"The new architecture has serious fatal flaws that in some cases can throttle the speed of a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 chip down to the equivalent speed of a mere 200 MHz Pentium MMX chip of 4 years ago, even slower than the level of any Celeron, Pentium II, or Pentium III chip ever released!"
OMG ROFL LMAO LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh yeah in my car today on the radio, some stocks guy was saying how intel will lower their prices to compete with AMD and win the market, it sounded like intel was the underdog
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by therock16 on 07/18/01 10:58 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
What an idiot!
"If you must buy Intel, buy a Celeron. Same chip, lower cost."
Either he's a moron or completely ignorant of the facts! Most Celerons run 66MHz system bus. The PIII at the saame speed performs at least 50% better. Even the Celeron 850, with it's 100MHz bus, runs slower than the PIII 700. In case you don't remember, I did a comparison with benchmarks on the same system!
Most of what he said was perfectly accademic. Like an automotive professor telling you a 4L80E can accept 800 ft/lbs of torque right after you spill it's guts behind a big block with 2/3 that figure.
Video killed my Radio Card!
July 20, 2001 3:29:07 AM
Long read but worth the cognac and cigar.
I find it interesting to see the results when the advertising department overrules Engineers.
The Board would rather manipulate the market instead of producing a good product.
I’m so old I remember when radio shack had cool stuff. And Tandy made leather tools! So this is no surprise.
Let the Consumer RULE!
“Ooommmmm” She moaned in my ear, “You must be overclocking...”
Talk about a long read. It's funny, this guy seems to know his stuff about OLD chip designs, but proves complete ignorance about new chip designs, which is really the entire point of his rant in the first place.
Statements such as that you should buy the Celeron instead of a P3 because it's the same chip, and such as cutting the L2 cache in half was the dumbest thing that they could have done just prove he doesn't really have a clue.
We all know that the Celeron's cache and FSB suck compared to a P3. And we all know that the halved L2 cache on the P3s and Athlons actually performs BETTER than the cache on the previous versions of the chips because even though it's only half as large, it's on the die with the CPU and thus running at a much higher speed.
His knowledge of MMX and SSE also seems to be completely and utterly lacking.
And for that matter, his knowledge about the Celeron, P2, and P3 is severely incorrect. The timing is right, and the details about the chips are mostly right, but he's again completely failing to consider the 66MHz FSB of the Celerons compared to the 100MHz FSB 512KB cache of the first P3s, which made the P3 a heck of a lot better than a P2 or a Celeron.
He even makes it sound as though Intel's work into the Itanium was to compete against the Athlon as a desktop chip because they knew that their P3 and P4 weren't good enough. WTF is he on? Since the first day I heard of the Itanium I knew it was a server chip, not a desktop chip. Why didn't he?
And now a P3's price/performance ratio is pretty much on-par with the Athlon's price/performance ratio up to 1GHz CPUs. Not that I'd go with ONLY a 1GHz CPU these days, but the P3 certainly didn't lose out as badly as he makes it sound.
This guy is good at making it sound like he knows a lot, but when it comes to applied reality most of what he says is totally wrong. To me he sounds more like an AMD Troll trying to bash everything Intel. How could a person who sounds like they know so much have so many things totally wrong, unless it was intentional?
And while I agree with him that it's easy to see that the Williamette P4 is a hacked-up PoS that should be avoided by most people, I don't think I've seen a single benchmark yet that would put a P4's speed at the same level as a Pentium2. A P3, sure. An Athlon beating it in several ways, sure.
But then it also beats the Athlon in a few ways already, and we all know that it's a hacked up PoS. He completely fails to mention the Northwood, which we've all known about it being planned for almost as long as the Williamete has been on the market. If Intel fixes even half of what was hacked out of the P4 in the Northwood, the Northwood is going to make AMD wish their ClawHammer chips had been rushed to market a bit sooner.
I'm not saying I think Intel is better than AMD or visa-versa. I'm just saying that either this guy doesn't know a hole in the wall from his own arse, or he's just talking out of his arse and intentionally lying.
If you don't take his article with at least a shaker of salt (as opposed to just a grain), then you're probably just as biased as he is.
Is it too much to ask that people just go with whichever computer best fits their needs and not jump onto a company's mob bandwagon with a flaming torch in one hand and a pitchfork in the other?
<pre><font color=orange>Sunnova</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Beach</font color=blue>, <i>ain't life a beach?</i></pre><p>
I've seen the article, actually painful to read, he sounds like he wants to start a revolution. I'll just vote with my dollars - I'll avoid Intel and VIA as much as possible. Never heard bad things about AMD processors (K7 and up) that wasn't attributed to problems with the VIA chipset. I view AMD as an honest and upfront company.
Old and total BS, that emulators guys is a joke and a half.
So he doesnt want to recompile his code for SSE2, NBD wtf runs emulators.
Its much cheaper to buy a atari 800 at a thrift store than to attempt emulation on PC, sure PC is gonna be faster than original 4.77Mhz but is it really gonna work 100%. and wtf you need from atari 800 anyway? step in my office because your [-peep-] fired!
News flash! Apple is still in business, so running apps in emulation on PC is huge waste of time.
Take the time to read his other outdated articles too, they are also good for a laugh.