It is ahead of the software curve right now, Bill. You would be paying
for performance you can not yet use. Wait another year, software will
catch up, and prices will go down. Then send me the Athlon 3200+ (grin).
I am using an Athlon 900 (although that is clock speed and not
advertising speed) that is getting a bit long in the tooth.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Francis"
Subject: Re: Full Frame
I think even those days are coming to an end. I used to upgrade our
home
PCs every 18 months to two years (staggered, so the older machine
could be
as much as four years old by the time it got replaced), but there's
no real
pressure to replace two-year-old hardware nowadays. Our main home
machine
is a 2.8GHz P4 (with 1GB of memory), and it is still easily fast
enough for
anything. My (work-supplied) notebook is over two years old
(2.4G/512MB),
and still seems more than capable (although, admittedly, it did just get
a disk upgrade, at a price which would pay for a low-end home PC).
I've been considering one more upgrade for a machine which would be
used primarily for image editing (I may be a while before I get back
into the darkroom), and am considering one of the AMD 64 bit dual core
processors.
Is this going to net me a performance improvement over my Athlon
3200+, all else being equal or somewhat better?
Thanks
William Robb
