Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

TSC in Canada selling P4 systems, bunch of BS.....

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2001 5:31:54 AM

Haha
you should of seen the advertising on there

They were quoting bits of tiny articles from sharky extreme,
course they didnt do any from Tom's
but they were like saying, Sharjy Extreme said a very good performer for Mp3 encoding and the people there were like wow
.. Also
they opened up Ms word 2000, it took like 10 seconds to load ! haha
my Duron 800 opens it in seconds and the guys said o look how fast the pentiyum 4 is haha the guy using the pc was just looking at him like umm...
hahahaha

You should of seen it.
I mean there should be a law that you cant say its the best when it isn't you know?

I mean so many people out there think O, new new new
must be the best, but thats always not the case.

I have told many people of Tom's hardware and find his reviews forthcoming, in detail and informmative and and they have all bought AMD Systems. Its not who can run this faster by a tad or something, people want overall good, quality systems that perform well all around at a GOOD PRICE.

Tom has reached many people, but still so many are in the dark and being sucked in to buy a overpriced crap machine.

-Tbirdinside
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2001 10:08:45 AM

i saw the first p4 system ad today in the paper. it went like this:

HOME: Celeron 633
WORKSTATION: celeron 766
POWER USER: Pentium III 933
ELITE: PENTIUM 4 1.3GHZ!!!!

and it basically made it look really wonderful and i chucked to myself, seeing as my duron running at slightly over a Ghz owns a pentium4 1.4ghz in sciencemark. im not quite sure what sciencemark does, or what the hell it proves, but p4's suck at it. wait, who really cares about scimark?? ah, screw it, its good for bragging.....

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: cape does not enable user to fly.
March 5, 2001 10:56:17 AM

LOL SCIEMARK RULE

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 5, 2001 12:55:40 PM

"Tom has reached many people, but still so many are in the dark and being sucked in to buy a overpriced crap machine."

I wouldn't call the P4 a "crap" machine. Overpriced yes, but not crap. The average business user will not really see any difference between the P4 and a Celeron 800. Plus, hardcore gamers can run Quake3 at 240 fps. So, crap, no, but overpriced, certainly.

Intel is in a reaction mode to AMD at this point. AMD embarressed Intel in the race to above 1Ghz. Intel had to get a product out that was a couple of steps (clock speed) above AMD's top of the line product, and they did just that. The P4's 1.5Ghz is quite a bit faster then AMD's 1.2Ghz (at the time of the P4 release). Of course, faster performance does not equal faster processing speeds, and the P4 was released early just to reclaim the clock speed crown. Many features of the P4 were removed to get the product out on the market quickly, and I believe that is one of the reasons for the poor FPU in the P4. I would think (hope) that the next chip released by Intel will have a great FPU. Think of the P4 as a temporary marketing ploy, as Intel regroups and comes out with the guns fully loaded.

Marketing wise this is a good strategy, and should help Intel retain the business market, where printed specifications (including SSE2) are more important the price/performance.

So, the P4 is not crap, it is doing what Intel intended it to do, hold marketshare.

I think the P4 will have the shortest life span of any Intel processor.
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2001 2:28:23 PM

So basicaly what Intel is saying is: "Our ego and the way we look worth much more than the interests of the people we will sell ou products to".

I know this is marketting stuff, but when you depend that much on marketting, it might be a sign that you need to re-think you whole business goals. How many people here saw an AMD ad, I never did, but it managed to get a big chunk of market because of price/quality ratio.

Being on the P4 engineering team I would be ashamed of releasing such a product (or pissed off for being forced to do so (which might be cloer to reality)).
March 5, 2001 2:51:18 PM

I've seen an AMD ad, just a few times in a gaming magazine. Never anything like the blue man group though. haha. Intel's advertising frenzy is a fairly new thing, probably within the past few months to a year only. Mainly because they were so big that the computer manufacturers (Dell, Gateway, etc.) would do their advertising for them. You know, with the ding, ding ding ding ding "Intel Inside" at the end of EVERY commercial. Now, with the Athlon, that is not enough so Intel does need to try to make there products seem better, even when they are not, so they resort to the lowest common denominator in advertising, a silly continuing TV theme that says nothing about what their product really is. Basically, would the average Joe shmoe really have any idea what Intel was talking about if they actually got into the technical details of their processers? No. So, you gotta shpew crap to hopefully just trick stupid people. Because, if anyone buys an Intel processer based ON THE BLUE MAN GROUP, they are retarded.

But, when AMD starts getting a higher percentage of the market share and ranking in more bucks, you'll see the same sort of thing with them. That's just how corporations work. Oh well though. But you are right, there is a reason why AMD now has a large chunk of the market share with no advertising, no huge corporate deals, and no large brand name recognition (hint, theyre better :p ).
March 5, 2001 3:13:26 PM

"So basicaly what Intel is saying is: "Our ego and the way we look worth much more than the interests of the people we will sell ou products to". "

Bingo! At least, from my point of view.

I agree with your assessment completely. It is the loss of marketshare to AMD that has finally spurred Intel into action. Right now Intel is in damage control mode. Without products, how do you do damage control? By clever use of marketing.

I have heard rumors (actually read articles, but no longer have the links) that the Intel engineers were very upset about the features that they were forced to remove from the P4 so that it could reach the market as soon as possible. Another method of damage control, an inferior new product. To the marketplace (and investors), a new product shows a company on the move (even an inferior, crippled product). Or another way to look at it, Damage Control.

If AMD was not around to compete with Intel, do you think we would have 1Ghz+ chips today? I doubt it. Intel would still be sitting on 500Mhz P2's.
March 5, 2001 3:30:53 PM

I don't think I've ever read were Tom says the P4 is crap, he says the opposite: "the P4 is not crap".

They could've just as easily quoted from THG, the P4 puts up some good numbers here also.

The P4 is very slooooow, when a program fails to utilize/recognize the P4 extra 144 instruction set.

I suggest to all ppl to read ALL the hardware review site, the majority are objective and non-biased, THG is well,...you know, but I love it anyway!



"Amd cpu...Gone in 2 secs!"
March 5, 2001 6:54:32 PM

I agree, the P4 is not crap, but definately not the best (in price or performance). In a few things, it is the top processor, but most things it is not. Although the price/performance is probably the worse computers have ever seen, if I could have one for free I probably would, just to test it out etc, then sell it and buy 1.2GHz tbird :wink:

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 5, 2001 7:20:07 PM

One time at band camp I...

This is a AMD lemming "rally around the campfire" thread.

AMD lemmings sure love the MS word performance. woohoo

but AMD gets owned in www.spec.org tests show P4 flat out beating AMD with the stupid stick.

And with all the recent problems with horrid DDR chimpsets raising lots of new flack for AMD Im having a field day =)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2001 7:35:34 PM

I saw that! Man, that guy didn't know what he was talking about. I thought it was great when he said that MDG did all kinds of research to deliver such a great system. All that research resulted in the P4 being paired with an original 32MB GeForce. Geniuses. Actually, considering the fact that there was probably a ton of people who bought that system based on that dude's suave verbal techniques, they really are geniuses.
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2001 7:44:06 PM

I tried to time how long it took to open Word 2000 on my PIII @933, I couldn't, it opened faster than my fingers would move on the stopwatch, visually it looked like maybe 1/4 second.

Suicide is painless...........
March 5, 2001 8:09:01 PM

I just love watching the shopping channel for computer ads. I laugh my ass off :lol: 

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2001 8:18:38 PM

i know it is funny watching the Shopping channel
hehehe

i always watch to see what they will show and how they portray this as the best computer ever
lol
i mean sometimes the systems are good
other times i am like who would buy that.
lol
March 5, 2001 8:21:20 PM

they're like "ooh look at this, you can type, click this button, and IT PRINTS!!!!!!!! WOW!" then there is oohs and aahs from the people LOL!!!!

and they charge a rediculously overpriced amount too, like there was a 700MHz computer for $1900 or something. LOL

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone would ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 5, 2001 9:44:22 PM

Now I'm depressed. My old PII 400 takes about 7 seconds to open word. Wanna know how long it takes to open photoshop or 3dmax? ugh..

Time to upgrade...

"I think I brained my damage"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 5, 2001 10:33:18 PM

does openning a program really rely so much on the cpu? i would think it's a combo of hard drive, ram and cpu.

crashman what kind of HD are you using? 10K scsi?
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 12:01:22 AM

An old Maxtor 7200RPM UDMA66 drive, but it had great specs when I bought it! I have a lot of ram, so maybe part of it is automatically cached to ram on bootup? Or maybe some of it resides there after the first time it's opened? Maybe I should reboot my machine and see how long it takes after a fresh boot? I never shut my machine down, I always have a lot of webpages open and never bother to close them all.

Suicide is painless...........
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 12:32:00 AM

interesting. i was wondering cause dhlucke said it took 7 seconds for him on a 400 and it only takes me about 3 on a 300 (with several web pages and outlook open). old 5400rpm ibm scsi drive and 256MB ram.
March 6, 2001 1:12:24 AM

ok...make fun of me.

I'm running a P2 400, PC100 128 MB, with a Western Digital 27.3 7200 running ultra33.

"I think I brained my damage"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 1:49:30 AM

it just seemed strange that a lot of people keep saying that such and such program took so long to open on such and such processor and they just didn't seem so correlated to me. it seems to me that my slower pII openning the same program faster means that the processor isn't THE deciding factor. so there's just a lot of smoke being blown around.
!