Originally Posted by DDDa
Not really. Think of two processors. the processor A encodes 1 videos in 30 minutes, costs $100. The processor B encodes 1 video in 24 minutes, and costs $150. A video professional have a computer that works 24/7 making VHS to DVD conversions for $4 each. Admitting and ideal scenario, where demand equals offer, he can make 24 hours x 2 videos per hour = 48 videos = $192 dollars/day with processor A. And 24 hours x 2.5 videos per hour = 60 videos = $240 dollars/day.
Obviously, the 33% dollar difference is not worth the 20% gain in a plain scenario. But, for this guy, I'm sure he will almost take the money difference in one day of work ($48 more) and, in the second day, he will start to _earn_ money, even spending more for a processor that is much more expensive than its real processor capacity. Obviously I made a very huge simplification, for there are more factors in the real life, but you got the idea.
That's why new processors are more expensive than the proportional gain in processor capacity, or else they wouldn't have profit. It's plain and simple.
So, my opinion is: HT can be a waste of money for common users like us, but sure it's not for some people over there.
like you said, that scenario is an oversimplification. If his software is written to take advantage of HT then yeah, get a P4 it'll be worth the extra money in the long run. However, for the vast majority of people, HT doesn't do a dang thing and they can get an athlon for less.
btw, as soon as Intel comes up with something better, I'll get that, but until then AMD has my money. most of us "fanboi's" aren't so much trying to defend AMD but rather show where Intel is lacking.
Originally Posted by Sharakkhal
It has a future, but it's not here yet. Ironically, the current AMD64 notebooks have a future of checking email and playing older (most likely 32-bit) games on a 64-bit OS, because they won't be up to running newer games. It makes no sense to buy an AMD64 notebook now using 64-bit future as a reason, since the main component of a gaming notebook, the GPU, will be old news long before 64-bit is mainstream. The OS won't even be out until next year sometime, let alone the 64-bit games.
You people are wearing out 64-bit before it gets here.
... what are you trying to say? If given the choice for a 64-bit proc vs a 32-bit one in essentially the same machine, wouldn't you pick the 64-bit one?
here is a PERFECT example of that: how many people have or are getting a 4750? Lots. Ok, compare that to how many people who are getting a 4790. well ...? Honestly, I don't think I've heard of a single person getting a 4790.
Also, it doesn't even matter when 64-bit is coming if at all, the mere possibilty of it is worth getting an athlon 64 over a P4, it's all about future proofing your machine. in ten years I will be able to use my machine in the mainstream 64-bit world (although probably not gaming), while your P4 machine will be obsolete and near useless.
idk what the heck you're talking about when you say ...
"It makes no sense to buy an AMD64 notebook now using 64-bit future as a reason, since the main component of a gaming notebook, the GPU, will be old news long before 64-bit is mainstream"
Well, it seems that P4 and AMD notebooks use the exact same GPU, so your point is moot, if not completely wrong. haven't you heard of 64-bit far cry and ut2k4? they're coming, and I will be able to play those with much better performance than 32-bit versions.