Athlon vs. Coppermine

["Schoenhofen, Kelly" <KSchoenhofen@Carlson.com>]

Hey now.... 

That previous lengthy post of mine was drawn about 98% from
tomshardware.com, the benchmark that was being bandied around as "proving"
me wrong. Also, I actually said "stomps all over", not (and I quote) "the
Anthlon kicked the 733's ass", as some other people have put it.

As far as you liking to know why I think so, I think I spent about 1036
words talking about why I think the Coppermine is a better choice in
anything but a rendering farm, and perhaps a better choice in a rendering
farm (in the long run).

And I never said unbiased reviews even existed - every reviewer has an ax to
grind, as subtle as it may be. You just read them, understand what was being
tested, read between the lines, and draw your own conclusions. My
conclusions happen to buck most of the free world's, apparently. 

If there is any particle of information in my previous post on this subject
that you'd like verified, let me know specifically. We can go over every
word I said with a fine toothed comb - fine with me. I'm not immune from
making analytical mistakes, especially when drawing from faulty data.

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Johnson [mailto:john1536@tc.umn.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 6:41 PM
To: tclug-list@mn-linux.org
Subject: Re: [TCLUG:9527] Athlon vs. Coppermine was Re: [TCLUG:9472]
bios


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".