Interesting article. Even as a big fan of AMD, even I can see that this guy has a major hardon for Intel. Not only is he ranting hysterically, the work is packed with factual errors, and misleading assertions. Example:
<< When that didn't pan out, Intel kept selling its older line of Pentium MMX chips. While running at the same 233, 266, and 300 MHz clock speeds as the Pentium II, the Pentium MMX was based on the older design of the original Pentium >>
Intel did not produce the Pentium MMX in speeds faster then 233, unless they did so in the mobile market?
Another example:
<< Buying a Celeron was like buying an old 486 system, it was that slow. >>
I guess he doesn't realize that people who actually USED the original Celery would be reading his article. While the lack of L2 cache did make it slower then an equivalently clocked P2, it was certainly NOT nearly as slow as a 486. Most work uses L1 cache, so much of the time, L2 isn't even a factor.
He does have a valid point, though: The P4 is overpriced when we consider the very small incremental improvement over the P3.
Russ, NCNE