Interesting the AMD 2500 is a slower clock than the 2400

[Brian Densmore]

Actually not. They have a better design that allows them to process
input at better efficiency than Intel's designs. AMD chips have changed
significantly since they made 486 clones. They have even had Intel copy
some of their ideas. AMD chips are superior to equivalent Intel chips. I
use nothing but AMD chips for that reason and additionally Intel's
founders are crooks who stole a patented idea from their boss and
started their own company.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron [mailto:aaron at aarons.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:49 AM
> To: numa at thenuma.com; kclug at kclug.org
> Subject: Re: Ineresting the AMD 2500 is a slower clock than the 2400
> 
> 
> I don't use AMD's for specifically this reason.  The VP of 
> Marketing from
> AMD and I had a discussion about this 10 years ago with the 
> 486's.  They
> wanted to call their dx2-80 a dx4-100 because the performance 
> was equivalent
> (in their opinion).  I spent a three hour lunch explaining to 
> him why that
> was wrong.  Now they're doing it with the Thunderbirds.  It's