Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What AMD Really Thinks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 23, 2003 7:12:01 PM

A reason to hate AMD...

<A HREF="http://www.overclockers.com/articles911/" target="_new">http://www.overclockers.com/articles911/&lt;/A>

<font color=red>
Barton 2500+ @ 10x222 = 2225MHz
A7N8X Dlx Rev 2.0
Kingston Hyper-X 2x256MB DDR500 @ CL2.5-4-3-7
MSI Ti4600 GPU/Memory : 300/660MHz
IBM IDE 80GB + Seagate SATA 2x120GB
</font color=red>

More about : amd thinks

December 23, 2003 7:25:13 PM

All of us have to realise that AMD desperately needs to make some money at last. Why is that so hard to understand for some people?
December 23, 2003 7:35:45 PM

If u r so keen, then why dont you get urself a 64 FX rig? :wink:

<font color=red>
Barton 2500+ @ 10x222 = 2225MHz
A7N8X Dlx Rev 2.0
Kingston Hyper-X 2x256MB DDR500 @ CL2.5-4-3-7
MSI Ti4600 GPU/Memory : 300/660MHz
IBM IDE 80GB + Seagate SATA 2x120GB
</font color=red>
Related resources
December 23, 2003 7:57:27 PM

Because I don't have the money, not to mention that only a few people REALLY need that kind of power. But I do have the money for an A64 3000+ and if I wanted an upgrade I would buy that. Sure, it's nice right now that with $80 I have a $250 CPU in my system but I have the common sense to realise that this thing can not be the case for all my future upgrades.
December 23, 2003 9:17:14 PM

Lol,Amd makes cpu which they know are really their new durons,makes them non-overclockable and charges performance prices for them;still damn their greedy hearts I've got the cash and cann't wait or maybe I can and will buy a prescott instead of AMD;but doing all that motherboard,ram and cpu research again 8{
December 24, 2003 5:13:12 AM

Guess what? AMD's "new durons" rip apart Intel's flagship product (Pentium 4 3.2c) in everything but video encoding for only half the price. That's pretty good for a "duron" don't you think?

No matter how hard I try I can't understand some of you guys!
December 24, 2003 5:17:22 AM

Quote:
Considering a A64 3000+? i hope u have gone thru this...

I was wondering ... do you always rely on someone else's opinion? Don't you have a judgement for yourself? I've read that article before but what that guy mentions there is just his personal opinion. I already had everything he mentions in mind and I do not agree with him. Btw, since he is whinning about AMD's CPUs not being overclockable, I'd like to see how good overclocker Prescott will be at 100W!
December 24, 2003 6:53:15 AM

Could we have another popey now, but the other way round

popey is an amd fanboy who uses an Intel cpu

TheMask seems an Intel fanboy who uses an AMD CPU

BTW, on the IRC chanel #asm I came across a an Intel fanboy using an Athlon. He insisted that the Wilamette P4 blew away the athlon. I tried to tell him the other way and the architectural defects in that P4 but in the end his fanboyistic mind was closed and he just called me a moron. I think I won that argument.

To be honest, and this is comming from a guy who saved £200 and runs his 2500+ @ 3200+, AMD have every right to try to stop oc'ing if they can. Just my case alone shows that this practice alone must loose them quite a lot of money.

Just like software companies do have every right to stop their work being pirated.

I have viewed this site on my Am386DX-40, 20MB RAM, OPTi 392 chipset, Cirrus Logic ISA graphics on Windows 95 OSR2 with IE4 it works!!
December 24, 2003 7:30:46 AM

You mean.. rips apart celeron? I'm not too sure about that statement.. but i'm not really going against you either.
I just want to see these results.

But the locking of the AMD multipliers pisses me off.. I really wanted a crazy overclockable system.
But I guess that's out of reach and i'll most likely stay with Intel.

But.. they'll probably only keep that for a few months.. try to get some extra cash. They need to do something to just trick the market with their numbers. Most people read 2600+ and they see all these benchmarks and then see it really only reads 2 ghz. So they of course instantly think Intel is better due to a simple number.
Whenever anybody that doesn't know anything about computers asks me about what processor i use.. i tell them AMD. The reason for this.. the market thinks intel is superior. So many people have tried sitting there telling me that AMD is a generic processor and for real perfomance go intel.
Although I use intel, I like AMD more. Competition. Price/FPS obviously it's AMD. And if you go off benchmarks almost every website on the net besides this one shows AMD better than intel.

p4 2.8 533fsb
intel mobo
1gb rdram pc 800
radeon9800 pro
120gb seagate s-ata
December 24, 2003 8:07:09 AM

Quote:
TheMask seems an Intel fanboy who uses an AMD CPU


Jeez.. u still belive in phrases such as Fanboy? Grow up!!!

<font color=red>
Barton 2500+ @ 10x222 = 2225MHz
A7N8X Dlx Rev 2.0
Kingston Hyper-X 2x256MB DDR500 @ CL2.5-4-3-7
MSI Ti4600 GPU/Memory : 300/660MHz
IBM IDE 80GB + Seagate SATA 2x120GB
</font color=red>
December 24, 2003 8:13:18 AM

Quote:
I was wondering ... do you always rely on someone else's opinion? Don't you have a judgement for yourself? I've read that article before but what that guy mentions there is just his personal opinion. I already had everything he mentions in mind and I do not agree with him. Btw, since he is whinning about AMD's CPUs not being overclockable, I'd like to see how good overclocker Prescott will be at 100W!


So tell me Pitsi, do u ever go thru any of the reviews at any of the sites? I guess not. B'coz even the reviews are nothing but a bunch of personal opinions, however unbiased, they are mere opinions. So u always go about testing the stuff u want to buy before u actually buy them? B'coz u dont trust anyone's opinions, right??? so you ought to buy them after u have tested them or u go by ur instinct. Either way, it sounds foolish to me.

Why the hell would you like to compare a 64 FX to a Prescott? I have not said anything about a comparision, nor has the guy who's written the review.

<font color=red>
Barton 2500+ @ 10x222 = 2225MHz
A7N8X Dlx Rev 2.0
Kingston Hyper-X 2x256MB DDR500 @ CL2.5-4-3-7
MSI Ti4600 GPU/Memory : 300/660MHz
IBM IDE 80GB + Seagate SATA 2x120GB
</font color=red>
December 24, 2003 8:19:07 AM

I have <i>no</i> problem with AMD locking their multipliers. They are still virtually unknown to the 'average joe', and have developed a reputation amongst the enthusiast market (i.e. most of us) as being "The company from which you buy the slowest chip of any particular core, because it's capable of beating the fastest one anyway". Financially this is of course terrible - the only people who really know about you will only buy your cheapest stuff, which has a <i>tiny</i> (if any) profit margin.

They need cash to make better stuff. They shouldn't have unlocked them in the first place really.

I'm just as guilty as anyone else though - I bought an XP1700+ <i>specifically</i> because I knew it would oc well. :evil:  And it did :smile: ... But hey, I can't resist a bargain, much like anyone else...

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
December 24, 2003 8:30:46 AM

totally agree to that dood!

<font color=red>
Barton 2500+ @ 10x222 = 2225MHz
A7N8X Dlx Rev 2.0
Kingston Hyper-X 2x256MB DDR500 @ CL2.5-4-3-7
MSI Ti4600 GPU/Memory : 300/660MHz
IBM IDE 80GB + Seagate SATA 2x120GB
</font color=red>
December 24, 2003 9:36:23 AM

True. If u can go as high as 225 FSB, like u and me, then thats a cool 2475MHz out of the 2500+

<font color=red>
Barton 2500+ @ 10x222 = 2225MHz
A7N8X Dlx Rev 2.0
Kingston Hyper-X 2x256MB DDR500 @ CL2.5-4-3-7
MSI Ti4600 GPU/Memory : 300/660MHz
IBM IDE 80GB + Seagate SATA 2x120GB
</font color=red>
December 24, 2003 11:32:06 AM

Quote:
You mean.. rips apart celeron?

Actually, the slowest Athlon XP (1700+) can rip apart the fastest Celeron @ 2.6GHz in games. So no, what I meant is that the A64 3000+ rips apart the Pentium 4 3.2GHz (800MHz FSB) in almost everything except video encoding. Btw, they are not "tricking" anyone with their numbers. It's a topic discussed over and over again so I won't start. But with the same way of thinking someone can say that Intel is also tricking customers by naming a Celeron 2.6GHz (and don't anybody jump in saying that's just its clockspeed). It's just names like someone other said so get over it (and I am not referring specifically to you)! Another example is Radeon 9800SE, which performs worse than the Radeon 9600 Pro. Nobody should be based on "names" for their purchases and anybody who does that is a fool (and I know that the majority are "fools").
December 24, 2003 11:41:04 AM

Quote:
So tell me Pitsi, do u ever go thru any of the reviews at any of the sites? I guess not. B'coz even the reviews are nothing but a bunch of personal opinions, however unbiased, they are mere opinions. So u always go about testing the stuff u want to buy before u actually buy them? B'coz u dont trust anyone's opinions, right??? so you ought to buy them after u have tested them or u go by ur instinct. Either way, it sounds foolish to me.

The conclusion of a review is maybe a personal opinion. Other than that, a true review is one that specifically specifies what hardware is used (like in THG) and then gives the results to the reader, before coming to a conclusion. This way, I can draw my own conclusions. It isn't foolish and I am sure many here do the exact same thing. If I have the knowledge to understand the numbers given to me, then I can decide for myself whether something is good for me to buy or not.

Quote:
Why the hell would you like to compare a 64 FX to a Prescott? I have not said anything about a comparision, nor has the guy who's written the review.

Huh? What I meant was that we should all realise that great overclocking chips are probably a thing of the past, at least when talking about next-gen CPUs like Prescott or A64. That guy wrote a whole article about how mean AMD is who is not going to allow to themselves lose money anymore, while the same thing will probably be true for Intel as well. I don't think a Prescott at 100W will have a great overclocking potential, like A64s won't.
December 24, 2003 5:21:13 PM

WOKAY.. point taken!

<font color=red>
Barton 2500+ @ 10x222 = 2225MHz
A7N8X Dlx Rev 2.0
Kingston Hyper-X 2x256MB DDR500 @ CL2.5-4-3-7
MSI Ti4600 GPU/Memory : 300/660MHz
IBM IDE 80GB + Seagate SATA 2x120GB
</font color=red>
December 25, 2003 2:34:50 AM

AMD still sucks because I didn't get an unlocked Barton. Screwed again by the man.LOL

A7n8x dlx G Bios Agressive settings
xp1700 Paly 2x 256 Crucial 2700@ cl 2.5
ATI Radeon Sapphire 9200 WDCaviar 60gig w 8mb Cache @ 7200
"There is no magic server pixie dust."
December 25, 2003 3:19:51 AM

NO I did the research and was about ready to buy one when they locked the mults. I took a chance even though I might not get an unlocked one. I had been saving up for a while till it got into my pricerange. I still got a good processor though and I will prolly do the pencil trick on my 1700 anyway.

A7n8x dlx G Bios Agressive settings
xp1700 Paly 2x 256 Crucial 2700@ cl 2.5
ATI Radeon Sapphire 9200 WDCaviar 60gig w 8mb Cache @ 7200
"There is no magic server pixie dust."
December 25, 2003 4:37:53 AM

OMG, in ur profile for location...hahahahahahahahahah it cracks me up in that dumb sort of way heheheheheheheh kudos!

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"
December 25, 2003 3:50:05 PM

OC and Tomshardware are both intel sites, they both got a big bag of money from Intel.
THG plays it more smart, but OC are realy idiots, the statemants they make are very stupid, idiots i call them !
And yes, the FX won in every review, accept THG :)  prove enoufg ?
December 26, 2003 7:17:21 AM

Why don't you PM SodNightHawk. He's got some conspiracy theories of his own. You two can maybe discuss them in the playground at school tomorrow.

---
<font color=red>Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.</font color=red> :wink:
December 26, 2003 8:07:45 PM

Quote:
Guess what? AMD's "new durons" rip apart Intel's flagship product (Pentium 4 3.2c) in everything but video encoding for only half the price. That's pretty good for a "duron" don't you think?

Take it easy there, pitsi. These new durons of yours don't cost the usual few dozen dollars that the old ones did. There are no 64-bit durons yet, but the A64 3000 has become a really good alternative...

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