Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pentium M crushes Athlon 64 FX

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2005 3:16:29 PM

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

(The overstatement in the subject was designed to grab your attention.)

x86-secret.com recently tested ASUS's Pentium M adapter.
http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/divers/ct479/ct479-4...

Notably, they compared:

Pentium M 760 overclocked to 2.78 GHz (15*185)
Athlon 64 FX 55 overclocked to 2.8 GHz (14*200)

In Quake 3 @ 640x480 low quality:
A64 = 563.3 FPS
PM = 702.3 FPS (+25% over A64)

(Note: this message was written tongue in cheek.)

--
Regards, Grumble

More about : pentium crushes athlon

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2005 9:44:33 PM

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

"Grumble" <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote in message
news:D 456ld$792$1@news-rocq.inria.fr...
> (The overstatement in the subject was designed to grab your
attention.)
>
> x86-secret.com recently tested ASUS's Pentium M adapter.
> http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/divers/ct479/ct479-4...
>
> Notably, they compared:
>
> Pentium M 760 overclocked to 2.78 GHz (15*185)
> Athlon 64 FX 55 overclocked to 2.8 GHz (14*200)
>
> In Quake 3 @ 640x480 low quality:
> A64 = 563.3 FPS
> PM = 702.3 FPS (+25% over A64)
>
> (Note: this message was written tongue in cheek.)

This message is not tongue in cheek: I looked in Pricewatch for the
Pent M, and finally found it as the last item in a list of P4s. 2GHz,
2M L2, $449!

Which raises this question: in that A64-PentM comparison, which
provided the better performance/price ratio? Like the man said, not
tongue in cheek.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2005 11:20:49 PM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:16:29 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote:

>(The overstatement in the subject was designed to grab your attention.)
>
>x86-secret.com recently tested ASUS's Pentium M adapter.
>http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/divers/ct479/ct479-4...
>
>Notably, they compared:
>
>Pentium M 760 overclocked to 2.78 GHz (15*185)
>Athlon 64 FX 55 overclocked to 2.8 GHz (14*200)
>
>In Quake 3 @ 640x480 low quality:
>A64 = 563.3 FPS
>PM = 702.3 FPS (+25% over A64)

This stuff seems kinda err, familiar. It was a French site which presented
very similar comparisons, perhaps less exhaustive, a few months ago - dunno
if this is the same guys?

As for the comparison itself, why limit the Athlon64 to 200MHz system clock
and yet let the P-M overclock to its max? There *are* people who claim to
be o-cing A64s to 250MHz and more, with a lowered multiplier on HT of
course. IOW I'm wondering what the goal is here... and whether Intel would
be pleased or displeased?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2005 5:36:50 AM

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

>
> As for the comparison itself, why limit the Athlon64 to 200MHz system clock
> and yet let the P-M overclock to its max? There *are* people who claim to
> be o-cing A64s to 250MHz and more, with a lowered multiplier on HT of
> course. IOW I'm wondering what the goal is here... and whether Intel would
> be pleased or displeased?


ive had my 754 amd64 up 470mhz but it seems the 2.8ghz is the limit to the
current 939 amd64s

i would be interested to see a quake score with amd which has 2meg cache,
the dual cores will be out soon and quake is threaded so will be able to
take advantage of it.
April 21, 2005 5:36:51 AM

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

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:36:50 GMT, epaton <epaton@null.com> wrote:

>
>>
>> As for the comparison itself, why limit the Athlon64 to 200MHz system clock
>> and yet let the P-M overclock to its max? There *are* people who claim to
>> be o-cing A64s to 250MHz and more, with a lowered multiplier on HT of
>> course. IOW I'm wondering what the goal is here... and whether Intel would
>> be pleased or displeased?
>
>
>ive had my 754 amd64 up 470mhz but it seems the 2.8ghz is the limit to the
>current 939 amd64s

>i would be interested to see a quake score with amd which has 2meg cache,
>the dual cores will be out soon and quake is threaded so will be able to
>take advantage of it.

People still play Quake?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2005 9:44:50 AM

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

Felger Carbon wrote:
> "Grumble" <devnull@kma.eu.org> wrote in message
> news:D 456ld$792$1@news-rocq.inria.fr...
>
>>(The overstatement in the subject was designed to grab your
>
> attention.)
>
>>x86-secret.com recently tested ASUS's Pentium M adapter.
>>http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/divers/ct479/ct479-4...
>>
>>Notably, they compared:
>>
>>Pentium M 760 overclocked to 2.78 GHz (15*185)
>>Athlon 64 FX 55 overclocked to 2.8 GHz (14*200)
>>
>>In Quake 3 @ 640x480 low quality:
>>A64 = 563.3 FPS
>>PM = 702.3 FPS (+25% over A64)
>>
>>(Note: this message was written tongue in cheek.)
>
>
> This message is not tongue in cheek: I looked in Pricewatch for the
> Pent M, and finally found it as the last item in a list of P4s. 2GHz,
> 2M L2, $449!
>
> Which raises this question: in that A64-PentM comparison, which
> provided the better performance/price ratio? Like the man said, not
> tongue in cheek.
>
>

For performance/(purchase price), the Athlon 64 wins by a mile.

However, a 2 GHz P-M uses substantially less power (ie., has a
lower operating cost) and with a decent fan/sink the fan never
needs to spin fast enough to be audible.

I only know one person using a P-M in a desktop (and it is the 2
GHz one), but I am quite impressed by it. I matches or beats a
2.2 GHz Opteron 248 in just about everything, while using about
30 W less power and running more quietly.

BTW: Anyone tried fitting one of those big Zalman "flower"
heatsinks to a fast P-M ? I've passively cooled an Athlon XP
2400+ with one of those, but I have no idea if one can be fitted
to a Pentium M. Come to think of it, didn't Zalman stop making
those heatsinks ?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2005 11:20:15 AM

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

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:44:50 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

>Felger Carbon wrote:

>> This message is not tongue in cheek: I looked in Pricewatch for the
>> Pent M, and finally found it as the last item in a list of P4s. 2GHz,
>> 2M L2, $449!
>>
>> Which raises this question: in that A64-PentM comparison, which
>> provided the better performance/price ratio? Like the man said, not
>> tongue in cheek.
>>
>>
>
>For performance/(purchase price), the Athlon 64 wins by a mile.
>
>However, a 2 GHz P-M uses substantially less power (ie., has a
>lower operating cost) and with a decent fan/sink the fan never
>needs to spin fast enough to be audible.
>
>I only know one person using a P-M in a desktop (and it is the 2
>GHz one), but I am quite impressed by it. I matches or beats a
>2.2 GHz Opteron 248 in just about everything, while using about
>30 W less power and running more quietly.

How do you mean 30W less power?... at full tilt, idling or average, i.e.
SpeedStep is just that much better than Cool 'n' Quiet?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2005 2:46:43 PM

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

George Macdonald wrote:

> Grumble wrote:
>
>> (The overstatement in the subject was designed to grab your attention.)
>>
>> x86-secret.com recently tested ASUS's Pentium M adapter.
>> http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/divers/ct479/ct479-4...
>>
>> Notably, they compared:
>>
>> Pentium M 760 overclocked to 2.78 GHz (15*185)
>> Athlon 64 FX 55 overclocked to 2.8 GHz (14*200)
>>
>> In Quake 3 @ 640x480 low quality:
>> A64 = 563.3 FPS
>> PM = 702.3 FPS (+25% over A64)
>
> This stuff seems kinda err, familiar. It was a French site which presented
> very similar comparisons, perhaps less exhaustive, a few months ago - dunno
> if this is the same guys?

Same site, I think. Different angle :-)

They tested the DFI 855GME-MGF (a Pentium M motherboard) 6 months ago.
http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/cm/dfi855/dfi855-9.h...

In the latest review, they used the CT-479 adapter with an ASUS P4C800-E
motherboard (i875 chipset).

> As for the comparison itself, why limit the Athlon64 to 200MHz system clock
> and yet let the P-M overclock to its max?

Now that you mention it, it does seem odd...

I'll hand the crown back to the Athlon 64 FX then! :-)

> There *are* people who claim to be o-cing A64s to 250MHz and more, with a
> lowered multiplier on HT of course.

Indeed :-)
http://valid.x86-secret.com/records.php
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2005 4:34:41 PM

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

Felger Carbon wrote:

> This message is not tongue in cheek: I looked in Pricewatch for the
> Pentium M, and finally found it as the last item in a list of P4s.

There are other price engines e.g. http://pricescan.com/01014000.asp
(They don't show any 533 MHz FSB Dothans. They might be scarce still.)
http://intel.com/products/processor_number/info.htm#pm

--
Regards, Grumble
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2005 6:56:48 PM

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:44:50 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Felger Carbon wrote:
>
>
>>>This message is not tongue in cheek: I looked in Pricewatch for the
>>>Pent M, and finally found it as the last item in a list of P4s. 2GHz,
>>>2M L2, $449!
>>>
>>>Which raises this question: in that A64-PentM comparison, which
>>>provided the better performance/price ratio? Like the man said, not
>>>tongue in cheek.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>For performance/(purchase price), the Athlon 64 wins by a mile.
>>
>>However, a 2 GHz P-M uses substantially less power (ie., has a
>>lower operating cost) and with a decent fan/sink the fan never
>>needs to spin fast enough to be audible.
>>
>>I only know one person using a P-M in a desktop (and it is the 2
>>GHz one), but I am quite impressed by it. I matches or beats a
>>2.2 GHz Opteron 248 in just about everything, while using about
>>30 W less power and running more quietly.
>
>
> How do you mean 30W less power?... at full tilt, idling or average, i.e.
> SpeedStep is just that much better than Cool 'n' Quiet?
>

At full tilt.

I also need to make a correction: the P-M system I checked out
was indeed a 2 GHz as I originally stated - but overclocked to
2.27 GHz.

There are also some power numbers here:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/dfi-855gme-mgf/ind...
that put the difference at about 40W between a 2 GHz Athlon64 and
a 2 GHz P-M.

I know it also uses less at idling - I just never bothered to
personally measure it: idle for me means its time to turn it off
and go to bed. Again, there are numbers for you in the
TechReport article.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 21, 2005 7:25:48 PM

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

Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
> I also need to make a correction: the P-M system I
> checked out was indeed a 2 GHz as I originally stated -
> but overclocked to 2.27 GHz.

Sure. 2.27 is greater than 2.2 almost always.
PentiumM is an iP6 core, which is very close in IPC
to K8. So no surprise the Pentium-M wins.

> There are also some power numbers here:
> http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/dfi-855gme-mgf/ind...
> that put the difference at about 40W between a 2 GHz Athlon64
> and a 2 GHz P-M.

I think different process size. Surely different
voltage 1.5 vs 1.2 . Also different specsheet
methodology (max draw vs typical max).

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2005 1:01:00 AM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:16:05 -0500, Ed <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:36:50 GMT, epaton <epaton@null.com> wrote:
>>ive had my 754 amd64 up 470mhz but it seems the 2.8ghz is the limit to the
>>current 939 amd64s
>
>>i would be interested to see a quake score with amd which has 2meg cache,
>>the dual cores will be out soon and quake is threaded so will be able to
>>take advantage of it.
>
>People still play Quake?

And perhaps more to the point, do people still care about performance
in Quake, given that we're talking about high-resolution, minimum
frame rates that WELL in excess of the refresh rate of the monitor?

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2005 6:35:11 AM

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

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:56:48 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:44:50 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Felger Carbon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>This message is not tongue in cheek: I looked in Pricewatch for the
>>>>Pent M, and finally found it as the last item in a list of P4s. 2GHz,
>>>>2M L2, $449!
>>>>
>>>>Which raises this question: in that A64-PentM comparison, which
>>>>provided the better performance/price ratio? Like the man said, not
>>>>tongue in cheek.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>For performance/(purchase price), the Athlon 64 wins by a mile.
>>>
>>>However, a 2 GHz P-M uses substantially less power (ie., has a
>>>lower operating cost) and with a decent fan/sink the fan never
>>>needs to spin fast enough to be audible.
>>>
>>>I only know one person using a P-M in a desktop (and it is the 2
>>>GHz one), but I am quite impressed by it. I matches or beats a
>>>2.2 GHz Opteron 248 in just about everything, while using about
>>>30 W less power and running more quietly.
>>
>>
>> How do you mean 30W less power?... at full tilt, idling or average, i.e.
>> SpeedStep is just that much better than Cool 'n' Quiet?
>>
>
>At full tilt.

By full tilt I do not mean just working... rather clock speeds pegged at
the max beacuse of intensive calcs and memory demands. This is actually
quite rare unless you're running something really heavy duty, including FP.

>I also need to make a correction: the P-M system I checked out
>was indeed a 2 GHz as I originally stated - but overclocked to
>2.27 GHz.

So they are close to on par with the P-M overclocked significantly... and
the A64 *not* - interesting. One wonders what the hell Intel is thinking
about... or do they know something they'd rather we don't?

>There are also some power numbers here:
>http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/dfi-855gme-mgf/ind...
>that put the difference at about 40W between a 2 GHz Athlon64 and
>a 2 GHz P-M.
>
>I know it also uses less at idling - I just never bothered to
>personally measure it: idle for me means its time to turn it off
>and go to bed.

Idling != idle. With both SpeedStep and Cool 'n' Quiet, your system is
mostly idling for just general computing tasks. Unless I run some of my
math intensive stuff, my Athlon 64 3500+ sits at 1000Mhz and 1.0V the
majority of the time - you really have to pound on it to get it to ramp up.

>Again, there are numbers for you in the
>TechReport article.

Note the caveat of the lack of "clock throttling" - not how most people are
going to run either system, if they're "informed". All those tables of
results with such huge "caveat(S)" on them and all because that's the mbrd
they "had on hand"?... seems like such a err, waste?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2005 8:31:24 PM

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:56:48 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:44:50 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Felger Carbon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>This message is not tongue in cheek: I looked in Pricewatch for the
>>>>>Pent M, and finally found it as the last item in a list of P4s. 2GHz,
>>>>>2M L2, $449!
>>>>>
>>>>>Which raises this question: in that A64-PentM comparison, which
>>>>>provided the better performance/price ratio? Like the man said, not
>>>>>tongue in cheek.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For performance/(purchase price), the Athlon 64 wins by a mile.
>>>>
>>>>However, a 2 GHz P-M uses substantially less power (ie., has a
>>>>lower operating cost) and with a decent fan/sink the fan never
>>>>needs to spin fast enough to be audible.
>>>>
>>>>I only know one person using a P-M in a desktop (and it is the 2
>>>>GHz one), but I am quite impressed by it. I matches or beats a
>>>>2.2 GHz Opteron 248 in just about everything, while using about
>>>>30 W less power and running more quietly.
>>>
>>>
>>>How do you mean 30W less power?... at full tilt, idling or average, i.e.
>>>SpeedStep is just that much better than Cool 'n' Quiet?
>>>
>>
>>At full tilt.
>
>
> By full tilt I do not mean just working... rather clock speeds pegged at
> the max beacuse of intensive calcs and memory demands. This is actually
> quite rare unless you're running something really heavy duty, including FP.
>
>
>>I also need to make a correction: the P-M system I checked out
>>was indeed a 2 GHz as I originally stated - but overclocked to
>>2.27 GHz.
>
>
> So they are close to on par with the P-M overclocked significantly... and
> the A64 *not* - interesting. One wonders what the hell Intel is thinking
> about... or do they know something they'd rather we don't?
>
>
>>There are also some power numbers here:
>>http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/dfi-855gme-mgf/ind...
>>that put the difference at about 40W between a 2 GHz Athlon64 and
>>a 2 GHz P-M.
>>
>>I know it also uses less at idling - I just never bothered to
>>personally measure it: idle for me means its time to turn it off
>>and go to bed.
>
>
> Idling != idle. With both SpeedStep and Cool 'n' Quiet, your system is
> mostly idling for just general computing tasks. Unless I run some of my
> math intensive stuff, my Athlon 64 3500+ sits at 1000Mhz and 1.0V the
> majority of the time - you really have to pound on it to get it to ramp up.
>

For me - and for most review sites - idle is when the computer is
powered on and the OS has been loaded but it is not really doing
anything. It is just sitting there waiting for someone to put it
to work.

What you are describing is a "normal" workload - and some of the
review sites provide separate power consumption numbers for that.

>
>>Again, there are numbers for you in the
>>TechReport article.
>
>
> Note the caveat of the lack of "clock throttling" - not how most people are
> going to run either system, if they're "informed". All those tables of
> results with such huge "caveat(S)" on them and all because that's the mbrd
> they "had on hand"?... seems like such a err, waste?
>

I got the impression that throttling *does* work the motherboards
the TechReport used - when single core chips are used. There are
issues in getting the throttling to work with the dual-core chips
- which hopefully will be fixed soon.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2005 8:31:25 PM

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

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:31:24 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:56:48 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Idling != idle. With both SpeedStep and Cool 'n' Quiet, your system is
>> mostly idling for just general computing tasks. Unless I run some of my
>> math intensive stuff, my Athlon 64 3500+ sits at 1000Mhz and 1.0V the
>> majority of the time - you really have to pound on it to get it to ramp up.
>>
>
>For me - and for most review sites - idle is when the computer is
>powered on and the OS has been loaded but it is not really doing
>anything. It is just sitting there waiting for someone to put it
>to work.

Not to me. A current CPU is ambling along for *most* of what I do, though
I'm sure games will give it a workout.

>What you are describing is a "normal" workload - and some of the
>review sites provide separate power consumption numbers for that.

Have you tried Cool 'n' Quiet with a monitoring tool which allows you to
see what is happening? What I was "describing" is the CPU clock speed and
voltage for the usual everyday interactive computer tasks - there are
little blips from time to time in, e.g., Web browsing with some animation
but the "meter" stays at zero most of the time; the temp hardly budges from
a few degees above system temp.

>>
>>>Again, there are numbers for you in the
>>>TechReport article.
>>
>>
>> Note the caveat of the lack of "clock throttling" - not how most people are
>> going to run either system, if they're "informed". All those tables of
>> results with such huge "caveat(S)" on them and all because that's the mbrd
>> they "had on hand"?... seems like such a err, waste?
>>
>
>I got the impression that throttling *does* work the motherboards
>the TechReport used - when single core chips are used. There are
>issues in getting the throttling to work with the dual-core chips
>- which hopefully will be fixed soon.

Read the 1st para on the page you cited.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2005 11:31:28 PM

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

im not that great, but im gonan keep it short and simple, amd athlon
fx, spit roasts pentium M, pentium certainly have somethin in their
cheek, and well, it iant a toungue i can tell ya that :D 

(this is all based of my increasingly growing hate towards pentium and
what it stands for....damn pentium 2, stupid old computer.......)
May 11, 2005 10:22:25 AM

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

On Mon, 09 May 2005 19:31:28 +0000
xtreme126@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Xtreme126) wrote in Message id:
<ed38b$427fba90$455da0d2$18011@allthenewsgroups.com>:

>im not that great, but im gonan keep it short and simple, amd athlon
>fx, spit roasts pentium M, pentium certainly have somethin in their
>cheek, and well, it iant a toungue i can tell ya that :D 
>
>(this is all based of my increasingly growing hate towards pentium and
>what it stands for....damn pentium 2, stupid old computer.......)

Anybody have a tard to English translator?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2005 5:15:01 PM

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

Trent wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 19:31:28 +0000
> xtreme126@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Xtreme126) wrote in Message id:
> <ed38b$427fba90$455da0d2$18011@allthenewsgroups.com>:
>
>
>>im not that great, but im gonan keep it short and simple, amd athlon
>>fx, spit roasts pentium M, pentium certainly have somethin in their
>>cheek, and well, it iant a toungue i can tell ya that :D 
>>
>>(this is all based of my increasingly growing hate towards pentium and
>>what it stands for....damn pentium 2, stupid old computer.......)
>
>
> Anybody have a tard to English translator?

I'm sure that if you ran it through Babelfish, the result would
be " ".
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2005 7:30:34 PM

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

has anybody got a plastic bag filled with butane to place over trents
head, and then a catapult to launch him into the sun........

trent t'aime le petit garcon, prick

i didnt even start on you, no need to call me a "tard" cos your pretty
"tarded" if you cant even be bothered to put "re" at the begining,
fag, sorry but excuse me for typing fast while doing other things,
but no ones perfect, especially you.

to end the note, screw you , and your family, i hope you fall into a
man hole, and get eaten by a group of extremely dangerous crocadiles.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 11, 2005 10:24:14 PM

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <ef90c$4282251a$455da0d2$17544@allthenewsgroups.com>,
Xtreme126 <xtreme126@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>i didnt even start on you, no need to call me a "tard" cos your pretty
>"tarded" if you cant even be bothered to put "re" at the begining,
>fag, sorry but excuse me for typing fast while doing other things,
>but no ones perfect, especially you.
>
>to end the note, screw you , and your family, i hope you fall into a
>man hole, and get eaten by a group of extremely dangerous crocadiles.

Have your parents buy a spellchecker and grammar checker. Better yet, pay
more attention in English class. Until then...

* PLONK *

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCgk8TVgTKos01OwkRAnOeAKC6tl/EqbXbz551GdgVppR2TBJ1bwCghqWv
n5lWWXgxU0VuRu78QOko3xI=
=lg0v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
May 11, 2005 10:51:43 PM

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

Xtreme126 <xtreme126@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
<snip "white trash" rabble>

You sir, are an idiot! Plonk!!

j.
May 13, 2005 4:32:19 PM

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

On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:30:34 +0000
xtreme126@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Xtreme126) wrote in Message id:
<ef90c$4282251a$455da0d2$17544@allthenewsgroups.com>:

> eeka ooka ooka...

Memo to research team:

Video of subject chimp "Xtreme126" shows continued agitation during
assigned sleep periods. Sometimes seems sullen when humans present, may be
frustrated that his efforts at communication are unintelligible. Possibly
believes he's an equal to humans. Still intermittently consuming his own
feces. Will continue increasing sedatives and combine with mild shock
therapy.

Sincerely,

Trent Worthington.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 17, 2005 5:31:44 PM

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

my reply to your big waste of space, energy and time is
go bone yourself, you child raping pedophilic gayboy, you are
geniunily the reason to all bad things in life, and what sort of name
is trent anyway?
is your brother called trench or something, and im guessing it is, get
him to shove his foot in your mouth, and maybe youll get trench
mouth??

and yess, there is such thing as trench mouth, before you reply, you 2
bit dipshit pee brain, go wank over another mans dead body, ebcause
the closest thing to a sexual relationship youll EVER get

to end this note, put a shotgun to your mouth and pul lthe trigger
i banged your mumma, kill yourself etc etc
(you know what the jist of the rest is)

Peace
May 19, 2005 12:45:32 PM

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

On 17 May 2005 13:31:44 -0400 xtreme126@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid
(Xtreme126) gibbered in Message id: <428a2a80$1_4@alt.athenanews.com>:

>my reply to your big waste of space, energy and time is
>go bone yourself, you child raping pedophilic gayboy, you are
>geniunily the reason to all bad things in life, and what sort of name
>is trent anyway?
>is your brother called trench or something, and im guessing it is, get
>him to shove his foot in your mouth, and maybe youll get trench
>mouth??
>
>and yess, there is such thing as trench mouth, before you reply, you 2
>bit dipshit pee brain, go wank over another mans dead body, ebcause
>the closest thing to a sexual relationship youll EVER get
>
>to end this note, put a shotgun to your mouth and pul lthe trigger
>i banged your mumma, kill yourself etc etc
> (you know what the jist of the rest is)
>
>Peace

Sheesh.

I certainly hope that you have a better grasp of your crank than
you do of the English language. Anyway, please take it in the kindest
possible way when I suggest that you Get Cancer and Die Screaming. If you
could arrange it so that this happens before your sphincter loosens and
another flood of postarrhea is unleashed from your bowels and dumped in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips, we'd all appreciate it. Thanks in advance!

Your pal,

Trent Worthington
!