VIA buys AMD, Nvidia buys Transmeta => good god !!

goodness me what is happening to the world ?? from totally unreliable sources:= "...........MAKE OF THIS AS YOU WILL, but we heard from normally highly reliable sources at Computex last week that as recently as this time last year Via was seriously considering buying AMD. That would have been a masterstroke for Via CEO Wen Chi Chen if he could have pulled off the plan. Formidable obstacles -- no doubt in the shape of Jerry Sanders III as well as the sums of money that would probably have been involved -- might well have convinced Via that the time for such an acquisition was not ripe. And it would also have pitched Via firmly against Intel, and catapulted it firmly into the worldwide CPU market. Although Via is a force to be reckoned with in the industry, the US seems to have something of a blind spot about the company, which is owned by mega Taiwanese corporation Formosa Plastics. Via has already used the acquisition vehicle to increase its presence in the marketplace, with multi-million dollar deals giving it a number of US firms and divisions including Centaur, Cyrix, a chunk of S3, a bit of LSI Logic and goodness knows what else. Such a bold stroke would have galvanised the industry. Three years ago, at an Intel Developer Forum, chief technology officer Pat Gelsinger told us that it was rightly paranoid about Via - more paranoid in fact than it was about AMD, widely perceived as its main competition. At the INQUIRER, we also know that Via was seriously interested in acquiring Transmeta - so much so, in fact - that the latter company protected itself with a so-called "poison pill" piece of US regulatory paper. Other firms that we know have also been interested in Transmeta include its friend Nvidia, which wants to give itself leverage against future Microsoft negotiations.

I don't get it. --Uzi "John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (55 lines)

> goodness me > what is happening to the world ?? > > from totally unreliable sources:= > > > "...........MAKE OF THIS AS YOU WILL, but we heard from > normally highly reliable sources at Computex last week > that as recently as this time last year Via was > seriously considering buying AMD. > That would have been a masterstroke for Via CEO Wen Chi > Chen if he could have pulled off the plan. > > Formidable obstacles -- no doubt in the shape of Jerry > Sanders III as well as the sums of money that would > probably have been involved -- might well have > convinced Via that the time for such an acquisition was > not ripe. > > And it would also have pitched Via firmly against > Intel, and catapulted it firmly into the worldwide CPU > market. > > Although Via is a force to be reckoned with in the > industry, the US seems to have something of a blind > spot about the company, which is owned by mega > Taiwanese corporation Formosa Plastics. > > Via has already used the acquisition vehicle to > increase its presence in the marketplace, with > multi-million dollar deals giving it a number of US > firms and divisions including Centaur, Cyrix, a chunk > of S3, a bit of LSI Logic and goodness knows what else. > > Such a bold stroke would have galvanised the industry. > > Three years ago, at an Intel Developer Forum, chief > technology officer Pat Gelsinger told us that it was > rightly paranoid about Via - more paranoid in fact than > it was about AMD, widely perceived as its main > competition. > > At the INQUIRER, we also know that Via was seriously > interested in acquiring Transmeta - so much so, in > fact - that the latter company protected itself with a > so-called "poison pill" piece of US regulatory paper. > > Other firms that we know have also been interested in > Transmeta include its friend Nvidia, which wants to > give itself leverage against future Microsoft > negotiations. > > > >

well thata would suck, I love AMD but VIA chipsets suck big time.....I wont buy a board with VIA on it..... "John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (54 lines)

| goodness me | what is happening to the world ?? | | from totally unreliable sources:= | | | "...........MAKE OF THIS AS YOU WILL, but we heard from | normally highly reliable sources at Computex last week | that as recently as this time last year Via was | seriously considering buying AMD. | That would have been a masterstroke for Via CEO Wen Chi | Chen if he could have pulled off the plan. | | Formidable obstacles -- no doubt in the shape of Jerry | Sanders III as well as the sums of money that would | probably have been involved -- might well have | convinced Via that the time for such an acquisition was | not ripe. | | And it would also have pitched Via firmly against | Intel, and catapulted it firmly into the worldwide CPU | market. | | Although Via is a force to be reckoned with in the | industry, the US seems to have something of a blind | spot about the company, which is owned by mega | Taiwanese corporation Formosa Plastics. | | Via has already used the acquisition vehicle to | increase its presence in the marketplace, with | multi-million dollar deals giving it a number of US | firms and divisions including Centaur, Cyrix, a chunk | of S3, a bit of LSI Logic and goodness knows what else. | | Such a bold stroke would have galvanised the industry. | | Three years ago, at an Intel Developer Forum, chief | technology officer Pat Gelsinger told us that it was | rightly paranoid about Via - more paranoid in fact than | it was about AMD, widely perceived as its main | competition. | | At the INQUIRER, we also know that Via was seriously | interested in acquiring Transmeta - so much so, in | fact - that the latter company protected itself with a | so-called "poison pill" piece of US regulatory paper. | | Other firms that we know have also been interested in | Transmeta include its friend Nvidia, which wants to | give itself leverage against future Microsoft | negotiations. | | |

> well thata would suck, I love AMD but VIA chipsets suck big time.....Iwont buy a board with VIA on it..... I agree, but the last few VIA chipsets have been superb. i.e. KT266A & KT333 The KT133 was a pile of cr*p when it first came out, however the VIA 4in1 drivers have come on in leaps and bounds in the last year or so and even it seems stable now. -- Damien Smith [email hidden] ICQ: 77028579 F1 2001 rank: -11.512

"Blake" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NEgN8.200073$%[email hidden]... > well thata would suck, I love AMD but VIA chipsets suck big time.....Iwont buy a board with VIA on it..... What other choices do you have? AMD stopped making chipsets and SIS and Ali Magik are not so great either. At least VIA makes the fastest AMD chipsets. I'm still using an AMD761 chipset, but probably not for much longer if I want to upgrade the cpu. I've even thought of going back over to Intel with the i845E chipset and a P4 2.26A just so I can get a stable chipset and not have to buy RAMBUS.

AMD's intel compatible chipsets are in fact designed and fabricated by VIA anyhow. This is a known and is no secret. You constantly find the same exact errors and issues in both chips at the same time. The reason is that they ARE the same chips, just that one has AMD on it and another has VIA on it, but they are the same. It suprises me not at all when AMD is going to buy VIA because VIA is pretty much owned by VIA already as VIA has not sold on their own since AMD employed them to pump out chipsets compatible with their AMD CPU's. Don't also be suprised if VIA is fabricating AMD's CPU's though AMD is designing them, VIA is actually manufacturing them. On the other hand? Why? AMD has a huge fab her in Austin. No use ot use VIA. I think the object is that AMD wants VIA's sole technology. I feel sorry for AMD because there are much better chipset makers out there than VIA. VIA's chipsets are laiden with serious errors and flaws, esp. when applied to AGP and PCI bus timing issues. This has been such a huge issue that VIA had to resort to making each timing parameter programable in their chipsets so they never have to simply pull an entire chipset off the market, instead they have to go in and tweak their chipset bus timing to agree with every card you try to shove into your system. A pretty nasty way to go after it compared to Intel's process which is to simply stick with a timing standard and force everyone to stick to it. For some reason though VIA choses not to stick with that standard. Why? I think that the standard itself requires licensing and VIA isn't going to pay intel anything, so they approach it in a cleanroom manner and as a result, really screws up bad. "John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (54 lines)

> goodness me > what is happening to the world ?? > > from totally unreliable sources:= > > > "...........MAKE OF THIS AS YOU WILL, but we heard from > normally highly reliable sources at Computex last week > that as recently as this time last year Via was > seriously considering buying AMD. > That would have been a masterstroke for Via CEO Wen Chi > Chen if he could have pulled off the plan. > > Formidable obstacles -- no doubt in the shape of Jerry > Sanders III as well as the sums of money that would > probably have been involved -- might well have > convinced Via that the time for such an acquisition was > not ripe. > > And it would also have pitched Via firmly against > Intel, and catapulted it firmly into the worldwide CPU > market. > > Although Via is a force to be reckoned with in the > industry, the US seems to have something of a blind > spot about the company, which is owned by mega > Taiwanese corporation Formosa Plastics. > > Via has already used the acquisition vehicle to > increase its presence in the marketplace, with > multi-million dollar deals giving it a number of US > firms and divisions including Centaur, Cyrix, a chunk > of S3, a bit of LSI Logic and goodness knows what else. > > Such a bold stroke would have galvanised the industry. > > Three years ago, at an Intel Developer Forum, chief > technology officer Pat Gelsinger told us that it was > rightly paranoid about Via - more paranoid in fact than > it was about AMD, widely perceived as its main > competition. > > At the INQUIRER, we also know that Via was seriously > interested in acquiring Transmeta - so much so, in > fact - that the latter company protected itself with a > so-called "poison pill" piece of US regulatory paper. > > Other firms that we know have also been interested in > Transmeta include its friend Nvidia, which wants to > give itself leverage against future Microsoft > negotiations. > > >

> AMD's intel compatible chipsets are in fact designed and fabricated by VIA > anyhow. > This is a known and is no secret. It's completely untrue. AMD designs and manufactures their chipsets on their own, and in their own fabs too I believe. VIA doesn't even HAVE any manufacturing capability! They're a fabless design studio who appoints companies such as TMSC to actually produce their chips. Shows how much YOU know, LOL! >You constantly find the same exact errors > and issues > in both chips at the same time. Ehhh... No, this is bullshit like most everything else you post. > It suprises me not at all when AMD is going to buy VIA because VIA ispretty > much owned > by VIA already Makes sense. VIA owns VIA... Brainfart, anyone? > as VIA has not sold on their own since AMD employed them to > pump out chipsets > compatible with their AMD CPU's. Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. VIA sells quite a lot of Intel-compatible chipsets too. > On the other > hand? Why? AMD has a huge > fab her in Austin. It makes flash memory these days, not CPUs. AMDs CPUs are made in the Dresden megafab in Germany, or in the case of the Duron (which was produced in Austin up until recently) by some Taiwanese company that I can't remember the name of.

> What other choices do you have? AMD stopped making chipsets and SIS and Ali > Magik are not so great either. I agree with you on Ali, I do however strongly disagree WRT SiS > At least VIA makes the fastest AMD chipsets.At what cost though? > I'm still using an AMD761 chipset, but probably not for much longer if I > want to upgrade the cpu. I've even thought of going back over to Intel with > the i845E chipset and a P4 2.26A just so I can get a stable chipset and not > have to buy RAMBUS. Have you considered nForce? (your AMD 761 should take a Thoroughbred without issue by the way) -JB * gets back to enjoying the troublefree life the SiS735 provides *

> AMDs CPUs are made in the Dresden megafab in Germany, or in the case of the > Duron (which was produced in Austin up until recently) by some Taiwanese > company that I can't remember the name of. UMC? -JB

I don't think VIA is big enough to buy AMD, are they ? -Larry "John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (54 lines)

> goodness me > what is happening to the world ?? > > from totally unreliable sources:= > > > "...........MAKE OF THIS AS YOU WILL, but we heard from > normally highly reliable sources at Computex last week > that as recently as this time last year Via was > seriously considering buying AMD. > That would have been a masterstroke for Via CEO Wen Chi > Chen if he could have pulled off the plan. > > Formidable obstacles -- no doubt in the shape of Jerry > Sanders III as well as the sums of money that would > probably have been involved -- might well have > convinced Via that the time for such an acquisition was > not ripe. > > And it would also have pitched Via firmly against > Intel, and catapulted it firmly into the worldwide CPU > market. > > Although Via is a force to be reckoned with in the > industry, the US seems to have something of a blind > spot about the company, which is owned by mega > Taiwanese corporation Formosa Plastics. > > Via has already used the acquisition vehicle to > increase its presence in the marketplace, with > multi-million dollar deals giving it a number of US > firms and divisions including Centaur, Cyrix, a chunk > of S3, a bit of LSI Logic and goodness knows what else. > > Such a bold stroke would have galvanised the industry. > > Three years ago, at an Intel Developer Forum, chief > technology officer Pat Gelsinger told us that it was > rightly paranoid about Via - more paranoid in fact than > it was about AMD, widely perceived as its main > competition. > > At the INQUIRER, we also know that Via was seriously > interested in acquiring Transmeta - so much so, in > fact - that the latter company protected itself with a > so-called "poison pill" piece of US regulatory paper. > > Other firms that we know have also been interested in > Transmeta include its friend Nvidia, which wants to > give itself leverage against future Microsoft > negotiations. > > >

SiS has actually been making a name for itself recently. For example, the SIS735 is a very stable, and until the KT266 came out, the fastest AMD chipset available. -Larry "Toad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "Blake" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:NEgN8.200073$%[email hidden]... > > well thata would suck, I love AMD but VIA chipsets suck big time.....I > wont buy a board with VIA on it..... > > What other choices do you have? AMD stopped making chipsets and SIS and

Ali > Magik are not so great either. At least VIA makes the fastest AMDchipsets. > I'm still using an AMD761 chipset, but probably not for much longer if I > want to upgrade the cpu. I've even thought of going back over to Intelwith > the i845E chipset and a P4 2.26A just so I can get a stable chipset andnot > have to buy RAMBUS. > > > >

Guys please remove "alt.games.operation-flashpoint" from the headers. We're not interested in the "war of the computer geeks" over here. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> -- "Getting eaten by a crocodile is JUST like falling asleep... in a blender!" - Homer Simpson "Lenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%cpN8.42765$[email hidden]... > > > AMD's intel compatible chipsets are in fact designed and fabricated by VIA > > anyhow. > > This is a known and is no secret. > > It's completely untrue. AMD designs and manufactures their chipsets on their > own, and in their own fabs too I believe. VIA doesn't even HAVE any > manufacturing capability! They're a fabless design studio who appoints > companies such as TMSC to actually produce their chips. > > Shows how much YOU know, LOL! > > >You constantly find the same exact errors > > and issues > > in both chips at the same time. > > Ehhh... No, this is bullshit like most everything else you post. > > > It suprises me not at all when AMD is going to buy VIA because VIA is > pretty > > much owned > > by VIA already > > Makes sense. VIA owns VIA... Brainfart, anyone? > > > as VIA has not sold on their own since AMD employed them to > > pump out chipsets > > compatible with their AMD CPU's. > > Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. VIA sells quite a lot of > Intel-compatible chipsets too. > > > On the other > > hand? Why? AMD has a huge > > fab her in Austin. > > It makes flash memory these days, not CPUs. > > AMDs CPUs are made in the Dresden megafab in Germany, or in the case of the > Duron (which was produced in Austin up until recently) by some Taiwanese > company that I can't remember the name of. > > >

"Chris G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Guys please remove "alt.games.operation-flashpoint" from the headers.We're > not interested in the "war of the computer geeks" over here. Anyone else enjoy the irony of that statement? LOL

I don't think VIA is big enough anymore to buy an Arby's franchise... : : doc : : [email hidden] : "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DZpN8.58905$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (62 lines)

> I don't think VIA is big enough to buy AMD, are they ? > > -Larry > > "John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > goodness me > > what is happening to the world ?? > > > > from totally unreliable sources:= > > > > > > "...........MAKE OF THIS AS YOU WILL, but we heard from > > normally highly reliable sources at Computex last week > > that as recently as this time last year Via was > > seriously considering buying AMD. > > That would have been a masterstroke for Via CEO Wen Chi > > Chen if he could have pulled off the plan. > > > > Formidable obstacles -- no doubt in the shape of Jerry > > Sanders III as well as the sums of money that would > > probably have been involved -- might well have > > convinced Via that the time for such an acquisition was > > not ripe. > > > > And it would also have pitched Via firmly against > > Intel, and catapulted it firmly into the worldwide CPU > > market. > > > > Although Via is a force to be reckoned with in the > > industry, the US seems to have something of a blind > > spot about the company, which is owned by mega > > Taiwanese corporation Formosa Plastics. > > > > Via has already used the acquisition vehicle to > > increase its presence in the marketplace, with > > multi-million dollar deals giving it a number of US > > firms and divisions including Centaur, Cyrix, a chunk > > of S3, a bit of LSI Logic and goodness knows what else. > > > > Such a bold stroke would have galvanised the industry. > > > > Three years ago, at an Intel Developer Forum, chief > > technology officer Pat Gelsinger told us that it was > > rightly paranoid about Via - more paranoid in fact than > > it was about AMD, widely perceived as its main > > competition. > > > > At the INQUIRER, we also know that Via was seriously > > interested in acquiring Transmeta - so much so, in > > fact - that the latter company protected itself with a > > so-called "poison pill" piece of US regulatory paper. > > > > Other firms that we know have also been interested in > > Transmeta include its friend Nvidia, which wants to > > give itself leverage against future Microsoft > > negotiations. > > > > > > > >

No please explain. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> -- "Getting eaten by a crocodile is JUST like falling asleep... in a blender!" - Homer Simpson "mhicaoidh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wMrN8.11136$[email hidden]... > "Chris G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Guys please remove "alt.games.operation-flashpoint" from the headers. > We're > > not interested in the "war of the computer geeks" over here. > > Anyone else enjoy the irony of that statement? LOL > >

"mhicaoidh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wMrN8.11136$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Chris G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Guys please remove "alt.games.operation-flashpoint" from the headers. > We're > > not interested in the "war of the computer geeks" over here. > > Anyone else enjoy the irony of that statement? LOL

Not until you mentioned it, but yeah that is ironic. This is more like... "war of the misinformation speading geeks".

I wasn't even interested in this thread until some "computer war gaming geek" called us geeks having a war over computer stuff! Yes, yes, yes... I like Irony! That's irony, not ironing for all you female "computer war gaming geeks" out there :) bye, Rick "FLY135" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HQtN8.137$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > "mhicaoidh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:wMrN8.11136$[email hidden]... > > "Chris G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Guys please remove "alt.games.operation-flashpoint" from the headers. > > We're > > > not interested in the "war of the computer geeks" over here. > > > > Anyone else enjoy the irony of that statement? LOL > > Not until you mentioned it, but yeah that is ironic. This is more like... > "war of the misinformation speading geeks". > >

"Chris G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > No please explain. Well, someone from the Operation Flashpoint newsgroup ... a 3D war simulation computer game ... complained about having to read about the "war of the computer geeks." I Hate explaining humour. ;-)

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "mhicaoidh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:wMrN8.11136$[email hidden]... > > "Chris G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Guys please remove "alt.games.operation-flashpoint" from the headers. > > We're > > > not interested in the "war of the computer geeks" over here. > > > > Anyone else enjoy the irony of that statement? LOL > > > > > >

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae5a29$7ik$[email hidden]... > Have you considered nForce? Possible choice but they have integrated graphics so the cost is higher. > (your AMD 761 should take a Thoroughbred without issue by the way) Nope, my mb revision won't even take XP cpu. > -JB * gets back to enjoying the troublefree life the SiS735 provides * Bit slow though isn't it? I would rather buy another AMD761 mb than an SIS.

Possible choice but they have integrated graphics so the cost is higher. Nope, my mb revision won't even take XP cpu. Bit slow though isn't it? I would rather buy another AMD761 mb than an SIS.

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:I%pN8.58913$[email hidden]... > SiS has actually been making a name for itself recently. For example, the > SIS735 is a very stable, and until the KT266 came out, the fastest AMD > chipset available. > > -Larry Well, KT333 is even faster than KT266 so that SIS is lagging a bit now.

"Toad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ae5a29$7ik$[email hidden]... > > Have you considered nForce? > > Possible choice but they have integrated graphics so the cost is higher. the Abit NV7-133R is a 415...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > (your AMD 761 should take a Thoroughbred without issue by the way) > > Nope, my mb revision won't even take XP cpu. > > > -JB * gets back to enjoying the troublefree life the SiS735 provides * > > Bit slow though isn't it? I would rather buy another AMD761 mb than an SIS.

No way, the Leadtek 7350KDA boards are pretty fast, faster than the ECS cheapie, and at least on par with Nforce boards.

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Fuck you. You are dumb. I don't care if you work for AMD, you are still full of shit. Die punk ass. And by the way, today is my first day of posting in here, so fuck you and your rude ass. "Lenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%cpN8.42765$[email hidden]... > > > AMD's intel compatible chipsets are in fact designed and fabricated byVIA > > anyhow. > > This is a known and is no secret. > > It's completely untrue. AMD designs and manufactures their chipsets ontheir

Quoted text (33 lines)

> own, and in their own fabs too I believe. VIA doesn't even HAVE any > manufacturing capability! They're a fabless design studio who appoints > companies such as TMSC to actually produce their chips. > > Shows how much YOU know, LOL! > > >You constantly find the same exact errors > > and issues > > in both chips at the same time. > > Ehhh... No, this is bullshit like most everything else you post. > > > It suprises me not at all when AMD is going to buy VIA because VIA is > pretty > > much owned > > by VIA already > > Makes sense. VIA owns VIA... Brainfart, anyone? > > > as VIA has not sold on their own since AMD employed them to > > pump out chipsets > > compatible with their AMD CPU's. > > Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. VIA sells quite a lot of > Intel-compatible chipsets too. > > > On the other > > hand? Why? AMD has a huge > > fab her in Austin. > > It makes flash memory these days, not CPUs. > > AMDs CPUs are made in the Dresden megafab in Germany, or in the case of

the > Duron (which was produced in Austin up until recently) by some Taiwanese > company that I can't remember the name of. > > >

did you know VIA has the LARGEST market share of chipsets ? as the story says, even INTEL is keeping a very close eye on VIA since it started talks with TRANSMETA. Personally I feel VIA-TRANSmeta would be a nice 3rd CPU maker that would really turn the market.... "Blake" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NEgN8.200073$%[email hidden] om... > well thata would suck, I love AMD but VIA chipsetssuck big time.....I wont buy a board with VIA on it..... > > "John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> | goodness me > | what is happening to the world ?? > | > | from totally unreliable sources:= > | > | > | "...........MAKE OF THIS AS YOU WILL, but we heard

from > | normally highly reliable sources at Computex lastweek > | that as recently as this time last year Via was > | seriously considering buying AMD. > | That would have been a masterstroke for Via CEO WenChi > | Chen if he could have pulled off the plan. > | > | Formidable obstacles -- no doubt in the shape ofJerry > | Sanders III as well as the sums of money that would > | probably have been involved -- might well have > | convinced Via that the time for such an acquisitionwas > | not ripe. > | > | And it would also have pitched Via firmly against > | Intel, and catapulted it firmly into the worldwideCPU

Quoted text (11 lines)

> | market. > | > | Although Via is a force to be reckoned with in the > | industry, the US seems to have something of a blind > | spot about the company, which is owned by mega > | Taiwanese corporation Formosa Plastics. > | > | Via has already used the acquisition vehicle to > | increase its presence in the marketplace, with > | multi-million dollar deals giving it a number of US > | firms and divisions including Centaur, Cyrix, a

chunk > | of S3, a bit of LSI Logic and goodness knows whatelse. > | > | Such a bold stroke would have galvanised theindustry. > | > | Three years ago, at an Intel Developer Forum, chief > | technology officer Pat Gelsinger told us that itwas > | rightly paranoid about Via - more paranoid in factthan > | it was about AMD, widely perceived as its main > | competition. > | > | At the INQUIRER, we also know that Via wasseriously > | interested in acquiring Transmeta - so much so, in > | fact - that the latter company protected itselfwith a > | so-called "poison pill" piece of US regulatorypaper. > | > | Other firms that we know have also been interestedin

Quoted text (8 lines)

> | Transmeta include its friend Nvidia, which wants to > | give itself leverage against future Microsoft > | negotiations. > | > | > | > >

AMD's QUARTERLY revenue is larger than VIA's ANNUAL revenue. The bullshit runneth over in this thread. -- Joe Marques "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DZpN8.58905$[email hidden]... > I don't think VIA is big enough to buy AMD, are they ? > > -Larry > > "John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > goodness me > > what is happening to the world ?? > > > > from totally unreliable sources:= > > > > > > "...........MAKE OF THIS AS YOU WILL, but we heard from > > normally highly reliable sources at Computex last week > > that as recently as this time last year Via was > > seriously considering buying AMD. > > That would have been a masterstroke for Via CEO Wen Chi > > Chen if he could have pulled off the plan. > > > > Formidable obstacles -- no doubt in the shape of Jerry > > Sanders III as well as the sums of money that would > > probably have been involved -- might well have > > convinced Via that the time for such an acquisition was > > not ripe. > > > > And it would also have pitched Via firmly against > > Intel, and catapulted it firmly into the worldwide CPU > > market. > > > > Although Via is a force to be reckoned with in the > > industry, the US seems to have something of a blind > > spot about the company, which is owned by mega > > Taiwanese corporation Formosa Plastics. > > > > Via has already used the acquisition vehicle to > > increase its presence in the marketplace, with > > multi-million dollar deals giving it a number of US > > firms and divisions including Centaur, Cyrix, a chunk > > of S3, a bit of LSI Logic and goodness knows what else. > > > > Such a bold stroke would have galvanised the industry. > > > > Three years ago, at an Intel Developer Forum, chief > > technology officer Pat Gelsinger told us that it was > > rightly paranoid about Via - more paranoid in fact than > > it was about AMD, widely perceived as its main > > competition. > > > > At the INQUIRER, we also know that Via was seriously > > interested in acquiring Transmeta - so much so, in > > fact - that the latter company protected itself with a > > so-called "poison pill" piece of US regulatory paper. > > > > Other firms that we know have also been interested in > > Transmeta include its friend Nvidia, which wants to > > give itself leverage against future Microsoft > > negotiations. > > > > > > > >

Ah ok...for a second I thought you were going to say that we were a FLASH newsgroup for making flash stuff on websites or something. We get alot of those that come in asking questions about FLASH without even looking at the rest of the posts and realizing that the NG is for a game. Damn I had my flame thrower locked, cocked and ready to burn! LOL! :) Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> -- "Getting eaten by a crocodile is JUST like falling asleep... in a blender!" - Homer Simpson "mhicaoidh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UnvN8.156428$352.7693@sccrnsc02... > "Chris G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > No please explain. > > Well, someone from the Operation Flashpoint newsgroup ... a 3D war > simulation computer game ... complained about having to read about the "war > of the computer geeks." I Hate explaining humour. ;-) > > > "mhicaoidh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:wMrN8.11136$[email hidden]... > > > "Chris G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Guys please remove "alt.games.operation-flashpoint" from the headers. > > > We're > > > > not interested in the "war of the computer geeks" over here. > > > > > > Anyone else enjoy the irony of that statement? LOL > > > > > > > > > > > >

me wrote: > > Yawn, yawn, yawn. Fuck you. You are dumb. I don't care if you > work for AMD, you are still full of shit. > Die punk ass. And by the way, today is my first day of posting > in here, so fuck you and your rude ass. > My my - aren't we the eloquent one. A shining example of manners and education. I don't know what we would have done without your sedulous words of wisdom. Sooner or later you will probably get all the help you richly deserve. -- Chuck F ([email hidden]) ([email hidden]) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

Find another newsgroup to pollute. "me" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:k3xN8.16666$[email hidden]... > Yawn, yawn, yawn. Fuck you. You are dumb. I don't care if you work forAMD,

Quoted text (38 lines)

> you are still full of shit. > Die punk ass. And by the way, today is my first day of posting in here, so > fuck you and your rude ass. > > "Lenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%cpN8.42765$[email hidden]... > > > > > AMD's intel compatible chipsets are in fact designed and fabricated by > VIA > > > anyhow. > > > This is a known and is no secret. > > > > It's completely untrue. AMD designs and manufactures their chipsets on > their > > own, and in their own fabs too I believe. VIA doesn't even HAVE any > > manufacturing capability! They're a fabless design studio who appoints > > companies such as TMSC to actually produce their chips. > > > > Shows how much YOU know, LOL! > > > > >You constantly find the same exact errors > > > and issues > > > in both chips at the same time. > > > > Ehhh... No, this is bullshit like most everything else you post. > > > > > It suprises me not at all when AMD is going to buy VIA because VIA is > > pretty > > > much owned > > > by VIA already > > > > Makes sense. VIA owns VIA... Brainfart, anyone? > > > > > as VIA has not sold on their own since AMD employed them to > > > pump out chipsets > > > compatible with their AMD CPU's. > > > > Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. VIA sells quite a lot

of

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Intel-compatible chipsets too. > > > > > On the other > > > hand? Why? AMD has a huge > > > fab her in Austin. > > > > It makes flash memory these days, not CPUs. > > > > AMDs CPUs are made in the Dresden megafab in Germany, or in the case of > the > > Duron (which was produced in Austin up until recently) by some Taiwanese > > company that I can't remember the name of. > > > > > > > >

April Fools Joke - this was released THIS year... wording changed around.... blah! On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:23:17 +0800, "John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>goodness me >what is happening to the world ?? > >from totally unreliable sources:= > > >"...........MAKE OF THIS AS YOU WILL, but we heard from >normally highly reliable sources at Computex last week >that as recently as this time last year Via was >seriously considering buying AMD. >That would have been a masterstroke for Via CEO Wen Chi >Chen if he could have pulled off the plan. >

<SNiped BS> >Other firms that we know have also been interested in >Transmeta include its friend Nvidia, which wants to >give itself leverage against future Microsoft >negotiations. April Fools Joke - this was released THIS year... wording changed around.... blah! An Nvidia FAQ : www.geocities.com/nfaq - Lookin for volunteers.

mhicaoidh wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "Chris G." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Guys please remove "alt.games.operation-flashpoint" from the >> headers. We're not interested in the "war of the computer geeks" >> over here. > > Anyone else enjoy the irony of that statement? LOL

I was thinking the same thing... -- "Outback" Jon Gould | Let those who RIDE, 1976 Honda CB750F | DECIDE. 1972 Yamaha DS7 | [email hidden] | HELMET LAWS SUCK CQ CQ CQ de KC2BNE | ABATE of NY, Inc. #CL609 ______________________________|____________________________ AMD XP 1700+ @ 1540 256M PC2100 DDR Soyo K7V Dragon Plus 2x40 GB Maxtor RAID 0 Asus GeForce3 Ti200 (235/500) Acer 24x10x40 CDRW Cornerstone 21" Monitor Nostromo n50 Speedpad http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3505381 http://service.madonion.com/compare?pcm=319673 -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

>> Have you considered nForce? > > Possible choice but they have integrated graphics so the cost is higher. *cough* nForce 415D Hasn't got the integrated graphics >> (your AMD 761 should take a Thoroughbred without issue by the way) > Nope, my mb revision won't even take XP cpu.damn :/ >> -JB * gets back to enjoying the troublefree life the SiS735 provides * > Bit slow though isn't it? I would rather buy another AMD761 mb than an SIS. Um, the SiS 735 is a _faster_ chipset than the AMD 761, Here http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=112 Quake 3 @ 640x480/16bit ECS K7S5A (SiS 735) 195.2 FPS AOpen AK31 (KT266) 189.5 FPS Epox 8K7A (AMD 761) 192.5 FPS Just a sample, but you get the idea. the SiS 735 (and 745) are surprisingly fast, they lag the KT266A / Nforce by a bit, but not so much that you'd ever know without running a benchmark. (and they are damn cheap, and they WORK :)) -JB

> No way, the Leadtek 7350KDA boards are pretty fast, faster than the ECS > cheapie, and at least on par with Nforce boards. the K7S5A isn't exactly sluggish if you poke it with a big enough stick :) http://217.35.9.141/k7s5a/sandramemory.png http://217.35.9.141/k7s5a/sandra-boardinfo.png http://217.35.9.141/k7s5a/overclock.png -JB

the K7S5A isn't exactly sluggish if you poke it with a big enough stick :) http://217.35.9.141/k7s5a/sandramemory.png [link lost in import] [link lost in import] -JB

> Well, KT333 is even faster than KT266 so that SIS is lagging a bit now. the KT266 is slower than the SiS 735 >:) the KT333 isn't particularly faster than the KT266A either (since the bottleneck is the Athlon <-> Northbridge/memory controller link, not the memory itself) now, the SiS 745 _does_ lag behind, but it's not an "OMG THIS COMPUTER IS SLOW" lag.. TBH, I think the Asus A7S333 looks like a very nice board at a VERY nice price (assuming Asus didn't cut corners because it's based on a 'value' chipset.) -JB

> Yawn, yawn, yawn. Fuck you. You are dumb. I don't care if you work for AMD, > you are still full of shit. > Die punk ass. And by the way, today is my first day of posting in here, so > fuck you and your rude ass. Are you aware that it's better to be full of shit, than it is to spew it constantly? Learn from this, it will serve you well in future. -JB

> No way, the Leadtek 7350KDA boards are pretty fast, faster than the ECS > cheapie, and at least on par with Nforce boards. uh.. http://www.ocworkbench.com/hardware/Leadtek/WinFast7350KDA/7350kdap5.htm K7S5A and the 7350KDA seem to have fairly even, except the tests where the K7S5A is faster by a noticable margin :p -JB

> Yawn, yawn, yawn. Fuck you. You are dumb. No, it's you who is dumb. And ignorant too. Your entire post is one big error, there's not a single byte in it that conveys correct information. You can't GET things more wrong than you did! > I don't care if you work for AMD, > you are still full of shit. LOL. Yeah, I'm full of shit you say? The guy who gets everything wrong says *I* am full of shit? Now that's ironic.

"Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c2xN8.77470$[email hidden]... >No way, the Leadtek 7350KDA boards are pretty fast, faster than the ECScheapie, and >at least on par with Nforce boards. OK, thx. I'll look into that mb as I want to upgrade soon, although, I have never seen it advertised around here.

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae6um5$bo5$[email hidden]... > the SiS 735 (and 745) are surprisingly fast, they lag the KT266A / Nforceby a > bit, but not so much that you'd ever know without running a benchmark.(and > they are damn cheap, and they WORK :)) > > -JB OK, I'll consider them too. But I'm really considering Intel more than AMD right now.

> OK, I'll consider them too. But I'm really considering Intel more than AMD > right now. Unless you absolutely must have the performance of a 2.53Ghz P4, I personally don't see much point, an AthlonXP 1800+ is still a blazingly fast system, and the processors can be had for not much cash. -JB

"me" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:k3xN8.16666$[email hidden]... > Yawn, yawn, yawn. Fuck you. You are dumb. I don't care if you work forAMD, > you are still full of shit. > Die punk ass. And by the way, today is my first day of posting in here, so > fuck you and your rude ass. I don't know about anyone else, but you are in my killfile already, which for a first day is pretty impressive. -- Tom Cumming Mail to the reply address not checked very often. If you want a quick reply, use this address *backwards*: ku.oc.oohay@kugnimmuct --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.370 / Virus Database: 205 - Release Date: 05/06/2002

> rest of the posts and realizing that the NG is for a game. Damn I had my > flame thrower locked, cocked and ready to burn! LOL! Just step onto the nearest RTCW or SoF2 server and see who burns...hehe

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae7gdh$nne$[email hidden]... > Unless you absolutely must have the performance of a 2.53Ghz P4, Ipersonally > don't see much point, an AthlonXP 1800+ is still a blazingly fast system,and > the processors can be had for not much cash. > > -JB It's more about power consumption, stability and heat than performance for me. And I still am not 100% sure about these SIS chipsets because I did research variuous chipsets in the past and they were not recommended at the time. But I guess things have improved since I bought my AMD761 mb. But many people still swear by AMD761 for stability. When talking about the KT266 I did mean the KT266A, the KT266 is not even a consideration now so assumed we were talking about KT266A.

> It's more about power consumption, stability and heat than performance for > me.Well, yeah, but if you are running a boxed chip with a warranty on it and not overclocking, why do you care how hot it runs as long as it runs? btw, a machine is either 100% stable, or it isn't stable (do or do not, there is no try :)) and, well, the P4 is hardly a cool running processor itself ya know. > And I still am not 100% sure about these SIS chipsets because I did > research variuous chipsets in the past and they were not recommended at the > time. But I guess things have improved since I bought my AMD761 mb. But many > people still swear by AMD761 for stability. Indeed, the AMD761 is a nice chip, shame that it's usually paired up with a VIA southbridge tho' -JB

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae8lhm$p5e$[email hidden]... > Well, yeah, but if you are running a boxed chip with a warranty on it andnot > overclocking, why do you care how hot it runs as long as it runs? Along with the heat from my monitor in the summer it is really making my room too hot for comfort. Works great as a furnace in the winter though. > btw, a machine is either 100% stable, or it isn't stable (do or do not,there > is no try :)) I know that, and my PC is stable. You really are taking the assumption that I don't know anything. > and, well, the P4 is hardly a cool running processor itself ya know. Way cooler than a T-Bird, which is what I'm currently running. > Indeed, the AMD761 is a nice chip, shame that it's usually paired up witha > VIA southbridge tho' Yea, it is a shame, but you can blame the mb manfacturer's for that because 761 northbridge was designed by AMD to also use an AMD southbridge but they chose to use the cheaper VIA southbridge instead. But I haven't actually had any problems with the southbridge anyway. Many people have been running KT333 just fine so it depends on what other hardware you have if you get problems with VIA or not. If I was staying AMD then I would like to use KT333 by way of the Asus A7V333 because it really is the fastest chipset going and that mb has a really good layout and all the features I want.

As I mentioned, most of VIAs problems were with drivers for their southbridge (and northbridge for that matter) The problems appear to have been sorted out in recent drivers. I have no hesitation in recommending VIA chipsets these days. Not the case 2 years ago...

> > and, well, the P4 is hardly a cool running processor itself ya know. > Way cooler than a T-Bird Eh, actually no. Not that much, if at all. Compare either typical or maximum power requirements for them both and they do end up at pretty much the same place. AMD tends to report maximum power while Intel reports typical, which gives the impression of a huge discrepancy, which really doesn't exist in reality. I have a P4-1.7 (old Willy core) and I can assure you it gets PLENTY hot when running full bore. :-)

>> btw, a machine is either 100% stable, or it isn't stable (do or do not, >> there is no try :)) > > I know that, and my PC is stable. You really are taking the assumption that > I don't know anything. Not really.. It's just that I see lots of posts of "MY COMPUTAR IS TOTALLY STABLE UNLESS I RUN A PROGRAM ON IT!", just wanting to make sure you weren't one of them. >> and, well, the P4 is hardly a cool running processor itself ya know. > Way cooler than a T-Bird, which is what I'm currently running. Compare max power (which intel don't publish) to max power for the same level of performance (which puts a 1.4Ghz Tbird around a 1.9Ghz Willamette 'ish) and you'll find they are actually fairly close. Also, Athlon's tend to run hotter even though the actually heat energy is the same, because the die is smaller (hence it's more difficult to dissipate the heat) The new 0.13 Thoroughbred cores are ~40% smaller than Palominos, with ~15% less voltage. so the watts/cm^2 has actually gone up. > Yea, it is a shame, but you can blame the mb manfacturer's for that because > 761 northbridge was designed by AMD to also use an AMD southbridge but they The southbridge in a 'classical' chipset (AMD 761/VIA KT133/Intel 440BX etc) is just a PCI device, unlike the current trend of having a dedicated high bandwidth bus between the north/south bridges (Hypertransport, V-Link or otherwise) or having them on the same silicon like SiS have been doing. IOW, they weren't designed "to work with that chip" they were (VIA aside :p) designed to work as standard PCI devices. -JB

> As I mentioned, most of VIAs problems were with drivers for their > southbridge (and northbridge for that matter) The problems appear to have > been sorted out in recent drivers. I have no hesitation in recommending VIA > chipsets these days. Not the case 2 years ago... Took them bloody long enough tho' :/ -JB

"Lenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lAZN8.11915$[email hidden]... > Eh, actually no. Not that much, if at all. Compare either typical ormaximum > power requirements for them both and they do end up at pretty much thesame > place. AMD tends to report maximum power while Intel reports typical,which > gives the impression of a huge discrepancy, which really doesn't exist in > reality. I have a P4-1.7 (old Willy core) and I can assure you it gets > PLENTY hot when running full bore. :-) Oh yea? Maybe I'll get me one of them Cyrix processors then. :-)

Not by much, and don't ket the KT333 fool you. Every test I've read shows it is not really much faster than the KT266. And the KT266 is not _that_ much faster than the SIS 735 to begin with. -Larry "Toad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:I%pN8.58913$[email hidden]... > > SiS has actually been making a name for itself recently. For example,the

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > SIS735 is a very stable, and until the KT266 came out, the fastest AMD > > chipset available. > > > > -Larry > > Well, KT333 is even faster than KT266 so that SIS is lagging a bit now. > >

> Clock for clock a P4 is cooler than a Tbird or a Palomino, a 2.53ghz P4 > pumps out 59 watts of heat whereas a 1.4 Tbird pumps out 73watts and a 2200+ > Tbred churns out 61.5watts. clock for clock heat comparisons need to be balanced out against the relative clock for clock performance however :) -JB

> > Clock for clock a P4 is cooler than a Tbird or a Palomino, a 2.53ghz P4 > > pumps out 59 watts of heat whereas a 1.4 Tbird pumps out 73watts and a2200+ > > Tbred churns out 61.5watts. > > clock for clock heat comparisons need to be balanced out against therelative > clock for clock performance however :) ...And consider the CMOS process technology used to produce the chips as well. The 2.53GHz P4 uses a smaller process than the above mentioned AMD chips, which gives it an advantage. Btw, is that the typical or maximum power draw for the P4? Intel usually only lists typical while AMD lists max. Max for a P4 is often 10W or more higher.

And you get to pay 3 times as much for the Intel. What a bargain :) -Larry "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7kPR8.369$[email hidden]... > Clock for clock a P4 is cooler than a Tbird or a Palomino, a 2.53ghz P4 > pumps out 59 watts of heat whereas a 1.4 Tbird pumps out 73watts and a2200+

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Tbred churns out 61.5watts. > > "Lenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:lAZN8.11915$[email hidden]... > > > > > > and, well, the P4 is hardly a cool running processor itself ya know. > > > > > Way cooler than a T-Bird > > > > Eh, actually no. Not that much, if at all. Compare either typical or > maximum > > power requirements for them both and they do end up at pretty much the > same > > place. AMD tends to report maximum power while Intel reports typical, > which > > gives the impression of a huge discrepancy, which really doesn't exist

in

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > reality. I have a P4-1.7 (old Willy core) and I can assure you it gets > > PLENTY hot when running full bore. :-) > > > > > > > >

Not by much. It's neck and neck. 2200+ Athlon's are around $225. P4 2.53's are around $650. Not much of a bargain for about 1 point on the richter scale. -Larry "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5QYR8.657$[email hidden]... > > "James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:af8j8b$gs2$[email hidden]... > > > Clock for clock a P4 is cooler than a Tbird or a Palomino, a 2.53ghzP4

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > pumps out 59 watts of heat whereas a 1.4 Tbird pumps out 73watts and a > 2200+ > > > Tbred churns out 61.5watts. > > > > clock for clock heat comparisons need to be balanced out against the > relative > > clock for clock performance however :) > > > > > Yes and I think you will find that a P4 2.53 is faster than a 2200+

Athlon. > > > > >

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:12:27 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Not by much. It's neck and neck. > >2200+ Athlon's are around $225. P4 2.53's are around $650. > >Not much of a bargain for about 1 point on the richter scale. > >-Larry

1 point on the richter scale is 10 times as much.... :-) Me

> Tbreds & P4 Northwoods both run on a .13 micron process Yeah, right. I read tbird and not tbred. Heh. > I dont have figures for .18 Willamettes but I have no reason to believethat > Intel's .18 process is any worse than AMD's in fact I'd bet that it's > better Why would you bet that? > AMD chips are notorious for running hot if Intels were as hot then > AMD wouldnt have this notoriety. Yes they would. People are more likely to suspect and ascribe bad properties to AMD than Intel, for what reasons I'm sure you understand yourself. Anyway, they really ARE about equal when comparing max draw, at least for .18u incarnations.

Ok. .0001 point :) -Larry "Me" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:12:27 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Not by much. It's neck and neck. > > > >2200+ Athlon's are around $225. P4 2.53's are around $650. > > > >Not much of a bargain for about 1 point on the richter scale. > > > >-Larry > > 1 point on the richter scale is 10 times as much.... :-) > > Me

> Yes and I think you will find that a P4 2.53 is faster than a 2200+ Athlon. Yeah, this is true.. (unless it's floating point heavy code, in which case the Athlon will rip it a new one) what's the _peak_ heat output from a 2.2Ghz Northwood? -JB

> Dunno what the peak is but the typical is 56w compared to a typical of 61.5w > for a 2200XP. but 'typical' can mean a lot of things, and is a fairly 'fluff' figure to be basing comparisons like this off.. The Athlon will run a lot hotter at the same wattage output BTW (as the core is MUCH smaller, so the heat per cm/2 is higher, infact, the Tbred tends to run hotter in this regard than a Palomino) -JB

Sebastion Melmoth wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:12:27 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> bleated: > > >>Not by much. It's neck and neck. >> >>2200+ Athlon's are around $225. P4 2.53's are around $650. >> >>Not much of a bargain for about 1 point on the richter scale. >> >>-Larry > > > If it ws neck to neck then AMD would be calling the 2200+ the 2500+.

http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020610/thoroughbred-18.html Comparing the XP2200+ to the P4 2.5G in SiSoft Sandra 2002 CPU & Multimedia benchmarks, it holds it's ground pretty good. It ran at 99.9% of the P4 score on the CPU benchmark & at 93.6% on the Multimedia benchmark. Remember, it's true clockspeed is only 71% of the P4. Not shabby at all, especially when it costs about 1/3 the price. In all fairness, it does somewhat fall over in memory bandwidth, running at 61.8% of the P4's rate. But is the price difference really justified by what you're getting? I agree with Larry. They're basically neck & neck. -- Fester

> Well i wouldnt consider a max rating as any more relevant as it only counts > when the processor is continually being stressed, which doesnt happen in > every day computing & most of todays OS's slow the processor down during > idle cycles via ACPI thus keeping it from being continually run at 100% > usage. If you are specifying a cooling solution for a processor, do you specify one that can keep the processor cool at it's typical heat output, or at its maximum. -JB

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:51:18 +0100, "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Well i wouldnt consider a max rating as any more relevant as it only counts >when the processor is continually being stressed, which doesnt happen in >every day computing & most of todays OS's slow the processor down during >idle cycles via ACPI thus keeping it from being continually run at 100% >usage. There seem to be quite a few Via-based motherboards that are disabling the HALT cooling in latter BIOS revisons, if it wasn't disabled already. You can also see this trend a lot when people report their "idle" temps with various heastsinks... Even most cheap heatsinks, properly mounted, will keep an Athlon under 40C with HALT enabled. Dave __________________________ Please Reply to Newsgroup,

While I don't want to get into the Intel vs.AMD pissing match you morons have going on, I will say your 1st mistake is trusting ANY data out of a SiSoft benchmark... -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Sebastion Melmoth wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:12:27 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> bleated: > > > > > >>Not by much. It's neck and neck. > >> > >>2200+ Athlon's are around $225. P4 2.53's are around $650. > >> > >>Not much of a bargain for about 1 point on the richter scale. > >> > >>-Larry > > > > > > If it ws neck to neck then AMD would be calling the 2200+ the 2500+. > > > http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020610/thoroughbred-18.html > > Comparing the XP2200+ to the P4 2.5G in SiSoft Sandra 2002 CPU & > Multimedia benchmarks, it holds it's ground pretty good. It ran at > 99.9% of the P4 score on the CPU benchmark & at 93.6% on the Multimedia > benchmark. Remember, it's true clockspeed is only 71% of the P4. Not > shabby at all, especially when it costs about 1/3 the price. > > In all fairness, it does somewhat fall over in memory bandwidth, running > at 61.8% of the P4's rate. But is the price difference really justified > by what you're getting? > > I agree with Larry. They're basically neck & neck. > > -- > > Fester > > >

> Hmm, how well does SiSoft Sandra relate to games? It *doesn't*. It gives even faker results than 3dmark does since it uses different code for different processors. The results aren't comparable at all. Sandra's a piece of sheit, plain and simple. > The best current deal to me looks like getting a P4 mb that will do > 400/533mhz (i845E chipset) and putting in a 1.8A cpu and run the FSB > at 133mhz, that will give you a 2.4ghz P4 and is cheaper than an AMD > 2100+ cpu. ...Assuming that 1.8 will do 2.4GHz that is, which I'd imagine is far from certain. If it does, more power to you, but it will be a bit of a gamble... :-)

Not really. It's well known that AMD's "Performance Ratings" have been pretty conservative. I just go by what the experts report. -Larry "Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:12:27 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> bleated: > > >Not by much. It's neck and neck. > > > >2200+ Athlon's are around $225. P4 2.53's are around $650. > > > >Not much of a bargain for about 1 point on the richter scale. > > > >-Larry > > If it ws neck to neck then AMD would be calling the 2200+ the 2500+. > > > -- > Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.

I didn't quite catch that :) -Larry "Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:14:05 GMT, Uncle Fester <[email hidden]> > bleated: > > > >http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020610/thoroughbred-18.html > > > >Comparing the XP2200+ to the P4 2.5G in SiSoft Sandra 2002 CPU & > >Multimedia benchmarks, it holds it's ground pretty good. It ran at > >99.9% of the P4 score on the CPU benchmark & at 93.6% on the Multimedia > >benchmark. Remember, it's true clockspeed is only 71% of the P4. Not > >shabby at all, especially when it costs about 1/3 the price. > > > >In all fairness, it does somewhat fall over in memory bandwidth, running > >at 61.8% of the P4's rate. But is the price difference really justified > >by what you're getting? > > > >I agree with Larry. They're basically neck & neck. > > Hmm, how well does SiSoft Sandra relate to games? I've been eyeing up > possible upgrades and can't decide on P4 or another AMD. > The best current deal to me looks like getting a P4 mb that will do > 400/533mhz (i845E chipset) and putting in a 1.8A cpu and run the FSB > at 133mhz, that will give you a 2.4ghz P4 and is cheaper than an AMD > 2100+ cpu. > > > -- > Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.

Man, I HATE this holy war... Define "comprehensively beats ". The major hardware sites, i.e. Toms Hardware, indeed show the P4 2.53 faster than the XP2200+, but it ain't no landslide, and it sure as HELL ain't $400+ worth of difference. The question isn't whether the 2.53Ghz Northwood is faster than the XP2200+. We all KNOW it is. The question is whether you can justify such a small gain for so, SO much money. I sure can't. I don't hate Intel. I'd love to be able to buy Intel. But until their prices are at least remotely in line with the competition, I'm not buying. -Larry "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lN_R8.941$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:L6ZR8.79716$[email hidden]... > > Not by much. It's neck and neck. > > > > 2200+ Athlon's are around $225. P4 2.53's are around $650. > > > > Not much of a bargain for about 1 point on the richter scale. > > > > It's not neck and neck at all a 2.53 P$ comprehensively beats an 2200XP in > almost all common benchmarks. > Since introducing the 533fsb P4's have been on a performance parity with > their AMD rated equivalents, a 2.26 P4 plays a tit for tat game in the > benchmarks against a 2200XP. > >

> It's well known that AMD's "Performance Ratings" have been pretty > conservative. AMD's performance ratings aren't scaled against the P4 anyway, they are scaled against the Athlon Thunderbird. -JB

> Anyway, they really ARE about equal when comparing max draw, at least for > .18u incarnations. Keep smoking that stuff...hehe

> Yeah, this is true.. (unless it's floating point heavy code, in which casethe > Athlon will rip it a new one) Yeah....run Lightwave w/ SSE2 and see who rips who...hehe

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kN2S8.80717$[email hidden]... > Man, I HATE this holy war... > > Define "comprehensively beats ". > > The major hardware sites, i.e. Toms Hardware, indeed show the P4 2.53faster > than the XP2200+, but it ain't no landslide, and it sure as HELL ain't$400+ > worth of difference. > > The question isn't whether the 2.53Ghz Northwood is faster than theXP2200+.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> We all KNOW it is. The question is whether you can justify such a small > gain for so, SO much money. > > I sure can't. > > I don't hate Intel. I'd love to be able to buy Intel. But until their > prices are at least remotely in line with the competition, I'm not buying. > > -Larry

Yes & I also stated that a 2.26 P4 is the equal of a 2200+ Tbred, there is also very little difference in price between the too so maybe you should compare apples with apples rather than trying to put down the 2.53 P4. The reason it was listed was that it's intels best P4 chip & even though it runs almost 700mhz faster & has way more transistors in it, it still runs cooler than the the best AMD has to offer. As far as I remember this heat based part of the thread never even mentioned price so why are you bringing it up anyway Mark

Clock for clock a P4 is cooler than a Tbird or a Palomino, a 2.53ghz P4 pumps out 59 watts of heat whereas a 1.4 Tbird pumps out 73watts and a 2200+ Tbred churns out 61.5watts. "Lenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:lAZN8.11915$[email hidden]... > > > > and, well, the P4 is hardly a cool running processor itself ya know. > > > Way cooler than a T-Bird > > Eh, actually no. Not that much, if at all. Compare either typical ormaximum > power requirements for them both and they do end up at pretty much thesame > place. AMD tends to report maximum power while Intel reports typical,which > gives the impression of a huge discrepancy, which really doesn't exist in > reality. I have a P4-1.7 (old Willy core) and I can assure you it gets > PLENTY hot when running full bore. :-) > > >

> Keep smoking that stuff...hehe You have returned! I thought you'd been eaten by wolves or something. -JB

You are, in fact, correct. -Larry "James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afafhp$o1v$[email hidden]... > > It's well known that AMD's "Performance Ratings" have been pretty > > conservative. > > AMD's performance ratings aren't scaled against the P4 anyway, they arescaled > against the Athlon Thunderbird. > > -JB > >

Well, I'm not an overclocker in the least (don't see the reason for it any more), so I generally don't compare on those terms. Thanks for the data though! -Larry "Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:35:16 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> bleated: > > >I didn't quite catch that :) > > > >-Larry > > P4 1.8A cpu runs on a 100mhz bus by default. By getting a mb that can > do both 100/133mhz FSB you can overclock the 1.8A to 2.4ghz by simply > upping the FSB to 133mhz (so long as the cpu can take it, most 1.6A's > and 1.8A's can). Doing this means no other peripherals will be > overclocked as would happen if you bought a cpu rated for 133mhz FSB > and tried to OC it. This means you will get comparable performance of > an AMD 2200+ for a bit less money. P4 has a better upgrade path too. > AMD is pretty much tapped out for speed right now. > > Disclaimer: I am currently an AMD user. I also don't take > repsonsibility for any failed OC's anyone may try because of what I > posted. > > -- > Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.

Because prices is just a _little_ bit important. Especially when the gap is so large. Heat shouldn't be an issue for anyone. You build it right, and it works fine. You build it wrong, and it overheats. Doesn't matter which processor you have. -Larry "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xm7S8.279$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:kN2S8.80717$[email hidden]... > > Man, I HATE this holy war... > > > > Define "comprehensively beats ". > > > > The major hardware sites, i.e. Toms Hardware, indeed show the P4 2.53 > faster > > than the XP2200+, but it ain't no landslide, and it sure as HELL ain't > $400+ > > worth of difference. > > > > The question isn't whether the 2.53Ghz Northwood is faster than the > XP2200+. > > We all KNOW it is. The question is whether you can justify such a small > > gain for so, SO much money. > > > > I sure can't. > > > > I don't hate Intel. I'd love to be able to buy Intel. But until their > > prices are at least remotely in line with the competition, I'm not

buying.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > -Larry > > > Yes & I also stated that a 2.26 P4 is the equal of a 2200+ Tbred, there is > also very little difference in price between the too so maybe you should > compare apples with apples rather than trying to put down the 2.53 P4.

The > reason it was listed was that it's intels best P4 chip & even though itruns > almost 700mhz faster & has way more transistors in it, it still runscooler > than the the best AMD has to offer. As far as I remember this heat based > part of the thread never even mentioned price so why are you bringing itup

Quoted text (7 lines)

> anyway > > > Mark > > >

> You have returned! > I thought you'd been eaten by wolves or something. They are afraid of the Alpha male....hehe

"ZOD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:In9S8.5600$[email hidden]... > > You have returned! > > I thought you'd been eaten by wolves or something. > > They are afraid of the Alpha male....hehe > that's great...how did YOU survive? lolololololoolollollllollollo.......I think he stepped into that one... dave henrie

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bv8S8.81839$[email hidden]... > Because prices is just a _little_ bit important. Especially when the gapis > so large. > > Heat shouldn't be an issue for anyone. You build it right, and it works > fine. You build it wrong, and it overheats. Doesn't matter whichprocessor > you have. > > -Larry > Yet you still ignore that fact that the 2.26 P4 is a match for the 2200xp & is competitively priced.

> >AMD's performance ratings aren't scaled against the P4 anyway, they arescaled > >against the Athlon Thunderbird. > So AMD says. But most of us, and Intel, know otherwise. Know? If you believe otherwise than what AMD says, you're confused. Period.

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:af8j8b$gs2$[email hidden]... > > Clock for clock a P4 is cooler than a Tbird or a Palomino, a 2.53ghz P4 > > pumps out 59 watts of heat whereas a 1.4 Tbird pumps out 73watts and a2200+ > > Tbred churns out 61.5watts. > > clock for clock heat comparisons need to be balanced out against therelative > clock for clock performance however :) > Yes and I think you will find that a P4 2.53 is faster than a 2200+ Athlon.

"Lenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XFWR8.13382$[email hidden]... > > > > Clock for clock a P4 is cooler than a Tbird or a Palomino, a 2.53ghzP4

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > pumps out 59 watts of heat whereas a 1.4 Tbird pumps out 73watts and a > 2200+ > > > Tbred churns out 61.5watts. > > > > clock for clock heat comparisons need to be balanced out against the > relative > > clock for clock performance however :) > > ...And consider the CMOS process technology used to produce the chips as > well. The 2.53GHz P4 uses a smaller process than the above mentioned AMD > chips, which gives it an advantage.

Tbreds & P4 Northwoods both run on a .13 micron process I dont have figures for .18 Willamettes but I have no reason to believe that Intel's .18 process is any worse than AMD's in fact I'd bet that it's better, AMD chips are notorious for running hot if Intels were as hot then AMD wouldnt have this notoriety. > Btw, is that the typical or maximum power draw for the P4? Intel usually > only lists typical while AMD lists max. Max for a P4 is often 10W or more > higher. > These are typical ratings for both sets of chips, you can add another 7 or so watts to AMD numbers as well, for instance a 2200+XP has a typical rating of 61.5 watts and a maximum of 67.9 watts.

"Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:29:14 GMT, "Lenny" <[email hidden]> posted: > > > >If you believe otherwise than what AMD says, you're confused. Period. > > There is no way to prove AMD's claim because there never has been, or > will be, a T-Bird faster than 1.4ghz. But I find it hard to beleive > that an XP cpu is that much faster than a T-Bird. Intel doesn't > believe what AMD says either and believe it to be a cloaked comparison > to their P4's. I believe Intel is right on this and not AMD's > marketing campaign. You can blelieve what you like though. But, there > are review sites out there that will tell you exactly what I just told > you too.

Correct a 1.4ghz 1600XP is marginally faster in some tests and actually slower in some too when compared to a 1.4 tbird, so why these people think that AMD's claims are correct is beyond me.

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:L6ZR8.79716$[email hidden]... > Not by much. It's neck and neck. > > 2200+ Athlon's are around $225. P4 2.53's are around $650. > > Not much of a bargain for about 1 point on the richter scale. > It's not neck and neck at all a 2.53 P$ comprehensively beats an 2200XP in almost all common benchmarks. Since introducing the 533fsb P4's have been on a performance parity with their AMD rated equivalents, a 2.26 P4 plays a tit for tat game in the benchmarks against a 2200XP.

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:af9s8i$76g$[email hidden]... > > Yes and I think you will find that a P4 2.53 is faster than a 2200+Athlon. > > Yeah, this is true.. (unless it's floating point heavy code, in which casethe > Athlon will rip it a new one) > > what's the _peak_ heat output from a 2.2Ghz Northwood? > Dunno what the peak is but the typical is 56w compared to a typical of 61.5w for a 2200XP.

> There is no way to prove AMD's claim because there never has been, or > will be, a T-Bird faster than 1.4ghz. But I find it hard to beleive > that an XP cpu is that much faster than a T-Bird. the hardware prefetch the Palomino has accounts for quite a bit... look at a 1.4Ghz Tbird against a 1600+ (1.4Ghz Palomino) and you'll notice something, the Palomino is quicker :) -JB

> There is no way to prove AMD's claim because there never has been, or > will be, a T-Bird faster than 1.4ghz. Ever heard of a thing called "overclocking", man? ;-) Anyway, I'm fairly certain AMD is quite capable of calculating the relative performance of their own processors. > Intel doesn't believe what AMD says either If you don't believe info when it comes straight from the horse's mouth, why should you believe a third-party like Intel? But if you're into conspiracy theories and stuff, there's little chance I'd be able to get through to you anyway, so why do I even bother? ;-) > But, there > are review sites out there that will tell you exactly what I just told > you too. And they are as confused as you are. The performance rating is tuned to AMDs own processors, not Intel's. That's all folks.

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afa34o$3ga$[email hidden]... > > Dunno what the peak is but the typical is 56w compared to a typical of61.5w > > for a 2200XP. > > but 'typical' can mean a lot of things, and is a fairly 'fluff' figure tobe > basing comparisons like this off.. > > The Athlon will run a lot hotter at the same wattage output BTW (as thecore > is MUCH smaller, so the heat per cm/2 is higher, infact, the Tbred tendsto > run hotter in this regard than a Palomino) > > -JB Well i wouldnt consider a max rating as any more relevant as it only counts when the processor is continually being stressed, which doesnt happen in every day computing & most of todays OS's slow the processor down during idle cycles via ACPI thus keeping it from being continually run at 100% usage.

> that's great...how did YOU survive? > lolololololoolollollllollollo.......I think he stepped into that one... A little slow today, are we? Hehe......

> Yet you still ignore that fact that the 2.26 P4 is a match for the 2200xp& > is competitively priced. Of course....they are beaten on all fronts. Why would they admit it....hehe

That's because you're buying Intel chips. That problem doesn't exist with the AMD's :) -Larry "Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:07:11 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> bleated: > > >Well, I'm not an overclocker in the least (don't see the reason for itany

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >more), so I generally don't compare on those terms. > > 1.8 is $275.00 CAD > 2.4 is $659.00 CAD > > I think that's a good enough reason. :-) > > -- > Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.

I'm not on conspiracy watch this week, so I'll just go with the official stuff for today. -Larry "Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:06:22 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> bleated: > > >You are, in fact, correct. > > > >-Larry > > He is correct if you beleive the AMD legal speak. > > -- > Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.

It is still more expensive. If you have an RDRAM board to get all the performance of that processor, the RAM is still more expensive than the DDR RAM the AMD uses. I'm sorry, but AMD is still a better price/performance purchase. I'm happy that you like Intel. I like AMD while the current situation exists. Both can be purchase, so we're both happy :) -Larry "Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PZgS8.417$[email hidden]... > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bv8S8.81839$[email hidden]... > > Because prices is just a _little_ bit important. Especially when thegap

Quoted text (12 lines)

> is > > so large. > > > > Heat shouldn't be an issue for anyone. You build it right, and it works > > fine. You build it wrong, and it overheats. Doesn't matter which > processor > > you have. > > > > -Larry > > > > Yet you still ignore that fact that the 2.26 P4 is a match for the 2200xp

& > is competitively priced. > >

> Correct a 1.4ghz 1600XP is marginally faster in some tests and actually > slower in some too when compared to a 1.4 tbird, so why these people think > that AMD's claims are correct is beyond me. ? tests where a 1.4Ghz Palomino is slower than a 1.4Ghz Tbird? where? -JB

> Of course....they are beaten on all fronts. Why would they admit it....hehe Enjoy both of your floating point calculations per second :p Right now the Athlon is squeezed rather heavily at the top end because it's simply starved of bandwidth... And for someone who absolutely must have "THE FASTEST" then a 2.53Ghz P4 is fine unless they want to run something x87 fp heavy. Either way, a 2200+ or a 2.26Ghz P4 are fast as hell :) *thinks of first proper computer, with 7Mhz Motorola 68000* -JB

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afa72j$9em$[email hidden]... > > Well i wouldnt consider a max rating as any more relevant as it onlycounts > > when the processor is continually being stressed, which doesnt happen in > > every day computing & most of todays OS's slow the processor down during > > idle cycles via ACPI thus keeping it from being continually run at 100% > > usage. > > If you are specifying a cooling solution for a processor, do you specifyone > that can keep the processor cool at it's typical heat output, or at its > maximum. > I would specify one that is rated for the at least 2 steps above the processor I was intending to buy i.e. if I was going for a 1600xp Athlon I would buy a cooler rated to at least 1800xp or even a 2000xp, I would not bother going into the details of cpu heat output as I trust that CoolerMaster or GlobalWin or whichever manufacturer i chose will have already done this for me.

> Where's the benchmarks? And I expect those nemchmarks to show the > 1600+ being 200mhz faster (or better) as the numbering implies in > *all* benchmarks. If that can't be proven as true then the numbering > is a false claim. Unless it really means it is comared to a P4. The problem with saying it lines up with a P4 is that.. well, it doesn't. an 1800+ will quite comfortably outrun a 1.8Ghz Willamette quite a lot of the time. Go dig around for yourself, the Palomino is around 10% faster that an equally clocked Tbird, on average. -JB

"Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PTlS8.82538$[email hidden]... > It is still more expensive. If you have an RDRAM board to get all the > performance of that processor, the RAM is still more expensive than theDDR > RAM the AMD uses. PC2700 DDR will do just fine for a 533fsb P4 and it's still be competitive as well as on a price parity for boards. > > I'm sorry, but AMD is still a better price/performance purchase. True but it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be. > > I'm happy that you like Intel. I like AMD while the current situation > exists. Sorry to surprise you but I have an Athlon XP1800+ system, I just cant stand these blinkered people who wont admit that their big nemesis Intel has dropped prices and improved performance to compete with AMD. > > Both can be purchase, so we're both happy :) Happyish with my AMD system it's nice and fast but I'm concerned that Intel has maybe slipped into a higher gear now and is going to accelerate away with continual cpu & fsb speed improvements, what with AMD stating it has no intention of upping the fsb of the Athlon and the fact that there's no 2500xp to compete with the 2.53 P4 is a little concerning. > -Larry > Also anyone who thinks that Intel's thermal performance is the same as AMD's is just kidding themselves nobody else. The fact that you can still kill any AMD chip if the cooler fails is a source of much critisism from all the major hardware review sites & they all bring up the fact that even with the new Tbred .13 design it's still very hot as it requires higher voltages to reach lower clockpseeds than it's Intel equvalent. Cheers Mark

"Steve Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:22:29 +0000 (UTC), "James Boswell" > <[email hidden]> posted: > > > >look at a 1.4Ghz Tbird against a 1600+ (1.4Ghz Palomino) and you'llnotice > >something, the Palomino is quicker :) > > Where's the benchmarks? And I expect those nemchmarks to show the > 1600+ being 200mhz faster (or better) as the numbering implies in > *all* benchmarks. If that can't be proven as true then the numbering > is a false claim. Unless it really means it is comared to a P4. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011105/index.html There's a link for these delusional people that shows that the naming convention is bunk. It clearly shows the Tbird 1.4 constantly outperforming the 1500XP and snapping at the heels (even beating on occasion) of the 1600XP, showing that the 1600XP is nowhere near 200mhz faster in performance terms. .

"Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gQlS8.82533$[email hidden]... > That's because you're buying Intel chips. > > That problem doesn't exist with the AMD's :) Yes it does. it's just not as pronounced as Intels 1800XP �92 No availability problems. 2200XP �216 Long lead time expected. P4 1.8A �165 No availability problems. P4 2.26B �239 No availability problems. P4 2.4B �392 No availability problems. Or you could say it doesnt exist as AMD doesnt have a true 2.4 equivalent & the 2200XP is virutally unobtainable from the Uk's largest computer components dealer, whereas all of Intel's chips are available and the direct competitor to the 2200XP is very closely matched on price.

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > -Larry > > "Sebastion Melmoth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:07:11 GMT, "Larry" <[email hidden]> bleated: > > > > >Well, I'm not an overclocker in the least (don't see the reason for it > any > > >more), so I generally don't compare on those terms. > > > > 1.8 is $275.00 CAD > > 2.4 is $659.00 CAD > > > > I think that's a good enough reason. :-) > > > > -- > > Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes. > >

"Steve Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:40:42 +0100, "Mark" <[email hidden]> > posted: > > > >There's a link for these delusional people that shows that the naming > >convention is bunk. It clearly shows the Tbird 1.4 constantlyoutperforming > >the 1500XP and snapping at the heels (even beating on occasion) of the > >1600XP, showing that the 1600XP is nowhere near 200mhz faster inperformance

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >terms. > >. > > > > P.S. And here I was thinking about buying a new mb and cpu so I could > run an XP 2100+. Going by those benchmarks it looks like my T-Bird > [email hidden] can hold it's own and there is no compelling reason to > waste money on a 2100+. The only reason to buy a new mb and cpu at > this point in time would be if I wanted to switch back to Intel. Which > I might still do.

Well mee to I'm concerned for the furture of my current Athlon setup, I really cant see any big leaps coming for it in the near future that would make me want to upgrade my 1800+. Since moving to a 533fsb the P4's have started to show what they are capable of even with DDR & they seem to be biringing out new clock raes like nobody's business. I can see me possibly moving back to Intel next year if AMD doesnt smarten up.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q4/011105/index.html "James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afct9l$bf3$[email hidden]... > > Correct a 1.4ghz 1600XP is marginally faster in some tests and actually > > slower in some too when compared to a 1.4 tbird, so why these peoplethink

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > that AMD's claims are correct is beyond me. > > ? > > tests where a 1.4Ghz Palomino is slower than a 1.4Ghz Tbird? > where? > > -JB > >

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afctdv$pke$[email hidden]... > > Of course....they are beaten on all fronts. Why would they admitit....hehe > > Enjoy both of your floating point calculations per second :p > Right now the Athlon is squeezed rather heavily at the top end becauseit's > simply starved of bandwidth... > >Correct and it isnt about to be relieved of this bottleneck either, AMD has stated that it has no intention of increasing fsb for Athlon processors.

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afdaeh$han$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Where's the benchmarks? And I expect those nemchmarks to show the > > 1600+ being 200mhz faster (or better) as the numbering implies in > > *all* benchmarks. If that can't be proven as true then the numbering > > is a false claim. Unless it really means it is comared to a P4. > > The problem with saying it lines up with a P4 is that.. well, it doesn't. > an 1800+ will quite comfortably outrun a 1.8Ghz Willamette quite a lot of

the > time. >True but as you cant actually buy a retail Willamette now unless you want a S423 chip thats irrelivant as you Northwoods are now the primary P4 chips and are significantly faster than the Willamettes. > Go dig around for yourself, the Palomino is around 10% faster that anequally > clocked Tbird, on average. Performance difference is negligeble in most cases only on the odd occasion is it 10% faster, mostly it's between 2-5% faster. > > -JB > >

> True but as you cant actually buy a retail Willamette now unless you want a > S423 chip thats irrelivant as you Northwoods are now the primary P4 chips > and are significantly faster than the Willamettes. But when the AthlonXP Quantispeed system was implemented, the Willamette available P4... the fact that the AthlonXP ratings don't line up with the Willamette _OR_ the Northwood would kinda indicate that they aren't scaled against the P4 :) > Performance difference is negligeble in most cases only on the odd occasion > is it 10% faster, mostly it's between 2-5% faster. You'd be surprised what hardware prefetch can do. (and don't forget about the SSE execution hardware :)) -JB

> Also anyone who thinks that Intel's thermal performance is the same as > AMD's is just kidding themselves nobody else. The fact that you can still > kill any AMD chip if the cooler fails is a source of much critisism from all > the major hardware review sites & they all bring up the fact that even with > the new Tbred .13 design it's still very hot as it requires higher voltages > to reach lower clockpseeds than it's Intel equvalent. FYI, most new boards hitting the market support the Thermal diode on the Palomino/Tbred properly and shut the chip down if it overheats.. Still only brings parity with the P3 in that department, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. -JB

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:affm91$sk8$[email hidden]... > > True but as you cant actually buy a retail Willamette now unless youwant a > > S423 chip thats irrelivant as you Northwoods are now the primary P4chips > > and are significantly faster than the Willamettes. > > But when the AthlonXP Quantispeed system was implemented, the Willamette > available P4... > the fact that the AthlonXP ratings don't line up with the Willamette _OR_the > Northwood would kinda indicate that they aren't scaled against the P4 :) YOU made the point that and 1800+ will out-run a P4 & I said that this now isnt the case & we are in the here and now, we havent gone back in time to when Quantispeed or Willamette architecture were released. > > Performance difference is negligeble in most cases only on the oddoccasion > > is it 10% faster, mostly it's between 2-5% faster. > > You'd be surprised what hardware prefetch can do. > (and don't forget about the SSE execution hardware :)) Your jabbering now, the benchmarks prove it's not any more than 2-5% faster period & no amount of fluffing about SSE or Hardware Prefetching will change that. Also a 1500XP is SLOWER on almost all accounts than a 1.4 Tbird explain that one please!!

> FYI, most new boards hitting the market support the Thermal diode on the > Palomino/Tbred properly and shut the chip down if it overheats.. > Still only brings parity with the P3 in that department What, you'd actually WANT your computer to keep running if the CPU's overheating? That's braindead. It should of course turn off, to avoid reducing the life expectancy of the CPU. The clock throttling of the P4 is not a good thing in my opinion as there's no indication of a hardware problem when the machine's performance starts to stutter. It looks more like a software issue. People could run overheating P4s for any length of time and NEVER KNOW ABOUT IT. If they're ignorant enough they'd just assume that's the way things are supposed to be (and yes, there are people like that out there, heh :-)) On the other hand, if your system regularly shuts off, sooner or later you're FORCED to open the hood! A far more preferable solution.

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:affmet$57h$[email hidden]... > > Also anyone who thinks that Intel's thermal performance is the same as > > AMD's is just kidding themselves nobody else. The fact that you canstill > > kill any AMD chip if the cooler fails is a source of much critisism fromall > > the major hardware review sites & they all bring up the fact that evenwith > > the new Tbred .13 design it's still very hot as it requires highervoltages > > to reach lower clockpseeds than it's Intel equvalent. > > FYI, most new boards hitting the market support the Thermal diode on the > Palomino/Tbred properly and shut the chip down if it overheats.. > Still only brings parity with the P3 in that department, but it'scertainly a > step in the right direction. > FYI in a recent test only 5 out of 18 brand new KT333 board TomsHardware tested had this implemented, the rest still used the ropey diode under the socket method for temp control. 5 out of 18 in my book isnt most it's more like minority, but I'm sure it will imporve. http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/02q2/020509/index.html

"Lenny" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KFMS8.45373$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > FYI, most new boards hitting the market support the Thermal diode on the > > Palomino/Tbred properly and shut the chip down if it overheats.. > > Still only brings parity with the P3 in that department > > What, you'd actually WANT your computer to keep running if the CPU's > overheating? That's braindead. > > It should of course turn off, to avoid reducing the life expectancy of the > CPU. The clock throttling of the P4 is not a good thing in my opinion as > there's no indication of a hardware problem when the machine's performance > starts to stutter. It looks more like a software issue. > > People could run overheating P4s for any length of time and NEVER KNOW

ABOUT > IT. If they're ignorant enough they'd just assume that's the way thingsare > supposed to be (and yes, there are people like that out there, heh :-)) On > the other hand, if your system regularly shuts off, sooner or later you're > FORCED to open the hood! > > A far more preferable solution. > Well most boards will give an alarm beep through the system speaker to warn you that it's all going a bit pear shaped, but then you've got to count on the user trying to figure out what that annoying noise is. Probably find that they'd think it's crashed and just reset the thing, hardware monitoring software should be installed as standard on all full systems & people who build their own and dont use it deserve to kill their cpu.

> YOU made the point that and 1800+ will out-run a P4 & I said that this now > isnt the case & we are in the here and now, we havent gone back in time to > when Quantispeed or Willamette architecture were released. take the comment in the context it was intended, which was that the 1800+ and 1.8Ghz P4 at the time Quantispeed was introduced DID NOT LINE UP FOR PERFORMANCE, thus making claims that the quantispeed rating was based off the P4's performance rather dubious. > Your jabbering now, the benchmarks prove it's not any more than 2-5% faster > period & no amount of fluffing about SSE or Hardware Prefetching will change > that. How fast does a Tbird run SSE code? -JB

> FYI in a recent test only 5 out of 18 brand new KT333 board TomsHardware > tested had this implemented, the rest still used the ropey diode under the > socket method for temp control. 5 out of 18 in my book isnt most it's more > like minority, but I'm sure it will imporve. Okay, I'll rephrase "Most new boards that I would go near with a bargepole have this feature" (that Asus A7S333 is lookin' kinda sweet) -JB

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afgdn3$rpm$[email hidden]... > > YOU made the point that and 1800+ will out-run a P4 & I said that thisnow > > isnt the case & we are in the here and now, we havent gone back in timeto > > when Quantispeed or Willamette architecture were released. > > take the comment in the context it was intended, which was that the 1800+and > 1.8Ghz P4 at the time Quantispeed was introduced DID NOT LINE UP FOR > PERFORMANCE, thus making claims that the quantispeed rating was based offthe > P4's performance rather dubious. Yet it still makes as much sense as the AMD-AMD rating, as a 1600XP is not 200mhz faster in reald world applications than a 1.4 Tbird, why cant you just admit that? > > > Your jabbering now, the benchmarks prove it's not any more than 2-5%faster > > period & no amount of fluffing about SSE or Hardware Prefetching willchange > > that. > > How fast does a Tbird run SSE code? > The Tbird doesnt run SSE code as I'm sure your aware, but that still doesnt change the fact that in games that the 1500XP is slower, than the Tbird 1.4 and that a 1600XP is only 2-5% faster. Why cant you just accept this rather than try to deflect the issue.

DON'T CARE DON'T CARE DON'T CARE DON'T CARE DON'T CARE DON'T CARE DON'T CARE DON'T CARE ... DON'T CARE !!!

"Steve Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:21:05 +0100, "Mark" <[email hidden]> > posted: > > > >The Tbird doesnt run SSE code as I'm sure your aware, but that stilldoesnt > >change the fact that in games that the 1500XP is slower, than the Tbird1.4 > >and that a 1600XP is only 2-5% faster. Why cant you just accept thisrather > >than try to deflect the issue. > > T-Bird has SSE and 3DNow!. It's SSE2 it doesn't have and the Palomino > does. Nah Steve, the Tbird doesnt have SSE just 3DNow, the Palomino has enhanced 3DNow & SSE only not SSE2. Cheers Mark

"Steve Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:42:22 +0100, "Mark" <[email hidden]> > posted: > > > >Nah Steve, the Tbird doesnt have SSE just 3DNow, the Palomino hasenhanced

Quoted text (14 lines)

> >3DNow & SSE only not SSE2. > > > >Cheers > > > >Mark > > > > > > OK, my mistake sorry. Just went to AMD com and see I it is like this. > > XP cpu = 52 SSE instructions with SIMD integer and floating point > additions offer excellent compatibility with Intel's SSE technology > >

Hey we all get it wrong now and again, but at least you are upfront about it, pitty more people arent like that. Cheers Mark

> T-Bird has SSE and 3DNow!. It's SSE2 it doesn't have and the Palomino > does. Nope, the Tbird has 3DNow!, no SSE Palomino has 3DNow! + SSE Opteron will have 3dnow! + SSE + SSE2 -JB

> T-Bird has SSE also, it's some SSE2 instructions that Palomino adds > over the T-Bird. Uh, no. :) -JB

> Notr according to the benchamrks I read yesterday at tomshardware. On average != in a few benchmarks You have to include the whole picture, that would include SSE aware apps screaming ahead of the Tbird's fpu units.. which pushes the average up... -JB

> Wrong. Only Asus and MSI currently properly support the thermal diode > on Palomino. The best KT333 mb looks to me to be the Gigabyte GA-7VRXP > and I won't buy it because it has no thermal protection at all. It's the best but you won't buy it? well THAT makes a whole lot of sense.. -JB

> Yet it still makes as much sense as the AMD-AMD rating, as a 1600XP is not > 200mhz faster in reald world applications than a 1.4 Tbird, why cant you > just admit that? When averaging performance out, you have to include _all_ code.. this includes things that use SSE, which will be a HELL of a lot faster on a Pally/Tbred, and those will push up the average.. helloooooo "on average the Palomino is 10% faster than Tbird" does NOT mean "The Palomino is always 10% faster than Tbird" > The Tbird doesnt run SSE code as I'm sure your aware, but that still doesnt > change the fact that in games that the 1500XP is slower Unless of course the game is SSE optimised...... (or data prefetch friendly) yes, instances exist of the Pally being slower than a Tbird, instances also exist of it screaming out ahead... the 10% figure I quoted was a rough average...... *sigh* -JB

> T-Bird has SSE also, it's some SSE2 instructions that Palomino adds Sorry, no. Some of the enhanced 3DNow! instructions that the Athlon originally added (like precaching and some other stuff) use the exact same opcodes as the equivalent SSE instructions, but that doesn't mean it has partial SSE support; it's still 3DNow!. Pre-palomino Athlons have no SSE support at all, Palomino Athlons have no SSE2 support, only standard SSE. Just look at the processor caps that for example WCPUID shows for a standard Athlon and a palomino Athlon and you'll see that for yourself...

>> Opteron will have 3dnow! + SSE + SSE2 > > What's this? Another name for Hammer? Opteron is the marketing name for the Clawhammer in it's SMP variant and Sledgehammer cpu's -JB

> Yea, and if you read *all* of my posts you will see I have already > corrected myself. But it seems you like to selectivly choose which > ones to reply to. Ego boost, eh? :-) getting posts out of order here.. my news server kinda sucks donkley balls >:( -JB

> Well, I still think that they want us to think it is relative to P4 > while saying something else. Intel thinks so too. It's pretty much conjecture either way, the only people who really know (AMD) aren't likely to say anything other than what they've already said. -JB

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afigri$h7a$[email hidden]... > > Yet it still makes as much sense as the AMD-AMD rating, as a 1600XP isnot > > 200mhz faster in reald world applications than a 1.4 Tbird, why cant you > > just admit that? > > When averaging performance out, you have to include _all_ code.. thisincludes > things that use SSE, which will be a HELL of a lot faster on aPally/Tbred, > and those will push up the average.. helloooooo Yup and as I'm getting tired of saying and you not accepting... The 1600XP is not on average 10% faster, it's between 2% & 5% faster depending on application which on average says about 3.5% faster. > > "on average the Palomino is 10% faster than Tbird" does NOT mean "ThePalomino > is always 10% faster than Tbird" Show me a site anywhere that claims that the Palimino is on average 10% faster! > > The Tbird doesnt run SSE code as I'm sure your aware, but that stilldoesnt > > change the fact that in games that the 1500XP is slower > > Unless of course the game is SSE optimised...... (or data prefetchfriendly) Perhaps you would be kind enough to name those games where SSE optimizations & the prefetch let the Palomino "scream out ahead" of the Tbird! > > yes, instances exist of the Pally being slower than a Tbird, instancesalso > exist of it screaming out ahead... the 10% figure I quoted was a rough > average...... > Yes and there are even more instances where it is no more than 2% faster & you still havent explained why a 1500Xp is slower than a 1.4tbird, or are you just hoping I will forget that AMD's naming convention doesnt seem to tally. Oh yes & I can *sigh* as well, *sigh*

> I just told you why. Selective reading problem? Next mb I buy will > have the excellent layout of that mb, but also have > thermal protection and maybe even AGP 8X. Until I see such a mb I > won't buy one. Abit SiS648 SR-7 is really close to that but has no USB > 2.0. See, you just elaborated on what you meant and now it makes sense... :) (AGP 8x probably won't be all that useful btw, if the AGP2x to 4x jump is anything to go by) -JB

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afigk7$8je$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Notr according to the benchamrks I read yesterday at tomshardware. > > On average != in a few benchmarks > > You have to include the whole picture, that would include SSE aware apps > screaming ahead of the Tbird's fpu units.. which pushes the average up... >

What nonsense are you blubbering now, the review uses 18 independant benchmarks that include ones that use SSE including lame/3Dmark2001/divx encoding how many other applications would you like to be benchmarked???. On lame/divx the XP is about 10% faster but considering every other benchmark is between 1% & 5% (icluding 3Dmark2001) it still doesnt tally with your 10% on average claim.

"Steve Lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:24:12 +0000 (UTC), "James Boswell" > <[email hidden]> posted: > > > >It's the best but you won't buy it? > > > >well THAT makes a whole lot of sense.. > > > >-JB > > > > I just told you why. Selective reading problem? Next mb I buy will > have the excellent layout of that mb, but also have > thermal protection and maybe even AGP 8X. Until I see such a mb I > won't buy one. Abit SiS648 SR-7 is really close to that but has no USB > 2.0. >

Steve the boy's a troll, he's running out of arguments so he finds the best he can do is try to ridicule your statements, what a loser. Have you looked further up the thread he still claims a Palomino is 10% faster than an equivalent Tbird..... sick in the head I say.

> Hey Lenny. I already corrected myself half an hour before you made > this post. Well you know, strange as it may seem, but sometimes news servers don't update instantaneously halfway around the world whenever you've made a post. I know the concept could be hard to grasp, but it is true! ;-) No need to comment the obvious man, I saw your post too, AFTER I had sent off mine. Like they say: "shit happens".

> Yup and as I'm getting tired of saying and you not accepting... The 1600XP > is not on average 10% faster, it's between 2% & 5% faster depending on > application which on average says about 3.5% faster. unless you compare x87 code and SSE code between them, where the SSE code will be a hellishly large margin faster, this will PUSH THE AVERAGE UP > Yes and there are even more instances where it is no more than 2% faster Do you know what "average" means? -JB

> Steve the boy's a troll, he's running out of arguments so he finds the best > he can do is try to ridicule your statements, what a loser. Your the one making this personal, who's the troll again? > Have you looked > further up the thread he still claims a Palomino is 10% faster than an > equivalent Tbird..... sick in the head I say. ** ON AVERAGE ** bah, welcome to my killfile. -JB

>> See, you just elaborated on what you meant and now it makes sense... :) > > I said in the original post I didn't want it because it lacked thermal > protection. That should suffice. It struck me as odd that you were saying both "THAT BOARD ROCKS" and "I'M NOT BUYING ONE" in the same post, Maybe I should stop reading usenet at 5am :) >> (AGP 8x probably won't be all that useful btw, if the AGP2x to 4x jump is >> anything to go by) > > I want it for bragging rights. OK? :-) You could go a lot further for bragging rights if you REALLY wanted them.. http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/power4.html# chip ;p -JB

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afiusm$3e5$[email hidden]... > > Steve the boy's a troll, he's running out of arguments so he finds thebest > > he can do is try to ridicule your statements, what a loser. > > Your the one making this personal, who's the troll again? Oh you are the troll, you make statements you cant back up with figures, deflect issues & choose to ridicule people when all else fails, although I have ridiculed you I can at least back up my arguments & I also dont try to deflect from the issue!! > > > Have you looked > > further up the thread he still claims a Palomino is 10% faster than an > > equivalent Tbird..... sick in the head I say. > > ** ON AVERAGE ** Which you still havent proven, despite requests for proof. > > > bah, welcome to my killfile. > Oh no whatever will I do now? > -JB > >

> Yea, but it has to play all my games too. Hack VirtualPC to run on it :p -JB

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ae6urf$bvm$[email hidden]... > > No way, the Leadtek 7350KDA boards are pretty fast, faster than the ECS > > cheapie, and at least on par with Nforce boards. > > the K7S5A isn't exactly sluggish if you poke it with a big enough stick :) Just an FYI - The K7S5A will not work stably with non-XP CPUs. Symptoms are instability and worst - major data corruption on hard disks. It's documented around the net : http://www.geocities.com/mrathlon2000/zp.html This is due to incorrect resistors on the board just inside the cpu socket. I was able to solve the problem by soldering another surface mount resistor on top to alter the total resistance but definately one to avoid if you have a TBird CPU and are scared of soldering your mobo. I have since moved on to a 761 based board (ASUS A7M) and it is excellent. iksteh

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Just an FYI - > > The K7S5A will not work stably with non-XP CPUs. > > Symptoms are instability and worst - major data > corruption on hard disks. It's documented around > the net : > > http://www.geocities.com/mrathlon2000/zp.html > > This is due to incorrect resistors on the board > just inside the cpu socket. I was able to solve > the problem by soldering another surface mount > resistor on top to alter the total resistance > but definately one to avoid if you have a TBird > CPU and are scared of soldering your mobo. I have > since moved on to a 761 based board (ASUS A7M) and > it is excellent.

I do believe they fixed that in the Rev 4 boards? (not that It matters all that much to me, my K7S5A has a 1700+ on it) -JB

"James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:afmp16$fik$[email hidden]... > > Just an FYI - > > > > The K7S5A will not work stably with non-XP CPUs.<snip> > I do believe they fixed that in the Rev 4 boards? > > (not that It matters all that much to me, my K7S5A has a 1700+ on it) You are correct - and it wasn't a problem on the early revision boards either. Also - it wasn't a problem when running SDR, only DDR on fast Tbirds. Still I thought it worth mentioning as nothing sucks worse than buying a new mobo and finding all your files corrupted after a couple of days use. I even rang my ISP to ask if they were doing weird stuff on the network because I couldn't get a clean download. iksteh

"iksteh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3d1efbd0$0$28005$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> "James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:afmp16$fik$[email hidden]... > > > Just an FYI - > > > > > > The K7S5A will not work stably with non-XP CPUs. > <snip> > > > I do believe they fixed that in the Rev 4 boards? > > > > (not that It matters all that much to me, my K7S5A has a 1700+ on it) > > You are correct - and it wasn't a problem on the > early revision boards either. Also - it wasn't > a problem when running SDR, only DDR on fast Tbirds. > > Still I thought it worth mentioning as nothing sucks > worse than buying a new mobo and finding all your > files corrupted after a couple of days use. I even > rang my ISP to ask if they were doing weird stuff on > the network because I couldn't get a clean download.

Weird, a friend of mine has a K7S5A (not sure of the revision) with 512MB DDR and a Thunderbird 1.4GHz CPU, and has had no problems at all. He uses it for video editing and as a network server + internet gateway using Windows 2000 Server, so it's on pretty much all the time and is usually processing a lot of data. So far I think it's been up about 2 months continuously with no files corrupted. Dan

"Daniel Crichton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3d1f0b8e$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Weird, a friend of mine has a K7S5A (not sure of the revision) with 512MB > DDR and a Thunderbird 1.4GHz CPU, and has had no problems at all. He uses it > for video editing and as a network server + internet gateway using Windows > 2000 Server, so it's on pretty much all the time and is usually processing a > lot of data. So far I think it's been up about 2 months continuously with no > files corrupted. >

Yeah - I should correct myself...(now that I went back and read it all again) The problem existed on rev 4/6 motherboards and not on 0,1,2 or 3. There is a lot of information about it at the URL below and yes it is a "some boards do it and some don't" kind of problem. Apparently it first showed up as an inability to burn cds properly. http://pub65.ezboard.com/fk7s5amotherboardforumfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2.topic Reducing the resistance seems to solve the problem in most boards. iksteh

> unless you compare x87 code and SSE code between them, where the SSE codewill > be a hellishly large margin faster, this will PUSH THE AVERAGE UP It's truly comical that Boswell notices the SSE speed differences between AMD CPU's yet totally ignores what SSE2 and a P4 do to AMD CPU's....hehe

Forget about games. What about Photoshop, etc. http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/palomino/ Mark wrote:

Quoted text (48 lines)

> "James Boswell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:afigri$h7a$[email hidden]... > > > Yet it still makes as much sense as the AMD-AMD rating, as a 1600XP is > not > > > 200mhz faster in reald world applications than a 1.4 Tbird, why cant you > > > just admit that? > > > > When averaging performance out, you have to include _all_ code.. this > includes > > things that use SSE, which will be a HELL of a lot faster on a > Pally/Tbred, > > and those will push up the average.. helloooooo > > Yup and as I'm getting tired of saying and you not accepting... The 1600XP > is not on average 10% faster, it's between 2% & 5% faster depending on > application which on average says about 3.5% faster. > > > > > "on average the Palomino is 10% faster than Tbird" does NOT mean "The > Palomino > > is always 10% faster than Tbird" > > Show me a site anywhere that claims that the Palimino is on average 10% > faster! > > > > The Tbird doesnt run SSE code as I'm sure your aware, but that still > doesnt > > > change the fact that in games that the 1500XP is slower > > > > Unless of course the game is SSE optimised...... (or data prefetch > friendly) > > Perhaps you would be kind enough to name those games where SSE optimizations > & the prefetch let the Palomino "scream out ahead" of the Tbird! > > > > > yes, instances exist of the Pally being slower than a Tbird, instances > also > > exist of it screaming out ahead... the 10% figure I quoted was a rough > > average...... > > > > Yes and there are even more instances where it is no more than 2% faster & > you still havent explained why a 1500Xp is slower than a 1.4tbird, or are > you just hoping I will forget that AMD's naming convention doesnt seem to > tally. > > Oh yes & I can *sigh* as well, *sigh*

> It's truly comical that Boswell notices the SSE speed differences between > AMD CPU's yet totally ignores what SSE2 and a P4 do to AMD CPU's....hehe 1) there's more SSE code out there right now than SSE2 code 1a) The Clawhammer will have SSE2 code BTW :) 2) we were talking about the Palomino compared to the Thunderbird (eg, the P4 is totally irrelevent to the discussion) 3) I made a post earlier today in which I stated that the P4 wins if SSE2 code is used, but the Athlon beats it senseless for pure x87 code Thankyou and goodday (ya damn troll) -JB

> Thankyou and goodday (ya damn troll) Yada yada yada....hehe

> Yada yada yada....hehe Isn't that what you said in the previous post? -JB

> Isn't that what you said in the previous post? Still would be more substance than what you post.....hehe

> Still would be more substance than what you post.....hehe Now that's just an outright falsehood, and you know it. -JB

> Now that's just an outright falsehood, and you know it. Yeah..ok...hehe