Re: [TCLUG:9527] Athlon vs. Coppermine was Re: [TCLUG:9472] bios

[Troy Johnson <john1536@tc.umn.edu>]

Thank you, Steve, but that was me.

It would really be nice if Kelly came up with some source for his info
instead of (seemingly) pulling things out of his hind end. He really
makes it sound like Coppermine just kicks the crap out of Athlon, and
will always do so in the future, and I'd like to know why he thinks so.
Is it a hunch? Where are the unbiased reviews that weigh his favorite
benchmarks as he thinks they should? The previous question is only half
serious because it does contain the words "unbiased" and "benchmarks".

Oh, and the "bios" subject line was at least partly my fault. I should
have changed it much sooner. I beg your forgiveness.

Steve Paltzer wrote:
> Hello,
> --- Troy Johnson wrote:
> > And these other reviewers of which you speak would be...?
> Some one else sent these links when the subject line was miss labeled
> under bios. I would also like to second the notion of correctly
> labeling the subject line, thank you.
> http://www.themeter.com/articles/PIII733.shtml
> http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/99q4/991025/index.html
> http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/cpus/intel/coppermine/copperminepreview.html
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/991026-000001.html
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/991026-000020.html
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/991027-000016.html