Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Somebody HAD to say it-The P4 REALLY SUCKS!

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Bus Speed
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2002 3:00:27 AM

OK, this is just another rant. Or is it? OK so the Northwood looks half way decent at around 2GHZ. That's nice. But shouldn't ANYTHING with a QDR400 bus beat anything in it's class?

Think about it, the Tualatin PIII 256k beats the T-Bird, slightly, clock for clock (don't panic AMD guys, the XP beats both). But the Tualatin Celeron looses to the Duron, clock for clock. The main reason? BUS SPEED! In fact, if the bus of the old Coppermine would have been DDR, it would have probably walked over even the (gasp!) XP! No proof, just reasoning the subject out based upon what we know of bus speed.

So the P4 with SDR sucks. Maybe this is what we should be comparing to the PIII's, since they use SDR also?

The P4 with DDR sucks, only a little less. So maybe this is what we should compare to the Athlon derivatives?

If AMD increased their bus speed they would DEFINATELY RULE AGAIN! NOT by any 2 or 3%, but by at least 10%!

AMD sucks for releasing their new PR, few can deny that without intentionally lying to protect their favorit brand. But the P4 has to be the suckiest CORE TECHNOLOGY to hit the street since the Cyrix III!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

More about : sucks

February 3, 2002 3:43:53 AM

yeah that is pretty sad, P4 at 400mhz bus just barely takes on 266mhz bus lol

i think the P3 actually LOST to the old Athlon dude.
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1041&p=4" target="_new">ownage</A>

it's a pretty fair test, it's the coppermine vs the athlon classic. if you want to compare the P3 tualatin you should compare it with the T-bird which was at the same time.

while searching for a benchmark of Tbird vs Tualatin i found this link: <A HREF="http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/evga_gf2ultra/d3d2.shtml" target="_new">here</A>
i noticed that it is comparing a 700mhz P3 with a 1500mhz Athlon but they show to be the same speed. is there something i am missing here?


Windows has started.
Would you like to play another game?
February 3, 2002 4:06:13 AM

i think net burst is just a new architecture it run difference.Like do clock for clock benchmark is now unsuable with P4.Most of the old way of comparing cpu is now useless.The only true is the frame rate in Quake and others benchmark.

At the end northwood win with overclocking and at retail speed.I still remember old benchmark with P4 1.7 vs t-bird 1.33 P4 was lossing badly near 10%.Now the same P4 is 1% faster that 1.4.The same thing will happen to XP.Who northwood 2.5ghz 533 FSB will do again thourougbred with only a die shrink.Thou will have a PR rating of 2200+.In most of the benchmark a XP 2000+ equal a northwood ''2100'' mgz a northwood 2.0 equal a XP 1900+ with the same logic a thou will equal a northwood ""2350"" with 400 FSB.There only 2 way for AMD to win this get a 20% increase clock for clock on thou, or increae mghz the faster they can.Also just let northwood destroy thou and concentrate R&D on Barton who can destroy northwood.

http://service.madonion.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/p...;P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 02/03/02 01:17 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 3, 2002 4:11:28 AM

thats why i think 166fsb athlons...of any variety would be very very nice.

The lack of thermal protection on Athlon's is cunning way to stop morons from using AMD. :) 
February 3, 2002 10:39:51 AM

Quote:
is there something i am missing here?



I think the point was to focus the readers attention on the inability of the gfx card to keep up with the AMD system. Notice how the scores are similar in higher resolutions.

They're simply saying "Why get a super fast CPU if you don't get a decent gfx card too."

:cool: <b><font color=blue>The Cisco Kid</font color=blue></b> :cool:
February 3, 2002 11:13:07 AM

Quote:

thats why i think 166fsb athlons...of any variety would be very very nice.

Hehe, and I hope to have one long before they are officially released.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 3, 2002 11:26:14 AM

Let's get one thing straight: All CPUs suck because processor manufacturers are greedy and so they make cheap stuff and sell it for A LOT of money.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2002 4:02:46 PM

AS I remember (now that I think of it more), the 256k Tualatin lost to the T-Bird by about the same margin that the 512k Tualatin won by. All in all, it was so close as to call them "in the same league", performance wise.

Hehe, yes, lets compare a PIII 733 to a 1500MHz T-bird, why not? LMAO!

Tom did a few Tualatin comparisons I think, why don't you check those? Seems to me the 256k Tualatin one as many benches as it lost, BUT at one particular bench it actually lost by a larger margin (enough to call the bench into question, because the others were so close).

Nobody cares about the original Katmai PIII or the original Athlon Classic, both having off die cache.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2002 4:06:33 PM

Guess what I'm taking four four humanities credit hours this semester?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2002 4:15:09 PM

Now we're at the heart of the matter! NOBODY is willing to give us the latest technology because they think they can milk their current products a little longer. In marketing this is called the "Cash Cow", you only put it out to pasture when it's no longer producing reasonable profit margins!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 3, 2002 4:23:15 PM

that statement can be applayed to ANY company making ANY product to make money... when AMD is lossing 100 million USD evry q` and still sells processors with the best value. dunnu how can one blame them for high prices...


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
February 3, 2002 4:47:00 PM

p4 with rdram DOESN'T SUCK

and that is what you must use to compare to other systems of the same class. Yeah sure, maybe if there was a 2.2ghz amd available it would beat the p4, but there isn't. Maybe if the amd systems supported rdram they would beat the fastest p4, but they don't.

<i>Hi I am from Canada, I don't use amd cause they melt my igloo eh.</i>
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2002 5:01:07 PM

There is no adequate reason for a P4 1.4GHz to be the same speed at a PIII 1000EB if it has FOUR TIMES the memory bandwidth. Apply the same comparison to the Tualatin PIII and the NW, there is no adequate reason for the 1.5GHZ NW with RDRAM (now available) to underperform the 1.26GHz PIIIt.

If you have any doubts concerning the performance improvements of greater memory bandwidth on the PIII, look at Tom's 150MHz project. At the rate of improvement he's shown, if the PIII had the same QDR bus as dual channel RDRAM, I believe that the 1.26GHz PIIIt would perform similarly to the 1.8GHz NW/RDRAM.

By the same token, the only logical reason as to why Intel would bless the P4 with dual channel RDRAM, but not offer dual channel DDR, would be to make RDRAM look like a better performer than it actually is!

Quote:
p4 with rdram DOESN'T SUCK


Please don't cry!



What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 3, 2002 5:03:49 PM

Agreed, as I said, AMD and Intel aren't here to release the latest and greatest technology, they're here to make money. Releasing slower processors for higher prices allows them to do just that.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 3, 2002 5:09:38 PM

True...
though you should look at it like this:
Intel lost the 0.18 race processor Vs processor for AMD
the northwood isnt much of a jump in terms of IPC... a 2Ghz 0.13 northwood is still losing to the fastes 0.18 athlon XP.

the only diffrence is that Intel moved to 0.13 litle sooner then AMD and that is intels adventege right now.

AMDs moving the Athlon to 0.13 soon... and then 0.13SOI and unless the higher 533mhz FSB on P4s make much of a preformnce jump... then Intel would most likly lose the 0.13 beatlle two..

that is W/O Hammer in mind.

the p4 is not really bad... AMD and Intel are pretty much On-Par these days (maybe with a litle lead for AMD using the same process size) which means that the both the P4 and the Athlon are just as good... none of them suck.


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
February 3, 2002 5:21:26 PM

one word about bus:

"MEGAHERTZ ISNT EVRYTHING!!"

LOL always wanted to say that...
if you would take an Athlon XP 2000 and couple it with SDRAm you will see the same preformance loss - aroung 25% compering it to KT266A.

same goes for P4 compering DDR to SDR is just about 25% margin... with RDRAM giving you an extra 5%

any other preformance loss is due to the NetBrust architecture - allowing higher Clock speeds in expance of preformance. still - a 2Ghz P4 on 0.18 process is much faster then a 1GHZ 0.18 P3... and 1Ghz was the limit of P3 using 0.18 and 2Ghz is the limit of P4 using 0.18
so you can see that P4 all in all WAS a leap over the P3.



This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2002 5:28:04 PM

Yeh, sure, a leap at the customer's expense! One of my neighbors bought a Dell with a 1.7GHz P4 and SDRAM! It was slower than my PIII 933! She bought it to replace a PIII 1000, funny thing is, she said "It's just as fast as my other computer was when IT was new"! And she was happy? I could have reloaded her hard drive on the old machine and made it just as fast for free!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 3, 2002 5:30:28 PM

Good point IIB: Neither AMD nor Intel processor suck. Both manufacturers offer very high quality, well performing CPUs. Since this is the case, I generally go with the cheaper of the two. :-)

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
February 3, 2002 5:35:56 PM

Thanx!

as my sig says all my posts are writen with common sense enabled.


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
February 3, 2002 5:39:05 PM

That's what's even sadder, don't you see?
As if 400MHZ isn't a lot, they needed 533MHZ to try to pump more power? That's like hiding a thief behind a street light!
They are trying to mask low performance by pumping so much work onto it then charging twice the price we pay for AMD top-of-the line!!!
When AMD jumped to DDR and to 266 FSB it was for a good reason of bandwidth, something the P4 craves but has quite enough for today's apps (3.2GB, I mean that's alot! Now they wanna continue pumping to get a little more power!).
I doubt 533FSB will help more if 400 MHZ wasn't that much compared to P3s' FSB and TB's jump.

--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
February 3, 2002 5:44:39 PM

true but the I845 fiasco is Intel's corporate greed to blame.
Not the the P4 processor...
AMD and VIA also released SDRAM platforms but ditched SDRAM the moment the processor ran fast enough to enjoy DDR-SDRAM platforms… Intel on the other hand released SDRAM platform to a processor witch initially run at speeds that require faster memory…

though again - Intel as a corporate is to blame
not hard working engineers. not the P4 itself...

This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
February 3, 2002 5:52:39 PM

they dont hide low preformance...
there is nothing to hide.
as if a nothwood with DDR-SDRAM is a weak preformere - its not... its just a bit weaker then the Latest Athlon XP WITH THE SAME DDR-SDRAM.
the fact that it cost more - thats a diffrente issue
hell! i'll take an Athlon over a northwood any day
but the processor it self isnt that bad.

INTEL IS BAD! yes no doubt there.
Intel Inside - the most publicly used warning label.
agreed...


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
February 3, 2002 5:53:52 PM

At first when I read the subject I thought you've gone crazy without considering the reactions from peeps here, and I thought that you were gonna have a lot of bashing considering Taylanator's recent threads but it seems you are our Messiah! Now instead of bashing, people are actually getting their inside feelings out for real and agree!
I was hoping one day to hear a true enthusiast from here say that and go reply...
You are so right man.
I mean WHO, of all us, WHO wasn't impressed by the specs the P4 had when we first heard about it? I mean from the point you started reading there is a P4 and the speccs, no benchs, no word-from-mouth from any person who had tried it?
We all were amazed, I mean 400 MHZ FSB for me is big big big, and is something really awesome. Then I read about other stuff and kept being impressed.
Until benchs came and we knew the truth, Intel did this only for OEMs and mass dumbos to feed MHZ in their heads and not care of us ever-growing community of enthusiasts. Up until now I do not understand why the hell the logic behind the P4 is so flawed that they made it worse than a P3! I mean that is nothing but false common sense! (IIB your sig makes sense for this one!) One real fact about this is that they removed an FPU unit, it just shows they want dumb people to use it! They wanted a CPU not-so-smart for not-so-smart people! Think about it!
Up until today AMD has not made a single-mistake in their processors, they have done nothing but finding new technology and using it to its best to make us experts happy. Their prices are the best, yet the logic of better performance for lower price is somewhat not usual, like buying an ECS mainboard!
I am and I always said it, truly disappointed in Intel for ruining the image of the P4, and am repulsed from them for rejecting us the true users, and showing us that they only intend to satisfy dumb people. Well they have one less customer to feed!
I am eager to see the P3 1.4 Tualy go against a P4 1.4GHZ. Hell why not get a P2 in the ring and a HEAVILY under-clocked NW against it at 100MHZ single-pumped FSB! (if we can strip the quad-pumping then the multiplier might work...?) They both have 512KB L2 don't they? We'll see then if the NW isn't some Mendocino Celly cloaked PC!


--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
February 3, 2002 6:09:30 PM

it was pretty much well known that a p4 clocked 1.3Ghz will preforme On-par or Sub-par with a 1Ghz P3. mounths before the P4 came out...

it was also known - that P4 true strength will be its abilty to pump up the clockspeed rapidly sence it has 20 stages long pipline. all that we know today.

adding another FPU unit would have forced intel to do an extencive work on the P4 including a better decoder and a larger trace cahce - that is to a processor with an already HUGE die size and a rellese date to make (Intel probably knew were the P3 is going to stop).

cuts had to be made
its not the best processor
it dosent live up to the hype
but all in all its not a bad processor as it still competes well...



This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
February 3, 2002 6:21:37 PM

It does compete, but to blind reasons!
Look at it this way: We've been saying the P4 is king of gaming, especially Quake 3, but this was known for one reason: MHZ.
While we were comparing a 1.4 AXP VS a 2GHZ, we just had to assume it was better for Quake 3! We've been blinded since day one about its gaming capabilities because of high speeds! Let's get a 1.6GHZ P4 either NW or Willy, preferably NW, and an AXP 1900 1.6GHZ, and we'll see if that was true or a candle lit in the light.
Fact is when AMD will finally get off their asses to get the Tbred out, we will finally get to see the true performance the AXP wants, and that higher numbers WILL mean higher performance!

Hey personally, between us, what are you more hyped about? Intel's future plans or roadmap or AMD's?
Personally not much impresses me by Intel for now, not to any extent they would do a 64 bit only processor and then wake up and make Plan B. And a 533MHZ FSB would not mean much more if 400MHZ did not mean much more.
Now as for AMD, 0.13m means big for them because their ultra-performing processors will be able to go high speeds and unleash true power instead of 66MHZ increments! This is the beast tied on a leash we're talking! Then Barton with SOI. AND then Hammer, which will mean over 100% boost in performance overall including all those future CPUs by AMD. As for Intel I'd roughly say 20-30% tops for what they're coming out with.
Simply put they HAVE GOT to try 0.09m soon and re-implement the lose FPU and L1 Cache, improve the Hardware Prefetch or else we'd lose all interest in P4s when Hammer for Desktop sits in our homes.

Don't blame of flame me for saying this because it is true and nothing but true! AMD is going to bring its processors to P4 speeds or below by a little and that will cause more hype! Not to mention AMD's low prices and 0.13 low cost of manufacturing, and more CPUs done per batch, it means they might be able to supply OEMs for once!

--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
February 3, 2002 6:28:36 PM

Can someone remind me. Just what are the P4's technical weaknesses?

I remember something about the floating point unit. How does it differ from that of a P3?

<b>We are all beta testers!</b>
February 3, 2002 6:30:53 PM

There's a thread kicking about here on a comparison between the NW 2.2, NW 2.0, Wi 2.0 and the XP2000+. Its quite interesting. It really brings home how a CPU with less MHz can compete with a faster CPU.

Its a bit like cars. Does a 3.0 litre engine vehicle <b>have</b> to be faster than a 2.0 litre. Of course not. Its a question of compression and torque.

:cool: <b><font color=blue>The Cisco Kid</font color=blue></b> :cool:
February 3, 2002 6:39:00 PM

Quote:

if you would take an Athlon XP 2000 and couple it with SDRAm you will see the same preformance loss - aroung 25% compering it to KT266A.

I don't think so. My 1.33GHz Athlon with PC133 CL2 is within 10% of a DDR system in all benchmarks. In fact it's 1% above average for 3DMark2001.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 3, 2002 6:51:20 PM

That's basically what happened to me. I know 3 people with Dell's and ALL of them perform WORSE than my PIII 750Mhz! Unbelievable. Although the 1 guy who has a Dell with WinXP just added 128Mb of RAM and he said its now a "dream machine" but I'll have to have him bench it.
February 3, 2002 7:21:27 PM

I can't believe Dell ships 128 MB RAM only with WinXP machines, I mean come on! Are people this miserable to buy a comp that can't make fade effects in WinXP smooth?!
Sometimes I wonder if my 256 DDR is enough...

--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
February 3, 2002 7:27:33 PM

256MB is enough in Windows XP as long as you don't do Video or Image Editing. I have Adobe Photoshop Elements and it's pretty slow under WinXP with 256MB. There's a fair amount of swapping.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 3, 2002 7:35:53 PM

I'm glad someone with some forum credibility finally stated the obvious: the P4 could have been so much better. Intel crippled it in order to achieve high clockspeeds, but in the process they invalidated the whole concept of clockspeed comparisons. So now we have to look at clockspeed and IPC and SSE2 and tons of benchmarks in order to derive some sort of fair comparison between different processors. So with all of its memory bandwidth, bus speed advantage, and clockspeed advantage, the new P4 ekes out victories against an AMD processor running 500-600 MHz slower. And this from a company with the deep pockets of Intel.

Didn't Intel's first attempt at a 7th gen processor get scrapped and then they had to start from scratch? I'm not that familiar with the details of the P4's history. But it seems to me that Intel should be able to design a better chip than the P4. I think now they're just trying to compensate for its deficiencies with everything they can .. memory, clockspeed, bus speed, etc.

<i>I made you look. But I can't make you see.</i>
February 3, 2002 7:49:11 PM

Wow, looks like you started an uprising crash.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2002 8:22:30 PM

Weak floating point performance, too little cache, too deep a pipeline that introduces bubbles in the data stream (through latency and branch misprediction). There's probably more than that though!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 3, 2002 8:24:27 PM

Let's get back to the topic of cheaply made, overpriced CPUs by AMD and Intel.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2002 8:28:17 PM

I think their original design Was the Northood, but they didn't have their .13 micron production process ready, so they delayed it and introduced the Willy, which was a cut down version made for the .18 micron process.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 3, 2002 8:47:21 PM

Yes, yes, yes and so what, we all know that. It still doesn't matter. As much as the low IPC might repel you, you have to look at the end-result in terms of quality, price and performance.

For non-overclockers it's pretty clear, we all agree: Avoid the P4 at all costs. I feel sorry for people buying P4's (especially Northwood) together with non-overclockable mobos. That extra hidden performance can be had for free, why reject the offer.

For people that are willing to overclock the picture is somewhat different. With the availablility of 1.6A and 1.8A Northwoods, great performance can be obtained with little effort and to a very competitive price. But of cause you always run a risk of damaging your CPU. It don't know how high this risk is in reality. I've been running my Willy a 2.20V for more than 4 month now; so far no problems. If you are willing to play, I would say that the highest performance for the lowest cost can be obtained with a 1.6A Northwood.

If I was forced to buy right now, I would go for a 1.6A or maybe a 1.8A Northwood.

If I was able to wait 3 month more, I would go for the Throughbred.

If I could wait until the end of the year, I would go for the ClawHammer.


<i>/Copenhagen</i>

<b><i>Seagate Barracuda IV.
Bad performance in RAID setups!
</i></b>
February 3, 2002 8:51:10 PM

words of wisdom (is this how you spell it?)


This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2002 9:40:34 PM

I've already my my opinion known about AMD's PR deception, my disappointment over the slow release of faster speed processors, etc. But no you have a frame of reference concerning my thoughts on the P4!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2002 9:43:18 PM

I think I'll go with the Thoroughbred. At the rate of new platform release, it's highly probably that something will exist by then that makes todays platforms seem obsolete, and it will probably involve an SiS or nForce chipset, but ALi is still in the running.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 3, 2002 9:47:06 PM

but i bet you 50 bucks (australian) that we wont see any official 166fsb athlon 'D's untill Q3 or whenever barton (SIO tech) comes out.


The lack of thermal protection on Athlon's is cunning way to stop morons from using AMD. :) 
February 3, 2002 10:32:44 PM

Um no we shouldn't, cuz AMD is far from making overpriced CPUs.
Dude, the XP 1700 in Canada is now the spotlight at 205$ OEM CDN, with the 1800 just near it, at 260$ Retail CDN. Now that is what I call cheap price for extreme performance. Top of the line AMD is 2 times less than NWs (here in Ottawa NWs 2.2 are 950$!!!) and the P4 2GHZ is still 200$ above the XP 2000.
I would not call that overpricing at all, it's Intel that does that. Not to mention the mobo to add and RDRAM or DDR which are leveled same price now!
The only thing that makes the NW attractive for now besides the OC, is the new Asus P4S333 mobo! My god when I first read the price, 189$ I was like: WTF?? That's even less than my 8KHA+!! I thought it was some typo but I checked other adds and yep, SiS really is the choice company for good prices! If that chipset which has potential against RD, and awesome OCability could give such power to the AMD chipsets, SiS would no doubt be the top, but for now my VIA KT266A is!
I'd like to see 1.6A in Ottawa to see prices though.

--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
February 3, 2002 10:51:14 PM

I wonder if Rayston is gonna post here!
I am more than sure he was disappointed when he first tried the P4 or benched it.

--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
February 3, 2002 11:11:46 PM

What I meant was that Intel and AMD could easily release a 10GHz screamer for $300USD but they don't because they want to spoon-feed us technology at a slow progressive rate so they can make money.

Agreed, the Northwood is way overpriced! I can get an Athlon XP 2000+ at half the price of a 2.2GHz Northwood. With those prices, I say FORGET INTEL! I'm not willing to pay $900-$1000CDN on a processor that's barely faster than a $450CDN processor! In terms of Canadian pricing, AMD is killing Intel. This also applies in many other parts of the world except the U.S. where pricing seems to be more leveled.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 3, 2002 11:52:34 PM

Quote:
Let's get back to the topic of cheaply made, overpriced CPUs by AMD and Intel.



They are hardly cheaply made.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
February 3, 2002 11:53:57 PM

>the P4 has to be the suckiest CORE TECHNOLOGY to hit the street since the Cyrix III!

middle of the night posting drunk? the P4 does everything Intel says it does, just because your expectations were not met does not mean that "The P4 REALLY SUCKS".

I find that few ppl who actually own a P4 would have an opinon such as yours.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
February 4, 2002 12:01:09 AM

Quote:
What I meant was that Intel and AMD could easily release a 10GHz screamer for $300USD but they don't because they want to spoon-feed us technology at a slow progressive rate so they can make money.


Even if they could, they would go out of buisness, how can you justify upgrading a 10ghz monster.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
a b à CPUs
February 4, 2002 12:02:41 AM

Yes, well, few of the people I sell old 200MMX machines to are disappointed either, so that just goes to show you that people tend not to expect much out of their equipment, current company intended.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
February 4, 2002 12:19:12 AM

Quote:

Even if they could, they would go out of buisness, how can you justify upgrading a 10ghz monster.

That's my point. The reason why Intel is never a clear winner is because they don't see AMD as enough of a threat to spend millions on R&D for an AMD-killer processor. I doubt we will see a clear winner by over 10% in the next few years unless one of them suddenly goes under.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
February 4, 2002 12:23:51 AM

Quote:
That's my point. The reason why Intel is never a clear winner is because they don't see AMD as enough of a threat to spend millions on R&D for an AMD-killer processor


Even if there was only 1 company, releasing a 10ghz chip would put you out of buisness because no one would need to upgrade.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
!