rec.autos.simulators

news:0rBN6.527$9D5.54334@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

You are the one who can't come up with a logical argument.  Your decision to
blame the CPU was based on your personal grudge against AMD and no real
working knowledge of how a PC works.  That's plainly evident in your posting
as anyone can see.  you did nothing to try and fix it but were quick to
blame the CPU.  Where is your logic??  You have none, it's that simple.

What I get is that I see somebody who evidently knows very little about
computers in general and who has now painted himself into a corner.  Again,
your assumption was based on nothing but a whim on your part and no real
work at trying to figure out the real problem.  Get it !

I do not have a desktop gaming console dumbass.  I have three AMD based PCs
and one Intel pased PC.  You need to keep your posts straight.

Im not a fan boy, Im simple a person who hates to see people post on the
usenet about things they know nothing about and then start flame wars over
them.  Face it Mr. Silvy,  you simply do not have a clue as to what you are
talking about.  Your entire posting is based on your ignorance as was your
assumption that was evident in the piss poor example that you posted.

BS.  You haven't outlined squat.  Posting one piss-poor example of  a
missconfigured system is not outlinging anything except for the fact that
you do not have a clue as to how to even begin diagnosing a PC problem.

There is no choice as you have posted only hot air.  Show me something
concrete!  All you have proven is that you know very little about PCs.

Your a dumbass you know that?
1)I do not play quake
2)I do not run benchmarks
3)I am not an AMD spokesperson but I do dislike arogant and stupid people
like you.

Your the one who's pathetic.  You cant produce a valid argment and you have
shown me zero proof that the CPU was to blame so you have lowered yourself
to the level of a pathetic troll.

It's strange how you like to use the word "logic" in your postings yet the
meaning of the word somehow completely escapes you.

Im through arguing with you as you have nothing to offer except your
ammusing and apparent lack of knoledge and common sense.

I agree with you.  I build, repair and upgrade system in my spare time and
have do so for a long time.  What gets under my skin is these uneducated
idiots who keep blaming the CPU instead of doing any kind of problem
diagosing themsevles.  That's the only reason I jumped into this thread in
the***place.  Thoseof us that have at least some technical knowledge have
an obligation to put in our two cents to tip the scales a bit as there are
too many uninformed people posting in the usenet like they know what the
hell they are talking about when in fact they don't.

Yes, I do tend to blow off some steam from time to time but sad part is that
many newbies will read postings in this NG and take it as gospel.  They will
then pay more for an inferior product made by Intel and that IMHO is a
shame.  Just my two cents.

Screw that!

I use 4 Plextor CD writers....

Pasha

Well, I know you picked up on the fact that Mr. William Silvey hadn't done
enough diagnosing of his problems to form a relevant opinion. I picked up on
that fact too.

I personally don't care if somebody decides to use an Intel or AMD processor
or at what Mhz. I just don't like seeing FUD being spread around because of
ignorance. I tend to point out and defend against falsehoods directed at
Intel too.

    Yousuf Khan

On Sat, 19 May 2001 21:18:52 GMT, "William Silvey"

Just because it was 300w doesn't mean it was an adequate PS for the
AMD cpu. You need to look at the amp ratings on the rail. Not all 300w
power supplies are created equal.
--
eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format
http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip

Exactly. Which is why an engine (or a cpu) should throttle back if it is
overheating!  If the *car* is badly designed, with poor airflow over the
engine bay, then the engine will overheat. Is that the fault of the engine,
or the car manufacturer?

Exactly. No problem at all, except if there is insufficient cooling.

--
brian
- Turn up the heat to reply -

I kind of see this problem as the problems I'm having with Linux. I can get
Linux to work. It takes some time, advice from others, and some work. I'm
sura I can get both CPU's to work well. But there is always specifics about
'new' hardware that you need to learn. Especially if you build your computer
yourself.

Is'nt it sometimes that hardware ARE incompatible with other hardware (as a
specifik CPU)? Even if it as in (some) Cyrix x86 was a software thing. What
I mean is: it does not matter if the hardware is no-go becouse of OS/driver.
If it does not work it does not do the job. And there will always be
programs at least that is not all-hardware compatible.

I'm told by programming friends that is becouse programmers sometimes takes
shortcuts and uses specifik instructions in the wrong (but efficient) way.

I would like some insight on the following: What loopholes are there with
AMD/Intel? Pros/Cons.
(Asked this before but got mostly aswers that where of the this rox that sux
type. These are not credible, or probable.)

MadMan

<Slaps Pasha>  (e-mail me you looney so I can get your real address)

Hey! Why arn`t you making N4 sounds???

Thanks for all y`all replying to this thread. I am pondering yet another
system build. I was going with the P4 but found out that besides the
propritory memory thingie...you have to use their Power supply and Case. I
am now leaning to a T-bird 1.33...and I can use my Evan Vital case and 400w
power supply<the 266mz memory is cheap>. Now I see AMD is comming out with a
1.5 Duron.....oh the agony!

To wait or not to wait.....

--
KdF

ICQ # 15778345

2001 07:41:27 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just
yet!  :)"

Exactly. Why is this so hard to understand? I personally have
nothing against the current AMD product line... but I gotta
believe there are a lot of AMD purchasers out there who are
feeling very insecure with their decision for one reason or
another. This article, and the argument it spawned here, is
nothing but straw grasping.

Regards, JD

I'm considering the same upgrade.  Allan, what MB and memory did you buy?

Dan

There were a few specific incompatibilities with Cyrixes in the past. It's a
bit of a sordid history. In one case Creative Labs and Cyrix got into a
patent dispute, and from that point forward Creative put in some Cyrix
detectors which would mean that Soundblasters and other Creative products
would not install on systems with Cyrix processors. That was a deliberate
incompatibility done for political reasons rather than technical reasons.
Creative eventually corrected the situation after the patent disputes were
settled.

In another case, certain game manufacturers put CPU detectors into their
installation programs. I can recall that one such game was Papyrus'
Indycar/CART Racing II. This was put in to detect whether you were running a
Pentium-class processor or later vs. a 486 or earlier class. The only
reasoning behind this was not because they used Pentium x86 instruction set
extensions, but simply to detect if they felt your processor was fast enough
to handle the game. The earlier Cyrixes attempted to identify themselves as
486 processors (albeit very fast 486's), even though they ran on Pentium
motherboards. I don't know what the specific rationale behind trying to look
like a 486 was, but I suspect that they didn't want to support the few
extended Pentium instruction set, they wanted to stick with the familiar;
when Cyrix designed the 6x86, the Pentium wasn't yet the mainstream, the 486
was still the vast majority of installations. Anyways, they were detected as
486's by the game installers, and instead of attempting to run benchmarks to
see if these 486's were indeed fast enough to run the game, they just
detected the type of CPU and made the assumption that it wouldn't be fast
enough. I can't recall right now if this was a fatal flaw that prevented
installation, or just a prominent warning that allowed installation to
continue; but in either case, it scared people away. Later Cyrixes such as
the MX, supported the full Pentium classic instruction set as well as teh
MMX instruction set and identified themselves as Pentium as well by default.

Yes, sometimes programmers take shortcuts which cause some problems from
time to time. It is usually caused by trying to do things that aren't
supported through the OS. Microsoft is doing a much better job these days of
giving game developers a worthy DirectX interface that allows them great
flexibility in using services from the OS, instead of trying to do the job
themselves.

But sometimes Microsoft itself gets caught making some poor shortcut
decisions (actually they do that a lot, but they usually get away with it),
and it affects their compatibility with processors. In one case with the AMD
K6 processors that ran above 350Mhz there was a timing loop within Windows
95 that was causing problems. The specific set of instructions that
Microsoft was using got optimized within the K6's to a point where they ran
too fast and it overflowed the timing loop. Microsoft knew about the
problem, and issued a widely-available patch specifically for the AMD's.
Microsoft admitted the problem, and the problem was that they were making an
assumption about processors, and that they didn't expect the problem to rear
its ugly head until processors hit 700Mhz, but they began to appear in the
K6's way before they hit that number. It was obvious that they were
expecting the problem to occur eventually by 700Mhz so they would've had to
make the modification anyway. It is one of the few times that there were
some truly CPU-specific incompatibilities with AMDs, but the Intel
processors would've suffered the same problem once they hit 700Mhz; of
course they have now gone over 700Mhz, but most machines running at those
speeds are using Windows 98 or higher, so the problem is not an issue.

You know in all honesty, I can't think of any advantages that an Intel
processor has over an AMD processor these days. There are a few areas where
they are close to each other, but no areas where Intel have a lead. We also
have to distinguish between which Intel and which AMD processors we're
talking about, since there is a hodgepodge of Athlons, Celerons, Durons,
P3's and P4's out there.

Intel's P3 despite being an older processor is a more efficient processor
than P4, because it can run more instructions per cycle (IPC) than P4 can.
The P3 was also almost identical in efficiency to Athlon. The P4 runs much
faster than P3 or Athlon, but it can't do as much during each of those
cycles; it's a high-revving, small displacement engine. The P3 was better
competition for the Athlon, but it topped out at 1.0Ghz.  The P3 would've
had its own limitations as it would've fallen behind the Athlon when DDR RAM
was used, because the P3's memory interface tops out at 133Mhz, whereas the
Athlon goes at upto 266Mhz. The P4 has a memory bandwidth advantage over the
Athlon, because the P4 runs at upto 400Mhz, but again its low IPC count make
it fall behind.

There is plenty of evidence out there that AMD is being noticed these days,
by companies big and small. Microsoft is not dismissing alternative
processors these days. Companies like Motorola, IBM, Cisco, etc. are
cooperating with AMD on various technologies, where they share and trade
patents with each other. Nvidia is making a laptop chipset primarily for the
Athlons with an integrated GeForce-series accelerator built-in. Micron also
seems to have ongoing plans to get into the chipset market, again with an
Athlon chipset. I think a lot of it has to do with an unwillingness to want
to deal with Intel anymore.

    Yousuf Khan

The problem with Linux is that there are too many variants out there.  Also
remember that driver support is in its infancy and a lot of the drivers that
exist are not written by the companies themseves but by amature programers
who want to see Linux work.  Same applies to the software for Linux.  Linux
is a labor of love for some but IMHO it's too much of a pain.  I have tried
5 diff distros just for training purposes on a new machine I just built and
find that each one of them has at least two or more major shortcomings.  You
will never have a problem finding a win dirver for just about anything.

Certain motherboards are not compatible with certain sound cards and certain
DIMMs or SIMMs.  Some software is not compatible with certain pieces of
hardware also.  There will always be incompatiblities no matter what simpy
because there are too many parts by to many manufacturers that are
undertested etc.  If you do a search about CPU incompatibilities though you
will most likely turn up empty handed.  The CPU would be the last thing you
need to wory about.   If a CPU is at fault then it is either A)fautly B)has
improper cooling or C)has improper voltage.  I would check everything else
first.

Yep, but people seem to never susupect the software.  Some tend to blame the
CPU no mater what.

AFAOL there are zero incompatibilities with AMD CPUs.  Yes, there are some
with certain chipset boards and some of those have fixes but there is
absolutely no reason for not owning an AMD chipset mainboard with a Duron or
Thunderbird and saving over a comparably overpriced P4 system.  You will
find tons of "this sux"and "this rocks" postings.  It's just a matter of
reading between the lines and asking why "this sux" or why "this rocks" and
then deciding for yourself who knows what they are talking about and who is
full of s***.   Good luck.

Holy crap!  A post from somebody with some common sense and a reasonable
attitude.  What is this newsgroup coming to?  <g>

True.  Luckily not all PS have to be on AMD's approved listing to work
either.  The specifics can be found on AMD's web site.

All my local PC builders tested several models and then decided which ones
were their best bet for the money.  Some would not even sell you an Athlon
motherboard unless you purchased the PS from them to boot as there were too
many returns due to this problem.

This PS problem is going to become more and more prominent as time goes on,
for all processors from all manufacturers. Until now PS's were just an
install and forget item (i.e. a PS is a PS is a PS, etc.). But with
electronic components requiring less and less voltages all of the time these

This is not so much because we need 300W+ PS's to power ever hungrier
components, but because we need steadier and steadier electrical power
characteristics. There's more tolerance in higher wattage PS's than in lower
wattage ones.

    Yousuf Khan