Giancarlo said:
I don't have a politics teacher. Nice try really. You should come to reality for a change instead of being a complete fool. Thanks.
Haha; you're doing Politics at University? How don't you have a Politics Teacher to teach you University Politics?
Giancarlo said:
Overstatements. Intel has never been overclocked that high from what I know. AMD is faster because it is based on 64-bit architecture and newer technology, unique to AMD. You are just acting stupid and playing stupid. And since my AMD Athlon 3000+ (OCed to 3200+ levels) can perform better then a 3.2GHz P4 there should be some reason of concern for you deluded intel users.
Not really, an Overclocked AMD 3000+ to 3200+ levels is a 3200+, and as your performance levels are quite possibly based on Gaming Performace, I could have told you it would beat it. An real 3000+ however would not beat a 3.2 if that is the insinuation you are trying to make.
Giancarlo said:
Anti-capitalist? How can anybody anti-capitalist? Get off the damn computer if you are a anti-capitalist and go live in a cave. If not, you're a plain @$$ hypocrite. And you aren't a democratic extremist. You don't believe in capitalism, therefore you don't believe in democracy.
Why is Capitalism any part of Democracy? Democracy is simple freedoms to do things, speach, protest, education, that sort of stuff. Capitalism does not have to be there for people to have Democracy. In fact - it inhibits Democracy because it locks people into a Money grabbing deceit circle or corruption and evil.
Giancarlo said:
Intel is behind in market terms and most investors and market speculators such as myself take it as that. I do not see great potential in Intel in this year and do not see any recovery in the immediate future. As far as I'm concerned, you will continue making deluded statements and Intel will continue to follow a highly ill-informed market strategy. What is at stake here is this: Who is better? AMD is definitely better and will retain that title in 2005 and beyond.
Its something that neither of us will agree on until this time 2006; then we will know.
Giancarlo said:
Yes most of the stuff is 32-bit. However since AMD 64s can perform better at typical operations including integers, Intel is quite screwed.
Better, but not as good as it could with a 64-bit Operating System, a 64-bit Browser, a 64-bit Game, and so on. When Intel 64-bits are out; the Market will be ready for it and it will work better for the extra time they have had thinking about it. AMD jumped into 64-bit before it was worth it merely to get into a new market because they wanted to begin beating Intel. Whatever you say basically, before about September, maybe August 2003 there was no discussion largely about which Processor was superior. It was a commonly held knowledge - the only discourse about AMD was the better price. The AMD decision for 64-bits was stupid, I think, because it has put their Research two years behind what Intel will have in 64-bits; especially from the Itanium knowledge they've grown up with HP. Whether or whether not the Cache is below par; the 64-bit architecture helped greatly by HP's involvement in the design process will make the final Intel 64-bit Processors great.
You can say AMD64s are better than Intel P4 HTs; but for 32-bit chips the P4 HTs do brilliantly well. That isn't consilation in the amrket today - but if Intel 32-bit Chips still beat AMD 64-bit chips in 20, 30% of tests; the EE more; then how is there any doubt it your mind when Intel have 64-bit Processors that they could possibily be as bad against them? It is a technical impossibility for it.
Giancarlo said:
It isn't an opinion, it is fact. You're a moron as usual.
It is actually opinion - it cannot be fact until it has happened. Until you have a time machine stuck into one of the funky little sportscars you like and go forward to see the release then you will not know the fact.