Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel starts flexing its muscles ?!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 10, 2003 9:17:10 PM

<A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/31673.html" target="_new">Prescott to clock higher at launch than anticipated</A>

<A HREF="http://news.com.com/2100-1006-1024237.html?tag=nl" target="_new">Chip details leak out of Intel</A>

Boy its gonna be yet another interesting autumn or Fall (for fellow US chums) on the CPU front !!! I'm looking forward to it...

<font color=purple>Ladies and Gentlemen, its...Hammer Time !</font color=purple>
July 10, 2003 9:23:07 PM

And what if I'm not in the US? :frown:

Well, as for Prescott, what can I say? Except... :smile:

Dothan looks interesting too... Imagine a 2.0Ghz Dothan with 2MB cache... ridiculous amount of cache, mind you...

I do hope AMD can compete with Intel... When intel is "flexing its muscles"...
July 10, 2003 9:43:49 PM

It worries me when I read so much about Prescott. AMD has not told us yet any new technical details added to Athlon 64, which means they might stick to the current set. And that is no good news. Wanna know how I feel?

I feel it won't even compete, the A64, it simply IS outrun, with the current info about it.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
Related resources
July 10, 2003 10:12:32 PM

Yeah, it doesn't look promising for AMD.
July 10, 2003 11:02:07 PM

Actually, the only field where AMD is strong on paper right now is Opteron's field. And it's not that big a margin as they would like you to believe either...

I've just checked supermicro's site and found out that they will be <A HREF="http://www.supermicro.com/PressEmp/PressRelease/press02..." target="_new">producing Itanium motherboards very soon</A>. If their offerings support Deerfield and AGP slots (which they probably will, because this will be targeted at workstations) then Itanium might become a reasonable contender for Opteron.

Besides, Itanium is already in its 3rd Generation. Server/Workstation markets are very conservative with those things, (they go with tried-and-true instead of latest tech, mostly) and many of them are thinking "ooh, I might try that Itanium, now that it is established tech"... So what can AMD do?... Well, the good thing about Opteron is that its portfolio (i.e. buying alternatives) is more scalable to the needs of a smaller customer. There are single-processor alternatives which are cheap! Itanium doesn't really have that... Note that Itanium is more scalable than Opteron in multiprocessor configurations, but what I mean here is that you can't get a single Itanium system for far less.

As for desktops, maybe they could launch A64 at 2.2Ghz, not just 2.0Ghz. Might give them some breath...
July 11, 2003 1:42:23 AM

Even then, the lack of any new technology USABLE like HT is a problem IMO. I don't know if I'd feel compelled to still buy from them when Intel has lots of offerings coming in Prescott, making it a serious powerhouse. I really want Hyper Threading on my next purchase.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 11, 2003 3:01:41 AM

Scotty looks like one neet chip. Now add one extra MB cache to its total. What a we talking about warp speed Scotty. 3.4 GHZ 2mb cache Wow!!!!!
July 11, 2003 3:09:51 AM

Yes, I know what you mean. It's like Intel has a lot of features that are solid right now, like HT, 800Mhz FSB, and so on, plus Prescott, and the only thing AMD has going is x86-64 extensions - which would have been very exciting a year ago, but as it stands, it took them way too long to implement. (like Itanium, which took forever and then some)
July 11, 2003 3:12:53 AM

Where in the world did you read 2MB? This would make the die way too huge and remove any profits off a smaller die usage on a wafer!
It's 1MB dude! They said they doubled the cache <i>TO</i> 1MB!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 11, 2003 3:20:14 AM

Yes, Prescott has "only" 1MB cache, not 2MB. Dothan, the Banias follow-up, has 2MB cache (which is a lot, mind you!)
July 11, 2003 3:21:02 AM

Ya I know its 1MB cache. Just messen with some people. {AMD}since Meph said Dothan has 2MB cache.
July 11, 2003 4:17:37 AM

I wonder how useful that 2MB will be, especially for notebooks which barely need any.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 11, 2003 5:50:13 AM

Well, Banias, as I recall, does use a 128-byte cacheline. The extra cache should benefit somewhat.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
July 11, 2003 11:49:06 AM

Quote:
Advancing the manufacturing process means that Intel can add more transistors to the chip. As a result, the cache will double to 2MB. By comparison, Intel's top Xeon chip for servers has a 2MB cache and it sells for over $3,000. AMD's top server chip has a 1MB cache.

I think that's where he got 2mb from ;) 

Shadus
July 11, 2003 12:37:30 PM

Yes, well, but it's an unfair comparison. AMD's top server chip has a 1MB cache, and Intel's top server chip has 6MB cache. (and it's not even that more expensive than the 2MB cache Xeon, actually... this 2MB Xeon is very expensive, for what it has to offer extra in cache. A 1.4Ghz Madison with 4MB cache is cheaper!).

Anyway, generally, extra cache is always a good benefit. I don't actually know enough to say just how much a doubled 1MB cache can alter Banias/Dothan performance levels, though.
July 11, 2003 1:52:57 PM

AMD is in trouble against the Itanium???

Uh... AMD is kicking Intel's ass in the 64bit market.

The IA64 series has always been a 64bit chip 100%, its been in limited "development" for the past 3-4 years and is not a mass-production product yet. The AMD Opteron is a mass production product.

Only recently, with the release of the 64bit AMD CPUs, has Intel dropped their stance on 64bit "ONLY" and are looking to add "32bit emulation" into the Itanium CPU.

Imagine how much of a SLAP in the face this is to all the computer companies who have blown millions on helping to "develop" the Itanium all these years.

The Itanium 32bit emulation is an EMULATION os x86 code, which will result in a performance hit. Anyone care to remember the infamous 820chipset with the LAST-MINUTE addition of the MTH (Memory Translator Hub) in which these "State of the art" Intel board were MUCH SLOWER than the older BX boards which were on the market for more than a year... close to 2 years! Oh yeah, the 820 was crap, bombed and cost Intel and many PC manufactures millions in recalled motherboards.

The AMD Opterons and AMD Athlon64 CPUs run native 64bit mode and native 32bit mode.

When running Windows64bit, you CAN AND WILL RUN 32bit Windows software at FULL SPEED... along side your 64bit OS and other 64bit apps. Itanium? Don't know... Intel has to add a function to a chip that was never meet to be there. This adds more costs, more space... remember, the CPU is spending its cycles Emulating a x86 32bit CPU - so IF it is to do 64bit computing at the same time... you have lost quite a bit more performance again.

The first to market with mass-market 64bit for both business servers, workstation and very soon - consumers... AMD. At 1/4 the price!

The Pentium5 is a faster version of the Pentium4... both 32bit CPUs.

PS: Re-compiling 32bit software to 64bit version is not difficult for the AMD64 bit CPUs. (64bit intel chips are NOT x86 compatible) Some reports have said that even for a game like UT2003 - 2 days of recompiling had yeilded a 50% performance increase! In a word... WOW!

No# of 64bit intel systems I've personally seen = 0
No# of 64bit AMD systems & mobos I've see = 12


Amiga - The Original Power
July 11, 2003 2:47:56 PM

Quote:
Only recently, with the release of the 64bit AMD CPUs, has Intel dropped their stance on 64bit "ONLY" and are looking to add "32bit emulation" into the Itanium CPU.

Not true. Even the first Itaniums emulated 32bit. All of them can do so. None of them can process x86 in hardware, however.
Quote:
When running Windows64bit, you CAN AND WILL RUN 32bit Windows software at FULL SPEED... along side your 64bit OS and other 64bit apps.

The problem is, you see, 32-bit software at your "FULL SPEED" is not nearly enough to cope with a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4. And if it's to be a hit, A64 should cope up with at least the 3.2Ghz - maybe even Prescott.
Quote:
At 1/4 the price!

Highly exaggerated. A 1.3Ghz Madison is considerably stronger in floating point and costs $1200, which is of course terribly expensive, but it is less than twice the price for the 244 Opteron.
Quote:
PS: Re-compiling 32bit software to 64bit version is not difficult for the AMD64 bit CPUs. (64bit intel chips are NOT x86 compatible) Some reports have said that even for a game like UT2003 - 2 days of recompiling had yeilded a 50% performance increase! In a word... WOW!

If it is THAT easy, then, how come even AMD estimates that, by early 2004, only 20% at most of all software will have been recompiled/optimised for x86-64? Also, if it is THAT easy, why doesn't Itanium rock the heck out of anyone? Intel's C++ Compilers and Fortran compilers both support IA64 well. Plus, POV-Ray recompiled with Intel's compilers, for example, shows that a 1.0Ghz Itanium is three times as fast as a 1.8Ghz Opteron. And SPEC scores for Madison beats Opteron every time. So I ask you this: why don't people buy Itaniums and recompile their code, if, as we've seen, Itanium is a very heavy performer in code that was compiled for it? And why should it be any different with Opteron, save a bunch of AMD-enthusiasts?

This is, of course, worst case scenario for AMD. But I'm just trying to show you there are possibilities.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 11, 2003 3:05:18 PM

Quote:
Plus, POV-Ray recompiled with Intel's compilers, for example, shows that a 1.0Ghz Itanium is three times as fast as a 1.8Ghz <b>Itanium</b>

I'm assuming you actually mean Opteron here.. Either that or the second one's an Itanium Celeron or something.. :wink:

---
$hit Happens. I just wish it would happen to someone else for a change.
July 11, 2003 3:31:39 PM

geeze, nfaq, could you spout out any more lies and half-truths? I don't much give a darn either way about 'who is better' for the 64-bit market yet, but at least I know more than <i>that</i>.

Quote:
The IA64 series has always been a 64bit chip 100% ... Only recently, with the release of the 64bit AMD CPUs, has Intel dropped their stance on 64bit "ONLY" and are looking to add "32bit emulation" into the Itanium CPU.

The IA64 chips have <i>always</i> had 32-bit emulation. When the first Itaniums were launched it was a big joke to many people just how bad they ran 32-bit code, but they <i>did</i> run it. Intel however has reassessed how poor this emulation runs and is recently <i>improving</i> the speed of the emulation. Intel isn't only now adding the emulation. It's <i>always</i> been there.

Quote:
its been in limited "development" for the past 3-4 years and is not a mass-production product yet. The AMD Opteron is a mass production product.

Have you heard of supply and demand? Anyone who wanted one had one available. Intel has so many FABs that it doesn't have to constantly be spewing out Itaniums that might never get sold. AMD on the other hand has no real choice considering their extremely limited FAB space.

Quote:
Imagine how much of a SLAP in the face this is to all the computer companies who have blown millions on helping to "develop" the Itanium all these years.

I'm sorry, but this statement didn't even make sense in the slightest. <i>No one</i> buys a 64-bit processor from IBM, Sun, Alpha, etc. to run 32-bit code. Why should Intel have done this any differently? On top of that there really <i>are</i> advantages to coding for the IA64 that don't exist in IA32/x86 or even x86-64. So how is it possibly a slap in the face of anyone that Intel is improving the performance of their 32-bit emulation?

Quote:
The Itanium 32bit emulation is an EMULATION os x86 code, which will result in a performance hit.

What's your point? No one buys an Itanium for the purpose of running 32-bit code at high speeds in the first place. Hell, until AMD (and possibly Apple's G5) no one buys any 64-bit server or workstation to run 32-bit code at high speeds. Why should Intel's 64-bit chips be treated any differently in your mind than anyone else's 64-bit chips that had already been in the market before Itanium had been?

Quote:
Anyone care to remember the infamous 820chipset with the LAST-MINUTE addition of the MTH (Memory Translator Hub) in which these "State of the art" Intel board were MUCH SLOWER than the older BX boards which were on the market for more than a year... close to 2 years!

Wow. Could you get any more wrong? The i820 was designed for RDRAM. It wasn't meant to run SDRAM <i>at all</i>. Pairing an i820 with PC800 RDRAM ran absolutely fantastic.

Then customers complained because Intel didn't have any new SDRAM solutions. So <i>after</i> the i820 was released Intel invented the MTH to convert SDRAM signals to RDRAM signals and back. <i>This</i> was slower, yes. It could only valguely be called emulation though. It was more along the lines of a simple hardware CODEC. And it certainly wasn't last-minute anything.

Quote:
Oh yeah, the 820 was crap, bombed and cost Intel and many PC manufactures millions in recalled motherboards.

Oh. I see that you <i>can</i> get it more wrong. The i820 was a great RDRAM chipset for the P3. It wasn't the i820 chipset that was recalled. It was the MTH that was recalled, which <i>only</i> affected the i820/SDRAM combination. (Which most people were avoiding because of the bad performance involved with the MTH's translations and because the BX could in fact OC to a 133MHz FSB pretty well.)

On top of that, the MTH 'flaw' is a misconception that was generated by AMD fanatics. The MTH worked perfectly fine. It was the simple fact that a <i>limited few</i> of the 3rd party motherboard manufacturers were <i>not</i> following the specifications for the MTH. This resulted in a very small percentage of boards with these 3rd party non-specced MTH implementations to have stability problems, which was an incredibly tiny fraction of the total number of MTH boards produced.

Since there was no way to actually determine which mobos were unstable though, and since Intel hates people equating instability to Intel, even if it's through a 3rd party motherboard manufacturer, Intel recalled all MTH-equipped mobos. <i>Which</i> Intel covered the costs of the recall, <i>in full</i>. No PC manufacturer nor 3rd party manufacturers lost <i>any</i> money at all from the recall.

And considering that the recall was because some 3rd party mobo manufacturers couldn't have been bothered to follow the MTH's specifications, it was a darn nice thing for Intel to do for its customers to do the recall at all instead of just publicly blaming the 3rd party manufacturers, who by the way deserved the blame in the first place. (Okay, admittedly Intel didn't do it to be nice to customers. They did it to protect their image. Still, it worked out well for customers.)

And further, in the end the few customers who had actually purchased motherboards with an MTH generally ended up recieving upgrades to the i820 with RDRAM anyway (and if they didn't it was only by their choice since that was one of Intel's options), getting <i>better</i> performance without costing them a dime. So the recall actually worked out to the customer's benefit in the end.

The whole MTH debacle is the perfect example of a company going out of it's way and bending over backwards to fix someone else's problems and then having the spin-doctors making them out to be the bad guy in the end.

So not only does this have absolutely <b>nothing</b> to do with Itanium, but you're also compeltely and totally wrong in every single relation and implication that you were trying to make.

Quote:
The AMD Opterons and AMD Athlon64 CPUs run native 64bit mode and native 32bit mode.

They however don't run native 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit code at the same time, so I'd hardly call AMD's implementation perfect.

Quote:
When running Windows64bit, you CAN AND WILL RUN 32bit Windows software at FULL SPEED... along side your 64bit OS and other 64bit apps.

<i>At full speed...</i> Just what exactly <i>is</i> full speed, hmm? The 32-bit apps won't gain any of the performance benefits from the extra registers. Therefore their performance <i>will</i> suffer compared to 64-bit apps being run on the exact same processor. Can you <i>really</i> call that 'at full speed'? It's a highly subjective term having more than one point of view.

Quote:
Itanium? Don't know... Intel has to add a function to a chip that was never meet to be there. This adds more costs, more space...

Again, the cost and space for this emulation is already a part of the chip and has always been so from the very beginning. On top of this it is actually pretty small.

Quote:
remember, the CPU is spending its cycles Emulating a x86 32bit CPU - so IF it is to do 64bit computing at the same time... you have lost quite a bit more performance again.

Again you tell half-truths. The 'emulation' is on a low level, translating the 32-bit operations into the IA64's language. So in the end the operations are then run through the processor the same both 32-bit and 64-bit. This takes hardly any more time to do than running native IA64 operations themselves.

Does it run 32bit code slowly? Well sure. Why? To be fair, look at the MHz of the CPU itself. If you had a Pentium4 at that slow of a MHz you'd have pretty slow code too. Are you expecting this to somehow magically compare to a 3GHz P4?

The emulation doesn't slow down 64-bit operation any more than any additional 64-bit code would. The bad 32-bit performance is mostly related to the clock of the CPU itself. It doesn't add any significant cost. It doesn't make the CPU significantly larger. And it doesn't impair the processor's performance with 64-bit applications. It's only fault is that it's slow for running 32-bit apps, which no one in their right mind would buy an Itanium to run anyway.

Quote:
The first to market with mass-market 64bit for both business servers, workstation and very soon - consumers... AMD. At 1/4 the price!

Perhaps you've heard of Sun?

Quote:
The Pentium5 is a faster version of the Pentium4... both 32bit CPUs.

Yeah. So what's your point with this statement?

Quote:
PS: Re-compiling 32bit software to 64bit version is not difficult for the AMD64 bit CPUs. (64bit intel chips are NOT x86 compatible) Some reports have said that even for a game like UT2003 - 2 days of recompiling had yeilded a 50% performance increase! In a word... WOW!

Of course it's not difficult. It's even easier than porting code from 16-bit x86 Assembler to 32-bit x86 Assembler. The real question is, just exactly how many software companies will bother? And just exactly how well will the A64 actually run 32-bit code? And will the A64's inability to run native 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit simultaneously pose any problems?

Quote:
No# of 64bit intel systems I've personally seen = 0
No# of 64bit AMD systems & mobos I've see = 12

This completely explains why you know absolutely nothing about Intel and/or are purposefully spreading FUD about Intel. It's no wonder that you have no objectivity in the issue. So do you honestly expect <i>anyone</i> to take you seriously then?

Quote:
Amiga - The Original Power

It's funny that your autosig is the first unquestionable statement that you've made.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
July 11, 2003 3:51:18 PM

Quote:
I'm assuming you actually mean Opteron here.. Either that or the second one's an Itanium Celeron or something.

Yes, I meant Opteron... I've corrected it and had hoped that noone saw that! Ooops.

BTW, Itanium Celerons don't exist... yet. Deerfield is coming soon, however, and is considerably cheaper than Madison.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 11, 2003 4:06:20 PM

Quote:
BTW, Itanium Celerons don't exist...

I know... 'twas merely jesting! That's probably how they'd perform if they do bring them out though! :smile:

---
$hit Happens. I just wish it would happen to someone else for a change.
July 11, 2003 4:34:25 PM

Quote:
That's probably how they'd perform if they do bring them out though!

Hm... I hope you're wrong! :smile: If Intel plays its card well now, Deerfield might become a good thing.

Um... That quote is actually from Calvin and Hobbes, right? I just love Calvin and Hobbes. It's great! :cool:

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 11, 2003 8:51:50 PM

Slvr, have I told you recently how much I like you? :redface:

I just love when you come and argue against uninformed people.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 11, 2003 8:57:05 PM

How is this Intel flexing its muscles? Intel said themselves the clockspeeds Presocott will release at long before these news articles were even in conception. And the pricing is no joke either, any git who known processor prices know that they almost always release at the same prices, no matter how great the processor is
July 12, 2003 2:29:43 PM

Indeed AMD are going to come up against a whole lot new technology from Intel and its going to be very tough for them to stay in the game.

Opteron is a great product and I'm hoping the 2nd generation core will be even better and outsmart the Xeon architecture.

I have always felt the strengths of Opteron is not in the procesor but the architecture itself.

The next significant boost for Opteron will be the release of AMD64 Windows Server/XP and we will then truly see the benifits of x86-64.

The second generation of Opteron I believe will a more mature with superior price/performance value i.e DDRII support, HyperTransport 2 more cache etc..

But all AMD can do right now it ramp up clockspeed, optimise thier manufacturing process (with the help of IBM) and start rolling out 4-8 way servers.

<font color=purple>Ladies and Gentlemen, its...Hammer Time !</font color=purple>
July 12, 2003 5:26:26 PM

Quote:
I have always felt the strengths of Opteron is not in the procesor but the architecture itself.

While I understand what you mean, I think you've phrased it in an unusual manner. Is the architecture not in the processor? :smile:

Quote:
But all AMD can do right now it ramp up clockspeed, optimise thier manufacturing process (with the help of IBM) and start rolling out 4-8 way servers

That's right. We'll see how A64 does against Intel's latest within a few months... Meanwhile, AMD will have to get market acceptance in the server market. I wonder if that'll be easy... Opteron has a fresh start and has its strengths, of course. But AMD has never played in this field, and it's not the same as desktops. I think that they'll do fine in the long run, but it's not as if they are going to revolutionize the server market at all. It's a healthy market expansion, nothing more. Their 64bit extensions to the desktop market are most welcome, to be sure. But that won't come easily at all.

Anyway, I'm terribly sorry, but I'll just have to say this again: What I find absolutely horrible is the lack of Itanium reviews as server solutions. Enthusiast sites review Opteron server/workstation alternatives against Xeon, but what about the lower-end (e.g. $1200 Madison or $700 Deerfield) Itaniums? Are they not server/workstation CPUs? Compare within niches, please. If they don't include Itanium, then it almost sounds as if they're only with AMD in the server department. And that is partial behaviour. If you go review Opteron, you've got to understand that you're not within desktops and simple x86 anymore! Widen your horizons, THG!

OK, now I've lost it again... let me calm down a bit...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 12:44:43 AM

Quote:

From NFAQ:
Anyone care to remember the infamous 820chipset with the LAST-MINUTE addition of the MTH (Memory Translator Hub) in which these "State of the art" Intel board were MUCH SLOWER than the older BX boards which were on the market for more than a year... close to 2 years!

From: Slvr_phoenix

------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. Could you get any more wrong? The i820 was designed for RDRAM. It wasn't meant to run SDRAM at all. Pairing an i820 with PC800 RDRAM ran absolutely fantastic.

Then customers complained because Intel didn't have any new SDRAM solutions. So after the i820 was released Intel invented the MTH to convert SDRAM signals to RDRAM signals and back. This was slower, yes. It could only valguely be called emulation though. It was more along the lines of a simple hardware CODEC. And it certainly wasn't last-minute anything.

Uh... I did say "With the last minute addition of the MTH". So the reference was 820 WITH the MTH. When the 820s first hit the market, many came with MTH - it wasn't because the 820 was on the market for months and people asked for it after the fact. RD-RAM (which Intel was PUSHING because they would make money off every single RD-RAM module sold) was way to expensive... 4x the price of SDR-RAM... remember?

The end result is the same, crappy performance and defective expensive products.

Quote:

From NFAQ:
Oh yeah, the 820 was crap, bombed and cost Intel and many PC manufactures millions in recalled motherboards.

From Slvr_Phoneix:
------------------------------------------------------------
Oh. I see that you can get it more wrong. The i820 was a great RDRAM chipset for the P3. It wasn't the i820 chipset that was recalled. It was the MTH that was recalled, which only affected the i820/SDRAM combination. (Which most people were avoiding because of the bad performance involved with the MTH's translations and because the BX could in fact OC to a 133MHz FSB pretty well.)


The 820chipset was CRAP, especially since it HAD RD-RAM. If you could recall, the 815chipset (the so-called lower-end model) with SD-RAM support only was easily faster than the 820 with RD-RAM. The 815chipset is still available today for the remaining P3 CPUs on the market. Even Intel's OWN WEBSITE showed benchmarks which put the 815 over the 820.

RD-RAM was about MONEY for intel, not performance for the end user. Intel burned a lot people and business with their attempted control of the memory market.

I HAD an ASUS 820 chipset with MTH, it worked like garbage and was SLOWER than the BX I was looking forward to replace. When the 815came out, I had no problems with those, went through 3 of them on my own main machine. (I still have an OLD BX system for testing)

More proof? What NEW boards from intel support RD-RAM? OMG - they're all DDR RAM, which AMD pushed for quite a while.

[/quote]
On top of that, the MTH 'flaw' is a misconception that was generated by AMD fanatics. The MTH worked perfectly fine. It was the simple fact that a limited few of the 3rd party motherboard manufacturers were not following the specifications for the MTH. This resulted in a very small
[/quote]

So ASUS is a company that can't correctly engineer products? I guess that would include INTEL, since DELL sysems are typically built with INTEL boards back then.

The flaws were not engineered by AMDers... I did not start building and using AMD until recently as 18months. All the reports about the problems with the 820 & 820-MTH are from sites like this one and Anandtech. It was comparing the 820 to the BX and the 815.


Quote:

instead of just publicly blaming the 3rd party manufacturers, who by the way deserved the blame in the first place. (Okay, admittedly Intel didn't do it to be nice to customers. They did it to protect their image. Still, it worked out well for customers.)

It rests on Intel for making defective products. Stop pretending that INTEL doesn't screw up. The 423pin P4s were easy proof of that. And no, it STILL screws over the PC builder and the end-user. You have the BAD look of the manufacture and you have the down-time of the customer.

Quote:

recieving upgrades to the i820 with RDRAM anyway (and if they didn't it was only by their choice since that was one of Intel's options), getting better performance without costing them a dime. So the recall actually worked out to the customer's benefit in the end.

The 820 with RD-RAM was faster than the 820 with SD-RAM, yes. The 820 with RD-RAM wasn't much faster than the BX with SD-RAM, and sure wasn't faster than the 815 with SD-RAM. Down time costs money, no matter what. What software was effected? Did the 820 board replacement match the features of the 820-MTH? etc etc

Quote:

The whole MTH debacle is the perfect example of a company going out of it's way and bending over backwards to fix someone else's problems and then having the spin-doctors

Nope... it was about lawsuits. If they were interested in their customers (which Intel isn't, but then again, what company really is?) then the RD_RAM for P3 CPUs would never have happened?

"Yes, buy these new expensive boards whose memory cost over 4 times than the standard RAM for 0-4% performance increase!"

Needless to say, it was far cheaper to pop in a faster CPU into an older board... but INTEL hates that too.

Intel is a company that is the MASTER of the upgrade game, that is how they make money. And in the end, its just business. AMD doesn't make money selling Chipsets... they have to keep the costs down for support of their CPUs and which they have done a great job at doing so.

What Intel chipset on the market has support for a 600Mhz CPU ~ 2+ Ghz CPU (AMD XP3200), but on the same chipset?

It is in intels intrests to force their customers to UPGRADE boards. This is one reason I left INTEL. My 815 would not work with 1.1ghz P3 cpus (Of course, Intel was pushing the P4s... and even on THIS SITE's review, the 1.3Ghz P3 was faster than the 1.6Ghz P4), intel required a a mobo replacement.

Gee, if I need to replace my $130 mobo to buy a $300 chip, might as well go to a platform that has more life... AMD.

I'm not rich, but even If I could afford to blow $400 per upgrade (which MOST PEOPLE CANNOT DO), it would still tick me off to pay for parts that should work.

Hence... those who buy a brand spanking new Intel chipset board over the next month or so will not be able to pop in the next P4/P5 CPU... Trust me, Intel could have put that compatiblity into the 845/865/875boards months ago.

Remember, ALL Intel Lovers; remember to thank AMD in making your P4 2.6Ghz+ purchase possible! Before AMD became a SERIOUS competitor with their Thunderbird (Socket CPUs), the cost for my first P3-800Mhz CPU was $850 COST (About $1000 retail - same as the PII-400Mhz about 18months earlier.)

Now, a NEW CPU is about $600, but those that are SLIGHTLY older are in the $200 price range. Without AMD, we'd be talking about LATEST upcoming $1000 P4 1.4Ghz CPU instead of the 3.4.

Quote:

It's funny that your autosig is the first unquestionable statement that you've made.

Hey! AMIGAS will come back and destory Microsoft and Intel!!
Check out the site, www.amiga.com :) 




Amiga - The Original Power
July 13, 2003 1:21:49 AM

Geez, slvr_phoenix...

I hope you have the patience to reply to that nfaq guy. I most certainly wouldn't have. :smile: Good luck. I wouldn't even know were to start, with all that... that... that... well... :smile:

BTW, I don't think he understood that current mobos will support prescott - all that mobo manufacturers needed to do was to follow Intel's specs. (maybe... just maybe the mobo manufacturers wanted to sell more mobos? Hm... what a crazy idea... Intel did it all according to the rules).

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
!