XP 2000+ by the end of the year...

[Mats]

AMD CEO Jerry Sanders said during his Tuesday presentation that AMD is taking a more holistic view, also taking price into account. Asked why the new chip wasn't dubbed Athlon XP 2000+, Sanders responded: "The answer is because the value proposition we're bringing to the market is up to 25 percent higher performance for the same price."

He added that AMD would offer a "Model 2000 this year after the Christmas selling season."

Taken from zdnet for those of you that don't know already.

😀

 

[Jerboy]

Whats the need for all the speed? I bet 1GHz Athlon would suffice the need of most users out there. Its getting pretty boring. I don't really see anything particularly new other than tweaked, faster version of older products doing more or less the same thing.

 

[Mats]

If you're an enthusiast looking to buy a new PC you might find this information useful. [sarcasm]Because then you'll want to wait until the end of the year to buy a new PC :Q.[/sarcasm]

Besides, I think XP 2000+ is good news don't you...

 

[JackBurton]

<< Whats the need for all the speed? I bet 1GHz Athlon would suffice the need of most users out there. Its getting pretty boring. I don't really see anything particularly new other than tweaked, faster version of older products doing more or less the same thing. >>


Uhh dude, I can ALWAYS use a faster CPU. Try doing some DivX encoding and you'll see what I mean. 😉

 

[AMDPwred]

Sweet! I think the XP 2000+ will be my next CPU😀

 

[Jerboy]

<<

<< Whats the need for all the speed? I bet 1GHz Athlon would suffice the need of most users out there. Its getting pretty boring. I don't really see anything particularly new other than tweaked, faster version of older products doing more or less the same thing. >>


Uhh dude, I can ALWAYS use a faster CPU. Try doing some DivX encoding and you'll see what I mean. 😉 >>



But if you're doing some serious encoding you wouldn't be using a 32bit x86 compatible CISC CPU.

 

[mchammer187]

<<

<<

<< Whats the need for all the speed? I bet 1GHz Athlon would suffice the need of most users out there. Its getting pretty boring. I don't really see anything particularly new other than tweaked, faster version of older products doing more or less the same thing. >>

Uhh dude, I can ALWAYS use a faster CPU. Try doing some DivX encoding and you'll see what I mean. 😉 >>

But if you're doing some serious encoding you wouldn't be using a 32bit x86 compatible CISC CPU. >>



your right why dont i buy myself an ULTRASPARC III/ALPHA/ITANIUM machine that will definitely be my next upgrade

better yet why not build all 3!

 

[Theslowone]

I for one love seeing the advances, how small they may be. Everyone may not need over a 1ghz but it is good seeing technology move a head.

 

[apoppin]

We are computer enthusiasts.

The buying public is obviously bored with these "advances'. The excitement was gone pretty much after the 1Ghz barrier was broken. You want proof? . . . computer sales are way down.

Now if there were new advances to take advantage of these hardware improvements - i.e. games that blow your socks off in realism; speech recognition software that really works - we'd see interest pick way up.

I see threads asking "what games do i get to show off my XP1800+ & GF3/Radeon 8500?". Answer: there really aren't any.

For most people there is NO REASON to upgrade that 500Mhz processor. I just upped my 800Mhz P3 to a 1.2Ghz Celeron-II although I certainly didn't NEED to do so. Max Payne and all the games I have play fine on my current Radeon 64 DDR. (In fact, I can't even seey ANY reason to upgrade my video card yet.)

 

[flexy]

<< Whats the need for all the speed? I bet 1GHz Athlon would suffice the need of most users out there. >>



no 🙂