The biggest difference that matters to me is in how the various chips
handle floating point math. Intel seems to be way out in front on
floating point.

If you're doing animation, CAD-CAM, or heavy statistical mathematics the
difference can be huge.  At times, under a heavy demand, the non-Intels
can be 30 minutes -- yes minutes -- slower. Then again, these types of
demand are some of the few that really benefit from multi-processor
systems, hardly the domain of the average home user.

In short, for average home use -- whatever that is -- the clones are
more than up to snuff; in fact they're a great deal. However, if you
really need heavy duty floating point processing -- and you know who you
are most likely -- go with the Intel for now.

Michael A. Wosnick wrote on Sun, 21 Jun 1998 13:35:44 -0400
> More specifically, to the present, are the non-Intel chips as good as the
> Intels? Do we simply pay more for the Intel name, or is there a
> feature-difference or worse, a quality difference that the average home
> user could discern? As I contemplate moving from my current Pentium 166,
> the price and affordability of some of non-Intel powered systems seems
> attractive, but I wonder if there is a downside that I will regret over time.
>

--
Prometheus was the first Beta Tester.
Sisyphus was the Corinthian Systems Administrator.