Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Inquirer: Intel's conroe chips are fake and die yields low..

Last response: in Forum Feedback
Share
May 28, 2006 12:51:13 PM

:D  :D  :D  :D  Talk about desperation, this $hit will be eveywhere from now until the end of the summer, anyways I just love how the guy starts.... "I was told this information directly from a reviewer that attended this event. This sort of deception needs to be exposed." :D  :lol:  :lol:  :D  Reminds me of I was told by my sister's best freind's uncle about his cousins niece sleeping with her brothers twin sister. :D  :lol:  :D  :lol:  :D 



http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32000
May 28, 2006 1:09:11 PM

Well, you can't say that this article itself is not rigged. We'll just have to see that for ourselves when Conroe comes out.
May 28, 2006 1:25:30 PM

Really???? I mean come on you must be joking man....this guy sounds so bias it makes me laugh..I mean he based the fact that intel did not send everyone a chip to evaluate was because their yields are so low that they can't spare 100 chips. Oh and the fact that intel wanted to control the setups just like at the IDF indicates that they are covering up how bad a chip that will be released in 1-2 months really is...for shame intel. I know most people like to root for the little guy but get real.
May 28, 2006 1:27:30 PM

I wonder when 0.9-inch will come up with a topic
May 28, 2006 1:30:11 PM

Quote:
This is an utter rubbish load of FUD piece of junk!! It is pushing a conclusion based on speculation. :) 

You gotta love it... it is not even a reporter at the event, it is a "I heard from somebody who heard from somebody" :)  It was an email letter, most likely from Shiraabbooeebeeebooob, what ever the hell his name is ...


i heard intel and amd will merge to form AMTEL :lol: 
May 28, 2006 1:33:18 PM

The Inquirer =MMM = AMD's Blog . Don't believe it.
May 28, 2006 1:33:46 PM

Quote:
This is an utter rubbish load of FUD piece of junk!! It is pushing a conclusion based on speculation. :) 

You gotta love it... it is not even a reporter at the event, it is a "I heard from somebody who heard from somebody" :)  It was an email letter, most likely from Shiraabbooeebeeebooob, what ever the hell his name is ...


I know its garbage, I just wanted to beat madmod and 9inch to the punch, but alas...they will still try to post that crap as gospel.
May 28, 2006 9:41:42 PM

I've heard yeilds are suprisingly good. They wouldnt have pushed the launch forward unless they were really desperate.
May 28, 2006 9:44:16 PM

Exactly. Their whole reason for saying low yields is because they only give out a few to reviewers is retarded. Supposedly AMD only gave out 4 for all of europe, OMG no yields!!!!111
May 28, 2006 9:47:22 PM

Quote:
Exactly. Their whole reason for saying low yields is because they only give out a few to reviewers is retarded. Supposedly AMD only gave out 4 for all of europe, OMG no yields!!!!111
You forgot the almight "teh."
May 28, 2006 10:09:19 PM

Quote:
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Yeah, it was on the internet, hey it was posted here first it must be true.


It's only true if it's published in Rolling Stone.
May 28, 2006 10:24:43 PM

total BS - price and overclockability say otherwise

Quote:
:D  :D  :D  :D  Talk about desperation, this $hit will be eveywhere from now until the end of the summer, anyways I just love how the guy starts.... "I was told this information directly from a reviewer that attended this event. This sort of deception needs to be exposed." :D  :lol:  :lol:  :D  Reminds me of I was told by my sister's best freind's uncle about his cousins niece sleeping with her brothers twin sister. :D  :lol:  :D  :lol:  :D 



http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32000
May 28, 2006 10:35:08 PM

Those Inquirer turds needs something more creative than that. These days they'll post anything including bullshit just to get some attention. Yeah I'm talking to you Inquirer people! You guys suck balls big time and yeah by the way fire that retarded reporter that writes this crap.

Hey Action Man I believe you got something for them.
May 28, 2006 10:46:49 PM

Quote:
most likely from Shiraabbooeebeeebooob, what ever the hell his name is ...


First of all, i nearly pee my pants, every time you type his name. :D  :D 

Secondly, they are on B stepping, and they are clocking like animals. I think

ALL is well in the Intel fabs. :wink:
May 28, 2006 10:58:23 PM

Reminds me of Action Man joke (OMG! Intel to buy AMD!)
May 28, 2006 11:09:45 PM

How do you mine for fish? :?:
a c 115 å Intel
May 28, 2006 11:32:57 PM

This is obviously pure rubbish. I may be funny though if it was ever spoofed on the Daily Show with John Stewart.
May 29, 2006 12:07:41 AM

I rather have steak and roast. I never like fish.
May 29, 2006 12:12:27 AM

Quote:
Tho I do agree Intel should've given more chip to reviewers in Europe.
They got shed loads of Conroe. What the hell are they holding them on for?


I think that they should give me a conroe to test! :) 

Back on subject, the inquirer must have nothing better to do than make up stories. Just because Intel only has a few machines means low yields? For example: I urinate 3 to 4 times a day. Does this prove that my urination has low yield rates for piss? No, you don't have all the facts, if I said that every time I take a leak I piss out 1 cup of urine, then you could say I have a low yield rate.

(example was for fun and does not show my actual urinating habits) :D 
May 29, 2006 12:23:14 AM

Quote:


Back on subject, the inquirer must have nothing better to do than make up stories. Just because Intel only has a few machines means low yields? For example: I urinate 3 to 4 times a day. Does this prove that my urination has low yield rates for piss? No, you don't have all the facts, if I said that every time I take a leak I piss out 1 cup of urine, then you could say I have a low yield rate.

(example was for fun and does not show my actual urinating habits) :D 



LOL! very funny analogy!
May 29, 2006 12:51:06 AM

OMG OMG OMG INTEL IS GOING 2 FAIL!!111
May 29, 2006 1:00:52 AM

Quote:
The chip will carry the designation "X6800" and will be priced at $999. Surprisingly, the slide indicates a clock speed of only 2.93 GHz for the chip - in contrast to the 3.33 GHz that was previously rumored

While it maybe fake it adds to the fire this information on tomshardware. The EE conroe's GHz moving down from 3.33 to 2.93 GHz points to yeilds being low. The conroe has a more complexe design than the K8 so it would stand to reason of a low GHz max without throwing out the low Watt promised.

I guess only time will tell!
May 29, 2006 1:05:23 AM

Quote:
Exactly. Their whole reason for saying low yields is because they only give out a few to reviewers is retarded. Supposedly AMD only gave out 4 for all of europe, OMG no yields!!!!111


OMFG!!!!!! Lets riot! It's time to start looting and beating up random people for absolutely no reason!!!!!
May 29, 2006 1:09:44 AM

I'm up for that. Woot riot!
May 29, 2006 1:31:07 AM

Quote:
I'm up for that. Woot riot!


I'll lay waste to Perth. You lay waste to whatever part of this big brown land you're from. Muwhahahaha
May 29, 2006 2:22:53 AM

Quote:
The chip will carry the designation "X6800" and will be priced at $999. Surprisingly, the slide indicates a clock speed of only 2.93 GHz for the chip - in contrast to the 3.33 GHz that was previously rumored

While it maybe fake it adds to the fire this information on tomshardware. The EE conroe's GHz moving down from 3.33 to 2.93 GHz points to yields being low. The conroe has a more complex design than the K8 so it would stand to reason of a low GHz max without throwing out the low Watt promised.

I guess only time will tell!

I suspect that Intel has not a yield problem, but decided on this for a marketing reason... since it will undoubtedly be the fastest desktop CPU on release either way, and will give them an easy performance boost when needed to be released in case of rebuttal by AMD, if they unexpectedly release another speed bump in retaliation... all the while reserving the right to tweak and insure stability at 1333MHz fsb.
Also, I suspect the 2.93GHz EE chips will easily overclock on stock air well past the 3.33GHz mark...
Besides... it seems to me that for the enthusiast, the lower fsb insures an easier task of overclocking the CPU higher, since 1333MHz is pretty high for memory to begin with, imo...
May 29, 2006 2:48:18 AM

Quote:


Back on subject, the inquirer must have nothing better to do than make up stories. Just because Intel only has a few machines means low yields? For example: I urinate 3 to 4 times a day. Does this prove that my urination has low yield rates for piss? No, you don't have all the facts, if I said that every time I take a leak I piss out 1 cup of urine, then you could say I have a low yield rate.

(example was for fun and does not show my actual urinating habits) :D 



LOL! very funny analogy!

Thanks, I thought I would add a little humor to this thread.
May 29, 2006 3:58:15 AM

Quote:
I suspect that Intel has not a yield problem, but decided on this for a marketing reason... since it will undoubtedly be the fastest desktop CPU on release either way, and will give them an easy performance boost when needed to be released in case of rebuttal by AMD, if they unexpectedly release another speed bump in retaliation... all the while reserving the right to tweak and insure stability at 1333MHz fsb.
Also, I suspect the 2.93GHz EE chips will easily overclock on stock air well past the 3.33GHz mark...
Besides... it seems to me that for the enthusiast, the lower fsb insures an easier task of overclocking the CPU higher, since 1333MHz is pretty high for memory to begin with, imo...

While true many of the 2.93GHz EE chips may overclock to 3.33GHz doesn't mean all 2.93GHz will. 2.93GHz I suspect would produce more usable chips and greatly reduce fail rate to a profitable percent.

Intel may always tweak the performance of their chips but the tweaks are for the most part from production refinements and or reduction in size. Production refinements and reductions in size takes time and Intel is pushing these CPU's release date up and the EE chip wasn't to ship until sometime after the old release date. Is Intel afraid of AMD meeting the E6700's perfomance?
May 29, 2006 4:14:29 AM

Quote:
I suspect that Intel has not a yield problem, but decided on this for a marketing reason... since it will undoubtedly be the fastest desktop CPU on release either way, and will give them an easy performance boost when needed to be released in case of rebuttal by AMD, if they unexpectedly release another speed bump in retaliation... all the while reserving the right to tweak and insure stability at 1333MHz fsb.
Also, I suspect the 2.93GHz EE chips will easily overclock on stock air well past the 3.33GHz mark...
Besides... it seems to me that for the enthusiast, the lower fsb insures an easier task of overclocking the CPU higher, since 1333MHz is pretty high for memory to begin with, imo...

While true many of the 2.93GHz EE chips may overclock to 3.33GHz doesn't mean all 2.93GHz will. 2.93GHz I suspect would produce more usable chips and greatly reduce fail rate to a profitable percent.

Intel may always tweak the performance of their chips but the tweaks are for the most part from production refinements and or reduction in size. Production refinements and reductions in size takes time and Intel is pushing these CPU's release date up and the EE chip wasn't to ship until sometime after the old release date. Is Intel afraid of AMD meeting the E6700's perfomance?

Elbert if you havent done so already, I suggest you read through the collection of conroe, core 2 duo , core 2 extreme thread. The 2.67 ghz B0 stepping samples that they have over at Extreme Systems were able to be overclocked up to 4 Ghz on air cooling and stock volts. I think it would be extremely unlikely that an extreme edition with unlocked multipliers could not easily do the same.

Face it, AMD is running scared right now. But Im sure they are burning all the midnight oil they can to come up with something soon. They have always come through with an answer (well at least for the last 5 years or so anyway)
May 29, 2006 5:06:03 AM

I love the fact that even though most people with a brain realize that the Inquirer is 90+ % garbage, it is still capable of generating this much activity on a thread on a daily basis. :D 
May 29, 2006 3:37:03 PM

Quote:
Elbert if you havent done so already, I suggest you read through the collection of conroe, core 2 duo , core 2 extreme thread. The 2.67 ghz B0 stepping samples that they have over at Extreme Systems were able to be overclocked up to 4 Ghz on air cooling and stock volts. I think it would be extremely unlikely that an extreme edition with unlocked multipliers could not easily do the same.

Face it, AMD is running scared right now. But Im sure they are burning all the midnight oil they can to come up with something soon. They have always come through with an answer (well at least for the last 5 years or so anyway)

Intel unlike overclockers have to compete for market and I dont see how Intel could possibly sale an overclocked CPU for a marketable price. OC'ers have uped the P4 to 6GHz but Intel only pushes to 4GHz I wonder why? Maybe they can't stay competitive having to pay for OCing. How long could you warranty an OC'ed CPU? OCing cuts into the life of CPU no matter if its stable.

AMD is running but only to increase the 65nm process which will give them room for higher clocks while staying competitive.

So what was AMD doing for the first 15 or so years prier to the last 5 or so years of comming through? I think AMD has been at the CPU business long enough to stay in the game.
!