Intel's monopoly brittle and cracking

[vk2amv]

Saw this over at the inquirer.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8961
Pity people seem to ignore errors like the ones mentioned in that article when it comes to intel.
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'

 

[Lonemagi]

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8961" target="_new">Clicky Clicky</A>

It shows what you get from rushing what coud be good product. Many complain when a product gets delayed, but how many of those people want a fast unstable chip early?


<font color=red>*</font color=red><font color=white>*</font color=white><font color=blue>*</font color=blue>
... And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free, and I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Lonemagi on 04/16/03 11:19 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[vk2amv]

Thanks. I must learn how to do clickable links.
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'

 

[Lonemagi]

no prob, you just put [_url=_www.com_] in front of a word or phrase, and then [_/url_] (but minus all the _'s)

interesting article though... Imagine a world without Intel... Hey, I love AMD, but compitition is good for the consumer.

<font color=red>*</font color=red><font color=white>*</font color=white><font color=blue>*</font color=blue>
... And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free, and I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

No offense vk2amv, but this article is a perfect example of why 'the inquirer' is shunned by many as a news source. The article might have a point, buried in there deeply, but for the most part it is full of bad reasoning and incorrect 'facts'.

For example:

68w maximum for a Barton cored Athlon. 74w average for the 3.06 Pentium 4

According to AMD's thermal and electrical specifications, the AXP 3000+ has a maximum output of 74.3W, <i>not</i> 68W.

1 x 3.06 Pentium 4 costs $468 2 x AthlonMP 2600s cost $426

Why buy one processor that is pretending to be two processors when you can get two actual processors for less money?

1) Newegg is selling retail P4 3.06s for $400. They are selling the retail Athlon MP 2600+ for $251. So right there is a $100 disparity.
2) The features of Athlon MP motherboards are pretty lame by today's standards.
3) Just imagine how well single-threaded apps will run on an Athlon 2600+ compared to a Pentium 4 3.06GHz.

I could go on, but I think my point is pretty clear. There are some pretty good reasons why most people laugh at 'the inquirer'.

Now, as to the real topic, go back through all of these errors that Intel has ever had. How many of these errors even made it to customers? How many of those that did make it to customers went unfixed?

I'm not saying that Intel has made no mistakes or that these mistakes should systematically be ignored. I am however saying that Intel does have a good reputation for fixing its problems which you should consider when weighing it all.

<font color=blue><pre>I'm proud to be an American,
who served my country in the US Air Force,
to protect the rights of my fellow Americans,
to hold protests against others like me.</pre><p></font color=blue>

 

[vk2amv]

Well the auctual point I was making is I have seen many people claim intel never makes mistakes and that they are perfect. That is the point I was making is that they do. And also I think they were talking about multithreaded application performance rather than single thread on the MP vs 3.06. Oh and the core wattage is called clever journalistic writing. They were most likely talking about a 2500 Barton at 68watt which I think is accurate though dishonest. Last I would think they are working off recommended retail prices which are never accurate in the real world. But the only thing I am really interestered in pointing out is the fact that intel is not infallable.
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'

 

[Crashman]

Typical fanaticism "Look you can buy TWO of these slower MP2600+'s for less than 1 of the premium priced 3.06's". Yes, and you can buy two P4 2.6's for less than two MP 2600's. What, the standard P4 isn't dual capable? Who cares, it's still as accurate a comparison.

As for the flaws and delays, the "push" to release the 800 bus CPU had nothing to do with AMD, it was because Intel wanted to release an 800 bus CPU at the same time as their 800 bus chipset. And customers waiting on the 800 bus chipset were dragging down Intel's platform sales. So rather than delay the release of the 875P, the rushed the release of the 3.0.

AMD doesn't fit into any of this, they haven't RELEASED anything!

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

 

[juin]

Good point but that was a letter from a reader not from Mike magee itself so blame lemming

[-peep-] french

 

[Twitch]

I think that's the real issue The Inquirer needs to address...Why does AMD seem so content to follow along behind Intel and be "almost as fast?"

And why is The Inquirer so Pro-AMD? They did an article not long ago extolling the fact that the A-64 benchmarked over 15000 points in 3DMark2001SE with a 9700 PRO. Wow! That's freakin' INCREDIBLE! I mean, to get those kinds of numbers, you'd have to buy a TBRED 2700+! In the new Canterwood benchmarks, a 3.0 GIG NW hits well over 17000 points. So what's so great about 15000? By the time A64 hits the market, that'll be mainstream.

I keep an eye on The Inquirer, but I never take them seriously. Every once in awhile, they have a good scoop, but waving their AMD pom-poms over a 15000+ 3DMark shows that they aren't beyond exaggerating the impact of a part.

Like I say, I have fondness for AMD, but I am not going to buy their product if it's an inferior product. And I definitely don't need a hardware site trying to mislead me into thinking something is better than it really is...


<-----Insert witty sig line here.

 

[vk2amv]

I think the point they were making with the benchmark is the fact that the A64 was only running at 1.8gighz and it nearly matched a P4 3.06. Not quite but close.
AREA_51

'It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames'

 

[juin]

it may take a 2.2 GHZ to get to 17K point wich is very close to max speed that the architecture.

[-peep-] french

 

[mr_gobbledegook]

That artical is just pure crap...it was pure luck Intel spotted the problem with the FSB just now.

A handful of websites have already reviewed the new Pentium-C motherboards using the 875P chipsets and have found no alarming flaws or immediate problems with the platform. Intel have some of the most stringent and thorough testing plans of any chip company and it will only be seen as a small hiccup in their overall plan.

P.S Ladies and gentlemen the alternative 64bit solution is nearly upon us....<i>'Opteron, a new era for AMD'</i>

4 DAYS AND COUNTING !! WOO HOO !

<font color=purple>Ladies and Gentlemen, its...Hammer Time !</font color=purple>

 

[eden]

Juin is right, the article is not by an official Inquirer writer per se.

While the views BEHIND the bias in that rant are true, (it seems to be a pattern, regrettably), most of it is indeed very uninformed (as show by Slvr) or simply too much bashing.

To Slvr, I believe I had read somewhere lately that the power dissipation figures are much lower then they are supposed to be rated at, and indeed the Barton and 3.06 run at lower than their rated. I don't recall where I read it, sorry I can't back it for now.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.