For CPU's which consumers may actually purchase see this article http://www.legitreviews.com/article/490/1/ , the 5600+ at the same price point (with mobo) as the E6300 does better, and where it does worse it loses by 1 or 2 points (5%).
That's an AMD fanboy article that very much misleads the current state of affairs.
That review addresses prices FOLLOWING the AMD cuts, but BEFORE the subsequent Intel cuts (which occurred like 1 or 2 weeks after).
A fair test would price comparisons either before or after cuts for _both_ manufacturers.
Hell, the article itself has an update at the bottom that says the comparison should have been done against an E6420
The AK47 is also heavier which is really nice when you get into hand-to-hand combat and you can just whack the other guy with it.
I hope that was meant as a joke. Because weight is never a good thing in military equipment. The deleterious effects of excess weight on the troops considerably outweigh any "whacking" advantage.
You're correct, they aren't dumbing down the program. They're dumbing down the entrance criteria. "Broad interests", "Diverse perspectives", "Future leaders"? HA, that's school-speak for "lots of extracurricular activities". So having a computer background, programming experience, and interest in the field no longer works in your favor. But being a "diverse person", perhaps through participation in the french club, band, and the student government suddenly makes you an ideal candidate? Pish.
Because of the negative discrimination that is artificially limiting the number of women in the field in the first place. Discrimination in the form of men assuming that women "don't want to enroll", simply because they're women and thus less interested in our manly computer engineering/sciences.
Look at this thread. I guarantee (in part because a lot has already shown up) that you'll see men in computer fields stating as fact that women don't really want to be in computer science. You'll see them state as fact that women aren't as good in computers as men. That it's an obvious "natural difference" that means that there really shouldn't be as many women in CS, only those rare few that have what it takes to match up with the men, and thus recruiting more is futile or even counter-productive. And then they'll say that all this proves that there isn't any discrimination against women in CS. Despite the fact that the real reason there are few women in CS -- men in the field discriminating against women -- is put blatantly before them every time they look in the mirror.
It's the same thing that went on in the 70s and 80s with women in the fields of law, business, and medicine. Fields dominated by men, and those men said that clearly women neither wanted nor were capable of succeeding in these fields, and hence would continue to be minorities. Well time passed and the women proved both that they wanted to and that they could, and you'd look like an archaic dinosaur with severe damage to the tact centers of the brain if you said otherwise. Computers, a field that has been dominated by a particularly anti-social breed of men even more prone to insulation than lawyers or MBAS, is the next stop. Encouraging women, letting them know that there are people in the field who welcome them, that the ones telling them what they want to do with their own lives are dinosaurs on the way out, that's helpful.
It may be that once we have gotten rid of all the sex discrimination in the computer field that there will still be fewer women in the field. It may be that there is in fact natural tendency that affects the ratio of men vs women. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that if you think that we are at that point, today, where sex discrimination doesn't exist? Then you're 1) male and 2) delusional.
Uh, wow.
If you replace "computer science" in that paragraph with "fashion design" and "women" with "men", you prove the previous poster's point exactly.
If there's any sort of "self-enforcing discrimination" going on, it's happening on BOTH sides of the spectrum...why isolate this incident?
There's just as much social stigma working against your average guy becoming a fashion guru, or a nurse, or any number of jobs deemed "feminine" by society.
On top of that, guys are forced to put up with a bunch of discrimination nazis that see unfairness everywhere, resulting in quotas and unfair hiring practices, reverse discrimination by schools, among other undesirable practices.
But do guys make a big public stink about the reverse discrimination? Well, maybe on Slashdot, but not in practice. We realize that's life and we deal. Society doesn't owe us JACK.
CREATING more discrimination is not a solution to discrimination.
This article is nitpickery at its finest. Women have every opportunity to be in the CS field...in fact, they'd likely get favored BOTH in school AND by a job interviewer simply because they're a minority in the field. And yet you're still gonna bitch because society places some sort of stigma on the job? Well, boohoo...I don't hear you crying for male nurses. It should also be added that these social stigmas are QUICKLY overcome by reputation through proven ability. Someone might be underestimated off the bat, but as soon as they exhibit the necessary skills, they are respected. You act as if this "outcast" label is some permanent thing that cannot be overcome, or that respect should come automatically instead of being earned.
Lack of interest is limiting females in the field of computers, not discrimination. And if you don't think that's true, you're probably BOTH female AND delusional.
Meanwhile, public schools suck. There is no discipline and if a kid falls behind, they get left there. The kids that "get it" have to sit there and wait while the teacher has to explain it over and over to the kids that don't understand or don't care. Teachers have no choice but to teach to the lowest common denominator in every class, ensuring the entire class learns at the pace of the slowest minds.
First of all, you appear to contradict yourself. "If a kid falls behind, they get left there" implies that the classes are moving at the speed of the smarter people and that the teachers aren't bothering to pander to the "lowest common denominator".
Secondly, this is by far not restricted to public schooling. I had the exact same experience with my significantly expensive private schooling in high school. And my parents were far from rich. They struggled to put me through an expensive high school and didn't have the money to put me through college. So after paying for private college by myself, I'm now in the job market, laden with debt, making the same salary as people that had roughly equivalent educations at cheaper (or free) public schools.
So no, this isn't a public school problem. In fact, I'd claim they're better off than people who drive themselves into debt to go to "name colleges"
When we hear someone say "I don't believe in ghosts|reincarnation|ESP|alien abduction|bigfoot," we know darned good and well that they aren't saying, "I know everything, and I can conclusively say that these things do not exist anywhere in the universe." We KNOW they aren't laying claims to omniscience. We KNOW what they're saying is "I don't see any credible reason to believe in any of these things." I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.
I beg to differ...if someone asks me if I believe in aliens or ghosts or something that i'm still on the fence about, I say exactly that..."I'm not sure, i don't know, maybe, perhaps". A definitive IS a definitive, despite the fact you appear to want to pretend it is not.
It's like being asked a direct question about something you have no prior knowledge for and replying as if you do.
For example, say your mom buys a lotto ticket...the results come out, but you haven't spoken to her yet. And a friend of yours asks you, "Hey, did your mom win the lotto?" The honest answer here is "I don't know".
However, based on your logic, you should answer "No" simply because the odds of her winning were so slim in the first place and there's no proof either way
You using juvenile and absurd arguments doesn't make me arrogant, sorry. I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe in Santa or faeries, or Thor or Shiva.
It's funny that you talk about absurd arguments and then go ahead and use them yourself. Many people happen to see more "fact" in God's existence than faeries/Santa. Hell, the fact that a large majority of the world believes in a God on some form or another is a pretty huge selling point alone. Add to that religious texts, miracles, historical records, etc...Santa and God are HARDLY on the same level of "believability"
When people ask if I believe in Santa, I say "Of course not", because I believe there's enough proof out there for me to make that claim.
For other things, it's not always that cut and dry. Agnostics aren't fence sitters...they're merely people who see more proof in the possibility of God than the atheists do. An atheist compares God to a Flying Spaghetti Monster where an Agnostic puts god more on par with Aliens and UFOs.
I don't claim to know everything, but I can say "I don't believe in God" without magically becoming arrogant and closed-minded
That's entirely correct. And the agnostics can just as easily say "we're not sure", and shouldn't be belittled for it.
Why are you questioning your unbelief in God, but not your unbelief in Fairies? Both have just as little proof of their existence.
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What of the millions of believers out there? All the historical texts? Miracles? Etc etc...
If you had said "UFOs" or "Aliens", instead of obviously fictional things like FSM and Fairies, your little metaphor there might have had some legs.
"God" may not be "proven", but there's a HELL of alot more data out there to sway belief in God than there is for the other things you so chose.
An Agnostic stance on God is similar to an skeptical stance on time travel, or aliens, or faster-than-light-speed...all "way-out-there ideas" with no real factual proof, but alot of "what-ifs" and "maybes"...it isn't "fence pole sitting", it's skepticism. Or do you see everything in black and white? Every answer has a "yes" or "no" for you? No "perhaps", "maybe", and "possibly"? If so, I find that very sad. I've never really understood this unhealthy obsession atheists have with attacking agnostics, belittling them as if they're braindead retards or something. They are NOT confused about their beliefs.
Regardless of what the FCC pronounces from on high, there will be only one satellite radio provider within a couple of years. Market forces currently dictate that both companies cannot continue to bleed money at the rate they are doing and have any hope of long-term survival.
Really? Did you forget cases like Amazon? How long were they debt-laden and bleeding cash before they finally started succeeding? And they didn't have the kind of growth rate satellite radio has.
Annual revenue at BOTH companies is doubling, tripling, and sometimes even quadrupling year-over-year. On top of that, operating expenses in the satellite biz are somewhat a sunk cost...your expenses don't really go up as your subscriber count does. There's plenty of room for two companies in satellite radio. Satellite radio is just BEGINNING its "well-known" phase...I think I've seen my first satellite radio tv commercials within the past few months actually. Not to mention all the intensive pushes at retail joints and car company packages.
I mean, both Sirius and XMjust hit cash flow break even. I see no signs of the satellite radio market slowing down...do you?
Intels market share getting bigger, and the near monopoly getting stronger.
Hahahaha. Surely you jest. Intel's market share has PLUMMETED in the past 2 years (take a peek at the stock price if you want to see what investors have thought of Intel in that time).
In fact, this is probably the first year they have even taken AMD serious as a competitor.
AMD has made inroads into _many_ crucial retailers that were once "Intel-only", such as Dell.
"Monopoly" is no longer even in the cards. Intel has maybe 75% of the market, and AMD still leads in many ways.
Intel has to engage in a _brutal_ price war that is slashing margins across the board to stay competitive.
Do some research before you spout off nonsense next time.
I agree that competition is good for the consumer, but I have to wonder what the effect will really be on their AMD servers. In the server biz, there's a LOT more to it than today's CPU-intensive benchmarks. The other big thing is IO bandwidth, and this is where AMD has been far more competitive than Intel is. AMD appears to be able to continue this lead, based on both companies claimed roadmaps, the last time I looked.
In the short-term, perhaps. However, Intel has roadmapped CSI (Tukwila), which is their answer to Hypertransport. It's due out in 2008-2009. Right now the bandwidth limitations aren't exactly hitting saturation. Intel has been expanding cache to offset the bandwidth shortage. Atm, they seem about neck-and-neck from a server chip standpoint. AMD has a slight memory/bus edge, whereas Intel leads in all other ways. The question is whether or not CSI will come in time. Personally, I think AMD will regain and hold the server lead sometime near mid or late 2007, but Intel will likely pick it back up with CSI.
In short, I find this particular move puzzling. Sun has traditionally backed the best performance design, and I see Intel still lagging here overall.
But that's just it...they aren't lagging. Or rather they're BOTH lagging. Intel has a better performance design in some aspects, like performance/watt. AMD has it in others.
Final Fantasy XII (PS2) - Finally, a fine Final Fantasy game that ditches the annoying ATB system
Blech, ATB was a step in the wrong direction. The NEW system is the conclusion of that direction, which is still wrong. Final Fantasy _always_ was a TURN-BASED GAME...anything making it more "active time/interactive" makes it a different game entirely. The good Final Fantasies ended at 7 when they started mucking with the formula too much. At this point, they shouldn't even call it Final Fantasy. Dragon Quest is the "new" Final Fantasy. All the good RPGs are mostly confined to the Nintendo DS now.
Frankly, I'm surprised you aren't dissing Dreamfall for being "more of the same"...people don't try to muck with the adventure genre...it for the most part has not changed it's base mechanics. I expect in due time we'll be seeing "active time" systems there as well. Oblivion is another example of "more of the same"...why don't you complain about that? You demand some exotic, complex, extreme change of game mechanics for Zelda and Final Fantasy, but other games that just re-hash the same game dynamics with a new story and better graphics you have no beef with? What's the deal?
I'd agree with you partially, slow drivers getting in the way is a major cause here. But I'd suggest that it's usually actually the person in the expensive powerful car being impatient that causes the major tail backs.
Here in Britain, I drive a small Skoda, it doesn't go too fast, but it's certainly no snail (it can do well over 100 if I really wanted to). I tend to drive down motorways at 75 or 80 mph (very naughty, I know, the speed limit is 70). The thing that I observe most often is that if I pull out to overtake some slower moving traffic (a lorry, or someone doing 70), there's usually some ass hole in a beemer, a merc or an audi comes roaring up behind me at 100mph, slams on the breaks because he realises a bit too late that there's someone driving at a sane speed, and then proceeds to tail you 5m from your bumper until you deign to move over and let the selfish twat past.
Well, that poses the question: at what speed are you "overtaking some slower moving traffic"? Passing a huge row of 20 back-to-back cars at ~1 mph differential in speed is most certainly not acceptable, and would seriously cheese me off if I was the guy behind you. Because in that case, YOU are the selfish twat taking 15 minutes to pass at your selfish speed instead of either staying in the lane you're in and traveling ever so slightly than you'd like to, or speeding up to a reasonable passing speed.
I've seen people (down the road in the distance) in the second-to-left lane cruise behind another car for about a mile. I'll either be approaching in the passing lane (or I'll have recently moved into the passing lane to pass both of them) at a speed _considerably_ higher than theirs (say 10-15 mph), and as SOON as I'm about the pass them, THAT is when they decide they want to pass the guy they've been following closely for the past few minutes. So they essentially cut me off and then proceed to pass at a super slow speed.
Frankly, if one bout of "passing" takes longer than a few minutes (and road conditions aren't gridlocked), you're passing too slowly and obstructing traffic.
If you do not fit this description, good for you! Otherwise, take into account the amount of time it takes for you to pass in traffic and keep in mind that a slow-moving obstruction can be just as much a traffic jam causer as a non-moving obstruction.
Man, the absolute worst are the ones that don't move at all. They sit there in the passing lane and match speed with the driver next to them. Or they vary wildly between accelerating and decelerating, but never enough to leave a passing gap (but varying just enough to fuck over anyone travelling on cruise control). Honestly, what the hell are people thinking? That they're the only ones on the road? Self-righteous pricks.
In my experiences, the "road manners" of speeders has vastly outpaced that of slower drivers, many of which seem to think the entire road should simply bend to their will.
And of course, you'll pay more for DLP -- with the better picture, they do charge a premium and no one really has too much to say about it.
Prices seem to be settling at about $3000 for a 1080p system in the coming year;
I don't know if you're talking about MSRP, but as far as actual prices, you're WAYYY off the mark.
There are routine deals on the Samsung 61 inch 1080P DLP TV (HLS6187W) on Amazon for anywhere between $1800 and $2000 w/ Free Shipping...hell, right now it's going for $2100, and that's without a sale
Keep an eye on Fatwallet if you want to spot them.
The 56 inch 1080p you can get for even less ($1600).
No, AMD have a range of CPUs that lose in terms of performance only, however AMD's prices have been adjusted so they aren't losing in terms of performance/price. Barely, admittedly.
And in terms of price only, AMD are winning there. The cheapest Core 2 Duo, the E6300, is $180. The X2 3800+ is $150.
These statements seem contradictory. For AMD to be keeping up in price/performance, that would mean the X2 3800+ would have to be 83% as fast as the E6300 ($150 / $180). I know that isn't true, as the E6300 is keeping step with and frequently blowing away even the FX chips.
As far as the price point goes, you are correct there, but that's because Conroe-L isn't due out til the first half of next year. When that gets released, I'm not sure AMD will even have the "price only" victory to claim. We'll have to see what K8L's effect on AMD's prices are.
The point to make here isn't that "Intel only wins in cutting-edge/high-end". They've taken the crucial "mid-range/cost vs performance" lead. AMD wins only in "supreme budget" atm, and it may not even hold that. There's talks of a second round of 50% cost slashes on Pentium 4 and Pentium D in December/January.
Odds are very good that you will save $50+ going with AMD.
*lol* And you'd save even more money if you built a Pentium 2 or Thunderbird system.
I mean, honestly...at some point, this whole "bargain basement" view really has to go, especially when you start throwing around terms like "decent" and "mid-range"
A "fair" comparison would be a cost/performance comparison, and Intel wins hands down. That $50 you might save from going the AMD route is going to result in a machine that's probably half as fast and not even remotely upgradable (939 is already an obsolete socket with AM2 out).
Regardless, I still call foul. You compare the cost of DDR to DDR2. Why? Either compare Pentium D/DDR to 939/DDR or Core 2/DDR2 to AM2/DDR2. Otherwise, you're just forcing a different in cost due to generational gaps.
Additionally, you stack a mid-range Core 2 Duo against a mid-range X64, as if they're even remotely in the same performance category (umm, they're not).
So yes, when you stack up the slowest Core 2 Duo against it's closest AMD equivalent (namely, the fastest AMD chips), Intel wins on price. The motherboard costs are roughly comparable now. Core 2 Duo mobos might still have a slight premium still attached to it, but supplies are ramping up to the point where this is not the case anymore.
Despite having 40" of total space on one system, vs. only 24" on the other, I *still* prefer the single 24" display, all things considered.
You're somewhat misrepresenting the screen space available.
The number provided by the manufacturer is a measurement of the diagonal, not the area (which is obviously not in inches, but in square inches).
That means a direct calculation of combined screen space isn't as simple as simply multiplying 20 inches by 2.
Additionally, 24 inche monitors are capable of higher resolutions, which throws a wrench into things when computing viewable area.
So your advice is to be somebody else entirely in an attempt to please someone? That's the foundation of a healthy relationship if I ever saw one.
Well technically you only have to be somebody else for the first few months of a relationship. Then, you can start phasing the "real you" back into the picture and see if things hold up. That's how relationships work. They start completely fake (first impression), go through a semi-fake segment (early romance "can do no wrong" period), and then eventually venture into an honest phase. Sad, but true state of the world. You don't get girls being honest or being yourself. You get them by "playing the game". Some people call it "exuding confidence", among other characteristics uncommon outside of jerks and players. At any rate, if you aren't a confident person naturally, you're totally going to have to fake it. Not surprising at all, these superficial traits matter less at later stages in a relationship.
If Intel lowers the cost on these chips and AMD stays where they are Intel will really have a lead.
They already have the lead. Intel has priced its chips correctly. The current cost inflation is the market (not Intel) pricing the chips (supply/demand). As soon as the supply issues get sorted out a month or two from now, you'll see the actual prices in play.
However, Once you add the and chips and boards to the basket (by new egg prices) the Intel solution is easily $100-200 more expensive when comparing equivalent power (especially budget) processors.
That's your problem. You're trying to base a chip value comparison off of market prices.
That's not accurate (unless you're only judging the immediate short-term). AMD's chips are already saturated in the market. Core 2 has only been out a month. You haven't seen true saturation yet. The market will continue to price Core 2 chips AND motherboards cheaper and cheaper as supply begins to ramp up (see the charts for yourself). I doubt you're going to see AMD chips react accordingly. In fact, in many cases, I see retail prices for AMD chips actually escalating. Perhaps AMD supply is wearing thin and can't keep up with demand.
Intel will have to be better, cheaper and keep the edge for quite some time before I jump ship.
Give it a few more months. By the end of the year, I'm sure the Core 2 supply problems in both chips and boards will be hammered out. Then you'll see a true price comparison. I promise Intel will be ahead.
Pentium 4s are also expected to take another 50% slashing in January.
Pentium D is already ridiculously cheap. In fact, I think the cheapest dual-core chip out there right now (strictly budget speaking with performance not in mind at all) is the low-end Pentium D. And Intel hasn't even released their budget Core 2 chips yet (Core 2 Solo I think?).
In every case, the Intel processor more expensive than the AMD to which they compare it.
It's also worth noting that the cost of Core 2 Duos has been dropping (as Intel ramps up production to meet demand) while the cost of the AMD chips is largerely fixed or rising.
Other price tracking sites seem to confirm this: Intel vs AMD.
As AMD is _already_ severely beaten in price/performnce, this does not bode well for them.
When you're talking about upgrading, which the parent also mentioned, you're rarely upgrading things like the case, power supply, sound card, CD-ROMs/burners, etc...normally you're just looking at a video card and maybe a CPU upgrade in a 3-4 year span. That drops cost _alot_ for a PC upgrade. A console by nature requires you replace everything.
Your just over $500 (nearly $700 actually) comes with an nvidia 7300LE, which just wont cut it for game that are similar to xbox 360 generation. Your box upgraded to the 7900 would cost $200 more, nearing the $1000 price the parent stated.
No it doesn't.
If you configure as Video Ready without Monitor (which is fair, since you aren't counting the cost of a TV into the console price), that's -$200...the 7900 GS upgrgade is then +$200, which is a wash.
The price comes out to $729 with the Core 2 Duo.
It's $679 if you go with the Pentium D, which I think is _still_ fast enough to run all the games out there.
And that's all before Dell coupon codes, which tend to be very frequent. I see 10-20% off coupons all the time on dealcatcher.
Believe me, it's nowhere near the $1000 price point stated by the parent.
When you count console add-ins that are basically "must-buys" (like the overpriced controllers already mentioned), the price comparison is damn near equal, if not in the favor of PCs.
I'm also pretty sure I could find a cheaper example than the one stated as well. I just didn't spend much time looking.
A modern, well-equipped gaming PC will run you at the moment probably close to $1,000.
A modern console will average you about $500 with extra controllers and addon-bits (I'm averaging from the Wii to the PS3).
You claim to be a PC gamer and think $1000 is the starting point for a machine that plays games?
Full systems decked out with Core 2 Duos are selling at Dell right now for just over $500 that will play every game on the market right now at graphical settings that STILL beat consoles, AND they do a hell of alot more than play games.
On the flipside, consoles (which used to be in the sub-$200 category), are quickly approaching the $500++ range for just the BASE SYSTEM (see PS3). Then you need to buy extra controllers and all that other rubbish which is ridiculously overpriced (~$30 per controller?!?).
Consoles USED to be the cheaper option. Those days are long past.
If people put more money into their comp than I've already stated, it's because they want fancier graphics...ala F.E.A.R @ 1600 x 1200 w/ all graphicals goodies turned on. That stuff requires top dollar parts. To simply run the game at a respectable resolution (say 800 x 600) with medium to high graphical settings, comparable to what you might get from a console, does _not_ require such an investment.
Slashdot Mirror
That review addresses prices FOLLOWING the AMD cuts, but BEFORE the subsequent Intel cuts (which occurred like 1 or 2 weeks after).
A fair test would price comparisons either before or after cuts for _both_ manufacturers.
Hell, the article itself has an update at the bottom that says the comparison should have been done against an E6420
If you replace "computer science" in that paragraph with "fashion design" and "women" with "men", you prove the previous poster's point exactly.
If there's any sort of "self-enforcing discrimination" going on, it's happening on BOTH sides of the spectrum...why isolate this incident?
There's just as much social stigma working against your average guy becoming a fashion guru, or a nurse, or any number of jobs deemed "feminine" by society.
On top of that, guys are forced to put up with a bunch of discrimination nazis that see unfairness everywhere, resulting in quotas and unfair hiring practices, reverse discrimination by schools, among other undesirable practices.
But do guys make a big public stink about the reverse discrimination? Well, maybe on Slashdot, but not in practice. We realize that's life and we deal. Society doesn't owe us JACK.
CREATING more discrimination is not a solution to discrimination.
This article is nitpickery at its finest. Women have every opportunity to be in the CS field...in fact, they'd likely get favored BOTH in school AND by a job interviewer simply because they're a minority in the field. And yet you're still gonna bitch because society places some sort of stigma on the job? Well, boohoo...I don't hear you crying for male nurses. It should also be added that these social stigmas are QUICKLY overcome by reputation through proven ability. Someone might be underestimated off the bat, but as soon as they exhibit the necessary skills, they are respected. You act as if this "outcast" label is some permanent thing that cannot be overcome, or that respect should come automatically instead of being earned.
Lack of interest is limiting females in the field of computers, not discrimination. And if you don't think that's true, you're probably BOTH female AND delusional.
Secondly, this is by far not restricted to public schooling. I had the exact same experience with my significantly expensive private schooling in high school. And my parents were far from rich. They struggled to put me through an expensive high school and didn't have the money to put me through college. So after paying for private college by myself, I'm now in the job market, laden with debt, making the same salary as people that had roughly equivalent educations at cheaper (or free) public schools.
So no, this isn't a public school problem. In fact, I'd claim they're better off than people who drive themselves into debt to go to "name colleges"
A definitive IS a definitive, despite the fact you appear to want to pretend it is not.
It's like being asked a direct question about something you have no prior knowledge for and replying as if you do.
For example, say your mom buys a lotto ticket...the results come out, but you haven't spoken to her yet. And a friend of yours asks you, "Hey, did your mom win the lotto?" The honest answer here is "I don't know".
However, based on your logic, you should answer "No" simply because the odds of her winning were so slim in the first place and there's no proof either way
It's funny that you talk about absurd arguments and then go ahead and use them yourself. Many people happen to see more "fact" in God's existence than faeries/Santa. Hell, the fact that a large majority of the world believes in a God on some form or another is a pretty huge selling point alone. Add to that religious texts, miracles, historical records, etc...Santa and God are HARDLY on the same level of "believability"
When people ask if I believe in Santa, I say "Of course not", because I believe there's enough proof out there for me to make that claim.
For other things, it's not always that cut and dry. Agnostics aren't fence sitters...they're merely people who see more proof in the possibility of God than the atheists do. An atheist compares God to a Flying Spaghetti Monster where an Agnostic puts god more on par with Aliens and UFOs.
That's entirely correct. And the agnostics can just as easily say "we're not sure", and shouldn't be belittled for it.If you had said "UFOs" or "Aliens", instead of obviously fictional things like FSM and Fairies, your little metaphor there might have had some legs.
"God" may not be "proven", but there's a HELL of alot more data out there to sway belief in God than there is for the other things you so chose.
An Agnostic stance on God is similar to an skeptical stance on time travel, or aliens, or faster-than-light-speed...all "way-out-there ideas" with no real factual proof, but alot of "what-ifs" and "maybes"...it isn't "fence pole sitting", it's skepticism. Or do you see everything in black and white? Every answer has a "yes" or "no" for you? No "perhaps", "maybe", and "possibly"? If so, I find that very sad. I've never really understood this unhealthy obsession atheists have with attacking agnostics, belittling them as if they're braindead retards or something. They are NOT confused about their beliefs.
Annual revenue at BOTH companies is doubling, tripling, and sometimes even quadrupling year-over-year. On top of that, operating expenses in the satellite biz are somewhat a sunk cost...your expenses don't really go up as your subscriber count does. There's plenty of room for two companies in satellite radio. Satellite radio is just BEGINNING its "well-known" phase...I think I've seen my first satellite radio tv commercials within the past few months actually. Not to mention all the intensive pushes at retail joints and car company packages.
I mean, both Sirius and XM just hit cash flow break even. I see no signs of the satellite radio market slowing down...do you?
Hahahaha. Surely you jest. Intel's market share has PLUMMETED in the past 2 years (take a peek at the stock price if you want to see what investors have thought of Intel in that time).
In fact, this is probably the first year they have even taken AMD serious as a competitor.
AMD has made inroads into _many_ crucial retailers that were once "Intel-only", such as Dell.
"Monopoly" is no longer even in the cards. Intel has maybe 75% of the market, and AMD still leads in many ways.
Intel has to engage in a _brutal_ price war that is slashing margins across the board to stay competitive.
Do some research before you spout off nonsense next time.
In the short-term, perhaps. However, Intel has roadmapped CSI (Tukwila), which is their answer to Hypertransport. It's due out in 2008-2009. Right now the bandwidth limitations aren't exactly hitting saturation. Intel has been expanding cache to offset the bandwidth shortage. Atm, they seem about neck-and-neck from a server chip standpoint. AMD has a slight memory/bus edge, whereas Intel leads in all other ways. The question is whether or not CSI will come in time. Personally, I think AMD will regain and hold the server lead sometime near mid or late 2007, but Intel will likely pick it back up with CSI.
But that's just it...they aren't lagging. Or rather they're BOTH lagging. Intel has a better performance design in some aspects, like performance/watt. AMD has it in others.
Frankly, I'm surprised you aren't dissing Dreamfall for being "more of the same"...people don't try to muck with the adventure genre...it for the most part has not changed it's base mechanics. I expect in due time we'll be seeing "active time" systems there as well. Oblivion is another example of "more of the same"...why don't you complain about that? You demand some exotic, complex, extreme change of game mechanics for Zelda and Final Fantasy, but other games that just re-hash the same game dynamics with a new story and better graphics you have no beef with? What's the deal?
Well, that poses the question: at what speed are you "overtaking some slower moving traffic"? Passing a huge row of 20 back-to-back cars at ~1 mph differential in speed is most certainly not acceptable, and would seriously cheese me off if I was the guy behind you.
Because in that case, YOU are the selfish twat taking 15 minutes to pass at your selfish speed instead of either staying in the lane you're in and traveling ever so slightly than you'd like to, or speeding up to a reasonable passing speed.
I've seen people (down the road in the distance) in the second-to-left lane cruise behind another car for about a mile. I'll either be approaching in the passing lane (or I'll have recently moved into the passing lane to pass both of them) at a speed _considerably_ higher than theirs (say 10-15 mph), and as SOON as I'm about the pass them, THAT is when they decide they want to pass the guy they've been following closely for the past few minutes. So they essentially cut me off and then proceed to pass at a super slow speed.
Frankly, if one bout of "passing" takes longer than a few minutes (and road conditions aren't gridlocked), you're passing too slowly and obstructing traffic.
If you do not fit this description, good for you! Otherwise, take into account the amount of time it takes for you to pass in traffic and keep in mind that a slow-moving obstruction can be just as much a traffic jam causer as a non-moving obstruction.
Man, the absolute worst are the ones that don't move at all. They sit there in the passing lane and match speed with the driver next to them. Or they vary wildly between accelerating and decelerating, but never enough to leave a passing gap (but varying just enough to fuck over anyone travelling on cruise control). Honestly, what the hell are people thinking? That they're the only ones on the road? Self-righteous pricks.
In my experiences, the "road manners" of speeders has vastly outpaced that of slower drivers, many of which seem to think the entire road should simply bend to their will.
There are routine deals on the Samsung 61 inch 1080P DLP TV (HLS6187W) on Amazon for anywhere between $1800 and $2000 w/ Free Shipping...hell, right now it's going for $2100, and that's without a sale
Keep an eye on Fatwallet if you want to spot them.
The 56 inch 1080p you can get for even less ($1600).
They're commissioning a $200,000 robot that can be taken out with one $50 EMP grenade?
I know that isn't true, as the E6300 is keeping step with and frequently blowing away even the FX chips.
As far as the price point goes, you are correct there, but that's because Conroe-L isn't due out til the first half of next year. When that gets released, I'm not sure AMD will even have the "price only" victory to claim. We'll have to see what K8L's effect on AMD's prices are.
The point to make here isn't that "Intel only wins in cutting-edge/high-end". They've taken the crucial "mid-range/cost vs performance" lead. AMD wins only in "supreme budget" atm, and it may not even hold that.
There's talks of a second round of 50% cost slashes on Pentium 4 and Pentium D in December/January.
I mean, honestly...at some point, this whole "bargain basement" view really has to go, especially when you start throwing around terms like "decent" and "mid-range"
A "fair" comparison would be a cost/performance comparison, and Intel wins hands down. That $50 you might save from going the AMD route is going to result in a machine that's probably half as fast and not even remotely upgradable (939 is already an obsolete socket with AM2 out).
Regardless, I still call foul. You compare the cost of DDR to DDR2. Why? Either compare Pentium D/DDR to 939/DDR or Core 2/DDR2 to AM2/DDR2. Otherwise, you're just forcing a different in cost due to generational gaps.
Additionally, you stack a mid-range Core 2 Duo against a mid-range X64, as if they're even remotely in the same performance category (umm, they're not).
So yes, when you stack up the slowest Core 2 Duo against it's closest AMD equivalent (namely, the fastest AMD chips), Intel wins on price. The motherboard costs are roughly comparable now. Core 2 Duo mobos might still have a slight premium still attached to it, but supplies are ramping up to the point where this is not the case anymore.
The number provided by the manufacturer is a measurement of the diagonal, not the area (which is obviously not in inches, but in square inches).
That means a direct calculation of combined screen space isn't as simple as simply multiplying 20 inches by 2.
Additionally, 24 inche monitors are capable of higher resolutions, which throws a wrench into things when computing viewable area.
Well technically you only have to be somebody else for the first few months of a relationship. Then, you can start phasing the "real you" back into the picture and see if things hold up. That's how relationships work. They start completely fake (first impression), go through a semi-fake segment (early romance "can do no wrong" period), and then eventually venture into an honest phase. Sad, but true state of the world. You don't get girls being honest or being yourself. You get them by "playing the game". Some people call it "exuding confidence", among other characteristics uncommon outside of jerks and players. At any rate, if you aren't a confident person naturally, you're totally going to have to fake it. Not surprising at all, these superficial traits matter less at later stages in a relationship.
They already have the lead. Intel has priced its chips correctly. The current cost inflation is the market (not Intel) pricing the chips (supply/demand).
As soon as the supply issues get sorted out a month or two from now, you'll see the actual prices in play.
That's your problem. You're trying to base a chip value comparison off of market prices.
That's not accurate (unless you're only judging the immediate short-term). AMD's chips are already saturated in the market. Core 2 has only been out a month. You haven't seen true saturation yet. The market will continue to price Core 2 chips AND motherboards cheaper and cheaper as supply begins to ramp up (see the charts for yourself). I doubt you're going to see AMD chips react accordingly. In fact, in many cases, I see retail prices for AMD chips actually escalating. Perhaps AMD supply is wearing thin and can't keep up with demand.
Give it a few more months. By the end of the year, I'm sure the Core 2 supply problems in both chips and boards will be hammered out. Then you'll see a true price comparison. I promise Intel will be ahead.
Pentium 4s are also expected to take another 50% slashing in January.
Pentium D is already ridiculously cheap. In fact, I think the cheapest dual-core chip out there right now (strictly budget speaking with performance not in mind at all) is the low-end Pentium D. And Intel hasn't even released their budget Core 2 chips yet (Core 2 Solo I think?).
It's also worth noting that the cost of Core 2 Duos has been dropping (as Intel ramps up production to meet demand) while the cost of the AMD chips is largerely fixed or rising.
Other price tracking sites seem to confirm this: Intel vs AMD.
As AMD is _already_ severely beaten in price/performnce, this does not bode well for them.
When you're talking about upgrading, which the parent also mentioned, you're rarely upgrading things like the case, power supply, sound card, CD-ROMs/burners, etc...normally you're just looking at a video card and maybe a CPU upgrade in a 3-4 year span.
That drops cost _alot_ for a PC upgrade.
A console by nature requires you replace everything.
No it doesn't.
If you configure as Video Ready without Monitor (which is fair, since you aren't counting the cost of a TV into the console price), that's -$200...the 7900 GS upgrgade is then +$200, which is a wash.
The price comes out to $729 with the Core 2 Duo.
It's $679 if you go with the Pentium D, which I think is _still_ fast enough to run all the games out there.
And that's all before Dell coupon codes, which tend to be very frequent. I see 10-20% off coupons all the time on dealcatcher.
Believe me, it's nowhere near the $1000 price point stated by the parent.
When you count console add-ins that are basically "must-buys" (like the overpriced controllers already mentioned), the price comparison is damn near equal, if not in the favor of PCs.
I'm also pretty sure I could find a cheaper example than the one stated as well. I just didn't spend much time looking.
You claim to be a PC gamer and think $1000 is the starting point for a machine that plays games?
Full systems decked out with Core 2 Duos are selling at Dell right now for just over $500 that will play every game on the market right now at graphical settings that STILL beat consoles, AND they do a hell of alot more than play games.
On the flipside, consoles (which used to be in the sub-$200 category), are quickly approaching the $500++ range for just the BASE SYSTEM (see PS3). Then you need to buy extra controllers and all that other rubbish which is ridiculously overpriced (~$30 per controller?!?).
Consoles USED to be the cheaper option. Those days are long past.
If people put more money into their comp than I've already stated, it's because they want fancier graphics...ala F.E.A.R @ 1600 x 1200 w/ all graphicals goodies turned on. That stuff requires top dollar parts. To simply run the game at a respectable resolution (say 800 x 600) with medium to high graphical settings, comparable to what you might get from a console, does _not_ require such an investment.
You appear to be under the illusion that one-player games do not exist.