architecture was chosen
because that's the only micro architecture the developers were familiar
with and they wanted to get it out fast. It was just a matter of months
before someone came out with a real 16 bit cpu, the 8086, and it wasn't
IBM.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

wrote:
*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ¸ô¶ó - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*
This makes over ten piles you've dropped already!
Do you think your *****e* doesen't stink? ;-(

VWW
--
A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds,........
Ralph Waldo Emerson
(Microsoft programmer's manual.)