- Joined
- Dec 13, 2001
- Location
- Portland, Oregon
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
INTEL INFORMATION --- you'll all be shocked
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
thanks man, I knew the P4 had problems and I love my amd... but wow.. that is a lot of problems for the Pentium!!!
onyl thing saving them is the name now.... and sadly I went to frys everyday this week and I hear the sales people swear up and down about the P4 and these poor uninformed people buying into it....
onyl thing saving them is the name now.... and sadly I went to frys everyday this week and I hear the sales people swear up and down about the P4 and these poor uninformed people buying into it....
now i am a devout AMD fan and i really love reading artcles about the downfalls of the pentiums, besides price. That was a pointless article and biased in every way, there were some truths are there but most of those are commonly known but i think the truths were overshadowed by fanboyism- if that is a word,- just hope this doesn't turn into an AMD/INTEL debate.
Anyway, go AMD
Anyway, go AMD
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2002
- Location
- Nashville, TN
What's new? We've all known for a long time that the P4 isn't as fast on a clock for clock basis as the Athlon. To listen to this guy go on, the P4 is the worst chip ever. Never mind that it's designed to make up for it's lack of efficiency with raw clock speed. I'm neither an Intel nor an AMD zealot. I think they're both kickass processors and both the fastest ever.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Location
- Northern Virginia
This is one of the most biased articles I have ever read. This is about OLD technology, as it never compares the Northwood and refers to the Northwood as up and coming. Now, how long has the Northwood been out? I am not trying to start a debate, I could really care less about AMD/Intel. Facts are facts, at the present moment (not six months down the line) Intel makes a faster clocked chip which out performs the AMD chips in SOME areas. AMD on the otherhand outperforms the P4 in OTHERS. I know AMD is about to debut their new chips before too long, and they will probably be faster than the Northwoods in some areas, and then again in other areas they won't be.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2001
- Location
- Port Charlotte, Florida
Ok this guy is an absolute schmuk. Here's why....
Wrong. This wasn't a dirty trick. I was a processor aimed at budget computer system. Back when the Celeron was put out, the goal was sub-$1000 systems. As a matter of fact it cost Intel about $50 MORE to make a Celeron than it did a PII of the same clock speed and wafer.
A few instructions? Try a few million. He also rides them for being based on the same architecture. Later in the page he rides them for having 4 different families of processors and touts all of AMD's chips for working on one motherboard (read, all the same architecture...)
You know. I dont mind the common AMD vs. Intel arguement. But if your going to post something as poorly thought out, poorly backgrounded, and created out of pure bias please post it in Debates or Gripes and Moans. It has no place in the Hardware section.
Wrong. This wasn't a dirty trick. I was a processor aimed at budget computer system. Back when the Celeron was put out, the goal was sub-$1000 systems. As a matter of fact it cost Intel about $50 MORE to make a Celeron than it did a PII of the same clock speed and wafer.
A few instructions? Try a few million. He also rides them for being based on the same architecture. Later in the page he rides them for having 4 different families of processors and touts all of AMD's chips for working on one motherboard (read, all the same architecture...)
You know. I dont mind the common AMD vs. Intel arguement. But if your going to post something as poorly thought out, poorly backgrounded, and created out of pure bias please post it in Debates or Gripes and Moans. It has no place in the Hardware section.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2001
Some of it is true - listing the reasons why the Pentium 4 is slower. However, it is not a technical document - for this to be taken seriously it should be less one sided. A lot of it is pure BS.
EDIT:
I have to point this one out:
At the start of Socket A, all Durons & Tbirds were supported by the early KT133 based boards. But, not all mobos support all processors. Chances are, if you bought a Duron 600 and mobo at the dawn of Socket A, it will not support 133FSB CPUs - that is AthlonXP, MP and Athlon-Cs.
EDIT:
I have to point this one out:
At the start of Socket A, all Durons & Tbirds were supported by the early KT133 based boards. But, not all mobos support all processors. Chances are, if you bought a Duron 600 and mobo at the dawn of Socket A, it will not support 133FSB CPUs - that is AthlonXP, MP and Athlon-Cs.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2001
- Location
- Northern VA
Yup, I am strangely attached to my A7V, but I'm running a 133 CPU (1.2 AXIA) at 107fsb thanks to the KT133...and that board will probably never run an AthlonXP...
I'm going through the article now...man its long. Looks pretty long...you know, I chose AMD over Intel, and still do in most occasions, but so far this looks like the guy has the whole "Intel has made a fatal mistake!" knida thing...
I mean, he compares a P4 to a 486...
And even if Intel is touting its clock speed, it's just taking advantage of a customer base that doesn't know the difference. I'm not here to argue that point, but I do remember when AMD was the first to hit 1ghz.
Sure I still prefer the Athlon of the P4, but comeone, some people are pushing 1.6A northwoods towards 3ghz and beyond...from an overclockers perspectvie and not a "AMD fan" or "Intel fan" perspective, thats pretty darn exciting.
Interesting reading nonetheless, just make sure bias isn't part of any judgement you make...if you let bias get in the way then you really risk making mistakes...
Mike
I'm going through the article now...man its long. Looks pretty long...you know, I chose AMD over Intel, and still do in most occasions, but so far this looks like the guy has the whole "Intel has made a fatal mistake!" knida thing...
I mean, he compares a P4 to a 486...
And even if Intel is touting its clock speed, it's just taking advantage of a customer base that doesn't know the difference. I'm not here to argue that point, but I do remember when AMD was the first to hit 1ghz.
Sure I still prefer the Athlon of the P4, but comeone, some people are pushing 1.6A northwoods towards 3ghz and beyond...from an overclockers perspectvie and not a "AMD fan" or "Intel fan" perspective, thats pretty darn exciting.
Interesting reading nonetheless, just make sure bias isn't part of any judgement you make...if you let bias get in the way then you really risk making mistakes...
Mike
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
i guess this is intel information so i will post this here:
http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.html?i=15766&t=an
u are correct sir (for a $100)
http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.html?i=15766&t=an
u are correct sir (for a $100
)
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2002
If Intel will actually make sure they finish this chip before it ships (Prescott) it looks like it could be one bad @$$ chip.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Folding in Barbados
Though the reviewer made 1 or 2 biased coments (esp. on the celerons ) I think it is a very good article . It is in depth and illustrates many of the points that I have been trying to make in a less comprehensive manner. It is a fact that Intel has admitted to ; that is , that the P4 is a crippled version of what Intel first had on the drawing board . Several of the flaws in the cpu as highlighted in the article may still have been present on the original spec , but it is indeed a lesser chip that was planned .Was it purely due to marketing ............ or did Intel think that AMD couldn't match the P4 at all ........... what made them release the skt 423 P4 as is ? I think it was a combination of factors but more importantly to protect market share .
This is a relatively old review as the northwoods aren't present but It makes valid and important points which often aren't made by reviewers :
1/ P4 really does need optimised code which often puts other older processors at a severe disadvantage ............. rather than just soup up P4 performance they also degrade the performance of more conventional chips.
1a/ These optimisations are often difficult to implement ......... thus most programmers while offering some help to the p4 will rather have good support for other cpus like the Xp and the older chips than give full optimisation .
2/ P4 systems from 1.8 GHz down are not worth buying based on price performance .
2a/ P3 , tulatin , Thunderbirds , durons ( morgan ) and some of the faster celerons will outperform the P4 in a significant number of REAL WORLD benchmarks .
Finally he did something that often isn't done and that is to compare the processors as Intel 'the GHz is king company' should have it . That is , compare chips at a similar clock rate Xp 1800+ ( 1533 MHz ) with the P4 1.5 , Tbird 1.2 and tulatin 1.2
All are well priced 'cept the very expensive (relative ) tulatin . Needless to say the P4 didn't fare too well at all . Also this is the type of system ( P4 1.3 to p4 1.7 ) being sold to unsuspecting buyers as top notch and low price but are higher priced and lower performing than AMD soloutions or the P3 1 GHz systems that some may be replacig with their spanking P4 1.4 ghz rig with the i845 and sdram
I learned quite a bit about instructions and compiling ( glad i don't do it ) from the article .
This is a relatively old review as the northwoods aren't present but It makes valid and important points which often aren't made by reviewers :
1/ P4 really does need optimised code which often puts other older processors at a severe disadvantage ............. rather than just soup up P4 performance they also degrade the performance of more conventional chips.
1a/ These optimisations are often difficult to implement ......... thus most programmers while offering some help to the p4 will rather have good support for other cpus like the Xp and the older chips than give full optimisation .
2/ P4 systems from 1.8 GHz down are not worth buying based on price performance .
2a/ P3 , tulatin , Thunderbirds , durons ( morgan ) and some of the faster celerons will outperform the P4 in a significant number of REAL WORLD benchmarks .
Finally he did something that often isn't done and that is to compare the processors as Intel 'the GHz is king company' should have it . That is , compare chips at a similar clock rate Xp 1800+ ( 1533 MHz ) with the P4 1.5 , Tbird 1.2 and tulatin 1.2
All are well priced 'cept the very expensive (relative ) tulatin . Needless to say the P4 didn't fare too well at all . Also this is the type of system ( P4 1.3 to p4 1.7 ) being sold to unsuspecting buyers as top notch and low price but are higher priced and lower performing than AMD soloutions or the P3 1 GHz systems that some may be replacig with their spanking P4 1.4 ghz rig with the i845 and sdram
I learned quite a bit about instructions and compiling ( glad i don't do it ) from the article .
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2001
- Location
- Springfield, IL
Very useful.......
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
ya, i am not bias towards these 2 companies at all, but i have to admit, the p4 is a rip off. If they sold anywhere near the XP's, even 20-50 more, they wud be a excellent deal becuase they are so oc friendly, becuase they do less work. But alas thats only for the oc'er.
I like to see compitition and if intel puts even a desent effort into the prescott, and changes some things, it shud be smoken but i dont wanna see the price.
i think also, we are goin to see big leeps in the xeons before we see alot in the p4's. Intel knows it has an advantage iin the duel market, amd will eventually come around, but not any time soon.
there shud be no benches of respective speeds i dont think, the chips are different, so why shud they be treated any differently. cept the tualatins which are basically a cool amd cept more money.
I like to see compitition and if intel puts even a desent effort into the prescott, and changes some things, it shud be smoken but i dont wanna see the price.
i think also, we are goin to see big leeps in the xeons before we see alot in the p4's. Intel knows it has an advantage iin the duel market, amd will eventually come around, but not any time soon.
there shud be no benches of respective speeds i dont think, the chips are different, so why shud they be treated any differently. cept the tualatins which are basically a cool amd cept more money.
I've been on an Intel based processor since the old days. They've been great, and have far exceeded my expectations when I thought about this stuff 10-15 years ago.
I think Intel has the following stengths:
1. Long, long reputation of producing quality, fast chips
2. Long relationships with the industry, including MSFT
3. Capital (i.e. $$)
But, it seems the more efficient CPU/chipset right now is in AMDs favor.
Simply cranking up the FSB speed to OC a processor will do little if the underlying architecture is somehow flawed or inefficient.
Most hardcore h/ware sites now are releasing interesting proofs of some of these weaknesses.
I am a avid PC user since 1982, a lifelong gamer, and also a financial quant / programmer (derivatives), so I push PCs around all day.
BTW - I just ordered my first AMD chip and system... it arrives tomorrow. Let's see firsthand....
I think Intel has the following stengths:
1. Long, long reputation of producing quality, fast chips
2. Long relationships with the industry, including MSFT
3. Capital (i.e. $$)
But, it seems the more efficient CPU/chipset right now is in AMDs favor.
Simply cranking up the FSB speed to OC a processor will do little if the underlying architecture is somehow flawed or inefficient.
Most hardcore h/ware sites now are releasing interesting proofs of some of these weaknesses.
I am a avid PC user since 1982, a lifelong gamer, and also a financial quant / programmer (derivatives), so I push PCs around all day.
BTW - I just ordered my first AMD chip and system... it arrives tomorrow. Let's see firsthand....
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2001
- Location
- Niagara Region, Eh!
Wow, I read that article all the way to the end, skipping only the compiling datails and code, as it is so incrdibly boring. But the article was all right, the author sure showed his single sidedness though.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2001
- Location
- KC, MO
I think that the 3 topics you named are part of the problem Jayhawk23. I don't hate anybody. I liked the Cryix 5x86's (much to my shame and your own amusment), and have used AMD since the 6x86 days because they were usually the OK (if not great) and cheap alternitive. I still stick by AMD because they put out great chips and they don't try to take your whole paycheck for it. If they were in Intels position (ie., on top with control of the minds of most "Joe Sixpack's" as Ed would say), I know that they would be charging more because they could. One thing you can give them is that they at least put out a consistantly good chip and they do try to improve it as fast and correctly as possible. If Intel would put out a good chip that I could buy without selling my soul (already in hock) and the rights to my first born, I would buy them. I (thank which ever god/godess you believe in) that I don't have to have the newest and best! Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2001
I saw this article long time ago... It was written about when the first Willamtes were out, its not that I'm protecting Intel or anything Its just I think the article is pretty old, and we do know all this, and I think it really doesn't concern the NWs very much...
Its just I think the article is pretty old, and we do know all this, and I think it really doesn't concern the NWs very much...
it fully concerns the Northwoods, the ONLY changes were swiching to .13mm process(wich only allows less power consumption and higher clock) and dropping 256k more l2 cache.
i have pointed people to this article many times and besides his open enthusiasm for AMD, and a few mistakes, everything in the article are facts.
the p4 was supposed toi be released with l3 cache(1 meg in the original whitepapers) and the trace cache is downgraded to make the chip less expensive(lol)
I think AMD is going to begin a domination of intel im price AS WELL as performance in the upcoming year. I wont quote how much mckinleys(the new itaniums that will rival Hammers) will probably cost, but a good old Clawhammer will probably cost less than half. possibly even less than that(look how much current itanium's cost now!)
and as for the new "super" p4's that are being worked on, who cares about an awesome p4(32bit) when new 64bit proggies are gona be all the rage(with us anyway)
although microsoft hasnt officially said support of hammer will come, microsoft WILL release a x86-64 windows at release time for hammer. I'd bet my *** they do. Its to attractive of a possibility that hammer might dominate the home and server platforms. m$ would not, and are not, dumb enough to pass that up
as ive said before who wants a really fast, advanced 32bit p4 when 64bit is in????????? that would be like releasing a 4ghz 16bit chip now. who would care!! even a 10ghz one! lets run win3.1 on it at breakneck speeds WOOHOO!
-Malakai
i have pointed people to this article many times and besides his open enthusiasm for AMD, and a few mistakes, everything in the article are facts.
the p4 was supposed toi be released with l3 cache(1 meg in the original whitepapers) and the trace cache is downgraded to make the chip less expensive(lol)
I think AMD is going to begin a domination of intel im price AS WELL as performance in the upcoming year. I wont quote how much mckinleys(the new itaniums that will rival Hammers) will probably cost, but a good old Clawhammer will probably cost less than half. possibly even less than that(look how much current itanium's cost now!)
and as for the new "super" p4's that are being worked on, who cares about an awesome p4(32bit) when new 64bit proggies are gona be all the rage(with us anyway)
although microsoft hasnt officially said support of hammer will come, microsoft WILL release a x86-64 windows at release time for hammer. I'd bet my *** they do. Its to attractive of a possibility that hammer might dominate the home and server platforms. m$ would not, and are not, dumb enough to pass that up
as ive said before who wants a really fast, advanced 32bit p4 when 64bit is in????????? that would be like releasing a 4ghz 16bit chip now. who would care!! even a 10ghz one! lets run win3.1 on it at breakneck speeds WOOHOO!
-Malakai
Last edited:
