like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive speed
increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
-Marty
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
-Marty
That's good news.....but I sure wish AMD had stuck with their plan to design
and produce their own mobos and chipset drivers. That would have made my
life much easier.....over the long run!
TP
My KG7 has the AMD 761 NorthBridge and it has been completely trouble free.
Why they voted to save a few $$$ and use that damned VIA 686B South Bridge
I'll never know.
It seems the only way to get the full 760 chipset was in a few MP boards.
Right now, the new SIS stuff is looking good. I believe it's the 648 that's
about to be released, and early tests are extremely promising.
-Larry
> That's good news.....but I sure wish AMD had stuck with their plan to
design
> and produce their own mobos and chipset drivers. That would have made my
> life much easier.....over the long run!
> TP
> > I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it
looks
> > like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive speed
> > increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> > -Marty
>>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it looks
>>like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive speed
>>increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
>>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
>>-Marty
>Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a faster
>cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
>announced ages ago.
I believe the reason went for RISC is because they could then beef up
the rate to up to about 10Ghz. Not the prettiest in design though, if
I read some of the P4 reviews (very inefficient).
I still would take a fast AMD over an Intel; seems faster in practice,
or at least more efficient.
Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Mitch
> >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it
looks
> >>like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive speed
> >>increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> >>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> >>-Marty
> >Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a faster
> >cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
> >announced ages ago.
> The problem with the P4 seemed to be its RISC approach, so you had to
> have higher frequencies to do the same as CISC processors (although
> the differences are subtle these days).
> So a 1.4Ghz Brand X CPU can be faster than a 2.2GHz Intel CPU.
> I believe the reason went for RISC is because they could then beef up
> the rate to up to about 10Ghz. Not the prettiest in design though, if
> I read some of the P4 reviews (very inefficient).
> I still would take a fast AMD over an Intel; seems faster in practice,
> or at least more efficient.
> Ruud van Gaal
> Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
> Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
OEM's have a 30-day guarantee.....why do you "pay for two"...CPU's? I can
see buying an extra, and returning the DOA or the working un-needed CPU (I
do the same thing, by the way). But costing more? No way. And you should
have a new power supply (assume you mean a 400w unit) for the video card
anyway....that's not the CPU's fault.
TP
> Mitch
> > >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it
> looks
> > >>like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive
speed
> > >>increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> > >>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> > >>-Marty
> > >Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a faster
> > >cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
> > >announced ages ago.
> > The problem with the P4 seemed to be its RISC approach, so you had to
> > have higher frequencies to do the same as CISC processors (although
> > the differences are subtle these days).
> > So a 1.4Ghz Brand X CPU can be faster than a 2.2GHz Intel CPU.
> > I believe the reason went for RISC is because they could then beef up
> > the rate to up to about 10Ghz. Not the prettiest in design though, if
> > I read some of the P4 reviews (very inefficient).
> > I still would take a fast AMD over an Intel; seems faster in practice,
> > or at least more efficient.
> > Ruud van Gaal
> > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
> > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Seriously though, I've done this long nuff to know what my customers want
and that's reliability. I know exactly how long it takes to build a P4/850
based system. AMD based systems are great for you guys because you can
spend as much time as you like tweakin. When I have to *tweak* it costs me
money ://. Between the extremely fragile Athlon XP to the VIA based
chipsets to the USB issues it's just not an option for me or my customers.
Yeah yeah I know chipsets change technolgy moves forward etc etc. Burn me
once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me!
BTW: Athlon XP OEM has *NO* warranty from AMD (although AMD will give you
one single repl OEM cpu). The reseller (VAR) on the other hand makes the
determination as to whether the CPU has a factory defect (which will NEVER
happen) or whether the CPU was damaged during installation (always the
case). This has happened to me numerous times, even though the CPU *NEVER*
POST'ed.
Mitch
> OEM's have a 30-day guarantee.....why do you "pay for two"...CPU's? I can
> see buying an extra, and returning the DOA or the working un-needed CPU (I
> do the same thing, by the way). But costing more? No way. And you
should
> have a new power supply (assume you mean a 400w unit) for the video card
> anyway....that's not the CPU's fault.
> TP
> > Problem with AMD (OEM anyway) is I must buy two everytime I build a
system
> > cause I know at minimum one likely both will be DOA (tongue in cheek).
> > After I buy a new Power supply it'll end up costing wayyy more than a P4
> > (which ALWAYS works). LOL
> > Mitch
> > > >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it
> > looks
> > > >>like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive
> speed
> > > >>increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> > > >>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> > > >>-Marty
> > > >Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a faster
> > > >cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
> > > >announced ages ago.
> > > The problem with the P4 seemed to be its RISC approach, so you had to
> > > have higher frequencies to do the same as CISC processors (although
> > > the differences are subtle these days).
> > > So a 1.4Ghz Brand X CPU can be faster than a 2.2GHz Intel CPU.
> > > I believe the reason went for RISC is because they could then beef up
> > > the rate to up to about 10Ghz. Not the prettiest in design though, if
> > > I read some of the P4 reviews (very inefficient).
> > > I still would take a fast AMD over an Intel; seems faster in practice,
> > > or at least more efficient.
> > > Ruud van Gaal
> > > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
> > > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
> I guess it was a pretty lame attempt at humer eh Tom? You of all people
> :-). Yeah I read the LFS thread you started last week :-)
> Seriously though, I've done this long nuff to know what my customers want
> and that's reliability. I know exactly how long it takes to build a P4/850
> based system. AMD based systems are great for you guys because you can
> spend as much time as you like tweakin. When I have to *tweak* it costs me
> money ://. Between the extremely fragile Athlon XP to the VIA based
> chipsets to the USB issues it's just not an option for me or my customers.
> Yeah yeah I know chipsets change technolgy moves forward etc etc. Burn me
> once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me!
> BTW: Athlon XP OEM has *NO* warranty from AMD (although AMD will give you
> one single repl OEM cpu). The reseller (VAR) on the other hand makes the
> determination as to whether the CPU has a factory defect (which will NEVER
> happen) or whether the CPU was damaged during installation (always the
> case). This has happened to me numerous times, even though the CPU *NEVER*
> POST'ed.
Personally I'm using AMD's in most of my systems and they've been fairly
reliable, but my next system will be P4 based, no question, especially
with the Intel 845G chipset and support for 333 Mhz memory, even if it's
unofficial
Yes I think it's good that Intel has some competition, and no, AMD will
never really challenge Intel in the all important business market unless
they can improve the quality of their products, one of my customers
insist on Intel CPU's as he doesn't need the hassle, and since he buys
about 50 computers from me each year, I'm not about to argue with him,
especially since we haven't replaced more than one MoBo at his place in
the last year and not a single CPU
AMD are cutting corners *somewhere*
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
It requires a new motherboard and Power Supply at least.
The cost factor for the Intel 3GB is going to be very high.
The AMD 2600+ will be close in performance, a HELL of a lot cheaper, and you
can upgrade most current motherboards with it.
-Larry
> >I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it
looks
> >like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive speed
> >increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> >http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> >-Marty
> Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a faster
> cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
> announced ages ago.
I tend to buy boxed processors over OEM's. The warranty is better, and the
heatsink/fan that comes with them works just fine, and are easy to install.
It's worth the small additional cost to me.
-Larry
> Mitch
> > >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it
> looks
> > >>like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive
speed
> > >>increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> > >>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> > >>-Marty
> > >Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a faster
> > >cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
> > >announced ages ago.
> > The problem with the P4 seemed to be its RISC approach, so you had to
> > have higher frequencies to do the same as CISC processors (although
> > the differences are subtle these days).
> > So a 1.4Ghz Brand X CPU can be faster than a 2.2GHz Intel CPU.
> > I believe the reason went for RISC is because they could then beef up
> > the rate to up to about 10Ghz. Not the prettiest in design though, if
> > I read some of the P4 reviews (very inefficient).
> > I still would take a fast AMD over an Intel; seems faster in practice,
> > or at least more efficient.
> > Ruud van Gaal
> > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
> > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
I totally understand your point.....if I was not building these rigs for my
own use.....but for customers, I'd do the same as you are doing. I didn't
realize you were talking about customer rigs.
TP
> Seriously though, I've done this long nuff to know what my customers want
> and that's reliability. I know exactly how long it takes to build a
P4/850
> based system. AMD based systems are great for you guys because you can
> spend as much time as you like tweakin. When I have to *tweak* it costs
me
> money ://. Between the extremely fragile Athlon XP to the VIA based
> chipsets to the USB issues it's just not an option for me or my customers.
> Yeah yeah I know chipsets change technolgy moves forward etc etc. Burn me
> once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me!
> BTW: Athlon XP OEM has *NO* warranty from AMD (although AMD will give
you
> one single repl OEM cpu). The reseller (VAR) on the other hand makes the
> determination as to whether the CPU has a factory defect (which will NEVER
> happen) or whether the CPU was damaged during installation (always the
> case). This has happened to me numerous times, even though the CPU
*NEVER*
> POST'ed.
> Mitch
> > Mitch....
> > OEM's have a 30-day guarantee.....why do you "pay for two"...CPU's? I
can
> > see buying an extra, and returning the DOA or the working un-needed CPU
(I
> > do the same thing, by the way). But costing more? No way. And you
> should
> > have a new power supply (assume you mean a 400w unit) for the video card
> > anyway....that's not the CPU's fault.
> > TP
> > > Problem with AMD (OEM anyway) is I must buy two everytime I build a
> system
> > > cause I know at minimum one likely both will be DOA (tongue in cheek).
> > > After I buy a new Power supply it'll end up costing wayyy more than a
P4
> > > (which ALWAYS works). LOL
> > > Mitch
> > > > >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but
it
> > > looks
> > > > >>like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive
> > speed
> > > > >>increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> > > > >>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> > > > >>-Marty
> > > > >Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a
faster
> > > > >cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
> > > > >announced ages ago.
> > > > The problem with the P4 seemed to be its RISC approach, so you had
to
> > > > have higher frequencies to do the same as CISC processors (although
> > > > the differences are subtle these days).
> > > > So a 1.4Ghz Brand X CPU can be faster than a 2.2GHz Intel CPU.
> > > > I believe the reason went for RISC is because they could then beef
up
> > > > the rate to up to about 10Ghz. Not the prettiest in design though,
if
> > > > I read some of the P4 reviews (very inefficient).
> > > > I still would take a fast AMD over an Intel; seems faster in
practice,
> > > > or at least more efficient.
> > > > Ruud van Gaal
> > > > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
> > > > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Right now, I'm running 1.4 gig cpu's (oc'd to 1.6ish) on MSI mobos (mostly
MSI K7 Masters) and can get "pegged at max" FPS out of even N2K2. Sure, it
won't peg the meter with 42 AI cars on the track....but the FPS is will over
40 and into the 50's after the starts. That's still plenty of FPS
headroom.....and the systems are totally stable. Until I see these systems
beginning to "under perform" the higher speed platforms (but less stable
ones)....I'm sticking with them. I built two of these a couple weeks back
for local friends and these rigs are coming in at under $1,200 now!
TP
> It requires a new motherboard and Power Supply at least.
> The cost factor for the Intel 3GB is going to be very high.
> The AMD 2600+ will be close in performance, a HELL of a lot cheaper, and
you
> can upgrade most current motherboards with it.
> -Larry
> > >I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it
> looks
> > >like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive speed
> > >increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> > >http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> > >-Marty
> > Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a faster
> > cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
> > announced ages ago.
-Larry
> Right now, I'm running 1.4 gig cpu's (oc'd to 1.6ish) on MSI mobos (mostly
> MSI K7 Masters) and can get "pegged at max" FPS out of even N2K2. Sure,
it
> won't peg the meter with 42 AI cars on the track....but the FPS is will
over
> 40 and into the 50's after the starts. That's still plenty of FPS
> headroom.....and the systems are totally stable. Until I see these
systems
> beginning to "under perform" the higher speed platforms (but less stable
> ones)....I'm sticking with them. I built two of these a couple weeks back
> for local friends and these rigs are coming in at under $1,200 now!
> TP
> > The new Intel 3Ghz is going to be a completely different animal. You
> can't
> > just buy it and install it.
> > It requires a new motherboard and Power Supply at least.
> > The cost factor for the Intel 3GB is going to be very high.
> > The AMD 2600+ will be close in performance, a HELL of a lot cheaper, and
> you
> > can upgrade most current motherboards with it.
> > -Larry
> > > >I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it
> > looks
> > > >like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive
speed
> > > >increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> > > >http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> > > >-Marty
> > > Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a faster
> > > cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
> > > announced ages ago.
I've in the past 3 years built 8 systems based on Athlons. I've only ever
had probs with 2 mobos or their BIOSes, never with AMD's CPUs.
The first was when the Slot-A Athlon was released (this problem was cured by
a BIOS update - the first BIOSes simply had probs), the second was with an
early Socket A mobo from a brand I'd never used before (nor after). All the
other mobos (chipsets from AMD, VIA and Nvidia) worked out of the box
without tweaking.
Hence, if there are probs I think it's the mobo and its BIOS rather than the
CPU, but IMHO, there's quite a few AMD mobo's out there which are guaranteed
to work out of the box if you use a known hardware config (which I guess is
true for Intel based systems as well - unknown components can always
surprise you, can't they).
Achim
> Seriously though, I've done this long nuff to know what my customers want
> and that's reliability. I know exactly how long it takes to build a
P4/850
> based system. AMD based systems are great for you guys because you can
> spend as much time as you like tweakin. When I have to *tweak* it costs
me
> money ://. Between the extremely fragile Athlon XP to the VIA based
> chipsets to the USB issues it's just not an option for me or my customers.
> Yeah yeah I know chipsets change technolgy moves forward etc etc. Burn me
> once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me!
> BTW: Athlon XP OEM has *NO* warranty from AMD (although AMD will give
you
> one single repl OEM cpu). The reseller (VAR) on the other hand makes the
> determination as to whether the CPU has a factory defect (which will NEVER
> happen) or whether the CPU was damaged during installation (always the
> case). This has happened to me numerous times, even though the CPU
*NEVER*
> POST'ed.
> Mitch
> > Mitch....
> > OEM's have a 30-day guarantee.....why do you "pay for two"...CPU's? I
can
> > see buying an extra, and returning the DOA or the working un-needed CPU
(I
> > do the same thing, by the way). But costing more? No way. And you
> should
> > have a new power supply (assume you mean a 400w unit) for the video card
> > anyway....that's not the CPU's fault.
> > TP
> > > Problem with AMD (OEM anyway) is I must buy two everytime I build a
> system
> > > cause I know at minimum one likely both will be DOA (tongue in cheek).
> > > After I buy a new Power supply it'll end up costing wayyy more than a
P4
> > > (which ALWAYS works). LOL
> > > Mitch
> > > > >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but
it
> > > looks
> > > > >>like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive
> > speed
> > > > >>increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> > > > >>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> > > > >>-Marty
> > > > >Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a
faster
> > > > >cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
> > > > >announced ages ago.
> > > > The problem with the P4 seemed to be its RISC approach, so you had
to
> > > > have higher frequencies to do the same as CISC processors (although
> > > > the differences are subtle these days).
> > > > So a 1.4Ghz Brand X CPU can be faster than a 2.2GHz Intel CPU.
> > > > I believe the reason went for RISC is because they could then beef
up
> > > > the rate to up to about 10Ghz. Not the prettiest in design though,
if
> > > > I read some of the P4 reviews (very inefficient).
> > > > I still would take a fast AMD over an Intel; seems faster in
practice,
> > > > or at least more efficient.
> > > > Ruud van Gaal
> > > > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
> > > > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
The point is as always, you mileage may vary and most of us base our
purchasing practices off of our own experiences with that product but as far
as AMD goes, I've never had to "tweak it" to build a system.
-Tim
> Seriously though, I've done this long nuff to know what my customers want
> and that's reliability. I know exactly how long it takes to build a
P4/850
> based system. AMD based systems are great for you guys because you can
> spend as much time as you like tweakin. When I have to *tweak* it costs
me
> money ://. Between the extremely fragile Athlon XP to the VIA based
> chipsets to the USB issues it's just not an option for me or my customers.
> Yeah yeah I know chipsets change technolgy moves forward etc etc. Burn me
> once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me!
> BTW: Athlon XP OEM has *NO* warranty from AMD (although AMD will give
you
> one single repl OEM cpu). The reseller (VAR) on the other hand makes the
> determination as to whether the CPU has a factory defect (which will NEVER
> happen) or whether the CPU was damaged during installation (always the
> case). This has happened to me numerous times, even though the CPU
*NEVER*
> POST'ed.
> Mitch
> > Mitch....
> > OEM's have a 30-day guarantee.....why do you "pay for two"...CPU's? I
can
> > see buying an extra, and returning the DOA or the working un-needed CPU
(I
> > do the same thing, by the way). But costing more? No way. And you
> should
> > have a new power supply (assume you mean a 400w unit) for the video card
> > anyway....that's not the CPU's fault.
> > TP
> > > Problem with AMD (OEM anyway) is I must buy two everytime I build a
> system
> > > cause I know at minimum one likely both will be DOA (tongue in cheek).
> > > After I buy a new Power supply it'll end up costing wayyy more than a
P4
> > > (which ALWAYS works). LOL
> > > Mitch
> > > > >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but
it
> > > looks
> > > > >>like they're still in it. Good news. That's a fairly impressive
> > speed
> > > > >>increase for the Athlon XP architecture.
> > > > >>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/index.html
> > > > >>-Marty
> > > > >Yea, but by the time it is avaialble retail Intel will have a
faster
> > > > >cpu out. I can't even get the 2200+ yet around here and that was
> > > > >announced ages ago.
> > > > The problem with the P4 seemed to be its RISC approach, so you had
to
> > > > have higher frequencies to do the same as CISC processors (although
> > > > the differences are subtle these days).
> > > > So a 1.4Ghz Brand X CPU can be faster than a 2.2GHz Intel CPU.
> > > > I believe the reason went for RISC is because they could then beef
up
> > > > the rate to up to about 10Ghz. Not the prettiest in design though,
if
> > > > I read some of the P4 reviews (very inefficient).
> > > > I still would take a fast AMD over an Intel; seems faster in
practice,
> > > > or at least more efficient.
> > > > Ruud van Gaal
> > > > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
> > > > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/