P4 BLACK CLOUDS MADE BY INQUEST.COM

here's the <A HREF="http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm" target="_new">link</A>, I would like Dr. Pabst look at the results and see if he can reproduce them on his test system(s).

IMHO, Inquest Market Research is nothing but a <A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/ccarch/ccyau002.htm" target="_new">front</A>, that's just my opinion, who would pay for their services? well I can think of ONLY <i>one</i> <A HREF="http://www.amd.com/" target="_new">customer</A>.

"AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"
38 answers Last reply
More about black clouds made inquest
  1. If they are biased toward Amd then why do you read their articles? Seriously the only reason I would ever read an article from them is from you linking it for me. Otherwise I wouldn't even bother. You are doing them a favor ;)
  2. trust me if tom could produce those results (which are probobly bs and induced by turning the cpu fan off) he would be spewing them all over the place and having a amd fan circle jerk.
  3. Actually, the P4 black clouds are made by the P4. :tongue:

    Honestly, I agree with AeroSnoop. I usually don't even check out the Inquest articles--until <i>you link to them!</i> Then I have to laugh like hell and check out what could get you so bent out of shape. Then I get on with the more important things in my life.

    Kelledin

    bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
    init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
  4. >Honestly, I agree with AeroSnoop, I usually don't even check out the Inquest articles-until <i>you link to them!</i>

    fine, exactly how do you get your thumb in your mouth while your head is in your a$$?

    "AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"
  5. Monkeys can do many things.

    SPUDMUFFIN

    <font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol:
  6. You like trouble! I can say within reason, that you posted this just to get a flame war started. :) It's comical, really.

    Aklein

    Life is hard...Live with it.
  7. The same way you get your money's worth out of a P4--<i>you don't.</i>

    Oh, and no more money signs for your ass. :wink:

    Kelledin

    bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
    init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
  8. I would just like to say that there is a throttle process in the P4, where it cuts the processor to 50% clockspeed when it gets to hot. That has been confirmed in too many places. Since I am poorly versed in CPU performance and heat and what not, it seems that Inquest's findings show just that. While I did not look at the other "results" I would think that a 50% drop in CPU speed would cause less of a difference in Q3 under minimal settings, and more of a difference in high quality settings. A 50% drop in CPU speed will not equal a 50% drop in the overall system speed. The graphics card is still there, taking a lot of that strain on itself. So, if Dr. Pabst is able to duplicate those results, what would it show? That the thermal protection in the P4 that everyone already knows exists, does exist? I don't think that Intel wanted to release a .18 P4, but AMD forced their hand, and the thermal protection that was to be incorporated in the .13 version had to be rushed into the .18 version, causing anomolies that detract from an otherwise solid CPU. Again, Intel made a mistake rushing the P4, and it shows. There are other "undersireable" features in the current P4, but I'm sure, that once Intel is able to wring a working .13 fab machine out of the Silicon Valley place, the real P4 will show what it really is. I say to heck with the .18 P4, and just save your cash, or get an Athlon or P3.

    And your accusations of Inquest being around only to serve AMD's "nefarious" plans, they are very childish, given that you have no proof. The few articles I have read there try to shine the P4 in a positive light, but sometimes even the best light can't cover all the blemishes. In fact, Inquest is consuling that people either get a current gen. P3 or Athlon, or wait until a .13 P4 comes out. I see no anti-Intel writing. Just semi-decent writing and advice. I would like to say that they sorely lack descriptions on their testing proceedurs, which makes me wonder about the validity of their testing, but since many of their results are echoed on other sites, one can assume that there are reasonable accurate.

    -SammyBoy

    Without Evil, there can be no Good. Therefore, without an Intel, there can be no AMD.
  9. Intel did not make a mistake rushing the p4...If it had not done so how much market share would they have lost?

    96.3 % of Statistics are made up.
  10. This entire clock throttling business is way over exaggerated and that guy over at Inquest sounds totally bias. All one needs to do is read the Intel thermal guide on the P4 and you will see that Intel has tested the P4 under heavy loads using Quake, specview, winbench and a bunch of other apps, and guess what? The P4 never exceeded 75% of its max operating temp. If clock throttling was such a big deal how come no one else has been able to confirm it? In reality clock throttling, as you like to call it, is a non-issue.


    Relax, its only ONES and ZEROS!
  11. The clock throttling shown in that article is actually software based, on the motherboard. The throttling cuts the clockspeed by less than 50% and does not occur on other motherboards. Additionally, when they use diagnostic equipment to turn on the throttling, the system clearly slows down further than the previous throttled measurements, showing that indeed, the P4 hardware throttled had not been active. These tests are likely showing a motherboard or BIOS bug.

    -Raystonn

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  12. So what does this mean for the average joe who doesnt know much about computers?
    will it only happen with certain mobo's/bios'es, or will it kick in during a hot day planying a few hours of straight quake,
    or will it only happen if the fan dies?

    "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have created"~Darth Vader, Star wars
  13. "So what does this mean for the average joe who doesnt know much about computers? will it only happen with certain mobo's/bios'es, or will it kick in during a hot day planying a few hours of straight quake, or will it only happen if the fan dies?"

    The Pentium 4's hardware throttling will never kick in unless you have a broken or mismounted heatsink or fan. The software throttling discovered in that article is a bug of that particular motherboard/BIOS and will probably be fixed soon. For now, it will only happen with that motherboard/BIOS.

    -Raystonn

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  14. yay...very succinct and non-flameish reply. nice

    now all they have to do is to get the price down to the level of the current athlons and i might consider getting one.
    prices in oz
    athlon 1200C + 128mb CAS2 pc133 = $389 + $80 = $469
    p4 1.5 + 128mb rdram 800 = $889
    a liiiitle outside my price range, specially as i will want at least 256mb ram on a system.


    "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have created"~Darth Vader, Star wars
  15. Just so you know... you can get a boxed, 1.2GHz Athlon C for under $200. That $389 if an extreme markup, even if it is "tested" to overclock to a certain speed. The current Athlon C's that are boxed all have copper cores, and will easily overclock to 1.5GHz with no problem, and as long as you don't fry it from overclocking, you have a 3 year warrenty and a HSF that will work even for the overclocked CPU.. And as to the RAM, you can get top-of-the-line Crucial <i>256MB CAS 2</i> for just $10 more. And that as well will overclock to a higher speed than you'd want to consider running your FSB for long periods of time. This "tested" BS is just a way for a company to make a quick buck (and more) at the expense of consumers. I mean, if you're willing to pay over $450 for a CPU and RAM, go and get the retail version of them, and save around $150-200.

    -SammyBoy

    Without Evil, there can be no Good. Therefore, without an Intel, there can be no AMD.
  16. Well, they did rush it... it came out in November 2000, and very quickly was branded as an overpriced coaster compared to both the Athlon and the P3. Even THG went over the same thing 4 times, with the same conclusion: "hey, it works great when something is optimized for it, but it can't hold its own with today's software." If Intel had held onto it until Q1 '01, maybe a little more testing, some refinements, and other kinds of quality control issues could have been done, resulting in a CPU that was better than what you see today. The 1.7GHz, released not long ago, shows that the P4 is capable of working properly even without refined software, which is how it should be. We all know that the tech industry is reluctant to standardize something if it won't be used by everyone. Therefore, with AMD having a larger marketshare than the last time Intel came out with a chip that needed optimized code to work best, it was absolutly foolish to release a chip that had a future, but no present. Plus, now that future could be in jepordy with the recent setbacks in Intel's plans. Without a large enough market out there to want the optimized code, programers and developers might be loath to spend extra time, money (to get the new compiler), and effort just to help out a minority of the PC world. I would imagine that even with 1-2 million P4s sold, that only represents around 4-8% of the computers in the US (thinking that there are around 50 million PCs in the US that aren't Macs... might be high, might be low). That a very select few to cater to, and to top it off, Intel may have sold that many CPU's, but how many compete systems are in the end-users home working right now? So yes, Intel blundered, and blundered some more. Not only did they release a castrated CPU, but they hyped it so much that when it was not near what people expected, the tech media was quick to jump all over it. If they had just waited until March, and released a 1.7GHz, skipping the other ones, they would have been better off, there would have been more time to produce RDRAM and CPUs, and the prices wouldn't have been insanely high. It is because of this, that I believe that the P4 line, when it reaches .13, and is actually the real thing, Intel will have lost much ground, because who is going to pay twice the price for the same performance, even with the promise of better performance "in the future."

    -SammyBoy

    Without Evil, there can be no Good. Therefore, without an Intel, there can be no AMD.
  17. Okay, so if it's the BIOS, then there was some miscommunication between Intel and the 'board maker. Obviously somewhere Intel said that X is the threshold that the CPU will have, and the 'board maker did that, but the 'board maker was never told that Intel changed X to Y. Simple mistake. And since the 1.7GHz will run much hotter than the 1.3-1.5GHz, it's easy to see how it wasn't noticed until now. But, if that isn't the case, and for some reason the P4 is reaching that limit and underclocking itself, it would be interesting to see what the performance drop seen at Inquest was similar or dissimilar to the same system that was manually underclocked to 850MHz. If they are the same, then it says that the P4 was being run to hot, and had to kick itself down. If it isn't the same, then I guess it is the BIOS. Anyone out there have a P4 1.7GHz on the motherboard that is the problem? Raystonn, do you know what the system config is that has this problem? Maybe someone out there can see if they can run Q3 and figure out the drop, and then underclock the P4 youself to 850MHz. I don't know if that is possible with a P4, but it's worth a look, eh?

    -SammyBoy

    Without Evil, there can be no Good. Therefore, without an Intel, there can be no AMD.
  18. Ok this thread has just gone into about 5 different directions. What were we talking about again? :) I think it was something about only Intel supporters reading articles on Inquest. Funny really. And as usual we have amdmeltdown and the muffin piping in with childish comebacks.
    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AeroSnoop on 05/17/01 10:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  19. They are not software throttling since no other CPU/MB has that problem except high clock speed (1.7 GHz) P4. It is not BIOS bug either since in the Quake test using the same MB only some 1.7 GHz P4 CPUs produce the throttle, indicating the variation of thermal diode tolerance is the key.

    The real problem is as stated in the article, the power consumption increases linearly with clock speed (or higher if one has to increase the core voltage as well). This feature will cause more and more problems as P4 goes to 2 GHz and beyond. I don't think it would be difficult for Intel to tweak this feature and make it more forgiving. However, the extra heat generated by high clock speed still needs to be removed/reduced. That is why the current P4 is a just a stop-gap product. Let's see what happen when the 0.13 micron P4 comes out.

    Actually, it does not matter what the causes are (thermal protection unit, chipset, bios or ??). The bottom line is Intel or somebody has to rectify the problem. Pointing fingers at others all you want, the truth is nobody wants to pay top dollars for throttle-back performance, especially those power users who need performance in intensive number crunching or gaming.
  20. I am in Australia.
    Are you talking AMERICAN or AUSTRALIAN dollars?
    there is a big difference there!
    I.E.
    1 auzzie dollar = 52.5 us cents!
    athlon 1200C dont exist for 200 bucks here. peroid

    "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have created"~Darth Vader, Star wars
  21. Well then why not mark your amounts with AUS$ instead of just $ as that is usually taken for US$. Jees.
    And before u flame me, I'm actually Irish.

    btw: does anybody else think that George Bush is a baboon brained, inbred, turd.
    Clinton may have shagged a few women, but Bush is shagging everybody up the arse with their hands tied behind their back.
    Hmmm.... there's a nature reserve, let's drill for oil there. And conserving energy..., no I don't like that idea, I think I'll spend 150billion adding to the green house effect.

    And no I'm not an eco-freak, just a man with common sense!

    <font color=blue>Elephants are the only animals that can't jump. Just as well!</font color=blue>
  22. Well, let me apologize, as my arrogence as an American made me believe that you were quoting US$. Even worse, I'm a midwesterner. Now, I will say that when I see English, I usually think American (no offense to the Brits and Aussies out there, or any other European or Asian who can write fluent English better than most native born speakers), just because, well, Americans really know no other languages (I learned some German in HS, and now am learning Latin...). We are deprived of foreign languages in the schools (3 to choose from, two of which are closely related) and media (especially in the midwest). I think it's 'cause some Americans still think that everyone who isn't an American is a hut-living, spear-waving bushman, and undeserving of our attention unless they repent and become Americanized. Those Republicans are especially like that... like Dubya.

    I really love England, and wish to visit Australia soon, when funds permit. But my rant on the places who "test" products in regard to overclocking (therefore rating it to a certain OC speed) still stands. Plus, when you purchase a boxed CPU from those places, and later the chip croaks due to manufacture defect (or some other warrenty covered item, like the fan dying), and they ask you the place of purchase, you're screwed, as they will know that you were overclocking, which is a big warrenty voider. At least if you are overclocking a CPU purchased from a certified distrubuter, you have a chance of conivincing them you weren't overclocking.

    -SammyBoy

    Without Evil, there can be no Good. Therefore, without an Intel, there can be no AMD.
  23. Unfortunatly, Dubya and Co. listen to money more than men. Its a common symptom in American politics, and with the prices of a gallon of gas/petrol reaching *gasp* $2.00 ($3.84 AUS, 1.25 pounds), they feel that drastic measures must be taken. While I do agree with the assumption that our reliance on foreign oil has to be decreased, we should do it with more economical, economical, and lasting technologies, like that hydrogen engine, clean burning fuels, like ethonal (the fuel of choice by midwest farmers for its need of corn), and other such things. Plus, the political landscape has forgotten that it will take around 6-8 years for those new wells and power plants to come online, and that is a long time for a 4 year president or 2 year rep. to tell their people, which is why it is never mentioned. Dubya is an idiot, yes, and while he may have won the election (only in electoral votes... got his butt waxed in the popular), he certainly has not won the confidence of the American people quite yet.

    -SammyBoy

    PS... I think that this thread has gone way off topic.... maybe we should get back to the original thread, where we had AMDMeltdown and SpudMuffin ranting and raving about conspiricy theories and monkeys...

    Without Evil, there can be no Good. Therefore, without an Intel, there can be no AMD.
  24. "They are not software throttling since no other CPU/MB has that problem except high clock speed (1.7 GHz) P4."

    It only happens with that motherboard. When you swap to a different motherboard, the problem no longer occurs. In addition, when their measured throttling is occurring and they then manually turn on the P4's hardware throttling, performance immediately drops. That indicates the throttling had not previously been on in the P4. The only 'throttling' left is that implemented by the motherboard. Either the motherboard or its BIOS has a bug or faulty setting.

    "The real problem is as stated in the article, the power consumption increases linearly with clock speed (or higher if one has to increase the core voltage as well). This feature will cause more and more problems as P4 goes to 2 GHz and beyond."

    The hardware throttling feature in the P4 is set based on the speed of the processor. A 2.0GHz 0.18 P4 will be allowed to reach higher temperatures than a 1.7GHz 0.18 P4 before throttling is engaged. These settings, and how they are obtained, are discussed at length in the P4 technical specifications on Intel's website.

    "Actually, it does not matter what the causes are (thermal protection unit, chipset, bios or ??). The bottom line is Intel or somebody has to rectify the problem."

    Very true. The motherboard/BIOS needs to be fixed as soon as possible. For now, I recommend against that particular motherboard with a P4 1.7GHz.

    -Raystonn

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  25. He does this:

    If the article is pro-Intel then he runs with it and it is the GOSPEL.

    If the article is anti_Intel then he states it is trashs and unrelaible.

    If he was concerned with the truth he would subject those Intel articles to the same complaints of innacurracy. He knows in reality most of them are flat out lies and bullshit anyhow.

    Though I like having the guy around...His posts are so damn entertaining :)

    It worked yesterday! :lol:
  26. Raystonn -- Nice try, but I don't buy it. First of all, the MB you mentioned is only one of instances. There are many other instances with different MBs, software and hardware reported in that article. The only common denominator is "hot" P4. The fact only some 1.7 GHz P4 would trigger throttle-back in the Quake test clearly points out something is inconsistent in P4. I would agree with the article that the tolerance of thermal protection unit may be in play here. Making a blanket statment and blaming it solely on BIOS does not make sense.

    You also missed the point on power and temperature. Power => heat => temperature rise. The only way to keep CPU temperature at bay with increasing power consumption is to remove the extra heat. With air cool, there is only so much you can do thermodynamically. The fact is if normal cooling cannot keep the temperature down, the thermal protection will kick in, which will greatly degrade the performance of CPU. Again, NOBODY would want to pay top dollars for throttle-back performance. That is why it will be difficult for Intel to push the P4 clock speed with the current 0.18 technology. The 0.13 micron technology on the other hand allows you to lower the core voltage, which greatly reduces the power and heat. Unfortunately for Intel, it was reported recently that there may be a problem in the Intel 0.13 schedule due to problems in DUV lithography tools. We will see what happens.

    **Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**
  27. Before you two start to rant and rave at each other, could you both remember that "fact" without a source is a big no-no? bhc, could you please try to find a source of the "instances" that involve different motherboards other than the one that Inquest is talking about. And Raystonn, is it possible that you could actually name this 'board and the BIOS, so it is possible to use my own resources to investigate if this problem is related to the 'board/BIOS. I mean, if there are three different sites with three different setups with the same problem, then I can conclude that maybe there is a flaw within the P4. If that isn't the case, and it is the 'board messing things up, it still falls on Intel to either "inform" the manufacture that something they did is screwed up, or Intel has to put it's foot down and say, "Hey look, this isn't our problem, motherborad X was configured improperly, and until that is changed, that product should not purchased." All that is happening right now is that many anti-Intel zealots are jumping all over this and dragging it through the mud with various "facts." Intel must wash its hands of this, or there will be a price to pay later on.

    -SammyBoy

    Without Evil, there can be no Good. Therefore, without an Intel, there can be no AMD.
  28. I apologize I was not very clear in my posting. What I meant by other instances is the fact Inquest was just trying to verify (reproduce) claims from other websites and people (see the article). Certainly, not all of them were using the same MB etc.

    As a Si IC technologist, I can tell you that heat removal is the number 1 issue for a large, high-speed circuit. I know many Intel technical people, and I have a lot of respect for them, but you cannot defy physics. I highly doubt that without lowering the core voltage (by going to the 0.13 micron technology) Intel can pump the P4 speed over 2 GHz. Like I said, let's see what happens.

    By the way, you can mark my words -- the P4 core will never make it to 10 GHz, may not even 5 GHz. In future scaling one would need both technology solution and circuit solution to combat the heat problem. That means redesigning the core.

    **Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**
  29. "is it possible that you could actually name this 'board"

    That would be the Intel D850GB. If anyone can show me the same problem occurring using a non-Intel motherboard, maybe I'll change my mind.

    -Raystonn

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  30. "not all of them were using the same MB"

    Would you care to place a wager on this?

    "I highly doubt that without lowering the core voltage (by going to the 0.13 micron technology) Intel can pump the P4 speed over 2 GHz."

    2GHz is when the change to 0.13 is going to happen. 0.18 will not need to go beyond 2GHz.

    "the P4 core will never make it to 10 GHz"

    Actually, it was designed to do just this. The last new core was introduced in the Pentium Pro somewhere close to 200MHz. It has reached 1GHz and will reach even greater speeds before it is retired. An increase on the Pentium 4's core to 10GHz is not unthinkable in terms of the percentage increase.

    By the way, I must ask you where you work. You almost seem to have some kind of vested interest in this topic. You take great pleasure in trying to push this as a flaw in the CPU. You went so far as to say it's "funny" in this URL: http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1


    -Raystonn

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  31. Hmmm I could believe that's a BIOS bug, considering Intel's choice of BIOSes.

    On a side note, perhaps you could explain why all Intel motherboards use the uber-crappy Phoenix BIOS? That's perhaps the worst BIOS I've ever dealt with, yet both Intel and Compaq seem infatuated with it.

    Kelledin

    bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
    init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
  32. I have no idea... It upsets me as well.

    -Raystonn

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  33. Raystonn - I am Si IC technologist, but I don't work for either Intel or AMD. You are right about I am not happy about the P4 design. As a person working on Si technology for many years, I can tell you Intel has world-class, leading-edge technologies, actually better than AMD (you can quote me on that), but the P4 is a disgrace - a waste of leading-edge technology. In other words, if AMD can make Athlon work with its inferior technology, Intel has no excuse not to make something much better with its vast resources and leading-edge technology. Instead what we (the customers) got for the last two years are pump-up PPro (PIII) and marketing driven (higher clock speed) P4. Yes, I am not happy from both a professional point of view and a consumer's point of view. I used to use Intel exclusively, like most people, but I am now rooting AMD for more competition, and I am not shy away from picking on P4 (well, it's easy anyway).

    You, my friend, appears to be an Intel spin doctor since I have not yet read one post from you saying anything critical about either Intel or P4, while you know there are plenty. Care to explain yourself??

    **Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**
  34. "You, my friend, appears to be an Intel spin doctor since I have not yet read one post from you saying anything critical about either Intel or P4, while you know there are plenty. Care to explain yourself??"

    I am not a spin doctor. I have said some negative things regarding the current Pentium 4 incarnation. However, most of the bad press that exists about it goes beyond the real problems and hence I do not support them. Most are based on misnomers and misunderstandings, for example the the heat throttling feature in the Pentium 4 core.

    As far as explaining myself, my bio information sums it up. I asked about you because you had no bio information.

    -Raystonn

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
  35. Raystonn -- Sorry. Although I am a frequent visitor of tomshardware, I usually do not have time to post, so I didn't know all the functions. Even though you are an Intel engineer, I certainly would not reject your posts out of hand. However, it would be difficult for you to praise your competitors, like AMD. Isn't it??

    By the way, I know a few of your colleagues from the technology side through SEMATECH and IEDM activities. All outstanding people, and I have a lot of respect for them. Don't forget, Noyce, Moore and Grove are all outstanding technology people. When they were in charge, Intel was unstoppable.

    **Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**
  36. lol it says the p4 has potholes

    lol


    --call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
  37. Well, I found this interesting bit of information, and I'll drop the link as well, so that maybe you can check the validity of it.

    "Processor performance will be decreased by ~50% when the TCC is active (assuming a 50% duty cycle), however, with a properly designed and characterised thermal solution the TCC most likely will only be activated briefly when the system is near maximum temperature and during the most
    power intensive applications."

    Now, I realize that Quake3 is not the most intensive program out there, but if could hold up if in fact the P4 1.7GHz had varying degrees of thermal diodes. Also, if there is a small margin of error, the "thermal solution" may look, feel, sound, etc. right, but may be off just enough to cause the throttling to kick in (could explain the problem found on other boards, the ones that should work properly). So one CPU might exhibit those behaviors, but others don't. Either way, since both the CPU and the board are Intel made, it stands to reason that the quality assurance of Intel has been comprimised in some way. It's an error that will only further soil the name of the P4, and result in loss of market share. It's too bad too, cause the P4 has promise, if Intel can ever get its hands on the equipment needed to make the Northwood.

    BTW, the link of my source is <A HREF="http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium4/datashts/24919803.pdf" target="_new">http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium4/datashts/24919803.pdf</A>

    -SammyBoy

    Without Evil, there can be no Good. Therefore, without an Intel, there can be no AMD.
  38. "but may be off just enough to cause the throttling to kick in"

    The CPU hardware throttling had in fact not kicked in. The throttling they were measuring was software-based, produced by the motherboard. This is evident by the fact that when they are experiencing this 'throttling' and they manually activate the P4 throttling using some testing equipment, the performance drops dramatically.

    I do agree that this needs to be fixed. But it's a problem with the motherboard, not the CPU. Currently the Asus P4T has the crown for best performer, and also does not have any of these problems.

    -Raystonn

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Product