according to a review i saw on anandtech, the athlons were a tad faster,
except when serving databases, which the pentium excelled at. i would
reccomend athlons over pentiums any day of the week. when building
omputers, my clients get AMD over intel, unless they request intel.
AMD's cheaper too.
check out the review if you can find it, cuz i don't remember where it
was on anand's page. i think the review was of :
2 athlon 1.4ghz
2 p-4 2.1ghz
some various durons and p-3's.
On Mon, 2002-01-07 at 11:20, Linux Rocks ! wrote:
> So... which cranks out more packets? intel p4 2.2ghz or amd 1.6 ghz?
>
> Jamie
>
> On Monday 07 January 2002 10:25, you wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-01-07 at 10:23, Bob Miller wrote:
> > > No, wait, that was the wrong question. Ask this instead.
> > >
> > > "Anybody want to chip in to buy KBob another dual Athlon box?"
> >
> > i was going to make some snide comment about "can anybody _afford_ to
> > catch up to kBob", but he did it himself.
> >
> > apparently, no computing power is wasted around kBob...
>
