Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Design flaw, ooops was that released??

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 17, 2001 11:58:44 PM

Taken from recent article.

The new Southbridge seems to have a negative effect on the Northbridge of the KT133 chip set. The Northbridge controls the AGP bus for the graphic card as well as the data exchange between CPU and memory. Therefore, the results of the 3D games and the OpenGL tests can only be described as uniformly bad.

Concerning performance, we are not going to make any recommendations this time, as the percentage differences between all the test candidates are too minute to make a final judgement. Regarding equipment, the MSI K7T master (MS-6347) has clearly earned the recommendation of the editorial staff. But customers will now have to adjust their thinking. Anyone who thinks Intel platforms are the more reliable is mistaken as Intel's recall of Pentium III 1.13 GHz proves. Anyone using an Athlon system as server today has found a cost-effective alternative.

Tom Pabst, I hope you read this because your a fricken moron, you hear me?? Im reafering to the "Anyone who thinks Intel platforms are the more reliable is mistaken as Intel's recall of Pentium III 1.13 GHz proves".

How soon you forget that AMD produced how many chips with the glue missing the core??

Recall of a CPU does not constitue unreliabe for Intel across the board. All this proves is how bias you really are.

More about : design flaw ooops released

January 18, 2001 12:52:36 AM

Wow, did you actually read the article this time??? Are you forgetting the recall of the MTH? The last minute bios flash that had computer retailers send back there p4's to let intel do it? What is your point? Tom did not say that intel systems were Pieces of Sh** . He only stated that they (Intel) are no longer any better in terms of reliability. No where does he state anything other than that. He does make a very good point about them being ridiculously overpriced however. But then as they say a fool and his money.....
Answer me this....If a celeron is nothing more than a P3 (which it is) with half of its level 2 cache disabled and intel can sell the Celerons so much cheaper than the p3's what does this tell you about the mark up they have on there chips? After all it is costing them the same amount of money to produce a celeron as a p3.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
January 18, 2001 2:04:43 AM

I think what tom was on about was that anyone can stuff up and that they should have learnt from Intel's or AMD's mistakes.
The problem with VIA chipset doesn't in any way make them unreliabe, but a little loss in speed, if Tom was bias and getting payed by AMD as you say, he would have not Published the problem.
Related resources
January 18, 2001 2:06:59 AM

Hmm... if he was really biased i doubt he'd go out of his way in making 3 articles on trying to make the P4 look good-which ultimately failed because it's a joke (the P4).

-MP Jesse
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2001 3:20:37 AM

Tom has stated that nothing gets published from his team without his approval. Even so, did you notice fugger that he was not the author of that particular article. THG for the reason that it is not biased, expressed disappointment over a somewhat minor but unexpected inefficiency, one that has turned an advantage into a bit of a trade-off. Nothing was said of stability issues, or of manufacturing blunders. In this article, dozens of very similar boards were analyzed for subtle differences. The overall uniformity of the results highlighted the maturity and consistency of the chipset in question. The concluding comments were not so much broadsides fired at intel, but attempts to clear some of the lingering paranoia and propoganda that still confuses customers.

Most of us have come to Tom's Hardware Guide to learn, and to the community to share what we know. There are many sources of information on the internet, some are reliable while others are suspect. We keep coming back here because we value the information, appreciate the honest and accurate presentation of it, and respect its source.

Why do you?

Tom Mc

Even a fool, when he remains silent, appears wise.
January 18, 2001 5:14:38 AM

If tom was being payed by AMD then he wouldn't be coupled with Cnet, how soon you forget the big fuss about Toms selling out. So far he hasn't really edged toward intel(in cahoots with Cnet). Hmm you tell me?
-=-Sean-=-
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2001 8:44:56 AM

Truth hurts HU, I did not read this as an across the board slam of intel, this just pionted aout that Intle no longer has the perfect record of the past which is true. AMD are also holding a good record at the moment with the P4 so are Intel but it does cost alot for what you get, it is up to the individual as to the worth of owning such a CPU. In the mean time chill out and stop the personal attacks on people to justify your love for a large corp who would sell your soul to look at you. Don't get me wrong AMD are no better, but as an part owner of a software house nor am I .....
Look out for yourself not Intel thay can do that for themselves....

M


one of the first UK T-Bird users....
January 18, 2001 11:13:14 AM

“Tom Pabst, I hope you read this because your a fricken moron, you hear me??”

There is only one moron here and it’s not Tom.
January 18, 2001 1:17:37 PM

Well put.

I don't see why two companies can't have an equivalent level of QA. AMD suffered long and hard to get there, Intel strived from the get go but has stumbled once or twice. The article seems pretty dead-on: there is little difference in the reliability of the two product sets. Performance and price are different questions but don't read something into a statement that isn't there.
January 18, 2001 3:34:56 PM

"Anyone who thinks Intel platforms are the more reliable is mistaken as Intel's recall of Pentium III 1.13 GHz proves".

Did this belong in the a KT133 mobo review?

Imagine reading this in hot rod magazine "Anyone who think that Ford Mustangs is a reliable car are mistaken, the recall of the tires proves that." - totally bogus statement

WTF does P3 1.13Ghz have to do with KT133 review?

"The KT133 only moves a dismil 1.2GB on the BUS and that proves what a piece of crap it is, while the P4 1.3 nearly tripples the best offering for the AMD platform at 3.2GB."

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FUGGER on 01/18/01 05:20 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 18, 2001 7:23:24 PM

First of all, the key words are "Intel platforms" and I would certainly consider the CPU to be a somewhat significant part of the "platform," wouldn't you?

Second, and more importantly, is what you said: "How soon you forget that AMD produced how many chips with the glue missing the core?? Recall of a CPU does not constitue unreliabe for Intel across the board. All this proves is how bias you really are." So, you seem to be willing to attack the processor as part of the platform. Again, more importantly, what people are disagreeing with you about is that NOWHERE did the review say that the KT133 was better than Intel's chipsets because they were unreliable. The POINT was that there is no difference in reliability between Intel and AMD "platforms" at this point.

Let's chill out.
January 18, 2001 11:34:33 PM

Fugger spouting off again? Well, as was said tom (who you insulted for the review) didn't actually write that one. So the southbridge has an error. Perhaps you never saw the erratta sheet of the p4 published on intel's own ftp site. It's like 12 pages long. At least Amd tries to find their problems and doesn't deny their faults as long as they possibly can. If there really is a problem with the south bridge, and even so it's not a fatal one, they will have a fixed design by the end of the month. And what recent article was that quote taken from? And can you truely believe that even at its worst the south bridge error is anywhere near as bad as those intel has recently had? No matter how they say the error hinders performance fact is is that it hasn't hindered it too much in benchmarks. And if it has, imagine how much better the system will be once the error is fixed.

HACK THE PLANET!!!
January 19, 2001 12:20:50 AM

I hope you know that even intel fans cringe when you spout off. Your complete ignorance of issues is amazing. You twist things so far out of context it is pathetic. For instance:

Anyone who thinks Intel platforms are the more reliable is mistaken as Intel's recall of Pentium III 1.13 GHz proves".

Did this belong in the a KT133 mobo review?

Imagine reading this in hot rod magazine "Anyone who think that Ford Mustangs is a reliable car are mistaken, the recall of the tires proves that." - totally bogus statement


First of all for this to be relevant it should read "Anyone who thinks that Ford Mustang is a more reliable car than the Chevy XXXXXX (hell you choose the make)is mistaken as the recall of the 289 engine (seeing how ford makes the engine not the tires just as intel makes the p3)proves. At least saying this you have not said the ford is unreliable, only that it is NOT ANYMORE RELIABLE than the chevy. And yes, to point out one of Intel's recent blunders is a means of backing this statement up. And yes AMD makes mistakes too, however missing the core with glue is a production problem not a design problem. A non-functioning entire group of CPU's is a design issue.
As for your p4 comment well at its price I certainly hope it can do something better than the Athlons otherwise intel should just give up. It does seem to be having some troubles moving large amounts of information across the pci bus though.......... And seeing how only moving 1.2 gb on the bus means a chipset is a piece of crap well then I guess all p3 platforms are pieces of crap also,,,,, And hey you made the staement not me. Honestly, i have heard some valid arguments why you should consider the p3 over the athlon, but unfortunatly none of these have come from you so why don't you let someone else make the case for intel CPU's.... with you as there spokesman they will be out of business in no time.


A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
January 19, 2001 2:55:00 AM

Fugger is not known for having any real arguments or thinking his stance through any great deal, if he did, well he'd have no excuse for having his warped ideas. Good points on the recalls. It seems many Intel fans are scrambling for anything they can get, any minute scrap of a bad idea from rival companies, and each one they find, when you compair them to intel blunders, only makes their argument seem more sad, and their final point pointless and tiresome.

HACK THE PLANET!!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2001 8:16:52 AM

But I thought you didn't like Rambus Memory????

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
January 19, 2001 1:14:31 PM

I would assume its because AMD has both kept up to Intel (if not beaten) on the performance side and beaten them on the price. I think his "bias" is that he thinks it is the better product to get now -- (I'm biased the same way ;) 

Again, though, he didn't write the article in question.
January 19, 2001 4:36:32 PM

Well, nice to see that you AMD lovers grab any angle you can and twist it. you guys are really grasping at straws on this one. Your worse than the Apple users and the "we had first GUI" crap of yesterday.

Face it. Im gonna give you crap in your face and your gonna like it. I know you come back to read what I wrote every time.

I get mucho pleasure making you girls whine at anything to discredit me.

Ncognito, thanks for spelling/grammer check but its really not needed. Im sure you were able to understand what I wrote in that analogy

Tbf, were talking about the 1.13Ghz CPU that no one ever got right. it was recalled before it really hit the street.
Its not like a failure across all P3 chips.

Wusy, Im not angry =)

Rambus is a good technology, just the people that run the company are very greedy at the business. to sue all your competitors forcing them to pay royalties is wrong.

Rambus ram is very fast and is needed to move the data @ 3.2GB/s. DDR at its current speed cannot reach 3.2GB/s.

You girls at home talking crap are clueless to what really makes this world go around. You can return to your game now.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2001 5:07:37 PM

let me see.... if my poor memmory serves correct besides the mth debacle, the PIII 1.13ghz snafu, how about FORGETTING to put a transistor in the original p5 and then
having to replace all of them to those who deemed it neccessary?
also if amd is such a non event why did intel castrate a possibly impressive P4 so they could build it at .18 micron instead of waiting for .13 like a rational company?
January 19, 2001 5:51:03 PM

Oy. Enough with the chatting and the arguing already. Lets just all be friends.

Heh heh.

Don't mind me, I'm just insane. But seriously though, Intel and AMD both have their merits and flaws. You can't blame Intel for selling it's chips at such a high price because people BUY them. Like any company, their number one priority is making money, not in making the world a better place.

THG as much as it tries to remain unbiased DOES on occasion seem to be biased. Even with the Radeon review. I mean honestly, is the card any better if for running a higher FPS on large screens if that FPS still is barely playable if playable at all? Yes it's better, but to suggest it for that reason when it falls shorter in so many other places seems biased to me. And really, what is that comment on the P3 doing in a VIA motherboard review? Especially a review on socket A motherboards? If THG wasn't at least a tiny bit biased, that topic should never have come up in that review in the first place.

And Intel did recall the P3 1.13GHz. But it recalled it BEFORE it was shipped to any customers. So it has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of a platform.

And the MTH issue was more the fault of RDRAM than it was anything else. Besides, the whole idea was pretty stupid anyway. The fault was really to blame not with the engineers, but with management for not letting the engineers support SDRAM properly in the first place and having to come up with that whole translation crap. And the systems were all replaced at Intel's cost with reliable systems that used RDRAM.

And if AMD cared for their customers any more than Intel does, they'd have thermal protection in their chips.

The day AMD makes a chip with a heat sensor to shut it off before it fries and the day someone makes a good motherboard for an AMD chip without using a VIA chipset, I'll get an AMD system. Until then I stick with Intel because it meets my needs, not because I think Intel is any better than AMD. I'm willing to pay a few extra bucks for a processor that I know won't fry on my. Others just want the best bang for their buck. It reminds me of the people who bought the old Celerons just to overclock them and called the people who had paid more for their speed as fools.

My point? No one company is any better than the other. They're both just out to get your money plain and simple. So lets just stop arguing about that. Some people have a reason for paying the extra money for an Intel chip. Some don't and go with an AMD chip. It's no reason to argue.

And THG does occasionally make comments and suggestions that do seem to be a little biased. They aren't uber-biased like some people. But they aren't completely unbiased either.

But even still, that's no reason to be so rude about it and insult Dr. Pabst like that.

So lets just all try to place nice and stop calling each other names and make the world the better place that big companies like Intel and AMD won't.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
January 21, 2001 5:32:46 AM

It seems FUGGER in all his wisdom, didn't read all the replies to his post, either that or was in fear of answering my questions so I'll post again. BTW Fugger, you don't need us to discredit you, you do that fine on your own.


"Fugger spouting off again? Well, as was said tom (who you insulted for the review) didn't actually write that one. So the southbridge has an error. Perhaps you never saw the erratta sheet of the p4 published on intel's own ftp site. It's like 12 pages long. At least Amd tries to find their problems and doesn't deny their faults as long as they possibly can. If there really is a problem with the south bridge, and even so it's not a fatal one, they will have a fixed design by the end of the month. And what recent article was that quote taken from? And can you truely believe that even at its worst the south bridge error is anywhere near as bad as those intel has recently had? No matter how they say the error hinders performance fact is is that it hasn't hindered it too much in benchmarks. And if it has, imagine how much better the system will be once the error is fixed."



HACK THE PLANET!!!
!