Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

how much amd suck

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 29, 2002 9:22:37 AM

have any body realised how much athlon xps suck copared to p4s in my opinion amd sould just pack up and get out of the bussiness now because there is just nothing that thay can do to catch up to the might of INTEL

More about : amd suck

August 29, 2002 10:19:27 AM

should remind you of 3 things:
1- the comparison between P4 and Athlon xp, is based on RDRAM for P4 and DDR for athlon xp. this two kinds of memory are very different in prices and it's not fair to compare this two CPUs like this. I wish i could see a comparison by same memory for both CPUs.
2- unless you need the extreme performance you should go for the price/performance comparison. so instead of P4(2533)Vs Athlon 2600+ you should look for the P4 processor which has the same price as the athlon and then compare them.
for example you can find Athlon 2000+ for US$91 but you can't buy even P4 1.3GHZ(US$150) or P4 1.5 socket478(US$102)are higher in price (prices based on pricewatch.com on 29/8/02) .It's clear which one you should buy, unlese you have unlimited budget.
3- one of the major problems now is in the VIA chipsets that don't have a good memory(DDR) interfaec. the only chipset that has good performance for VIA is KT266a that just supports up to DDR2100 and is old and poor featured comparing to new chipsets.

I believe it's not like what you said. now AMD needs good chipset and motherboards more than ever, If the mobo makers can provide them then nothing will be wrong with the ATHLON XP.

(my English isn't good and there could be some mistakes. I apologize for them)
August 29, 2002 12:40:19 PM

Now, either you work for Intel or you haven't been out for a while. I consider the XP more powerful than the P4. What makes the XP look inferior is the limitation of FSB and memory bandwidth. Imagine the damage if an XP should run on a 533Mhz FSB rather than 266Mhz and that memory bandwidth is 4200 rather than 2100.
Now THAT would run Intel out of business (CPU business that is).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of any the two, but evidence shows that under the same limitations, XP would outrun P4. On top of that, XP is much cheaper than P4.
Of course, AMD doesn't have the bottomless resources Intel has. So surely you must realize how good they are just to keep up.


<font color=red>If you feel like going to work today, just lie down and it'll go away.</font color=red><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Oracle on 08/29/02 08:44 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Related resources
August 29, 2002 1:38:58 PM

Ignorant or just plain stupid remark???

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
August 29, 2002 1:49:46 PM

CLS
PRINT "Yes, yes...Intel is best."

FOR A=0 TO ONEZILLION

PRINT "Then AMD will release a processor that crushes Intels to smithereens."
PRINT "After awhile Intel will release a new processor to counter and they will once again be best."

NEXT A

PRINT "Point taken?, pointless argument"
END


<font color=red>My computer sucks ass</font color=red>
August 29, 2002 1:59:38 PM

He is an idiot, just ignore his post so he will go away.

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
August 29, 2002 2:01:18 PM

You guys have it all wrong.

AMD and Intel are nothing but peons compared to the real CPU giant...VIA!

It's only a matter of time before the C4 will be released at reach amazing speeds of 1.4ghz!!!

Muhahahahahahaha

<font color=purple><i>Smokey McPot - Your Baby's Daddy</i></font color=purple>
August 29, 2002 2:21:52 PM

Sure, probably a kid that don't know to speak and write very well. And no base at all, just his biased opinion. Poor boy.

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
August 29, 2002 2:26:20 PM

First off, for all thoes who keep blaming AMD's poor performance on the via chipset and ddr vs rdram issues this is what I have to say.

Here's a metaphor for you, say an AMD is a car, the engine (cpu) is amazing like all the AMD fanboys like to say it is. The only problem is the wheels (lets say the wheels is the chipset) have no tires, and there's a very very small gas tank (ddr ram). Lets compare this to Intel where the engine is great, wheels have tires and it has a huge fuel tank. So would you buy the car with everything equipped? or would you buy the car that has a GREAT ENGINE AND SUPER CHEAP! but the rest of it is handicapped? You can't just keep blaming the rest of the parts as the reason why AMD is behind, it's the whole package or nothing in my mind.

Are you AMD fanboys buying for AMD the chip only? or for the whole deal? Personally I'd buy for what would give me the best performance overall, not just one section.

As for my preference obviously I like Intel, but I TOTALLY disagree with the poster who I think is completely ignorant. It's thanks to AMD that Intel (and vice versa) are pushing each other to the limit in terms of technological advances. Because they keep pushing each other not only do WE the user benefit from fast and faster cpu's but CHEAPER AND CHEAPER cpu's. Thus in the end, who benefits? The user with faster and cheaper chips. So to the orangewolf, don't bother posting if you're going to make ignorant posts.


Cooj

<i> I am ignorant no more! </i> :tongue:
August 29, 2002 2:44:12 PM

Oi, who's stealing my VIA jokes? ;) 

The VIA chipsets are shoddy just now. I'm waiting for a nice new one that's top notch before I upgrade again.

AMD Is An Anagram Of MAD, Intel Is An Anagram Of INLET, Cyrix...Ah Who Cares?
August 29, 2002 3:02:53 PM

Okay, my first impulse was to just flame the idiotic troll, orangewolf. After all, it was a pretty ignorant post.

But then I started reading the replies and thought to myself "Dang, those are also some rather ignorant replies." Not all, but some.

First let me point out that the VIA chipset is <i>not</i> to blame. AMD's own chipsets hardly performed any better. Further, even with <b>dual-channel</b> solutions from nVidia (who worked closely with AMD to design them) the Athlon <i>still</i> doesn't run any better.

So if <b>no one</b> (including AMD themselves) can develop a chipset to give the AXP more bandwidth, than appearantly it <i>isn't</i> the chipset that is to blame, but the <i>CPU</i>.

Secondly, nothing that AMD can ever do, including increasing their CPU's bandwidth, is ever going to make a 'P4 killer'. Why? Because the inherant design of the P4 itself still has a <b>lot</b> of room to for improvement. All Intel would have to do to is make a few core improvements, and violla, a P4 that can stand up to anything from AMD with very little effort.

Intel is appearantly into just making money and remaining a non-monopoly by keeping AMD alive and kicking and always having a more expensive, but better performing solution. AMD is appearantly into just making money by producing cheap mid-range CPUs that at best match an Intel CPU, but for less cash.

So in conclusion: AMD doesn't want to be the best, and Intel doens't want to be a monopoly. So long as both companies hold the same view, neither will <i>ever</i> have a CPU that drastically outperforms the other's. Not because they couldn't, but simply because it isn't in the best interest to even try.

The sooner you realize that, the sooner you realize that this whole AMD vs. Intel crap is completely and totally meaningless.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
August 29, 2002 3:07:30 PM

*wonders if his reply was idiotic...*


Cooj

<i> I am ignorant no more! </i> :tongue:
August 29, 2002 3:26:40 PM

*wonders if the guy's even here* this looks like a hit and run post.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
August 29, 2002 4:18:17 PM

Why is it that XPs are compared to P4s running 800mhz faster then get put down because it got beat by a cpu running nearly 1ghz faster? I like both intel and amd, im just wondering why they don't compare them equally.

im a newbie so go easy on me :) <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Henry8866 on 08/29/02 12:19 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 29, 2002 4:22:33 PM

I point you twords the Linux Kernel compiling benchmark... Not everyone runs a shotty ass Microsoft OS.. Look how much better AMD is for software development! Maby Intel should only sell to runny nosed 3d gamers, and leave the real x86 processing to AMD.. heheh...

Next time you throw out flame bate, try to be a little less obvious.

Say, what version of DOS is on this sparc thingie?
August 29, 2002 4:45:58 PM

Well, this guy even uses a duron. So....

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
August 29, 2002 7:46:47 PM

I don't really care if AMD is better than Intel, as long as there is competition, because with competition the customer (Orangewolf: thats YOU, me and everyone else in this forum) always wins. I hate monopolies, and thats the reason why I like Linux and AMD.
August 29, 2002 8:37:25 PM

Quote:
1- the comparison between P4 and Athlon xp, is based on RDRAM for P4 and DDR for athlon xp. this two kinds of memory are very different in prices and it's not fair to compare this two CPUs like this. I wish i could see a comparison by same memory for both CPUs.

Fine with me. My late 1400MHz Tualatin Celeron with PC100 SDRAM would then pretty much destroy everything AMD are able to offer (for real) right now. And this makes the Celeron a better CPU ? Dude, I hope you get the picture.

<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
August 29, 2002 8:37:43 PM

Enjoy your trolling, soon moderators will automatically remove this nonsense, and whatever you tried to say will be gone.

--
When buying an AthlonXP, please make sure the bus is at 133MHZ, or you will get a lower speed!
August 29, 2002 8:47:50 PM

Quote:
Why is it that XPs are compared to P4s running 800mhz faster then get put down because it got beat by a cpu running nearly 1ghz faster? I like both intel and amd, im just wondering why they don't compare them equally.

im a newbie so go easy on me :) 

1) Because the newest AXP and the 800MHz faster P4 came out at the same time and for approximately the same price.
2) Because each represents 'the best' AXP or P4.
3) Because MHz is completely meaningless by itself. What matters is overall performance, which is what is being tested.

So in conclusion, they <i>are</i> comparing them equally. :) 

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
August 29, 2002 9:07:27 PM

All we need now is someone commentating all this, picture yourself a good football
commentator that brings you the action...


"Hadi suddenly blurts out that it is unfair to compare cpu´s in this manner, he seems
to get away with this...but nooo, here comes Copenhagen and he disses Hadi hard, shall Hadi
respond? Nooo, he signals to the coach that he want a replacment.
In the meantime Eden pops along and tells the troll to enjoy themselves and unexpectedly
Slvr phoenix peeks out from a shrubbery and he quotes Henry8866, Henry isn´t aware of this
and he continues to eat his scrambled eggs..."

<font color=red>Your computer suck ass</font color=red>
August 29, 2002 9:47:28 PM

Not to dignify the original poster, but the response from the AMD boys to the troll has been piss poor, and just as bad.

Quote:
1- the comparison between P4 and Athlon xp, is based on RDRAM for P4 and DDR for athlon xp. this two kinds of memory are very different in prices and it's not fair to compare this two CPUs like this. I wish i could see a comparison by same memory for both CPUs.

AMD XP's don't use RDRAM. Should the tech world all sit and wait to see when AMD will say it's ok to take a step forward in RAM technology? And there are plenty of Benchmarks to show em both using DDR.....But irrelevant, because what matters in system benchmarks is performance, and P4's perform best w/ RDRAM.

Quote:
Now, either you work for Intel or you haven't been out for a while. I consider the XP more powerful than the P4. What makes the XP look inferior is the limitation of FSB and memory bandwidth. Imagine the damage if an XP should run on a 533Mhz FSB rather than 266Mhz and that memory bandwidth is 4200 rather than 2100.

Yeah and if the P4 ran on a 666mhz FSB then it would be faster than a 533mhz FSB.....whats your point? If, if, if the athlon had a higher FSB, used DDR-II and ran at 4ghz it would be faster than a P4! .... Argument is that the P4 is a better performer than the XP(Today). They take two different routes to accomplish their tasks, and use different memory technologies, but the end result is comparable, and what is known as "performance". You don't factor in imaginary FSB's, unavailable clock speeds, and not supported memory technologies to compare processors.....You use performance gauging benchmarks.
As for your price/performance claims, a 1.8a can be overclocked to out perform any current AXP. Also take into account that the P4 comes w/ what would be a moderately priced aftermarket HS&F combo.

This sig runs too hot.
August 29, 2002 9:51:25 PM

slvr_phoenix, I hate to say it, but you have spoken ignorantly yourself.

The AMD Athalon performed better than the Intels for quite some time.. Infact, it wasn't until recently AMD had been overtaken.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say that the Athlon has to gain higher memory bandwidth to compete. Remember that the Athlon is also behind with it's L2 cache size. If either is increase, I would expect to see a performance gain. The issue with memory simply was not a very big one when the processor was designed (probobly because the Athalon was slautering Intel). And again I remind you that it still proves to be a better preformer with non MS platforms.

And finally, I don't think anyone (save Intel) can speak to the logevity of the p4 design. Infact, I would count it limited unless they, too, find a way to lower load temps. The only ones who know for sure if the future chips are competers are the respective manufactures and engineers. I for one expect AMD to battle Intel at least until they capture a respectable percentage of the enterprise market. Reguardless, I'm enjoying AMD's offerings, and Intel's pricy alternatives arn't providing a noticable difference, and my *nix boxes tent to love these AMD wonder chips.

You couldn't pay me to take a K6. The only non-intel computer I owned until recently wasa cyrix 166+ (grat chip, btw). I'm no AMD advocate, I just like the best quality at the best price, and I concider AMD to be great competition for Intel when it comes to my wallet.

Say, what version of DOS is on this sparc thingie?
August 29, 2002 10:02:40 PM

Quote:
the might of INTEL

Wasn't that the sequal to Clash of the Titans?

While we're at it, why does Chevy sell any car other than the Corvette? For that matter, why does GM sell more than one car line?

Because different people have different needs.

The Athlons are still good value chips at the low end, and perform pretty well for a low cost at the higher end. Now, if you overclock, there's no choice but the P4 untill the new t-breds make it out on slower chips like the 1600+ and 1800+ (If that ever happens)

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
August 29, 2002 11:00:24 PM

"First off, for all thoes who keep blaming AMD's poor performance on the via chipset and ddr vs rdram issues this is what I have to say."

They just happen to be looking for excuses for the new Athlon's reletivly poor performance.

Knowledge is the key to understanding
August 29, 2002 11:02:13 PM

good point, my Silverado has more hp than the F150, but they both get us to work. Which one is better? The one you got for the better price, or the one that got you there faster?? In either case it's more or less a wash. In my home my XP, Thunderbird and Celeron all get the job done. The last two have been because of my incessant need of upgrades and better pricing with fewer mainboard changes. No matter what machine I'm using at the time, they all get the job done. Sure one is 'faster' than the other, but a few seconds here or there to render a mpeg2 file or a few FPS don't make a huge difference in my life. I'm happy and content, if you are as well with your setup we all made the right purchases for ourselves.

Does this make me a fanboy??

Go Packers :) 


:cool: Save heating costs on your home, overclock your PC!!! :cool:
August 29, 2002 11:07:42 PM

"I point you twords the Linux Kernel compiling benchmark... Not everyone runs a shotty ass Microsoft OS.. Look how much better AMD is for software development! Maby Intel should only sell to runny nosed 3d gamers, and leave the real x86 processing to AMD.. heheh..."

And I point you to the Quake 3 benchmark. The P4 SMEARED the Athlon. Most people will be doing that rather than compiling their OS's.

Knowledge is the key to understanding
August 29, 2002 11:33:22 PM

Oh yeah.. The runny nose 3d gamers... I hope you don't seriously think your precious 40 extra fps is going to give you a noticable diference, much less the edge in your frag wars...

Reguardless, my point was that the Athalon chips have as much, if not MORE, usefull raw non MS-specific processing power than p4's... Maby to you, that's meaningless.. But to the world of development, it means alot. You can hide behind your quake 3 all you want, but a computer is much more than a nintendo with a keyboard.

As far as quake 3, I'll wait for someone to tell me my 260+ fps looks choppy before I care about Intel's 40 fps lead.

Say, what version of DOS is on this sparc thingie?
August 30, 2002 3:47:18 AM

yes... exactly.
people talk about glorious SSE2 and RDRAM... but the majority of scientific apps im involved in dont have any optimisations... and by their nature are VERY FPU intensive.

and as for RDRAM, well good luck finding ANY PC1066 in this country lol

<b>My CPU cooler is so Massive it bends Space and Time! :eek:  </b>
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2002 4:06:01 AM

That d00d you responded to is a troll. But addressing YOUR comments:
1. Anandtech compares both on DDR, which you believe to be fair, but it's not. Why? Because the Intel P4 uses a QDR CPU bus, while AMD uses a DDR CPU bus. Using DDR memory on a QDR bus negates the whole reason for having a QDR bus in the first place. There are Dual Channel DDR chipsets for the AMD, offering the smae bandwidth as RDRAM does for the P4, but AMD's DDR bus can't take advantage of that bandwidth. To sum up, Intel's bus is designed to be twice as fast as AMD's, so it shouldn't be handicapped by slower memory.

2. OK, ok, I'm an overclocker though, different rules apply to me.

3. Did you read #1 above? You could have memory speeds of 10GB/s on the AMD and still not see much improvement over PC2100 (2.1GB/s) on that CPU because the CPU bus itself is only 2.1GB/s.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2002 4:13:09 AM

You're exactly right, AMD made a similar statement through press releases. Intel blamed their price war with AMD for market flooding, which lead to a downturn in sales, which led to the current recession! Seriously, Intel blamed AMD's agressive pricing for a GLOBAL RECESSION! Ok, well investors are really stupid about marketing and so forth, and most major AMD stockholders are also Intel stockholders, they took the bait and put the squeeze on AMD. So a few months ago AMD said they were going to back off, giving the exact reasons you stated!

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
August 30, 2002 4:13:58 AM

"The runny nose 3d gamers"

I find that rather insulting, and so should everyone who likes to play 3D games.

"I hope you don't seriously think your precious 40 extra fps is going to give you a noticable diference, "

On most modern games, I wish I could get 40 FPS, so I wouldn't know what you're talking about.

"much less the edge in your frag wars..."

Mine? I think not. You're the one who started it by posting rather insulting comments.

"You can hide behind your quake 3 all you want,"

I've never played it. Perhaps you should look a little more carefully before jumping to conclusions about people whom you don't know.

"Maby to you, that's meaningless.. But to the world of development, it means alot"

And yet again, you assume I'm an idiot.

"but a computer is much more than a nintendo with a keyboard."

You just happen to be talking to an active member of the National Honors Society. I don't appreciate that remark of yours.







Knowledge is the key to understanding
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2002 4:16:49 AM

A lot of people in here want the best performance possible. A lot even do modifications to their hardware to get better performance. Doing a comparison of a 2.1GHz XP2600+ to a 2.1GHz P4 does nothing for these people, as they would never buy a 2.1GHz P4 except to overclock it. All you can do for such power users is compare the fastest hardware each company has to offer.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
August 30, 2002 4:17:24 AM

"people talk about glorious SSE2 and RDRAM..."

I don't talk about "how great RDRAM is" at all. I'm too cheap for it. SSE2 has it's own applications where it is very useful (like office apps or games).

"and by their nature are VERY FPU intensive."

Then the Athlon is a better choice for you. It's as simple as that.



Knowledge is the key to understanding
August 30, 2002 4:54:16 AM

Excuse me, was someone insulting gamers? Great, what are you doing in an enthusiaste community who's main populace is probably gamers?

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
August 30, 2002 5:02:42 AM

My thoughts exactly im. :) 

Knowledge is the key to understanding
August 30, 2002 5:58:50 AM

Then the Athlon is a better choice for you. It's as simple as that

Manly due to lagacy binarie code.The is no fast barrel shifter on P4 it take 4or 5 cycle vs 1 for P6/K7 this can be avoid with compiling again AMD K7/K8 is king of legacy code help some much R/D ironic

At the end i have speak with a horny lady
August 30, 2002 10:15:18 AM

Jeez - what a waste of time.

If I had money to burn (i.e. waste), I would buy a P4/Rdram combo because that offers the best performance.

However, I don't have money to burn (and I don't want to overclock). At my price point, Intel has nothing to compete with the lower-priced XPs (1800 etc). Therefore, Intel sux!
August 30, 2002 1:58:49 PM

In reply to
"I point you to the Quake 3 Benchmark"

Eee Gad man!!! That's expressly the reason why they run SEVERAL benchmarks on a system rather than one. Any statistic can be spun or twisted to mean almost anything you want. Fictional quote... "the P4s real performance edge is on Q3, thus showing that intel would rather optimize their CPU instructions to run games rather than Buisiness applications." Also, remember how a 3DFX card would make unreal tournament play like a bat out of hell. My new nvidia card still can't come up with the frame rates my old Voodoo 5 had on that game. Should I scrap my Geforce or ATI for an old 3DFX card? Price vs performance...that's all that matters to me.


Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're not watching you.
August 30, 2002 2:01:50 PM

Quote:
Go Packers :) 

That makes you a fanboy.

:::Whistles the Superbowl Shuffle while waving his Bears flag:::

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
August 30, 2002 2:02:56 PM

Lighten up Francis..er..KZZRN

Just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're not watching you.
August 30, 2002 2:36:10 PM

Kzzrn,

That post was directed to the person screaming the Q3 benchmark was more important than a raw compile benchmark.

The Q3 benchmarks are in the mid to upper 200's in fps.. My comment was than an extra 40 on top of that is pointless for game play, or at best negligable.

More importantly, I was not attacking you. I was simply pointing out that those who limit there judgement of a computer to games are ignorant. A computers main function is not games, and with such a small percentage of computer systems today being used for games, judging a processor soley on the performance in those games is ignorant.

Beond that point was my origonal topic. The Athlon is better at raw compiling and other OS types than the Intel chip. This is important because Intel was previously the best x86 chip for non MS OS's. It also serves as a reminder that Athlon is not as far behind as everyone seems to think.

Everyone seems to think AMD's FSB is thier downfall. Or maby the 256k L2 cache.. Or maby the lower clock speed.. But try to remember that it took an increase in the p4 FSB and L2 cach, and a huge jump in clockspeed to beat the before dominant AMD. I would say that AMD has the upper hand here.. All they have to do is mimic the Intel upgrades to pull back into the lead..

Now if VIA could get that Cyrix chip up to par, we'd have ourselves one hell of a market! Oh well..

(If it wasn't aparent, this was ment as an appology and explination to anyone offended by my previous post... I ramble alot)

Say, what version of DOS is on this sparc thingie?
August 30, 2002 2:38:36 PM

Quote:
Slvr phoenix peeks out from a shrubbery and he quotes Henry8866, Henry isn´t aware of this
and he continues to eat his scrambled eggs..."

Heh heh. I'm always popping out of nowhere. I guess it's because I actually <i>don't</i> spend too much time online. Real life and all that, ya know. ;)  So I pick and choose my replies since I just don't have the time invested to keep up with <i>every</i> post.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
August 30, 2002 2:44:15 PM

Quote:
slvr_phoenix, I hate to say it, but you have spoken ignorantly yourself.

The AMD Athalon performed better than the Intels for quite some time.. Infact, it wasn't until recently AMD had been overtaken.

I'm afraid you've just made no sense whatsoever. I <i>not once</i> mentioned the past. I was talking completely about the <i>present</i>.

If you want a dissertation on the ups and downs of Intel and AMD, I could give you one, but I didn't think that would even be closely related to the current conversations. Current business practices and company goals however <i>are</i>, which is exactly what I was talking about.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
August 30, 2002 3:01:15 PM

Quote:
Intel blamed their price war with AMD for market flooding, which lead to a downturn in sales, which led to the current recession! Seriously, Intel blamed AMD's agressive pricing for a GLOBAL RECESSION!

**<b><font color=red>R</font color=red><font color=orange>O</font color=orange><font color=yellow>F</font color=yellow><font color=green>L</font color=green></b>**

He he he. Silly Intel. Might as well blame 9/11, RIAA, Small Pox, and tartan socks for the global recession while we're at it.

Quote:
Ok, well investors are really stupid about marketing and so forth

I know. It's just not fair. Why doesn't money get distributed on basis of intelligence? :(  Sometimes I have to wonder if ignorance really is bliss...

But then I remember that coal-burning soot is unregulated, information on extracting uranium is out there on the net, and black powder poured into plastic moulding and ignited by model rocket engine electric ignition combined with match-tip residue should work just as well as plastique in forcing the seperated Uranium-235 wedges into a critical mass. I wonder how many of them I could slip into warehouses in major cities tied into a series of cel-phone triggers. I bet you could wipe out 80% of the population in the US without anyone even regulating (or otherwise having a clue) of any of it prior to showtime and without any bribes even having to take place.

So I figure if I ever get too tired of the injustice of reality, I always have a solution. ;) 

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
August 30, 2002 5:04:44 PM

"More importantly, I was not attacking you."

Pardon my skeptisism. How can calling people who like to play games "runny nose 3D gamers" not be seen as a personal attack?

"A computers main function is not games, and with such a small percentage of computer systems today being used for games,"

Actually no. Quite a few people I know use their computers mostly for games at home. At work you are quite correct though.

"All they have to do is mimic the Intel upgrades to pull back into the lead.."

I think they are trying to do that. But they have a serious problem: They can only push the K7 core so far.


"If it wasn't aparent, this was ment as an appology and explination to anyone offended by my previous post... I ramble alot"

Rambling is fine, I do that sometimes too. But insulting people isn't. In anycase, apology accepted.

Knowledge is the key to understanding
August 30, 2002 5:10:30 PM

Quote:
More importantly, I was not attacking you. I was simply pointing out that those who limit there judgement of a computer to games are ignorant. A computers main function is not games, and with such a small percentage of computer systems today being used for games, judging a processor soley on the performance in those games is ignorant.


Shouldn't the people who actually use the computers, namely us, decide what a computer's "main function" is? Looking at how many people game in here, I'd say we're more than a small minority.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
August 30, 2002 6:43:28 PM

Quote:
Shouldn't the people who actually use the computers, namely us, decide what a computer's "main function" is? Looking at how many people game in here, I'd say we're more than a small minority.

The people represented by THGC may be a small minority, but I do also think that about 99.9% of home PCs are used for games. Now, how many people have computers at home compared to how many have one at work? I think these days, in the US at the very least, you'd find it about an even tie, give or take five percent.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
August 30, 2002 8:31:20 PM

I dunno about a tie......theres a lot of jobs that don't require computers. Don't need a computer to hammer a nail, repair my dishwasher, or tile a floor.

This sig runs too hot.
August 31, 2002 4:36:34 AM

I think they're starting to use computers for billing stuff. :) 

Knowledge is the key to understanding
!