xmichaelx wrote:What's sad is that you've just announced to the world that you don't understand chip architecture, what a core is, what "double" means in terms of cores, the difference between AMD and Intel, or pretty much anything else.
Intel is in fact ahead of AMD. But you are utterly ignorant as to why that is the case.
How do you even breathe without falling over?
I think I've announced what any IT person with half a brain already knows — AMD having 4 cores cannot compete with Intel having 2 cores.
Not only do benchmarks show it, real world usage shows it. You can FEEL how slow every AMD chip is. You can also FEEL how slow every Core i3 is, especially with Windows 8.
I'm well aware of the "MHz myth," which is why there's nothing impressive about 4 cores running at 2.5GHz vs a 2 core chip running at 1.4GHz.
To the guy saying I'm comparing to an Apple machine, you misunderstand. I'm comparing to the chip used in the MBA and nothing more. Since that chip is not exclusive to Apple, but any box maker, it's a fair comparison on CPUBenchmarks.
You can insult me being "intelligent enough to breathe," but my understanding of chips is seemingly better than yours.
I have to deal with many of these types of machines every day (not these HPs, mind you), but machines of similar spec.
That said, I mentioned these seem to compare favorably to a dual core i5, so I wasn't insulting these machines at all.