Intel chipsets are the most stable?

[Franklin]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I came across this. Is the guy right?

<QUOTE>
Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
combination of these factors.

Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
community. Everyone knows it.
<END QUOTE>

http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Franklin" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in message
news:958373E88898971F3M4@130.133.1.4...
> I came across this. Is the guy right?
>
> <QUOTE>
> Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
> Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
> Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
> companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
> thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
> more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
> combination of these factors.
>
> Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
> the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
> community. Everyone knows it.
> <END QUOTE>
>
> http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm


He only owns p4 systems, so I do hope they are the most stable fo rhim..

Look at the dates he quoted on some of his "proof"

Why are you posting this to an AMD group.. You should be posting to a
chipset group (via, nv, sis, others)

He also goes to say on that to help stability you should have like 5
installs of windows.

He also goes on to say that you should buy asus.

If your amd box is unstable then chances are it's down to something you have
done..

Are intel chipsets more stable.. Yea maybee, Lets not forget that just last
month they had to recall a shitload of boards, and that their first
PCI-Express boards out the door have this little warning that says dont use
your pci-express slots yet.

/Slaps on hand for Feeding Trolls

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:23:39 +0100, Franklin <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote:

>I came across this. Is the guy right?
>
><QUOTE>
>Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
>Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
>Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
>companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
>thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
>more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
>combination of these factors.
>
>Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
>the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
>community. Everyone knows it.
><END QUOTE>
>
>http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm

Oh gawd, where's my Nomex underpants?

Over the years, the above quote has been true ON *and* OFF and with notable
exceptions. It may still hold right now, somewhat, for an Intel CPU but I
haven't used an Intel chipset mbrd for 5years now, the last being an Asus
P3B-F and that, i440BX, *was* one of Intel's best ever chipsets. In the
meantime, we've had i820/840, i815 and i845... all of which were lacking in
some way or another. With i865/875 they seemed to get back on track again
but now, with i915/925, they're trying to play market segmentation again
and it *will* backfire on them.

Right now, an AMD CPU on an AMD or nVidia nForce chipset will give just as
much of an err, "stable computing experience" as any Intel CPU+chipset and
add some functionality and future-proof into the bargain. "Common
knowledge" needs to be updated... or the "community" needs to umm, move
along!<shrug>

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I found the article to be very amusing. I guess it was first written when Intel
fell behind AMD in performance a few years ago. Now that AMD has an even
greater performance lead than ever before, we see all this FUD and excuses
why performance doesn't matter so much. This paragraph in particular made
me laugh.

"Now that CPUs contain over 50 million transistors and are capable of processing
information at
clockrates exceeding 3,000 Megahertz [3 GigaHertz], raw performance no longer carries the
importance
it once did. Certainly, speed will always have its place. But it's no longer the primary
focus. Rather,
today's PC enthusiast is shifting a critical eye toward system stability."

Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never provide statistical
proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be that they can't find any.

Franklin wrote:

> I came across this. Is the guy right?
>
> <QUOTE>
> Volumes have been written on this subject, but suffice to say that
> Intel chipsets are the most stable. I do not know if this is because
> Intel does a better job at manufacturing their chipsets than other
> companies, or that software manufacturers test their software more
> thoroughly on Intel-based systems, since they are more popular ..
> more than they do on systems based upon non-Intel chipsets. Or a
> combination of these factors.
>
> Either way, a system based on an Intel chipset will provide you with
> the most stable computing experience. This is common knowledge in the
> community. Everyone knows it.
> <END QUOTE>
>
> http://radified.com/Articles/stability.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Franklin wrote:

> I came across this. Is the guy right?

Posted:
02dec2001

Sigh... Trolls these days...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JK wrote:


> Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never
> provide statistical proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be
> that they can't find any.

I don't have any statistical data to back it up, but I can believe it. Many
technologies on the motherboard are Intel technologies, like the PCI bus.
It stands to reason that since they invented it and have honed it over the
years that they have a rock solid implementation of it. Their reputation
over such technolgies depends on it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:416FD15E.564A7187@netscape.net...
> Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never
provide statistical
> proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be that they can't
find any.

Maybe so. I don't feel a need to find statistics, but I don't claim Intel
is more stable either-I just feel like they are. I build my personal
systems with Intel chipsets and processors because in my experience, they
are more stable. I had stability issues with AMD and even further back,
Cyrix. I was turned off to the alternative chips years ago and now I just
refuse to even waste time with them. I could be wrong, I am sure times have
changes and AMD wouldn't be around if they were really that flaky.

Who cares really, if a guy likes alternative chips and thinks they are a
better deal, so be it.

--Dan

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

dg wrote:

> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:416FD15E.564A7187@netscape.net...
> > Why is it that people who claim Intel chipsets are more stable, never
> provide statistical
> > proof to back up their statements? Perhaps it might be that they can't
> find any.
>
> Maybe so. I don't feel a need to find statistics, but I don't claim Intel
> is more stable either-I just feel like they are. I build my personal
> systems with Intel chipsets and processors because in my experience, they
> are more stable. I had stability issues with AMD and even further back,
> Cyrix. I was turned off to the alternative chips

Alternative chips?

AMD is now the performance leader. As for you bad experience years ago,
one has to choose their system components carefully. There are low quality
motherboards for both AMD and Intel processors, as well as high quality ones.
One must choose carefully.

> years ago and now I just
> refuse to even waste time with them. I could be wrong, I am sure times have
> changes and AMD wouldn't be around if they were really that flaky.

Unfortunately there are still some low quality motherboards being made
for AMD processors, however there are many high quality ones. One
must choose system components carefully.

>
>
> Who cares really, if a guy likes alternative chips and thinks they are a
> better deal, so be it.

Again the term alternative chips?
Do you call a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari an alternative car?

>
>
> --Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> Alternative chips?
>
> AMD is now the performance leader.

Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.
GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
is,
the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
P4
processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
are
pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
being faster on others.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2038&p=1

Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
the
3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
comparison
of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
careful,
as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
on
some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
you
will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
faster
on some and Intel faster on others.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3329681__1

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

We went through this already several times.


"Dave C." wrote:

> Skip the Athlon64 and go with your original plan.
>
> According to www.pricewatch.com, same price range at the moment would be:
>
> P4 3.2 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3200+ or
>
> P4 3.4 Prescott vs. Athlon64 3400+
>
> Beyond that range, you can pay up to several hundred dollars for either an
> Intel or AMD chip, but hardly anybody gives a damn about those chips, as
> hardly anybody spends as much on a processor as they do on the entire rest
> of their system combined.
>
> So the P4 3.2/3.4 and Athlon64 3200/3400 would be the best indicators of who
> has the best bang for buck, at the moment.
>
> Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster

Not quite.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=10



>
> Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
> Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
> TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
> So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
> one tie.
> GAMING OVERALL: TIED
>
> Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away

Not quite. Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone
2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6



>
> Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away

Not quite. See the Content Creation Winstone 2004 results.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6



>
> Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Even an Athlon XP3000+($95) beats a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6




>
>
> Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
> towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.
>
> Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide
>
> Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
> *CPU* and memory benchmarks
>
> Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
> build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
> better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
> be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
> it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html
>
> The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
> is,
> the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
> P4
> processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
> are
> pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
> being faster on others.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2038&p=1
>
> Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
> the
> 3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
> comparison
> of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
> careful,
> as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
> on
> some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
> you
> will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
> faster
> on some and Intel faster on others.
>
> http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3329681__1
>
> Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
> would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04

Very funny. A $150 Athlon 64 3000+ (socket 754 )beats an $815 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz
in Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

A $95 Athlon XP3000+ beats a $210 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz in Business Winstone 2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6


http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getarticle=606&go=0.53769656

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

> Intel is better than AMD, at the moment.  The only way AMD could change
> that would be to drop their prices by 30% or better.

Yeah, those nuclear reactor Prescotts with the flip-flop socket design that
screws up the pins really is just light years ahead of the Athlon FX CPUs
with their on-die memory controllers and unlocked multipliers... I'm just
dying to get one... NOT!

My next system will be AMD Athlon 64/FX and hopefully dual-core. I recently
built my first AMD Athlon XP system and it went smooth. Pretty fast and
stable system for about $400.

BTW... We have yet to see where Athlon 64 stands as we've yet to be able to
test it in a real 64 bit environment with 64 bit software. Expect AMD to
smoke the current P4's...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41702660.6D26B541@netscape.net...
> We went through this already several times.
>
>

Yeah, you keep posting the same old tired lies, so I have to keep correcting
you. -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:

>We went through this already several times.

Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

LOL! You are the one with the distorted viewpoint. It is annoying to
have to keep correcting you.

"Dave C." wrote:

> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:41702660.6D26B541@netscape.net...
> > We went through this already several times.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, you keep posting the same old tired lies, so I have to keep correcting
> you. -Dave

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

chrisv wrote:

> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >We went through this already several times.
>
> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...

It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in desktop
performance by such a large margin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>>We went through this already several times.
>
> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
>

Not really a flame war. Just a well-deserved smackdown of an obvious AMD
shill. I'm a huge AMD fan myself, but it's insane the way someone keeps
bashing Intel. Just seeking a little balance is all. -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41703173.DBDE5436@netscape.net...
> LOL! You are the one with the distorted viewpoint. It is annoying to
> have to keep correcting you.
>

It's odd that all the experts agree with me. I guess everybody but you is
wrong, eh? -Dave

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:

> >>We went through this already several times.
> >
> > Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8) It
> > was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
> >
>
> Not really a flame war. Just a well-deserved smackdown of an obvious AMD
> shill. I'm a huge AMD fan myself, but it's insane the way someone keeps
> bashing Intel. Just seeking a little balance is all. -Dave

A little balance? What will balance the huge number of Intel ads that people
are bombarded with?

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Experts? How do you know they are experts? Do they work for Intel?

"Dave C." wrote:

> "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:41703173.DBDE5436@netscape.net...
> > LOL! You are the one with the distorted viewpoint. It is annoying to
> > have to keep correcting you.
> >
>
> It's odd that all the experts agree with me. I guess everybody but you is
> wrong, eh? -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>
> A little balance? What will balance the huge number of Intel ads that
> people
> are bombarded with?
>
>

What's stopping AMD from advertising like Intel does? -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:41704710.17A931C8@netscape.net...
> Experts? How do you know they are experts? Do they work for Intel?
>

Well YOU think they are experts, so it's odd that you'd ask me for
roof. -Dave

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

When AMD gets over 50% cpu market share, AMD might or might not
advertise the way Intel did in the 1990s. Until then, Intel's ad budget will
be very many times that of AMD.

"Dave C." wrote:

> >
> > A little balance? What will balance the huge number of Intel ads that
> > people
> > are bombarded with?
> >
> >
>
> What's stopping AMD from advertising like Intel does? -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>
> It was much more of a contest then then. Now AMD is beating Intel in
> desktop
> performance by such a large margin.
>

Geez, it's gonna be a long century. -Dave

Gaming: OpenGL: The Intel chips are much faster
Gaming: DX8: The AMD chips are faster, no doubt about it
Gaming: DX9: It's virtually a tie, as the AMD chips are two to three
TENTHS of a percentage point faster than Intel.
So on the gaming benchmarks, that's one win for Intel, one win for AMD and
one tie.
GAMING OVERALL: TIED

Business Applications: Office Applications: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Internet Content Creation: Intel blows AMD away
Business Applications: Overall: Intel blows AMD away

Video Encoding: This one is so lopsided, AMD should have thrown in the
towel before entering the ring. Intel wins by a landslide.

Audio Encoding: Again, Intel wins by a landslide

Synthetic Benchmarks: (PC Mark 2004): Here, Intel blows AMD away on both
*CPU* and memory benchmarks

Even at the same price for CPU, an Intel system can be cheaper to
build, as the P4 boards are more mature at this point, and thus there are
better bargains to be found. Considering that an Intel system will likely
be cheaper to build and WILL perform better on all benchmarks except DX8,
it's kind of a no-brainer as to which chip to build with, at the moment.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

The following is an article on the Athlon 64 2800+. But more interesting
is,
the benchmarks included in the article are a GREAT comparison of the 3.2GHz
P4
processors with the Athlon64 3200+. In this article, these two processors
are
pretty evenly matched, with Intel being faster on some benchmarks, and AMD
being faster on others.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2038&p=1

Now lets look at what Sharky Extreme has to report in their article about
the
3.4GHz Prescott processor. This one has benchmarks that are a great
comparison
of the 3.4GHz Intel chips with the Athlon64 3400+. Here, you have to be
careful,
as Sharky doesn't organize their charts in order of fastest to slowest. And
on
some charts, LOWER scores are better. But if you read all the benchmarks,
you
will again notice that the two chips are pretty evenly matched, with AMD
faster
on some and Intel faster on others.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3329681__1

Intel is better than AMD, at the moment. The only way AMD could change that
would be to drop their prices by 30% or better. -Dave, updated 10/2/04

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4170193E.37E8522B@netscape.net...
> Alternative chips?
Yep. They are the alternative to Intel.


> > Who cares really, if a guy likes alternative chips and thinks they are a
> > better deal, so be it.
>
> Again the term alternative chips?
> Do you call a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari an alternative car?

No, but if somebody referred to the vegetable oil fueled cars as
"alternative fuel cars" I wouldn't object.

--Dan

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

AND it was JEROME (JK) that started them back then also


"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:t6c0n094psrmudei0bc85pr2uap0e30or8@4ax.com...
> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >We went through this already several times.
>
> Ahh. Intel/AMD flame wars. It brings back so many memories. 8)
It
> was more fun back in the Pentium/K6 days, though...
>