Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel hit 1 ghz first?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 22, 2005 9:09:19 AM

Why does the CPU frequency chart bug me so much. Just because they have Amd still having the K6-2 as thier fastest chip, when Intel hit 1.1 ghz?
I know Amd didn't hold the speed crown for long, but it was more than a few weeks @ 1.2 ghz.

More about : intel hit ghz

November 23, 2005 6:34:09 AM

ye its about as legit as columbus discovering america
November 23, 2005 9:03:40 PM

The first official 1 GHz speed is with an AMD Tunderbird CPU. AMD was able to even break the speed barrier of 1 GHZ, while the Intel 1.13GHz, IIRC, had to be recalled because of some problem they had. AMD hold the speed advantage thru the old P4 Willamette serie, and Intel began to regain advantage with their high FSB northwood core.

I think that it is the way it happen, but I may be wrong...
Related resources
November 23, 2005 11:42:05 PM

AMD hit the 1Ghz barrier first (with a non-OC'd chip). Amd was over 1 ghz while Intel fiddled with the 1.13 ghz recall and MTH i820 recall (2000 was a very bad year for Intel).
November 24, 2005 12:45:45 AM

Not according to the above memntioned chart. Tom's has it that the Intel 1ghz came out in january 2K, quickly followed by the 1.13. There was then a short wait for the williamettes, during which time, Amd took the speed crown, for a whole 3 months.
Intel doesn't have to rewrite the history on this one. THG is doing it for them.
November 24, 2005 12:56:44 AM

Quote:

Intel doesn't have to rewrite the history on this one. THG is doing it for them.


I don't care what Toms says, they very well may have had a sample chip running at 1ghz before AMD hit 1ghz but in any mag I've read AMD had 1ghz chips on the market before Intel did and Intel 1ghz and + were prone to lockup (OC'd anyone). This is the main reason I doubt Toms they seem to say Intel did everything first, while they did do most things first spend some time on Wiki reading about X86 chips. AMD got Very Very lucky when they aquired NexGen. If Intel bought Nexgen Intel would have a Monopoly and AMD would be a joke today.
November 24, 2005 1:08:11 AM

I do care what THG says. We already spend too much time explaining to noobs that our sponsor is highly Intel biased. I'm also annoyed with the # of Intel fanboys who throw THG benchmarks in our face.
November 24, 2005 1:17:28 AM

To tell the truth it was and AMD Fanboy in the days of the K6-2 that made me read Toms. After I read Toms I was an Intel fan boy till my Intel purchase in 2003 (which I immediatly regretted). Now I have an AMD X2 3800+ (2x2ghz) on an ATI RS480 chipset with Integrated graphics and it blows my old Intel 2.8 ghz with I865 Integrated Gfx out of the water. I realized AMD was better when my electric bill was $18 cheaper for 2 months and my AMD was 24/7 and the Intel was mayber 30 hours a week.

EDIT: I can have my Reciept for this comp scanned in along with electric bills for before and after.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2005 2:17:59 AM

lol i want to see this, make it into a pdf and post it here lol!
November 24, 2005 2:25:52 AM

Electric bills coming in a few days. I dont have a scanner so I gotta get a friend to do but by Monday I promise (probably Friday maybe tomorrow night if I can borrow the scanner).

EDIT: And HolyLancer why did you stop folding?
November 24, 2005 5:14:36 AM

Yes, why did you stop folding. After all the grief you caused when you first came to THGC, 452 points isn't much of a thankyou.
November 24, 2005 7:46:32 AM

The speed crown was only given to retail product, OCs dont apply.
In case you hadn't noticed, this thread is about THG fanboy crap. We dont need any more of it thank you.
It's amazing how many Intel fanboys we get who swear that they have used Amd chips.
November 24, 2005 3:45:26 PM

WOW

Is there a computer term for asshole?
November 24, 2005 6:22:53 PM

I readily admit to not knowing a whole lot about this topic...

But do you suppose it is all possible that for all your talk about "Intel fanboys" that you yourselves might be fanboys yourselves? And hence, a little teeny tiny bit biased against Intel?

Just a thought...

Steele
November 24, 2005 6:49:06 PM

AMD good
Intel bad
*jogging away*
November 24, 2005 9:12:12 PM

Considering I've owned both AMD and Intel products in the past, (my current PC is Intel-based) I don't qualify for the fanboi moniker. My next upgrade will most likely be AMD, unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of it's hat before I'm ready to buy.
November 24, 2005 11:49:40 PM

You may have ment that for me, as I was the one who brought up fanboys.
I am a fanboy. I wont buy anything that doesn't fit high in price/performance. I'm still annoyed at Intel because they went to a proprietary socket format, but have still used thier chips, when they were worth it.
Right now I'm a big fan of Amd, because they give more, for less. When Intel does that, once again,I will buy Intel.
a b à CPUs
November 24, 2005 11:56:56 PM

*Golf Clap* Well said dear chap!
November 25, 2005 7:28:02 AM

Let me just say that I didn't mean to direct that at anyone in particular, but just as a broad comment. I apologize if anyone mis-interpreted me.

I really do think that you should consider your own biases in this case, not to get rid of them, as no-one can do that, but to consider why someone who otherwise seems intelligent might appear to be a r3tARd n00bZZ!!!1!11one. Is it because they have been fooled by marketing or hype or an overeager salesman? Or is there a chance that their argument has merit and is not worthy of immeadiate dismissal on the grounds of "He disagrees with me, so therefore, he is wrong."

Just my thoughts... By the way, I currently have an AMD cpu, so I'm not trying to sneakily be pro-Intel. I really don't have an opinion on the debate here, except that sometimes rational arguments are met with unwarranted criticism.

Steele
November 25, 2005 8:10:24 AM

Just so you know
Quote:
By the way, I currently have an AMD cpu, so I'm not trying to sneakily be pro-Intel.
, or "I used to have Amd" is a common Intel troll line.
I dont think you are a troll, just young. That's OK. Even if you are a troll, you are a rational troll, and can add some inteligent conversation. We like those here as well.
Sometimes we get idiot trolls. Lately they have been mostly Intel, but we do get the odd idiot Amd troll as well. When someone comes in and looks like an idiot troll, we jump on them as quick as possible, hoping not to have to deal with thier drivel. It does make it a little dificult to recommend anything when someone is posting "A" is 1331, "B" sux.
I may have jumped the gun on intelamduser, but I doubt it. If it comes in smelling like a troll, talking like a troll, and walking like a troll, guess what?
See, I started this thread because I hate bs and lies. I really hate them when a "reputable site" is the author. When intelamduser started posting intelbs in a thread about intelbs, that automaticly elected him to idiot troll status.
If he comes back and proves me wrong, I will apologize.
If he comes back, and acts like an inteligent troll, I will jump all over him, asking him to prove it.
Most inteligent trolls can deal with that for only so long, before the become performance or price/performance fanboys.
November 25, 2005 11:55:10 AM

Quote:
Right now I'm a big fan of Amd, because they give more, for less. When Intel does that, once again,I will buy Intel.


Hear Hear! I would have posted earlier, albeit for the latencies of my Intel CPU :wink:
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2005 12:53:38 PM

I'm not biased - I read reviews from many sites and take a hard look at what is being said and try to find out what is NOT being said. When I have the information, then I make a decision on what has the best price/performance. I currently think tht AMD has the price/performance crown. If that sways back to Intel, then I'll praise Intel for hard work and innovation. I could care less who gives me the best price/perf, but price/perf is what I want.
November 25, 2005 2:46:39 PM

Quote:
Right now I'm a big fan of Amd, because they give more, for less. When Intel does that, once again,I will buy Intel.


Hear Hear! I would have posted earlier, albeit for the latencies of my Intel CPU :wink: What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? :mrgreen:
November 25, 2005 4:37:42 PM

OOOoook... unless someone went back in time and changed history, AMD was actually the first to break 1Ghz with that Slot A K7 CPU. I'm talking about what was for sale; not demostrations. AMD was the first to sell a 1Ghz CPU (the Athlon K7) system. A lot of you little tykes are probably too young to remember, but intel was peeved AMD beat them to 1Ghz. And that was the day Intel knew they had a serious competitor. See aticles here here:

http://www.forbes.com/enterprisetech/2005/04/08/cx_ah_0408amd.html

From Forbes: "In 2000 AMD hit a benchmark by being first to market with a PC chip that ran at 1 gigahertz. Intel followed soon after."

http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml;jsessionid=Z55Z244WG1NEIQSNDBCSKHSCJUMEKJVN?_requestid=851226

http://www.markwrafter.com/groove/penned/vision/00/090300.html

http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/CIC/announce/2000/k7.1000.html

If you want to get into who really first demostrated a 1Ghz CPU, it was IBM way back in 1997.

See here: http://www.brierassociates.com/news/infoworl/fastchip.htm

So, Intel does not belong in this thread in any way. IBM demostrated first 1Ghz CPU and AMD was first to sell one. :-)

-mpjesse
November 25, 2005 4:40:07 PM

tis de way I recalz it too.
November 25, 2005 4:40:47 PM

Quote:
The first official 1 GHz speed is with an AMD Tunderbird CPU. AMD was able to even break the speed barrier of 1 GHZ, while the Intel 1.13GHz, IIRC, had to be recalled because of some problem they had. AMD hold the speed advantage thru the old P4 Willamette serie, and Intel began to regain advantage with their high FSB northwood core.

I think that it is the way it happen, but I may be wrong...


Pat, looks like you and I were the only ones around here when the 1Ghz barrier was broken. :-)
November 25, 2005 4:46:11 PM

I anticipated the Mondays when Tom would release his news on product updates, and read within the hour of it being posted that the Pentium 1.13 had serious problems and Intel should rework design instead of going to market.
They did not listen at first, it took going to market to get the hint.
November 25, 2005 4:51:19 PM

What the hell happened to Tom anyways? Does he have any control over this site anymore?
November 25, 2005 4:56:56 PM

No, not anymore, I think.
First he bowed out because of Nazi threats, accusations and hate mongering, then he sold out, I hear.
November 25, 2005 5:13:46 PM

LOL. In that specific order?
November 25, 2005 5:37:29 PM

nods
November 25, 2005 10:50:01 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble jesse, but I'm guessing living that close to an N weapons site has affected your memory.
Quote:
OOOoook... unless someone went back in time and changed history, AMD was actually the first to break 1Ghz with that Slot A K7 CPU. I'm talking about what was for sale;

It was a socket A chip that Amd came out with.
This thread isn't even about that. It is about the fact that THG has the balls to totally ignore the slot a chips, and say Inmtel reached 1 ghz while Amd was still playing with K6-2s.
Intel has done more than it's share of rewriting history, they dont need Omid's help. Mostly though, that kind of inacuracy tees me right off. Then again who needs credability when you have Intel god on your side.
November 26, 2005 4:28:37 AM

i dont care who was first. from what i gather amd never had to play the gigahertz race because they were more effecient.
November 26, 2005 4:57:03 AM

This was against the old P111 chips. Some of them were more efficient than Amd's offering. At the time, it was a real horse race, for a while. Of course, as today, some benches gave extra points for the Intel name, but for the most part, it was a tight race.
November 26, 2005 6:49:54 AM

One post with an address and came in smelling like a troll?

Some of you here need to grow up and start using this forum for what it is intended for. I have read this forum here for 3 or 4 years and at one time was able to pick up some pretty good information, or places to find the information from those who posted.

It was getting better again for a while but the fanboy monniker and childish behavier are once again making the forum useless.

And my opinion on cpu's is whatever works. We have 56 machines with various different processors and they all work just fine for what they are intended. Speed is not near as important as reliability, compatibility, and ease of replacement. Both AMD and Intel based machines have worked well for us on the high and low end.
November 27, 2005 12:33:07 AM

Howdy Stranger. Reread the original post. It was about idiot Intel bs. If you are going to come in here as a stranger, and post in support of Intel, do you think you deserve a title other than Troll?
Go back, and read the original post in this thread, then read your post, and tell me what you think.
November 27, 2005 1:43:00 AM

I guess selective reading disorder is pretty common these days.

The title of this thread is (Intel hit 1 ghz first?)

I did nothing more than post a link where it was shown that Intel had hit the 1 ghz mark period, nothing in favor of anything or anyone.

Are you saying that because I posted this that I came out in favor of Intel? You must see the intel boogie man everywhere.

Go back and read my last post and see if you havn't helped to prove to point.

I will sign off and leave you and the other children here to ruin what once was a helpfull and informitive forum.
November 27, 2005 7:17:42 AM

Apology accepted.
Oh that wasn't an apology?
Come back and be condesending any time you like.
Need any help with your Intel system, glad to help.
Want to post more troll bs? It's your right.
November 27, 2005 8:08:59 PM

Endyen:

You seriously need to relax! He isn't trolling. Trolling is posting something deliberatly controversial and false in order to stir up heated discussion.

He pointed out that Intel had been the first to break the 1Ghz barrier since IBM two years before. No-where in the thread title or first post does it say that demonstration chips are not to be discussed.

Intelamduser made a valid point, at which point he was labelled a troll and told to leave. That is not going to lead to a fair debate, because, contrary to what you might enjoy telling yourself, you are one biased sunuvabi7ch.

Steele

PS: If anyone is being condescending, other than myself, it is you.
November 27, 2005 8:14:16 PM

**swaggers to beat of the cognitive introspective stranger of steele**
November 27, 2005 11:24:21 PM

The point he seemed to be making to me, is that because Intel had displayed an overclocked chip, the chart should stand as a valid historic representation.
Speaking of which, do you believe the chart to be historicly accurate?
How do you feel about it?
November 27, 2005 11:46:39 PM

Quote:
The first official 1 GHz speed is with an AMD Tunderbird CPU. AMD was able to even break the speed barrier of 1 GHZ, while the Intel 1.13GHz, IIRC, had to be recalled because of some problem they had. AMD hold the speed advantage thru the old P4 Willamette serie, and Intel began to regain advantage with their high FSB northwood core.

I think that it is the way it happen, but I may be wrong...


Pat, looks like you and I were the only ones around here when the 1Ghz barrier was broken. :-)

Yep... .. I even remember the 100MHz barrier.. oh.. and the 10 MHz too...
November 28, 2005 12:21:23 AM

If that was the point you thought he was making, then why didn't you respond to that point instead of calling him a condescending fanboy?

Do I think the chart is accurate per se? No, not really, because if you consider Intel's 1Ghz demonstration, which you should, the blue Intel line should break 1000Mhz in early 1999, instead of 2000, like the chart says.

My take on the chart is that it is abstract, meant to represent the caption under it: that cpu speeds skyrocketed in the last couple years of the previous century and first couple years of this century, and before and since have stagnated. The chart very accurately demonstrates that.

Steele
November 28, 2005 1:17:24 AM

What it says below the chart is that cpu speeds increased tenfold in the 6 years between 1993 and 1999, but less than doubled in the last 2 years.
What the chart shows is that between /93 and /99 chips went from 60 mhz to 600 mhz, while from then to today they went from 600 mhz to 3800 mhz. Hardly what I would call stagnant. Just the same, that is not what this post is about. The post is about whether it is valid for THG to show Amd in a negative light once again.
November 28, 2005 3:06:39 AM

If that (THG being unfairly negative towards AMD) is what this is about, then you are drawing far too many conclusions from a simple chart.

What do you suppose is more likely?

That whoever drew that graph thought to himself, "Hey, we could really screw up AMD's market share and prestige if we skew this line a little bit towards Intel..."

or that they drew the graph longhand, and maybe mis-matched an Intel number with an AMD number or something like that.

Steele

PS: The graph shows exactly what it says. 60-600 is a 10-fold increase in only 6 years -- tremendous growth. Compare that to the change of the last two years. Zero.
November 28, 2005 3:30:21 AM

Quote:
"Hey, we could really screw up AMD's market share and prestige if we skew this line a little bit towards Intel..."

More like " We could help to destroy Amd's image, if we make it look like they have always been way behind Intel."
Not that it really matters what reasoning they had, it all comes down to the same thing. THG is an Intel sight. They lack integrity.
The 1 ghz speed point was one of the most significant marks in the history of chip development. To arbitrarily ignore that Amd was first to market with a chip at that speed, is tantamount to denying Amd chips any validity whatsoever.
It is an Intel rewriting of history.
November 28, 2005 3:56:55 AM

An Intel re-writing of history? Right...

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20000217/index.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/19990813/cool_athlon-07...

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/19991025/index.html

If THG is really as Intel-focused as you claim, then these articles have no business existing.

Re-writing history is claiming that the Nazis didn't kill anyone, or that the Chinese reached America before Columbus, or such like. No-where does anyone claim that AMD did not have a 1Ghz chip before Intel, nor do they claim the opposite. Who knows what level of chip the graph is based on. Who knows how much research they put into making the graph. The point of the graph is that chip speeds skyrocketed for a while, but lately have stagnated. Nothing more.

Besides, how do you know they arbitrarily ignored AMD's 1Ghz chip? How do you know it wasn't unintentional? What if the chart is based on percentage of each manufacturer's sales? What if it is an average of the clock speeds of the entire suite of chips? It could be any number of things beyond simple AMD-hatred, and by simply ruling out any other possiblilty, you have labelled yourself as biased as you claim THG to be.

Steele

Steele
November 28, 2005 4:08:28 AM

And perhaos if you used paint instead of photoshop, it would be close enough for your customers.
Let's face it. Tom's is supposed to be a leading tech jornalism site. I wouldn't accept that kind of error in any news media. It would be just as bad for NBC news to deny there was any "discomfort" around newyears eve 2000.
BTW, thanks for the choice of articles, 2 were by Tom.
Most people here consider T Pabst a man of integrity. I doubt that he would allow the "inaccuracy" were he still in charge.
The present editor in chief is a character named Omid, who may be temporarily blinded, when second hand smoke gets in his eyes.
November 28, 2005 6:17:58 AM

I think that you are so dead set on THG being anti-AMD that you are going to see that whether or not it exists.

It's like those people who believe that JFK was killed by Freemasons and Aliens and Gov. O'Connor and stuff that they either take evidence out of context or mis-interpret it, or just plain ignore it if it refutes their claims.

Do you honestly believe that whoever made that graph was out to stick it to AMD?

Steele
!