Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

bye bye x86

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Marketing
  • x86
  • IBM
Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 12, 2002 9:21:49 PM

I am really bored of x86 arhitecture. Having a lot of Mhz is just marketing, it is NOT a good arhitecture. I wish to see something new - perhaps something like the Power4. It has great performances. It is from IBM; personally I have more trust in IBM that in Intel. If Apple is going to switch to Power4, well I am in for it!!


http://www.aceshardware.com/#60000435




Razvan

More about : bye bye x86

October 12, 2002 10:29:09 PM

The Power4 is a great part. Lower clocked Itanium2's have better FP #'s. And I don't see how you trust IBM over Intel. Especially since their Hard drives went from best reputation to worst in a two year period. They've got a solid server reputation.....maybe that's where you're coming from. But in that case, Intel isnt in their league yet. Theres no comparison w/ high end servers since Intel is now trying to break in.

[-peep-].
October 12, 2002 11:23:59 PM

true true... but you do remember going from P3 to the first P4 too right? every manufacturer has their ups and downs. and ibm IS the biggest influence as to where we are now with PCs. and i don't think their hard drives have much to do with the cpu.

<b><font color=orange>*my favorite bum on 21st street*

-please help-
will code HTML for food.
-god bless you-
Related resources
October 13, 2002 12:03:16 AM

I was sure that somebody would say something about the IBM's HDD division. That is true; they have done a really bad job with 60Gxp and 75Gxp. That has changed lately - the 120Gxp line seems to be pretty good. It seems to be pretty reliable and they are damn fast. I have a 120Gxp and I am happy with it. Well, for now anyway.
About HDD division you are right. I am aware of this problem, but besides this problem I am not aware of other dirty things done by IBM. Now let's go on to Intel: I think that one can write a book about their ugly things that they have done only in the last year. If you don't agree with me on this point I will give you the list - but tomorrow morning. It is already 1:36 o'clock in France so I have to go to sleep.

Why I trust IBM: OS2. No other company would sustain an operating system for such a long time. And that is not all: they have done a pretty good job with OS2. OS2 has the stability of XP for more that 10 years.

Also I like the IBM's policy: they say that their products are not going to be influenced by current public opinion/reaction. Any product launched by IBM in backed up for many years; only if it will fail then - it will be retracted. That means they provide very stabile solutions.

Let's think about Intel: some 6 months ago they where all RAMBUS. Rambus all the way. Some 3 weeks ago they said - we are going DDR. We will not develop any Rambus solution. The clients where puzzled - those who have invested a lot of money in Rambus. After the client's pressure they said that i850 will be further developed at least for RDRAM1066. That is Intel: going with the wind...


>They've got a solid server reputation.....maybe that's where you're coming from.

True.
One personal matter: I have an IBM keyboard aged to more that 10 years. It weights more that 3 kilo. Yet it is working like new. I also have an IBM mouse - the same age. Still working very well. This computer is of no use today - of course!! - but when it was useful it was not spared. I don't know many companies that can do such good - quality items.
Also, as a student I remember that all the stations from the labs where IBM. I don't need to tell you what treatment where receiving from students. The stations where working 16-20-24h/day for years. Besides the floppy (which where always dead) everything was OK. I must say that I was pretty impressed.



Well, that is all for today. See you tomorrow!





Razvan
October 13, 2002 12:09:02 AM

>and i don't think their hard drives have much to do with the cpu.

True. They are separate divisions; almost like distinct companies. The bureaucracy is a big problem in IBM - partially because of its size and also because the divisions are very independent.

The present PC is a product of IBM's bureaucracy. More on that tomorrow.


Razvan
October 13, 2002 12:59:05 AM

>>>Now let's go on to Intel: I think that one can write a book about their ugly things that they have done only in the last year. If you don't agree with me on this point I will give you the list

Ok Raz, I work for Intel, and have for the past year. I'd like to see the list of things we've done that are so awful, because I don't recall going to work thinking what awful things I was going to help do that day. I thought I was more observant than that. :eek: 

>>>Let's think about Intel: some 6 months ago they where all RAMBUS. Rambus all the way. Some 3 weeks ago they said - we are going DDR. We will not develop any Rambus solution. The clients where puzzled - those who have invested a lot of money in Rambus. After the client's pressure they said that i850 will be further developed at least for RDRAM1066. That is Intel: going with the wind...

Hmmm, as I recall practically <b>everyone</b> here on Tom's was also verbally reaming Intel for trying to push Rambus - despite the fact that ALL the benches showed it performing better. Now as soon as a company tries to give people what they want, you see what happens? How quickly they turn....

* Not speaking for Intel *
October 13, 2002 4:39:56 AM

I thought IBM sold their HD division. I read this in another thread somewhere in this forum, but then again why are they comming out with new hard drives(180gxp). Someone clear this up for me plz.

"If you sign up for AOL now, we'll give you 1024 hours of slow service and disconnects free of charge"
October 13, 2002 12:43:29 PM

Well, the RAMBUS... I think it was priced to high compared to the DDR... The Rambus royalties and all... It didn't smell right, with Intel really pushing it. I can see Intel not wanting to waste money on developing a DDR solution with the Rambus, which might of hurt the rambus memory sales.

I love Intel CPUs. The Rambus thing 6-8 months ago caused me to go to AMD because it was like 300-400 bucks cheaper due to the higher memory cost and the slight slight cpu cost added together.

Well, 75% of all the private sector has done illegal actions. So hard to say which company is actually "clean" and which one is an ex-con.

Remember Nvidia and 3DFX lawsuits. (if i remember correctly). Nvidia had better laywers and more money, heh. We still love Nvidia (well 75% of us).

A 5 foot work fan, plastic sheeting for the funnel, some tubing, and duct tape is all you need for a cooling system. :wink:
October 13, 2002 5:22:18 PM

Quote:

I'd like to see the list of things we've done that are so awful, because I don't recall going to work thinking what awful things I was going to help do that day. I thought I was more observant than that.



You didn't do anything wrong. I think you know that very well. You are just trying to protect Intel because you are working there. Saying that you have done anything wrong is like saying that all the people that live in Iraq are cruel criminals - just because Sadam is a criminal.
Again: I have nothing against Intel employee. I try to be rational. How could I have something against Intel employee?! IMO Intel's employees (especially the highly trained engineer) have created Intel. I have respect for them. I think that anybody would be proud to write in his own CV that he was worked for Intel. I assumed the problem is clear: nothing against the hard - working Intel engineer.


Let's see what I am remembering now - things that have disappointed me:

1. The P3 1,13Ghz launches; a total failure. It was not working. Some failure of this type from time to time is unavoidable, so why I am disappointed? Well, some 6-8 months before this paper launch Intel was making a prediction about the future in which they have compared a 650Mhz Athlon with a 1Ghz P3. They have assumed that the competition would not be capable of bringing anything against P3 1Ghz - AND THE COMPETITION was there first (Athlon was the first proc to reach 1Ghz). This is only happening because those who are managing Intel now are too proud; too proud to realize that the competition has good engineers too. Too proud to realize that in the last 2-3 years Intel has lost some of its image - image that was created by other managerial teams long before they get to work for Intel.

Here I would like to mention Intel's attitude with regard to this site. When Tom had discovered that P1.13 GHz was not stable he informed Intel on this matter and asked them to clarify the situation, because otherwise he would write about it.
Intel's reaction was something like:

<b>
if you have nothing better to do, then go ahead and write your article, because we are so BIGGGG anyway and we don't care. Loosing some customers is no big deal. They WILL come back because they have no option.
</b>


2. remember the bug that was found in Intel's infamous 'i820' or 'Camino' chipset?
Read this: (I will have nothing more to say on this matter)


Bad Information Policy = Official Intel Policy?

Since the MTH-announcement was made and the press releases went to the press, Intel has been trying to do a nice job to look good officially. We, the press people, know that Intel is planning to handle it this way: "The replacement option will include an Intel(r) VC820 Desktop Board and 128MB of RDRAM. Details of replacement availability will be communicated to your place of purchase in the near future." We have also been assured that every owner of an MTH- motherboard will get a replacement or refund if he should want that. You, the readers, read a different information at Intel's website "Intel Corporation today announced that it would replace motherboards that have a defective memory translator hub (MTH) component that translates signals from SDRAM memory to the Intel(r) 820 Chipset." How can you find out if your MTH is one of the 'defective' ones? Well, you basically can't, and you wouldn't have to, because in fact every owner of an MTH motherboard is entitled to a replacement or refund, even though Intel's official announcement sounds a bit different. I got tons of mails from upset owners of Intel CC820 motherboards, who told me that Intel-officials deny the replacement or refund categorically. The answers of those official Intel-spokespeople go from "We won't replace any memory" to "Only affected CC820 boards, which is about 15-20% of them, get replaced". Both statements are simply WRONG. Now if those kinds of comments were the sad exception, I wouldn't really say anything.





To read the whole story go to:

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/blurb/00q2/000515/index.ht..." target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/blurb/00q2/000515/index.ht...;/A>


3. the P4 high frequency: tell me honestly: because you are working for Intel you may answer this question:

Who decided that P4 would have to reach high MHz numbers? The engineers decided that it is better to create an architecture with low IPC and high frequency, or the marketing department? Really, who decided that?

The latest proc from Intel - Itanium hasn't the same architecture (low IPC, high freq). Well... WHY? If this is the future: low IPC, high freq then WHY?


Well, it is enough for now. If you want to read more on the subject then go ahead and read my article from my web page:


<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/mihaiu_razvan/7march2001/index..." target="_new"> Intel's tricks </A>



The article is old but the facts remain the same.


Quote:

despite the fact that ALL the benches showed it performing better.

?!! Rambus is performing better on P4. On P3 this was NOT true. I repeat: it was NOT true. Search this site's archive and get convinced. Rambus was not worth your money on a P3 platform because it was SLOWER that the SDRAM solution. There are many explanations for this behavior, but this is not the point. The point is that it was slower and more expensive, yet Intel claimed the OPPOSITE. What do you think?
Intel was using Rambus long before P4 was launched. Don't forget that.



Quote:

Now as soon as a company tries to give people what they want, you see what happens? How quickly they turn....



Are you suggesting that Intel did that because they care about people's opinions? I'm sorry for this expression, but: quit the crap. They did it because they where loosing money; they did it because their evil monopoly that they tried to create with Rambus was a failure. If they would have succeeded in their intentions and Rambus would be all over the place WE (you, me and all the other comp users) would have to pay royalties to this company whenever we wanted or not. Because if Intel plans where to succeed we would have only one choice: Rambus. Quite an ugly future, in my opinion.



Quote:

despite the fact that ALL the benches showed it performing better.



Just one more idea. Even if you are right: let's suppose that Rambus was a better performer - right from the start. Why forcing the market to use only one option? Perhaps I don't care about 10% of lost performance and I want to save money. This should be MY choice. I should choose that and not Intel's marketing dep. They should at least let other companies build chipsets that are supporting DDR. In the beginning Intel has not licensed anybody for the P4 bus tech and it has sued VIA for developing such a solution. It was clear that the users where needing that solution, yet Intel was against it. And now you are coming here and tell me that Intel is trying to give me what I want!? Unbelievable...









Razvan
October 13, 2002 5:40:42 PM

Quote:
3. the P4 high frequency: tell me honestly: because you are working for Intel you may answer this question:

Who decided that P4 would have to reach high MHz numbers? The engineers decided that it is better to create an architecture with low IPC and high frequency, or the marketing department? Really, who decided that?

The latest proc from Intel - Itanium hasn't the same architecture (low IPC, high freq). Well... WHY? If this is the future: low IPC, high freq then WHY?


Seeing how this is the only piece that isn't "the blame game". I think I will respond. The reason why Itanium takes a different approach? From Intel marketing's point of view, because the server market doesn't give a rats @#@ about clockrate. From an engineering point of view? Because it's IA-64. The reason that modern x86 MPU's have been forced to go to such high frequencies is because the x86 ISA is simply very difficult to extract parallelism from. Consider this, the Athlon has devoted 3 times as much die space to decoding x86 as the P4, it has devoted 1.5 times more die space to try to boost peak instruction throughput as to make up for instruction halts and data dependencies. And the gain? About 20% higher average IPC throughput in your average code and that margin shrinks as code is adjusted for the P4's little.......quirks.
Itanium's core is less than 20 million transistors and yet it is capable of more total work than a 45 million transistor core P4 at the top of its yield. It's incredibly wasteful to try to extract any level of parallelism from x86 on a thread-level. So the solution? Hyperpipeline it and pump up the clockrate. You may not be able to do 2 instructions in parallel most of the time but you can do 1 after the other really fast.
IA-64 was designed for parallelism. It depends a lot on the compiler but the potential is there. It's just simply too wasteful to do something like that on x86.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
October 13, 2002 6:03:45 PM

Quote:

From Intel marketing's point of view, because the server market doesn't give a rats @#@ about clockrate.


My point too. In other words: those who decide what server to buy are more informed than the average Joe; they are not easy to trick. So.. why bother to trick? Just give them a fair solution.



Quote:

The reason that modern x86 MPU's have been forced to go to such high frequencies is because the x86 ISA is simply very difficult to extract parallelism from. Consider this, the Athlon has devoted 3 times as much die space to decoding x86 as the P4, it has devoted 1.5 times more die space to try to boost peak instruction throughput as to make up for instruction halts and data dependencies. And the gain? About 20% higher average IPC throughput in your average code and that margin shrinks as code is adjusted for the P4's little.......quirks.


This seems to be a rational explanation. Hmm... nothing more to say.


Quote:

So the solution? Hyperpipeline it and pump up the clockrate. You may not be able to do 2 instructions in parallel most of the time but you can do 1 after the other really fast.


Yes, that is a solution. I am hoping that sooner or later the x86 platform will be replaced so that such compromises will not be necessary any more.







Razvan
October 13, 2002 8:41:38 PM

People hate macs. Wanna know why? Because the architecture changes so often that once you buy a mac and the new mac comes out you have to buy a new mac to make use of the new software because the new software makes use of the new mac architecture.

thats why the pc is so succeful because they haven't changed in over 20 years. You buy a software for your pc now you are gunateed that it will still work 5 years from now. Unlike a MAC.

The architecture changes as often as MS releases new operating systems.

when i say the architecture changes it is implied that the software you bought for the mac will not work on the new architecture.

that is why people hate makes. Ya great, new power4 cpu. What you don't know is that the software isn't compatible with it. You have to buy all new software!

If i'm wrong all the more power to ya!

You go buy a mac and i'll stick with my pc which i can upgrade without fear of "will this be compatible with my mac" heh!

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
October 13, 2002 9:35:01 PM

Hey imgod2u, what is IA32, and where did it come from aside from the IA64?
I had heard once IA32 is something we are on now, though I think that's not true.
IA64 does seem to be interesting but it does a halt on a lot of the silicon technologies which strive for higher clock speeds and less power usage.
Another thing, while I have a hard time understand how the IA64 parallelism makes it better in IPC, there was something I wanted to ask. Ya know how you always said that the output is what matters, and that the most operations that come out in each tick, the better the IPC result?
Well when I see it now, how the IA64 has complex instructions, well assume both an IA 64 CPU vs an x86 CPU calc 2+2. Where exactly on the IA64 will it benefit if it had the same amount of execution units, and why would IA64 be more powerful?
I'm having a hard time seeing how parallelism works and how a code is more effective, despite if the output amount determines the performance and if both architectures calculated the same code.

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
October 13, 2002 11:38:25 PM

By the way you know that you bash AMD much more that intel.

Now what to do??
October 14, 2002 1:53:50 AM

IA-32 it a family name of CPU uunder the X86-32 not a giving CPU

Now what to do??
October 14, 2002 1:57:48 AM

I just want to tell you that you lose a great deal of time here this boards is far from be technical.

Now what to do??
October 14, 2002 2:03:10 AM

ILP is a dead end on X86-any but here come tread level paralisme.It sould has been introduce in merced so compiler made stuff allready with SMT/SMP for future CPU.On desktop front it a big dead-end.

Now what to do??
October 14, 2002 3:56:53 AM

No it isn't.
It's the P7 or NetBurst.
IIRC all PCs since 1990 at least, use x86-32, or basically ever since 16-bit became a limit.

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
October 14, 2002 4:07:08 AM

*blinks*

can you be any more cryptic? The architecture the pentium 4 uses is IA32.

"For this course, we will be using the Gnu GCC compiler to generate code targeted to machines running Intel IA32 (popularly known as ``x86'') programs under Linux. GCC uses an assembler format known as ``GAS'' (for Gnu ASsembler). The documentation on this particular combination of machine and assembler format is a bit spotty. Here are some useful resources:"

<A HREF="http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/academic/class/1..." target="_new">http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/academic/class/1...;/A>

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
October 14, 2002 6:22:53 AM

Quote:
People hate macs. Wanna know why? Because the architecture changes so often that once you buy a mac and the new mac comes out you have to buy a new mac to make use of the new software because the new software makes use of the new mac architecture.

Who are these "people" you speak of? I personally don't "hate" Macs. But I do hate Apple's PR department, they are the worst. I also hate most of the Mac fanboys who can do nothing more than tout how shiny their new iMac is. I don't have a Mac because the majority of software out there isn't available for MacOS and also, in recent times, performance has grown significantly on x86 machines but remained stagnant on the Mac.

Quote:
thats why the pc is so succeful because they haven't changed in over 20 years. You buy a software for your pc now you are gunateed that it will still work 5 years from now. Unlike a MAC.

While it's true that backwards compatibility is important, 20 years of using the same ISA is just rediculous. Software that came out 5 years ago could easily be emulated with a modern chip without the need to run natively and still be running very fast. When you're moving to a new architecture, you're not just doing so just for the hell of it, you're doing it for certain benefits. In the case of moving away from x86, that benefit would be a leap in performance and a reduction of manufacturing costs.

Quote:
when i say the architecture changes it is implied that the software you bought for the mac will not work on the new architecture.

OSX natively includes an excellent emulation system for running older software. Granted it's slow, but it's <b>old</b> software. You don't need to run Quake 1 at 90000000 fps.

Quote:
that is why people hate ma<b>cs</b>. Ya great, new power4 cpu. What you don't know is that the software isn't compatible with it. You have to buy all new software!

Actually, the new PowerPC chip from IBM uses the same ISA as Motorola's version of PPC, so software that is written for the Motorola chip will work on the IBM one as well.

Quote:
If i'm wrong all the more power to ya!

I feel like Zeus himself.

Quote:
You go buy a mac and i'll stick with my pc which i can upgrade without fear of "will this be compatible with my mac" heh!

No thanx, I don't particularly enjoy the fact of paying $4000 for a machine that runs Quake 3 slower than a $2500 Dell machine (Dell for Christ sakes).

Quote:
Life is irrelivent and irrational.

So is death.

Quote:
Hey imgod2u, what is IA32, and where did it come from aside from the IA64?
I had heard once IA32 is something we are on now, though I think that's not true.

IA-32 stands for "Intel Architecture 32-bit". It's just Intel's fancy name for all of their 32-bit ISA's. Basically, all of Intel's 32-bit ISA's so far has been x86 so the two are basically interchangable.

Quote:
IA64 does seem to be interesting but it does a halt on a lot of the silicon technologies which strive for higher clock speeds and less power usage.

IA-64 is the ISA. It's implementation in the form of Itanium may not have been the best-suited for desktop but then again, it was never meant to be. Think about the first x86 MPU's, they weren't all that great either. What people don't seem to realize is that IA-64 is just an ISA. It's not an actual chip. It's a set of rules and instructions that a microprocessor takes in. How that microprocessor processes those instructions is entirely up to the chip itself. So you can have a 8-stage integer pipelined Itanium 2 that's an IA-64 chip or a 50-stage integer pipelined IA-64 chip called the Pentium 50000 or whatever, they're both IA-64 because they both take in IA-64 instructions.

Quote:
Another thing, while I have a hard time understand how the IA64 parallelism makes it better in IPC, there was something I wanted to ask. Ya know how you always said that the output is what matters, and that the most operations that come out in each tick, the better the IPC result?
Well when I see it now, how the IA64 has complex instructions, well assume both an IA 64 CPU vs an x86 CPU calc 2+2. Where exactly on the IA64 will it benefit if it had the same amount of execution units, and why would IA64 be more powerful?

IA-64 instructions are fixed length. I.e. they're all 41-bits in length. While x86 instructions could be anywhere from 1-bit to 86 bytes. This means it is a lot more difficult (and takes more time) to decode an x86 instruction for addition, than to decode an IA-64 instruction for addition. If that was the only calculation you had to do.
If you're talking throughput. You can get, at best, 2.2 average throughput as far as decoding x86 instructions. And that's pipelined throughput. That's because x86's philosophy is "take one instruction at a time and process them as they come along". Basically, when you decode 1 instruction, you pretty much have no idea what the next will be and you have to spend vast amounts of logic space to try different prediction methods and trace tags and try to cache decoded instructions so you don't have to decode as much.
IA-64's philosophy is entirely different. The compiler, when it's compiling the code, looks at all the code. It goes through all the millions of lines of code while compiling and bundles instructions that can be processed in parallel. So let's say you had:

a = 2+2;
b = a+4;
and then 10 lines later
c = 5+5;
d = 6+3;

In x86. It would take the first line, process it, then wait for it to finish before starting the second line. It could try to look a few more lines ahead (depending on how big the cache is) to try and find some other instruction or it can try to predict what the result of a will be and start doing the second line before the first line is finished.
In IA-64, the compiler knows about all of the lines of code. So instead of doing each line 1 by 1, it bundles the first line, and the last 2 lines together into a packet and sends that to the processor. The processor then knows it can process those 3 instructions without having to worry about prediction or data dependencies.
So effectively, when you once could only do 1 instruction first and then do others, you can now do 3 whole instructions.

Quote:
I'm having a hard time seeing how parallelism works and how a code is more effective, despite if the output amount determines the performance and if both architectures calculated the same code.

It's not just the architecture, it's how the entire processing works. IA-64 allows for compilers to go through all the code and tell the processor what would be the most efficient way to do things. x86 just takes instructions as they come along with no idea of what's up ahead.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
October 14, 2002 12:29:41 PM

I won't hold you personally responsible for the stuff your bosses do. Hell you've probably got more things in common with me than with your multi-million$ CEO&P Craigie-boy.

>>I'd like to see the list of things we've done that are so awful, because I don't recall going to work thinking what awful things I was going to help do that day.<<<

Anyway, I do not blame them for (on average) being any worse than any company being in de-facto control of a market, having an overvalued stock price, and being very musch at the mercy of their stockholders' opinions.

To mention some things Intel has done, which I do not much approve of:
- Bullying taiwanese chip makers to follow suit (twice). Once with the Athlon MoBo's, secondly with the P4 MoBo's...
- Starting the use of the "Megaherz = market value" thinking. I remember the time when "Mhz = not everything" was the intel slogan, back before AMD had the Athlon. Then comes Athlon, and soon Intel has to "cheat" with P4, and later the new Celeron's (Willamette). So who can blame AMD for "creative" use of product numbering?

I'll say one thing for the record though... AMD's lack of success on the market is not due to Intel's strongarming, nor is it due to Intel having the superior product. It is AMD's incapable marketing department you have to blame for that.

Mr. Jeeves

"Anyone who believes in psychokinetics, please raise my hand."
October 14, 2002 2:36:16 PM

interesting stuff! and yes i looked up IA32 and it is basicly x86 but the IA32 is intels fancy name since you can't use numbers anymore right?

i still hate macs though. I don' hate the operating system. I hate the design of the mac. They look like panzy flowers to me. I want something that says power and looks power.

I don't know where you buy your computers but for the past 3 years of constantly upgrading i must have spent only 3000 bucks. And thats because i'm always upgrading. Mainly because a component on the motherboard died or isn't working. Such as i can't have USB and raid runnign at the sametime. That pissed me off lol. Also upgrades from when i had money to blow. but i have an intel and to be frank i haven't had a single problem period. But we buy dells here all the time. The PC's never exceed 3000 bucks! And we are buying top of the line stuff too! Such as 15inch flatpanel, 2.8ghz with 512MB of RAM, radeon VE (tack on another 150 for the top line card) keyboard, optical mouse, speakers and stuff 40GB drive, all for like 2800. Buy a normal 17inch monitor you save 300 bucks. This also includes windows 2000 SP3 and and Office XP profesional. take that out you save 500 bucks. And these are WORKSTATIONS! Yes this is a Dell precision 340 for small business. that includes S&H 2800.

whats funny is that i was watching those mac commercials and there was this one where they said you don't have to install drivers for a mac. How in the world does the computer know how to use the hardware then? lol! It has drivers built in MAC people! I can see stuff that is standard such as firewire, usb, ide and stuff. but what happens when you install a brand new AIW 9700 pro? how does the MacOS know how to handle the brand new hardware? umm duh you install drivers! so yes even with a mac you gotta install drivers. There is no way around it unless you pop in flash media on the video card that has the drivers built in for every known operating system!

and yes i agree you don't need to play quake at 9 billion frames a second. Thats why i still have my old AIW Radeon (the normal one without numbers). I can't believe it is actually slow on my computer with the games i run. IWDII and empire earth expansion. Yes it runs choppy! EE only when there is a huge number of stuff going on. I want the AIW 9700 pro lol.

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
October 15, 2002 6:19:41 PM

Reading over your posts several times I came to a conclusion, you are clueless. My turn to clarify some of your common "misconceptions".

Quote:
Let's see what I am remembering now - things that have disappointed me:

1. The P3 1,13Ghz launches; a total failure.

The cpu had reached the limits of the cores initial specifications. Most likely a bell curve issue resulting in poor signal quality. But that’s besides the point the cpu was rushed we all know that, most likely because Intel wanted to be the "fastest" kid on the block so quality testing was cut short. But harping on it won’t change that fact. Considering if us "Intel" guys harped on the poor over clocking of the AXP rev. a. Or the huge amount of heat it’s producing. Or the joke the K6-2 was. We would never hear the end of it. Maybe well just mention the joke the current AMD "me" campaign is. Point being it’s pointless and rather droll to constantly bring up useless points like that.

Quote:
Intel's reaction was something like:


if you have nothing better to do, then go ahead and write your article, because we are so BIGGGG anyway and we don't care. Loosing some customers is no big deal. They WILL come back because they have no option.

That’s statement there is the most ... man I don’t know one of the stupidest statements I have ever read. That’s just retarded that you would even say that. That’s like saying Sanders goes and eggs Andy Groves house, or Texas Techie has insider information regarding cpu cores. Both are equally stupid and nonfactual.

Quote:
2. Remember the bug that was found in Intel's infamous 'i820' or 'Camino' chipset?
Read this: (I will have nothing more to say on this matter)

Ya I remember that oh ya it was because people complained they couldn’t use sd-ram so Intel tried and failed to make a chipset that could do both. Harping on that is like harping on AMD for making the 760 and then giving up on it. Both are equally a waste of time and thought.

I would point of more stupidness that you seem to be posting but that would take me to your stupidness level and I don’t want to be any more stupid than I already am so well stop at it. I’m not sure what your problem is with Intel corp. or their cup’s or their business decisions but if I was you I would seriously rethink what I was saying cause it just sounds… well stupid.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
October 15, 2002 8:15:35 PM

Sorry razvan, but I've got to back up spud's sentimentality. (Though perhaps not his attitude.) Let's take this one step at a time...

Quote:
Now let's go on to Intel: I think that one can write a book about their ugly things that they have done <b><font color=red>only in the last year</font color=red></b>. If you don't agree with me on this point I will give you the list

Funny how you specified <b>in the last year</b> and then bring up the P3 1.13GHz and the Camino/MTH bug, both of which happened, if I remember correctly, way back in early 2000. This makes both well past <b>two</b> years ago, not '<i>in the last year</i>'. More on them later. First though, by chance do you actually have <i>any</i> list of items within the last year?

Quote:
Let's think about Intel: some 6 months ago they where all RAMBUS. Rambus all the way. Some 3 weeks ago they said - we are going DDR. We will not develop any Rambus solution. The clients where puzzled - those who have invested a lot of money in Rambus. After the client's pressure they said that i850 will be further developed at least for RDRAM1066. That is Intel: going with the wind...

So what you are saying is that you don't want a company that will give you what you need to meet your computing needs? You want a company that will ignore your every suggestion and every need and just do what they think is best?

Quote:
I have an IBM keyboard aged to more that 10 years. It weights more that 3 kilo. Yet it is working like new. I also have an IBM mouse - the same age. Still working very well. This computer is of no use today - of course!! - but when it was useful it was not spared. I don't know many companies that can do such good - quality items.

A lot! I still have a working 8-bit Nintendo. Hell, I still have a working C=64. I <i>still</i> use both. Generally, electronics that don't involve motors and don't overheat last a <i>long</i> time.

Quote:
1. The P3 1,13Ghz launches; a total failure. It was not working.

Obviously you don't even know what you're talking about. The P3 1.13GHz actually worked quite well most of the time. It was only in rare instances that certain software could cause it to fail. Granted, that isn't the best CPU in the world, but it certainly wasn't a total failure. The CPU did work the vast majority of the time.

And yet, Intel recalled it immediately and replaced or refunded every single sale. Pretty nice of them considering how companies like AMD never did such for their K5s and K6s that had 'incompatability' problems. Not to knock AMD, because that was far in the past. I'm just pointing out that Intel didn't have to recall them in the first place. They made a mistake, yes. But they also handled the mistake quite nicely, which cannot exactly be said for all other companies out there.

Quote:
2. remember the bug that was found in Intel's infamous 'i820' or 'Camino' chipset?

No. I remember the bug that was introduced in motherboards using the MTH by motherboard manufacturers who couldn't follow tight specs. The Camino chipset itself wasn't bad. The MTH itself worked. (It was a stupid concept, but it worked.) However, motherboard manufacturers didn't adhere to the tight specs Intel required for the MTH and so <i>some</i> motherboards that used the MTH were unstable. And it was less than 20% at that.

And even though it should have been the responsability of the individual motherboard manufacturers to handle any sort of a recall, Intel took it upon themselves to handle that when they didn't have to. They <b>did</b> refund or replace any defective motherboard to my knowledge. My cousin had no problem getting a replacement <b>and</b> got better performance with his PC800 than with his PC133 anyway. So while it was annoying, it also resulted in a notable PC upgrade, free of charge.

Quote:
I got tons of mails from upset owners of Intel CC820 motherboards, who told me that Intel-officials deny the replacement or refund categorically. The answers of those official Intel-spokespeople go from "We won't replace any memory" to "Only affected CC820 boards, which is about 15-20% of them, get replaced". Both statements are simply WRONG.

No offense to Dr. Pabst, but four months after the whole Caminogate thing, I hadn't heard a single complaint from any of the people affected by the bad mobos. It sounds like he made much ado about nothing to me. But then again, that's probably why it was in a <b>BLURB</b>, a personal rant, not in a <i>professional</i> article.

Quote:
3. the P4 high frequency

First of all, anyone who spends a grand or more on a purchase without properly researching it <b>deserves</b> whatever problems they get. So those first P4 purchasers have no sympathy from me.

Second of all, the P4 architecture of a high-speed chip is a perfectly valid way of achieving end-result performance, just as is AMD's way of using a low-speed chip is. End performance is vaguely represented by the equation 'Performance = Freq x IPC'. Intel chose to ramp the frequency faster. AMD chose to continue to rely on IPC instead.

There is no 'deceptive' practice in designing a CPU architecture. Benchmarks don't lie, and if you look at anything else to judge performance, then you're a bloody moron.

Quote:
The latest proc from Intel - Itanium hasn't the same architecture (low IPC, high freq). Well... WHY? If this is the future: low IPC, high freq then WHY?

Are you really this clueless or just being a whinge? X86 is designed to run code in serial. Itanium is designed to execute code in parallel. Different approaches at code execution require different CPU designs.

Quote:
?!! Rambus is performing better on P4. On P3 this was NOT true. I repeat: it was NOT true. Search this site's archive and get convinced.

Actually, you're considerably wrong and appearantly unable to take your own advice to search the site. PC800 ran better than SDRAM for the P3. For example, check out the quote "First things first. Intel's i820 chipset with the 'elitist', super expensive RDRAM is still the overall fastest mainstream chipset for Coppermine." from the article <i><A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q1/000302" target="_new">Performance Showdown at 133 MHz FSB - The best Platform for Coppermine</A></i>. Just look at how badly RDRAM on the P3 whooped up on SDRAM.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that Intel did that because they care about people's opinions? I'm sorry for this expression, but: quit the crap. They did it because they where loosing money; they did it because their evil monopoly that they tried to create with Rambus was a failure.

First of all, if listening to people's opinions means making more money, then of course they listen to people's opinions. They're a business, an organization that endeavors to <b>make money</b>. Funny how that works. Listen to the customer, give them what they want, and make money. I'd say that Intel cares a <b>lot</b> about people's opinions because that's what makes them rich. It's self-serving, but then what for-profit organization isn't? Can you name me one company that at it's heart doesn't just want to take your money?

Second of all, appearantly your English skills aren't too great or else you would know that <b>Mono</b>poly partially derives it's meaning from the Latin word for one. Intel plus Rambus equals two, not one. So it couldn't even have been a <b>mono</b>poly if they had tried.

Thirdly, RDRAM outperformed SDRAM, whether on a P3 or a P4. Hell, on a P4 RDRAM clearly still outperforms DDR SDRAM. So you're blaming Intel for chosing a memory type that gives it's users the most performance. Those <b>evil</b> bastards!

Quote:
Why forcing the market to use only one option? Perhaps I don't care about 10% of lost performance and I want to save money. This should be MY choice.

Tell that to AMD. Intel currently provides both SDRAM (DDR and SDR are both SDRAM), and RDRAM solutions for the P4. AMD offers only SDRAM. So Intel at present gives people more choice than any of their competitors.

Quote:
In the beginning Intel has not licensed anybody for the P4 bus tech and it has sued VIA for developing such a solution

Intel sued VIA for producing P4 chipsets when VIA didn't actually have a license to do so. Had VIA properly obtained a license, Intel wouldn't have sued them.

Quote:
My point too. In other words: those who decide what server to buy are more informed than the average Joe; they are not easy to trick. So.. why bother to trick? Just give them a fair solution.

Trick? Whom is tricking whom now? Name one P4 owner who doesn't get the performance that they paid for. There are no tricks there.

Quote:
Yes, that is a solution. I am hoping that sooner or later the x86 platform will be replaced so that such compromises will not be necessary any more.

Compromises? We're talking about two very dissimilar instruction engines and resulting architectures. What compromise are you talking about? Are you even in the same discussion as the rest of us?

Sorry razvan, but not only are you living in the distant past, but you can't even remember that distant past correctly. Your facts are all wrong. Your points are weaker than water. So far, you've sounded like a blithering fool with an unjustified grudge against Intel.

Which is fine if that's who you are, but don't expect anyone to respect you for it. If you want to be upset with Intel, fine. At least have a reason that you can justify with actual proof though.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
October 15, 2002 8:43:18 PM

Water isnt weak.... oh boy I smell a lawsuit from a fluid that expands when frozon. Poor silver water is pretty big I think they control 71% of the market for earths water supply I think your in for it.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
October 15, 2002 10:43:35 PM

Quote:

That’s statement there is the most ... man I don’t know one of the stupidest statements I have ever read. That’s just retarded that you would even say that.

You are retarded for using such words.


Quote:

I would point of more stupidness that you seem to be posting but that would take me to your stupidness level and I don’t want to be any more stupid than I already am so well stop at it.


Who the [-peep-] are you trying to intimidate you freak? Your profile is empty because you want to insult people and get away with it. Just don't pollute my thread you stupid lamer.

Where do you live? I will make you eat your dirty words you stupid [-peep-].
October 15, 2002 10:45:47 PM

You disappointed me.

I didn't post here because I know everything. Even if I am not right I didn't do anything to justify your insults and the insults or of this stupid lamer SPUD. Having more points to sustain what I have said is of no importance now. I didn't come here to be insulted.

Your insults convinced me that I am wrong.
October 15, 2002 11:05:09 PM

The following is all in good fun. :tongue:

Quote:
Second of all, appearantly [<i>sic</i>] your English skills aren't too great or else you would know that Monopoly partially derives it's meaning from the Latin word for one. Intel plus Rambus equals two, not one. So it couldn't even have been a monopoly if they had tried.

You have three problems in the above statement (not counting the typo).

One, <i>mono-</i> is Greek, not Latin. It entered into English via Latin, but it was borrowed into Latin from Greek sometime in the pre-empire <i>Res Publica</i>. The Latin word for 'one' (at least in this context) is <i>uni</i>, as in unicycle.

Second, your understanding of the legal definition of 'monopoly' (the Modern English word) is less than complete. While it is true that at one time a 'monopoly' was defined strictly as a single entity that eliminated competition via control of all the links in the chain of production and distribution (or at least control of enough links to eliminate competition), courts today tend to emphasize the competition (or lack thereof) aspect over the 'single entity' aspect when finding whether an entity, or entities, have monopolistic power. An Intel/Rambus agreement to use only Rambus memory is anti-competitive on its face, though it is not necessarily unfairly anti-competitive. The use of monopolistic power is not itself a violation of the Sherman Act; it is the unfair use of monopolistic power that is a violation. Had a court found that Intel and Rambus colluded to eliminate other types of computer system memory, and that their agreement for the exclusive use of RAMBUS memory for Intel P4 based systems was evidentiary, then it is possible that the two companies would have jointly violated anti-trust legislation via the implementation of unfair anti-competitive policies and thus would have constituted a <i>de facto</i> ‘monopoly’. In other words, in the modern reality of corporate dealings the use of monopolistic power can spring from multiple entity agreements.

Third, do you not think it would be better to write that razvan’s Greek skills are not to good, not his English skills? :tongue:

-----

Also, perhaps people who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones:

Quote:
Trick? Whom is tricking whom now? Name one P4 owner who doesn't get the performance that they paid for. There are no tricks there.

Your first ‘whom’ is clearly nominative; it is not accusative or dative. Thus, the correct sentence would be, “Who is tricking whom now?”

Remember, this is all in fun. Substantively, I agree with most of your arguments. Stylistically, I am afraid that you lose a few points.
October 15, 2002 11:10:44 PM

Haha ok thug you wanna come beat me up. Ok thats funny we got a forum thug again. What you want my address phone number what let me know how I can help you get into jail faster. BTW you are pretty stupid and childish now.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
October 15, 2002 11:20:02 PM

Updated my profile for you princess, enjoy stalking me.

-Jeremy

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
October 15, 2002 11:26:42 PM

Sorry, I at least partly agree with you, but there are a couple of points in error here.

Quote:
And yet, Intel recalled it immediately and replaced or refunded every single sale. Pretty nice of them considering how companies like AMD never did such for their K5s and K6s that had 'incompatability' problems. Not to knock AMD, because that was far in the past.

Not to knock AMD, because <b>that wasn't AMD's problem.</b> Put the K5 or K6 on an Intel chipset, and it worked just fine; Crashman can attest to that. I have a couple such CPUs that are still working just fine, so they have no problem lasting for years.

Intel got a lot of flak for the 1.13GHz Coppermine because it was possibly the worst manufacturing error ever made with x86 CPUs. AMD, for all that Intel zealots deride it for producing supposedly "unreliable" products, never screwed up so badly as that, no matter how far behind they were or how desperate to save face. AMD never screwed up in chipsets so badly as the Camino, either--their problem is they let third parties shoulder too much of the chipset manufacturing burden.

Quote:
Actually, you're considerably wrong and appearantly unable to take your own advice to search the site. PC800 ran better than SDRAM for the P3. For example, check out the quote "First things first. Intel's i820 chipset with the 'elitist', super expensive RDRAM is still the overall fastest mainstream chipset for Coppermine." from the article Performance Showdown at 133 MHz FSB - The best Platform for Coppermine. Just look at how badly RDRAM on the P3 whooped up on SDRAM.

Perhaps you've forgotten this, but a long time ago, Intel made the mistake of having two benchmarks on their site at the same time (one for PC800/i820, and one for PC133/i815), and the i815 pulled ahead in nine out of eleven tests. Even though the two benchmarks were hosted in separate sections of the intel.com website, someone was clever enough to dig them up and put them side by side.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
October 16, 2002 2:38:58 AM

HOLY CRAP
All of my posts yesterday were gone, damn it!
I had asked imgod2u something. Damn forum bugs....

To imgod2u, I asked if the IA64's ease of use, would actually help to reduce pipeline lenghts yet clocking is not as much harder?
I mean if the work inside the stages seems less hard due to the compiler who has already done the work, shouldn't that allow even better clocking?

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
October 16, 2002 2:41:52 AM

Quote:

I want something that says power and looks power

HUMMPPH, I happen to think that a white sphere looking computer that spits its tongue out (CDROM) at you, screams of mad power!!! :smile:

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
October 16, 2002 9:49:32 AM

Quote:
To imgod2u, I asked if the IA64's ease of use, would actually help to reduce pipeline lenghts yet clocking is not as much harder?
I mean if the work inside the stages seems less hard due to the compiler who has already done the work, shouldn't that allow even better clocking?


This has come up before. For x86 code, the official word from Intel is that optimal pipeline length is somewhere around 50 stages for the integer pipeline. In a more advanced ISA that is designed for parallelism, the optimal integer pipeline length would be somewhere around 8-12 stages, as seen by most of the RISC-like processor designs out there. That is not to say though, that Intel won't be designing a hugely hyperpipelined IA-64 MPU for the desktop because as we all know, MHz sells. Unless of course, Intel wants to develope a PR system........

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
October 16, 2002 1:29:56 PM

Quote:
Water isnt weak.... oh boy I smell a lawsuit from a fluid that expands when frozon. Poor silver water is pretty big I think they control 71% of the market for earths water supply I think your in for it.

I was meaning in reference to alcoholic beverages. Though if you want to compare solid water to other solids (such as iron, titanium, quartz, diamond, etc.) it's still weak. Just because there is a lot of it doesn't make it strong. :-p

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
October 16, 2002 1:39:49 PM

Quote:
You disappointed me.

I didn't post here because I know everything. Even if I am not right I didn't do anything to justify your insults and the insults or of this stupid lamer SPUD. Having more points to sustain what I have said is of no importance now. I didn't come here to be insulted.

Your insults convinced me that I am wrong.

Give me one single direct personal insult that I nailed you with. The fact that you're so blatantly wrong isn't an insult.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
October 16, 2002 2:02:04 PM

Quote:
The following is all in good fun. :tongue:

Good. :)  I like good fun. If we can't laugh at ourselves, who can we laugh at? ;) 

Quote:
You have three problems in the above statement (not counting the typo).

Actually, I'm rather amazed at the number of typos that I made. I usually make many more than that. ;)  I must actually be getting over my phonetic upbringing.

Quote:
One, mono- is Greek, not Latin. It entered into English via Latin, but it was borrowed into Latin from Greek sometime in the pre-empire Res Publica. The Latin word for 'one' (at least in this context) is uni, as in unicycle.

Ach! You got me there. Something didn't feel perfectly right about that, but I wasn't up to actually doing research. I already spent more time on that post than I'd have cared to. **LOL** You're right though. How silly of me.

Quote:
Second, your understanding of the legal definition of 'monopoly' (the Modern English word) is less than complete.

Well, that's debatable really. The definition of monopoly, legal or not, remains the same. I can't help it if people commonly use the term wrong. In legal slang, I suppose you have a point. However I have never been a fan of using slang for definitions.

And still, even had Rambus become the only memory for Intel the Durons, Athlons, C3s, Crusoes, etc. (even all Macintosh systems for that matter) all still used SDRAM. So it would not have even been an unfairly anti-competetive venture.

Quote:
Third, do you not think it would be better to write that razvan’s Greek skills are not to good, not his English skills? :tongue:

Hmm ... you have a good point. That does bring up a good question: Is an English word which derives meaning from the Greek language subject to skill in English or Greek? I suppose it's really a little of both. Then again, that <i>is</i> one of the major problems with the English language. It has far too many derivations from other languages, making it both difficult to know how to pronounce and difficult to comprehend at times. It only gets worse with the Americanization of the English language, though I suspect that the English themselves have quite a few interesting problems of their own with the language. ;) 

Quote:
Your first ‘whom’ is clearly nominative; it is not accusative or dative. Thus, the correct sentence would be, “Who is tricking whom now?”

Would you believe that even as I wrote that, I knew that it was wrong? Heh heh. Yet I still left it. Goodness knows why I didn't feel like correcting it then, but still it is good for a laugh none the less. :)  You're right though, my post was hardly perfect English, misspellings included.

Still, considering the nature of schools in America these days, I like to think that I've managed to come out considerably ahead of the game. ;)  (Even if I still <i>like</i> using things like contractions, ASCII emoticons, and other horrors not belonging in proper English. Tsk tsk on me!)

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
October 16, 2002 3:04:52 PM

Quote:
Sorry, I at least partly agree with you, but there are a couple of points in error here.

Sorry Kelledin, while I respect your attempt so far I find your corrections flawed.

Quote:
Not to knock AMD, because that wasn't AMD's problem. Put the K5 or K6 on an Intel chipset, and it worked just fine; Crashman can attest to that. I have a couple such CPUs that are still working just fine, so they have no problem lasting for years.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with you because I have seen in person a K5 chip on an Intel motherboard that still had a very obvious flaw. It wasn't a very problamatic flaw, but still obvious. Windows would draw the desktop background completely, and yet no window nor mouse could ever access the top 25% of the screen. A maximized window would even only fill the lower 75% of the screen. It was most amusing, but still a flaw from a K5 chip on an Intel motherboard that was corrected when the K5 chip was replaced with a Pentium chip.

Yes, the bugs in the K5 and K6 reduced dramatically when run on Intel chipsets. That aside, there were still rare bugs within the chips themselves that no chipset would fix. This was at least true of the K5. Perhaps it is not true of the latter K6s though.

Quote:
Intel got a lot of flak for the 1.13GHz Coppermine because it was possibly the worst manufacturing error ever made with x86 CPUs.

I agree that it was a very rushed-to-market chip and that it was nothing more than a typical overclock done professionally at the factory. In that regard, it was laughable. It required a specially-designed Intel motherboard to run stabily.

However, when using the complete package that Intel put together for the P3 1.13GHz, it <i>was</i> stable and ran most software flawlessly. And since the <i>only</i> sales of the P3 1.13GHz were to OEMs and since OEM's <i>should</i> test their complete systems prior to shipping to customers, the chances of an end customer even getting an unstable P3 1.13GHz system were virtually nil.

So to call it 'worst manufacturing error ever made' is to me a very undeserved label. Perhaps <i>one</i> of the worst managerial decisions ever made. That aside, I personally can't label it as <i>the</i> worst manufacturing error ever made. Maybe you can, but my point of view differs from that.

Yet in the end, it didn't really matter anyway as Intel <i>did</i> recall the CPUs and <i>did</i> replace or refund anyone who had purchased one (which was very few indeed).

Intel got a lot of flak for it. Some of that flak was even deserved, yes. However, a sizable portion of that flak was not deserved as practically no one but OEMs were even affected by the recall in the first place, and the recall was handled both quickly and fairly. So all in all, manufacturing error or not, virtually no end-customer was adversely affected by it.

Quote:
AMD, for all that Intel zealots deride it for producing supposedly "unreliable" products, never screwed up so badly as that, no matter how far behind they were or how desperate to save face.

I really hadn't wanted to turn this into an AMD vs. Intel debate, so I'm going to refrain from counterpointing this.

Quote:
AMD never screwed up in chipsets so badly as the Camino, either--their problem is they let third parties shoulder too much of the chipset manufacturing burden.

I suggest you try doing more research. The Camino chipset worked perfectly fine. The MTH worked perfectly fine when specs were followed. It was <b>not</b> a chipset problem. It wasn't even an MTH problem. It was a problem with motherboard manufacturers not following specs to the letter.

Much like the new Asus motherboards with the SiS chipset. The chipset works perfectly fine, as Gigabyte has proven.

You really shouldn't blame the chipset manufacturer when it is in fact the motherboard manufacturer that caused the bugs.

Quote:
Perhaps you've forgotten this, but a long time ago, Intel made the mistake of having two benchmarks on their site at the same time (one for PC800/i820, and one for PC133/i815), and the i815 pulled ahead in nine out of eleven tests. Even though the two benchmarks were hosted in separate sections of the intel.com website, someone was clever enough to dig them up and put them side by side.

I hadn't by any means forgotten that. It was an immensely funny event. :) 

I just don't consider it to be any reasonably professional comparison. There weren't enough specifics on the systems to compare them directly. Any good benchmarker knows that you have to use systems that are as identical as possible to one another to get fair results. And considering the benchmarks that we have seen from professionals that show RDRAM beating SDRAM time and time again, I have a difficult time believing that Intel's website was a valid comparison, which is perhaps why Intel didn't directly do the comparison themselves.

If you can show me one single review with benchmarks of systems identical except for motherboard and RAM where an i815 with CAS2 PC133 definitively beats a i840 with 40ns PC800 then I'll gladly accede that the P3 benefitted more from SDRAM than from RDRAM. Until then, there's much better proof that though much more expensive, RDRAM solutions still performed better for the P3 than PC133 did.

And yes, I'm picky on the specifics of the RDRAM there, but only because we all know that just using any old PC133 (such as CAS3) would clearly lose. So if we're going to be picky about one memory type, then lets be picky about both. And I also don't consider the 440BX comparisons fair because a 133MHz FSB was never officially supported on them and as far as I know, to do so always ran the PCI and AGP cards out of spec, making it highly unfair to begin with.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new"><font color=red>Join</font color=red> <font color=blue>the</font color=blue> <font color=green>THGC</font color=green> <font color=orange>LAN</font color=orange> <font color=purple>Party</font color=purple>!</A>
!