Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nice article

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 3, 2002 6:10:58 AM

A very good article <A HREF="http://www.overclockers.com/tips005/" target="_new">here</A>.

Do people OC for performance or fun? :smile:

More about : nice article

June 3, 2002 6:49:05 AM

That's it. We need to take the Dogbert approach. Issue an Executive Order by the President telling all people to walk into the ocean and drown themselves (hopefully Dubya follows the order as well). Those of us smart enough to ignore the order will divy up their stuff and celebrate. Pretty simple, huh?

On one hand, I completely understand Intel's strategy. Having worked in retail myself for two years and seeing that no matter what the product is, higher numbers are better, and shiny packaging is a plus, Intel is doing just that. People are idiots, plain and simple. It's good market strategy to cozy up to the idiots.

On the other hand, though, it's like clubbing baby seals. It's easy to do but there is no satisfaction in what Intel is doing, and I can't imagine the engineers in the R&D department there feeling too validated by their work, since its all dictated by marketing (though huge salaries and benefits probably make up for most of it). I know if I was an engineer, I'd prefer working at AMD or another company that focused on quality instead of quantity sold. That, though, doesn't help the bottomline, which Intel is after, and AMD is struggling to find out.

There are only a few solutions, and none will work. The only thing I can see helping is that eventually Intel will destroy the MHz model as we know it, making 10GHz systems that do .1 IPC, and people will begin to realize that the 10GHz machine they brought home is crap compared to their neighbors 5GHz machine, and that they paid more and got less. People notice those things. Or they'll notice that during the winter, their heating bill is much lower since they got that new computer, and the rise in the electric bill isn't enough to negate it. I'm saying that in the long run, things will become like cars. There are a million metrics people look at when comparing cars: Engine size, number of cylinders in the engine, miles per gallon (or kilometers per liter?), cargo space, number of doors, shape of the car, seating space, maitnence needed, etc. Computers will eventually be tailored to specific market segments, as you'll have the sporty versions (lots of pep but no real power), haulers and work versions (CAD station-like, server-like) minivan versions (safe for kids and easy for mom and/or dad) the hotrods (what we got), and on and on. Its already beginning with the custom computer stations going in at retail chains (Best Buy is now selling customized Alienware versions, P4-based only, though). People are slowly learning that having a computer built by a friend, realitive, or co-worker is cheaper and better running (usually) than the OEM POS that you get at the retail chains. On my college campus, more and more computers are being custom-built, either by friends or at Gateway and Dell. Both require the end-user to have some knowledge. And in 100 years, enough will be accumilated for people to make informed decisions.

-SammyBoy
June 3, 2002 6:08:30 PM

Great article. A lot of what he said is starting to change, but overall well written and true.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
Related resources
June 3, 2002 7:39:08 PM

Quote:
A lot of what he said is starting to change, but overall well written and true.

I'll take the bait... What out of what he said is starting to change?


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 3, 2002 8:01:16 PM

Quote:
And in 100 years, enough will be accumilated for people to make informed decisions.

bit optimistic there eh? remember this is after all people we're talking about.

[insert philosophical statement here]
June 3, 2002 8:14:56 PM

Quote:
Those of us smart enough to ignore the order will divy up their stuff and celebrate. Pretty simple, huh?

But then who will flip burgers for us at McD's? As much as stupid people can be annoying, they also keep the smart people from having to do a lot of menial tasks.

Quote:
higher numbers are better, and shiny packaging is a plus, Intel is doing just that. People are idiots, plain and simple. It's good market strategy to cozy up to the idiots.

Umm ... you seem to completely be forgetting that top-end Intel platforms <i>do</i> outperform AMD platforms right now, OCing <i>and</i> not. Some 'idiots' just want performance, something that AMD is currently trailing behind in.

Also you seem to be forgetting AMD's ever-so-wonderful PR ratings with their pretty pumped-up numbers to pander to the uneducated masses that aren't smart enough to know that an AXP outperforms a T'Bird. AMD is playing up to the 'higher numbers are better' marketting hype just as much as Intel is.

Quote:
I know if I was an engineer, I'd prefer working at AMD or another company that focused on quality instead of quantity sold.

You make it sound as though Intel has either worse performance or instability problems. Care to back up any of that bias with real data?

Quote:
The only thing I can see helping is that eventually Intel will destroy the MHz model as we know it, making 10GHz systems that do .1 IPC

As opposed to AMD who at that time will make processors that can perform 100 IPC, but only at a clock speed of 1MHz? My point: Either way you improve performance works just as well. You can increase IPC, or you can increase speed. In the end, it is the combination of the two that decides overall performance. Intel and AMD just took two different routes to get there. Both routes though give you high performance.

Quote:
People are slowly learning that having a computer built by a friend, realitive, or co-worker is cheaper and better running (usually) than the OEM POS that you get at the retail chains.

But the home-built PCs don't come with 3 year warantees or customer service help phone lines. For the <i>average</i> consumer, OEM systems give customers their money's worth. The difference with an OEM purchase is that not all of that money goes into the PC's performance. Some of that money goes into making sure that the customer gets actual use out of the PC, even for years to come. They have someone to call when things go wonky. They have someone to bring the PC to for repairs, free of charge, should something fail. Meanwhile, will the dorm buddy who built the PC for you be there in six months? A year? Three years?

It isn't <i>just</i> an issue of how much hardware you get for your buck, but how much human support you need with that hardware. Some people, like us, don't need someone to hold their hand during an MS Office upgrade or when a hard drive fails. Other people, like the vast majority of PC users, do need that additional support.

On the one hand, I can appreciate that if all PC users were PC educated, my life would be much more enjoyable. On the other hand, I can also appreciate that a romance novelist shouldn't <i>need</i> to know how to check DIMMs or swap out a dead hard drive just to run Office and write her novels.


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 3, 2002 8:47:32 PM

LMAO! 'Oh no!! The Intel salesman taught him "three." We're doomed!!!'

That was an interesting read and it sums up the current situation.


<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
June 3, 2002 9:18:40 PM

You mean to tell me that if I buy a Pentium 4 because I don't want to have to worry about burning a hole in my motherboard or buying a $60 HSF, then I'm just the Intel marketing division's lapdog? Or if I don't mind the price and buy one because I can get better performance than with an AMD, I'm a dumb consumer?

This article is basically composed of the same things we've been hearing for years now. "AMD will give you more speed for your dollar than Intel, and that's all that matters. All that other stuff? Feh, who needs thermal protection? The computer-illiterate buy Intels because they don't know better, blah, blah, blah..." Some of it may be half-true, but it's about as earth-shattering or controversial as "Dogma" was.

Kevin Smith: "Jesus was black!"

Viewer: "So?"

Kevin Smith: "Well, God is a woman!"

Viewer: "Yeah, I think a couple of people have already said that before."

Kevin Smith: "Well... Uh... Mary had other children after Jesus!"

Viewer: "Actually, many theologians believe that to be true."

Or am I missing something here?
June 3, 2002 9:51:38 PM

Quote:
I'll take the bait... What out of what he said is starting to change?


Stuff like AMD not caring about fragile cores and heat problems, etc.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 3, 2002 9:55:32 PM

The article discussed more about overall performance than anything else, saying that the P4 1.6A wasn't great because it could OC 50%, but that it could outperform the equivient AMD CPU if that one was OCed to it's max as well.

It also said that AMD isn't trying to appeal to the average customer by not including some things that make the CPU simpler, like heat protection and a better mounting HSF.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader
June 3, 2002 9:59:52 PM

Quote:
You mean to tell me that if I buy a Pentium 4 because I don't want to have to worry about burning a hole in my motherboard or buying a $60 HSF, then I'm just the Intel marketing division's lapdog? Or if I don't mind the price and buy one because I can get better performance than with an AMD, I'm a dumb consumer?


No but if you buy an intel p4 to avoid burning a hole in your motherboard or having to buy a 60 dollar heatsink your a dumbass, cause amd chips dont cause or require either of those things.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 3, 2002 10:32:32 PM

Ok, so I probably won't literally burn a hole in my motherboard, but I've already lost one AMD chip to thermal death in a puff of smoke much like the THG video. At that time, I just bought another 1Ghz Athlon and pretended nothing happened... Then my CPU started overheating again. Now I have a P4 and, quite frankly, it was worth the extra few dollars over an AMD.
June 3, 2002 11:28:39 PM

ROTFLMAO!!! what a masterpiece!!! everything I've been saying is in this!

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
June 3, 2002 11:33:08 PM

Quote:
Ok, so I probably won't literally burn a hole in my motherboard, but I've already lost one AMD chip to thermal death in a puff of smoke much like the THG video. At that time, I just bought another 1Ghz Athlon and pretended nothing happened... Then my CPU started overheating again. Now I have a P4 and, quite frankly, it was worth the extra few dollars over an AMD.


You lost your chip to thermal death cause of a mistake you made most likely, and your new 1ghz is only overheating cause there is a problem you havent found, its not the chip, maybe your heatsink fan is dust clogged, clean it, if you think the p4 is immune from that, and you can neglect it, your mistaken, any situation which causes a working hsf on an athlon to fry the chip, will cause the p4 to throttle, and while you wont pay for a new chip for your mistakes with the intel route, blaming amd for something they didnt do wont clean the dust out of your current hsf, nor will it make your throttling p4 go any faster.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 3, 2002 11:36:01 PM

Quote:
No but if you buy an intel p4 to avoid burning a hole in your motherboard or having to buy a 60 dollar heatsink your a dumbass, cause amd chips dont cause or require either of those things.

LOL! the Internet doesn't lie(burnt chips are all over!), you may want to close your eyes but the fact remains: Everybody is dumping AMD for Intel, hahaha! say it aint so!

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
June 4, 2002 12:46:20 AM

Matisaro,

The first CPU died because of a piece of crap Thermaltake heatsink. I'm certainly not blaming it on AMD, however, that doesn't mean I'm going to happily go back to them like a Lemming time after time. Quite frankly, with an Intel CPU I don't have to worry about the thing being fried to a crisp, and I want that in a CPU, even if it means paying an extra $50 for it. Now that's my opinion. You're free to have yours.
June 4, 2002 3:29:58 AM

Quote:
Lemming time after time. Quite frankly, with an Intel CPU I don't have to worry about the thing being fried to a crisp, and I want that in a CPU, even if it means paying an extra $50 for it. Now that's my opinion. You're free to have yours.


Thats great, dont go around this forum insinuating amd sucks or will burn up your motherboard then.

Its called FUD and spreading it makes you a troll, and thats not welcome here.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 4, 2002 3:33:30 AM

Gee, I forgot I'm not allowed to have an opinion if I haven't been here long enough. Thanks for reminding me.

<b>AMD sucks when it comes to the fact that their CPUs fry easily and can take your motherboard out with them.</b>

Gasp! Call me a troll if it will make you feel better about yourself, or if it will help you sleep better knowing your opinion was "correct".<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by markprz on 06/03/02 11:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2002 3:43:32 AM

Quote:
The PIV user can say, "if I can at least match you with next to no effort, what good is your effort?"

The best point of his article.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 4, 2002 3:46:10 AM

His origional message for the benifit of those not too quick to catch bitch ass quickeditors.


Quote:
Gee, I forgot I'm not allowed to have an opinion if I haven't been here long enough. Thanks for reminding me.

AMD sucks and will burn a hole in your motherboard.

I may not believe it, but I just said it. Call me a troll if it will make you feel better about yourself or help you sleep better because your opinion is "correct".




That is a troll statement, and you look to be a troll.

A fried cpu does not take out the motherboard 99% of the time, and another 99% of the time a fried cpu is a result of an ignorant user not following the f'ing directions.


Run along troll, your "oppinion" is fud, and you are NOT welcome here.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2002 3:59:45 AM

Actually, AMD's problem is that they refuse to build a powerfull enough processor to compete with the lowely overclocked 1.6A. The author of the article said his Athlon could outperform a 1.6A at 2.6GHz. I'm assuming that he means "any" 1.6A at 2.6GHz, not just a poorly assembled system. I'm willing to go so far as to call that statement an outright lie, instead of a small exageration, seeing that getting an Athlon even as high as 2.1GHz requires evaporative cooling. Then again, he could be comparing a refrigerated system to an air cooled system, which would also be a terrible deception.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 4, 2002 4:02:37 AM

I am willing to bet a 166fsb athlon@ 1900mhz would perform close to or equal to a 2.6ghz p4 on rdram, and faster than a p4 2.6 on ddr, so his statement is not an outright lie, prolly not true, but it is NOT impossible.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 4, 2002 5:03:49 AM

<i>"Run along troll, your oppinion [sic] is fud, and you are NOT welcome here."</i>

Oh no, I won't be welcomed back by you! My very existance is now meaningless, for the great Matisaro does not agree with me. Please let me remedy this in any way I possibly can. If I wear my AMD t-shirt and cap, and promise to exorcise Intel from my very way of life, will I be welcome back here?

...

Christ, man, how old are you? I <i>personally prefer</i> Intel. AMD makes fast CPUs which run a bit faster for the same amount money, but they happen to overheat like crazy. Intel makes slightly more expensive CPUs for the same amount of power you get, which overclock better and won't turn your computer case into a barbecue. <i>I prefer</i> the latter of those two choices.
June 4, 2002 5:36:24 AM

I agree.

Isn't the main reason behind overclocking "Performance for Free?"
I've read about people going from 1.6GHz to 2.4GHz with the stock cooler. But with the XP I have to first get a unlocking kit, a good HSF, some AS3 before I even start meddling with it.
Serious overclockers may find it interesting/ fun/ challenging. But for an average guy like me its too much of a hassle.

<font color=blue>[Signature Under Construction]</font color=blue>
June 4, 2002 5:43:15 AM

Quote:
But with the XP I have to first get a unlocking kit, a good HSF, some AS3 before I even start meddling with it.

Actually, you don't need an unlocking kit to overclock an Athlon XP. You can overclock it by adjusting the FSB, the same way you overclock a P4. And AS3 isn't a necessity, just a decent HSF.

<i>Money talks. Mine always likes to say "goodbye." :smile: </i>
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2002 5:43:45 AM

I'm guessing he'd need 2.1GHz at a high bus speed to even match a 1.6A at 2.6 with RDRAM.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 4, 2002 5:45:51 AM

Quote:
Oh no, I won't be welcomed back by you! My very existance is now meaningless, for the great Matisaro does not agree with me. Please let me remedy this in any way I possibly can. If I wear my AMD t-shirt and cap, and promise to exorcise Intel from my very way of life, will I be welcome back here?

You seem to be under the impression I dont like your post cause your an intel fan, this is incorrect.


I dont like your posts because you spout fud like


Quote:
AMD makes fast CPUs which run a bit faster for the same amount money, but they happen to overheat like crazy.

The fact the p4 on the same process is HOTTER than the axp dosent bear well for the truthfulness of your "overheats like crazy" statement, and it is pure fud.

Quote:
Intel makes slightly more expensive CPUs for the same amount of power you get, which overclock better and won't turn your computer case into a barbecue.

They only started overclocking well recently, and amds dont turn your case into a barbecue, this is what we call fud, and its moronic, and your continued spouting of it makes you look like a troll and get these responses. If you had posted "intel chips suck, they cant overclock and they cost 10bajillion dollars" I would have called you a troll on that too.

I call them as I see them, and your commentary on amd has been NOT VALID OPPINION, but baseless TROLLING.

If you said, "my amd overheated, so I am going intel cause I dont want to worry about frying"

That would have been great and fine, and I wouldnt have said anything but you in your infinite troll wisdom said
"amd sucks, im going intel cause intel chips dont melt a hole in your motherboard".



Now get the clue, stop spreading fud, and enjoy the forum. If you dont like people calling you a troll, dont troll threads with FUD bullshit, intel OR amd.


:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 4, 2002 5:52:28 AM

Now its your turn ;-)

Quote:
Isn't the main reason behind overclocking "Performance for Free?"
I've read about people going from 1.6GHz to 2.4GHz with the stock cooler. But with the XP I have to first get a unlocking kit, a good HSF, some AS3 before I even start meddling with it.


Ask fatburger what his p4 ran at before he used as(with the retail hsf pad), and you will see for a decent overclock both cores need as.

The stock hsf with the p4 is quite good, I readily admit, however, for the price difference between a given p4 and axp you can purchase quite a decent cooler and still have a better price performance ratio than the p4 solution, ofcourse the northwood is on the .13 process which inherantly gives it an overclocking advantage. When the tbred is released the stock hsf should be able to allow quite a decent overclock as well, since the tbred will produce substancially less heat than the axp.


Also, you can overclock the axp without unlocking it, and even if you do choose to unlock it you dont need a premade kit, furthermore as far as overclocking worthiness goes, being able to unlock AT ALL is a big advantage, one which intel does not currently have.

For the average guy, buying a 2000+tbred and running it @166fsb on a kt333 motherboard without changing the multiplier will be just as easy as running a 1.6a@133 on an intel board.

Using the current state of the chip competition to justify which is better in total is flawwed imo, it is a technology transistion, and intel was several months ahead of amd, to say on the day the northwood was released that "its official, intel wins" is short sighted imo.




On a side note, that was an excellent post, it was pro intel via logic, and not once did you attack amd or spread fud in any way, some posters could do well to learn how to post unbiased commentary(even if the result of said commentary is in favor of one company or another.)

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 4, 2002 6:01:57 AM

Fine:

My AMD overheated, so I am going Intel cause I don't want to worry about frying.

Is that to your liking? I believe I've stated it a few times before, but whatever, I'll use your wording.

<i>"If you dont like people calling you a troll..."</i>

Actually, you're the first person on these boards to call me a troll thus far. Besides, this whole argument started with you calling me a "dumbass" for posting a very valid reply--That there's more to chosing a CPU than performance/price--to a very stupid and one-sided article. I used the extreme example of an AMD CPU burning a motherboard, as has been known to happen, to illustrate that point. I never, ever stated that such an extreme example was the norm. (However, overheating and thermal death of AMD CPUs <b>is</b> quite ordinary.)

I find it hypocritical that someone who goes out of his way to start a flame war accuses another person of being a troll.
June 4, 2002 6:12:17 AM

Quote:
Actually, you're the first person on these boards to call me a troll thus far. Besides, this whole argument started with you calling me a "dumbass" for posting a very valid reply--That there's more to chosing a CPU than performance/price--to a very stupid and one-sided article. I used the extreme example of an AMD CPU burning a motherboard, as has been known to happen, to illustrate that point. I never, ever stated that such an extreme example was the norm.


I said if you believe the fud you were spreading then you were a dumbass, because you made FUD statements as a reason not to buy an amd chip. The initial post you made was PURE fud, and it had no merit imo, and I called you on it.

The statement

"I am buying an intel chip, I dont want to worry about my chip frying"

Is TOTALLY different in tone and meaning than

"I am spending more for an intel chip because amd chips suck and melt holes in motherboards"

That was your initial statement, and I called you on it, I did not call you a dumbass, I said if you believe that your a dumbass, not that amd chips fry, but that the melt holes in your motherboards.

Quote:
However, overheating and thermal death of AMD CPUs is quite ordinary.


No, it is not, even given that compared to the p4 the axp can die, doesnt mean that it is "ordinary", it is still rare, for hsfs to fall off, classifying it as "ordinary" is more fud!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2002 6:13:57 AM

That would be nice if the tbred was more easily avialable and inexpensive. The only place I saw advertizing it wanted $215 for a 2200+. We will have to wait another week to see about availability, pricing, and average overclock speed.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 4, 2002 6:17:39 AM

<i>"Classifying it as 'ordinary' is more fud!"</i>

Sorry, I should have used "not unusual", at least when compared to P4 thermal death.
June 4, 2002 6:31:21 AM

Quote:
That would be nice if the tbred was more easily avialable and inexpensive. The only place I saw advertizing it wanted $215 for a 2200+. We will have to wait another week to see about availability, pricing, and average overclock speed.


You say 215 like its expensive?

215 is DIRT CHEAP for a new processor, man peoples standards have gone way up since 18 months ago when my friend bought a p3 550 for 600 BUCKS!!!!!!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2002 6:37:27 AM

Well, it's a tad more expensive than a 1.6A, that's for sure, it better overclock to at least 2.3GHz to make up the price difference.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 4, 2002 6:38:22 AM

You really do like taking posts out of context, don't you? When I read that post, I saw, "I want to know more about the TBred, including price and performance, before I buy one. I only saw one available so far for $215"
June 4, 2002 6:38:24 AM

Quote:
I'm guessing he'd need 2.1GHz at a high bus speed to even match a 1.6A at 2.6 with RDRAM.


You would be guessing wrong my friend.

2.1ghz athlon=pr 2690+
2100+>=2.2ghz p4
2690+ >=2.8ghz p4
2.6ghzp4<2690pr


This math lesson brought to you by the commitee to stop underestimating the power of the athlon.

*The commitee to stop underestimating the power of the athlon, or TCTSTPA is in no way affiliated with the commitee to have amdmeltdown assasinated known as TCTHAA.*

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 4, 2002 6:39:55 AM

Quote:
Well, it's a tad more expensive than a 1.6A, that's for sure, it better overclock to at least 2.3GHz to make up the price difference.



Or maybe you can spend some of the left over money after you buy a clue on ebay and get a tbred1800+ instead(to be fair maybe)? YA think?

^the above comment is a good natured rib at crash.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 4, 2002 6:42:14 AM

Quote:
You really do like taking posts out of context, don't you? When I read that post, I saw, "I want to know more about the TBred, including price and performance, before I buy one. I only saw one available so far for $215"


Oh you meant crashmans post, I know crashman, and he meant.

"I will buy a tbred when it becomes cheaper" to which I asked "215 for a brand new chip isnt cheap enough"


If you want to find flaws with me you will have to dig a slight bit deeper than that.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2002 6:43:58 AM

Er, faulty math that is. PR rating is a guess that can be very overated. Just talk to the commitee to overrate the Athlon, oh, your already a member!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2002 6:46:38 AM

My point EXACTLY, where do you see it at? Or are you advertizing a product that does not yet exist?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 4, 2002 6:48:31 AM

The tbred 2200+'s you see on pricewatch dont exist yet, the release date is the 10th, at that time you will see 1800+'s as well(or a short time later), fact is both of us are speaking about unreleased products at the moment.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 4, 2002 6:51:06 AM

Quote:
Er, faulty math that is. PR rating is a guess that can be very overated. Just talk to the commitee to overrate the Athlon, oh, your already a member!


I am going from the data we have from benchmarks, no guessing involved, what evidence do YOU have to support your claim?

Fact is the scale of pr rating is proven(look at the margin of defeat between the 1600+ and the 1.6a and the 2100+ and the 2.2ghz p4, account for the higher mhz and they scale perfectly, no reason to think the results wouldnt scale all the way to pr2800+ and beyond, and anything I can think of would apply to the p4 as well, and in some cases moreso(as in the case of fsb bandwith).

So how again is that faulty math?

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2002 7:00:52 AM

Well, there was a site that claimed to have them, but we all know about those claims, you order one, then find out they are "out of stock", heheh.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 4, 2002 7:03:21 AM

Quote:
Well, there was a site that claimed to have them, but we all know about those claims, you order one, then find out they are "out of stock", heheh.


Exactly, or worse its a palomino 2200+ which IS on amds roadmap, the 10th will tell, damn sneaky vendors!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2002 7:22:12 AM

OK, here's a good thing to ponder-the XP+ rating has to be flawed. Why? Because it assumes that an XP processor only becomes 33% faster than the P4 at speeds in excess of 1000MHz. If it were a linear scale, it would have to start with a base of 0, not 1000.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
June 4, 2002 9:28:10 AM

Quote:
OK, here's a good thing to ponder-the XP+ rating has to be flawed. Why? Because it assumes that an XP processor only becomes 33% faster than the P4 at speeds in excess of 1000MHz. If it were a linear scale, it would have to start with a base of 0, not 1000.



The pr rating maintains its relative ratio to the p4 as the speed scale increases the number itself is marketing driven(the tbird is an approximation they most likely chose to favorably compare to the p4) the fact it dosent not scale to 0 with the 66>100 rating is a byproduct of the number they chose, not the method they use to determine the pr.

Explain how, if the pr rating is skewed, the scale of performance is maintained from 1500+ to 2100+ without appreciable difference?

I am sure at very high speeds there is some differing results due to it not being perfect, but the data we have suggests the pr rating is accurate and valid at least to 3000+ and probably further, numbers which are higher than our current scope, and higher than the tbred will probably ever be *RELEASED* at.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
June 4, 2002 10:02:15 AM

Opps.
Didn't mean to start a AMD vs Intel debate.

I think the article summed up the current market situation and consumer sentiment pretty well.

I guess many people have fallen into the same trap - Marketing. I have. Higher GHz numbers and PR rating, all marketing. Creating Demand.

Do we <i>really</i> need a 2GHz machine to run Office, surf the web, play games? Except for a small group of people running specialised applications (3D Max, DivX encoding, CAD, etc), the rest of us have no real practical application for the big processing numbers. Folding & SETI@home aside, how often does CPU usage reach 100%?


<font color=blue>[Signature Under Construction]</font color=blue>
June 4, 2002 10:49:34 AM

1st of all I admit I have only read the first page of comments, and skimmed the rest. A lot of them seem to be very political and theoretical, mostly about who does business better and who, after taking all known variables into account, should we be buying from?

Well I know I can't be very objective but I can at least say where I come from. I'm part of the 'ideological' crowd noted by the article. I recently upgraded my computer, and I was VERY tempted by a high speed Northwood I could OC to 3Ghz.

But I will support AMD no matter what. I know that if I decide to slack and go only for speed that me and many others like me who decided to do the same exact thing will take business away from AMD. What I'm hinting at is an opinion: I think that many if not most of the people who support AMD are also part of this 'ideological' consumer base in some way.

Some try to portray this battle of AMD vs. Intel as a battle between two heavyweight boxers in an arena. It's emotional, sweaty, maybe even bloody, and it is a marathon of endurance, not knowing what's going to happen next. Anyone here knows that the computer industry is very consumer driven. If tomorrow everyone decides they don't want better speed but better features, then that's what we will get.

I think that people can easily become defensive about anyone who trods into AMD or Intel 'designated' territory, and this is witnessed by the countless number of people who like/do not like either company for whatever number of very important personal reasons or less passionate ideological reasons. I'd like to think that these discussions and passionate points of view get us somewhere, but they don't. But in the end we are believers of either of two never-ending dialogues. There is no winner.

Many of us begin to question our place in this community. Where are we? Where would we fit if we took a hardware user's personality test? As for the small overclocking community, I believe everyone in that group cares about speed and performance in some way, shape, or form. So overclocking is not just about overclocking, but is really a combination of accomplishing a feat or task that few people do and celebrating that as well as coming out with an end result that is cost-effective and gives raw numbers in 3DMark 2k1. There's also a hardware "enthusiast" market, which I am a part of. This is the group that simply does not want to be uneducated about computers, and wants to make good buying decisions. This is done both for ego gratification and for a personal belief system. But the article is right when it says that even people who set out to support "the underdog" have given in to marketing hype and personal pride when they either care too much about AMD even when numbers tell us Intel is better and when they eagerly defend Intel despite the fact that Intel can defend itself, easily, in all market sectors.

We're all victims of a rapidly changing computer market. Soon China will be involved and that will take away computer manufacturers' incentive to spend as much R&D researching products for European/North American markets. Many people have mentioned that they do not like how AMD has given its products fancy numbers on their boxes to compete with Intel, names which are dishonest to customers. Yet in the beginning many of these same people were once avid AMD supporters. Now we don't know who to support. No matter how passive or passionate we are about this, the whole discussion is <i>about</i> ideology.

It will be very interesting to see who votes for Intel or AMD for the THG annual awards of 2002. The reason why is that AMD has dominated the first half of the year and that Intel will probably take the cake until the end of the year. We are blessed this year with a fairly even 'arena' for these two to battle it out, and when the dust settles, in January of 2003 we'll find out who won and lost.
June 4, 2002 2:35:25 PM

You guys are all on crack. I have read all the posts and this is absurd. If I have a $1000, I want the best system for my $1000. Right now with the 1.6A P4 you are getting the most for your money. How long will that last remains to be seen. I don't give a crap about Intel or AMD. I don't care if I have to buy a CPU made by Bandai. Why can't we use benchmarks that are actually applicable in real life to determine which MOBO/CPU/RAM is the best and which gives you the best price/perf ratio. In essence making that article a waste of bandwith. Why doesn't he post that(benchmark ratings) instead of waxing philisophic about stuff I really don't care aboout.

Actually, I wish Tom would get off his duff and do that. A board of benchmarks updated monthly to see what combo is doing what. Intel, AMD and the OEMs would probably have him killed though because then everyone who understood the benchmarks would be able to fashion systems to their needs and wouldn't waste money on unecessary or imaginary hardware performance. Eventually the mainstream would follow and chaos would prevail and the universe would return to its original state.
June 4, 2002 2:48:48 PM

Quote:
Right now with the 1.6A P4 you are getting the most for your money.


If you overclock I agree, for stock performance(no overclocking) amd gives you the best value(1800+ I believe, may be 1900+ now havent checked price/performance lately).

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
!