Intel Builds Atom CPU For $8, Sells It For Up To $135

[shoggoth]

Please. Initial pricing has to cover development costs.

[stefcep2]

Amithony wrote:

tokyoracer wrote:
Simple answer, go AMD.

I would advise against it. The Athlons I have had experience with have been unreliable at best. Although once you get a good cooling system, it seems to go ok. Much more high maintenance in my opinion.

Just get a PPC and a playstation if you want the latest games

I built my current AMD X2 4800+ about 1 year ago, not a single crash on winxppro.  Its plenty fast for what i need to do and an equivalent Intel system would cost about 35% more.  Just built a media center PC same cpu  with two hd tv tuners and a graphics card that outputs hdmi using mediaportal...for $450: I can record/burn free to air, store my favourite dvd's cd's, setup Nintendo64, SNES NES, PSone Mame Winuae emualtors to play games.  Would I have been able to do this if there was no AMD, for that price?  Support the underdog otherwise you watch you'll be paying three g's for a PC, it wasn't that long ago that we did...

[Sig999]

Only prob I had with one of my AMD's was during a 115 degree summer when the AC went out while I was at work, and the PC was on. That was.... 4 years ago - and basically my bad.

Then again - last time I went Intel, and haven't had issues with it either... Admittedly I now 'go big' when it comes to cooling units too due to the Nevada summers.

As for which I go with?  Easy - whoever gives me the most bang for buck gets my biz.  I've become mercenary like that when it comes to PC's - When it comes to 'feel good vibes', I save them for folks still doing stuff with this platform - there's not enough to go around now that I'm older, jaded, and cynical.

[Xamiche]

You can't go wrong with the Intel Core 2 Extreme at the moment. It's benchmarking higher than the AMD quad cores for the now. I think AMD still have yet to enter the whole quad core arena with a competitive CPU.

[spihunter]

You guys,

This Intel -VS- AMD stuff is about as boring and pointless as it gets. There all x86 x64 processors. They all do the same thing. Saying one is more reliable then the other is total bull. Maybe you didnt put the fan or heatsink on properly?

ATI -VS- Nividia arguments are just as irritating.

[Xamiche]

spihunter wrote:
You guys,

This Intel -VS- AMD stuff is about as boring and pointless as it gets. There all x86 x64 processors. They all do the same thing. Saying one is more reliable then the other is total bull. Maybe you didnt put the fan or heatsink on properly?

ATI -VS- Nividia arguments are just as irritating.

So don't read them. :lol:
Let us lesser mortals go on our deluded and uneducated way, and continue to argue pointless things. Since you're obviously more enlightened than us, you really don't need to worry about it.  :-P

[spihunter]

@Xamiche,


You got that right!. I dont even know why I joined in.
argue on PC drones!
 :lol:

[Xamiche]

spihunter wrote:
@Xamiche,


You got that right!. I dont even know why I joined in.
argue on PC drones!
 :lol:

Thank you. Now you're done looking down your nose at us we can get back to what we were doing.
;-)

I'm pretty much a dedicated Intel customer. I bit like back in the late 80s and early 90s, I was a dedicated Commodore customer. I know AMD at times have had better chips. I bit like Atari or Apple at times had better computers than Commodore, but I tend to be loyal to a company. I like to give them my business in the hopes that they will continue growing and produce better products. Well, I guess in the case of Commodore that philosophy didn't quite work out :lol: But still, here I am loving Commodore machines and playing games on them. :-D

[koaftder]

Lets not forget the billion dollar fab plants they have to build every few years and boatloads of employees that have to be paid.