Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

You Intel Followers are the most Stupid People

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 7:19:26 PM

I am sick and tired of the Praise from the P4 from the Intel guys on here.

You say oh.. the P4 1.7 is really good and is good against the AMD 1.2 and 1.3

MY GOD u people

How DUMB are u?

HOW STUPID?? *!*

Its 400MHz slower and on par with AMD?

HAHAHHA
MY GOD that is SAD

FOUR HUNDRED MHz LOWER to be on PAR with a 400MHz SLOWER MHz clocked CHIP

MY GOD!

HAHAHHAHAHAH

think about it!
400MHz to be on PAR

Kinda reminds me of how poor Cyrix was for Gaming, if it says Intel or compatable 400needed, you needed like a 600-700 MHz to run it
hahahhahaa

--call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 7:20:47 PM

This isnt even a CLOCK for CLOCK comparison anymore

its Intel has a 400MHz lead and AMD is still holding is ground

BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

--call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 7:23:00 PM

<b>400 MHz lead and on par </b>


can you say <b> HAHAHAHHA </b> <b> ? </b>

--call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
Related resources
April 30, 2001 7:29:16 PM

1) I like AMD. In fact of the 3 systems I own, two (2) have K6-2s, and the other has an Athlon.
2) You give AMD a bad name with posts like this. Please realize that you do <b>not</b> represent AMD and that you sound just as stupid as the people you are criticizing.
3) Quit trying to raise your post count by making one post three separate posts. Its really pathetic and truly annoying.

<A HREF="http://www.512productions.com/lobstermagnet/" target="_new">Hyakugojyuuichi!!</A>
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 7:40:45 PM

I here a Mac will beet the Athlon 1.33 with only 700MHz, now THERE's you laugh. It is getting to the point where clock speed is not an important factor in comparison, because the architechtures are so different. If AMD can't come up with a 1.7GHz chip to blow the P4 away, then all you can do is compare fastest to fastest.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 7:57:12 PM

I want to stress the point of p4 optimizeation guys. 70% with photoshop hate to say it but if we look forward to similar increases in performance due to this optimizeation ill be a betting man that youll be singing a different tune. Oh Tbird i thought i told you each chip has its plus and minus sure the SPARC is a grest chip but i wouldnt play games on it, get my point???

SPUDMUFFIN

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 8:05:54 PM

yea i do

but were comparing PERSONAL COMPUTERS HERE

IBM COMPATABLES PEOPLE..
Not MACS

And besides
we always compare x86 compatable cpu's
thus Intel/AMD

400MHz gain to be on par is a joke

--call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
April 30, 2001 8:14:52 PM

You obviously don't know much about computer architecture. For a CPU, Performance = (clock speed) x (average instructions per clock). Clock speed alone is completely irrelevant in comparisons with other processors.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 8:27:08 PM

just because you used it twice so it didn't look like an accident, optimization not optimizeation.

and i hope most ppl do realize that tbird represents his own little immature group of people with amd chips that do not represent at all the majority of the amd community nor amd itself, heh. i like my athlon 900 right now because it was really cheap for the performance and i haven't had any problems with fragility, overheating, etc. i think we should just discuss the facts openly and everyone can come to their own conclusion on what chip is best for them and people shouldn't be discriminated for their choice. posts like tbird's are just good for the occasional laugh, :) .
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 8:28:28 PM

i make u guys laugh?

--call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
April 30, 2001 8:45:53 PM

tbird, you are a moron and are just as silly as the over zealous Intel folks. Get a life and quit pimpin AMD like it is your hoe.. lol..

Computer: $2000 Internet Access: $40 Registering for forums: Free A good signature: Priceless
April 30, 2001 11:27:11 PM

That old chestnut!

<b>
Heatsinks, fans & whisky...Everythings Cool! :wink:
</b>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2001 11:54:34 PM

Ahahaha Tbird's a pimp and im a prick ahahaha.

SPUDMUFFIN

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 12:35:03 AM

tbirdinside your just as retarted as that other dipshit amdmeltdown.. Are you two brothers?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 1:46:49 AM

Hehehe tbird is retarded and amdmeltdown is a dipshit and im a prick hehehe.

SPUDMUFFIN

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
May 1, 2001 1:55:40 AM

anyone who tries to push the "mac is faster even at lower clock speeds" is full of it. I've used both enough to know. A 400 MHz I-Mac, with 256 ram could not even come close to keeping up with my old origional Pentium 166, with a shamely 64mb. The mac starts to slow down beyond usability with no more than four windows of IE open. Photoshop is a big thing mac users like to reap to all it's glory. Personally, i've used equivalent MHz mac's and pc's for photoshop, doing the same type of work, Mac doesn't even come close to being on the same level.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 3:04:11 PM

I don't like those flame wars but Tbirdinside:

EVERY FOLLOWER (WHETHER IT IS Intel OR AMD) is _STUPID_!

Just go out there and buy what is best for you (OK I admit for the moment 1.33GHz TBird is best deal for me but who knows may be Northwood will be next best deal). And please lets stop those stupid AMD vs Intel flames - both their processors are good (one for one thing, other for something else). And Tbirdinside - as some people noted here you behave exactly as stupid as AmdMeltdown. Do you want to be compared to him (I'd rather not but still its your choice)?
Regards,
menads
May 1, 2001 3:54:11 PM

I see your point about no longer being able to compare clock speed, but isn't that really what a P4 advocate is doing? Truly the performance difference between a P4 1.7ghz and my overclocked ghz athlon at 1350 is negligable and can hardly be seen with the naked eye. Now granted that any software written specifically for SSE2 is going to shine on a p4, but isn't that the point of writing optimized applications? When running day to day basic programs, i.e. internet explorer (insert your browser of choice, for I don't want to start a flaming browser war) or a game like Quake III, the Athlon at a lower clock speed definately compares favorably.

Now take the clock for clock race that has been going on since the introduction of the Athlon, what then are we to use as the drag strip? Of course p4 advocates will say memory latency or bandwidth correct? Since everyone know that a P4 was made specifically to combat this bottleneck.

As long as there are AMD supporters or diehards, as well as Intel diehards there will never be fair and unbiased comparisons.

At least that's my two cents. Maybe we should devise some sort of price/performance formula. For me, money talks and bs walks and right now AMD is in the sweet spot of people not wanting to fork over some cash for a $10 computer chip.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2001 4:27:42 PM

thank you

--call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
May 1, 2001 4:45:30 PM

correct me if I'm wrong because I wasn't very good at math in school. You said that cpu performance = speed (mhz) x instructions per clock? So we'll call that P=SxI ok? Let me know if I lose you. So we have the equation sort of, you have to let me know what kind of instructions you are talking about. You see it varies.

Athlon can do 3 x86 instructions per clock
PIII (for sake of comparison) can do 3 x86 only if 2 are simple instructions.

Athlon can do 9 internal executions to it's execution units
PIII can do 5

Athlon can do both an add and multiplyed FPU instruction per
PIII can do either a multiplyed every other or 1/2 or an add per.

So what is it going to be? What kind of instructions can we use, then we can plug in the numbers for any processor available. Does this sound like a feisable equation for your theory of CPU performance?
May 1, 2001 9:04:45 PM

An instruction is just that, an instruction. Any example of an x86 instruction would be "mov ax, 03h". It is basically one processor opcode. All applications are made of instructions. Executing instructions more quickly means you have better performance running applications.

Now then, not all instructions take the same amount of time to execute. Thus, the number of clock cycles differs per instruction. This is why we must analyze the "average" instructions per clock. Of course this average will change depending on what application you are running. Different applications use more and less of different instructions. But we can just take the average of all applications.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 1, 2001 9:09:50 PM

"any software written specifically for SSE2 is going to shine on a p4"

Drivers will be released soon that use all of these optimizations, improving the performance of all applications that use these drivers. For example, new drivers from NVidia have recently been released that give an improvement of between 30% and 90% in all applications that use graphics. Link --> http://www.all-about-pc.de/english/news/news_1.asp?m04j... 12.0 divers kick ass!

"a game like Quake III, the Athlon at a lower clock speed definately compares favorably"

Perhaps you haven't seen the Quake3 benchmarks. The P4 definately pulls _way_ ahead of the Athlon in this game.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 1, 2001 9:31:44 PM

What all research and development (R&D) is ntel in right now? I know you guys basically designed the AGP port, and came up with DMA. What else, as specific as you can be without releasing confidential/secret/top-secret information, is ntel working on for standards? SSE2 is one, and the RDRAM issue is another. How about AGP 8x, or an optical computer? Magnetic Ram?
May 2, 2001 2:55:14 AM

Didn't I also read somewhere that the P4 has 20 checkpoints for executions to go through? Double that of a PIII making the time it takes to execute an exectution per clock cycle longer? Intel is making you believe that their P4 is faster by calling it a 1.7ghz, which it is, but it will actually run slower per clock cycle than cpu's with less mhz. The only thing I see the P4 has going is it's memory bandwith adjustsments, and I applaude Intel for addressing this issue. I've always said my dream CPU would be a Ghz with a Ghz FSB. But hey that's just me.
May 2, 2001 3:11:54 AM

"it will actually run slower per clock cycle than cpu's with less mhz"

Yes, it will not do as much per clock cycle. This is by design, just as 2nd gear in a vehicle does not have as much power as 1st gear when running at the same speed. It sure scales up to much higher speeds though. Since performance is the product of clockspeed and average instructions per clock, if you lower one a little, you must raise the other a little in order to compensate and remain equal in performance. The clockspeed on the P4 is being raised considerably and still has a long way to go. I fully expect the P4 core to see 10GHz.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 3, 2001 5:31:19 PM

Maybe your not catching my drift, but apparently you work for Intel so you must know that the IPC x Mhz for the P4 is actually lower than the PIII and only on software that is optizimed for SSE2 does the P4 actually gain in performance. So as it stands right now, under your equation, that's right (mhz x instruction per clock cycle (IPC)) the Athlon is the victor. And that's coming directly from you.
May 3, 2001 6:26:08 PM

this 70% improvement is with SSE2 code, Adobe must make AMD 3DNow! code and then compare the two. I am sure it would be almost at par with SSE2 if not better.

get real world day to day apps tests, field testing is more important than lab tests.

girish

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2001 6:36:39 PM

Adobe is already enhanced for 3d Now. Aparently AMD just cant make em like Intel can. Hmm monkey stew.

SPUDMUFFIN

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
May 3, 2001 6:36:54 PM

Using MHz to rate the speed of a CPU is like using rpms to rate the Power of an engine.

--Fltsimbuff
May 3, 2001 6:53:01 PM

Raystonn, why do we have to discuss it over and over again? we are doing it already in another thread...

deeper pipelines introduce larger penalties when the instruction stream changes. once the pipes are flushed, the next instruction from the newer instruction stream has to go through all the 17 pipes before it is executed, and thats too much of a latency although the BTB does reduce it by a few cycles. data dependencies between instructions do not help either, one of the execution units has to wait for the previous instruction to complete. this reduces your "average instructions per clock"

if performance is the product of clockspeed and average instructions per clock, and as you say "if you lower one a little, you must raise the other a little in order to compensate and remain equal in performance" then what is the use of all these extra MHz anyway if the performance is to remain the same?

slower on clock but better on performance chips will surely be cheaper. and who doesnt want cheaper chips?

girish

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2001 6:53:45 PM

the clock for clock i know its not even a clock per clock because intel cant compite clock per clock anymore thats why they need a 1.7 gig to half beet a 1.333athlon

Computer Shop owner and Head tech.
May 3, 2001 7:18:33 PM

photoshop 3DNow! enhanced? show me the doc on Adobe site.

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2001 7:37:51 PM

I cant cause i dont care but when photo 6 fires up it say extensions used if you can catch it it says 3dnow mmx sse simd yada yada.

SPUDMUFFIN

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2001 7:50:22 PM

Fur a "cumpewter snot owner" and "Hed Teck", can eye recommend a spelled/grammier check the next you posted hear??



<font color=blue>The #1 reason to upgrade your PC - to run faster benchmarks...</font color=blue>
May 3, 2001 9:00:22 PM

>Adobe must make AMd 3dNow! code and then compare the two.

why, I thought the Athlon had "raw" power? and didn't need "optimization code" like the pee4 does.


"AMD...you are the weakest link, good bye!"
May 3, 2001 9:03:06 PM

>tbirdinside your just as retarted as that other dipshit amdmeltdown.. Are you two brothers?

no everett6, you're retarted, you retard! :smile:

"AMD...you are the weakest link, good bye!"
May 3, 2001 10:07:05 PM

"the IPC x Mhz for the P4 is actually lower than the PIII"

Not even close. The Pentium III is currently maxxed at 1GHz. The Pentium 4 is currently maxxed at 1.7GHz. That is a 70% higher clockspeed. The IPC of the Pentium 4 is nowhere near 70% slower than Pentium III.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 3, 2001 10:09:22 PM

"what is the use of all these extra MHz anyway if the performance is to remain the same"

The IPC was lowered a bit in the core in order to allow the clock speed to be ramped up _much_ more. The Pentium 4's current clock speed already more than makes up for the loss in average IPC. Over its lifetime it will continue to scale to _much_ higher clock speeds, and thus much better performance.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2001 10:48:50 PM

"clock speed is totally irrelevant"

You guys it's not about clock speed or electronics or sparks or silicon! It's not about the technology, its that intel designed the technology around the marketing, not because they wanted to make a fascinating piece of hardware. Why else does the average person think clock speed is everything? Why would a company want to build their product around the assumptions of average consumers when their technicians know they can make something better that has real performance rather than TV commercials and magazine ads. Do you see what we mean it has NOTHING to do with technical stats, it has to do with honesty, personal beliefs, and integrity and because of that intel makes me quite upset like tbird was saying, so please do not try to make this all technical. computers have so many bugs and software problems so that's why we need people to help run them, and sometimes we forget that a team of designers made the motherboard you just bought or the memory or processor. Which team do you want to support? Are they real hardware enthusiasts or just people itching for some cash? Too many people choose money as their main goal, and they end up making lots but the products are so unintelligent and uninspired.. hardware should have a human touch to it, like someone spent time to make something good, or the person who made it is as enthusiastic about it as you are. See what I mean? When your only goal is design the entire chip around the marketing that doesn't work. It's like trying to make up a special scientific theory just because it'll make you famous. No you do it because you believe in it and it's your passion and you love computers or games or programming or whatever.
May 3, 2001 10:53:14 PM

"do not try to make this all technical"

Perhaps you accidentally stumbled into the wrong forum?

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2001 11:01:25 PM

So whats your point? Should we boycott all hardware that didnt come from somebody's divine inspiration? In case you didnt know everybody is out to make a buck, or better yet a billion bucks AMD, Intel, Nvidia etc..... Show me an honest company and i'll show you a fool.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2001 11:10:41 PM

>Show me an honest company and i'll show you a fool.

What a sad outlook on life.
I believe it's possible to make a buck honestly.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
May 3, 2001 11:11:00 PM

All companies are honest. They are all honestly trying to make money. That's the point of capitalism and that's the point of business. Making better products usually makes you more money.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2001 11:15:03 PM

>All companies are honest. They are all honestly trying to make money.

That's a pretty skewed definition of honesty. You could ethically justify pretty much anything with reasoning like that.

And no, not all companies are honest/ethical.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
May 3, 2001 11:23:29 PM

Honest and ethical are two completely different words with two completely different meanings. Honesty implies that you disclose your intentions. Ethical implies that, whether you disclose your intentions or not, they do not violate any moral values. Not all companies are honest and not all companies are ethical. However, I don't see any examples of these types of companies in the CPU industry. Everyone pretty much knows where each of the major companies stands.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2001 12:32:20 AM

Quote:
What a sad outlook on life.
I believe it's possible to make a buck honestly.

lol. Don’t get me wrong. I too believe it's possible to make a buck honestly. But I also believe it's very rare for large companies to stay honest. They all get greedy sooner or later. They're all scamming a buck here and a million bucks there. Ask any small business owner how hard it is to stay afloat without "cheating". That’s why many start-ups go out of business, they're too honest, and I’m not just talking about the computer industry. I know its sad.. but its so true.

There is so much marketing hype in the computer industry and in many cases it's no different then flat out lying about there products to generate good publicity. Unfortunately we let them get away with it, so now its common practice. Reading press statements is sometimes akin to reading a fairy tail. The marketing departments in this industry are quite pathetic.
May 4, 2001 1:47:49 AM

Quote:
Ethical implies that, whether you disclose your intentions or not, they do not violate any moral values.

Exactly. It all depends on the 'morals' that you care to have. A Pagan is not necessarily 'moral' to a Catholic, and vice versa.

But making Cash has a morality all to it's own. With the proper amount of Cash, I can start a new set of morals.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2001 5:18:38 AM

from what i know the issue on this forum is to talk about computers not your nit picky self. as far as my spelling i fail to see what that has to do with business or knowing anything about computers. stick to the forum not your personal need to talk S**T.

Computer Shop owner and Head tech.
!