<<
<< From the performance graph...i think my single xp 1900 would beat this system: )or atleast be the same...since the one in the comparisom is a 1.2ghz.
i am happy >>
Not hardly. Not to start a flame war but there is a reason that you do see AMD XP processors in engineering workstations especially those that support specialized SMP applications such as 3D studio or Maya. How many of the major OEMs produce AMP based engineering workstations? Let me answer - NONE! The XP processor family is great for the market that it is designed and will beat Intel hands down in that market, but for engineering apps, the XP is a bit out of its league. >>
The Athlon XP isn't out of its league. The fact that major OEMs don't build engineering workstations with the Athlon XP just shows how much clout and marketing superiority Intel has, particularly in the more lucrative market segments.
For example, Dell has a sweetheart deal with Intel for CPUs and basically is immune to price cuts or excessive stock on hand (which shouldn't happen anyway w/ BTO).
By your account, dual P3 engineering workstations from yesteryear (i.e. this Compaq one for example) would be obselete, since roughly speaking, a similarly configured uni-processor Athlon XP 1900+ box would stack up pretty well against this Compaq box.
As another example, should we conclude, based on Athlon's minor acceptance in corporate circles (and again similarly its non-acceptance by the major OEMs), that the Athlon line-up is not well-suited for business use?
No, most benchmarks have shown that since its inception, the Athlon has been a better general-purpose CPU than Intel's concurrent offering.
In conclusion, the line used to be "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" and now it's "Nobody ever got fired for buying Wintel".