Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 3600 article/leak - Intel afraid?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 9, 2002 3:23:47 PM

This was a stock 3600Mhz cpu. (27x multiplier, 133 FSB).

WTF was that?
No NDA from Intel 10 months before ETA?

Is Intel afraid of sth? Hammer maybe?
(I can't imagine them being afraid of Barton.)


So is this another NV30-like leak trying to steal AMD's momentum?
I cannot imagine Tom breaking an NDA, nor can I understand sending a preview product 10 MONTHS EARLIER.


What do you think?

<font color=white>if you can read this, then my sig fell off.</font color=white>
September 9, 2002 4:02:03 PM

Gotta admit it has me stumped :/  but then again I never was any good at Chess.... I am sure they have their best tactitians telling them what to do, although without all the cards on table I am gonna fold :p 

Tim

I can call you Betty, and Betty when you call me... You can call me Al
September 9, 2002 4:47:48 PM

It's actually quite simple. It's called an <b>engineering sample</b>. THG gets to play with them all of the time, as do other specially-selected (or high paying if you know who to shop from) persons/establishments.

Basically, it's an incredibly high quality chip without a multiplier lock.

As for why THG did it, well, if you even so much as <i>wonder</i>, then you haven't been reading THG for very long. THG has done numerous excellent OCing articles over the years. They're obsessed with showing the best of the best in performance.

So why did THG do it then? Why not ask a painter why they paint? Why not as a bird why it flies? The answer is simple: <i>Because they could.</i>

<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>
Related resources
September 9, 2002 5:27:41 PM

There's a thread about this on the [H] forums (under Strictly Intel). Pretty much everyone there is agreed that there's something bogus about the 3.6GHz review.

1) It's a C1 Northy, which definitely won't reach 3.6GHz without exotic cooling. We're all fairly certain Tom used a phase change unit or something similar, even if he didn't say as much in the review.

Intel would have to use a different stepping to get to 3.6 on air. There's no way they'll release a CPU and then tell Average Joe he now needs a waterblock/vapochill/LN2.

2) Prescott is scheduled to debut at 3.2GHz in Q303. No way Intel would let Northwood extend so far beyond Prescott's intro speed. Maybe they're planning to up the Prescott's release speed as well, but this is the first anyone's heard about it.

I'll believe the release date info when I hear it from Intel, not from Tom. I'd like having 3.6GHz CPUs around in June '02, but realistically, I doubt it's going to happen.

<A HREF="http://skarpsey.dyndns.org/" target="_new">Skarpsey</A>
September 9, 2002 5:40:31 PM

Quote:
So is this another NV30-like leak trying to steal AMD's momentum?


LOL. AMD has momentum right now?

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
September 9, 2002 5:44:11 PM

Tom did the same thing earlier. Back in March or so, they did the same thing and showed us upto 2.8 ghz.

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
September 9, 2002 6:29:57 PM

Not too sound too conspiracy theorist here, but someone noticed that the image of the 3.6GHz POST looks like it has been doctored. After zooming in, the bottom of that row of characters seems to be cut off by 1 or 2 pixels. None of the rest of the lines are like that. Also didn't any processor over 3GHz need a special board revision to support up to 70W b/c the faster processors need more power? Something sounds a little fishy here.
September 9, 2002 7:13:50 PM

Of course this is fishy. These are engineering samples, like slvr said. They are OC'ed chips, not the <i>real</i> chips from Intel. Notice how there isn't a word in the article about hyperthreading? Well, starting with the 3.06 P4, all P4 from then on will have hyperthreading. And check out this quote:

Quote:
<i>Orginially written by THG</i>
At this point, here is an important announcements on the future top model P4/3600: there is a 29% increase in clock speed over the current top model with 2.8 GHz.

Well, duh. Obviously, since you (Tom) don't have the real 3.6 P4 Northwood, then you can only observe the performance increase from the clock speed. If this was the real chip (or at least, a real sample from Intel) it should have Hyperthreading enabled, but alas, does not, and Tom says nothing about it.

So in conlusion, the benches you see of the 3.6 P4 (and the others) are purely based on clock speed gains. It doesn't take into account Hyperthreading, or anything else that Intel could pull out of it's hat.

- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>
September 9, 2002 7:43:26 PM

I have to agree with you there sk8er. Something's up... I think this is a "fabricated article" meant to lead somewhere. Want my guess? Either Tom's is getting hyperthreading samples at that speed soon and using this article as a control to show the actual performance increase of hyperthreading, or they are going to get a production sample of the Hammer and need something big enough to compare it to. Those seem like the two most likely suspects. Remember that Tom's states that Intel will market the P4 against the Hammer. I think someone's trying to create some suspense here.
September 9, 2002 8:13:51 PM

I'm disgusted, mainly with Intel's marketing department. I'm not what you would call an AMD fanboy, I have both an Athlon and a Pentium machine at home, but this is really weak. The only reason to send out samples of a processor not due out for 10 months with the go-ahead to write articles about them is to deflate the recent AMD product launch. Intel is trying to preserve the image that AMD cannot produce competetive products. With the ambiguous release date for the 3.06 gHz they are hoping people will think, "Well it won't be too long, I'll just wait for that instead."

Between the currently available products it is an even playing field, but things like this don't make it seem that way. I don't really blame the site for putting the article up; at least they mentioned several times that these processors won't be available for quite a while (though those benchmark charts with every processor in the lab are starting to get real annoying, pare it down some). I find this no different from Nvidia releasing a half-finished set of new drivers to stall a Radeon launch, and that disgusted me too.

"De maximus ni curat lex." The law does not apply to giants.
September 9, 2002 8:24:06 PM

For all of you who think Intel is bad, these CPU's are real, please read the ENTIRE post before you make assumptions.

- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>
September 9, 2002 8:37:54 PM

Quote:
As for why THG did it, well, if you even so much as wonder, then you haven't been reading THG for very long. THG has done numerous excellent OCing articles over the years.


No overclocking here man. Unless they have a factory-<b>un</b>locked chip.
I have never heard of THG having one before.
Don't you think they would have stated that if that was the case?


In previous articles they had <b> FSB overclocked</b> chips and they were saying so.

<font color=white>if you can read this, then my sig fell off.</font color=white>
September 9, 2002 9:22:29 PM

So it only disgusts you when a company you don't like does it? You sure sound like an AMD fanboy.

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
September 9, 2002 9:44:44 PM

Yeah, it's actually quite simple. Tom's Hardware is basically an arm of Intel's marketing department. Intel, wanting to counter The Inquirer's article on the Pee 4's <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5319" target="_new"> speed limits </A>, whips it's spinsters into high gear this morning and sends Tom a ready made piece that he and his flunkies can cut and paste onto his site. Tom gets more hits, Intel counters the Inquirer's story, all is good.

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
September 9, 2002 9:53:05 PM

What the hell do you read on this site? Just a couple of weeks ago, they declared the AMD 2600+ the clear winner over P4 2.53 when the P4 won atleast half of the benchmarks.

Your signature along shows that you are an AMD fanboy.

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
September 9, 2002 9:55:42 PM

1) It's a C1 Northy, which definitely won't reach 3.6GHz without exotic cooling. We're all fairly certain Tom used a phase change unit or something similar, even if he didn't say as much in the review.

A good one maybe and good air coolling.


2) Prescott is scheduled to debut at 3.2GHz in Q303. No way Intel would let Northwood extend so far beyond Prescott's intro speed. Maybe they're planning to up the Prescott's release speed as well, but this is the first anyone's heard about it

3.2+ at lease 3.2 it dont mean they cannot release a 4.0 ghz at the same time.

At the end i have speak with a horny lady
September 9, 2002 9:58:23 PM

Yup, that's me, AMD fanboy. And so is Glostakarov or anyone else who doesn't have their blinders on. The way you defend Intel I'd say that makes you an Intel fanboy.

I like the way Tom gives AMD a little love, like the 2600+ piece, just to keep it looking honest.

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
September 9, 2002 10:01:16 PM

LOL, you are an idiot. Where did I even support intel? All I said that Intel doesn't have Tom's Hardware in thier pocket like you claim.

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>
September 9, 2002 10:12:36 PM

There's just a tad of irony in you calling me an idiot. BTW, I don't recall specifically saying I support AMD either. Maybe you shouldn't assume that I'm an AMD fanboy just because I think the Pee4 is a POS. Ohh, and Tom's IS IN INTEL'S pocket.

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
September 9, 2002 10:27:38 PM

If you were specifically geared towards a particular move of Intel's or a specific technology and had actually bothered to make some valid points, we would not assume so. However, every single one of your posts have either been ranting about the evils of Intel and praise of every little thing AMD does or to just throw insults at anything and anyone (tomshardware included) that didn't insult Intel and worship AMD. That type of lack of balance of mind, consistency (first, tomshardware is Intel's lacky because they had a chip to test like may other sites, then their fair because they made a mistaken comment in favor of AMD), and sheer lack of perspective let along common sense, clearly shows you to be nothing but another rabid AMD fanboy.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
September 9, 2002 10:31:27 PM

Hehehe...sure thing, God! Not wanting there to be any doubt what so ever about my CPU manufacturer allegiance I've added to my sig.

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
<A HREF="http://www.faceintel.com" target="_new"> CLICK ME </A>
September 9, 2002 10:36:20 PM

A quote of a quote from the [H]ardForum thread:

Quote:

" First of all, inscription on the P4 3.3Ghz ( <A HREF="http://www.x86-secret.com/pics/cputoms1.jpg" target="_new">http://www.x86-secret.com/pics/cputoms1.jpg&lt;/A> ) stated "QFF8ES", wich are identical to the P4 Northwood 2.0 Ghz confidential.
Moreover, inscription on the bottom say "80531", wich is the code of the very first Northwoods. New ones, like (your) 2.8 Ghz are written "80532". So the 3.3 Ghz, if it really exists, should atleast use this code, not to say "80533" for example.
More astonishing, I found a photography of a 2.0 Ghz confidential (<A HREF="http://www.x86-secret.com/pics/cputoms2.jpg" target="_new">http://www.x86-secret.com/pics/cputoms2.jpg&lt;/A>) where all inscriptions are identical to the Tom's CPU.
To finish, the "A4" written on both CPUs no longer exists on new confidentials. It is replaced by the manufacturing country code (<A HREF="http://www.x86-secret.com/pics/cputoms3.jpg" target="_new">http://www.x86-secret.com/pics/cputoms3.jpg&lt;/A> for a P4 2.8 Engineering Sample) ."

Ok, anyone want to guess at the <i>real</i> stock speed of Tom's sample? :tongue:

<A HREF="http://skarpsey.dyndns.org/" target="_new">Skarpsey</A>
September 9, 2002 11:03:34 PM

Has Intel made a fool of Tom; Does Tom pimp for Intel; Will the remake of the Rocky Horror Picture Show ask Tom to body double; Has Intel become so deperate; Will AMD fanboys take Tom's (Intel's) Hardware Guide to task and final victory. These and other questions will be answered soon.
September 9, 2002 11:18:03 PM

I don't think it was a hyperthreading thing, because the motherboard doesn't support it. It may be simply an article to say "What if?" or it may be leading somewhere. It is interesting to see that the scaling was relitively linier, which is pretty scary, as it should start getting less effecient to increase the speed as you get closer to the CPU's cealing.

The P4ever CPU?

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
September 9, 2002 11:21:42 PM

You are missing the point here. THG could do this, because they WERE ALLOWED to.
Intel allowed them, either by giving them a stock 3600 without an NDA, or by giving them an unlocked chip again without certain NDAs


Lets concentrate on the facts.
THG posts an article about an 3.6GHz P4 with 27x multiplier.
He states that it is a stock 3600Mhz chip. He says nothing about an unlocked chip that was set to 27x to imitate the true stock one.

There can be only 3 logical explanations: a)he really got a stock 3600 from Intel, b)he photoshoped the WCPUID pic (even Tom can't be that low), c)he got a multiplier unlocked chip from Intel BUT he is saying nothing about it and BSs us about having a stock one.

Whether a) or c), it remains a fact that never before has THG or any other site posted a similar article.
There have been articles with FSB overclocked P4 chips speculating about future performance, but never one with "a <i>(supposedly)</i> stock P4 chip that will come out in 10 months".

Whether a) or c), Intel would normally have signed some pretty strict NDAs.
If they have not, that means that they won't mind (to say the least) that such a story comes out.

So here start the speculation about why would Intel want that.
They should be pretty happy with their P4@2800 against AMD's Tbreds even the 2800+ that will come out on Sept 30.
So why the rush?

(ready,set, flame :smile: )





<font color=white>if you can read this, then my sig fell off.</font color=white>
September 9, 2002 11:23:22 PM

Quote:
Tom did the same thing earlier. Back in March or so, they did the same thing and showed us upto 2.8 ghz.

It was May and it was an FSB overclocked chip.
Never a multiplier o/c-ed one


Quote:
LOL. AMD has momentum right now?

What I mean is that AMD is upping the MHzs, is goind for 512K L2 & 166FSB and has Hammer on its roadmap for January.
Intel has not a new core in its roadmap for a long time.
They only have the GHz race.
Maybe they want to play the NV30 trick, but better.
Release some benchmarks even before the opponent release his products, and create a favourable atmosphere.

<font color=white>if you can read this, then my sig fell off.</font color=white>
September 9, 2002 11:31:58 PM

Where were you when THG did articles about unlocking the Athlon XP, and projections of the 2100+ with an 1800+? When intel fans were screaming that THG was an AMD only zone and didn't give Intel a fair shake?

Just chill and let it go. It's a CPU, not your child.

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
September 9, 2002 11:32:25 PM

Didnt you say in a previous post that you avoid intel like the plague?......where you said you made a living in this biz since the 80s? You carried on w/ the "Itanic". You got AMD written all over ya......and you're rabid.

This sig runs too hot.
September 9, 2002 11:34:51 PM

Most engenering samples are unlocked. THG has gotten them before, and sometimes they mention it, sometimes they don't. They usually sign a disclosure statement about not everclocking them, and to only test specific speeds (So they can get sent 1 2.8 and test it at the 3 speeds, or something like that)

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
September 9, 2002 11:35:25 PM

Want a bet?

I bet that when the Hammer comes out, THG will go out and say "See, it was our P4@3600MHz article that made AMD to rush and release the Hammer" ROFL.

<font color=white>if you can read this, then my sig fell off.</font color=white>
September 9, 2002 11:37:25 PM

This is slightly off topic, but I'm not sure if anyone else mentioned this yet.

The "XP3400+", which runs at 2.66GHz, performs near the P4 2.66GHz in quite a few apps/tests. Now what does this tell you? That AMD's clock for clock lead isn't so much anymore?

...And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put my computer back together again...
September 9, 2002 11:41:37 PM

Quote:
Most engenering samples are unlocked. THG has gotten them before, and sometimes they mention it, sometimes they don't. They usually sign a disclosure statement about not everclocking them, and to only test specific speeds (So they can get sent 1 2.8 and test it at the 3 speeds, or something like that)

<b>I totally agree with you.
So where are the NDAs on that article?</b>
the question is WHY THIS NOW?

(well totally, apart from ever THG mentioning an unlocked <b>P4</b> sample, that is)

<font color=white>if you can read this, then my sig fell off.</font color=white>
September 9, 2002 11:46:36 PM

I thought most of those pics looked like that, mostly because I think they're using a camera to get the pic. I could be wrong though.

If ignorance is bliss, then why is everyone so miserable?
September 10, 2002 12:23:10 AM

so many people.
so much angst.
so little P4 3.6's on the market currently.
lol, lol and lol

can i have an engineering sample too? :smile:

<b><font color=orange>My <font color=green>life <font color=red>has <font color=blue>been <font color=black>so <font color=purple>much <font color=yellow>more <font color=orange>colourful <font color=green>since <font color=blue>the <font color=red>advent <font color=black>of <font color=purple>Super <font color=red>VGA! :lol: 
September 10, 2002 12:43:49 AM

Alright, I need to be true to who I really am. I confess, I'm an AMD fanboy. Wow, I feel so much better. Being a heterosexual and all, I guess this is as close as I'll ever come (no pun intended) to knowing what it feels like to come out of the closet. Thanks for helping me, LED.

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
<A HREF="http://www.faceintel.com" target="_new"> CLICK ME </A>
September 10, 2002 1:20:49 AM

By god! You've actually admiited it! Ever since I read your first post, you had AMD written all over you. Fanboys like you don't come along very often. You are a rare breed of a rabid fanboy indeed. Never have a seen a fanboy so loyal, devoted, clueless, and misinformed.

- - -
<font color=green>All good things must come to an end … so they can be replaced by better things! :wink: </font color=green>
September 10, 2002 3:16:01 AM

I am so suprised why Tom's hardware was so biased to INTEL in this article. I has always repected Tom's Hardware. But with this article I changed totally about Tom's Hardware's credibility. The benchmark numbers was so obvious in Cinema 4D XL 7.303, the AMD XP 3400+ was leading P4 3600 by 4 points, yet the article was concluded that INTEL was in the lead. And there were other places when AMD CPUs were only slightly behind, but it was saying INTEL was leading in a wide margin, for example, in 3DMark P4 3600 scored 17073 and AMD 3400(2666Mhz)+ scored 16173, which was only 5% percent's difference. I believe the author even didn't bother to look at benchmark results before he jumped into a conclusion.

BTW, I am not an AMD fan. I have never bought an AMD machine for myself before, and probably won't buy one in the future.
September 10, 2002 3:49:28 AM

Have sympathy for me. Pray for me. I'm clueless and misinformed. Unlike you I don't pay homage to the great satan of chipmakers.

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
<A HREF="http://www.faceintel.com" target="_new"> CLICK ME </A>
September 10, 2002 3:50:49 AM

Well I have to say I dont trust Tom very much, nor take any of his articles as the full truth. The whole Intel 3600 thing seems very suspicious, and im betting more will be revealed soon. Intel is probably very worried about the hammer, considering that if half of the stuff ive heard about it is true, Intel is in trouble. This article was probably a cheap marketing gimmick.
September 10, 2002 5:18:48 AM

Seems like THG/Vogel are toting water for Intel. Many of the posters here express suspicion of the reasons for and honesty of the article. The article fails to pass the smell test.

THG could have avoided the concerns by being more forthright with readers and by telling them how it got the 3.6 GHz Pentium 4. Did Intel slip them these cpus and not required a Non0disclosure agreement? If so, the clear implication was that Intel wanted THG to do the article, knowing that THG is read my a many in the industry, enthusiast community, and financial/investing markets.

In short, THG may have been used by Intel, like a sucker would use a whore.

Also, I've read that THG and ExtremeTech are teaming up to review the IDF. What's that all about? Perhaps ExtremeTech is using THG also; ExtremeTech may be hoping that a few of THG readers will roll over to start reading ExtremeTech.

THG may be going the way of AnandTech, cozying up with the subjects of its reviews, which is bad news and bad news making.
September 10, 2002 7:05:53 AM

LOL that is so, so true. I haven't heard an post that was so true in my life. All these people are reading way far into this article to find fault when its right smack dab in their faces. If we can't trust them to even stop to actually look at the test results before comming to a conclusion, then how can we trust that they arren't bias or anything for that matter. We do have to keep in mind that Tom himself does not write these kind of articles, he has other writers do it. But still it reflects upon him when he allows a article like this to be posted with tons and tons of errors in it. I have found 6 places in the benchmarking where they don't even mention AMD's perfomance ratio to the P4 when it was at a very respectable distance. Further more, there were several places where the slower clocked CPU's where consistantly scoring better than the faster ones, and again absolutly no comments about an extreemly obvious problem.

Now either the writers need to slow down take a deep breath and take their time writing articles to make sure there arren't any mistakes, or we have a serious intel loving people at the THG.

this article reminds me a lot of the P4 3.1 ghz article a while back. Full of obvious, unanswered errors and flaws. I do agree that it does shake my faith in this web site when things so imortant get left out because of BIAS.

I was thinking why is it that there are so many AMD fanboys? and please don't reply with "because their dumb" thanks
September 10, 2002 11:15:49 AM

Eden, you reading this thread? It's a conspiracy! Foul! THG Is biased!.......All being said w/ a straight face. *sigh*

This sig runs too hot.
September 10, 2002 11:34:56 AM

Do You remember article "Behind The Silicon Curtain:
Exclusive Test Of The P4/2666 With 533 MHz Rambus" - it was released when on top was P4 2200 and Athlon XP 2000+. When this article was released the official launch date for P4 2533 was set on late Q3 and Tom says "In this batch, the Pentium 4/2533 and Pentium 4/2666 won't be launched for another few months.". But (fortunatelly for us - users) earlier, becouse only 2.5 months later P4/2533 was launched.
I think at now situation is similar. In my opinion Intel prepare itself for battle with New Athlon (with Hammer core - maybe "Athlon 2"?), and prepare itself for release P4/3333 and p4/3600 this year. I supposed that if AMD will release Hammer this year then Intel will release at least P4/3333 and maybe (it is less probable) P4/3600.

Regards

Darek
September 10, 2002 1:09:02 PM

"Tom's Hardware is basically an arm of Intel's marketing department."
Aren't you being more than a bit limiting here? Tom's Hardware is basically an arm of EVERY company that gives it parts to evaluate's marketing team. What? are you niave enough to belive that Nvidia and AMD and Intel and HP.... all give parts to this site out of the goodness of their heart? If that were the case I would have started a hardware site a long time ago to get preproduction parts. Where do I get to sign up for the freebies? Get real. These companies give their parts to Tom's because it has an advertising affect and nothing more.
September 10, 2002 1:17:24 PM

"So here start the speculation about why would Intel want that.
They should be pretty happy with their P4@2800 against AMD's Tbreds even the 2800+ that will come out on Sept 30.
So why the rush? "
Let me start by saying, good points. However, in response to this, the tone of the article seemed to set apart these P4s from the rest of the pack. I think the answer to, "why post this artilce 10 months prior to the 3600 release?", I believe they answer it, though poorly, with "In order to provide an extensive overview of the performance of all the P4 types for the coming ten months, we've also included the P4/3333 and P4/3066."
So ultimately, they are previewing the next year in a single article. What we still haven't touched on is the extra power consumption needed by these processors. Doesn't anyone remember the article on how anything above a 3GHz needs a different mobo for excess power consumption?
September 10, 2002 1:21:00 PM

<b>Do we <i>really</i> have this many bloody morons in THGC still?</b> To everyone who actually has a clue, please disregard the following rant:

<b>1)</b> <b>TOM</b> didn't write this article. Frank Völkel and Bert Töpelt did. <i>If</i> you have a problem with the article, blame them, not Tom. In case you're freaking clueless, there happen to be numerous writers at THG.

<b>2)</b> Frank Völkel and Bert Töpelt are <i>know</i> to make stupid comments. Look at any of their other reviews. If you have problems with the comments that they've made, that's perfectly fine. Frankly, they deserve it.

<b>3)</b> There is <b>NO</b> conspiracy going on here. THG is <b>not</b> under some secret project from Intel. The article doesn't explicitely say that they're running an engineering sample, no. But then, the article also doesn't explicitely say that the AXP 3000+ in fact <b>doesn't</b> have a 150MHz FSB and run with 187MHz RAM either. There is a certain amount of intelligence in the reader that <i>has</i> to be assumed or else the article is going to be at <i>least</i> twice as long and five times as boring. If you don't have that intelligence, then go and read something more your level, like Dick and Jane.

THG does <b>not</b> have a special 3.6GHz chip direct from Intel. There is no NDA. <b>They have an engineering sample</b> which they've had for quite some time. By all evidence, it's an <b>OLD</b> engineering sample.

<b>4)</b> Just because a hardware review site does an article doesn't mean that Intel's marketting department had <i>anything</i> to do with it or that it is in any way even marketting of Intel products. If you can't even tell the difference between a technical review and marketting, then you really shouldn't be here. (Especially at THG where THG not only spearheaded the discovery of the flaw in the Intel's precious 1.13GHz P3 when no other review site dared to, but they even openly flat out accused Intel of doing nothing more than OCing hand-picked 1GHz P3s to sell as 1.13GHz P3s. And where THG declaired the AXP 2600+ faster than a P4b 2.53GHz when the P4b 2.4GHz actually won in more than half of the benchmark tests and the p4b 2.53GHz clearly won in the majority of benchmark tests.)

<b>5)</b> If you aren't completely blind, you should see easily that not only did THG ramp the P4 up to 3.6GHz, but they also <b>ramped the AXP to 3400+ using a 166MHz FSB</b>! So not only was THG showing a projection of the future of Intel, but they were also showing <b>an equal projection of the future of AMD.</b> (Seeing as how the 2.8GHz P4 is out and in theory the AXP 2600+ 'is out', comparing a 3.6GHz P4 to a 3400+ AXP is perfectly fair.)

And exactly what exotic cooling did they need to ramp the AXP to 3400+? Hmm?

<b>Conclusion:</b> Any delusional imbicile who wants to claim some sort of a conspiracy needs to have their head checked. The article might not have had the best comments in the world, but it certainly wasn't a UN shadow government conspiracy any more than it was an Intel marketting conspiracy. Intel didn't rush THG a 'special'
3.6GHz chip any more than AMD rushed THG a 'special' AXP 3400+.

It was a bunch of hardware enthusiasts ([sarcasm]<i>Imagine finding someone like that at THG!</i>[/sarcasm]) who took their engineering samples from Intel and AMD, and clocked the hell out of them to their limits for no other reason than just because they could. THG has been doing this for years. It's what makes THG a great site to read, because when they do these kinds of articles, they help give us an idea on how the future of PCs can look.

So get your heads out of your arses before the lack of oxygen kills you, because you've already asphixyated enough to be seeing $#!@ that just ain't there!

<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>
!