AMD Sempron ships

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Looks like AMD has taken the wraps off of its budget Sempron line a few days
early.

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3387051

There are two distinct lines of Semprons, several K7-based Socket A and a
K8-based Socket 754. The K8 Semprons have their 64-bit capabilities
disabled. The K7's range in performance from 2200+ to 2800+, while the K8 is
at 3100+.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M4CF229E8

http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=132287&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=1&liChannelID=2&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1

Here's the benches:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2139

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
171 answers Last reply
More about sempron ships
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Are you the unofficial spokesman for AMD? Why is this posted to the Intel
    site... just curious.


    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    news:VKLNc.529$CQV.176@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
    > Looks like AMD has taken the wraps off of its budget Sempron line a few
    days
    > early.
    >
    > http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3387051
    >
    > There are two distinct lines of Semprons, several K7-based Socket A and a
    > K8-based Socket 754. The K8 Semprons have their 64-bit capabilities
    > disabled. The K7's range in performance from 2200+ to 2800+, while the K8
    is
    > at 3100+.
    >
    > http://makeashorterlink.com/?M4CF229E8
    >
    >
    http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=132287&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=1&liChannelID=2&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1
    >
    > Here's the benches:
    >
    > http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2139
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >
    > --
    > Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
    > Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:33:59 -0600, Judd wrote:

    > Are you the unofficial spokesman for AMD?

    Oh, good grief! Everyone with a brain is an AMD supporter!

    > Why is this posted to the Intel site... just curious.

    My my, somone has their panties in a twist! You don't consider AMD worthy
    of talk in an Intel "Site" (I don't think CSI is supported by Intel, nor
    is the Usenet a "site" of any reasonable description). OTOH, you might
    just learn something from Mr. Khan (though I am stretching belief here).

    ....not to mention this is also posted to CSIPHC where all us Intel haters
    hang out. ;-)

    In short, you're nothing but a top-posting maroon!

    --
    Keith
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.07.30.02.34.39.752244@att.bizzzz...
    > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:33:59 -0600, Judd wrote:
    >
    > > Are you the unofficial spokesman for AMD?
    >
    > Oh, good grief! Everyone with a brain is an AMD supporter!
    >

    Rah, rah, rah... go stick a sempron up your ass.

    > > Why is this posted to the Intel site... just curious.
    >
    > My my, somone has their panties in a twist! You don't consider AMD worthy
    > of talk in an Intel "Site" (I don't think CSI is supported by Intel, nor
    > is the Usenet a "site" of any reasonable description). OTOH, you might
    > just learn something from Mr. Khan (though I am stretching belief here).
    >
    > ...not to mention this is also posted to CSIPHC where all us Intel haters
    > hang out. ;-)
    >
    > In short, you're nothing but a top-posting maroon!

    What's a "maroon"? Webster says: " a dark red " and "a descendant of such
    a slave".
    Well, I may be a "maroon", but you are clearly a retard.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:34:40 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:33:59 -0600, Judd wrote:
    >
    >> Are you the unofficial spokesman for AMD?
    >
    >Oh, good grief! Everyone with a brain is an AMD supporter!
    >
    >> Why is this posted to the Intel site... just curious.
    >
    >My my, somone has their panties in a twist! You don't consider AMD worthy
    >of talk in an Intel "Site" (I don't think CSI is supported by Intel, nor
    >is the Usenet a "site" of any reasonable description). OTOH, you might
    >just learn something from Mr. Khan (though I am stretching belief here).
    >
    >...not to mention this is also posted to CSIPHC where all us Intel haters
    >hang out. ;-)
    >
    >In short, you're nothing but a top-posting maroon!

    lmao! no prisoners taken here!

    /daytripper (not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 02:44:55 +0000, daytripper wrote:

    > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:34:40 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:33:59 -0600, Judd wrote:
    >>
    >>> Are you the unofficial spokesman for AMD?
    >>
    >>Oh, good grief! Everyone with a brain is an AMD supporter!
    >>
    >>> Why is this posted to the Intel site... just curious.
    >>
    >>My my, somone has their panties in a twist! You don't consider AMD worthy
    >>of talk in an Intel "Site" (I don't think CSI is supported by Intel, nor
    >>is the Usenet a "site" of any reasonable description). OTOH, you might
    >>just learn something from Mr. Khan (though I am stretching belief here).
    >>
    >>...not to mention this is also posted to CSIPHC where all us Intel haters
    >>hang out. ;-)
    >>
    >>In short, you're nothing but a top-posting maroon!
    >
    > lmao! no prisoners taken here!

    Uneducated combatants are supposed to be taken prisoner? Someone call
    DonR!
    >
    > /daytripper (not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)

    ;-))

    --
    Keith
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
    news:10gjkp78m5iah88@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    > > In short, you're nothing but a top-posting maroon!
    >
    > What's a "maroon"? Webster says: " a dark red " and "a descendant
    of such
    > a slave".
    > Well, I may be a "maroon", but you are clearly a retard.

    I'm addressing this to all 3 readers of comp.arch who aren't Bugs
    Bunny cartoon fans. When Bugs wanted to denigrate the intelligence of
    another cartoon character, he would **intend** to say "What a moron!"
    but what actually came out (in the cartoon) would be "What a maroon!",
    suggesting some ambiguity as to whose sagacity should be impugned. I
    believe that this is the sense in which Keith was writing.

    If you seriously want to challenge someone's intellectual dexterity, I
    suggest sweetly inquiring if they rode the short bus to school. ;-)
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
    flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
    can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
    without the constant bashing. There should be a
    comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
    that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
    Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
    processor will provide better performance at each price point.

    Judd wrote:

    > The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
    > flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
    > can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
    > without the constant bashing. There should be a
    > comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:49:45 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote:

    >"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
    >news:10gjkp78m5iah88@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >> > In short, you're nothing but a top-posting maroon!
    >>
    >> What's a "maroon"? Webster says: " a dark red " and "a descendant
    >of such
    >> a slave".
    >> Well, I may be a "maroon", but you are clearly a retard.
    >
    >I'm addressing this to all 3 readers of comp.arch who aren't Bugs
    >Bunny cartoon fans. When Bugs wanted to denigrate the intelligence of
    >another cartoon character, he would **intend** to say "What a moron!"
    >but what actually came out (in the cartoon) would be "What a maroon!",
    >suggesting some ambiguity as to whose sagacity should be impugned. I
    >believe that this is the sense in which Keith was writing.
    >
    >If you seriously want to challenge someone's intellectual dexterity, I
    >suggest sweetly inquiring if they rode the short bus to school. ;-)

    Too cute by half.
    My current fave:
    "I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to spell"

    ;-)
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
    > It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
    > that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
    > Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
    > processor will provide better performance at each price point.
    >
    >

    No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need you
    AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater for I
    computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the prescotts
    which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once again Intel is
    superior.

    True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:51:22 GMT, "Lee Waun" <leewaun@telus.net> wrote:

    >
    >"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    >news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
    >> It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
    >> that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
    >> Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
    >> processor will provide better performance at each price point.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need you
    >AMD lovers cramming it down our throats.
    [flushed]

    "We"?

    Go play in traffic...
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:

    >The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
    >flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
    >can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
    >without the constant bashing. There should be a
    >comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.

    I'm sure you can find an "Intel site", where you can conduct iSeances in
    peace, if that's what you have in mind. As already pointed out to you,
    this is Usenet, the comp.sys... hierarchy specifically. If Outlook
    doesn't have an "ignore thread" feature, you could also consider using a
    real newsreader.

    Rgds, George Macdonald

    "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:49:45 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net>
    wrote:
    >If you seriously want to challenge someone's intellectual dexterity, I
    >suggest sweetly inquiring if they rode the short bus to school. ;-)

    But tha only works in perhaps only one culture/context no? At least
    Bugs have got a bigger coverage :PppP

    --
    L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
    If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
    Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
    If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
    But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:51:22 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:

    >
    > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
    >> It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
    >> that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
    >> Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
    >> processor will provide better performance at each price point.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need you
    > AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater for I
    > computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the prescotts
    > which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once again Intel is
    > superior.

    Ok, you're saying, "I'm stupid and wish to remain so"? Or more like, "my
    mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts"?
    >
    > True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.

    You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
    you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.

    --
    Keith
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, Judd wrote:

    > The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
    > flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda.

    Fact <> propaganda. Propaganda is what you are left with when you
    refuse to listen.

    > It's to the point now where you
    > can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
    > without the constant bashing. There should be a
    > comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.

    If you're that thin-skinned perhas the Usenet isn't for you? Or does it
    depress you that much to know that you are what you claim others to be?

    Maroon! ;-)

    --
    Keith
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Keith wrote:
    >
    [...]

    > > True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
    >
    > You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
    > you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.

    Not a mistake. The Northwood was quite a good choice everything considered.
    The performance issue is not as clear cut as you seem to suggest, you can
    probably find favourable benchmarks in both directions, depending on which
    team you belong. I have also built using Northwoord, but belong to neither
    team. Once the computer was completed, the processor type was not foremost
    in my mind.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:

    >
    >
    > Keith wrote:
    >>
    > [...]
    >
    >> > True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
    >>
    >> You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
    >> you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.
    >
    > Not a mistake. The Northwood was quite a good choice everything considered.
    > The performance issue is not as clear cut as you seem to suggest, you can
    > probably find favourable benchmarks in both directions, depending on which
    > team you belong.

    You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as another
    cartoon character, to be named later, once said)

    > I have also built using Northwoord, but belong to neither team.

    Now there is a laugh! ...and on many levels! ;-))

    > Once the computer was completed, the processor type was not foremost
    > in my mind.

    Well, duh! You're saying that once you made your decisions youu
    didn't look back? At least you make *some* sense.

    --
    Keith
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Felger Carbon wrote:
    > If you seriously want to challenge someone's intellectual dexterity, I
    > suggest sweetly inquiring if they rode the short bus to school. ;-)

    In Canada, all that means is did you ever go to kindergarten? The short
    buses were for the littlest kids that went for only half a day.

    Yousuf Khan
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
    wrote:

    >The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
    >flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
    >can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
    >without the constant bashing. There should be a
    >comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
    >
    Ever heard of the 1st Amendment? If you don't like it, you are free
    to go someplace like Cuba. Over there, neither INTC nor AMD is
    superior, that definition is reserved for Fidel exclusively. Oh, by
    the way, you'd be lucky to have just any CPU and 9.6k dialup over
    there...
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Keith wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > Keith wrote:
    > >>
    > > [...]
    > >
    > >> > True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
    > >>
    > >> You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
    > >> you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.
    > >
    > > Not a mistake. The Northwood was quite a good choice everything considered.
    > > The performance issue is not as clear cut as you seem to suggest, you can
    > > probably find favourable benchmarks in both directions, depending on which
    > > team you belong.
    >
    > You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as another
    > cartoon character, to be named later, once said)
    >
    > > I have also built using Northwoord, but belong to neither team.
    >
    > Now there is a laugh! ...and on many levels! ;-))
    >
    > > Once the computer was completed, the processor type was not foremost
    > > in my mind.
    >
    > Well, duh! You're saying that once you made your decisions youu
    > didn't look back? At least you make *some* sense.
    >
    > --
    > Keith

    I know you're winding me up and it's stupid to answer your post. But what's
    the big deal? Are the AMD light years ahead of the Intel Northwood at the
    same affordable price? I doubt it. As I said, there are certainly arguments
    and official benchmarks both ways - yes I said both ways. So far I've had
    no problems with my Northwood system, not even minor niggles. It works and
    I'm now getting on with interesting software projects. Have a nice day.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Lee Waun <leewaun@telus.net> wrote:
    > No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need
    > you AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater
    > for I computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the
    > prescotts which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once
    > again Intel is superior.

    No, actually it's more like, historically comp.sys.intel was *never* just
    about Intel. It was always about the architecture that Intel started. So
    competing products that are compatible with Intel's products are on-topic.
    When the group was originally started it seemed like a good idea to call it
    "Intel", it seemed generic enough while being descriptive enough at the
    time.

    Similarly, a group called comp.sys.IBM.PC.hardware is not limited to the
    discussion of IBM products, let alone IBM PC products. In fact, very little
    IBM products discussions actually ever goes on in this group. Again, at the
    time the group was created, it seemed like a good description, but that
    market has evolved since then.

    Yousuf Khan
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.08.01.02.20.16.584376@att.bizzzz...
    > On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
    >
    > You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as
    another
    > cartoon character, to be named later, once said)

    You're obviously referring to Amadeus Mozart Drobnik. Having failed
    (despite his parents' expectations) as a professional musician, he
    learned that there was a B-25 Mitchell twin-engine bomber stuck in the
    side of the Empire State Building, a few floors beneith King Kong's
    former perch. So he donned a colorful leotard-cap outfit, and rode
    the elevator to the location of the stuck bomber.

    Alas, while struggling heroically to displace the B-25, he slipped and
    fell. The cape, a cheap Chinese knock-off, bore a label stating "If
    cape fails to function properly, return to Pei Ping for free
    replacement." Wouldn't you know it, the cape did malfunction in an
    aerodynamic sense. Poor Drobnik.

    [Sternly] Keith, you know better to bring up this Drobnik episode!
    Obviously, AMD belongs in another newsgroup!
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:10:54 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

    > "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2004.08.01.02.20.16.584376@att.bizzzz...
    >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
    >>
    >> You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as
    > another
    >> cartoon character, to be named later, once said)
    >
    > You're obviously referring to Amadeus Mozart Drobnik.

    Felger, you're always giving answers for free! Where's the fun in
    teasing kidz when you soil the punch line? I doubt the kidz of today even
    read Drobnik's strip in the Sunday comics. ...much less anything more
    sophisticated.

    > Having failed
    > (despite his parents' expectations) as a professional musician, he
    > learned that there was a B-25 Mitchell twin-engine bomber stuck in the
    > side of the Empire State Building, a few floors beneith King Kong's
    > former perch. So he donned a colorful leotard-cap outfit, and rode the
    > elevator to the location of the stuck bomber.
    >
    > Alas, while struggling heroically to displace the B-25, he slipped and
    > fell. The cape, a cheap Chinese knock-off, bore a label stating "If
    > cape fails to function properly, return to Pei Ping for free
    > replacement." Wouldn't you know it, the cape did malfunction in an
    > aerodynamic sense. Poor Drobnik.

    Felg! We all know how badly GWB has screwed up the economy by sending
    cape manufacturing off-shore, but can you really blame the
    Chi-Comms on the Mitchell's navigation system too? <oops, that was
    Clinton that sold the INS stuff>

    > [Sternly] Keith, you know better to bring up this Drobnik episode!
    > Obviously, AMD belongs in another newsgroup!

    comp.sys.alternate.reality?

    --
    Keith
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:09:14 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
    <johs@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com> wrote:
    >> Everything considered? Did you consider a 64 bit OS and 64 bit software????
    >
    >No I didn't. I can't afford to buy new OS and new 64 bit compilers which will
    >cost a fortune, so I stick to what I've got at the moment, and it does the job
    >to everybody's satisfaction

    <Tony dons his flame-proof suit>

    Well the obviously answer here is that you should be running Linux and
    using the free GCC compiler! :>

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote:

    >If you seriously want to challenge someone's intellectual dexterity, I
    >suggest sweetly inquiring if they rode the short bus to school. ;-)

    What an embezzle.

    8)
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:

    >The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
    >flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
    >can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
    >without the constant bashing. There should be a
    >comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.

    Don't bait the AMD lovers in here. There's too many of them and
    they're too easily whipped-up into a frenzy. When you're in the
    minority, you need to tread lightly, especially now that AMD is, once
    again, temporarily in the lead. 8)
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Johannes H Andersen wrote:
    >
    > JK wrote:

    [SNIP]

    >>Interesting software projects? It is a pity that none of them are 64 bit.
    >
    >
    > Maybe for you, but my software is solving real problems in the real world.

    I've solved some real world problems that didn't need 64bit addressing
    but they *really* flew SIMD style with 64bit registers as opposed to
    32bit... That was back in 1996 too, pretty sure printing presses are
    still running so I figure that real world problem will still be there
    too. :)

    If your business is compiling you might want to consider AMD (XP or A64)
    in preference to P4 chips anyway. The AMD chips seem to offer far better
    bang for buck in that department.

    Cheers,
    Rupert
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:09:14 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
    > <johs@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com> wrote:
    > >> Everything considered? Did you consider a 64 bit OS and 64 bit software????
    > >
    > >No I didn't. I can't afford to buy new OS and new 64 bit compilers which will
    > >cost a fortune, so I stick to what I've got at the moment, and it does the job
    > >to everybody's satisfaction
    >
    > <Tony dons his flame-proof suit>
    >
    > Well the obviously answer here is that you should be running Linux and
    > using the free GCC compiler! :>

    You're quite right I should be running Linux & Kylix, but I don't at the moment.
    Maybe I'll come back to that later. All that is very interesting, but in the
    meantime I have to get the work done.
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Rupert Pigott wrote:
    >
    > Johannes H Andersen wrote:
    > >
    > > JK wrote:
    >
    > [SNIP]
    >
    > >>Interesting software projects? It is a pity that none of them are 64 bit.
    > >
    > >
    > > Maybe for you, but my software is solving real problems in the real world.
    >
    > I've solved some real world problems that didn't need 64bit addressing
    > but they *really* flew SIMD style with 64bit registers as opposed to
    > 32bit... That was back in 1996 too, pretty sure printing presses are
    > still running so I figure that real world problem will still be there
    > too. :)

    I can beat that since I programmed on a Cray-1 in 1978. 64 bits is nothing new.

    > If your business is compiling you might want to consider AMD (XP or A64)
    > in preference to P4 chips anyway. The AMD chips seem to offer far better
    > bang for buck in that department.

    Possibly, but see other posts.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    chrisv wrote:
    > Don't bait the AMD lovers in here. There's too many of them and
    > they're too easily whipped-up into a frenzy. When you're in the
    > minority, you need to tread lightly, especially now that AMD is, once
    > again, temporarily in the lead. 8)

    Technologically, yes, but still a long way to go marketing wise.

    Yousuf Khan
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:05:47 -0500, chrisv wrote:

    > "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
    >>flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
    >>can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
    >>without the constant bashing. There should be a
    >>comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
    >
    > Don't bait the AMD lovers in here. There's too many of them and
    > they're too easily whipped-up into a frenzy. When you're in the
    > minority, you need to tread lightly, especially now that AMD is, once
    > again, temporarily in the lead. 8)

    Certainly! When you're *wrong* it pays to keep silent. There are vary
    few excuses to buy Intel at this particular point. There are many reasons
    to go elsewhere.

    --
    Keith
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:34:27 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > chrisv wrote:
    >> Don't bait the AMD lovers in here. There's too many of them and
    >> they're too easily whipped-up into a frenzy. When you're in the
    >> minority, you need to tread lightly, especially now that AMD is, once
    >> again, temporarily in the lead. 8)
    >
    > Technologically, yes, but still a long way to go marketing wise.

    I won't even give AMD the technology edge. Certainly I'll give
    them the management edge. Intel has been impressive in their corporate
    attempts to paint themselves into a corner. AMD has simply found that heel
    and executed rather well. The K6 equalled the PII, then the K7 took over.
    While Intel toyed with the Itanic (and a few $Billion), AMD learned by
    reading the history books.

    --
    Keith
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Keith wrote:
    >> Technologically, yes, but still a long way to go marketing wise.
    >
    > I won't even give AMD the technology edge. Certainly I'll give
    > them the management edge. Intel has been impressive in their
    > corporate attempts to paint themselves into a corner. AMD has simply
    > found that heel and executed rather well. The K6 equalled the PII,
    > then the K7 took over. While Intel toyed with the Itanic (and a few
    > $Billion), AMD learned by reading the history books.

    It wasn't so long ago when people were critisizing AMD's management (prior
    to the Hammer processors coming out), because all it had competing against
    the P4 was the Athlon XPs, which weren't being updated at a fast enough
    pace.

    Yousuf Khan
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.07.31.17.44.33.167510@att.bizzzz...
    > On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:51:22 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > > news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
    > >> It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
    > >> that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
    > >> Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
    > >> processor will provide better performance at each price point.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > > No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need
    you
    > > AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater for I
    > > computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the
    prescotts
    > > which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once again Intel
    is
    > > superior.
    >
    > Ok, you're saying, "I'm stupid and wish to remain so"? Or more like, "my
    > mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts"?
    > >
    > > True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
    >
    > You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
    > you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.
    >
    > --
    No I did all the research I needed too and I don't want AMD. I want the
    industry standard which is Intel. Not AMD.


    > Keith
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:je8og0dj2hpr34elq2r8hkrgqfg8872fpe@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
    > >flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
    > >can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
    > >without the constant bashing. There should be a
    > >comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
    > >
    > Ever heard of the 1st Amendment? If you don't like it, you are free
    > to go someplace like Cuba. Over there, neither INTC nor AMD is
    > superior, that definition is reserved for Fidel exclusively. Oh, by
    > the way, you'd be lucky to have just any CPU and 9.6k dialup over
    > there...
    >

    Believe it or not some people here are not American and really don't care
    one bit about your stupid yankee 1st Amendment. Cuba is a nice place to
    vacation too. Several of my friends have been there several times.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Lee Waun <leewaun@telus.net> wrote:
    > No I did all the research I needed too and I don't want
    > AMD. I want the industry standard which is Intel. Not AMD.

    Uhm, x86 has never been a standard in the sense of having
    an industry organization/committee (IEEE, ACM, ... )
    develop and publish written standards.

    That said, Intel has been a "de facto" standard in that
    their competitors (AMD, VIA, ...) tend to incorporate more
    of Intel's features than Intel incorporates of theirs.

    As Keith points out, your research is out of date. The standard
    is shifting. With the miserable failure of IA64 (Itanium), it
    looks like Intel will incorporate AMDs x86-64 wholesale in Banias.

    -- Robert
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Lee Waun <leewaun@telus.net> wrote:
    > Believe it or not some people here are not American and really
    > don't care one bit about your stupid yankee 1st Amendment.

    Ah, but Americans care very much about the 1st Amendment and will
    behave accordingly. Helping you be free whether you want it or not.

    Freedom anywhere advances freedom everywhere.

    -- Robert
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Lee Waun wrote:
    > "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2004.07.31.17.44.33.167510@att.bizzzz...
    >
    >>On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:51:22 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
    >>>
    >>>>It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
    >>>>that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
    >>>>Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
    >>>>processor will provide better performance at each price point.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need
    >
    > you
    >
    >>>AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater for I
    >>>computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the
    >
    > prescotts
    >
    >>>which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once again Intel
    >
    > is
    >
    >>>superior.
    >>
    >>Ok, you're saying, "I'm stupid and wish to remain so"? Or more like, "my
    >>mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts"?
    >>
    >>>True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
    >>
    >>You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
    >>you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.
    >>
    >>--
    >
    > No I did all the research I needed too and I don't want AMD. I want the
    > industry standard which is Intel. Not AMD.
    >

    And that is why standards improve so slowly - because
    people settle for the "standard" when better things
    abound.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 06:52:42 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > Keith wrote:
    >>> Technologically, yes, but still a long way to go marketing wise.
    >>
    >> I won't even give AMD the technology edge. Certainly I'll give
    >> them the management edge. Intel has been impressive in their
    >> corporate attempts to paint themselves into a corner. AMD has simply
    >> found that heel and executed rather well. The K6 equalled the PII,
    >> then the K7 took over. While Intel toyed with the Itanic (and a few
    >> $Billion), AMD learned by reading the history books.
    >
    > It wasn't so long ago when people were critisizing AMD's management (prior
    > to the Hammer processors coming out), because all it had competing against
    > the P4 was the Athlon XPs, which weren't being updated at a fast enough
    > pace.

    Only the impatient kidz on Christmas morning who couldn't wait for a
    hammer. I don't see Intel racing for 6GHz (as promised) either.

    --
    Keith
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:45:28 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:

    >
    > "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:je8og0dj2hpr34elq2r8hkrgqfg8872fpe@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
    >> >flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
    >> >can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
    >> >without the constant bashing. There should be a
    >> >comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
    >> >
    >> Ever heard of the 1st Amendment? If you don't like it, you are free
    >> to go someplace like Cuba. Over there, neither INTC nor AMD is
    >> superior, that definition is reserved for Fidel exclusively. Oh, by
    >> the way, you'd be lucky to have just any CPU and 9.6k dialup over
    >> there...
    >>
    >
    > Believe it or not some people here are not American and really don't care
    > one bit about your stupid yankee 1st Amendment. Cuba is a nice place to
    > vacation too. Several of my friends have been there several times.

    I hear the Cubans love living there too. Perhaps you should think this
    trough before commenting again.

    --
    Keith
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:36:19 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:

    >
    > "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2004.07.31.17.44.33.167510@att.bizzzz...
    >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:51:22 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    >> > news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
    >> >> It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
    >> >> that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
    >> >> Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
    >> >> processor will provide better performance at each price point.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need
    > you
    >> > AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater for I
    >> > computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the
    > prescotts
    >> > which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once again Intel
    > is
    >> > superior.
    >>
    >> Ok, you're saying, "I'm stupid and wish to remain so"? Or more like, "my
    >> mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts"?
    >> >
    >> > True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
    >>
    >> You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
    >> you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.
    >>
    >> --
    > No I did all the research I needed too and I don't want AMD. I want the
    > industry standard which is Intel. Not AMD.

    For some reason you insist on proving me right (you are an idiot). You've
    been told to open your eyes, yet insist that blindness is natural (more
    evidence of your ignroance can be found in your X-Newsreader tag).

    Hint: Intel is no more "standard" than AMD. Indeed Intel is no more
    consistent with Intel as AMD is with Intel. Each processor has its
    quirks and Intel has proven their mettle at quirkiness with the P4. Not
    to mention that Intel is now following (and poorly, I might add) AMD down
    the *AMD64* architecure path. Please do note the *AMD* in that
    architecture name.

    Please do come back and discuss reality when you've grown up a bit. Those
    who work in the business might teach you somethign once you admit that
    you don't know...

    --
    Keith
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Keith wrote:
    > Only the impatient kidz on Christmas morning who couldn't wait for a
    > hammer. I don't see Intel racing for 6GHz (as promised) either.

    True, though they're still trying to stretch towards 4Ghz. Eventually, this
    entire Ghz thing will be a distant memory, after Intel switches over to its
    Conroe core (Pentium-M for the desktop), or perhaps *two* Conroe cores.

    Anyways, technical management issues aside, now that Intel has got its
    64-bit Xeons, and now that it's even evident that it's released 64-bit
    Prescotts, one of the marketing advantages of AMD is completely gone. I
    suppose AMD could try to claim that it was "the original 64-bit" processor
    maker, which would sound great, but would be booed off the stage by people
    claiming everything from MIPS and Alpha to Nintendo got there before it.
    Then they might change the slogan to "the original 64-bit x86 processor",
    which would be received with blank stares by people who would ask "what in
    the heck is an x86 processor?" More factually accurate, but less marketingly
    attractive. Perhaps they would go for, "the original Microsoft Windows
    64-bit processor?" Which could be challenged by Intel saying that since
    Microsoft Windows for 64-bit extended systems isn't here yet, by the time it
    actually arrives, Intel will be there alongside AMD. Ah the life of a
    marketeer.

    Yousuf Khan
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >Anyways, technical management issues aside, now that Intel has got its
    >64-bit Xeons, and now that it's even evident that it's released 64-bit
    >Prescotts, one of the marketing advantages of AMD is completely gone. I
    >suppose AMD could try to claim that it was "the original 64-bit" processor
    >maker, which would sound great, but would be booed off the stage by people
    >claiming everything from MIPS and Alpha to Nintendo got there before it.
    >Then they might change the slogan to "the original 64-bit x86 processor",
    >which would be received with blank stares by people who would ask "what in
    >the heck is an x86 processor?" More factually accurate, but less marketingly
    >attractive. Perhaps they would go for, "the original Microsoft Windows
    >64-bit processor?" Which could be challenged by Intel saying that since
    >Microsoft Windows for 64-bit extended systems isn't here yet, by the time it
    >actually arrives, Intel will be there alongside AMD. Ah the life of a
    >marketeer.

    None of that matters. In the constantly-changing CPU market, what you
    did last year is irrelevant. All that matters is the performance and
    price of what you are selling today. I don't see any reason to
    believe that there will be a change in the pattern of the last decade,
    i.e. Intel, being the market leader, sets prices, and AMD follows with
    somewhat lower prices for any given level of perceived performance.
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 06:52:42 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >>
    >> It wasn't so long ago when people were critisizing AMD's management (prior
    >> to the Hammer processors coming out), because all it had competing against
    >> the P4 was the Athlon XPs, which weren't being updated at a fast enough
    >> pace.
    >
    >Only the impatient kidz on Christmas morning who couldn't wait for a
    >hammer. I don't see Intel racing for 6GHz (as promised) either.

    Well, no surprise that good things happen for those who wait, but that
    doesn't mean that NOT waiting is a poor decision, if your machine
    isn't keeping up with what you want it to do... And lot's of folks
    would argue that the AMD64 didn't become truly appealing until socket
    939 came out, which was only recently, and is still expensive.
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <7qb4h05q3dti5kbahqtq9lm3hs1f4maa0s@4ax.com>,
    chrisv@nospam.invalid says...
    > Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    > >On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 06:52:42 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > >>
    > >> It wasn't so long ago when people were critisizing AMD's management (prior
    > >> to the Hammer processors coming out), because all it had competing against
    > >> the P4 was the Athlon XPs, which weren't being updated at a fast enough
    > >> pace.
    > >
    > >Only the impatient kidz on Christmas morning who couldn't wait for a
    > >hammer. I don't see Intel racing for 6GHz (as promised) either.
    >
    > Well, no surprise that good things happen for those who wait, but that
    > doesn't mean that NOT waiting is a poor decision, if your machine
    > isn't keeping up with what you want it to do...

    So far, I agree 100%.

    > And lot's of folks
    > would argue that the AMD64 didn't become truly appealing until socket
    > 939 came out, which was only recently, and is still expensive.

    Not quite 100%. My Opteron 144 s/940 system (including the 19"
    professional grade monitor) cost me $1100ish. My first IBMPC with a
    4.77MHz 8088 and 12" green-screen cost $2500ish (after a quite
    substantial discount). ...not to mention the 22 years difference in
    the dollar (or the fact that it's not the salary for a month, rather
    more like half a week). Sure it's more expensive than a stick of
    celery, but hardly *expensive*.

    OTOH, I didn't buy a G5 because that was too "expensive". ;-)

    --
    Keith
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    > Interesting software projects? It is a pity that none of them are 64 bit.

    Why's that, one must be a really newbie to get kicks out of word size?
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    > I hear the Cubans love living there too. Perhaps you should think this
    > trough before commenting again.

    What is the first amandment anyway? Any reason why should give a ****?
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    > Certainly! When you're *wrong* it pays to keep silent. There are vary
    > few excuses to buy Intel at this particular point. There are many reasons
    > to go elsewhere.

    $70 price premium out of total of $1600 for a full assembled system being
    the best reason that springs to mind. Certainly! That is a good reason to
    have flamewars over!
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    > OTOH, I didn't buy a G5 because that was too "expensive". ;-)

    I thought Americans are rich, average income is nearly $50,000 per capita,
    so even average guy could easily afford to use few K's in electronic gadget.
    With that income I am amazed that price is always the #1 issue in the NG, I
    take most participants are from Cuba?
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Sempron AMD