Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Please come back pIII, i need someone to roast me!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 1, 2003 9:23:55 PM

Hows intels form they set their multiplyer so as it cannot be increase to overclock, so you have to overclock the fsb, so you have to buy their fangle dangle mobo if ya wanna overclock. Their reason, so oem machines wont be sold with o/c chips. So intel dont wanna be ripped off buy resellers yet they rip people off blind, compared to AMD, the whole marketing of cpus is based on selling the same cpu at totally different prices but one is capped. Yet AMD allow us consumers to remove that cap if we like. Typical bloody intel. Also they throw a 4x multiplyer on their fsb to give the impression it has twice the capabilities when in actual fact it only has a slight advantage, like 5%, compared to the 400mhz, and this is largly due to the increased reliance on clock speeds intel uses in their architecture. Intel are the masters of marketing and that is why they get away with charging all these simplewits so god darn much. It makes a HarD KorE gamer wanna cry, or laugh cause his pc is pumpin on AMD feul, THE REAL DEAL. Whats your lame ass opinions on intels devious ways.

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by rramjet on 09/15/03 08:55 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : back piii roast

September 1, 2003 9:41:53 PM

you are not wanted here, go somewhere else

wpdclan.com cs game server - 69.12.5.119:27015
September 1, 2003 9:42:00 PM

Quote:
Typical bloody intel.


Typical rramjet comment/Typical rramjet thread = typical rramjet BS.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
Related resources
September 1, 2003 10:21:44 PM

rramjet you is one smart fella, you is. You talk pertty too. You can tells me all abouts them Intel Bastards. Hooeeh. rramjet i'm glads you come and tells us stupids people all abouts AMD, you make all them AMD fans look goods too.


rramjet you are a loser, do society a favour and shoot yourself. Bye :) 

--------
The only thing that i truly know...

is that i know nothing at all.
September 1, 2003 10:31:25 PM

I'd say PPP! (Perfect Post Peter!)
I don't want to bash rramjet forever, but as long as he remains a troll it will sure be a heck of alot of fun!

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
September 1, 2003 10:59:13 PM

Advice for rramjet: Buy a Cyrix or Via C3 CPU, or upgrade to a 386 for cheap.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
September 1, 2003 11:13:19 PM

haha...lies ok lets start...

Quote:
Hows intels form they set their multiplyer so as it cannot be increase to overclock, so you have to overclock the fsb, so you have to buy their fangle dangle mobo if ya wanna overclock.


huh...fangle dangle mobo? Just about socket 478 any mobo allows you to overclock...

Also if you really must get ubber clock speeds...then you could always set an fsb/memory divider...but fact of the matter is that since the p4 relies so much on bus speed...overclocking via multis prolly wont yeild much more performance...

Quote:
So intel dont wanna be ripped off buy resellers yet they rip people off blind, compared to AMD, the whole marketing of cpus is based on selling the same cpu at totally different prices but one is capped.

Ok compare a barton 3200+ to a p4 2.8c and see which is the better deal...

Quote:
Also they throw a 4x multiplyer on their fsb to give the impression it has twice the capabilities when in actual fact it only has a slight advantage, like 5%, compared to the 400mhz, and this is largly due to the increased reliance on clock speeds intel uses in their architecture.

hmm...do i smell lies...

4x multiplyer? what are you smoking...it is quad data rate...meaning for every clock cycle it transmits 4x the data of a single data rate bus...so basically bigger packets of data are transfered per clock cycle...just as DDR transmits 2x more data than sdram per clock cycle...there are no multiplyers involved...actually if you want to point fingers...amd started it...by advertsing a 200mhz bus on their early 100mhz fsb K7's...

So if it really appauls you so much...what is the "real" fsb of a barton 3200+...definitly not 400mhz...it is 200mhz because amd uses a Double data rate bus...

what is wrong with intel relying on clockspeed? that is what makes their core perform...they have nice long pipelines that require high clock speeds...the p4 relys on clock just like the k7 relys on IPC

Also only 5% advantage compared to 400mhz? what? have you looked at benchmarks comparing a 400mhz 2.4ghz bus p4 to an 800mhz bus 2.4ghz p4?

I pretty much stopped reading after that...hehe

Anyhow...obviously you are an amd fanboy...which i have no problem with...but before you go scream bloody hell at intel get your facts strait...

I am no intel fanboy either...hell i have an amd cpu that is prolly older than some people here...and i cherish my k6 233 (*smooch...kisses his k6*)

I must say that there is no doubt amd is the king of low end...they just need more advertising...




Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by piii_Man on 09/01/03 07:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 1, 2003 11:21:19 PM

Quote:
I am no intel fanboy either...hell i have an amd cpu that is prolly older than some people here...and i cherish my k6 233 (*smooch...kisses his k6*)

That's truly a legacy landmark product there - the first non-intel chip to earn that performance crown in ALL CPU history.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
September 1, 2003 11:49:03 PM

not true...

the zilgog z-80 stole the performance crown in the early days...

as did the Cyrix 6x86-200

but still...it is amds first win...and was amds first in house designed cpu that could compete with the big boys...



Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 1, 2003 11:59:29 PM

rramjet or poopey both soumd the same. But poopey getting better.
September 2, 2003 12:39:02 AM

PopeyX know mores commeant on PRESSHOTT delayz 4 tyme beeingz.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
a c 99 à CPUs
a c 231 K Overclocking
September 2, 2003 12:39:44 AM

Are you for real? Or is this a Joke? Obviously piii Man thinks you are.

<b><font color=purple>Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.</font color=purple></b>
September 2, 2003 12:40:00 AM

The bar owner at Nar shadaa: You seek informations?

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
September 2, 2003 1:09:11 AM

if you have seen his other posts it is definitly not a joke...


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 2, 2003 1:35:39 AM

that was awful harsh peter - I wouldn't wish it upon anyone to shoot themselves over a stupid post in a forum about computer hardware...

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
a c 99 à CPUs
a c 231 K Overclocking
September 2, 2003 1:58:18 AM

I haven't seen any of his other posts, it just seems like this issue has been run in the dirt over and over again, no offense but I know he's new here but you're not, it seems like he's just trying to start up something, but last I checked he hasn't posted anything since the first post.

<b><font color=purple>Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.</font color=purple></b>
a c 99 à CPUs
a c 231 K Overclocking
September 2, 2003 2:02:55 AM

I Agree!

<b><font color=purple>Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.</font color=purple></b>
September 2, 2003 2:15:37 AM

Don't hurts him noble Jedis!

<font color=blue>Let's see, 500 posts a day, each day, for 30 days, and I will have more posts than Crashman!</font color=blue>
a c 99 à CPUs
a c 231 K Overclocking
September 2, 2003 2:31:33 AM

Your wish is my Light Saber! LOL

<b><font color=purple>Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.</font color=purple></b>
September 2, 2003 2:36:25 AM

My stance remains the same. I do admit though that Peter's post was a little harsh, even if it was aimed at a noob troll-poster. But Peter was probably just kidding, like the rest of us in the thread. These rramjet threads should really go in the "other" section because they usually don't contain much legitimate information about Intel/AMD CPUs. Usually the silly threads in the "other" section receive silly replies very similar to the responses the rramjet threads receive. When PopeGoldX stopped trolling, I didn't really tease him any more. I'd even have to say that even Pope's threads held more intellectual value to them than any of rramjet's. I'm sure rramjet is a decent guy inside - we just need to squash the troll out of him first! :wink: When rramjet stops the troll posts, I won't even tease him again, and maybe even invite him over for a couple winecoolers! How would you like that rramjet?

But in the meantime for now.....: Trulies?



My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
a c 99 à CPUs
a c 231 K Overclocking
September 2, 2003 2:50:36 AM

ROFLMAO! Squash that Troll, just don't get any between your toes, thats some nasty stuff.

<b><font color=purple>Details, Details, Its all in the Details, If you need help, Don't leave out the Details.</font color=purple></b>
September 2, 2003 3:17:16 AM

the only reason i really replyed was i have seen arguments like this in the past...where people say that intel sux cause of locked multis...and amd rules cause it is 1mhz and keeps up with a 1 terrahert pentium...and how intel lies cause of its bus speed...blabla...

I was just kinda clearing that up...cause i have heard it way too much...

Also...i get satisfaction out of proving trolls wrong...hehe... :smile:


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 2, 2003 4:29:10 AM

i really wish i had supreme power when it comes to population control. the top of my list for extermination would be margrate chow. god damn she pisses me off.

wpdclan.com cs game server - 69.12.5.119:27015
September 2, 2003 4:52:39 AM

Who is she?

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
September 2, 2003 5:22:40 AM

http://www.margaretcho.net/
she had a show for a while on prime time. it was nothing but chinese stereo types and really bad jokes. i saw her stand up comedy once, just an excuse to say some raunchy sex crap and talk with an outrageous asian accent. i dont see how asians dont find her offensive. i sure do

wpdclan.com cs game server - 69.12.5.119:27015
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
September 2, 2003 6:24:11 AM

I've upgraded several Intel boards with CPU's that had "higher multipliers than the motherboard supported". Can't do that with old Athlon boards that have a 12.5x cap, so I'm happy enough with locked multipliers, thanks.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 2, 2003 8:04:48 AM

very true...i am running a 1100mhz cpu on a mobo that only has official support for up to an 8x multi...when i need 11x...if it were not for locked multis i would be SOL...


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 2, 2003 12:25:27 PM

maybe rr is a poopy alter ego?

Shadus
September 2, 2003 2:45:23 PM

I'm sorry i didn't make it clear that iam talking 100% from a gaming perspective. Now all that got offended by my bagging of intel and how they rip everyone off, i realise that this is a half truth and mainly flamebait, but i do not really care what some pimple faced geek or some overweight computer jock has to say especially when they are just trolling and will not attack the issue raised but the person behind it. But as always PIII always comes through with some material that is relative and he generally doesn't take the flamebait, that i like but it doesn't make me laugh like the other trollers.

So to the point. Im reading this article on the differences FSB and RAM speed make on gaming performance. I was quite surprised that a Intel with 800mhz fsb will throw the following fps in UT2K3 test at different ram speeds

DDR266 95
DDR333 96
DDR400 98

Ok now an AMD, of similar speed with 400mhzfsb and diff ram speeds

DDr266 82
DDR333 86
DDR400 92

Now this is less than a 10% increase which all will agree is hardly noticable. Now i must admit in the 3dmark score the 800mhz did have quite a noticable difference, but only minimal when comparing the three different ram speeds. But all real life tests involving various games never showed more than a ten percent increase. Now the question i ask is whether intels FSB increase failure in this department, games, is due to intels chips running ineficiently or is it simply more marketing talk as to increase sales. After reading this article it has confirmed what i have always believed, that is fsb increases are just another marketing tool, im wondering to also if ram speeds are going down the same track. Please mummy boys if ya wanna be abusive , abuse your sister or your mum not me...

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!
September 2, 2003 3:32:40 PM

Isn't it a bit stupid to expect two completely different processor designs to have the same FSB "efficiency" as each other? What is important is that Intel's 800 FSB beats Intel's 533 and 400 FSB's. Intel's 800 FSB does its job, raising the performance per clock of a P4. If you want to whine about "marketing tools", what about the 3200+?

Btw your benchmark is a bit funny - I can't help noticing that the P4 with lowly DDR266 beats the AMD with the DDR400. What processors are you comparing?
September 2, 2003 4:01:29 PM

Quote:
Btw your benchmark is a bit funny - I can't help noticing that the P4 with lowly DDR266 beats the AMD with the DDR400. What processors are you comparing?

Looks suspicious, alright...

Anyway, UT is always one hell of a lot friendlier towards AMD because it is not adequately P4-optimised... It is the benchmark in which XPs get closest to P4s...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 2, 2003 8:23:02 PM

My question would have to be, are the ram setting the same or are they different?

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
September 2, 2003 9:52:53 PM

can i see links to these benchies?


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 2, 2003 11:02:29 PM

Your right tommunist that statement did go overboard, it was more for the shock value. In no way did i mean it. Just trying to have a little fun in my own sadistic way :) 

--------
The only thing that i truly know...

is that i know nothing at all.
September 3, 2003 12:38:53 AM

Well Roger, if what you are trying to say is that a P4 2.4c costs a days pay more than an xp 2500, and just aint worth it, I'm with you. If you are trying to say that Intel does not seem to get that much out of the jump from 133 to 200 fsb, I'm with you again. If on the other hand, you are trying to say that AMD is better than Intel, or that Amd is faster, sorry buddy, you're on your own.
September 3, 2003 12:53:44 AM

well the 2.4c does perform better so the money is warenteed...but amd is still the king of low end...

i disagree the intel cpus got a big jump from 200mhz fsb..since a 2.4c is beats a 2.66 p4B in most benchies...


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 3, 2003 2:54:04 AM

These benchmarks are from a gaming magazine , which has a four page spread on higher memory and front side bus frequencies and how they impact on gaming, so i doubt they are online. They tested two 2.4 ghz chips with 400 and 800mhz fsb at three different ram speeds. They used a 3.2 ghz AMD with the multiplyer unlocked to keep speeds identical. They did this to get results on 400mhz and 333mhz in AMD. Their conclusion anyhow was that the only upgrades in fsb speed that would make a noticable difference were 400 - 800 on intel, and 266 to 333/400 on AMD, yet they also said that the increase was not quite enough to warrant an upgrade unless the cpu speed was significanty faster, unless you want to throw your hard earned cash in the gutter (their words). What surprised me was the almost no difference the increased ram speeds made on gaming although as they stated the new video cards have ample ram these days. Well i sppose a 10% increase is still a 10% increase as someone mentioned in their post earlier. What i need explained is why is intels 3DMark03 so much higher than AMDs yet when put to the test on a wide variety of games at different resolutions these scores are not reflected, actually some games are performing quicker on an AMD 400fsb then an intel 800fsb, weird.

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!
September 3, 2003 12:42:33 PM

1)
3.2Ghz AMDs don't exist, so I'll assume you mean XP3200+(2.2Ghz) which costs $450... And a P4C 2.4 is $170... thats a fair comparison... :wink:
2)
What exactly is the point of this article anyway? If they're only testing games & 3dMark, there's going to be little difference anyway, as that's all going to be the graphics card. What about Video encoding & suchlike? That sort of thing will much better highlight the advantage of a faster FSB/RAM...

With the same Vid card, a 10% increase is HUGE in benchies like this, given how little they actually use the CPU.


---
The end is nigh.. (For this post at least) :smile:
September 3, 2003 1:06:25 PM

ok smart man 3200 was used so both fsb speeds could be enabled, multipller was reduced to give comparable speeds. Also majority of test were done at minimum resolution to ensure video card didnt come into play. Also 10% is minimal, hey if intel cost 10% more there'd be a lot let angry intel fans out there. And as gaming is a major part of computer use the relevance of the article is not at question. Also i did point out i was talking from a gamers point of view, if you cared to read the previous posts. And you are a loser which is aparent by your sarcasim in your posts, prob one of those fat compo jock types.

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!
September 3, 2003 2:18:31 PM

You again? You really are trying to alienate everyone who's opinion differs from your own, aren't you?

<font color=blue>"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that" - Bill Shankly</font color=blue>
September 3, 2003 2:23:19 PM

Quote:
ok smart man 3200 was used so both fsb speeds could be enabled

they could've used a 2500, as the chip is not locked, so that's still not a reason for using one.
Quote:
. Also 10% is minimal,

No, In benchmarks which rely so completely graphics cards, 10% is actually quite a bit, if you're only adjusting FSB. (unless you're using IGP solutions which use system memory of course)
Quote:
And as gaming is a major part of computer use the relevance of the article is not at question

I'm simply saying that something which actually puts the emphasis on what they're testing would have made more sense... That's like testing different supension setups on a car by measuring the straight-line speed all the time - It's not really going to highlight anything..
Quote:
And you are a loser

Maybe I am, but:
a)I am not a closed-minded idiot fanboy;
b)I can afford a keyboard with a return key, so I must be doing something right :wink:



---
The end is nigh.. (For this post at least) :smile:
September 3, 2003 2:28:14 PM

Seems pretty paranoid, always bable'n that us Intel users are scared or angry.

Ill speak for myself but im hardly worried about semi conductors Im worried about my job my sex like my school'n shat like that. Its very far from the top of my list of things that will cause me to have a nervous breakdown.

With consideration its AMD here this core is nearly 2 years behind schedule its a hype CPU. Anyways give Intel time and well have something thats better and we Intel users usually sit back and enjoy it not hang on a forum post'n like a mad man cause our computer can only browse the internet without bluescreening.

-Jeremy

:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5341387" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1400777" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
September 3, 2003 2:30:04 PM

rramjet, your little DDR speed bench scores don't even come close to being applicable to the argument that you're trying to make with them. You're just not making sense. The speed of the RAM has nothing to do with the FSB speed. If you want to actually make an argument then you need to list benchmark scores at seperate FSB speeds when running the RAM <i>synchronous</i> to the FSB. Maybe then you'll have some sort of a point. Until then your whole argument here is completely illogical.

Further you even yourself stated that the purpose of the article was only for comparison as an upgrade. So what about the tons of people building/buying completely new systems then, hmm?

Besides which, do you even <i>know</i> what chipsets were involved, what memory timings were involved, and which platforms were single channel or dual channel? If you wanted to sound even close to being credible you should provide this sort of information. Otherwise you're no better than 'the inquirer'.

So in conclusion your argument is flawed, your supportive data is incomplete and unsupportable, and even your source for supportive data is tailored specifically for a specific target group instead of for <i>all</i> people (or even a majority for that matter). If this is your best effort at debate then maybe you should find a new hobby.

<font color=blue>If you look <font color=purple>The Devil</font color=purple><font color=red>®</font color=red> straight in the eye and only see yourself then you must be standing in front of a mirror.</font color=blue>
September 3, 2003 2:35:35 PM

I was going to point out the synch/asynch thing... but decided he probably wouldn't understand what I was talking about anyway, and his 'source' probably didn't even provide this info.

---
The end is nigh.. (For this post at least) :smile:
September 3, 2003 2:35:51 PM

Quote:
Ill speak for myself but im hardly worried about semi conductors Im worried about my job my sex like my school'n shat like that. Its very far from the top of my list of things that will cause me to have a nervous breakdown.

Damn straight. On top of that I already have my PC. What do I care about who beats who? When it comes time to upgrade I'll buy what I need then chosing the best that I can afford. And until then I don't even give a flying fairy fart. There are far more entertaining things in life than which CPU manu is beating which. For example, actually <i>helping</i> people out around here...

<font color=blue>If you look <font color=purple>The Devil</font color=purple><font color=red>®</font color=red> straight in the eye and only see yourself then you must be standing in front of a mirror.</font color=blue>
September 3, 2003 2:42:14 PM

Quote:
For example, actually helping people out around here

eh? That's not what the forums are for is it? I thought they were for "Revealing Intelliots" and "Exposing Intel's Lies", etc... :wink:

---
The end is nigh.. (For this post at least) :smile:
September 3, 2003 2:45:39 PM

Quote:
I was going to point out the synch/asynch thing... but decided he probably wouldn't understand what I was talking about anyway, and his 'source' probably didn't even provide this info.

What I found that makes it really pointless in general until we have more information is what if the Intel platform there is running in single-channel? That would mean that the P4 is <i>already</i> incredibly bandwidth-starved, so of course the lower RAM speeds are going to hardly show much difference in performance. And it'd get even worse if this is RAM at CAS3.

And even then, that information is still only applicable to the value of using higher-speed DDR with a NWC. It still has nothing at all to do with FSB.

It's just all such a joke. It'd be like trying to compare acceleration times with different gear ratios by changing the air-fuel mixture for the same gear ratios instead of actually changing the gear ratios. Just because the two different factors can have an impact on the same end value doesn't mean that they're in any way directly related. It's just senseless.

<font color=blue>If you look <font color=purple>The Devil</font color=purple><font color=red>®</font color=red> straight in the eye and only see yourself then you must be standing in front of a mirror.</font color=blue>
September 3, 2003 4:33:26 PM

Look robd why dont you go back to the hovel you crawled out from, as no one is interested in your dribble. As for the geeks who go on to a post and jibber some crap about their car or some other irrelevant B.S get a life, if ya think the thread is pointless dont respond . Gee so sick of wingin self rightous priks who have absolutly no input into the discussion exept for their self gratifying remarks on some crap.

Sorry to the rest of you who are taking this thread seriously. The article did go into the details you are enquiring about but as you know i'm not going to post that much information. so i just stuck to the resullts and conclusions. But the results were interesting anyhow. Also i would like to give some advice to people who are not reading the thread properly, please read all of what has been said and get your facts correct before replying to what i have said as i'm not going to repeat myself. Thankyou.

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!
September 3, 2003 5:00:10 PM

Firstly, your attitude sucks, big time. Anyone who doesn't agree with you, you immediately turn on or insult. Example:

Quote:
but i do not really care what some pimple faced geek or some overweight computer jock has to say especially when they are just trolling...

and...

Quote:
Please mummy boys if ya wanna be abusive , abuse your sister or your mum not me...

If you want to have a debate about the pros and cons regarding Intel and AMD, fine. But this is hardly the way to go about it is it? Your line is.."AMD rule and Intel suck. Why? Because they just do, that's why" Both suppliers have their good and bad points, and you'll find that an awful lot of people just want a system that works, and don't care about all the little tweaks you can perfom to gain more clock Hz. You adopt the same stance in the Graphics forum. You have no interest in rational debate, all you want to do is stir the shite. Stir it elsewhere.

If you'd make your threads more like how you posted the results, then you'd be taken more seriously. As it is, all you generate is much deserved abuse. See most of the replies to your first post in this thread. If you have no desire to listen to what other people say, then don't post. Simple as that. Don't start slagging people off just because they don't agree with you, that just isn't fair.

Some people (who shall rename nameless but we all know who they are) post similarly agressive threads, but do so in an amusing manner. You just enrage people. I think you need to change your style, otherwise you'll just get much more abuse.


<font color=blue>"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that" - Bill Shankly</font color=blue>
!