Price / Performance ratio is superb. The AthlonXP's are not as fast as intel, but for what you pay, I feel im getting a nice deal. Athlon64's on the otherhand are now as good / better than P4's , although the price/ratio and the socket changes at the moment wouldnt tempt me into purchasing one.
Agreed
I'll leave overclocking out of the argument, cause AMD still whoops Intel's butt on price/performance without overclocking. Overclocking is just the icing on the cake. Check out this Anandtech article on sub-$100USD CPU's: Every single $100 USD or less AMD processor beats out every single $100 USD or less Intel processor, performance-wise. For $75, you can either get a wildly popular Athlon XP 2500+, or you can cut your performance in half and get an Intel Celeron 2.4. Easy choice
. Take a price, and see what performance you get from AMD vs from Intel. AMD always wins.
Gaming is about the most demanding thing you can do with a computer these days, right up there with digital video editing and 3D architectural design.
Me too...I'd rather not blow extra $$$ on Intel, when I could be spending it on a cool new game, or scanner, or wireless mouse/keyboard, or anything!
Well if you have a PC already and it works fine, you don't need to upgrade. But why not try AMD next time? For the same money you get MORE performance! You are limiting yourself by choosing Intel.
Just cause something costs more doesn't make it better. The proof is in the benchmarks. Do your own research, read the reviews online, and learn that there is NO reason to pay more for equal performance. As for the high-end? Unless you want to spend literally $1000 USD on a P4 Extreme Edition, you will not be able to match the $415 AMD Athlon 64 3400+. I have a decent job, so I like to spoil myself with nice parts too, but that's no reason to throw your money out the wnidow. Higest price doesn't equate to best parts.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
OOOOOOOOOK. If you say AMD kicks Intel's butt you have to specify it's for processors below from 1600+ to 2000+ speeds against P4 2.0 non-A CPUs. From that moment on P4 has always been faster. If you don't believe me read the benchmarks above from countless reviews and dont kid yourself. If you simply want to ignore price P4 is faster.
Overclocking is much easier with AMD? No. How do you define that exactly? With P4 you just increase the FSB there is no need to vary your multiplier or increase the Nforce 2 voltage to find a compromise. The overclocking procedure is almost identical. If you meant AMD overclocks better, that would only be true against P4 processors Preceding C models. But lets face the reality now where P4 2.4 hits 3.2 and that puts it at 33% overclock. Yet locked Barton 2500+ gets to 3200+ (1.83 to 2.2 or 20%). That means for Barton 2500+ to be as good of an overclocker (33%) you need to get to 2.45ghz!!! That is where only the Barton XP-M stands anyway. So then how is your logic justified here? Except for JIUHB 1700+ and XP-M, regular Barton's are not at all more special than the P4 C family which overclock just as well % wise. Then if you want to go that route a Celeron 300A is the best overclocking CPU of all time...and it's not from AMD.
Better motherboards out there are AMD style? No. That is why i865/i875 chipsets have way better memory controller, allow you to reach 300FSB, have an ICH-5Raid controller which is faster than most AMD board Via or Sis alternatives, most have 4 SATA headers vs 2 on all but DFI LanParty Ultra B AMD boards, most have identical crappy onboard AC'97 sound (so its a tie here) and cost less with all these features on top of it! (Abit IS7 vs. Abit NF-S, Abit IC7 vs. DFI LanParty B) The only thing AMD boards have is the soundstorm sound. Otherwise I don't see the proof behind your argument. Did I forget to mention no current AMD Nforce 3 150 or Via chipsets for A64 have a PCI/AGP lock preventing you to overclock to anything that you can call a decent overclock?
And that statement about upgrading....that is true except I bought intel when C processors came out so then when I am at 3.2ghz I wont have to upgrade on this Intel motherboard ever again. When intel was a bad choice, I had Athlon 1600+ thank you very much. It is all about timing and what is the best processor at the time. 1 year ago when P4 Cs came out and Barton 2500+ did not cost $75 they were the best choice. Besides, if you get a Barton or XP-M and overclock it to 3200+ speeds or higher speeds you'll never buy anything faster for XP platform because there just won't be so both the P4C system and Barton XP system WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO UPGRADE. Which means you'll both have to face the choice of buying a brand new motherboard and CPU making the costs identical assuming same new setup.
RussianSensation: Your post just helped me notice something... all that those benchmarks show is that AMD isn't properly naming their chips. When you compare a XP 3200+ to a Pentium 3.2 ghz, you're trusting the marketing dept at AMD. But people tend to trust their wallets once they get to the store. The Pentium costs almost 50% more ($280 pentium vs $200 athlon)!!! Whenever price is a factor, and it almost always is, processors should be compared based on their prices. How does a $100 AMD cpu fare against a $100 Intel cpu? $200? $300? $400? If you ignore price, you could say a BMW is better than Honda because the BMW is faster and drives better. But obviously you can't disregard price like that when you're out shopping for a car!
Reviewers should compare processors with a common price, not a common marketing name!
Reviewers should compare processors with a common price, not a common marketing name!
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
First of all $280 P4 CPU vs. $200 Athlon is only 40% so your rounding might be off here
Read this: "Price Comparison on Newegg:
XP-M 2500+ OEM @$95 need $10 for a cooler => total $105 at least (you might need a better cooler)
Overclocker's motherboard - Abit NF7-S Retail@102 (includes shipping)
Total: $207
P4 2.8C Retail @ $183
Overclocker's motherboard with same features Abit IS7 Retail@96 (includes shipping)
Total: $279
Price Difference: $72."
Like I said $72 dollars or $100 for that matter is 1 day of work. When for someone who does encoding, rendering, SETI@Home, audio conversion and so on this justifies the 10-40% speed increases in those areas.
I like your BMW/Honda analogy but the fact of the matter is spending $70-100 extra on a cpu does not mean selling off you soul, as opposed to the price hike between a 3 series bmw and a honda civic or whatever that might be. Of course a person who can afford a BMW will never consider a Honda (except NSX, S2000, or an Acura variety). Now how many people truly cannot afford to buy a P4?
If you read my opinion carefully I did say AMD is a better price/performance ratio processor, but what I do not agree here is that everyone says it is a better CPU. In terms of speed it is not better. Overall if you feel like $100 is a lot to you then sure it is better. Then explain to me why people on these forums spend $400 for a Radeon 9800xt vs. $200 for 9800Pro and buy PC4000 ram vs. 2-2-2-5 PC3200 ram to get a measly 10-15% speed increase?
Also the only way to overclock an XP seems to include having nothing less than an SLK style cooler which with the fan together cost ~$40.
My final opinion: - 3 years ago AMD XP was better, that is why I bought Athlon 1600+
- 2 years ago JIUHB XP 1700+ was better
- then 1 year ago P4C was better than is why I bought 2.6C
- now A64 is the best choice if you are willing to spend $200+ which I definately AM since I upgrade
my CPU only once in 3 years.
- But if you are going to spend Below $200 the choice is less clearcut depending on your usage.
If you just care for games, XP is fine, but for everything else it might be too slow for some.
Then the price difference of $72-100 is justifiable.
I guess to answer your remarK I am going to say that the best processor on the market depends on what your usage is. For someone in the graphic design industry there is no substitute for an Apple regardless of price. Similarly someone who benefits greatly from HT on a P4 will not find a substitute with AXP. Otherwise I can justify buying an XP.
as mentioned .. it's the price / performance ratio.
i built this computer September 2003. The whole summer i layed out plans to build a 2.4C P4. Had all the parts figured out. Then i really thought about it .. do i want a Intel + mid range radeon 9600 Pro or an AMD + Radeon 9700 Pro. It all came down to the system's overall performance.
I think Intel is very fortunate that AMD is a step behind in clock speed and money. If they could match $$ with Intel, i would bet my left toe that AMD would garner alot more market share.
i built this computer September 2003. The whole summer i layed out plans to build a 2.4C P4. Had all the parts figured out. Then i really thought about it .. do i want a Intel + mid range radeon 9600 Pro or an AMD + Radeon 9700 Pro. It all came down to the system's overall performance.
I think Intel is very fortunate that AMD is a step behind in clock speed and money. If they could match $$ with Intel, i would bet my left toe that AMD would garner alot more market share.
I don't think you can compare overclocks like that... You're assuming that CPU performance is linear between Intel and AMD and between clock speeds and I'm pretty sure it's not.
I don't know what you do for a living, but I don't make $9/hr.
Why people pick Intel over AMD? Why does anyone pick one processor over another? More MIPS. That's the only meaningful measure of a processor.
Now if you're asking about AMD64, that's a different boat. People choose AMD64 because right now it's the only architecture with a future. Intel is (very shortly) going to abandon the mPGA 478, meaning that this is not an ideal time to build an Intel rig (for most people).
Again, I think you're looking at AMD64 prices when you say Intel offers better package at same price. AMD64 is not a budget-oriented architecture (yet). And I don't think you can really say that. There is value in having a system that's upgradable. Us techheads that think nothing of installing a new motherboard may not care, but there is a whole segment of people that are comfortable with changing out a processor but pretty much draw the line there. Can't say I really blame them either. Changing the processor never involves reinstalling Windows or changing drivers.
HT is overrated. Period. It corrects what most people would call a design deficiency in the Intel processor. AMD's don't have that design deficiency, so they have no need for HT.
*Intel processors have a very low Instructions per Clock and a very long pipeline. HT allows the processor to look through the pipeline and pull out an instruction for one of the idle execution units to process. (As I understand it). AMDs have a very high IPC and short pipeline, so even if AMD implemented HT, it wouldn't provide the same performance benefit that it does on the Intel architecture.
apoppin
Lifer
Nonsense . . . the current A-64 is no more UPgradeable than the P4 3.4C . . . it's the END OF THE LINE for BOTH MBS as the sockets are being CHANGED.
According to your reasoning, it is a BAD time to build EITHER an A-64 or a P4 system . . . no advantage either way . . . and 64 bit is completely useless for most users (now)
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,039
- 32,524
- 146
[/b] How long did you just go between upgrades? Many who upgrade now won't upgrade again for years true story, I promise
If you conceed that point then A64 does offer a better upgrade path than a P4C 3.4 because a 64 bit OS will come out, software will follow, and at least someone on a skt754 system will be able to run the 64bit stuff at that time If you upgrade often then I agree that both are toast of course. Originally posted by: apoppin
Nonsense . . . the current A-64 is no more UPgradeable than the P4 3.4C . . . it's the END OF THE LINE for BOTH MBS as the sockets are being CHANGED.
I know there are new 940 pin processors coming. Are there not any new 754s coming out? I know that AMD is going to switch over to 939, but I thought they were going to release a few more procs on the old socket...
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,039
- 32,524
- 146
Same here, IIRC skt754 will make it to at least 3700+Originally posted by: TerryMathews
Originally posted by: apoppin
Nonsense . . . the current A-64 is no more UPgradeable than the P4 3.4C . . . it's the END OF THE LINE for BOTH MBS as the sockets are being CHANGED.
I know there are new 940 pin processors coming. Are there not any new 754s coming out? I know that AMD is going to switch over to 939, but I thought they were going to release a few more procs on the old socket...
to sum this up quickly and nicely
VARIABLES: theres two key things educated buyers look for in a CPU: price/performance (value), and total performance (speed). (assuming educated buyer realizes that Intel-AMD quality is about the same and therefore not a factor)
STATEMENT A: in the low to mid-range (up to 75% of flagship CPU speed), AMD destroys Intel in price/performance AND usually wins in total performance
STATEMENT B: in the high-mid to high-end range, the price/performance of Intel and AMD is about the same, but Intel usually wins in total performance
EXPLANATION: low, mid, and high range refers to price ranges not to performance ranges. (flagship CPU is a 3.4ghz Intel or 3400+ AMD. 75% of that is around 2.4ghz - 2.6ghz Intels and 2400+ - 2500+ AMDs)
QUALIFIER: my analysis is the gist of the situation, although the actualy ranges (which CPUs are low/mid and which are mid/high) may be tweaked. additionally, yes AMD offers 64bit at the high end and Intel does not (Intel offers Hyperthreading), but Im trying to make a summary/generalization that explains the general state of the educated buyer's market
CONCLUSIONS:
1. most buyers (of those who care to research things like value and speed - which is what i think the original post was referring to), will be in the low to mid range price point. of those, most will realize that AMD is the best option in this category as CPU is generally faster AND cheaper. put another way, most educated buyers on a budget of under $150 will buy AMD
2. high-"mid" to high-end buyers
a. those who only care about the-fastest-processor-period, will probably buy Intel (unless they are looking for 64bit speed too)
b. those who are looking in the high-end will not see any huge advantage in value or speed from AMD, and will then likely default to Intel (the more "respected name")
c. those who are wanting to spend high-end amounts of money (high-end could be considered anything over $100, $150) will probably default to Intel since Intel has a slight lead in overall speed (in 32bit) and Intel has market-share, reputation of quality, reliability etc.
d. even though AMD is just as high quality, and just as reliable as Intel, even if Intel didn't/doesn't have any advantage at high-end, Intel and AMD are going to be relatively close at high-end in terms of value and performance, and at a high-end level, most people are going to default to the more respected brand name when they have the money to do so
~Zippy!
VARIABLES: theres two key things educated buyers look for in a CPU: price/performance (value), and total performance (speed). (assuming educated buyer realizes that Intel-AMD quality is about the same and therefore not a factor)
STATEMENT A: in the low to mid-range (up to 75% of flagship CPU speed), AMD destroys Intel in price/performance AND usually wins in total performance
STATEMENT B: in the high-mid to high-end range, the price/performance of Intel and AMD is about the same, but Intel usually wins in total performance
EXPLANATION: low, mid, and high range refers to price ranges not to performance ranges. (flagship CPU is a 3.4ghz Intel or 3400+ AMD. 75% of that is around 2.4ghz - 2.6ghz Intels and 2400+ - 2500+ AMDs)
QUALIFIER: my analysis is the gist of the situation, although the actualy ranges (which CPUs are low/mid and which are mid/high) may be tweaked. additionally, yes AMD offers 64bit at the high end and Intel does not (Intel offers Hyperthreading), but Im trying to make a summary/generalization that explains the general state of the educated buyer's market
CONCLUSIONS:
1. most buyers (of those who care to research things like value and speed - which is what i think the original post was referring to), will be in the low to mid range price point. of those, most will realize that AMD is the best option in this category as CPU is generally faster AND cheaper. put another way, most educated buyers on a budget of under $150 will buy AMD
2. high-"mid" to high-end buyers
a. those who only care about the-fastest-processor-period, will probably buy Intel (unless they are looking for 64bit speed too)
b. those who are looking in the high-end will not see any huge advantage in value or speed from AMD, and will then likely default to Intel (the more "respected name")
c. those who are wanting to spend high-end amounts of money (high-end could be considered anything over $100, $150) will probably default to Intel since Intel has a slight lead in overall speed (in 32bit) and Intel has market-share, reputation of quality, reliability etc.
d. even though AMD is just as high quality, and just as reliable as Intel, even if Intel didn't/doesn't have any advantage at high-end, Intel and AMD are going to be relatively close at high-end in terms of value and performance, and at a high-end level, most people are going to default to the more respected brand name when they have the money to do so
~Zippy!
apoppin
Lifer
Regarding "most trusted brand name"; for me, AMD or Intel are both awesome.
However, a month ago, when I queried this forum to build a relatively budget high end system, NO ONE could show an advantage of the A-643000+ over the P4 2.80c . . . at the moment in time when i actually ordered from NewEgg, the P4 system was cheaper.
one thing that weighed heavily at the time was that there are NO A-64 MBs that o/c well ~10% w/o PCI lock whereas the P4s are regularly getting ~20% o/C . . . no doubt as A64's MB solutions mature, it might be a better choice.
As to 64 bit, it's gonna be a couple of years . . . by then MOST of us will have done that major upgrade so for me, it's moot.
. . . as to the dead-endedness of the current P4 MBs - next year, when 4.0Ghz is the norm; I'll slap in a (cheap by then) 3.4C and overclock it to 4.0+Ghz which you can be certain the last of the Northwoods will attain - that'll keep me "current" (i.e. able to run the same games and apps as the power users) for about 2 years which IMO is GREAT for a budget P4 system now.
However, a month ago, when I queried this forum to build a relatively budget high end system, NO ONE could show an advantage of the A-643000+ over the P4 2.80c . . . at the moment in time when i actually ordered from NewEgg, the P4 system was cheaper.
one thing that weighed heavily at the time was that there are NO A-64 MBs that o/c well ~10% w/o PCI lock whereas the P4s are regularly getting ~20% o/C . . . no doubt as A64's MB solutions mature, it might be a better choice.
As to 64 bit, it's gonna be a couple of years . . . by then MOST of us will have done that major upgrade so for me, it's moot.
. . . as to the dead-endedness of the current P4 MBs - next year, when 4.0Ghz is the norm; I'll slap in a (cheap by then) 3.4C and overclock it to 4.0+Ghz which you can be certain the last of the Northwoods will attain - that'll keep me "current" (i.e. able to run the same games and apps as the power users) for about 2 years which IMO is GREAT for a budget P4 system now.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,039
- 32,524
- 146
You say that with great certainty, but a 64bit OS and some supporting games and apps will be here within the year if what I've read is correct. BTW, I'm running 2.4ghz for a 20% overclock with my 3000+
apoppin
Lifer
Awesome and congratulations with that o/c . . . from what I gather from reading, it is exceptional - around 10% being average.Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
You say that with great certainty, but a 64bit OS and some supporting games and apps will be here within the year if what I've read is correct. BTW, I'm running 2.4ghz for a 20% overclock with my 3000+
I imagine you would get even higher with a fully functional PCI lock in addition to the working agp lock.
I remember I got excellent advice from you in "my upgrade" thread. You also know why I chose the P4; if the A-64 3000+ was a bit cheaper, I would be running an AMD system similar to yours right now.
Anyway, I think "1 year" is really (really) optimistic . . . I am betting on 2 years before 64 bit becomes more mainstream . . .
(by then Intel will have enabled 64bit on their own CPUs . . . and the beat goes on . . . and on . . . )
edit: The only thing i am pointing out is that intel does also - in certain specialized cases - offer excellent value more-or-less-equal to AMDs. . . .
. . . i owned several Intel systems that were superb bang for the buck - ALL o/c'd at least 20%: 333 Celeron; 600e Coppermine P3, 1.2Ghz Tualatin Celeron and now the 2.80c P4 . . .
However, without any doubt, AMD has a lock on the low-end price-performance; unfortunately the (incorrect) PERCEPTION is that the Celeron does.
... hardware forums are full of the sort of "personalities" who will come up with all sorts of justifications (true facts, twisted facts, selective choice of facts, pure inventions [lies to others - or to self]) for what they have bought, or what they are a fan/fanboy of.Originally posted by: ZippyDan
to sum this up quickly and nicely
This is not limited to hardware forums, people do it all the time to justify decisions they have made. The more important they think the decision might have been, or the more they think it might be telling someone about them, the more inclined they will be to do it.
This is why you can always see a high degree of statements involving true facts, twisted facts, selective choice of facts and pure inventions on all threads which compare intel vs amd, nvidia vs ati, Apple vs PC, Windows vs Linux; to a lesser extent WD vs maxtor vs seagate, SCSI vs PATA/SATA, blah blah blah. Be aware often people are only partially aware they are doing it.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
What AMD has:
Flashy 64 bit tech
Good rep amongst techy people
Cheaper prices (generally)
Better low end processor
Great game benchmarks
What INTEL has:
Nice logo
Cool names (pentium sounds better for some reason)
Brainwashing adverts
Good rep amonst big corporate type people
Flashy Hyper threading tech
Here you wont see many big corporate type people about because theyre busy bashing in smaller buisnesses and they dont game much. They also want a company that will give them support for years to come so they buy from intel the biggest company and the one thats more likely to be around for longest despite AMD is doing rather well. Whereas people here do game and take note of bang for buck and benchmarks so AMD is reccomended more often then intel here
my two cents
Flashy 64 bit tech
Good rep amongst techy people
Cheaper prices (generally)
Better low end processor
Great game benchmarks
What INTEL has:
Nice logo
Cool names (pentium sounds better for some reason)
Brainwashing adverts
Good rep amonst big corporate type people
Flashy Hyper threading tech
Here you wont see many big corporate type people about because theyre busy bashing in smaller buisnesses and they dont game much. They also want a company that will give them support for years to come so they buy from intel the biggest company and the one thats more likely to be around for longest despite AMD is doing rather well. Whereas people here do game and take note of bang for buck and benchmarks so AMD is reccomended more often then intel here
my two cents
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,039
- 32,524
- 146
Dell does not use AMD and they sell millions of PC's. Thats a lot of people who do not pick AMD over Intel
Many considerations come into play when I choose: Bang for buck being the greatest but not only factor. Also important are FPU performance (I do quite a bit of 3D graphics in my spare time), encoding performance and games.
In the pre-Athlon days the FPU performance criteria was always the one that killed AMD on my wishlists and hence was with an Intel PII / PIII setup for my main rig. The K6 was so slow at 3D rendering that it wasn't even a contender. My dad on the other hand with his simple office and internet tasks was fitted out with a K6-2... a nice system, when it actually worked. Me being spoilt on an an Asus i440BX board having to deal with a bug-infested ALI board was very depressing and furthered my low esteem of AMD at the time.
When it came time to upgrade the PIII-1GHZ I considered going Intel for a while but I had built up a few AMD systems over time and seen first hand how stable they had become since the K6 days. So for the tasks that I require, an Athlon XP was a good fit and cheap aswell. Hence the XP2200 running in my box right now.
My brother wanted a gaming rig with maximum performance for his money... he ended up with a Barton 2500+ with a Radeon9800. Can't get much better than that on a budget and it was cheap enough to buy a nice TFT instead of a CRT screen if he had gone Intel.
But Intel still has its uses. Me and my uncle built up a joint rig for us to do video editing on, there's a P4 at the heart of that machine as media encoding is what the P4 does best, price was secondary when we had to choose AMD/Intel for this box. And if I ever do get a Laptop this year it will most certainly have a Pentium M under the hood, for me battery time is essential - in my mind there wouldn't be much point in a laptop otherwise.
Both companies have their uses, you have to decide which advantages/features oughtweigh the price difference when deciding. At least in the case of P4 vs. A-XP. A64 vs. P4 is of course a no brainer: A64 all the way
In the pre-Athlon days the FPU performance criteria was always the one that killed AMD on my wishlists and hence was with an Intel PII / PIII setup for my main rig. The K6 was so slow at 3D rendering that it wasn't even a contender. My dad on the other hand with his simple office and internet tasks was fitted out with a K6-2... a nice system, when it actually worked. Me being spoilt on an an Asus i440BX board having to deal with a bug-infested ALI board was very depressing and furthered my low esteem of AMD at the time.
When it came time to upgrade the PIII-1GHZ I considered going Intel for a while but I had built up a few AMD systems over time and seen first hand how stable they had become since the K6 days. So for the tasks that I require, an Athlon XP was a good fit and cheap aswell. Hence the XP2200 running in my box right now.
My brother wanted a gaming rig with maximum performance for his money... he ended up with a Barton 2500+ with a Radeon9800. Can't get much better than that on a budget and it was cheap enough to buy a nice TFT instead of a CRT screen if he had gone Intel.
But Intel still has its uses. Me and my uncle built up a joint rig for us to do video editing on, there's a P4 at the heart of that machine as media encoding is what the P4 does best, price was secondary when we had to choose AMD/Intel for this box. And if I ever do get a Laptop this year it will most certainly have a Pentium M under the hood, for me battery time is essential - in my mind there wouldn't be much point in a laptop otherwise.
Both companies have their uses, you have to decide which advantages/features oughtweigh the price difference when deciding. At least in the case of P4 vs. A-XP. A64 vs. P4 is of course a no brainer: A64 all the way
I like to buy highend stuff, i don't deal with mid range and low end.
I am educated have a good job, and i like to buy good stuff. I always choose the highend, for everything that i buy..car, stereo, house etc.
Not all educated people with choose AMD!!
I am educated have a good job, and i like to buy good stuff. I always choose the highend, for everything that i buy..car, stereo, house etc.
Not all educated people with choose AMD!!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter