<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_26_2319255</id>
	<title>AMD Launches Budget Processor Refresh</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264508040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/" rel="nofollow">MojoKid</a> writes <i>"AMD has again launched a bevy of <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/AMD-Phenom-II-X2-555-and-Athlon-II-X4-635-Performance/">new processors targeted squarely at budget-conscious consumers</a>. Though Intel may be leading the market handily in the high-performance arena, AMD still provides a competitive offering from a price/performance perspective for the mainstream. HotHardware has a performance quick-take of the new 3.2GHz Phenom II X2 555 and 2.9GHz Athlon II X4 635. For $100 or less, bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively high."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " AMD has again launched a bevy of new processors targeted squarely at budget-conscious consumers .
Though Intel may be leading the market handily in the high-performance arena , AMD still provides a competitive offering from a price/performance perspective for the mainstream .
HotHardware has a performance quick-take of the new 3.2GHz Phenom II X2 555 and 2.9GHz Athlon II X4 635 .
For $ 100 or less , bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively high .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "AMD has again launched a bevy of new processors targeted squarely at budget-conscious consumers.
Though Intel may be leading the market handily in the high-performance arena, AMD still provides a competitive offering from a price/performance perspective for the mainstream.
HotHardware has a performance quick-take of the new 3.2GHz Phenom II X2 555 and 2.9GHz Athlon II X4 635.
For $100 or less, bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively high.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913704</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1264528260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>That is not a big problem for us enthusiasts who get and understand every information about that CPU. But to less tech savy people I will always suggest AMD.</i>
</p><p>It's irrelevant to "less tech savvy people" because these sort of details simply don't matter to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is not a big problem for us enthusiasts who get and understand every information about that CPU .
But to less tech savy people I will always suggest AMD .
It 's irrelevant to " less tech savvy people " because these sort of details simply do n't matter to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That is not a big problem for us enthusiasts who get and understand every information about that CPU.
But to less tech savy people I will always suggest AMD.
It's irrelevant to "less tech savvy people" because these sort of details simply don't matter to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912110</id>
	<title>All the hardware in the world...</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1264512480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...will not matter if their energy consumption gets too expensive. We need more energy, and cheaply. I swear, it's like The Little Shop of Horrors. Only this time, it's the computers screaming, "Feeeed me!!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...will not matter if their energy consumption gets too expensive .
We need more energy , and cheaply .
I swear , it 's like The Little Shop of Horrors .
Only this time , it 's the computers screaming , " Feeeed me ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...will not matter if their energy consumption gets too expensive.
We need more energy, and cheaply.
I swear, it's like The Little Shop of Horrors.
Only this time, it's the computers screaming, "Feeeed me!!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914026</id>
	<title>Why is everyone pooh-pooing AMD?</title>
	<author>hellop2</author>
	<datestamp>1264531920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common\_cpus.html" title="cpubenchmark.net" rel="nofollow">Their benchmarks seem decent.</a> [cpubenchmark.net]  The Athlon II X4 620 is a solid performer.<br> <br>

And the Athlon II X4 630 2.8Ghz 4-core processor is getting great reviews at <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=19-103-704&amp;SortField=0&amp;SummaryType=0&amp;Pagesize=10&amp;SelectedRating=-1&amp;PurchaseMark=&amp;VideoOnlyMark=False&amp;VendorMark=&amp;Keywords=(keywords)&amp;Page=3" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">newegg </a> [newegg.com]with good potential for overclocking, even with the stock cooler.<br>br&gt;

There's a few great motherboard/CPU combo deals going on right now at newegg.  <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.315855" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">QuadCore for $170</a> [newegg.com] and <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.316252" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">dual-core for $90.</a> [newegg.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their benchmarks seem decent .
[ cpubenchmark.net ] The Athlon II X4 620 is a solid performer .
And the Athlon II X4 630 2.8Ghz 4-core processor is getting great reviews at newegg [ newegg.com ] with good potential for overclocking , even with the stock cooler.br &gt; There 's a few great motherboard/CPU combo deals going on right now at newegg .
QuadCore for $ 170 [ newegg.com ] and dual-core for $ 90 .
[ newegg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their benchmarks seem decent.
[cpubenchmark.net]  The Athlon II X4 620 is a solid performer.
And the Athlon II X4 630 2.8Ghz 4-core processor is getting great reviews at newegg  [newegg.com]with good potential for overclocking, even with the stock cooler.br&gt;

There's a few great motherboard/CPU combo deals going on right now at newegg.
QuadCore for $170 [newegg.com] and dual-core for $90.
[newegg.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912192</id>
	<title>thank you AMD</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1264513260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>very cool<br>and when i see one near me i am gonna grab it getting these features will allow me at least to even consider the odd purchase and yes im on a low income.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>very cooland when i see one near me i am gon na grab it getting these features will allow me at least to even consider the odd purchase and yes im on a low income .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very cooland when i see one near me i am gonna grab it getting these features will allow me at least to even consider the odd purchase and yes im on a low income.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30931610</id>
	<title>Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264681260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eat shit motherfucker!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eat shit motherfucker !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eat shit motherfucker!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915030</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hard drive stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264591440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have stupid money to spend (and can ignore some of the pitch spiel schlockyness in the vid) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">doing RAID tricks with SSDs might be an option</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>Me, I don't have stupid money to throw at hardware. So this presents what may be possible in reasonable terms ten years down the road or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have stupid money to spend ( and can ignore some of the pitch spiel schlockyness in the vid ) doing RAID tricks with SSDs might be an option [ youtube.com ] .Me , I do n't have stupid money to throw at hardware .
So this presents what may be possible in reasonable terms ten years down the road or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have stupid money to spend (and can ignore some of the pitch spiel schlockyness in the vid) doing RAID tricks with SSDs might be an option [youtube.com].Me, I don't have stupid money to throw at hardware.
So this presents what may be possible in reasonable terms ten years down the road or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912516</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1264515420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As a whole, there is barely a noticeable performance difference between the two platforms.</p></div></blockquote><p>A couple of years ago I ran two very similar five day long geophysical jobs (pre-stack time migration) on an 8 CPU AMD system and an 8 CPU Xeon system of equivalent speeds.  All CPUs were at 100\% over that time with the exception of some disk access at the start and disk writes every twelve hours for checkpoints.  There was a five minute difference over that week and the margin of error was probably more than twice that.<br>I haven't been able to tell the difference since then either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a whole , there is barely a noticeable performance difference between the two platforms.A couple of years ago I ran two very similar five day long geophysical jobs ( pre-stack time migration ) on an 8 CPU AMD system and an 8 CPU Xeon system of equivalent speeds .
All CPUs were at 100 \ % over that time with the exception of some disk access at the start and disk writes every twelve hours for checkpoints .
There was a five minute difference over that week and the margin of error was probably more than twice that.I have n't been able to tell the difference since then either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a whole, there is barely a noticeable performance difference between the two platforms.A couple of years ago I ran two very similar five day long geophysical jobs (pre-stack time migration) on an 8 CPU AMD system and an 8 CPU Xeon system of equivalent speeds.
All CPUs were at 100\% over that time with the exception of some disk access at the start and disk writes every twelve hours for checkpoints.
There was a five minute difference over that week and the margin of error was probably more than twice that.I haven't been able to tell the difference since then either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30924890</id>
	<title>Re:FUCK YOU RACIST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264587660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't you get the memo?<br><br>Almost all the lesbians are racist by nature, I don't know why but it's true. BTW Lesbians are cool, racists on the other hand are becoming an itch in some important people and are about to become pariahs, because they can.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//memo</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you get the memo ? Almost all the lesbians are racist by nature , I do n't know why but it 's true .
BTW Lesbians are cool , racists on the other hand are becoming an itch in some important people and are about to become pariahs , because they can .
//memo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you get the memo?Almost all the lesbians are racist by nature, I don't know why but it's true.
BTW Lesbians are cool, racists on the other hand are becoming an itch in some important people and are about to become pariahs, because they can.
//memo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915102</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>fredrik70</author>
	<datestamp>1264592400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Intel licenced AMD64 from AMD???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Intel licenced AMD64 from AMD ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Intel licenced AMD64 from AMD??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913736</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1264528620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I blame it on the Linux and Windows kernels' poor support for multi-processing and seedy memory management.</i>
</p><p>Compared to what ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame it on the Linux and Windows kernels ' poor support for multi-processing and seedy memory management .
Compared to what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I blame it on the Linux and Windows kernels' poor support for multi-processing and seedy memory management.
Compared to what ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912596</id>
	<title>Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly there is a very big learning curve you're going to need to overcome in order to get a reliable hackintosh build on an AMD platform.  To be honest, your best bets are an intel (socket 775) based platform.  Various motherboards there will have issues (usually audio), not to mention video cards.  AMD chipsets tend to have more issues still.  If you want to go with a Mac, I'd just suggest starting with a mini, if that doesn't suit your needs bump up to an intel based hackintosh.
<br> <br>
Don't get me wrong, imho the AMD 785G motherboards with a nice Athlon X2/X4 are a great starter platform, just not a great hackintosh platform.  I've built 4 780/785 based setups in the past year and a half, they run great for mom, grandma, my media center etc.  What does seem like it *should* be promising would be an nvidia 9300 series board with a core2 quad.  Note: if you're into heavy gaming at a higher resolution than say 1650x1024 or so, then you won't be happy with onboard graphics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly there is a very big learning curve you 're going to need to overcome in order to get a reliable hackintosh build on an AMD platform .
To be honest , your best bets are an intel ( socket 775 ) based platform .
Various motherboards there will have issues ( usually audio ) , not to mention video cards .
AMD chipsets tend to have more issues still .
If you want to go with a Mac , I 'd just suggest starting with a mini , if that does n't suit your needs bump up to an intel based hackintosh .
Do n't get me wrong , imho the AMD 785G motherboards with a nice Athlon X2/X4 are a great starter platform , just not a great hackintosh platform .
I 've built 4 780/785 based setups in the past year and a half , they run great for mom , grandma , my media center etc .
What does seem like it * should * be promising would be an nvidia 9300 series board with a core2 quad .
Note : if you 're into heavy gaming at a higher resolution than say 1650x1024 or so , then you wo n't be happy with onboard graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly there is a very big learning curve you're going to need to overcome in order to get a reliable hackintosh build on an AMD platform.
To be honest, your best bets are an intel (socket 775) based platform.
Various motherboards there will have issues (usually audio), not to mention video cards.
AMD chipsets tend to have more issues still.
If you want to go with a Mac, I'd just suggest starting with a mini, if that doesn't suit your needs bump up to an intel based hackintosh.
Don't get me wrong, imho the AMD 785G motherboards with a nice Athlon X2/X4 are a great starter platform, just not a great hackintosh platform.
I've built 4 780/785 based setups in the past year and a half, they run great for mom, grandma, my media center etc.
What does seem like it *should* be promising would be an nvidia 9300 series board with a core2 quad.
Note: if you're into heavy gaming at a higher resolution than say 1650x1024 or so, then you won't be happy with onboard graphics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914710</id>
	<title>I only use Intel on mobile</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1264586460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For everything else, AMD's price/performance ratio can't be beat, Intel's superior marketing notwithstanding. It would cost me twice as much money to get an Intel processor and a decent Intel chipset mobo for the desktop I'm running right now. Quite frankly, I think this price differential is much better spent on a 128GB solid state drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For everything else , AMD 's price/performance ratio ca n't be beat , Intel 's superior marketing notwithstanding .
It would cost me twice as much money to get an Intel processor and a decent Intel chipset mobo for the desktop I 'm running right now .
Quite frankly , I think this price differential is much better spent on a 128GB solid state drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For everything else, AMD's price/performance ratio can't be beat, Intel's superior marketing notwithstanding.
It would cost me twice as much money to get an Intel processor and a decent Intel chipset mobo for the desktop I'm running right now.
Quite frankly, I think this price differential is much better spent on a 128GB solid state drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30920958</id>
	<title>Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1264621200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your posting history clearly identifies you as a troll, so you don't get the benefit of doubt anymore. If it looks trollish, and it comes from you, then it will be considered one.</p><p>Using ALL CAPS and calling people idiots doesn't help, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your posting history clearly identifies you as a troll , so you do n't get the benefit of doubt anymore .
If it looks trollish , and it comes from you , then it will be considered one.Using ALL CAPS and calling people idiots does n't help , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your posting history clearly identifies you as a troll, so you don't get the benefit of doubt anymore.
If it looks trollish, and it comes from you, then it will be considered one.Using ALL CAPS and calling people idiots doesn't help, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912384</id>
	<title>Re:watts of boom</title>
	<author>Penguinoflight</author>
	<datestamp>1264514580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AMD and Intel rate their processors differently, they can't be compared.  FWIW, the E6300 is nowhere near as powerful either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AMD and Intel rate their processors differently , they ca n't be compared .
FWIW , the E6300 is nowhere near as powerful either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMD and Intel rate their processors differently, they can't be compared.
FWIW, the E6300 is nowhere near as powerful either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914104</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264532820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A minor nit, but AMD64 is a very minor extension to x86 and leverages SSE. Its not really an invention in terms of being innovated, but it was created by AMD. Intel had a 64-bit extension in the 90s but due to poor feedback from server venders that disliked x86 in the enterprise, they adopted HP's proposal for EPIC (Itanium). I wouldn't give AMD much engineering credit, but rather blame the piss poor management at Intel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A minor nit , but AMD64 is a very minor extension to x86 and leverages SSE .
Its not really an invention in terms of being innovated , but it was created by AMD .
Intel had a 64-bit extension in the 90s but due to poor feedback from server venders that disliked x86 in the enterprise , they adopted HP 's proposal for EPIC ( Itanium ) .
I would n't give AMD much engineering credit , but rather blame the piss poor management at Intel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A minor nit, but AMD64 is a very minor extension to x86 and leverages SSE.
Its not really an invention in terms of being innovated, but it was created by AMD.
Intel had a 64-bit extension in the 90s but due to poor feedback from server venders that disliked x86 in the enterprise, they adopted HP's proposal for EPIC (Itanium).
I wouldn't give AMD much engineering credit, but rather blame the piss poor management at Intel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913280</id>
	<title>Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1264523460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please visit the OSx86project wiki page to have those questions answered. I'll tell you off the bat that you will have to patch the kernel, which already puts you at risk for a world of hurt if your other components don't play nicely either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please visit the OSx86project wiki page to have those questions answered .
I 'll tell you off the bat that you will have to patch the kernel , which already puts you at risk for a world of hurt if your other components do n't play nicely either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please visit the OSx86project wiki page to have those questions answered.
I'll tell you off the bat that you will have to patch the kernel, which already puts you at risk for a world of hurt if your other components don't play nicely either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464</id>
	<title>I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264515000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I state my honest opinion, and SAY IT'S MY OPINION, and the AMD fan trolls come in here and nuke me into oblivion.</p><p>There wasn't ANYTHING "troll" about my honest discussion of my experience,and you people who modded me down are fucking idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I state my honest opinion , and SAY IT 'S MY OPINION , and the AMD fan trolls come in here and nuke me into oblivion.There was n't ANYTHING " troll " about my honest discussion of my experience,and you people who modded me down are fucking idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I state my honest opinion, and SAY IT'S MY OPINION, and the AMD fan trolls come in here and nuke me into oblivion.There wasn't ANYTHING "troll" about my honest discussion of my experience,and you people who modded me down are fucking idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912360</id>
	<title>Don't be so cautious with describing video</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1264514340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fast enough for any usual non-gaming usage...and also for most games, if you're fine with mostly ignoring latest gen ones (and really, with so many great older ones that's easy). Plus it is consistantly passively cooled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fast enough for any usual non-gaming usage...and also for most games , if you 're fine with mostly ignoring latest gen ones ( and really , with so many great older ones that 's easy ) .
Plus it is consistantly passively cooled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fast enough for any usual non-gaming usage...and also for most games, if you're fine with mostly ignoring latest gen ones (and really, with so many great older ones that's easy).
Plus it is consistantly passively cooled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913802</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hard drive stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264529340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSD are real leap in hard drive technology. There are SSDs that can push 260mb/sec read and write, coming close to saturating the sata II spec. And how is putting two drives in raid 0 a 'trick'? If you back up your data properly, it should be a non-issue, and then you can fully saturate the sata II spec for $1000.</p><p>For that matter, how was perpendicular recording not a real leap in technology?</p><p>Also, we won't need to 'push TBs like MBs' for many years, considering thats a factor of 10^6.</p><p>I initially assumed you were a troll, I'm still not sure how you got +3 interesting spouting that nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSD are real leap in hard drive technology .
There are SSDs that can push 260mb/sec read and write , coming close to saturating the sata II spec .
And how is putting two drives in raid 0 a 'trick ' ?
If you back up your data properly , it should be a non-issue , and then you can fully saturate the sata II spec for $ 1000.For that matter , how was perpendicular recording not a real leap in technology ? Also , we wo n't need to 'push TBs like MBs ' for many years , considering thats a factor of 10 ^ 6.I initially assumed you were a troll , I 'm still not sure how you got + 3 interesting spouting that nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSD are real leap in hard drive technology.
There are SSDs that can push 260mb/sec read and write, coming close to saturating the sata II spec.
And how is putting two drives in raid 0 a 'trick'?
If you back up your data properly, it should be a non-issue, and then you can fully saturate the sata II spec for $1000.For that matter, how was perpendicular recording not a real leap in technology?Also, we won't need to 'push TBs like MBs' for many years, considering thats a factor of 10^6.I initially assumed you were a troll, I'm still not sure how you got +3 interesting spouting that nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350</id>
	<title>It's the hard drive stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264524120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, 1 core, 2 cores, 3 cores, 1,000000 cores I have realize means exactly jack if the data they need to crunch is still sitting on frigen hard drive.</p><p>My processors and I would do flips and flops, if we could just get some dam data off our drives. Come on? We have basically not had a real leap in hardrive speeds or technology in how many years?</p><p>I mean solid states and all are great, but they still have a long way to go. What happens when we need to start pushing terabytes like megabytes?</p><p>We got a ram and catch arms race going on because, the hard drives suck and no one seems to be doing anything about it.</p><p>The best we can do are raid tricks to get any more performance (or reliability for that matter), and that has well known limits and problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , 1 core , 2 cores , 3 cores , 1,000000 cores I have realize means exactly jack if the data they need to crunch is still sitting on frigen hard drive.My processors and I would do flips and flops , if we could just get some dam data off our drives .
Come on ?
We have basically not had a real leap in hardrive speeds or technology in how many years ? I mean solid states and all are great , but they still have a long way to go .
What happens when we need to start pushing terabytes like megabytes ? We got a ram and catch arms race going on because , the hard drives suck and no one seems to be doing anything about it.The best we can do are raid tricks to get any more performance ( or reliability for that matter ) , and that has well known limits and problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, 1 core, 2 cores, 3 cores, 1,000000 cores I have realize means exactly jack if the data they need to crunch is still sitting on frigen hard drive.My processors and I would do flips and flops, if we could just get some dam data off our drives.
Come on?
We have basically not had a real leap in hardrive speeds or technology in how many years?I mean solid states and all are great, but they still have a long way to go.
What happens when we need to start pushing terabytes like megabytes?We got a ram and catch arms race going on because, the hard drives suck and no one seems to be doing anything about it.The best we can do are raid tricks to get any more performance (or reliability for that matter), and that has well known limits and problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30917548</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be so cautious with describing video</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1264608720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>haha, dude, i play L4D2 on my Athlon-XP.  Yes, that's a single core proc at ~2.2 GHz.  Only this year have i run into a game i couldn't play because i don't have the SSE2 instruction.  I was looking at getting a Phenom II X4 Black edition for the next gaming box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>haha , dude , i play L4D2 on my Athlon-XP .
Yes , that 's a single core proc at ~ 2.2 GHz .
Only this year have i run into a game i could n't play because i do n't have the SSE2 instruction .
I was looking at getting a Phenom II X4 Black edition for the next gaming box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha, dude, i play L4D2 on my Athlon-XP.
Yes, that's a single core proc at ~2.2 GHz.
Only this year have i run into a game i couldn't play because i don't have the SSE2 instruction.
I was looking at getting a Phenom II X4 Black edition for the next gaming box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913066</id>
	<title>Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264521180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After a tirade like that where you basically tell everyone to fuck off and let you live in ignorance, I'd say it was a well deserved mod. In fact, next time I get mod points, I'll keep an eye out for you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After a tirade like that where you basically tell everyone to fuck off and let you live in ignorance , I 'd say it was a well deserved mod .
In fact , next time I get mod points , I 'll keep an eye out for you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After a tirade like that where you basically tell everyone to fuck off and let you live in ignorance, I'd say it was a well deserved mod.
In fact, next time I get mod points, I'll keep an eye out for you...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078</id>
	<title>It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264512300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mostly, the poor performance (subjectively, save the benchmarks) of the 64 bit processors made me balk.  I had two of them, and they were garbage, IMO.</p><p>And this is from a long time supporter of AMD.</p><p>Now I have to ask, what's the market for this?</p><p>Is it going to compete against Atom?</p><p>It seems from the article, it's actually going to compete against the higher/mid range of intel processors, at which point I have to wonder, if they burned me with their 64 bit processors, why would I consider 100 bucks a good deal when I fully expect to get burned again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly , the poor performance ( subjectively , save the benchmarks ) of the 64 bit processors made me balk .
I had two of them , and they were garbage , IMO.And this is from a long time supporter of AMD.Now I have to ask , what 's the market for this ? Is it going to compete against Atom ? It seems from the article , it 's actually going to compete against the higher/mid range of intel processors , at which point I have to wonder , if they burned me with their 64 bit processors , why would I consider 100 bucks a good deal when I fully expect to get burned again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly, the poor performance (subjectively, save the benchmarks) of the 64 bit processors made me balk.
I had two of them, and they were garbage, IMO.And this is from a long time supporter of AMD.Now I have to ask, what's the market for this?Is it going to compete against Atom?It seems from the article, it's actually going to compete against the higher/mid range of intel processors, at which point I have to wonder, if they burned me with their 64 bit processors, why would I consider 100 bucks a good deal when I fully expect to get burned again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30916036</id>
	<title>Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264601580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I state my honest opinion, and SAY IT'S MY OPINION, and the AMD fan trolls come in here and nuke me into oblivion.</p><p>Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?</p></div><p>You're a troll because your posts are self-contradictory.  You first refuse (vehemently) to provide any facts, then demand that posts with factual errors be modded down.  There isn't any "honest discussion" in your troll, there is only "Nuh-uh!!!" and "I know you are, but what am I?"</p><p>Clearly effective, though, judging from the replies, so nice win.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I state my honest opinion , and SAY IT 'S MY OPINION , and the AMD fan trolls come in here and nuke me into oblivion.Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up ? You 're a troll because your posts are self-contradictory .
You first refuse ( vehemently ) to provide any facts , then demand that posts with factual errors be modded down .
There is n't any " honest discussion " in your troll , there is only " Nuh-uh ! ! !
" and " I know you are , but what am I ?
" Clearly effective , though , judging from the replies , so nice win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I state my honest opinion, and SAY IT'S MY OPINION, and the AMD fan trolls come in here and nuke me into oblivion.Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?You're a troll because your posts are self-contradictory.
You first refuse (vehemently) to provide any facts, then demand that posts with factual errors be modded down.
There isn't any "honest discussion" in your troll, there is only "Nuh-uh!!!
" and "I know you are, but what am I?
"Clearly effective, though, judging from the replies, so nice win.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912410</id>
	<title>Re:All the hardware in the world...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264514760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amd's athlon ii "e" models are sweet if you can find them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amd 's athlon ii " e " models are sweet if you can find them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amd's athlon ii "e" models are sweet if you can find them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915168</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hard drive stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264593360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I mean solid states and all are great, but they still have a long way to go."</p><p>What on earth are you talking about? Intel's solid state drives kick ass. There's not a complaint in sight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I mean solid states and all are great , but they still have a long way to go .
" What on earth are you talking about ?
Intel 's solid state drives kick ass .
There 's not a complaint in sight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I mean solid states and all are great, but they still have a long way to go.
"What on earth are you talking about?
Intel's solid state drives kick ass.
There's not a complaint in sight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912372</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264514460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I think with Intel you can get burned more easily. Phenom II X2 3.2GHz tells you really all you have to now. If you are buying higher numbers you get a better CPU.</p><p>On the other hand with a Core2 the case is not that clear. Is a Core2 Duo 3000 MHz better than a Core2 Duo 2833 MHz? Nope, the former one is an E6850, the latter an E8300. And even those numbers won't tell you much. Higher model numbers are often better, but not always. For example the Q6xxx models have Intel VT, the Q8xxx don't.</p><p>That is not a big problem for us enthusiasts who get and understand every information about that CPU. But to less tech savy people I will always suggest AMD. Even if Intels good chips are better than AMDs chances are they pick a bad one and would be better served with AMD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think with Intel you can get burned more easily .
Phenom II X2 3.2GHz tells you really all you have to now .
If you are buying higher numbers you get a better CPU.On the other hand with a Core2 the case is not that clear .
Is a Core2 Duo 3000 MHz better than a Core2 Duo 2833 MHz ?
Nope , the former one is an E6850 , the latter an E8300 .
And even those numbers wo n't tell you much .
Higher model numbers are often better , but not always .
For example the Q6xxx models have Intel VT , the Q8xxx do n't.That is not a big problem for us enthusiasts who get and understand every information about that CPU .
But to less tech savy people I will always suggest AMD .
Even if Intels good chips are better than AMDs chances are they pick a bad one and would be better served with AMD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think with Intel you can get burned more easily.
Phenom II X2 3.2GHz tells you really all you have to now.
If you are buying higher numbers you get a better CPU.On the other hand with a Core2 the case is not that clear.
Is a Core2 Duo 3000 MHz better than a Core2 Duo 2833 MHz?
Nope, the former one is an E6850, the latter an E8300.
And even those numbers won't tell you much.
Higher model numbers are often better, but not always.
For example the Q6xxx models have Intel VT, the Q8xxx don't.That is not a big problem for us enthusiasts who get and understand every information about that CPU.
But to less tech savy people I will always suggest AMD.
Even if Intels good chips are better than AMDs chances are they pick a bad one and would be better served with AMD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914288</id>
	<title>it \_always\_ depends</title>
	<author>keeboo</author>
	<datestamp>1264535700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Again this silly fight between AMD vs Intel.<br>
When people are going to learn performance \_depends\_ on what you're going to process?<br>
<br>
I remember, few years ago, having a server we had with an Athlon XP 2600 (its real clock was 2.1GHz AFAIR). A perfectly speedy machine for desktop usage, but as a server (pure CPU-load in that case, no I/O bottleneck) it was having a real hard time. We eventually replaced that machine and old 4x Xeon (P3-based, 500MHz), and things went to normal.<br>
I already suspected what the problem could be, so I've decided to make a test replacing - temporarily - the Xeon-based server with a Sun Ultra 30 (1xUltrasparc II @ 300MHz).<br>
Well, the Sparc not only survived the test, but also kicked hard the Athlon's ass. Still, as a desktop machine, the Sparc was mediocre.<br>
The difference was that the Sparc had 2MB L2 cache, while the Athlon had only 256kB (even with 2x bandwidth and lower-latency RAM). In \_that\_ case the L2 cache made all the difference. Per MHz, the Sparc also won, by large margin, the Xeon machine (1MB L2 for each processor).<br>
<br>
Athlon's (pre-64) performance compared to P4 (sorry, I don't have an i7 to compare against a X4) varies. For desktop usage the Athlons felt snappier in general, but with some performance &quot;hiccups&quot; when you started to tax the machine more. The P4s felt slower overall, but the performance seemed to be more homogeneous.<br>
Which one was better then? Well, that's a good question. I personally preferred the &quot;slower but smoother&quot; P4, but Athlons were fine and I could recommend both processors for home usage,<br>
<br>
You know what really, really suck?<br>
Those benchmarks they publish around.<br>
<br>
I mean &quot;XYZ fps in Crysis&quot;? mp3 lame encoding time? Synthetic benchmarks?<br>
Those say nothing to me. Run some database benchmark, or measure the time it takes to compile the Linux kernel using all cores at once... Or move GBs of data in the memory N times etc. Then it might be interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Again this silly fight between AMD vs Intel .
When people are going to learn performance \ _depends \ _ on what you 're going to process ?
I remember , few years ago , having a server we had with an Athlon XP 2600 ( its real clock was 2.1GHz AFAIR ) .
A perfectly speedy machine for desktop usage , but as a server ( pure CPU-load in that case , no I/O bottleneck ) it was having a real hard time .
We eventually replaced that machine and old 4x Xeon ( P3-based , 500MHz ) , and things went to normal .
I already suspected what the problem could be , so I 've decided to make a test replacing - temporarily - the Xeon-based server with a Sun Ultra 30 ( 1xUltrasparc II @ 300MHz ) .
Well , the Sparc not only survived the test , but also kicked hard the Athlon 's ass .
Still , as a desktop machine , the Sparc was mediocre .
The difference was that the Sparc had 2MB L2 cache , while the Athlon had only 256kB ( even with 2x bandwidth and lower-latency RAM ) .
In \ _that \ _ case the L2 cache made all the difference .
Per MHz , the Sparc also won , by large margin , the Xeon machine ( 1MB L2 for each processor ) .
Athlon 's ( pre-64 ) performance compared to P4 ( sorry , I do n't have an i7 to compare against a X4 ) varies .
For desktop usage the Athlons felt snappier in general , but with some performance " hiccups " when you started to tax the machine more .
The P4s felt slower overall , but the performance seemed to be more homogeneous .
Which one was better then ?
Well , that 's a good question .
I personally preferred the " slower but smoother " P4 , but Athlons were fine and I could recommend both processors for home usage , You know what really , really suck ?
Those benchmarks they publish around .
I mean " XYZ fps in Crysis " ?
mp3 lame encoding time ?
Synthetic benchmarks ?
Those say nothing to me .
Run some database benchmark , or measure the time it takes to compile the Linux kernel using all cores at once... Or move GBs of data in the memory N times etc .
Then it might be interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again this silly fight between AMD vs Intel.
When people are going to learn performance \_depends\_ on what you're going to process?
I remember, few years ago, having a server we had with an Athlon XP 2600 (its real clock was 2.1GHz AFAIR).
A perfectly speedy machine for desktop usage, but as a server (pure CPU-load in that case, no I/O bottleneck) it was having a real hard time.
We eventually replaced that machine and old 4x Xeon (P3-based, 500MHz), and things went to normal.
I already suspected what the problem could be, so I've decided to make a test replacing - temporarily - the Xeon-based server with a Sun Ultra 30 (1xUltrasparc II @ 300MHz).
Well, the Sparc not only survived the test, but also kicked hard the Athlon's ass.
Still, as a desktop machine, the Sparc was mediocre.
The difference was that the Sparc had 2MB L2 cache, while the Athlon had only 256kB (even with 2x bandwidth and lower-latency RAM).
In \_that\_ case the L2 cache made all the difference.
Per MHz, the Sparc also won, by large margin, the Xeon machine (1MB L2 for each processor).
Athlon's (pre-64) performance compared to P4 (sorry, I don't have an i7 to compare against a X4) varies.
For desktop usage the Athlons felt snappier in general, but with some performance "hiccups" when you started to tax the machine more.
The P4s felt slower overall, but the performance seemed to be more homogeneous.
Which one was better then?
Well, that's a good question.
I personally preferred the "slower but smoother" P4, but Athlons were fine and I could recommend both processors for home usage,

You know what really, really suck?
Those benchmarks they publish around.
I mean "XYZ fps in Crysis"?
mp3 lame encoding time?
Synthetic benchmarks?
Those say nothing to me.
Run some database benchmark, or measure the time it takes to compile the Linux kernel using all cores at once... Or move GBs of data in the memory N times etc.
Then it might be interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30918958</id>
	<title>Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1264613940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The content of your post kind of contradicts with the complaint of your sig, doesn't it? You can't have it both ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The content of your post kind of contradicts with the complaint of your sig , does n't it ?
You ca n't have it both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The content of your post kind of contradicts with the complaint of your sig, doesn't it?
You can't have it both ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080</id>
	<title>watts of boom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264512300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For $100 or less, bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively high</p></div><p>The Phenom II draws 187 watts under full load, so yeah -- a pretty big bang actually, if you aren't careful. You get less "bang" with a E6300.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For $ 100 or less , bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively highThe Phenom II draws 187 watts under full load , so yeah -- a pretty big bang actually , if you are n't careful .
You get less " bang " with a E6300 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For $100 or less, bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively highThe Phenom II draws 187 watts under full load, so yeah -- a pretty big bang actually, if you aren't careful.
You get less "bang" with a E6300.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912592</id>
	<title>Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You were modded down because your comment provided no useful information for Slashdot readers.</p><p>As far as I'm concerned, you said AMD CPUs were "garbage" while refusing to back up these claims with supporting evidence. I and a lot of others visitors know from personal experience that AMD products aren't garbage. If you're going to make this claim, you'd better back it up with meaningful performance metrics.</p><p>And by that I mean</p><p><b>The moderators read your comment which , IN THEIR OPINION, underperformed.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You were modded down because your comment provided no useful information for Slashdot readers.As far as I 'm concerned , you said AMD CPUs were " garbage " while refusing to back up these claims with supporting evidence .
I and a lot of others visitors know from personal experience that AMD products are n't garbage .
If you 're going to make this claim , you 'd better back it up with meaningful performance metrics.And by that I meanThe moderators read your comment which , IN THEIR OPINION , underperformed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You were modded down because your comment provided no useful information for Slashdot readers.As far as I'm concerned, you said AMD CPUs were "garbage" while refusing to back up these claims with supporting evidence.
I and a lot of others visitors know from personal experience that AMD products aren't garbage.
If you're going to make this claim, you'd better back it up with meaningful performance metrics.And by that I meanThe moderators read your comment which , IN THEIR OPINION, underperformed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912174</id>
	<title>FUCK YOU RACIST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264513020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you still posting you fucking racist?</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521586&amp;cid=30867676" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521586&amp;cid=30867676</a> [slashdot.org]<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521586&amp;cid=30867630" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521586&amp;cid=30867630</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you still posting you fucking racist ? http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1521586&amp;cid = 30867676 [ slashdot.org ] http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1521586&amp;cid = 30867630 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you still posting you fucking racist?http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521586&amp;cid=30867676 [slashdot.org]http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521586&amp;cid=30867630 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914052</id>
	<title>Re:watts of boom</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1264532340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhhhh dude, or dudette as the case may be? The chips in the article were both under 100w, and most AMD chips except the ones that are built for OCing, are less than 100w. The most power hungry IIRC are 125w for the current lineup, and I can say from <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103656&amp;cm\_re=amd\_925-\_-19-103-656-\_-Product" title="newegg.com">experience</a> [newegg.com] that my 925 after 8 hours of transcoding at 100\% load was only running at 109f on the stock cooler, so I'm afraid you are quite off on your estimates.</p><p>

I have been building both Intel and AMD boxes for many years now, and I can say thanks to the new Cool &amp; Quiet that AMD chips stay quiet and really don't suck much in the way of juice, even on stock cooling. I have been running this machine since I came in at 3PM (it is currently midnight here) with dozens of tabs open, lots of video watching, two transcodes, and many file transfers, and I haven't see <a href="http://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/" title="alcpu.com">CoreTemp</a> [alcpu.com] (great free tool BTW, with 64bit support and an easy to use tutorial on setting autostart under Windows 7) get above 90f the entire night, with 83f being the temp for 99.995\% of the time. So while the older AMD chips did run pretty hot (burned a few TBirds in my day) the new chips are quite cool and efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhhh dude , or dudette as the case may be ?
The chips in the article were both under 100w , and most AMD chips except the ones that are built for OCing , are less than 100w .
The most power hungry IIRC are 125w for the current lineup , and I can say from experience [ newegg.com ] that my 925 after 8 hours of transcoding at 100 \ % load was only running at 109f on the stock cooler , so I 'm afraid you are quite off on your estimates .
I have been building both Intel and AMD boxes for many years now , and I can say thanks to the new Cool &amp; Quiet that AMD chips stay quiet and really do n't suck much in the way of juice , even on stock cooling .
I have been running this machine since I came in at 3PM ( it is currently midnight here ) with dozens of tabs open , lots of video watching , two transcodes , and many file transfers , and I have n't see CoreTemp [ alcpu.com ] ( great free tool BTW , with 64bit support and an easy to use tutorial on setting autostart under Windows 7 ) get above 90f the entire night , with 83f being the temp for 99.995 \ % of the time .
So while the older AMD chips did run pretty hot ( burned a few TBirds in my day ) the new chips are quite cool and efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhhh dude, or dudette as the case may be?
The chips in the article were both under 100w, and most AMD chips except the ones that are built for OCing, are less than 100w.
The most power hungry IIRC are 125w for the current lineup, and I can say from experience [newegg.com] that my 925 after 8 hours of transcoding at 100\% load was only running at 109f on the stock cooler, so I'm afraid you are quite off on your estimates.
I have been building both Intel and AMD boxes for many years now, and I can say thanks to the new Cool &amp; Quiet that AMD chips stay quiet and really don't suck much in the way of juice, even on stock cooling.
I have been running this machine since I came in at 3PM (it is currently midnight here) with dozens of tabs open, lots of video watching, two transcodes, and many file transfers, and I haven't see CoreTemp [alcpu.com] (great free tool BTW, with 64bit support and an easy to use tutorial on setting autostart under Windows 7) get above 90f the entire night, with 83f being the temp for 99.995\% of the time.
So while the older AMD chips did run pretty hot (burned a few TBirds in my day) the new chips are quite cool and efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913840</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hard drive stupid</title>
	<author>plague911</author>
	<datestamp>1264529700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhhh... are you aware of SSDs....? Admittedly they are only an order of magnitude better in some respects right now..... but they are relatively in their infancy. With the new chips being made on silicon SSD tech should not curve very close to CPU tech....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhh... are you aware of SSDs.... ?
Admittedly they are only an order of magnitude better in some respects right now..... but they are relatively in their infancy .
With the new chips being made on silicon SSD tech should not curve very close to CPU tech... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhh... are you aware of SSDs....?
Admittedly they are only an order of magnitude better in some respects right now..... but they are relatively in their infancy.
With the new chips being made on silicon SSD tech should not curve very close to CPU tech....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30927352</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1264595820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There exists a cross-licensing deal between AMD and Intel whose exact terms are <b>secret</b> and unknown to the public.
</p><p>
AMD uses some Intel technologies (such as the X86 instruction set), and Intel uses some AMD technologies, such as X86\_64.
</p><p>
Without these deals, PC microprocessor performance and capabilities of both AMD and Intel would probably not be nearly what it is today.
</p><p>
Also, the alternative is for the two companies to have sued each other into oblivion over patent infringement/IP cases, as in thermonuclear war --
each has a big enough patent arsenal against the other to provide assured destruction.
</p><p>
Well, Intel could <b>probably</b> design a new old-generation chip without using any AMD technologies.
</p><p>
But there'd be no buyers...
The public might go back to using PowerPC/MIPs.
(e.g. death of the X86 platform)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There exists a cross-licensing deal between AMD and Intel whose exact terms are secret and unknown to the public .
AMD uses some Intel technologies ( such as the X86 instruction set ) , and Intel uses some AMD technologies , such as X86 \ _64 .
Without these deals , PC microprocessor performance and capabilities of both AMD and Intel would probably not be nearly what it is today .
Also , the alternative is for the two companies to have sued each other into oblivion over patent infringement/IP cases , as in thermonuclear war -- each has a big enough patent arsenal against the other to provide assured destruction .
Well , Intel could probably design a new old-generation chip without using any AMD technologies .
But there 'd be no buyers.. . The public might go back to using PowerPC/MIPs .
( e.g. death of the X86 platform )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There exists a cross-licensing deal between AMD and Intel whose exact terms are secret and unknown to the public.
AMD uses some Intel technologies (such as the X86 instruction set), and Intel uses some AMD technologies, such as X86\_64.
Without these deals, PC microprocessor performance and capabilities of both AMD and Intel would probably not be nearly what it is today.
Also, the alternative is for the two companies to have sued each other into oblivion over patent infringement/IP cases, as in thermonuclear war --
each has a big enough patent arsenal against the other to provide assured destruction.
Well, Intel could probably design a new old-generation chip without using any AMD technologies.
But there'd be no buyers...
The public might go back to using PowerPC/MIPs.
(e.g. death of the X86 platform)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912320</id>
	<title>anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackintosh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264514100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would like to get one of these discount quadcore AMD processors, don't know which is the best option for a Hackintosh, though. Any recommendations? My current hackintosh is Intel-based and I don't know how tricky it might be to configure a working AMD--based hackintosh. Links appreciated.<br> <br>Seth</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would like to get one of these discount quadcore AMD processors , do n't know which is the best option for a Hackintosh , though .
Any recommendations ?
My current hackintosh is Intel-based and I do n't know how tricky it might be to configure a working AMD--based hackintosh .
Links appreciated .
Seth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would like to get one of these discount quadcore AMD processors, don't know which is the best option for a Hackintosh, though.
Any recommendations?
My current hackintosh is Intel-based and I don't know how tricky it might be to configure a working AMD--based hackintosh.
Links appreciated.
Seth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912394</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1264514640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What are you talking about?
AMD64, also known as x86\_64 or EMT64T  was invented by AMD.
</p><p>
The performance is absolutely stellar.
</p><p>
AMD did this so well, Intel decided to try to copy them, and came up with Intel 64T.
</p><p>
As a whole, there is barely a noticeable performance difference between the two platforms.
</p><p>
Of course there are some  low-performing  64-bit procs for budget users, just like there are slow Intel procs for budget users.
</p><p>
But overall, Intel 64-bit procs are no better than AMD 64-bit procs.
</p><p>
Also, when it comes to hardware virtualization and IOMMU,  AMD has a very significant edge.
</p><p>
Don't blame AMD because you bought the wrong proc model for your system, or misconfig'ed it.
Processor is definitely not the only thing that impacts performance.
There are many other ways you can screw your system's performance in picking hardware components  --  not all procs are ideal for all configurations.
</p><p>
Hell, i'm very often getting better performance with Linux and Windows (dual boot) out of my AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Windsor 2.6GHz  than with my Intel Core2 Quad Core Q9400 2.66Ghz, and much better benchmarks for certain types of workloads.
</p><p>Even though the Quad Core machine has 8gb of RAM, and my dual-core machine only has  4gb...
</p><p>
I blame it on the Linux and Windows kernels'  poor support for multi-processing  and seedy memory management.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ?
AMD64 , also known as x86 \ _64 or EMT64T was invented by AMD .
The performance is absolutely stellar .
AMD did this so well , Intel decided to try to copy them , and came up with Intel 64T .
As a whole , there is barely a noticeable performance difference between the two platforms .
Of course there are some low-performing 64-bit procs for budget users , just like there are slow Intel procs for budget users .
But overall , Intel 64-bit procs are no better than AMD 64-bit procs .
Also , when it comes to hardware virtualization and IOMMU , AMD has a very significant edge .
Do n't blame AMD because you bought the wrong proc model for your system , or misconfig'ed it .
Processor is definitely not the only thing that impacts performance .
There are many other ways you can screw your system 's performance in picking hardware components -- not all procs are ideal for all configurations .
Hell , i 'm very often getting better performance with Linux and Windows ( dual boot ) out of my AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200 + Windsor 2.6GHz than with my Intel Core2 Quad Core Q9400 2.66Ghz , and much better benchmarks for certain types of workloads .
Even though the Quad Core machine has 8gb of RAM , and my dual-core machine only has 4gb.. . I blame it on the Linux and Windows kernels ' poor support for multi-processing and seedy memory management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What are you talking about?
AMD64, also known as x86\_64 or EMT64T  was invented by AMD.
The performance is absolutely stellar.
AMD did this so well, Intel decided to try to copy them, and came up with Intel 64T.
As a whole, there is barely a noticeable performance difference between the two platforms.
Of course there are some  low-performing  64-bit procs for budget users, just like there are slow Intel procs for budget users.
But overall, Intel 64-bit procs are no better than AMD 64-bit procs.
Also, when it comes to hardware virtualization and IOMMU,  AMD has a very significant edge.
Don't blame AMD because you bought the wrong proc model for your system, or misconfig'ed it.
Processor is definitely not the only thing that impacts performance.
There are many other ways you can screw your system's performance in picking hardware components  --  not all procs are ideal for all configurations.
Hell, i'm very often getting better performance with Linux and Windows (dual boot) out of my AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Windsor 2.6GHz  than with my Intel Core2 Quad Core Q9400 2.66Ghz, and much better benchmarks for certain types of workloads.
Even though the Quad Core machine has 8gb of RAM, and my dual-core machine only has  4gb...

I blame it on the Linux and Windows kernels'  poor support for multi-processing  and seedy memory management.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30929298</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hard drive stupid</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1264610160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then support <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic\_data\_storage" title="wikipedia.org">holographic memory</a> [wikipedia.org]. There appears to be at least <a href="http://www.pcstats.com/releaseview.cfm?releaseID=1441" title="pcstats.com">one company</a> [pcstats.com] doing work with it. There may be more. I didn't look very hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then support holographic memory [ wikipedia.org ] .
There appears to be at least one company [ pcstats.com ] doing work with it .
There may be more .
I did n't look very hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then support holographic memory [wikipedia.org].
There appears to be at least one company [pcstats.com] doing work with it.
There may be more.
I didn't look very hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913994</id>
	<title>Re:I'd just like to say FUCK YOU to the "troll" mo</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1264531560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't want to be modded down, then why won't you answer even the simplest of questions? The WHOLE POINT of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and why many of us come here is for the discussions, and while you are surely entitled to your opinion simply saying "IT SUX!" over and over is less than useless and makes you sound like a troll. </p><p>Now I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your are NOT a troll, but if that is the case then these questions should only take you a few moments to answer: What make/model (if you remember) CPUs were they? Were they used in the same board? With the same RAM,HDD,etc? What kind of jobs were these CPUs expected to perform? Did you OC them, or crank up the voltage? What type of machine? Gamer? Business? Server? What OS? Windows XP? WinServer? Linux? What were the problems you encountered, and what made the Intel solution better for the job?</p><p>

Looking at my clock that took me all of 4 minutes to type, and I am a two fingered typist. If you have even the tiniest amount of typing skills it should take you less than 5 minutes, 10 if you go into detail, to answer these simple questions. If you want to participate here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and not have mods drive your posts into the basement, a little courtesy is all that is required. You stated you had a bad problem with AMD chips that caused you to switch, many of us (including myself who builds both Intel and AMD boxes for a living) have not had any problems and wish to know more. That is Not "being a fan troll" (WTF is a fan troll?) or anyone picking on you, that is simply how it works here, and with an under 1 million UserID you should know this by now. show a little courtesy and courtesy will be shown to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want to be modded down , then why wo n't you answer even the simplest of questions ?
The WHOLE POINT of / .
and why many of us come here is for the discussions , and while you are surely entitled to your opinion simply saying " IT SUX !
" over and over is less than useless and makes you sound like a troll .
Now I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your are NOT a troll , but if that is the case then these questions should only take you a few moments to answer : What make/model ( if you remember ) CPUs were they ?
Were they used in the same board ?
With the same RAM,HDD,etc ?
What kind of jobs were these CPUs expected to perform ?
Did you OC them , or crank up the voltage ?
What type of machine ?
Gamer ? Business ?
Server ? What OS ?
Windows XP ?
WinServer ? Linux ?
What were the problems you encountered , and what made the Intel solution better for the job ?
Looking at my clock that took me all of 4 minutes to type , and I am a two fingered typist .
If you have even the tiniest amount of typing skills it should take you less than 5 minutes , 10 if you go into detail , to answer these simple questions .
If you want to participate here at / .
and not have mods drive your posts into the basement , a little courtesy is all that is required .
You stated you had a bad problem with AMD chips that caused you to switch , many of us ( including myself who builds both Intel and AMD boxes for a living ) have not had any problems and wish to know more .
That is Not " being a fan troll " ( WTF is a fan troll ?
) or anyone picking on you , that is simply how it works here , and with an under 1 million UserID you should know this by now .
show a little courtesy and courtesy will be shown to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want to be modded down, then why won't you answer even the simplest of questions?
The WHOLE POINT of /.
and why many of us come here is for the discussions, and while you are surely entitled to your opinion simply saying "IT SUX!
" over and over is less than useless and makes you sound like a troll.
Now I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your are NOT a troll, but if that is the case then these questions should only take you a few moments to answer: What make/model (if you remember) CPUs were they?
Were they used in the same board?
With the same RAM,HDD,etc?
What kind of jobs were these CPUs expected to perform?
Did you OC them, or crank up the voltage?
What type of machine?
Gamer? Business?
Server? What OS?
Windows XP?
WinServer? Linux?
What were the problems you encountered, and what made the Intel solution better for the job?
Looking at my clock that took me all of 4 minutes to type, and I am a two fingered typist.
If you have even the tiniest amount of typing skills it should take you less than 5 minutes, 10 if you go into detail, to answer these simple questions.
If you want to participate here at /.
and not have mods drive your posts into the basement, a little courtesy is all that is required.
You stated you had a bad problem with AMD chips that caused you to switch, many of us (including myself who builds both Intel and AMD boxes for a living) have not had any problems and wish to know more.
That is Not "being a fan troll" (WTF is a fan troll?
) or anyone picking on you, that is simply how it works here, and with an under 1 million UserID you should know this by now.
show a little courtesy and courtesy will be shown to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912600</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1264516140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand with a Core2 the case is not that clear. Is a Core2 Duo 3000 MHz better than a Core2 Duo 2833 MHz? Nope, the former one is an E6850, the latter an E8300.</p></div><p>And the wildly different model numbers - the things they're sold by - tell me right off they're fundamentally different and need to be looked at closer. Without even looking, one's 65nm and one's 45nm. I pull up the specs and the cache sizes are also different.</p><p>

Maybe it's just me, but that the difference between AM2 and AM3 was that the AM3 had a 2 after the name (Athlon II and Phenom II) didn't strike me as the most obvious way to advertise that change.</p><p>

Conclusion: Buying parts because of a single number will eventually get you burned no matter who you buy from.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand with a Core2 the case is not that clear .
Is a Core2 Duo 3000 MHz better than a Core2 Duo 2833 MHz ?
Nope , the former one is an E6850 , the latter an E8300.And the wildly different model numbers - the things they 're sold by - tell me right off they 're fundamentally different and need to be looked at closer .
Without even looking , one 's 65nm and one 's 45nm .
I pull up the specs and the cache sizes are also different .
Maybe it 's just me , but that the difference between AM2 and AM3 was that the AM3 had a 2 after the name ( Athlon II and Phenom II ) did n't strike me as the most obvious way to advertise that change .
Conclusion : Buying parts because of a single number will eventually get you burned no matter who you buy from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand with a Core2 the case is not that clear.
Is a Core2 Duo 3000 MHz better than a Core2 Duo 2833 MHz?
Nope, the former one is an E6850, the latter an E8300.And the wildly different model numbers - the things they're sold by - tell me right off they're fundamentally different and need to be looked at closer.
Without even looking, one's 65nm and one's 45nm.
I pull up the specs and the cache sizes are also different.
Maybe it's just me, but that the difference between AM2 and AM3 was that the AM3 had a 2 after the name (Athlon II and Phenom II) didn't strike me as the most obvious way to advertise that change.
Conclusion: Buying parts because of a single number will eventually get you burned no matter who you buy from.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914902</id>
	<title>Re:I agree...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264589520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With that price, I wonder if AMD can compete on the performance pre price scale.</p><p>E.g. I bet you get a ton of AMD CPUs for the price of one high-powerful Core i7.</p><p>What we need, is 4-8 socket mainboards!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With that price , I wonder if AMD can compete on the performance pre price scale.E.g .
I bet you get a ton of AMD CPUs for the price of one high-powerful Core i7.What we need , is 4-8 socket mainboards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With that price, I wonder if AMD can compete on the performance pre price scale.E.g.
I bet you get a ton of AMD CPUs for the price of one high-powerful Core i7.What we need, is 4-8 socket mainboards!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912562</id>
	<title>Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264515660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, something with an intel processor.  Save yourself the headaches, its not worth the savings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , something with an intel processor .
Save yourself the headaches , its not worth the savings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, something with an intel processor.
Save yourself the headaches, its not worth the savings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912576</id>
	<title>Re:anyone recommend a good AMD mobo for a hackinto</title>
	<author>Penguinoflight</author>
	<datestamp>1264515840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Despite the above comment being made by an intel troll you will need an intel system to run osx.  Most any of the cheap intel chipsets (like the g31) will work with osx.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the above comment being made by an intel troll you will need an intel system to run osx .
Most any of the cheap intel chipsets ( like the g31 ) will work with osx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the above comment being made by an intel troll you will need an intel system to run osx.
Most any of the cheap intel chipsets (like the g31) will work with osx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912294</id>
	<title>Re:watts of boom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264513980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.  For a while, I had the highest-end Phenom II 965 (the 140 W one), and it never drew anywhere nearly as much as you said.  I switched to the 125 W model after I was tired of having a space heater running during the Summer, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
For a while , I had the highest-end Phenom II 965 ( the 140 W one ) , and it never drew anywhere nearly as much as you said .
I switched to the 125 W model after I was tired of having a space heater running during the Summer , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
For a while, I had the highest-end Phenom II 965 (the 140 W one), and it never drew anywhere nearly as much as you said.
I switched to the 125 W model after I was tired of having a space heater running during the Summer, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30917086</id>
	<title>Re:AMD=Awful Macro Devices For A reason</title>
	<author>tarius8105</author>
	<datestamp>1264606800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple chose Intel so they can charge you more for the hardware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple chose Intel so they can charge you more for the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple chose Intel so they can charge you more for the hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915010</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hard drive stupid</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264591320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that there is this technology called RAM, right?</p><p>Also, there is cache. And nowadays, opimization consists of fitting your algorithm in the cache. Then when it&rsquo;s done, you take the next block. So what back in the days was swapping (to disk) is nowadays swapping (to RAM).</p><p>I recommend you buy yourself as much RAM as you can fit into your mainboard. That should help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that there is this technology called RAM , right ? Also , there is cache .
And nowadays , opimization consists of fitting your algorithm in the cache .
Then when it    s done , you take the next block .
So what back in the days was swapping ( to disk ) is nowadays swapping ( to RAM ) .I recommend you buy yourself as much RAM as you can fit into your mainboard .
That should help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that there is this technology called RAM, right?Also, there is cache.
And nowadays, opimization consists of fitting your algorithm in the cache.
Then when it’s done, you take the next block.
So what back in the days was swapping (to disk) is nowadays swapping (to RAM).I recommend you buy yourself as much RAM as you can fit into your mainboard.
That should help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912836</id>
	<title>Re:FUCK YOU RACIST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite the opposite, reading the posts.  They talk of equality regardless of color.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite the opposite , reading the posts .
They talk of equality regardless of color .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite the opposite, reading the posts.
They talk of equality regardless of color.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913796</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because the equivalent intel proc is maybe only 30 percent faster but costs three times as much.<br>amd is much more cost effective<br>that and amd's IGPs dont get beat in performance by gpus made half a decade ago</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because the equivalent intel proc is maybe only 30 percent faster but costs three times as much.amd is much more cost effectivethat and amd 's IGPs dont get beat in performance by gpus made half a decade ago</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because the equivalent intel proc is maybe only 30 percent faster but costs three times as much.amd is much more cost effectivethat and amd's IGPs dont get beat in performance by gpus made half a decade ago</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30920000</id>
	<title>Re:It's the hard drive stupid</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1264618080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Arguably, if the hard drive is your limitation today for common computing tasks, you're doing something wrong.</p><p>Yes, it's still a limitation, but there are many ways to mitigate that bottleneck for large environments: dedicated RAM drives, massive amounts of RAM, cache servers, SSDs, and so on. In many cases, it's cheaper to just throw another identical system with rotational disks at the problem.</p><p>For a common user, SSDs are the way to go. Most have under 1Gb of music, maybe 10Gb of other media (I'd wager). Maybe a couple gigabytes of pictures, depending on their age, quality of their digital camera, et cetera. And this is for a "savvy" user; most have under 1Gb of total data. SSDs make perfect sense for these users.</p><p>The biggest limitation on a computer's abilities for personal use in the past 10 years have been the amount of RAM the system has, the video card, and finally the hard drive. Provided the disk does not fail, a 10-year-old system with a decent video card for the day and a fair amount of RAM (512M would cut it, probably, but 1Gb wouldn't be unreasonable) is still going to be more computer than most people will ever need.</p><p>As for hard disks sucking and nobody doing anything about it... you can get a 1.5Tb disk for under $100 - and 1.5Tb is not far from the top-density model. You couldn't even get a 500Gb disk several years years ago, and for a long time you couldn't get one for under $300. So things are changing. Obviously hard drive manufacturers are doing something, just not what you want: the industry demands have been elsewhere; namely, they want more cheap storage than faster storage (which has seemingly always been an afterthought).</p><p>LightPeak is just around the corner; as a bus, it will blow away SATA. I imagine we'll start seeing single-enclosure RAID-0/1/5 disks with large amounts of RAM to decrease write lag sooner than later. Combine the two things and you'll have a reason to shut up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguably , if the hard drive is your limitation today for common computing tasks , you 're doing something wrong.Yes , it 's still a limitation , but there are many ways to mitigate that bottleneck for large environments : dedicated RAM drives , massive amounts of RAM , cache servers , SSDs , and so on .
In many cases , it 's cheaper to just throw another identical system with rotational disks at the problem.For a common user , SSDs are the way to go .
Most have under 1Gb of music , maybe 10Gb of other media ( I 'd wager ) .
Maybe a couple gigabytes of pictures , depending on their age , quality of their digital camera , et cetera .
And this is for a " savvy " user ; most have under 1Gb of total data .
SSDs make perfect sense for these users.The biggest limitation on a computer 's abilities for personal use in the past 10 years have been the amount of RAM the system has , the video card , and finally the hard drive .
Provided the disk does not fail , a 10-year-old system with a decent video card for the day and a fair amount of RAM ( 512M would cut it , probably , but 1Gb would n't be unreasonable ) is still going to be more computer than most people will ever need.As for hard disks sucking and nobody doing anything about it... you can get a 1.5Tb disk for under $ 100 - and 1.5Tb is not far from the top-density model .
You could n't even get a 500Gb disk several years years ago , and for a long time you could n't get one for under $ 300 .
So things are changing .
Obviously hard drive manufacturers are doing something , just not what you want : the industry demands have been elsewhere ; namely , they want more cheap storage than faster storage ( which has seemingly always been an afterthought ) .LightPeak is just around the corner ; as a bus , it will blow away SATA .
I imagine we 'll start seeing single-enclosure RAID-0/1/5 disks with large amounts of RAM to decrease write lag sooner than later .
Combine the two things and you 'll have a reason to shut up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguably, if the hard drive is your limitation today for common computing tasks, you're doing something wrong.Yes, it's still a limitation, but there are many ways to mitigate that bottleneck for large environments: dedicated RAM drives, massive amounts of RAM, cache servers, SSDs, and so on.
In many cases, it's cheaper to just throw another identical system with rotational disks at the problem.For a common user, SSDs are the way to go.
Most have under 1Gb of music, maybe 10Gb of other media (I'd wager).
Maybe a couple gigabytes of pictures, depending on their age, quality of their digital camera, et cetera.
And this is for a "savvy" user; most have under 1Gb of total data.
SSDs make perfect sense for these users.The biggest limitation on a computer's abilities for personal use in the past 10 years have been the amount of RAM the system has, the video card, and finally the hard drive.
Provided the disk does not fail, a 10-year-old system with a decent video card for the day and a fair amount of RAM (512M would cut it, probably, but 1Gb wouldn't be unreasonable) is still going to be more computer than most people will ever need.As for hard disks sucking and nobody doing anything about it... you can get a 1.5Tb disk for under $100 - and 1.5Tb is not far from the top-density model.
You couldn't even get a 500Gb disk several years years ago, and for a long time you couldn't get one for under $300.
So things are changing.
Obviously hard drive manufacturers are doing something, just not what you want: the industry demands have been elsewhere; namely, they want more cheap storage than faster storage (which has seemingly always been an afterthought).LightPeak is just around the corner; as a bus, it will blow away SATA.
I imagine we'll start seeing single-enclosure RAID-0/1/5 disks with large amounts of RAM to decrease write lag sooner than later.
Combine the two things and you'll have a reason to shut up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30916952</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>ThePhilips</author>
	<datestamp>1264606200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> By pure lack of funds I was pushed in past to buy Athlon 64 X2. Before I was exclusively with Intel.

</p><p> By seeing how my 5yo 4200+ (2x2200GHz) CPU works now, I really see no point buying e.g. i7 9xx - which I can easily afford now.

</p><p> I have looked at past benchmarks to try to find how outdated my CPU really is. Difference is at ~50-60\% I'd say. But it works fine for most of the workloads I use it for: development/compilation, video and games.

</p><p> Keeping that in mind, I find it outrageous now to even think of spending $200+$150 on Intel's CPU and MB. With AMD's AM3 one can get a very good deal for under $200 (~$100 for CPU and ~$80 for MB). Better spend rest of money on a better video card: e.g. Radeon 5770 at $170 is simply unbelievable deal right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By pure lack of funds I was pushed in past to buy Athlon 64 X2 .
Before I was exclusively with Intel .
By seeing how my 5yo 4200 + ( 2x2200GHz ) CPU works now , I really see no point buying e.g .
i7 9xx - which I can easily afford now .
I have looked at past benchmarks to try to find how outdated my CPU really is .
Difference is at ~ 50-60 \ % I 'd say .
But it works fine for most of the workloads I use it for : development/compilation , video and games .
Keeping that in mind , I find it outrageous now to even think of spending $ 200 + $ 150 on Intel 's CPU and MB .
With AMD 's AM3 one can get a very good deal for under $ 200 ( ~ $ 100 for CPU and ~ $ 80 for MB ) .
Better spend rest of money on a better video card : e.g .
Radeon 5770 at $ 170 is simply unbelievable deal right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> By pure lack of funds I was pushed in past to buy Athlon 64 X2.
Before I was exclusively with Intel.
By seeing how my 5yo 4200+ (2x2200GHz) CPU works now, I really see no point buying e.g.
i7 9xx - which I can easily afford now.
I have looked at past benchmarks to try to find how outdated my CPU really is.
Difference is at ~50-60\% I'd say.
But it works fine for most of the workloads I use it for: development/compilation, video and games.
Keeping that in mind, I find it outrageous now to even think of spending $200+$150 on Intel's CPU and MB.
With AMD's AM3 one can get a very good deal for under $200 (~$100 for CPU and ~$80 for MB).
Better spend rest of money on a better video card: e.g.
Radeon 5770 at $170 is simply unbelievable deal right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912938</id>
	<title>Re:AMD=Awful Macro Devices For A reason</title>
	<author>TwiztidK</author>
	<datestamp>1264519740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's great that you have somehow managed to venture out of your mother's basement to meet these people who have told you about their experiences with AMD processors. I have been using AMD processors for years and the only time my computers have ever had a problem with locking up or crashing was when I was running Vista. I suspect these people you know were mistaken.

Furthermore, how does Intel support open source more than AMD? Although I'm not familiar their "open-ness", I've never had a problem running any open source software on my AMD sporting computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great that you have somehow managed to venture out of your mother 's basement to meet these people who have told you about their experiences with AMD processors .
I have been using AMD processors for years and the only time my computers have ever had a problem with locking up or crashing was when I was running Vista .
I suspect these people you know were mistaken .
Furthermore , how does Intel support open source more than AMD ?
Although I 'm not familiar their " open-ness " , I 've never had a problem running any open source software on my AMD sporting computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great that you have somehow managed to venture out of your mother's basement to meet these people who have told you about their experiences with AMD processors.
I have been using AMD processors for years and the only time my computers have ever had a problem with locking up or crashing was when I was running Vista.
I suspect these people you know were mistaken.
Furthermore, how does Intel support open source more than AMD?
Although I'm not familiar their "open-ness", I've never had a problem running any open source software on my AMD sporting computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912328</id>
	<title>AMD=Awful Macro Devices For A reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264514160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People I have known have used a computer using an Awful Macro Devices processor and had almost nothing but lockups and crashes.  On the other hand I have a Genuine Intel Processor and no problems.  This is why Apple has chosen Intel over AMD.  BTW, Intel supports open source while AMD is an M$ lapdog.  INTEL FTW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People I have known have used a computer using an Awful Macro Devices processor and had almost nothing but lockups and crashes .
On the other hand I have a Genuine Intel Processor and no problems .
This is why Apple has chosen Intel over AMD .
BTW , Intel supports open source while AMD is an M $ lapdog .
INTEL FTW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People I have known have used a computer using an Awful Macro Devices processor and had almost nothing but lockups and crashes.
On the other hand I have a Genuine Intel Processor and no problems.
This is why Apple has chosen Intel over AMD.
BTW, Intel supports open source while AMD is an M$ lapdog.
INTEL FTW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912364</id>
	<title>Re:It's been a while since I considered AMD</title>
	<author>Korin43</author>
	<datestamp>1264514400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too refuse to use AMD processors anymore, but I can see why someone would want one of these. It's a processor fast enough to do anything you're likely to want to do for less than you can get any Intel processor for. I didn't look too closely at the benchmark results, but it looks like the Intel processors win every time, but not by enough to be noticeable unless you're running benchmarks or playing this year's Crysis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I too refuse to use AMD processors anymore , but I can see why someone would want one of these .
It 's a processor fast enough to do anything you 're likely to want to do for less than you can get any Intel processor for .
I did n't look too closely at the benchmark results , but it looks like the Intel processors win every time , but not by enough to be noticeable unless you 're running benchmarks or playing this year 's Crysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too refuse to use AMD processors anymore, but I can see why someone would want one of these.
It's a processor fast enough to do anything you're likely to want to do for less than you can get any Intel processor for.
I didn't look too closely at the benchmark results, but it looks like the Intel processors win every time, but not by enough to be noticeable unless you're running benchmarks or playing this year's Crysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912062</id>
	<title>I agree...</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1264512180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, I have a Phenom x2 and my whole system cost me a mere &euro;300, - including sound, HDD and good enough video to have a 3d gnome desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I have a Phenom x2 and my whole system cost me a mere    300 , - including sound , HDD and good enough video to have a 3d gnome desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I have a Phenom x2 and my whole system cost me a mere €300, - including sound, HDD and good enough video to have a 3d gnome desktop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913760</id>
	<title>AMD</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1264528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If nothing else AMD serves to counterpoint Intel from being a monopoly.  Further they actually make some pretty good chips.</p><p>I support AMD because they keep Intel in check.  And as a bonus their chips aren't that bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing else AMD serves to counterpoint Intel from being a monopoly .
Further they actually make some pretty good chips.I support AMD because they keep Intel in check .
And as a bonus their chips are n't that bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing else AMD serves to counterpoint Intel from being a monopoly.
Further they actually make some pretty good chips.I support AMD because they keep Intel in check.
And as a bonus their chips aren't that bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915752</id>
	<title>Re:AMD=Awful Macro Devices For A reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264599240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hahaha disregard that, I suck cocks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hahaha disregard that , I suck cocks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hahaha disregard that, I suck cocks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912328</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30917086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30927352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30931610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30924890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30929298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30916952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30920000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30918958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30916036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30917548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30920958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_2319255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2319255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30917086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2319255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2319255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30917548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2319255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30916952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30916036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30920958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30918958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30931610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915102
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30927352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2319255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30929298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30920000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30915030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2319255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2319255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2319255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30913280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_2319255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30914052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30912836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_2319255.30924890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
