The PR rating is by no means worthless. Officially, AMD says it rates the processsors performance as scaling from the the Thunderbird Athlon. The 1600+ is similar performance to an nonexistant 1.6 Ghz T-bird, 2200+ a 2.2 Ghz. Unofficially, the number match up closely with a P4 similarly titled.
I have no idea what you are refering to as scams. Its possible you are refering to the performance of the K5/K6/-2/-3 relative to their Intel counterparts. That was AMD firmly in the budget market with a slightly inferior product, I fail to see the scam angle. It is also possible you are refering to the PR rating as a scam. I explained that above.
Your rather tenous analogy between an Intel monopoly and the Microsoft monopoly is laughable at best. Do a tiny bit of research into AMD's market share. There is no equivalent in OS arena.
Celerons are a budget part. What do you expect? Isn't it a rather obvious conclusion that a budget part wouldn't perform as well as a high-end part?
The price-performance ratio winner varies from price point to price point, though AMD tends to lead more often.
The relative noise of a Gateway versus any other system is pointless. Gateway doesn't ventilate their systems well, thats why they are quiet.
At this point I tire of responding to each point individually. Considering the sum of your experience is TWO retail machines, rather crappy ones at that, you have no real basis for any comprehensive comparision between AMD and Intel.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks