OT: AMD back in the game

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

Martin... 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 "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c7j99.2351$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> 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 > >

Agreed. I HATE VIA. 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 "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gMj99.127289$983.199372@rwcrnsc53... > Martin... > > That's good news.....but I sure wish AMD had stuck with their plan todesign

Quoted text (9 lines)

> and produce their own mobos and chipset drivers. That would have made my > life much easier.....over the long run! > > TP > > > "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:c7j99.2351$[email hidden]... > > I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it

looks

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 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 > > > > > >

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:17:16 -0400, Bot-Man <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>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/

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 "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:17:16 -0400, Bot-Man <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> > >wrote: > > > >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but it

looks

Quoted text (28 lines)

> >>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/

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 "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ddt99.341$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> 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 > > "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:17:16 -0400, Bot-Man <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > >On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> > > >wrote: > > > > > >>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

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > >>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. Mitch "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2wt99.133376$983.206122@rwcrnsc53... > 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 youshould

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 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_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Ddt99.341$[email hidden]... > > Problem with AMD (OEM anyway) is I must buy two everytime I build a

system

Quoted text (49 lines)

> > 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 > > > > "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:17:16 -0400, Bot-Man <[email hidden]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >>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/ > > > > > >

Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > 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.

I'm with you on this one Mitch, over the past two years we've built about 3 AMD systems to every Intel system, yet we have about 10 times the warranty claims on either Mobo's or CPU's for the AMD based systems using MoBo's from Microstar, AOpen or ASUS 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--

Quoted text (18 lines)

> 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.

I'm with you on this one Mitch, over the past two years we've built about 3 AMD systems to every Intel system, yet we have about 10 times the warranty claims on either Mobo's or CPU's for the AMD based systems using MoBo's from Microstar, AOpen or ASUS 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--

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 "Bot-Man" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but itlooks

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >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 never gotten a bad AMD cpu. OEM or Boxed. 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_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ddt99.341$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> 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 > > "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:17:16 -0400, Bot-Man <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > >On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> > > >wrote: > > > > > >>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

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > >>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/ > >

Mitch... 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 "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aru99.338$[email hidden]... > 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 aP4/850 > 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 costsme > 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 giveyou > 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*

Quoted text (10 lines)

> POST'ed. > > Mitch > > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2wt99.133376$983.206122@rwcrnsc53... > > 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

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > 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_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Ddt99.341$[email hidden]... > > > 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

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > (which ALWAYS works). LOL > > > > > > Mitch > > > > > > "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:17:16 -0400, Bot-Man <[email hidden]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but

it

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > 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 hadto > > > > 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 beefup > > > > 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 inpractice,

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > or at least more efficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ruud van Gaal > > > > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ > > > > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ > > > > > > > > > > > >

I am wondering how "fast" our CPU needs really are at the moment.......based on the current sim (and near term future sims due out)? I've always attempted to stay about 1 generation old.....with mobo's and CPU's.....for cost, and for stability issues. As yet, I don't think the sims we run have taxed those platforms to their limits. So, going to a 3.0 gig......what's to really be gained? I'm not saying not to do it, but I'd sure like to know that doing is going to produce an equitable gain for the risk taken to build one of these platforms (in reliability loss). 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 $1,200 now! TP "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Q%u99.3358$[email hidden]... > The new Intel 3Ghz is going to be a completely different animal. Youcan't

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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

Quoted text (24 lines)

> can upgrade most current motherboards with it. > > -Larry > > "Bot-Man" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > >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. > >

Me? I like em as fast as I can buy :) -Larry "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kKv99.135651$983.207261@rwcrnsc53... > I am wondering how "fast" our CPU needs really are at themoment.......based > on the current sim (and near term future sims due out)? I've always > attempted to stay about 1 generation old.....with mobo's and CPU's.....for > cost, and for stability issues. As yet, I don't think the sims we runhave > taxed those platforms to their limits. So, going to a 3.0 gig......what's > to really be gained? I'm not saying not to do it, but I'd sure like toknow > that doing is going to produce an equitable gain for the risk taken tobuild > one of these platforms (in reliability loss). > > 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 willover > 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 thesesystems

Quoted text (31 lines)

> 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 $1,200 now! > > TP > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Q%u99.3358$[email hidden]... > > 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 > > > > "Bot-Man" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >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

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > >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. > > > > > >

Well, my experience has been just the opposite. I build about 20 systems a year, 95% AMD, and the only AMD cpu/mobo issue I've had was the clip on the ZIF socket breaking off that holds the heatsink on the cpu causing the heatsink to fall off and fying the cpu and motherboard. My Intel issue was an Abit BH6 motherboard which lost power to it's onboard fan headers. 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 "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aru99.338$[email hidden]... > 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 aP4/850 > 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 costsme > 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 giveyou > 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*

Quoted text (10 lines)

> POST'ed. > > Mitch > > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2wt99.133376$983.206122@rwcrnsc53... > > 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

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > 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_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Ddt99.341$[email hidden]... > > > 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

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > (which ALWAYS works). LOL > > > > > > Mitch > > > > > > "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:17:16 -0400, Bot-Man <[email hidden]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but

it

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > 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 hadto > > > > 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 beefup > > > > 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 inpractice,

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > or at least more efficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ruud van Gaal > > > > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ > > > > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ > > > > > > > > > > > >

The advantage of course of having the faster system is being able to enable all of those options for an overall better experience. My best advice to you is stay out of the computer stores because if they have some 3GHz cpu with an ATI 9700 Pro sitting there in NR2002 demo mode with a FFB wheel and no kids around playing it with all visuals maxed, you'll be bitten by the bug and it will be too late to save you!! -Tim "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kKv99.135651$983.207261@rwcrnsc53... > I am wondering how "fast" our CPU needs really are at themoment.......based > on the current sim (and near term future sims due out)? I've always > attempted to stay about 1 generation old.....with mobo's and CPU's.....for > cost, and for stability issues. As yet, I don't think the sims we runhave > taxed those platforms to their limits. So, going to a 3.0 gig......what's > to really be gained? I'm not saying not to do it, but I'd sure like toknow > that doing is going to produce an equitable gain for the risk taken tobuild > one of these platforms (in reliability loss). > > 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 willover > 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 thesesystems > 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

I can't confirm your experience Mitch. 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 "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aru99.338$[email hidden]... > 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 aP4/850 > 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 costsme > 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 giveyou > 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*

Quoted text (10 lines)

> POST'ed. > > Mitch > > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2wt99.133376$983.206122@rwcrnsc53... > > 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

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > 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_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Ddt99.341$[email hidden]... > > > 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

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > (which ALWAYS works). LOL > > > > > > Mitch > > > > > > "Ruud van Gaal" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:17:16 -0400, Bot-Man <[email hidden]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:47:04 GMT, "Martin Fay" <[email hidden]> > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>I was beginning to worry that AMD was going to crash and burn but

it

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > 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 hadto > > > > 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 beefup > > > > 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 inpractice,

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > or at least more efficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ruud van Gaal > > > > Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ > > > > Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/ > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cpr99.2859$[email hidden]... > Agreed. I HATE VIA. > > My KG7 has the AMD 761 NorthBridge and it has been completely trouble free. A7M266 has the same 761 NorthBridge and it has been the most stable mobo I have EVER used. <snip> > 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. SIS need to get their marketing sorted. The 735 was a very fast AMD chipset but it only showed up on a couple of mobos. Plus the most common of those had a resistance problem with fast t-birds. iksteh

Yep I have the ASUS A7M266 AMD/VIA setup and it has been rock solid. Almost to good. I'm getting to the "ain't broke, don't fix it" mode. In the past problems were always a good reason to upgrade, now I don't have that. It won't bee long and I'll bee left in the dust. MadDAWG

I think changing from the KG7 for me will be determined by: 1. If the BIOS is updated to accept the new 2600 processors. 2. If the Caps stay together on it. ABIT has had a bit 'o' trouble with that. -Larry "MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yep I have the ASUS A7M266 AMD/VIA setup and it has been rock solid.Almost

Quoted text (7 lines)

> to good. I'm getting to the "ain't broke, don't fix it" mode. In the past > problems were always a good reason to upgrade, now I don't have that. It > won't bee long and I'll bee left in the dust. > > MadDAWG > >

MadDAWG wrote: > > Yep I have the ASUS A7M266 AMD/VIA setup and it has been rock solid. Almost > to good. I'm getting to the "ain't broke, don't fix it" mode. In the past > problems were always a good reason to upgrade, now I don't have that. It > won't bee long and I'll bee left in the dust. That's what I'm running too, incredibly stable board, I've replaced everything else in that PC and I know it's holding back the speed of the PC, AMD XP2100/Radeon 8500 128MB, as I have another PC with a lesser CPU and a 64 MB Radeon card and it has about the same or better performance, but it's not as stable, so I'm not really looking forward to replacing it, but it seems such a waste to have all this speedy hardware held back by what is now a fairly slow MoBo Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Larry wrote: > > I think changing from the KG7 for me will be determined by: > > 1. If the BIOS is updated to accept the new 2600 processors. > 2. If the Caps stay together on it. ABIT has had a bit 'o' trouble with > that. Abit having quality problems with their boards, I've never...... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

I hear you there. I have thought about building a new game box and moving the A&M over to the server duty, but its just hard to replace something that works just fine. MadDAWG

Yes, they have had one particular problem with some boards blowing caps around the processor. The KA7 was absolutely famous for this. Hell, one guy on the ABIT board makes a living repairing them :) There are a couple of other boards that have the problem too, but I don't remember the models. Every KA7 I've ever personally known or know someone who's owned has blown the caps. -Larry "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Larry wrote: > > > > I think changing from the KG7 for me will be determined by: > > > > 1. If the BIOS is updated to accept the new 2600 processors. > > 2. If the Caps stay together on it. ABIT has had a bit 'o' troublewith

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > that. > > Abit having quality problems with their boards, I've never...... > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

Larry wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Yes, they have had one particular problem with some boards blowing caps > around the processor. The KA7 was absolutely famous for this. Hell, one > guy on the ABIT board makes a living repairing them :) > > There are a couple of other boards that have the problem too, but I don't > remember the models. > > Every KA7 I've ever personally known or know someone who's owned has blown > the caps.

I was being sarcastic actually Larry :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

AMD makes damned fine chipsets. It's a shame they don't recognize that themselves :( -Larry "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > MadDAWG wrote: > > > > Yep I have the ASUS A7M266 AMD/VIA setup and it has been rock solid.Almost > > to good. I'm getting to the "ain't broke, don't fix it" mode. In thepast

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > problems were always a good reason to upgrade, now I don't have that. It > > won't bee long and I'll bee left in the dust. > > That's what I'm running too, incredibly stable board, I've replaced > everything else in that PC and I know it's holding back the speed of the > PC, AMD XP2100/Radeon 8500 128MB, as I have another PC with a lesser CPU > and a 64 MB Radeon card and it has about the same or better performance, > but it's not as stable, so I'm not really looking forward to replacing > it, but it seems such a waste to have all this speedy hardware held back > by what is now a fairly slow MoBo > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

We need an emoticon for that :) Larry "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Larry wrote: > > > > Yes, they have had one particular problem with some boards blowing caps > > around the processor. The KA7 was absolutely famous for this. Hell,one > > guy on the ABIT board makes a living repairing them :) > > > > There are a couple of other boards that have the problem too, but Idon't > > remember the models. > > > > Every KA7 I've ever personally known or know someone who's owned hasblown

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > the caps. > > I was being sarcastic actually Larry :-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

Larry wrote: > > We need an emoticon for that :) Yeah, sarcasm doesn't travel very well :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--