As far as i read THG, i found that athlon perform faster than more expensive p4 counterparts. The Itanium seemed to a real loser as well. And then with intel's MTH, i820, RAMBUS inc, the new "Xeon" which is actually a renamed p4.
I also came to from THG as well, that the roadmaps for the associating chipsets for intel CPUs gets very, very messy as well.
I'm not biased against intel, since AMD has its own faults too. But as least AMD worked hard to prove themselves. Intel relied on "processor renaming" to sell CPUs.
I concluded that intel is selling below par CPUs and messy chipsets.
hardware_n00b, if you expect criticism to be taken in the right spirit, you should make one in the right spirit. It could lead to another meaningless flame thread that has been repeated countless number of times. Mat is right, you could either delete the post or rephrase it to criticise with some respect. Like you could have some sane rational reasoning to your statements. make it a good starting point for a healthy discussion.
Do it asap if you could.
<font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
I am trying to be as nice as I can be when I say "You are totally confused."
If you are trying to start a Flame then I don't think it's going to work. I am not a fan of Intel or AMD but I would like to defend intel on this subject.
AMD makes really great processors. But I think you got this totally wrong. You said Intel's Chipsets are messy. Please, give me a break, If you look around in this forum you will notice that people complain a lot about AMD chipsets (I didn't say AMD Processors), not Intels. Also you said Intel Relied on "Processor Renaming". Please provide proof of this. I don't know if you meant AMD instead of Intel because I think AMD relied on "Processor Renaming". Here's are few names that AMD has came out with after Intel Released Pentium 4.
Before Pentium 4
After Pentium 4
Athlon 4 (Mobile) (Where is Athlon 1,2,3?)
Athlon 1xxx+ (Desktop with PR Rating)
Athlon 1xxx+ Quienti (No spell checker!) speed Arch. (to compete with NetBrust Arch.)
So I don't know who is playing Name game here Intel or AMD.
Don't get me wrong, I like AMD as much as the next dude. But I think you are completely wrong here.
December 14, 2001 5:04:32 PM
Oh I forgot to mention:
The opposite of what you said is most often true. Intel comes out with the most optimized chipset offering/given technology months before competition ever releases a half assed pathetic non comparable attempt. Look at i840 chipset. Funny how just recently the SiS's and Via's are just finally matching memory performance of this what, 3+ year old chipset. Keep in mind the i820 was supposed to be the cheeseball low end crap, and was never intended to have SDRAM interface.
And there are soo many more examples too. Excuse me if come off harsh, but so do you.
Ten to one it's someone who came here with the sole purpose of starting a flame war. Pretty weak-ass attempt as far as I'm concerned. Not even properly inflammatory, poor grammar, clearly FucT arguments. I mean, why is this wannabe flamebait of such low caliber? This isn't flamebait, it's lamebait.
If there's one thing worse than a troll, it's a troll who has absolutely no style at all.
[dave@discovery ~] kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
Intel has historically made the best chipsets. They made a mistake by caving into pressure on the i820 and releasing it with MTH, but did pull it off the market, and the i820 with RDRAM worked fine. Even the i810 was better than the SiS chipswet it was made to compete with. The BX was the best chipset of all time. Even the i850 seems to be top notch, and the i845, well, as good as you could expect given the circumstances.
But I expect you already knew that and simply wanted to start a flame war.