Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Warning To All Considering the P4!

Last response: in CPUs
April 30, 2001 3:03:24 AM

I realize that much of this post is somewhere else, but I figured that by doing it this way, more people would see it. Feel free to say what you will, but please be sure to back it up with something substansial.

The current incarnation of the P4 is a fake and utter crap. It is nothing of what it should be, and truthfully, should never have existed. Regardless of the SSE2 and the massive memory bandwidth, it was castrated to get the P4 out so that big bad AMD wouldn't steal anymore market share. People should have figured that a massive drop in profits would have caused Intel to act irrationally and release the "dumbed-down" P4 in an attempt to win back investors and market share. If you truly want a P4 system, and you want it the way it should be, there is no way to do it but to get the Northwood or Brookdale version, as they won't be a castrated like the one selling today.

Intel made a big mistake in wanting to get the P4 out ASAP. By doing that, they have garnered much negative press concerning the price and performance of it. What Intel forgot is that people now are informed, no longer confined to tangible sources of news. They have the internet, and on the 'net, the P4 was flamed by many, mostly for it's outragous initial price. People research with the 'net now, and for many, instead of getting their first computer, are onto number two or three, and know people who also have computers; ergo, they know what they are looking for; they are "experienced". The P4 as it is leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many, and by releasing a poorly planned "dumbed-down" version of the P4, Intel has soiled the name, and too many people out there know about it. People will tell you, and I'm sure Intel would too, after the Northwood and Brookdale are out and selling, that they [Intel] blundered when releasing the P4 when they did.

Now, the tech savvy people we are know better and know that the current P4 is just not what it should be. I see the real P4 as kicking the T-Bird's ass, just because of the high clock speed, not to mention the SSE2, if it is ever used by developers and brought into the mainstream. Face it, the P4 the we know today really sucks compared to what it should be, and what it was touted to be (that Net Burst BS really makes me laugh). The P4 that is relased later on should be a mad, code crunching machine that will probably run circles around the T-bird.

But, if you're like me, and <i> need </i> a new system soon, you're kinda screwed. The P3 is at the end; the 1.13GHz, if it is stable, will be the last P3, and Intel will slowly pull the plug on it. The T-bird will be phased out this summer in favor of the Palomino, and there is the hope that the Palomino will run just as well on the current T-bird motherboards, but only time will tell. So, you have a choice to make. You can either go all out and buy a bleeding edge P3 or T-bird system, or keep waiting until the Palomino and true P4 are out and see how the two compare. But I implore all who wish to upgrade soon <b> <i>avoid the current, castrated, fake, and "dumbed-down" version of the P4. </i> </b> It is a failed processor, dead on arrival, and all it will do is offer you pain and hardship as you realize that cheaper, "slower" AMDs are killing you, and the new 1.13GHz P3 (if it scales as well as the rest) beats you as well. So don't do it. Don't buy the P4, unless it's the Northwood or Brookdale version. Just don't get it. It's not worth the money, the time, or the effort. Wait for the real P4 and you will be very happy, and it will last you a long time, as we all know that a 2GHz CPU is at least 1.2GHz more than you need right now, and will easily last you for at least 2 years.


Without Evil, there can be no Good. Therefore, without an Intel, there can be no AMD.

More about : warning

April 30, 2001 3:17:27 AM

"The current incarnation of the P4 is a fake and utter crap."

Not true. The 1.7GHz P4 outperforms most Athlon systems. It's far from crap.

"the P4 was flamed by many"

Popularity and mass belief doesn't make anything true. Also note that the current incarnation of the P4 at 1.7GHz is not being flamed like earlier versions were. It seems you've fallen victim to the old marketting hype of which you are warning others.

"cheaper, "slower" AMDs are killing you"

I wouldn't call any of the systems out today slow, be they from Intel or AMD. Each processor has its applications it is best at. For example, Photoshop has 70% greater performance on the Pentium 4 than on the Athlon or P3. Even on the benchmarks that are not optimized for the P4, the P4 still does fairly well. Though one does expect the processor for which the software is not optimized to fall behind in the scores.

In the future this will only get better and better as all software becomes optimized for the P4 the same way they are optimized for the Athlon and P3. This is why over a long haul a CPU purchase intended to last for 3 years or more would better be fulfilled by a Pentium 4 than an Athlon or P3. It will simply perform better and better as time goes on, going obsolete much less quickly.

For those of us who like to buy a new processor every 6 months to 1 year, I do recommend you wait for the Northwood. It will kick all kinds of donkey.


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 3:58:04 AM

I agree that it would be un-wise to purchase a P4 in its current form. However, when Northwood arrives it should be looking a lot better for the P4.
The whole i820 MCH fiassco really screwed it up for Intel. They had hoped to have a version of the P4 using SDRAM to keep people happy. So because of the failed i820 chipset and because of the slow acceptance of RDRAM in the market Intel is in bad shape now. but like i said, once Northwood arrives and RDRAM is even less expensive then it already is things will look better for the intel platform.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 4:00:29 AM

Raystonn, I agree with most of your post except where did you get that Photoshop figure? Adobe made an announcement about Photoshop performing 70% better on a P4 system while using the plug-in, as opposed to not using the plug-in. Not compared to any other processor. It may perform that much better but I haven't seen any benchmarks comparing different processors against the P4 while using the P4 plug-in. However, if you have, I'd love to see them (I'm not be all sarcastic here, I'm being genuine). Just thought I'd mention this point.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, here's the link:

<A HREF="" target="_new">Adobe's Site</A>

Free us from these chains, let us slip these bonds and touch the sky with our imagination.
April 30, 2001 4:09:29 AM

"Not compared to any other processor"

Point. You are correct. I'd like to see some benchmarks as well.


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
April 30, 2001 6:40:09 PM

You have to take everything in my above post that I say in context, as opposed to singling out certain phrases and quotes. I will concede that the initial sentence

"The current incarnation of the P4 is a fake and utter crap."

is a little on the harsh side, but, it does give a heads up and grabs attention, as well as functions as my thesis statement (I know, English stuff, but you gotta admit, it works for essays). But what I am getting at later in the intro paragraph is that the current form of the P4, be it 1.3, 1.5, or 1.7GHz is not the real P4. It is a fake, and compared to what it should be with the 400MHz memory and high clockspeeds, it is crap.

When I said that the P4 had been flamed by many, it was into relation of what people, looking for information on the P4, would have found. The rest of that paragraph was devoted to saying that Intel had made a bad move and had soiled the name of a processor that probably will be a kick ass processor <i> when the Northwood and Brookdale are out. </i> It is true that the 1.7GHz is not garnering much negative press, but that could also be because people are tired of saying the same thing over and over. Yes, the 1.7GHz performs better than the 1.3 and 1.5GHz (which is good, as it is expected), but it can still be said that for that miniscule performance increase you get over a 1 or 1.13 GHz P3 or 1.33GHz AMD, you are paying a lot of money.

Again I reiterate that the current 1.7GHz P4 is barely beating the AMD 1.33GHz, and while the 1GHz P3 is essentially being beaten soundly by both the AMD and P4, it is still important to note that it is still a relativly fast machine. Also note that in quite a few, but not all, cases, statistcally the 1.7GHz and T-Bird are neck and neck. And when it comes down to the end user, and the acual performance of the chip, a difference of 10 FPS between two benchmarks wouldn't even be noticed by the end user. I mean, if Q3A runs at 190FPS on the 1.7GHz P4, but <i> only </i> 180FPS on the 1.33 GHz AMD, would you really notice? Same if there is a tenth of a second difference in program swapping or load-up. Always remember to look at the real world. Those leads that the 1.7GHz had on the 1.33GHz AMD evaporate into thin air, and the 1GHz P3 even becomes competitive.

So now one must look at the choices you have. This is a hypothetical situation for you, not so hypothetical for me. You have an old P2 with PC100 RAM and 5400RPM HD. It runs quite well, with only a few crashes which can be attributed to WinME. But it's 36 months old. It's time for an upgrade. You look at what's going to be out in the summer, and the only thing that is different is that the Palomino core will come out. Okay, so, if you're going to upgrade, have limited funds, and hope not to have to for 18-24 months, what choices do you have? The limited funds part rules out the P4 almost right off the bat, as it requires ATX 2.03 case, special PS, special, overpriced memory, and then the castrated P4 chip. The P3 is a good choice, but it might not last the 18-24 months, as the 1.13GHz that will be relased by then is the last, and right now, as 800MHz is the minimum recomended speed for a gaming system, it probably won't be good in 12-18 months. The there is the Athlon family. There is a good chance that a motherboard you get today will be able to hold the Palomino chip of tomorrow, and run it just fine. Therefore, the upgradeability is good, plus since the Athlon C can OC to 1.5GHz, you're about twice the minimum recommended gaming system. But the catch is finding the right motherboard and the right PS, and then putting it together without damaging anything. The P4, well, lets just say it costs too much, and though it will last 18-24 months no problem, the money you saved getting a different system could be used to get a few games or getting a GeForce3 instead of a GeForce2 GTS, or a 60GB 7200RPM High Performance drive instead of that 30GB 5400RPM, or any other number of things that might increase your system's overall speed more than a chip.

To say that a system will last 3 years before you need to upgrade just isn't sound advice anymore. In the long run, it's cheaper and more efficent to get a high-end, but not bleeding edge, chip, and replace it it 18 months or so. I mean, if I had done that instead of hanging onto a 300Mhz P2 until now, I would probably would have a 500-750MHz P3, or maybe even an Athlon, and probably be not as inclined to quickly get a new system and be willing to let things shake out before I spend my hard earned cash. But that's not the case. In fact, I would say that at this point, if you want a P4, <b> <i> just wait another four months for the North' and Brook'. </i> </b> In four months, things will have settled down, and you'd be able to see the difference between the Palomino and P4, and see if the P4 is really what you need. But if you're like me, and need a new system <b> now, </b> get the P3 or Athlon "C", and replace it in 18 months with something that is roughly double the GHz, if Moore's Law continues to hold that is. Avoid the P4, unless it's the North' or Brook'. It just isn't worth it, even if you won't upgrade for 24 months.


Without Evil, there can be no Good. Therefore, without an Intel, there can be no AMD.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 7:15:43 PM

You Loser

think with your F*in HEAD!

It has a 400MHz gain!!!

Intel cant make a 1GHz chip at 1GHz to make a dent in AMD
U morons!!!

400MHz lead to be on par!


--call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
April 30, 2001 7:33:58 PM

lol, talk about lost, I got lost on that link you posted.....what was/is that?
April 30, 2001 9:07:11 PM

Actually I am not impress with Intel Pentium Processors in the last two years. The worst of which is the release of the PIII with bugs. Never seen Via or AMD pull that one. Even more importantly is on a clock to clock race Intel just can't beat an AMD chip in performance and price both. That says a lot about the truth. If you perform worse at a clock to clock benchmark then you should cost less (bottom line). Yet Intell still charges more. Not a good business strategy and as OEMs and consumers (which are still brainwashed) realize this more and more the market share will dwindle. Maybe intell will get it's head out of it's ass.

It worked yesterday! :lol: 
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 12:42:17 AM

<The worst of which is the release of the PIII with bugs.>

What "bugs"? You want talk buggy, unstable and incompatiblities.. look no further then any VIA/AMD mobo chipset. Now those are bugs! Hell, its so bad many industry journalist are commenting on it daily. Its not looking good at all for AMD.
May 1, 2001 12:52:26 AM

Actually AMD and VIA never released a processor that was buggy. You need to do your homework. Intel is simply a very poorly managed company. Look at how they said Rambus was the way. Now they sing a different tune and are trying to back out of their contracts with Rambus. Issues with South Bridge chipset have been confirmed to be in Intel South Bridge chipsets as well. Also, Intel has cause motherboard recalls with Intel chipsets in the past. Many of these chipsets that you speak of VIA can kick intel chipsets in the ass. And the AMD chipsets are rock solid in stability. Industry journalists are commenting daily on the poor performance of the Pentium 4. Before this they commented daily on the bugs in the Pentium 3s. Now they also comment on how Intel stocks has hit a major low and AMD stock seems to be doing pretty good. I've owned 4 intel processors. I am now buying an AMD. You sound like some who is clearly biased. I am someone who has done the research and took a look around me. Within a year Intel will lose at least another 10% of the market. After that there is no telling how fast it will lose additional market share. If you don't want to be honest then don't admit the historical blunders and shortcomings of Intel technology. That way you can mislead people on this forum who are not aware. Otherwise tell the whole story. The truth is out their....Though it is hurting Intel!

It worked yesterday! :lol:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by chrisojeda on 04/30/01 07:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 1, 2001 1:34:18 AM

Basically what he's saying is that the guy is praising Intel for making a 1.7ghz chip that has about the same performance as a 1.3ghz AMD. 1.7 - 1.3 = .4 or 400mhz clock increase. Now I don't know about the rest of you but when the Athlon first came out, all the Intel bubbas on what used to be Tom's Adelphi forum were saying "Yeah the Athlon is ok but it takes a 600mhz Athlon to keep up with a 550mhz PIII" sounds like the shoe is on the other foot now.
May 1, 2001 1:34:33 AM

"VIA/AMD mobo chipets"

You just had to put AMD in there to make a point didn't you? AMD has nothing to do with how VIA makes there chipsets. **** you.

I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 1, 2001 1:52:50 AM

Actually AMD and Intel never released a processor that was buggy

So Intel never released a processor (Pentium II/Pro) that had to be recalled for the fact it could not handle floating point exceptions correctly? Is that right?

-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
May 1, 2001 2:21:35 AM

Sorry...I goofed up and said "AMD and Intel" when I meant to say "AMD and VIA" bad

It worked yesterday! :lol: 
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 5:20:04 AM

"Actually AMD and VIA never released a processor that was buggy. You need to do your homework."

I never said AMD processors were buggy.. I specifically said AMD/VIA mobo chipsets were. Did you even read my post?

"Issues with South Bridge chipset have been confirmed to be in Intel South Bridge chipsets as well."

I dont see any Intel systems expierencing the problems.

"VIA can kick intel chipsets in the ass"

LOL!! Now i know you're high.

"You sound like some who is clearly biased."

Nope. I just call it like i see it.
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 5:26:50 AM

"You just had to put AMD in there to make a point didn't you?"

Yep. I sure did. : )

"AMD has nothing to do with how VIA makes there chipsets. **** you."

AMD is still using VIA's buggy mobo chipsets as the platform/foundation of choice for there CPU's, arent they? AMD has plenty of control.
Oh and by the way, **** You Too.
May 1, 2001 5:58:02 AM

There are issues with Intel posts on this forum and other Intel Forums:

If you read this post by Steve B. you will realize it is not inferior VIA chipsets but zealous motherboard manufacturing rushing out product to be the first and enjoy a moment with no or little competitors. ARE NO KNOWN BUGS IN THE 686B &Match=Entire Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=1week&Main=91914

You clearly didn't hear a popping sound this morning when you woke up....So get your head out of your ass!!!

If you read Tom's Hardware Guide,, and other review sites you will see that Intel CPU/Intel Chipset combos loose to AMD CPU/Via Chipset when you are comparing equally rated processors.

You should try something knew. Read the reviews, read the guides, and think before you type. I know this is too much too expect. All I hear from half the poeple on this forum is opinions out of their mouth. I base my statements on the reviews and guides that I have read and believe to be accurate and performed with the highest integrity.

Maybe tomorrow you will hear a popping noise when you wake up!

It worked yesterday! :lol: 
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 6:29:39 AM

"You clearly didn't hear a popping sound this morning when you woke up....So get your head out of your ass!!!"

Oooh... did i hit a nerve?

Cmon' we both know it's more then just over zealous mobo manufactures rushing to get buggy VIA motherboards out the door. Although that compounds the problem there are serious issues with the USB controller, Southbridge.. etc designed into the VIA chipset itself.
May 1, 2001 11:45:15 AM

Woopie do. They have nothing to do with what VIA does to their chipsets, as I have already stated. Your arguments are moot.

I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 4:23:34 PM

"Your arguments are moot."

My arguments are moot? AMD is just as responisble for crappy/buggy chipsets as VIA is. After all AMD approves and validates those buggy 3rd party VIA motherboards. Just look at AMD's website.
May 1, 2001 6:45:25 PM

FYI, Intel chipset is also buggy as VIA's. Read the Data sheet on OR840 Workstation chipset. (Page 11 to 13)
Some examples.
Serial mouse does not work.
Error setting Serial port COM2 in NT4.
USB keyboard and mouse do not function with NT4 floppy install.
Cannot boot to a SCSI bootable CD-ROM with Default setting.
System may hang on when booting from the BIOS update floppy.
Boot delay with Zip250 and LS-120 drive...
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 7:32:47 PM

<<<So Intel never released a processor (Pentium II/Pro) that had to be recalled for the fact it could not handle floating point exceptions correctly? Is that right?>>>

they key is that intel actually recalled it. how bout that amd 750 chipset that was buggy as hell, did amd recall it? if intel finds a problem the recall it and fix it.
May 1, 2001 8:08:31 PM

Buggy as hell? Not really. RUMORS, folks. IT was probably one of the best Slot A chipsets, although it did have a couple of very bad incompatabilities.

I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 2, 2001 2:32:15 AM

I know I didn't read everything here but I thought chrisojeda wrote amd and via not amd & intel? Or did I miss something?

96.3 % of Statistics are made up.
May 2, 2001 2:49:51 AM

Wrote AMD and Intel originally, later corrected to AMD and VIA...

-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2001 12:45:40 PM

Don't know where you get that info about AMD 750 chipset,
I have been running a FIC SD11 with an Athlon 600 classic
running Win95, Win NT4 and lately Win2K and Red Hat 6.2
with Soundbalster Live "value", Adaptec 2940 UW SCSI controller, and Matrox Mystique (not my games machine), since February last year with NO problems whatsoever
I also burn CDs with a Yamaha CDR4000 on it.
What problems with AMD750 ????
May 2, 2001 6:50:02 PM

"huh? you lost me there tbird."

Actually, it looks to me that he just plain lost it :S

a b à CPUs
May 4, 2001 8:43:16 PM

hold on chrisojeda, VIA not release buggy products? Think again, the via chipsets all require special patches and bios updates to run stuff right. AMD may not have released buggy stuff, but via sure has.


Life is hard...Live with it.