Race Sim Central
Rec.Autos.Simulators Archive
Archive / 2001 / May

Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)

196 posts by 37 people · 17 May 2001 22:08 UTC - 11 Jun 2001 16:30 UTC

Flame warPentium 4 versus Athlon argument

A link to an article on P4 thermal throttling triggered a long Intel-versus-AMD argument. Athlon owners cited price/performance and throttling, while P4 owners said their systems ran GPL and N4 fine; claims of AMD compatibility problems were challenged. Insults flew, and the thread ended with tales of burned-out CPUs.

hardware: PC/graphics

Automated summary.

Charlie B 18 May 2001 00:51 UTC↳ reply to Allan Parent#184815
I dont know what the hell that guy is talking about as far as tempearture. I love my P4 1.4 which when I want it to it runs at 1.6 w/ hardly any temperature difference and runs way cooler all accross the board than the amd. Runs GPL fine @ 1.4 1600x1200 (GF2Ultra) everything maxxed 36fps. Charlie B Allan Parent <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)> Hmmmmm.....makes me glad I decided on my 1.33Ghz T-bird. > > Allan > > Roger Squires wrote: > > > > http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm > > > > rms > > [email hidden]
Dave Henrie 18 May 2001 03:46 UTC↳ reply to pw#184778
I read the same article...the TBird wins some of the benchmarks, the P4 others. It depends on what you are running and what your subsystems are. As more programs come out that take advantage of the P4 feature set, you can expect more of the benchmarks to swing back to Intel. But of course..by the end of Summer we should also be seeing a 1.5 gig AMD chip. dave henrie "pw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9e24un$fun$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (17 lines)> >Hmmmmm.....makes me glad I decided on my 1.33Ghz T-bird. > > > >Allan > > > > Me too! A friend just told me he picked up the latest PC Mag issue. > He said our chip basically kicks the P$ 1.7's butt! > > -pw > > >Roger Squires wrote: > >> > >> http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm > >> > >> rms > >> [email hidden] >
Marc Collins 18 May 2001 04:07 UTC↳ reply to Charlie B#184782
It's the 1.5's and 1.7's and beyond people are worried about. The 1.4 is almost obsolete now :) Marc. "Charlie B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Mm_M6.13831$[email hidden]... > I dont know what the hell that guy is talking about as far as tempearture.I
Quoted text (20 lines)> love my P4 1.4 which when I want it to it runs at 1.6 w/ hardly any > temperature difference and runs way cooler all accross the board than the > amd. Runs GPL fine @ 1.4 1600x1200 (GF2Ultra) everything maxxed 36fps. > > Charlie B > > Allan Parent <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Hmmmmm.....makes me glad I decided on my 1.33Ghz T-bird. > > > > Allan > > > > Roger Squires wrote: > > > > > > http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm > > > > > > rms > > > [email hidden] > >
Piers Bray 18 May 2001 09:22 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184724
Intel's castration of the chip as to pump out Ghz speeds and make the average dumb idiot think that their CPU's are faster. This is the price and with the Athlon 4 coming out with SSE, well just think about it. Intels only hope is to move to .13 micron before AMD does but even that might not hold AMD off their turf. Piers Bray "Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (14 lines)> On Thu, 17 May 2001 19:12:03 -0500, Allan Parent <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Hmmmmm.....makes me glad I decided on my 1.33Ghz T-bird. > > > >Allan > > Yea, me too. P4's are for suckers. A cpu that throttles back the > cycles when it get's hot? Screw that shit. > > > -- > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Alan Bernardo 18 May 2001 10:48 UTC↳ reply to Roger Squires#184738
"Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9e1i2k$211s$[email hidden]... > http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm > > rms > [email hidden] > >Please, we've heard this before. It's more Intel bashing. Some like AMDs, others, like myself, wouldn't touch one, sticking rather with the P4. It's funny how T-Bird owners are always trying to justify how good their processors are in comparrison to Intel's. If you believe this to be true, why must you go to such lengths (ad nauseam) in order to proove it. Maybe it's someone else who needs to be convinced. I'll take my P4 while you take your T-Bird, and let us all live happily ever after. :) Alanb
Jagg 18 May 2001 10:56 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie#184592
On Fri, 18 May 2001 03:46:14 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > I read the same article...the TBird wins some of the benchmarks, the P4 >others. It depends on what you are running and what your subsystems are. >As more programs come out that take advantage of the P4 feature set, you can >expect more of the benchmarks to swing back to Intel. But of course..by the >end of Summer we should also be seeing a 1.5 gig AMD chip. >dave henrie That doesn't change the fact that the P4 throttles back when it gets hot. Also AMD is working on a better SSE instruction set so the P4 should have no advantage in any benchmarks. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Allan Parent 18 May 2001 11:16 UTC↳ reply to Dave Henrie#184594
This was the first time I ever selected a non-Intel CPU. I was very hesitant at first. I did a lot of research and concluded that the T-bird had the most bang per $$$. The P4 was just not as cost efficient. True, eventually software may be written to take full advantage of the P4 but that is still in the future. I wanted a fast system *now* and by all indications the T-bird comes out on top of the P4 at this time. By the time instruction sets to take advantage of the P4 are common place, AMD will have faster CPU's and I can just upgrade at a reasonable price. I just think Intel has stumbled slightly and AMD has closed the gap(if not surpassed) considerably, at least among gamers. Allan Dave Henrie wrote:
Quoted text (26 lines)> > I read the same article...the TBird wins some of the benchmarks, the P4 > others. It depends on what you are running and what your subsystems are. > As more programs come out that take advantage of the P4 feature set, you can > expect more of the benchmarks to swing back to Intel. But of course..by the > end of Summer we should also be seeing a 1.5 gig AMD chip. > dave henrie > "pw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:9e24un$fun$[email hidden]... > > >Hmmmmm.....makes me glad I decided on my 1.33Ghz T-bird. > > > > > >Allan > > > > > > > Me too! A friend just told me he picked up the latest PC Mag issue. > > He said our chip basically kicks the P$ 1.7's butt! > > > > -pw > > > > >Roger Squires wrote: > > >> > > >> http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm > > >> > > >> rms > > >> [email hidden] > >
Jagg 18 May 2001 11:34 UTC↳ reply to Alan Bernardo#184596
On Fri, 18 May 2001 10:48:10 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)>> >Please, we've heard this before. It's more Intel bashing. Some like AMDs, >others, like myself, wouldn't touch one, sticking rather with the P4. It's >funny how T-Bird owners are always trying to justify how good their >processors are in comparrison to Intel's. If you believe this to be true, >why must you go to such lengths (ad nauseam) in order to proove it. Maybe >it's someone else who needs to be convinced.
Because it's time to give Intel some of their own back. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Ryan Mitchley 18 May 2001 14:58 UTC↳ reply to Alan Bernardo#184635
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:K57N6.69805$[email hidden]... > Please, we've heard this before. It's more Intel bashing. Some likeAMDs, > others, like myself, wouldn't touch one, sticking rather with the P4. Why on earth would anyone "like" or "stick with" a CPU? It's not like a friend, or even a pet, for goodness' sake! It either does the job or it doesn't. One CPU may be faster than another at a particular job, but I don't see why preference should enter into it. Brand loyalty does nothing for a CPU buyer. I know plenty of people who only buy Intel CPUs simply because they know the name. The Celeron is currently demonstrably inferior to the Duron (both in terms of price and performance), although this doesn't stop people from buying them. At the same time, there is no reason why the offerings from Intel won't get the upper hand over AMD's in the future. Sticking with one brand over the other through thick and thin is stupidity, though. I'll buy whatever is best at the time. The only real issue is finding a benchmark that approximates one's applications closely enough. For most gamers, these benchmarks are pretty well defined. CPU choice is then a fairly logical, rational process, given the amount that one is prepared to spend. Of course, some processors are fairly evenly matched in terms of performance, but there is no justifiable reason for the "I wouldn't touch an X" attitude. I think most of the people with this kind of attitude are either uninformed or couldn't be bothered to read through actual performance assessments. Their loss. Ryan
M 18 May 2001 20:32 UTC↳ reply to Allan Parent#184687
Allan Parent wrote in message <[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (13 lines)>This was the first time I ever selected a non-Intel CPU. I was very >hesitant at first. I did a lot of research and concluded that the T-bird >had the most bang per $$$. The P4 was just not as cost efficient. True, >eventually software may be written to take full advantage of the P4 but >that is still in the future. I wanted a fast system *now* and by all >indications the T-bird comes out on top of the P4 at this time. By the >time instruction sets to take advantage of the P4 are common place, AMD >will have faster CPU's and I can just upgrade at a reasonable price. I >just think Intel has stumbled slightly and AMD has closed the gap(if not >surpassed) considerably, at least among gamers. > > >Allan
I have a P3, see you at P6. :) Pasha
M 18 May 2001 20:35 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184541
Jagg wrote in message ... >>> >>Please, we've heard this before. It's more Intel bashing. Some likeAMDs, >>others, like myself, wouldn't touch one, sticking rather with the P4.It's >>funny how T-Bird owners are always trying to justify how good their >>processors are in comparrison to Intel's. If you believe this to be true, >>why must you go to such lengths (ad nauseam) in order to proove it. Maybe >>it's someone else who needs to be convinced. > >Because it's time to give Intel some of their own back. You are silly. The reason AMD ever 'got any' was because they sucked, for years, and years. Pasha -funny, Chrystler seems to have a problem selling Mercedes-
E. J. Akely 18 May 2001 22:49 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184568
I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the pros/cons of AMD/Intel. TIA, MadMan "Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 18 May 2001 16:35:33 -0400, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >You are silly. > > > >The reason AMD ever 'got any' was because they sucked, for years, andyears. > > > > You're an idiot. Intel sucks now. Get it? > -- > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 18 May 2001 23:00 UTC↳ reply to E. J. Akely#184526
On Fri, 18 May 2001 22:49:42 GMT, "E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the >pros/cons of AMD/Intel. > >TIA, >MadMan Read the article that was posted at the beginning of this thread. Basically, clock for clock the T-Bird is faster. The T-bird 1.33c I use beats and/or equals a P4 1.5ghz. The P4 throttles back the cycles when it gets a bit hot, that means it operates at about 30% less of it's speed when the kitchen gets hot. AMD cpu's don't do that and you don't want a cpu that does that either. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Allan Parent 18 May 2001 23:38 UTC↳ reply to E. J. Akely#184578
Well, I just put together a new system and had to make that same decision. I selected an AMD T-bird simply because it had more performance for the price. The benchmarks I saw showed the 1.33Ghz T-bird equal or better in many categories over a P4. But the final factor was price. At the time of purchase, the AMD was almost half the price of the P4. I have *always* gone with Intel up to this point. However, the AMD just has more performance for the $$$. At some point all of the P4's potential will be realised by software that takes advantage of its features. However, until that point, I will have a fast, economical and reliable chip in the form of the T-bird. I learned a while back not to purchase computer hardware based on future implementations. Buy something affordable that performs well on software you utilize. I am sure someone will step in with all of the detailed technical merits of each chip but that is why I purchased AMD over Intel this time around. Allan "E. J. Akely" wrote:
Quoted text (22 lines)> > I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the > pros/cons of AMD/Intel. > > TIA, > MadMan > > "Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Fri, 18 May 2001 16:35:33 -0400, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >You are silly. > > > > > >The reason AMD ever 'got any' was because they sucked, for years, and > years. > > > > > > > You're an idiot. Intel sucks now. Get it? > > -- > > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
JD 18 May 2001 23:39 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184579
Thus spake Jagg <[email hidden]> on Fri, 18 May 2001 06:56:08 -0400, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >That doesn't change the fact that the P4 throttles back when it gets >hot. Also AMD is working on a better SSE instruction set so the P4 >should have no advantage in any benchmarks. Am I missing something or is this as stupid as it sounds? The built in ability to throttle back when overheating is a very GOOD thing. The question is, does it regularly overheat while operating the programs <games> we want to run under otherwise nominal conditions? If the answer is yes, then there's a problem. If the answer is no, then this is a total non-issue. Regards, JD [email hidden]
JD 18 May 2001 23:44 UTC↳ reply to E. J. Akely#184580
Thus spake "E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> on Fri, 18 May 2001 22:49:42 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the >pros/cons of AMD/Intel. Well, you've come to the wrong place for that! Here, unless you know your way around well enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, it's all about big egos playing attack and defend with rumors, innuendo and half <often misunderstood> truths. Nothing much to do with the merits at all. Regards, JD [email hidden]
Charlie B 19 May 2001 00:09 UTC↳ reply to Txl#184489
You people dont have a clue. Buy a P4 and try it side by sde with your AMD systems, I've done it w/ 1.2 and 1.33 AMD's side by side, with same vid cards (Ultra) and the results were so a like using GPL and N4 in my eyes it's making you guys sound ridiculous. Justifying your purchase w/ a crummy article that is totally biased is a waste of your time. That article shows FPS reduction in Q3 throughout use yet on Mon. nights in a League using N4, in 3-4 hour races I have yet to see a degradation in the quality of my race/fps because of the processor throttling back. It's BS. The idea that intel has not provided adequate cooling specs is also a farse. I got the OEM package and when I load a highly processor intensive programs (multiple times simultaneously) It doesnt get hot. My P4 goes from 96*f at idle to 111*f under load. Highest I've seen is 114*f UNDER LOAD! I'm tired of benchmark tests on software that is over 5 years old. You all are basing this on a Quaker test LOL And if you thnk there arent hot spot anomolies on an AMD chip youve got another think coming. Enjoy your easy bake oven. Charlie B Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mc7N6.1128$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (17 lines)> don't buy a P4 AT ALL !!! > > If you want buy an Athlon but why pay more for less ? > > > "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message news: > 9e1i2k$211s$[email hidden]... > > http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm > > > > rms > > [email hidden] > > > > > > > > > >
Yousuf Khan 19 May 2001 01:40 UTC↳ reply to E. J. Akely#184500
"E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aGhN6.11117$[email hidden]... > I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the > pros/cons of AMD/Intel. Pros: AMD: -price -price/performance ratio -performance Intel: -can't think of any Cons: AMD: -can't think of any Intel: -price -price/performance ratio -performance :-)
William Silvey 19 May 2001 02:12 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184502
Yousuf Khan <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0akN6.6286$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (14 lines)> "E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:aGhN6.11117$[email hidden]... > > I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the > > pros/cons of AMD/Intel. > > Pros: > AMD: -price > -price/performance ratio > -performance > > Intel: -can't think of any > > Cons: > AMD: -can't think of any
Compatibility. See earlier post of mine. -- Heretic #2 of 3e D&D. - ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!! Remove the X's in my email address to respond. > I don't think anything short of no-boot would put Macists off Mac. > The last stable OS was System 6.0.8. So long as system messages > are phrased as if a patronising aunt were addressing a retarded > 4-year-old, they will continue to love it. - Patrick Ford
Gonzo 19 May 2001 02:29 UTC↳ reply to William Silvey#184504
"William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FEkN6.16014 > Compatibility. See earlier post of mine. Explain to me how an Intel CPU based system is more compatible please. And more compatible with what exactly? Intel made benchmark software perhaps? I see comments like this posted all the time on the Usenet but I have yet to see any kind of attempt at providing any proof.
William Silvey 19 May 2001 04:06 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#184508
Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GUkN6.5139$[email hidden]... > "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:FEkN6.16014 > > Compatibility. See earlier post of mine. > > Explain to me how an Intel CPU based system is more compatible please.And > more compatible with what exactly? Intel made benchmark software perhaps? Nope. 3dStudio Max + miro video capture card + WinNT + Adaptec 2940UW + 9.1gb 10k/RPM drive + 256mb RAM on an Athlon 800 + latest drivers etc ad nauseam = KABOOM. Sorry. It might be a fine system for gaming, but I've seen it die on the above system. It's not a question of speed, it's a matter of stability as well as speed. I ran a different 3d package on it (VistaPro 4.01, a terrain generator) and hey, 9000 frame animations that took 72-128hrs to render on my PII-300 were returned with estimated render times of 8-12 hours on the Athlon. Unfortunately, the system wasn't mine to use and VistaPro wasn't the only 3d package being run on it. Further, losing hours of work because of the instability like that is unacceptable for a professional. Not quite like a CTD in Falcon 4, y'know. No amount of dead-chicken-waving, glorified AMD benchmarking, ultra-freezer cooling nor anything else would overcome the issues Steve had with his system (the aforementioned person; this was his setup). As far as the "...more compatible with what exactly?", The X86 instruction set that Intel *created*. I would hope that their own CPUs are compatible with the instruction sets programmed into them. Sorta circular logic if they're not. (No pun intended). Again, this is high-end stuff; perhaps much of the software was Intel optimized. That said, I've been bitten by the "just as good as Intel!" bug before: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." > I see comments like this posted all the time on the Usenet but I have yetto > see any kind of attempt at providing any proof. I see all kinds of comments posted on Usenet regarding a myriad of topics with no proof to substantiate them; I'm sure you've seen others. If the system in question were still in use, I'd post a screenshot (or, at least a snapshot taken with a digital camera) of the various crashes that occurred on the above setup. Same setup, save dual P-II Xeon 450, runs stably for months and months now. Sorry, that's just the way it is. I reckon you'll come back with arguments like "Well, the system was crap, then." or "It must've been a bad CPU or Motherboard." Trust me, the system was swapped out twice. Ultimately, given that I'm not going to convince you of the above situation or of my own desire/need to run an Intel system and since you're certainly not going to convince me to buy an AMD, let us just agree to disagree and enjoy the flight sims (or auto-sims, as the case may be). -- Heretic #2 of 3e D&D. - ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!! Remove the X's in my email address to respond. > I don't think anything short of no-boot would put Macists off Mac. > The last stable OS was System 6.0.8. So long as system messages > are phrased as if a patronising aunt were addressing a retarded > 4-year-old, they will continue to love it. - Patrick Ford
Jagg 19 May 2001 05:14 UTC↳ reply to JD#184522
On Fri, 18 May 2001 23:39:26 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)>Am I missing something or is this as stupid as it sounds? The >built in ability to throttle back when overheating is a very GOOD >thing. The question is, does it regularly overheat while operating >the programs <games> we want to run under otherwise nominal >conditions? If the answer is yes, then there's a problem. If the >answer is no, then this is a total non-issue. > > >Regards, JD >[email hidden]
Did you not read the article at the beginning of this thread? If not then stop posting uninformed comments and read it. It has been shown to be a major problem in Quake. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 19 May 2001 05:15 UTC↳ reply to JD#184523
On Fri, 18 May 2001 23:44:45 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> wrote: >Well, you've come to the wrong place for that! Here, unless you >know your way around well enough to separate the wheat from the >chaff, it's all about big egos playing attack and defend with >rumors, innuendo and half <often misunderstood> truths. Nothing >much to do with the merits at all. Once again, read the artical. It's fact, not inuendo. You're the one opening your mouth without knowing the facts. Stupid or what? -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 19 May 2001 05:16 UTC↳ reply to Charlie B#184524
On Sat, 19 May 2001 00:09:21 GMT, "Charlie B" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You people dont have a clue. Buy a P4 and try it side by sde with your AMD >systems, I've done it w/ 1.2 and 1.33 AMD's side by side, with same vid >cards (Ultra) and the results were so a like using GPL GPL is capped at 36fps you moron. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
EldredP 19 May 2001 05:45 UTC↳ reply to William Silvey#184512
In article <FEkN6.16014$[email hidden]>, "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> writes: >> Cons: >> AMD: -can't think of any > >Compatibility. See earlier post of mine. > I just got an Athlon 1.3G. Haven't had any compatibility issues yet. Do you have any specific problems? Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +25.37...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
EldredP 19 May 2001 05:45 UTC↳ reply to Ryan Mitchley#184514
In article <3b05389c$0$365@proctor>, "Ryan Mitchley" <[email hidden]> writes:
Quoted text (7 lines)>I know plenty of people who only buy Intel CPUs simply because they know the >name. The Celeron is currently demonstrably inferior to the Duron (both in >terms of price and performance), although this doesn't stop people from >buying them. At the same time, there is no reason why the offerings from >Intel won't get the upper hand over AMD's in the future. Sticking with one >brand over the other through thick and thin is stupidity, though. I'll buy >whatever is best at the time.
Some people buy things that do the job for THEM. Different people also have different criterium. Price, speed, compatibility(both with software and existing hardware). Sometimes, you can't get all of those in the same product. Putting down someone for making a personal choice seems close-minded... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +25.37...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
driedger 19 May 2001 06:28 UTC↳ reply to JD#184531
I'm pretty sure that the Athlon 4 is going to be throttling back as well. One of the things that has me interested in the Athlon 4 is its thermal management subsystem, protects my investment a bit. >Thus spake Jagg <[email hidden]> on Fri, 18 May 2001 06:56:08 >-0400, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" > >>That doesn't change the fact that the P4 throttles back when it gets >>hot. Also AMD is working on a better SSE instruction set so the P4 >>should have no advantage in any benchmarks.
Jagg 19 May 2001 06:49 UTC↳ reply to driedger#184534
On Fri, 18 May 2001 23:28:57 -0700, "driedger" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I'm pretty sure that the Athlon 4 is going to be throttling back as well. >One of the things that has me interested in the Athlon 4 is its thermal >management subsystem, protects my investment a bit. > Oh yea, your playing a game and suddenly you lose 30% in frame rate because the cpu is too hot. How can that be a good thing? -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Yousuf Khan 19 May 2001 07:51 UTC↳ reply to William Silvey#184536
"William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:FEkN6.16014$[email hidden]... > Compatibility. See earlier post of mine. I saw your other post, how you came to blame the processor or system on the problems you had, I don't know. You had some problems with instability -- so what? Welcome to the world of x86, I've had the exact same sort of problems/crashes if not worse, under various Intel processors. In the x86 world, you go and find out what's causing the instability, I've had to diagnose tons of similar problems with systems running Intel processors, from 386's on upto P2's and up. Most fall into the category of bad peripherals or bad RAM. You want stability? Go run a Sun Solaris system or something. You can get well-tested, and certified systems with every component individually passed by the manufacturer. You pay for it, of course.
RenderedBrian 19 May 2001 07:52 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184537
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted text (10 lines)> On Fri, 18 May 2001 23:28:57 -0700, "driedger" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >>I'm pretty sure that the Athlon 4 is going to be throttling back as well. >>One of the things that has me interested in the Athlon 4 is its thermal >>management subsystem, protects my investment a bit. >> > > Oh yea, your playing a game and suddenly you lose 30% in frame rate > because the cpu is too hot. How can that be a good thing?
Use proper cooling? and don't overclock? Throttling back when the cpu overheats *IS* a good thing. If i had spent several hundred pouds on a cpu, I do not want it to die! > -- > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip -- brian - Turn up the heat to reply -
E. J. Akely 19 May 2001 12:01 UTC↳ reply to William Silvey#184445
Thought so. Thanks for the effort. This sounds just like back in 96(?) when I bought a 100% Intel comatible Cyrix. Thanks for the "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.". It made me remeber the Cyrix. Argh! MadMan "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4jmN6.17284$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)> > Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:GUkN6.5139$[email hidden]... > > "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:FEkN6.16014 > > > Compatibility. See earlier post of mine. > > > > Explain to me how an Intel CPU based system is more compatible please. > And > > more compatible with what exactly? Intel made benchmark software
perhaps?
Quoted text (9 lines)> > Nope. 3dStudio Max + miro video capture card + WinNT + Adaptec 2940UW + > 9.1gb 10k/RPM drive + 256mb RAM on an Athlon 800 + latest drivers etc ad > nauseam = KABOOM. Sorry. It might be a fine system for gaming, but I've > seen it die on the above system. It's not a question of speed, it's a > matter of stability as well as speed. I ran a different 3d package on it > (VistaPro 4.01, a terrain generator) and hey, 9000 frame animations that > took 72-128hrs to render on my PII-300 were returned with estimated render > times of 8-12 hours on the Athlon. Unfortunately, the system wasn't mine
to > use and VistaPro wasn't the only 3d package being run on it. Further, > losing hours of work because of the instability like that is unacceptable > for a professional. Not quite like a CTD in Falcon 4, y'know. No amountof > dead-chicken-waving, glorified AMD benchmarking, ultra-freezer cooling nor > anything else would overcome the issues Steve had with his system (the > aforementioned person; this was his setup). > > As far as the "...more compatible with what exactly?", The X86instruction > set that Intel *created*. I would hope that their own CPUs are compatible > with the instruction sets programmed into them. Sorta circular logic if > they're not. (No pun intended). > > Again, this is high-end stuff; perhaps much of the software was Intel > optimized. That said, I've been bitten by the "just as good as Intel!"bug > before: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." > > > I see comments like this posted all the time on the Usenet but I haveyet > to > > see any kind of attempt at providing any proof. > > I see all kinds of comments posted on Usenet regarding a myriad of topics > with no proof to substantiate them; I'm sure you've seen others. If the > system in question were still in use, I'd post a screenshot (or, at leasta
Quoted text (8 lines)> snapshot taken with a digital camera) of the various crashes that occurred > on the above setup. Same setup, save dual P-II Xeon 450, runs stably for > months and months now. Sorry, that's just the way it is. I reckon you'll > come back with arguments like "Well, the system was crap, then." or "It > must've been a bad CPU or Motherboard." Trust me, the system was swapped > out twice. > > Ultimately, given that I'm not going to convince you of the above
situation
Quoted text (13 lines)> or of my own desire/need to run an Intel system and since you're certainly > not going to convince me to buy an AMD, let us just agree to disagree and > enjoy the flight sims (or auto-sims, as the case may be). > > -- > Heretic #2 of 3e D&D. - ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!! > Remove the X's in my email address to respond. > > I don't think anything short of no-boot would put Macists off Mac. > > The last stable OS was System 6.0.8. So long as system messages > > are phrased as if a patronising aunt were addressing a retarded > > 4-year-old, they will continue to love it. - Patrick Ford > >
E. J. Akely 19 May 2001 12:14 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184452
You don't need to cash out a lot for stability Yousuf. I have stability. On a P3 Windows 2000 system with SCSI, video capture gear and so on. Oh, it got Linux to. Perfectly stable. Maybee the problems William are referring to are not 100% due to the fact of the CPU. Maybee as high as 50% (just an example) is due to the fact that some peripheral (SCSI card???) are not compatible with the CPU. The easiest way would still be to get a Intel. Running around searching for compatible hardware is a drag. I know, I had a Cyrix once. It sounds like the AMD have more bang for the buck. It sounds like Intel is more reliable for a professional user. Maybee I'll keep this 'puter and buy a new toy (gaming PC). Regards, MadMan "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kCpN6.9877$[email hidden]... > "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:FEkN6.16014$[email hidden]... > > Compatibility. See earlier post of mine. > > I saw your other post, how you came to blame the processor or system onthe > problems you had, I don't know. You had some problems with instability --so
Quoted text (9 lines)> what? Welcome to the world of x86, I've had the exact same sort of > problems/crashes if not worse, under various Intel processors. In the x86 > world, you go and find out what's causing the instability, I've had to > diagnose tons of similar problems with systems running Intel processors, > from 386's on upto P2's and up. Most fall into the category of bad > peripherals or bad RAM. > > You want stability? Go run a Sun Solaris system or something. You can get > well-tested, and certified systems with every component individually
passed > by the manufacturer. You pay for it, of course. > >
E. J. Akely 19 May 2001 12:20 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184451
Ehh. I once had a CPU frying on me. That was not a good thing. But I agree that there are other ways to notice CPU overheating. Todays temperature watchers is one thing. Hell: many of these OFFER CPU throttling as a way to SAVE the CPU from braking. The question is how the throttling is implemented (if you get told) and how often it occurs. I, for one, will not cast my judgement on this until i learn about this. Do anyone out there KNOW this? Regards, MadMan "Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (13 lines)> On Fri, 18 May 2001 23:28:57 -0700, "driedger" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I'm pretty sure that the Athlon 4 is going to be throttling back as well. > >One of the things that has me interested in the Athlon 4 is its thermal > >management subsystem, protects my investment a bit. > > > > Oh yea, your playing a game and suddenly you lose 30% in frame rate > because the cpu is too hot. How can that be a good thing? > -- > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 19 May 2001 14:02 UTC↳ reply to RenderedBrian#184459
On 19 May 2001 07:52:14 GMT, [email hidden] (RenderedBrian) wrote: >Use proper cooling? and don't overclock? > >Throttling back when the cpu overheats *IS* a good thing. If i had spent >several hundred pouds on a cpu, I do not want it to die! Bollocks. If you read the article, which it seems most of you have not, you will see it is not a good thing and happens far too soon cauisng slow down in Quake3. The answer is using a smaller die and less power consumption, not hobbling the cpu. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Gonzo 19 May 2001 14:15 UTC↳ reply to William Silvey#184464
"William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4jmN6.17284$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)> > Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:GUkN6.5139$[email hidden]... > > "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:FEkN6.16014 > > > Compatibility. See earlier post of mine. > > > > Explain to me how an Intel CPU based system is more compatible please. > And > > more compatible with what exactly? Intel made benchmark software
perhaps? > Nope. 3dStudio Max + miro video capture card + WinNT + Adaptec 2940UW + > 9.1gb 10k/RPM drive + 256mb RAM on an Athlon 800 + latest drivers etc ad > nauseam = KABOOM. Sorry. No actually I feel sorry for you because you are cheating yourself based on your own ignorance. Your posting is a typical anti-alternative CPU response in that your problem could be one of a million things but you decide for yourself that it must be the CPU. Hell, it could be that you simply do not know how to configure your CMOS settings for an AMD CPU because you still think your running Intel so the problem could very well be your own fault but you somehow figured that it simpy must be the CPU...typical! > It might be a fine system for gaming, but I've > seen it die on the above system. So what, I have seen Intel CPUs die an many situations and that doesn't proove squate now does it? > It's not a question of speed, it's a > matter of stability as well as speed. There you go making unsuported claims again. What stablitity? My Athlon system is the most stable system I have ever owned and I started out being an Intel fan going back all the way to the 4.7 MHz PC/XT and TI-99. What stability issues exactly are you talking about? >I ran a different 3d package on it > (VistaPro 4.01, a terrain generator) and hey, 9000 frame animations that > took 72-128hrs to render on my PII-300 were returned with estimated render > times of 8-12 hours on the Athlon. Unfortunately, the system wasn't mineto > use and VistaPro wasn't the only 3d package being run on it. Further, > losing hours of work because of the instability like that is unacceptable > for a professional. Not quite like a CTD in Falcon 4, y'know. Uhhh I have news you for, your system is hosed. It's amazing how people find it so easy to blame the CPU when if fact all they really need to do is start diagnosing the problem. Could have been a bad configuration, bad ram, overheating, hosed software, not strong enough PS etc etc etc but ohhhhh noooo it must be the CPU because it's made by AMD! Give me a break! >No amount of > dead-chicken-waving, glorified AMD benchmarking, ultra-freezer cooling nor > anything else would overcome the issues Steve had with his system (the > aforementioned person; this was his setup). No, simply puting your brain in gear and realizing that the system had a problem that needed to be fixed is what it would have taken. You remind me of the types of people who trade in their two year old car that is not yet paid for because the battery is starting to die out LOL! > As far as the "...more compatible with what exactly?", The X86instruction > set that Intel *created*. Woopdidoo!?! Intel is so great that they decided to copy AMD by coming up with extra x86 instruction sets (like AMD's 3Dnow). So who is more inovative now? I can tell you the answer to that and it sure as hell isn't Intel. Intel has lost it's edge, simple as that. Only die hard Intel fans and simply uninformed and suserspicious people still buy Intel LOL! > I would hope that their own CPUs are compatible > with the instruction sets programmed into them. Sorta circular logic if > they're not. (No pun intended). What makes you think Intel doesn't make mistakes? Remember the P90 FPU bug? Probably not huh? I would have taken even an AMD 5x86 CPU over a POS iP90 any day during that time. > Again, this is high-end stuff; perhaps much of the software was Intel > optimized. That said, I've been bitten by the "just as good as Intel!"bug > before: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." All software from the past was designed with Intel CPUs in mind but this is changing fast as AMD will be the dominant CPU in the home market and beyond. Just a fact, that's all. > > I see comments like this posted all the time on the Usenet but I haveyet > to > > see any kind of attempt at providing any proof. > > I see all kinds of comments posted on Usenet regarding a myriad of topics > with no proof to substantiate them; I'm sure you've seen others. If the > system in question were still in use, I'd post a screenshot (or, at leasta > snapshot taken with a digital camera) of the various crashes that occurred > on the above setup. Same setup, save dual P-II Xeon 450, runs stably for > months and months now. Sorry, that's just the way it is. I reckon you'll > come back with arguments like "Well, the system was crap, then." or "It > must've been a bad CPU or Motherboard." Trust me, the system was swapped > out twice. You could simply collect all the "Problem with my system" postings off the Usenet and claim that AMD was to blame but then again I could do that with all those same postings involving Intel CPUs. This prooves nothing. If there really was any compatibility issue with a CPU, the whole world would know about it as the competitors would make sure it was advertised. Remember the Intel P90 floating point problem? Good example of that as it was all over the news and even on TV. > Ultimately, given that I'm not going to convince you of the abovesituation > or of my own desire/need to run an Intel system and since you're certainly > not going to convince me to buy an AMD, let us just agree to disagree and > enjoy the flight sims (or auto-sims, as the case may be). I could care less what CPU people run and I am not trying to sway you or any other anti AMD fanatic either way. My beef is that people post sh** about AMD CPUs on the usenet which is unsubstantiated and most often their problems are directly related to their own ignorance and inability to configure their own machines correctly. Example: When K7 motherboards first came out it was stated plain as day that an approved 300W PS was required yet I saw hundreds of postings from ignorant-asses bitching that AMD sucks because it didn't work on their underpowered 240W PS equiped boards. Same thing when Super7 came out. People with no brains would run their 66MHz memory at 100MHz FSB speed and then bitched and complained all over the usenet that AMD sucked because their PCs kept crashing. Intel system might simply be more idiot friendly. That may be one of Intel's last few benefits.
RenderedBrian 19 May 2001 14:31 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184465
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted text (13 lines)> On 19 May 2001 07:52:14 GMT, [email hidden] > (RenderedBrian) wrote: > > >>Use proper cooling? and don't overclock? >> >>Throttling back when the cpu overheats *IS* a good thing. If i had >>spent several hundred pouds on a cpu, I do not want it to die! > > Bollocks. If you read the article, which it seems most of you have > not, you will see it is not a good thing and happens far too soon > cauisng slow down in Quake3. The answer is using a smaller die and > less power consumption, not hobbling the cpu.
cooooooling. No overclocking! I know. Lets build a 3W nuclear reactor. That way, we won't have to worry about cooling it as much, when we would if we built our 300MW nuclear reactor. -- brian - Turn up the heat to reply -
JD 19 May 2001 14:51 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184473
Thus spake Jagg <[email hidden]> on Sat, 19 May 2001 01:14:25 -0400, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >Did you not read the article at the beginning of this thread? If not >then stop posting uninformed comments and read it. It has been shown >to be a major problem in Quake. I did. What I saw was lots of "maybes" and "perhapses" and other statements waffling around the fact that they really don't have many facts to go with their conclusions. So I'll ask again... is there a problem with the CPU, or is this a mechanism to prevent overheating... overheating which goes unnoticed/unreported with the T-bird processors, perhaps? Regards, JD [email hidden]
JD 19 May 2001 14:53 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184474
Thus spake Jagg <[email hidden]> on Sat, 19 May 2001 01:15:45 -0400, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >Once again, read the artical. It's fact, not inuendo. You're the one >opening your mouth without knowing the facts. Stupid or what? What, actually. I've read the article. I don't see these "facts" you mention supporting their conclusions. Sorry. Regards, JD [email hidden]
JD 19 May 2001 14:56 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184475
Thus spake Jagg <[email hidden]> on Sat, 19 May 2001 01:16:33 -0400, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >GPL is capped at 36fps you moron. Oooo wee! Is there an agenda here? Are you perhaps a recent T-bird buyer? Regards, JD [email hidden]
JD 19 May 2001 14:57 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184476
Thus spake Jagg <[email hidden]> on Sat, 19 May 2001 02:49:49 -0400, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >Oh yea, your playing a game and suddenly you lose 30% in frame rate >because the cpu is too hot. How can that be a good thing? Easy. Your CPU did not blow up. Good thing.... see? The answer?... Get better cooling. Regards, JD [email hidden]
Marc Collins 19 May 2001 15:14 UTC↳ reply to E. J. Akely#184481
Please tell us more about this...perhaps these could be used to solve the GPL fast processor bug? Marc. Todays temperature > watchers is one thing. Hell: many of these OFFER CPU throttling as a wayto > SAVE the CPU from braking. >
Jagg 19 May 2001 15:20 UTC↳ reply to RenderedBrian#184340
On 19 May 2001 14:31:59 GMT, [email hidden] (RenderedBrian) wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)>cooooooling. > >No overclocking! > >I know. Lets build a 3W nuclear reactor. That way, we won't have to worry >about cooling it as much, when we would if we built our 300MW nuclear >reactor.
Are we talking about nuclear reactors here or poorly designed cpu's? -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 19 May 2001 15:23 UTC↳ reply to JD#184341
On Sat, 19 May 2001 14:57:51 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> wrote: >The answer?... Get better cooling. No, the answer is get a T-Bird and better cooling. That's what I did. BTW, I have *always* bought Intel cpu's in the past and this is my first AMD cpu so it's not like I'm being biased against Intel or any such thing. My logic code just works better than yours. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 19 May 2001 15:31 UTC↳ reply to JD#184484
On Sat, 19 May 2001 14:51:24 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)>I did. What I saw was lots of "maybes" and "perhapses" and other >statements waffling around the fact that they really don't have >many facts to go with their conclusions. So I'll ask again... is >there a problem with the CPU, or is this a mechanism to prevent >overheating... overheating which goes unnoticed/unreported with >the T-bird processors, perhaps? > > >Regards, JD >[email hidden]
The core on the T-Bird 1.33c is rated to 95c, the P4 1.5ghz is rated to 70c. Make your own conclusion. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 19 May 2001 15:32 UTC↳ reply to JD#184486
On Sat, 19 May 2001 14:53:13 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> wrote: >What, actually. I've read the article. I don't see these "facts" >you mention supporting their conclusions. Sorry. > > >Regards, JD >[email hidden] Did you also read the articel link to the problems with Q3A on a P4? -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 19 May 2001 15:34 UTC↳ reply to JD#184487
On Sat, 19 May 2001 14:56:35 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> wrote: >Oooo wee! Is there an agenda here? Are you perhaps a recent T-bird >buyer? > > >Regards, JD >[email hidden] And what does that have to do with it? The guy is saying the P4 and T-bird perform the same when he is testing on a game that is capped at 36fps, which makes it useless as a comparison. My P3 800 performs the same in GPL as my T-bird 1.33c. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Roger Squires 19 May 2001 15:36 UTC↳ reply to William Silvey#184339
Issues such as this one (adaptec scsi problems) are related in the main to earlier via and amd chipsets and were certainly valid at the time, but have pretty much been ironed out in the latest motherboards. Unfortunately he doesn't mention what motherboard was used. rms [email hidden]
Yousuf Khan 19 May 2001 15:41 UTC↳ reply to E. J. Akely#184343
"E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RstN6.11184$[email hidden]... > You don't need to cash out a lot for stability Yousuf. I have stability.On > a P3 Windows 2000 system with SCSI, video capture gear and so on. Oh, itgot > Linux to. Perfectly stable. > > Maybee the problems William are referring to are not 100% due to the factof > the CPU. Maybee as high as 50% (just an example) is due to the fact that > some peripheral (SCSI card???) are not compatible with the CPU. Theeasiest > way would still be to get a Intel. Running around searching for compatible > hardware is a drag. I know, I had a Cyrix once. > > It sounds like the AMD have more bang for the buck. It sounds like Intelis > more reliable for a professional user. Maybee I'll keep this 'puter andbuy > a new toy (gaming PC). Now don't start believing this compatibility FUD. The processor has got nothing to do with being compatible with peripherals, they are mutually exclusive. I've seen this FUD thrown around so often that it has to be combatted. People can't just go around thinking that all of their problems are as a result of the processor, just because they got no better ideas. For every William Silvey, there are several more examples of people not having problems. Whatever William ran into, it's because of his own combination, not anything else. The only way this can be a trend is if there are a lot of people who see the same problem. A William Silvey is not a trend, by himself. For example, I have a brand new Dell Latitude laptop right now that is running Win2K, with a 700Mhz P3. It is having a problem with its powered undocking mechanism, i.e. it won't accept the command to undock while it is still powered up, despite the fact that this is one of its included features. Dell's very helpful technical support (...not!) first suggested that we upgrade to the latest W2K service pack 2. We did, and it helped in one laptop out of six, unfortunately not mine. So we called Dell back, their new suggestion is to reformat the hard drive and reinstall from scratch! So this is our signal that we should now investigate this ourselves and not to bother Dell's tech support. I'd say five out of six laptops is a trend, yet what is the reason that one out of six does work? Prior to this I had a Compaq Armada notebook with a P2-333Mhz processor. It had little or no issues. The Dell is replacing the Compaq. You will note that all of these examples are referring to "GenuineIntel" processors, right? Well, welcome to the world of x86, where it's a crap shoot how good your system is going to be. You don't throw your hands up in the air and blame this on the processor, you go investigate, because you are on your own when you got a PC. Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan 19 May 2001 15:44 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#184344
"Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7evN6.6454$[email hidden]... > I could care less what CPU people run and I am not trying to sway you orany
Quoted text (13 lines)> other anti AMD fanatic either way. My beef is that people post sh** about > AMD CPUs on the usenet which is unsubstantiated and most often their > problems are directly related to their own ignorance and inability to > configure their own machines correctly. Example: When K7 motherboards > first came out it was stated plain as day that an approved 300W PS was > required yet I saw hundreds of postings from ignorant-asses bitching that > AMD sucks because it didn't work on their underpowered 240W PS equiped > boards. Same thing when Super7 came out. People with no brains would run > their 66MHz memory at 100MHz FSB speed and then bitched and complained all > over the usenet that AMD sucked because their PCs kept crashing. > > Intel system might simply be more idiot friendly. That may be one of > Intel's last few benefits.
No, no way, Intel systems are by no means more idiot friendly, they have their problems too. People are just more willing to forgive an Intel system. I have a new Dell Latitude laptop, which is as true-blue Intel as anything gets, and it's having all kinds of compatibility issues, which I posted in another message. Now, if it were just my own laptop having the problems then I would just call it a fluke, but five out of six laptops from the same batch are having the same problems. One of them deals with a powered docking command which doesn't seem to work. Another problem with it is that if you plug a standard PS/2 keyboard into this thing, eventually it will begin crashing various applications without warning: this one is a well-documented Dell bug within their tech support organization, they suggest that you fix it by buying a USB keyboard instead! Stupid things, and they are all happening on pure-Intel systems. Yousuf Khan
Charlie B 19 May 2001 16:44 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184350
Maybe I'm not using GPL as the only comparison. If you would have read on I said gpl AND N4 !!! Its not capped. SPOCK! Charlie B Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (19 lines)> On Sat, 19 May 2001 14:56:35 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > >Oooo wee! Is there an agenda here? Are you perhaps a recent T-bird > >buyer? > > > > > >Regards, JD > >[email hidden] > > And what does that have to do with it? The guy is saying the P4 and > T-bird perform the same when he is testing on a game that is capped at > 36fps, which makes it useless as a comparison. My P3 800 performs the > same in GPL as my T-bird 1.33c. > -- > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip >
E. J. Akely 19 May 2001 17:03 UTC↳ reply to Marc Collins#184354
I don't know diddly about GPL. I *think* its Grand Prix Legends... As for the throttling... In a cpu-cooler proggie I once had there was 2 options. One was "throttle down when temp is (variable)" and the other was "throttle down when CPU is (variable) % more than (variable) seconds/minutes". If it helps this GPL... Beats me! :-) "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tZvN6.33622$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (13 lines)> Please tell us more about this...perhaps these could be used to solve the > GPL fast processor bug? > > Marc. > > Todays temperature > > watchers is one thing. Hell: many of these OFFER CPU throttling as a way > to > > SAVE the CPU from braking. > > > > >
E. J. Akely 19 May 2001 17:12 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184356
I mostly agree (even though I'm not familiar with the FUD expression). The CPU _in it self_ is almost never at fault. (Remember the Cyrix x86 that COULD NOT RUN Win NT Argh! :-) ) Thats way I said maybee. A trend I have seen in hardware compatibility/cpu is that most brand names (Compaq/Dell(HP) has more problems when you want to modify them. What is you experience? I find it better to build completely from scratch and to read/discuss pros/cons before making my mind up. Thats what this is for me: intellegense gathering. MadMan "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zuwN6.12698$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)> "E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:RstN6.11184$[email hidden]... > > You don't need to cash out a lot for stability Yousuf. I have stability. > On > > a P3 Windows 2000 system with SCSI, video capture gear and so on. Oh, it > got > > Linux to. Perfectly stable. > > > > Maybee the problems William are referring to are not 100% due to the
fact > of > > the CPU. Maybee as high as 50% (just an example) is due to the fact that > > some peripheral (SCSI card???) are not compatible with the CPU. The > easiest > > way would still be to get a Intel. Running around searching forcompatible
Quoted text (17 lines)> > hardware is a drag. I know, I had a Cyrix once. > > > > It sounds like the AMD have more bang for the buck. It sounds like Intel > is > > more reliable for a professional user. Maybee I'll keep this 'puter and > buy > > a new toy (gaming PC). > > Now don't start believing this compatibility FUD. The processor has got > nothing to do with being compatible with peripherals, they are mutually > exclusive. I've seen this FUD thrown around so often that it has to be > combatted. People can't just go around thinking that all of their problems > are as a result of the processor, just because they got no better ideas. > > For every William Silvey, there are several more examples of people not > having problems. Whatever William ran into, it's because of his own > combination, not anything else. The only way this can be a trend is if
there > are a lot of people who see the same problem. A William Silvey is not a > trend, by himself. > > For example, I have a brand new Dell Latitude laptop right now that is > running Win2K, with a 700Mhz P3. It is having a problem with its powered > undocking mechanism, i.e. it won't accept the command to undock while itis > still powered up, despite the fact that this is one of its included > features. Dell's very helpful technical support (...not!) first suggested > that we upgrade to the latest W2K service pack 2. We did, and it helped in > one laptop out of six, unfortunately not mine. So we called Dell back,their > new suggestion is to reformat the hard drive and reinstall from scratch!So > this is our signal that we should now investigate this ourselves and notto > bother Dell's tech support. I'd say five out of six laptops is a trend,yet > what is the reason that one out of six does work? > > Prior to this I had a Compaq Armada notebook with a P2-333Mhz processor.It > had little or no issues. The Dell is replacing the Compaq. > > You will note that all of these examples are referring to "GenuineIntel" > processors, right? Well, welcome to the world of x86, where it's a crap > shoot how good your system is going to be. You don't throw your hands upin > the air and blame this on the processor, you go investigate, because youare > on your own when you got a PC. > > Yousuf Khan > >
M 19 May 2001 17:24 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184358
Jagg wrote in message ... >>You are silly. >> >>The reason AMD ever 'got any' was because they sucked, for years, andyears. >> > >You're an idiot. Intel sucks now. Get it? hehe.. You didn't, that's for sure. Pasha
M 19 May 2001 17:26 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184359
Jagg wrote in message <[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (8 lines)>>Well, you've come to the wrong place for that! Here, unless you >>know your way around well enough to separate the wheat from the >>chaff, it's all about big egos playing attack and defend with >>rumors, innuendo and half <often misunderstood> truths. Nothing >>much to do with the merits at all. > >Once again, read the artical. It's fact, not inuendo. You're the one >opening your mouth without knowing the facts. Stupid or what?
Article. You know, you are a fuckin tard.... of course you don't, only higher primates are self aware. Pasha
M 19 May 2001 17:27 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184360
Jagg wrote in message ... > >Did you also read the articel link to the problems with Q3A on a P4? Article Pasha
M 19 May 2001 17:31 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184361
Yousuf Khan wrote in message ... >Dell bug within their tech support organization, they suggest that you fix >it by buying a USB keyboard instead! Stupid things, and they are all >happening on pure-Intel systems. > > Yousuf Khan Yeah! That must be an Intel problem, as is the rolling black-out situation in California, they have Intels in that state. Everyone knows the only component in a lap top, is the main chip. See how rumors get started? I do, and I don't pay attention, I just buy a rig that works. <shrug> Pasha
RenderedBrian 19 May 2001 17:33 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184362
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted text (13 lines)> On 19 May 2001 14:31:59 GMT, [email hidden] > (RenderedBrian) wrote: > > >>cooooooling. >> >>No overclocking! >> >>I know. Lets build a 3W nuclear reactor. That way, we won't have to >>worry about cooling it as much, when we would if we built our 300MW >>nuclear reactor. > > Are we talking about nuclear reactors here or poorly designed cpu's?
The point I was making was that if you don't use proper cooling, then the cpu will slow down to save itself. I actually think that is a good feature. > -- > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip -- brian - Turn up the heat to reply -
M 19 May 2001 17:34 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184363
Yousuf Khan wrote in message ...
Quoted text (7 lines)>Now don't start believing this compatibility FUD. The processor has got >nothing to do with being compatible with peripherals, they are mutually >exclusive. > > Yousuf Khan >
Turn on the lights! It's dark in here! Pasha
M 19 May 2001 17:37 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184366
Jagg wrote in message ... > >The core on the T-Bird 1.33c is rated to 95c, the P4 1.5ghz is rated >to 70c. Make your own conclusion. What, in God's name, would make a computer run hot enough to make grilled cheese sandwiches? I never see 90f. 'Article' Pasha
M 19 May 2001 17:38 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184367
Jagg wrote in message ... >you will see it is not a good thing and happens far too soon Too soon? Qualify that one. Pasha
RenderedBrian 19 May 2001 17:39 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184368
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > > The core on the T-Bird 1.33c is rated to 95c, the P4 1.5ghz is rated > to 70c. Make your own conclusion. With sufficient cooling you shouldnt be running cpus at that temperature! If someone does not bother cooling their cpu properly, and the thermal protection kicks in, of course they will lose performance. That isn't the fault of the cpu, but more the fault of the end user. its similar to hifi design. Most poweramplifier semiconductors have thermal protection circuitry built in. In a poorly design system, with inadequate cooling (by passive heatsinks) then the power amplifier will shut down to protect itself. Is that the fault of the power amplifier manufacturer? Or the designer of the hifi system? -- brian - Turn up the heat to reply -
M 19 May 2001 17:41 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184370
Jagg wrote in message ... >No, the answer is get a T-Bird and better cooling. That's what I did. >BTW, I have *always* bought Intel cpu's in the past and this is my >first AMD cpu so it's not like I'm being biased against Intel or any >such thing. My logic code just works better than yours. Your logic code was apparently developed by team Cyrix. You are about to be removed from the people I see in my online universe. Reason? You? Doubt. Pasha
M 19 May 2001 17:46 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184371
Jagg wrote in message ...
Quoted text (9 lines)> >>Oooo wee! Is there an agenda here? Are you perhaps a recent T-bird >>buyer? >> >> >>Regards, JD >>[email hidden] > >And what does that have to do with it?
Everything to you, dead man. tools/newsgroupfilters/add/all groups/"If contains 'Jagg', then don't show messages in any newsgroup Shit in you pants, then wear them like bunny ears, ezel. Pasha
Gonzo 19 May 2001 18:09 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184377
"Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ZxwN6.12706$[email hidden]... > "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7evN6.6454$[email hidden]... > > I could care less what CPU people run and I am not trying to sway you or > any > > other anti AMD fanatic either way. My beef is that people post sh**about > > AMD CPUs on the usenet which is unsubstantiated and most often their > > problems are directly related to their own ignorance and inability to > > configure their own machines correctly. Example: When K7 motherboards > > first came out it was stated plain as day that an approved 300W PS was > > required yet I saw hundreds of postings from ignorant-asses bitchingthat > > AMD sucks because it didn't work on their underpowered 240W PS equiped > > boards. Same thing when Super7 came out. People with no brains wouldrun > > their 66MHz memory at 100MHz FSB speed and then bitched and complainedall
Quoted text (7 lines)> > over the usenet that AMD sucked because their PCs kept crashing. > > > > Intel system might simply be more idiot friendly. That may be one of > > Intel's last few benefits. > > No, no way, Intel systems are by no means more idiot friendly, they have > their problems too. People are just more willing to forgive an Intel
system. > I have a new Dell Latitude laptop, which is as true-blue Intel as anything > gets, and it's having all kinds of compatibility issues, which I posted in > another message. Now, if it were just my own laptop having the problemsthen > I would just call it a fluke, but five out of six laptops from the same > batch are having the same problems. One of them deals with a powereddocking > command which doesn't seem to work. Another problem with it is that if you > plug a standard PS/2 keyboard into this thing, eventually it will begin > crashing various applications without warning: this one is awell-documented > Dell bug within their tech support organization, they suggest that you fix > it by buying a USB keyboard instead! Stupid things, and they are all > happening on pure-Intel systems. I believe you. Laptops are a whole different animal. Rest assured though that if a laptop has problems and it just happen to have an AMD CPU in it, there will always be people who will blame the CPU no matter what. Sad but true. Laptops are way too proprietary. You will have a hard time putting linux on the beasts. Your chances are about 50/50 that it will work.
Jagg 19 May 2001 19:02 UTC↳ reply to RenderedBrian#184383
On 19 May 2001 17:33:34 GMT, [email hidden] (RenderedBrian) wrote: >The point I was making was that if you don't use proper cooling, then the >cpu will slow down to save itself. > >I actually think that is a good feature. So if you bought a Porshce and it slowed down so the engine wouldn't overheat you think that would be a good feature too? I don't think it's a good feature and that article explains why. It's just a quick a dirty method to fix a flawed cpu. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 19 May 2001 19:05 UTC↳ reply to M#184384
On Sat, 19 May 2001 13:41:45 -0400, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)>Your logic code was apparently developed by team Cyrix. > >You are about to be removed from the people I see in my online universe. > >Reason? You? Doubt. > > > >Pasha >
Well let me help make that decision final for you. Fuck off. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 19 May 2001 19:07 UTC↳ reply to M#184386
On Sat, 19 May 2001 13:37:26 -0400, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (12 lines)>What, in God's name, would make a computer run hot enough to make grilled >cheese sandwiches? > >I never see 90f. > >'Article' > > > > >Pasha >
I said the core is rated to handle 95c numbnuts. That means an AMD cpu is rated to handle more heat than a P4. Wake up and get me in your killfile quick or else I will have to do it for you. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
RenderedBrian 19 May 2001 19:08 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184387
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted text (14 lines)> On 19 May 2001 17:33:34 GMT, [email hidden] > (RenderedBrian) wrote: > > >>The point I was making was that if you don't use proper cooling, then >>the cpu will slow down to save itself. >> >>I actually think that is a good feature. > > So if you bought a Porshce and it slowed down so the engine wouldn't > overheat you think that would be a good feature too? I don't think > it's a good feature and that article explains why. It's just a quick a > dirty method to fix a flawed cpu. >
Well, yes, I would rather the Porshce slowed down, than the engine getting blown! Arrive at your destination later or pay for a new engine? > -- > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip > -- brian - Turn up the heat to reply -
Jagg 19 May 2001 19:10 UTC↳ reply to RenderedBrian#184388
On 19 May 2001 17:39:47 GMT, [email hidden] (RenderedBrian) wrote: >With sufficient cooling you shouldnt be running cpus at that temperature! Oh, geez. Did I say i run my cpu at 95c? Is that what I was saying at all? I think I'll persue more intellectual pursuits than paticipating in this thread any longer. On my way to download some pornography now. >its similar to hifi design. Most poweramplifier semiconductors have >thermal protection circuitry built in. If you overload it yes. The P4 is doing it without overloading. That is the issue here. Read the damn article, *completely*. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 19 May 2001 19:52 UTC↳ reply to RenderedBrian#184398
On 19 May 2001 19:08:35 GMT, [email hidden] (RenderedBrian) wrote: >Well, yes, I would rather the Porshce slowed down, than the engine getting >blown! Arrive at your destination later or pay for a new engine? If the engine is designed well it's not going to blow if it gets hot. As someone else said over in another news group, just because a Porsche engine runs hotter than a Ford doesn't mean there is a problem. If the P4 can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Marc Collins 19 May 2001 20:31 UTC↳ reply to E. J. Akely#184402
It may very well. The game goes berserk somewhere between 1.4 and 1.5 GHz. We need to be able to continue to run this title on the faster chips that are required for today's games and this seems like the most sensible route. Could you point me to any titles or sites that info. about these sorts of programs? Thanks, Marc. "E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YHxN6.11247$[email hidden]... > I don't know diddly about GPL. I *think* its Grand Prix Legends... As for > the throttling... In a cpu-cooler proggie I once had there was 2 options. > One was "throttle down when temp is (variable)" and the other was"throttle
Quoted text (8 lines)> down when CPU is (variable) % more than (variable) seconds/minutes". If it > helps this GPL... Beats me! :-) > > > > "Marc Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tZvN6.33622$[email hidden]... > > Please tell us more about this...perhaps these could be used to solve
the > > GPL fast processor bug? > > > > Marc. > > > > Todays temperature > > > watchers is one thing. Hell: many of these OFFER CPU throttling as away
Quoted text (9 lines)> > to > > > SAVE the CPU from braking. > > > > > > > > > > > >
Martin Eriksson 19 May 2001 20:44 UTC↳ reply to Roger Squires#184407
Hereby I declare this thread the "OT Intel<->AMD bashing thread of the month" Alternative prices are: "I-believe-everything-I-see-on-the-internet" award "Computer architecture as seen by Q3 gamers" award /AMD said backwards actually sounds like Intel "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:9e1i2k$211s$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (7 lines)> http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm > > rms > [email hidden] > > >
William Silvey 19 May 2001 21:18 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#184408
Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7evN6.6454$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (18 lines)> "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4jmN6.17284$[email hidden]... > > > > Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:GUkN6.5139$[email hidden]... > > > "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:FEkN6.16014 > > > > Compatibility. See earlier post of mine. > > > > > > Explain to me how an Intel CPU based system is more compatible please. > > And > > > more compatible with what exactly? Intel made benchmark software > perhaps? > > Nope. 3dStudio Max + miro video capture card + WinNT + Adaptec 2940UW + > > 9.1gb 10k/RPM drive + 256mb RAM on an Athlon 800 + latest drivers etc ad > > nauseam = KABOOM. Sorry. > > No actually I feel sorry for you because you are cheating yourself based
on > your own ignorance. Your posting is a typical anti-alternative CPUresponse > in that your problem could be one of a million things but you decide for > yourself that it must be the CPU. Hell, it could be that you simply donot > know how to configure your CMOS settings for an AMD CPU because you still > think your running Intel so the problem could very well be your own fault > but you somehow figured that it simpy must be the CPU...typical! Ah. Here we go. The final degeneration into the rants of a fanboy who can't come up with logical arguments or facts to support his statements: the flame. Obviously, if I was having *ANY* problems with an AMD CPU it's *got* to be end-user, right? No chance that two separate motherboards and CPUs (configured by the vendor, I might add) were choking on high-end peripherals and very demanding software. Heh. I "somehow figured" it because I've seen it. Let me state it again: 3dS Max, Miro capture card, Adaptec 2940UW, WinNT 4.0 sp6a + your beloved AMD CPU = KABOOM. *get it*? > > It might be a fine system for gaming, but I've > > seen it die on the above system. > > So what, I have seen Intel CPUs die an many situations and that doesn't > proove squate now does it? That's fine; I don't argue the point. It proves that for you and your desktop gaming console it's a great system. The above situation for the noted user (not me, btw, as I have stated before and as you've ignored) proves "squate" in that it's not a viable platform for desktop video. Now sit down, fanboy, and quit waving your pom-poms.
Quoted text (7 lines)> > It's not a question of speed, it's a > > matter of stability as well as speed. > > There you go making unsuported claims again. What stablitity? My Athlon > system is the most stable system I have ever owned and I started out being > an Intel fan going back all the way to the 4.7 MHz PC/XT and TI-99. What > stability issues exactly are you talking about?
I outlined them already. Of course, you snipped them, so I reckon either you deliberately weren't paying attention, or you're just ignorant. Difficult choice. > >I ran a different 3d package on it > > (VistaPro 4.01, a terrain generator) and hey, 9000 frame animations that > > took 72-128hrs to render on my PII-300 were returned with estimatedrender > > times of 8-12 hours on the Athlon. Unfortunately, the system wasn'tmine > to > > use and VistaPro wasn't the only 3d package being run on it. Further, > > losing hours of work because of the instability like that isunacceptable > > for a professional. Not quite like a CTD in Falcon 4, y'know. > > Uhhh I have news you for, your system is hosed. It's amazing how people > find it so easy to blame the CPU when if fact all they really need to dois > start diagnosing the problem. Could have been a bad configuration, badram, > overheating, hosed software, not strong enough PS etc etc etc but ohhhhh > noooo it must be the CPU because it's made by AMD! Give me a break! Vishnu H. Krishna, it's "deliberately not paying attention". This IS NOT your desktop console running a dozen applets, media-players, unstable DX versions and using an overclocked video-card, bucko. The RAM works in a different system, on a different system board. It was a 300w PS. I could spend an hour typing up the details of the troubleshooting done on the system (perhaps more), but why waste my time? You've proven that instead of being able to agree to disagree, you're an AMD fanboy who thinks that CPU performance = constant framerates in Q3A (perhaps the *lamest* system benchmark I've EVER seen) and apparently addicted to "converting" me, or maybe better still gainsaying any attempt to relate a bad experience someone I work with had with an AMD system (make that TWO AMD systems). Just drop it. > >No amount of > > dead-chicken-waving, glorified AMD benchmarking, ultra-freezer coolingnor > > anything else would overcome the issues Steve had with his system (the > > aforementioned person; this was his setup). > > No, simply puting your brain in gear and realizing that the system had a > problem that needed to be fixed is what it would have taken. You remindme > of the types of people who trade in their two year old car that is not yet > paid for because the battery is starting to die out LOL! You remind me of the typical usenet idiot fanboy idealogue, addicted to proving that he/she/it got the "better deal". Your constant grind towards unrivalled oneupmanship has completely dissolved any true argumentative style or forensic ability and you've been reduced to flame and invective simply because you cannot or will not accept that somehow your beloved AMD *wasn't the system of choice in a given environment*. Pathetic.
Quoted text (7 lines)> > As far as the "...more compatible with what exactly?", The X86 > instruction > > set that Intel *created*. > > Woopdidoo!?! Intel is so great that they decided to copy AMD by coming up > with extra x86 instruction sets (like AMD's 3Dnow). So who is more > inovative now? I can tell you the answer to that and it sure as hell
isn't > Intel. Intel has lost it's edge, simple as that. Only die hard Intelfans
Quoted text (7 lines)> and simply uninformed and suserspicious people still buy Intel LOL! > > > I would hope that their own CPUs are compatible > > with the instruction sets programmed into them. Sorta circular logic if > > they're not. (No pun intended). > > What makes you think Intel doesn't make mistakes? Remember the P90 FPU
bug? > Probably not huh? I would have taken even an AMD 5x86 CPU over a POSiP90 > any day during that time. Where did I ever imply that Intel doesn't make mistakes? Please don't put words in my mouth. It's intellectually dishonest. Rather a lot like your attempt to redefine what I was saying. > > Again, this is high-end stuff; perhaps much of the software was Intel > > optimized. That said, I've been bitten by the "just as good as Intel!" > bug > > before: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." > > All software from the past was designed with Intel CPUs in mind but thisis > changing fast as AMD will be the dominant CPU in the home market andbeyond. > Just a fact, that's all. If by "and beyond" you imply industrial applications and workstations, I doubt it. Embedded controllers pretty much own the former, and Intel has a firm lock on the latter. Sorry. > > > I see comments like this posted all the time on the Usenet but I have > yet > > to > > > see any kind of attempt at providing any proof. > > > > I see all kinds of comments posted on Usenet regarding a myriad oftopics > > with no proof to substantiate them; I'm sure you've seen others. If the > > system in question were still in use, I'd post a screenshot (or, atleast > a > > snapshot taken with a digital camera) of the various crashes thatoccurred > > on the above setup. Same setup, save dual P-II Xeon 450, runs stablyfor > > months and months now. Sorry, that's just the way it is. I reckonyou'll > > come back with arguments like "Well, the system was crap, then." or "It > > must've been a bad CPU or Motherboard." Trust me, the system wasswapped
Quoted text (9 lines)> > out twice. > > You could simply collect all the "Problem with my system" postings off the > Usenet and claim that AMD was to blame but then again I could do that with > all those same postings involving Intel CPUs. This prooves nothing. If > there really was any compatibility issue with a CPU, the whole world would > know about it as the competitors would make sure it was advertised. > Remember the Intel P90 floating point problem? Good example of that as it > was all over the news and even on TV.
Yes. Bad spot for Intel, worsened by their PR handling of the whole issue. Speaking of "bad spots", why do you keep dragging this on with this line of reasoning that some how, the bad experiences both myself and a co worker have had with "alternative" CPUs somehow equates to some sort of conspiracy by me to destroy AMD? Are you that much of a fanboy? > > Ultimately, given that I'm not going to convince you of the above > situation > > or of my own desire/need to run an Intel system and since you'recertainly > > not going to convince me to buy an AMD, let us just agree to disagreeand > > enjoy the flight sims (or auto-sims, as the case may be). > > I could care less what CPU people run and I am not trying to sway you orany > other anti AMD fanatic either way. <snip rambling invective> Yes. Yes, it would appear that you are. Somehow you've gotten it into your head that me relating bad AMD experiences == anti AMD fanatic. So sorry for you, specious logic. Your final score = -10 This ranks you as "Beginner". Play again? (Y/N) >_ -- Heretic #2 of 3e D&D. - ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!! Remove the X's in my email address to respond. > I don't think anything short of no-boot would put Macists off Mac. > The last stable OS was System 6.0.8. So long as system messages > are phrased as if a patronising aunt were addressing a retarded > 4-year-old, they will continue to love it. - Patrick Ford
Yousuf Khan 19 May 2001 21:46 UTC↳ reply to E. J. Akely#184412
"E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7QxN6.11251$[email hidden]... > I mostly agree (even though I'm not familiar with the FUD expression). The > CPU _in it self_ is almost never at fault. (Remember the Cyrix x86 that > COULD NOT RUN Win NT Argh! :-) ) Thats way I said maybee. A trend I have > seen in hardware compatibility/cpu is that most brand names(Compaq/Dell(HP) > has more problems when you want to modify them. What is you experience? I > find it better to build completely from scratch and to read/discuss > pros/cons before making my mind up. Thats what this is for me:intellegense > gathering. > > MadMan FUD means "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt", a technique used in business to discourage consumers from using a competitor's products. Also used in politics to discourage the voters from voting for the opposition, etc. The Cyrix _could_ run NT, it's just that somebody at Microsoft decided to turn off one of the Cyrix's performance technologies, if they detected it was running on a Cyrix processor, which they feared could cause NT to not run reliably. Cyrix disputed it. I don't know when they finally decided to remove that "feature" in NT, if they ever did. I do believe that there were programs created to re-enable the Cyrix caches under NT. I think they ran into a problem when testing out an early beta release version of the Cyrixes, and didn't realize that it was fixed by production time. These days, you'll see Microsoft is semi-openly courting alternative CPU manufacturers. For example, support for AMD's 3DNow! instruction extensions were put into DirectX almost immediately upon release of the 3DNow protocol. There was support for 3DNow in DirectX 6.0 or 6.1, and SSE support didn't appear in DirectX until 7.0. To Microsoft, it doesn't care if the x86 processor is coming from Intel or somebody else, just as long as they have x86 processors to sell their latest operating systems to. As for what's more reliable, home-built or brand-name? I am an old-time do-it-yourself'er for computers. Home-builts are usually more conformant with standards, less proprietary. In a brand-name PC, you'll often find even something as simple as screws are non-standard, requiring you to pay system builder to repair your PC. Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan 19 May 2001 21:51 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#184415
"Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VFyN6.9555$[email hidden]... > I believe you. Laptops are a whole different animal. Rest assured though > that if a laptop has problems and it just happen to have an AMD CPU in it, > there will always be people who will blame the CPU no matter what. Sadbut > true. > > Laptops are way too proprietary. You will have a hard time putting linuxon > the beasts. Your chances are about 50/50 that it will work. But the laptops were just an example I was giving. I've seen various similar problems on desktops in the past too, and yes, with *INTEL* processors in them. This is just the world of the x86 PC, welcome to it, and don't pull at your hair too hard. Yousuf Khan
Ken Beard 19 May 2001 23:29 UTC↳ reply to Martin Eriksson#184431
"Martin Eriksson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)> Hereby I declare this thread the "OT Intel<->AMD bashing thread of the > month" > > Alternative prices are: > "I-believe-everything-I-see-on-the-internet" award > "Computer architecture as seen by Q3 gamers" award > > /AMD said backwards actually sounds like Intel >
I'm guessing that since 3dfx died, we can't have people flame about video cards as much anymore, so we gotta start in on the processors. What's next - "You use Maxtor - you loser - Western Digital rules!!! " -- Ken's Sig 3.2 "Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi-Wan Kenobi volksy(at)yahoo(dot)com Go #43, #44, #45! R.I.P Adam, Kenny, Tony, and Dale...
Ian P 20 May 2001 00:11 UTC↳ reply to Ken Beard#184436
Oh that's just great, now you've gone and started the "my hard disk is better than yours" thread <G> -- Ian P <email invalid due to spam> Ken Beard <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4lDN6.5100$[email hidden]... > I'm guessing that since 3dfx died, we can't have people flame about video > cards as much anymore, so we gotta start in on the processors. What's > next - "You use Maxtor - you loser - Western Digital rules!!! " >
Gonzo 20 May 2001 01:28 UTC↳ reply to William Silvey#184295
"William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0rBN6.527$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)> > Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7evN6.6454$[email hidden]... > > "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:4jmN6.17284$[email hidden]... > > > > > > Gonzo <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:GUkN6.5139$[email hidden]... > > > > "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message > > > > news:FEkN6.16014 > > > > > Compatibility. See earlier post of mine. > > > > > > > > Explain to me how an Intel CPU based system is more compatibleplease. > > > And > > > > more compatible with what exactly? Intel made benchmark software > > perhaps? > > > Nope. 3dStudio Max + miro video capture card + WinNT + Adaptec 2940UW+ > > > 9.1gb 10k/RPM drive + 256mb RAM on an Athlon 800 + latest drivers etcad
Quoted text (10 lines)> > > nauseam = KABOOM. Sorry. > > > > No actually I feel sorry for you because you are cheating yourself based > on > > your own ignorance. Your posting is a typical anti-alternative CPU > response > > in that your problem could be one of a million things but you decide for > > yourself that it must be the CPU. Hell, it could be that you simply do > not > > know how to configure your CMOS settings for an AMD CPU because you
still > > think your running Intel so the problem could very well be your ownfault > > but you somehow figured that it simpy must be the CPU...typical! > > Ah. Here we go. The final degeneration into the rants of a fanboy who > can't come up with logical arguments or facts to support his statements:the > flame. Obviously, if I was having *ANY* problems with an AMD CPU it's*got* > to be end-user, right? No chance that two separate motherboards and CPUs > (configured by the vendor, I might add) were choking on high-endperipherals > and very demanding software. Heh. You are the one who can't come up with a logical argument. Your decision to blame the CPU was based on your personal grudge against AMD and no real working knowledge of how a PC works. That's plainly evident in your posting as anyone can see. you did nothing to try and fix it but were quick to blame the CPU. Where is your logic?? You have none, it's that simple. > I "somehow figured" it because I've seen it. Let me state it again: 3dS > Max, Miro capture card, Adaptec 2940UW, WinNT 4.0 sp6a + your beloved AMD > CPU = KABOOM. *get it*? What I get is that I see somebody who evidently knows very little about computers in general and who has now painted himself into a corner. Again, your assumption was based on nothing but a whim on your part and no real work at trying to figure out the real problem. Get it !
Quoted text (8 lines)> > > It might be a fine system for gaming, but I've > > > seen it die on the above system. > > > > So what, I have seen Intel CPUs die an many situations and that doesn't > > proove squate now does it? > > That's fine; I don't argue the point. It proves that for you and your > desktop gaming console it's a great system.
I do not have a desktop gaming console dumbass. I have three AMD based PCs and one Intel pased PC. You need to keep your posts straight. > The above situation for the > noted user (not me, btw, as I have stated before and as you've ignored) > proves "squate" in that it's not a viable platform for desktop video. Now > sit down, fanboy, and quit waving your pom-poms. Im not a fan boy, Im simple a person who hates to see people post on the usenet about things they know nothing about and then start flame wars over them. Face it Mr. Silvy, you simply do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. Your entire posting is based on your ignorance as was your assumption that was evident in the piss poor example that you posted. > > > It's not a question of speed, it's a > > > matter of stability as well as speed. > > > > There you go making unsuported claims again. What stablitity? MyAthlon > > system is the most stable system I have ever owned and I started outbeing > > an Intel fan going back all the way to the 4.7 MHz PC/XT and TI-99.What > > stability issues exactly are you talking about? > > I outlined them already. BS. You haven't outlined squat. Posting one piss-poor example of a missconfigured system is not outlinging anything except for the fact that you do not have a clue as to how to even begin diagnosing a PC problem. >Of course, you snipped them, so I reckon either > you deliberately weren't paying attention, or you're just ignorant. > Difficult choice. There is no choice as you have posted only hot air. Show me something concrete! All you have proven is that you know very little about PCs. > > >I ran a different 3d package on it > > > (VistaPro 4.01, a terrain generator) and hey, 9000 frame animationsthat
Quoted text (11 lines)> > > took 72-128hrs to render on my PII-300 were returned with estimated > render > > > times of 8-12 hours on the Athlon. Unfortunately, the system wasn't > mine > > to > > > use and VistaPro wasn't the only 3d package being run on it. Further, > > > losing hours of work because of the instability like that is > unacceptable > > > for a professional. Not quite like a CTD in Falcon 4, y'know. > > > > Uhhh I have news you for, your system is hosed. It's amazing how
people > > find it so easy to blame the CPU when if fact all they really need to do > is > > start diagnosing the problem. Could have been a bad configuration, bad > ram, > > overheating, hosed software, not strong enough PS etc etc etc butohhhhh
Quoted text (8 lines)> > noooo it must be the CPU because it's made by AMD! Give me a break! > > Vishnu H. Krishna, it's "deliberately not paying attention". This IS NOT > your desktop console running a dozen applets, media-players, unstable DX > versions and using an overclocked video-card, bucko. The RAM works in a > different system, on a different system board. It was a 300w PS. I could > spend an hour typing up the details of the troubleshooting done on the > system (perhaps more), but why waste my time? You've proven that instead
of > being able to agree to disagree, you're an AMD fanboy who thinks that CPU > performance = constant framerates in Q3A (perhaps the *lamest* system > benchmark I've EVER seen) and apparently addicted to "converting" me, or > maybe better still gainsaying any attempt to relate a bad experiencesomeone > I work with had with an AMD system (make that TWO AMD systems). Just drop > it. Your a dumbass you know that? 1)I do not play quake 2)I do not run benchmarks 3)I am not an AMD spokesperson but I do dislike arogant and stupid people like you.
Quoted text (10 lines)> > >No amount of > > > dead-chicken-waving, glorified AMD benchmarking, ultra-freezer cooling > nor > > > anything else would overcome the issues Steve had with his system (the > > > aforementioned person; this was his setup). > > > > No, simply puting your brain in gear and realizing that the system had a > > problem that needed to be fixed is what it would have taken. You remind > me > > of the types of people who trade in their two year old car that is not
yet
Quoted text (8 lines)> > paid for because the battery is starting to die out LOL! > > You remind me of the typical usenet idiot fanboy idealogue, addicted to > proving that he/she/it got the "better deal". Your constant grind towards > unrivalled oneupmanship has completely dissolved any true argumentative > style or forensic ability and you've been reduced to flame and invective > simply because you cannot or will not accept that somehow your beloved AMD > *wasn't the system of choice in a given environment*. Pathetic.
Your the one who's pathetic. You cant produce a valid argment and you have shown me zero proof that the CPU was to blame so you have lowered yourself to the level of a pathetic troll. It's strange how you like to use the word "logic" in your postings yet the meaning of the word somehow completely escapes you. Im through arguing with you as you have nothing to offer except your ammusing and apparent lack of knoledge and common sense.
Gonzo 20 May 2001 01:36 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184296
"Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BVBN6.14797$[email hidden]... > "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:VFyN6.9555$[email hidden]... > > I believe you. Laptops are a whole different animal. Rest assuredthough > > that if a laptop has problems and it just happen to have an AMD CPU init, > > there will always be people who will blame the CPU no matter what. Sad > but > > true. > > > > Laptops are way too proprietary. You will have a hard time puttinglinux > on > > the beasts. Your chances are about 50/50 that it will work. > > But the laptops were just an example I was giving. I've seen varioussimilar > problems on desktops in the past too, and yes, with *INTEL* processors in > them. This is just the world of the x86 PC, welcome to it, and don't pullat > your hair too hard. I agree with you. I build, repair and upgrade system in my spare time and have do so for a long time. What gets under my skin is these uneducated idiots who keep blaming the CPU instead of doing any kind of problem diagosing themsevles. That's the only reason I jumped into this thread in the fist place. Thoseof us that have at least some technical knowledge have an obligation to put in our two cents to tip the scales a bit as there are too many uninformed people posting in the usenet like they know what the hell they are talking about when in fact they don't. Yes, I do tend to blow off some steam from time to time but sad part is that many newbies will read postings in this NG and take it as gospel. They will then pay more for an inferior product made by Intel and that IMHO is a shame. Just my two cents.
M 20 May 2001 03:51 UTC↳ reply to Ken Beard#184315
Ken Beard wrote in message <4lDN6.5100$[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (8 lines)>I'm guessing that since 3dfx died, we can't have people flame about video >cards as much anymore, so we gotta start in on the processors. What's >next - "You use Maxtor - you loser - Western Digital rules!!! " > > >-- > >Ken's Sig 3.2
Screw that! I use 4 Plextor CD writers.... Pasha
Yousuf Khan 20 May 2001 05:09 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#184322
"Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:JcFN6.11432$[email hidden]... > I agree with you. I build, repair and upgrade system in my spare time and > have do so for a long time. What gets under my skin is these uneducated > idiots who keep blaming the CPU instead of doing any kind of problem > diagosing themsevles. That's the only reason I jumped into this thread in > the fist place. Thoseof us that have at least some technical knowledgehave > an obligation to put in our two cents to tip the scales a bit as there are > too many uninformed people posting in the usenet like they know what the > hell they are talking about when in fact they don't. > > Yes, I do tend to blow off some steam from time to time but sad part isthat > many newbies will read postings in this NG and take it as gospel. Theywill > then pay more for an inferior product made by Intel and that IMHO is a > shame. Just my two cents. Well, I know you picked up on the fact that Mr. William Silvey hadn't done enough diagnosing of his problems to form a relevant opinion. I picked up on that fact too. I personally don't care if somebody decides to use an Intel or AMD processor or at what Mhz. I just don't like seeing FUD being spread around because of ignorance. I tend to point out and defend against falsehoods directed at Intel too. Yousuf Khan
Jagg 20 May 2001 06:41 UTC↳ reply to William Silvey#184330
On Sat, 19 May 2001 21:18:52 GMT, "William Silvey" <[email hidden]> wrote: > It was a 300w PS. I could >spend an hour typing up the details of the troubleshooting done on the >system (perhaps more), but why waste my time? Just because it was 300w doesn't mean it was an adequate PS for the AMD cpu. You need to look at the amp ratings on the rail. Not all 300w power supplies are created equal. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
RenderedBrian 20 May 2001 07:41 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184336
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
Quoted text (9 lines)> On 19 May 2001 19:08:35 GMT, [email hidden] > (RenderedBrian) wrote: > > >>Well, yes, I would rather the Porshce slowed down, than the engine >>getting blown! Arrive at your destination later or pay for a new >>engine? > > If the engine is designed well it's not going to blow if it gets hot.
Exactly. Which is why an engine (or a cpu) should throttle back if it is overheating! If the *car* is badly designed, with poor airflow over the engine bay, then the engine will overheat. Is that the fault of the engine, or the car manufacturer? > As someone else said over in another news group, just because a > Porsche engine runs hotter than a Ford doesn't mean there is a > problem. If the P4 can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen. > Exactly. No problem at all, except if there is insufficient cooling. -- brian - Turn up the heat to reply -
E. J. Akely 20 May 2001 10:35 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184256
I kind of see this problem as the problems I'm having with Linux. I can get Linux to work. It takes some time, advice from others, and some work. I'm sura I can get both CPU's to work well. But there is always specifics about 'new' hardware that you need to learn. Especially if you build your computer yourself. Is'nt it sometimes that hardware ARE incompatible with other hardware (as a specifik CPU)? Even if it as in (some) Cyrix x86 was a software thing. What I mean is: it does not matter if the hardware is no-go becouse of OS/driver. If it does not work it does not do the job. And there will always be programs at least that is not all-hardware compatible. I'm told by programming friends that is becouse programmers sometimes takes shortcuts and uses specifik instructions in the wrong (but efficient) way. I would like some insight on the following: What loopholes are there with AMD/Intel? Pros/Cons. (Asked this before but got mostly aswers that where of the this rox that sux type. These are not credible, or probable.) MadMan "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4kIN6.16138$[email hidden]... > "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:JcFN6.11432$[email hidden]... > > I agree with you. I build, repair and upgrade system in my spare timeand > > have do so for a long time. What gets under my skin is these uneducated > > idiots who keep blaming the CPU instead of doing any kind of problem > > diagosing themsevles. That's the only reason I jumped into this threadin > > the fist place. Thoseof us that have at least some technical knowledge > have > > an obligation to put in our two cents to tip the scales a bit as thereare
Quoted text (12 lines)> > too many uninformed people posting in the usenet like they know what the > > hell they are talking about when in fact they don't. > > > > Yes, I do tend to blow off some steam from time to time but sad part is > that > > many newbies will read postings in this NG and take it as gospel. They > will > > then pay more for an inferior product made by Intel and that IMHO is a > > shame. Just my two cents. > > Well, I know you picked up on the fact that Mr. William Silvey hadn't done > enough diagnosing of his problems to form a relevant opinion. I picked up
on > that fact too. > > I personally don't care if somebody decides to use an Intel or AMDprocessor > or at what Mhz. I just don't like seeing FUD being spread around becauseof > ignorance. I tend to point out and defend against falsehoods directed at > Intel too. > > Yousuf Khan > >
KdF 20 May 2001 13:40 UTC↳ reply to M#184270
<Slaps Pasha> (e-mail me you looney so I can get your real address) Hey! Why arn`t you making N4 sounds??? Thanks for all y`all replying to this thread. I am pondering yet another system build. I was going with the P4 but found out that besides the propritory memory thingie...you have to use their Power supply and Case. I am now leaning to a T-bird 1.33...and I can use my Evan Vital case and 400w power supply<the 266mz memory is cheap>. Now I see AMD is comming out with a 1.5 Duron.....oh the agony! To wait or not to wait..... -- KdF ICQ # 15778345 "M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:AbHN6.9133$[email hidden]... > > Ken Beard wrote in message <4lDN6.5100$[email hidden]>... > > >I'm guessing that since 3dfx died, we can't have people flame about video > >cards as much anymore, so we gotta start in on the processors. What's > >next - "You use Maxtor - you loser - Western Digital rules!!! " > > > > > >-- > > > >Ken's Sig 3.2 > > > > Screw that! > > I use 4 Plextor CD writers.... > > > > Pasha > >
JD 20 May 2001 14:03 UTC↳ reply to RenderedBrian#184273
Thus spake [email hidden] (RenderedBrian) on 20 May 2001 07:41:27 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >Exactly. Which is why an engine (or a cpu) should throttle back if it is >overheating! If the *car* is badly designed, with poor airflow over the >engine bay, then the engine will overheat. Is that the fault of the engine, >or the car manufacturer? Exactly. Why is this so hard to understand? I personally have nothing against the current AMD product line... but I gotta believe there are a lot of AMD purchasers out there who are feeling very insecure with their decision for one reason or another. This article, and the argument it spawned here, is nothing but straw grasping. Regards, JD [email hidden]
Dan Brooks 20 May 2001 15:43 UTC↳ reply to Allan Parent#184286
I'm considering the same upgrade. Allan, what MB and memory did you buy? Dan "Allan Parent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (41 lines)> Well, I just put together a new system and had to make that same > decision. I selected an AMD T-bird simply because it had more > performance for the price. The benchmarks I saw showed the 1.33Ghz > T-bird equal or better in many categories over a P4. But the final > factor was price. At the time of purchase, the AMD was almost half the > price of the P4. I have *always* gone with Intel up to this point. > However, the AMD just has more performance for the $$$. At some point > all of the P4's potential will be realised by software that takes > advantage of its features. However, until that point, I will have a > fast, economical and reliable chip in the form of the T-bird. I learned > a while back not to purchase computer hardware based on future > implementations. Buy something affordable that performs well on software > you utilize. I am sure someone will step in with all of the detailed > technical merits of each chip but that is why I purchased AMD over Intel > this time around. > > Allan > > "E. J. Akely" wrote: > > > > I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the > > pros/cons of AMD/Intel. > > > > TIA, > > MadMan > > > > "Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Fri, 18 May 2001 16:35:33 -0400, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >You are silly. > > > > > > > >The reason AMD ever 'got any' was because they sucked, for years, and > > years. > > > > > > > > > > You're an idiot. Intel sucks now. Get it? > > > -- > > > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > > > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Yousuf Khan 20 May 2001 15:48 UTC↳ reply to E. J. Akely#184287
"E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:N5NN6.3569$[email hidden]... > Is'nt it sometimes that hardware ARE incompatible with other hardware (asa > specifik CPU)? Even if it as in (some) Cyrix x86 was a software thing.What > I mean is: it does not matter if the hardware is no-go becouse ofOS/driver. > If it does not work it does not do the job. And there will always be > programs at least that is not all-hardware compatible. There were a few specific incompatibilities with Cyrixes in the past. It's a bit of a sordid history. In one case Creative Labs and Cyrix got into a patent dispute, and from that point forward Creative put in some Cyrix detectors which would mean that Soundblasters and other Creative products would not install on systems with Cyrix processors. That was a deliberate incompatibility done for political reasons rather than technical reasons. Creative eventually corrected the situation after the patent disputes were settled. In another case, certain game manufacturers put CPU detectors into their installation programs. I can recall that one such game was Papyrus' Indycar/CART Racing II. This was put in to detect whether you were running a Pentium-class processor or later vs. a 486 or earlier class. The only reasoning behind this was not because they used Pentium x86 instruction set extensions, but simply to detect if they felt your processor was fast enough to handle the game. The earlier Cyrixes attempted to identify themselves as 486 processors (albeit very fast 486's), even though they ran on Pentium motherboards. I don't know what the specific rationale behind trying to look like a 486 was, but I suspect that they didn't want to support the few extended Pentium instruction set, they wanted to stick with the familiar; when Cyrix designed the 6x86, the Pentium wasn't yet the mainstream, the 486 was still the vast majority of installations. Anyways, they were detected as 486's by the game installers, and instead of attempting to run benchmarks to see if these 486's were indeed fast enough to run the game, they just detected the type of CPU and made the assumption that it wouldn't be fast enough. I can't recall right now if this was a fatal flaw that prevented installation, or just a prominent warning that allowed installation to continue; but in either case, it scared people away. Later Cyrixes such as the MX, supported the full Pentium classic instruction set as well as teh MMX instruction set and identified themselves as Pentium as well by default. > I'm told by programming friends that is becouse programmers sometimestakes > shortcuts and uses specifik instructions in the wrong (but efficient) way. Yes, sometimes programmers take shortcuts which cause some problems from time to time. It is usually caused by trying to do things that aren't supported through the OS. Microsoft is doing a much better job these days of giving game developers a worthy DirectX interface that allows them great flexibility in using services from the OS, instead of trying to do the job themselves. But sometimes Microsoft itself gets caught making some poor shortcut decisions (actually they do that a lot, but they usually get away with it), and it affects their compatibility with processors. In one case with the AMD K6 processors that ran above 350Mhz there was a timing loop within Windows 95 that was causing problems. The specific set of instructions that Microsoft was using got optimized within the K6's to a point where they ran too fast and it overflowed the timing loop. Microsoft knew about the problem, and issued a widely-available patch specifically for the AMD's. Microsoft admitted the problem, and the problem was that they were making an assumption about processors, and that they didn't expect the problem to rear its ugly head until processors hit 700Mhz, but they began to appear in the K6's way before they hit that number. It was obvious that they were expecting the problem to occur eventually by 700Mhz so they would've had to make the modification anyway. It is one of the few times that there were some truly CPU-specific incompatibilities with AMDs, but the Intel processors would've suffered the same problem once they hit 700Mhz; of course they have now gone over 700Mhz, but most machines running at those speeds are using Windows 98 or higher, so the problem is not an issue. > I would like some insight on the following: What loopholes are there with > AMD/Intel? Pros/Cons. > (Asked this before but got mostly aswers that where of the this rox thatsux > type. These are not credible, or probable.) You know in all honesty, I can't think of any advantages that an Intel processor has over an AMD processor these days. There are a few areas where they are close to each other, but no areas where Intel have a lead. We also have to distinguish between which Intel and which AMD processors we're talking about, since there is a hodgepodge of Athlons, Celerons, Durons, P3's and P4's out there. Intel's P3 despite being an older processor is a more efficient processor than P4, because it can run more instructions per cycle (IPC) than P4 can. The P3 was also almost identical in efficiency to Athlon. The P4 runs much faster than P3 or Athlon, but it can't do as much during each of those cycles; it's a high-revving, small displacement engine. The P3 was better competition for the Athlon, but it topped out at 1.0Ghz. The P3 would've had its own limitations as it would've fallen behind the Athlon when DDR RAM was used, because the P3's memory interface tops out at 133Mhz, whereas the Athlon goes at upto 266Mhz. The P4 has a memory bandwidth advantage over the Athlon, because the P4 runs at upto 400Mhz, but again its low IPC count make it fall behind. There is plenty of evidence out there that AMD is being noticed these days, by companies big and small. Microsoft is not dismissing alternative processors these days. Companies like Motorola, IBM, Cisco, etc. are cooperating with AMD on various technologies, where they share and trade patents with each other. Nvidia is making a laptop chipset primarily for the Athlons with an integrated GeForce-series accelerator built-in. Micron also seems to have ongoing plans to get into the chipset market, again with an Athlon chipset. I think a lot of it has to do with an unwillingness to want to deal with Intel anymore. Yousuf Khan
Gonzo 20 May 2001 17:57 UTC↳ reply to E. J. Akely#184212
"E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:N5NN6.3569$[email hidden]... > I kind of see this problem as the problems I'm having with Linux. I canget > Linux to work. It takes some time, advice from others, and some work. I'm > sura I can get both CPU's to work well. But there is always specificsabout > 'new' hardware that you need to learn. Especially if you build yourcomputer > yourself. The problem with Linux is that there are too many variants out there. Also remember that driver support is in its infancy and a lot of the drivers that exist are not written by the companies themseves but by amature programers who want to see Linux work. Same applies to the software for Linux. Linux is a labor of love for some but IMHO it's too much of a pain. I have tried 5 diff distros just for training purposes on a new machine I just built and find that each one of them has at least two or more major shortcomings. You will never have a problem finding a win dirver for just about anything. > Is'nt it sometimes that hardware ARE incompatible with other hardware (asa > specifik CPU)? Even if it as in (some) Cyrix x86 was a software thing. Certain motherboards are not compatible with certain sound cards and certain DIMMs or SIMMs. Some software is not compatible with certain pieces of hardware also. There will always be incompatiblities no matter what simpy because there are too many parts by to many manufacturers that are undertested etc. If you do a search about CPU incompatibilities though you will most likely turn up empty handed. The CPU would be the last thing you need to wory about. If a CPU is at fault then it is either A)fautly B)has improper cooling or C)has improper voltage. I would check everything else first. >What > I mean is: it does not matter if the hardware is no-go becouse ofOS/driver. > If it does not work it does not do the job. And there will always be > programs at least that is not all-hardware compatible. > > I'm told by programming friends that is becouse programmers sometimestakes > shortcuts and uses specifik instructions in the wrong (but efficient) way. Yep, but people seem to never susupect the software. Some tend to blame the CPU no mater what. > I would like some insight on the following: What loopholes are there with > AMD/Intel? Pros/Cons. > (Asked this before but got mostly aswers that where of the this rox thatsux > type. These are not credible, or probable.) AFAOL there are zero incompatibilities with AMD CPUs. Yes, there are some with certain chipset boards and some of those have fixes but there is absolutely no reason for not owning an AMD chipset mainboard with a Duron or Thunderbird and saving over a comparably overpriced P4 system. You will find tons of "this sux"and "this rocks" postings. It's just a matter of reading between the lines and asking why "this sux" or why "this rocks" and then deciding for yourself who knows what they are talking about and who is full of s***. Good luck.
Gonzo 20 May 2001 18:07 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184217
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Just because it was 300w doesn't mean it was an adequate PS for the > AMD cpu. You need to look at the amp ratings on the rail. Not all 300w > power supplies are created equal. True. Luckily not all PS have to be on AMD's approved listing to work either. The specifics can be found on AMD's web site. All my local PC builders tested several models and then decided which ones were their best bet for the money. Some would not even sell you an Athlon motherboard unless you purchased the PS from them to boot as there were too many returns due to this problem.
Rick Fisk 20 May 2001 18:16 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#184215
Holy crap! A post from somebody with some common sense and a reasonable attitude. What is this newsgroup coming to? <g> "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%zTN6.14129$[email hidden]... > "E. J. Akely" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:N5NN6.3569$[email hidden]... > > I kind of see this problem as the problems I'm having with Linux. I can > get > > Linux to work. It takes some time, advice from others, and some work.I'm
Quoted text (7 lines)> > sura I can get both CPU's to work well. But there is always specifics > about > > 'new' hardware that you need to learn. Especially if you build your > computer > > yourself. > > The problem with Linux is that there are too many variants out there.
Also > remember that driver support is in its infancy and a lot of the driversthat > exist are not written by the companies themseves but by amature programers > who want to see Linux work. Same applies to the software for Linux.Linux > is a labor of love for some but IMHO it's too much of a pain. I havetried > 5 diff distros just for training purposes on a new machine I just builtand > find that each one of them has at least two or more major shortcomings.You > will never have a problem finding a win dirver for just about anything. > > > Is'nt it sometimes that hardware ARE incompatible with other hardware(as > a > > specifik CPU)? Even if it as in (some) Cyrix x86 was a software thing. > > Certain motherboards are not compatible with certain sound cards andcertain > DIMMs or SIMMs. Some software is not compatible with certain pieces of > hardware also. There will always be incompatiblities no matter what simpy > because there are too many parts by to many manufacturers that are > undertested etc. If you do a search about CPU incompatibilities thoughyou > will most likely turn up empty handed. The CPU would be the last thingyou > need to wory about. If a CPU is at fault then it is either A)fautlyB)has
Quoted text (12 lines)> improper cooling or C)has improper voltage. I would check everything else > first. > > >What > > I mean is: it does not matter if the hardware is no-go becouse of > OS/driver. > > If it does not work it does not do the job. And there will always be > > programs at least that is not all-hardware compatible. > > > > I'm told by programming friends that is becouse programmers sometimes > takes > > shortcuts and uses specifik instructions in the wrong (but efficient)
way. > > Yep, but people seem to never susupect the software. Some tend to blamethe > CPU no mater what. > > > I would like some insight on the following: What loopholes are therewith
Quoted text (8 lines)> > AMD/Intel? Pros/Cons. > > (Asked this before but got mostly aswers that where of the this rox that > sux > > type. These are not credible, or probable.) > > AFAOL there are zero incompatibilities with AMD CPUs. Yes, there are some > with certain chipset boards and some of those have fixes but there is > absolutely no reason for not owning an AMD chipset mainboard with a Duron
or > Thunderbird and saving over a comparably overpriced P4 system. You will > find tons of "this sux"and "this rocks" postings. It's just a matter of > reading between the lines and asking why "this sux" or why "this rocks"and > then deciding for yourself who knows what they are talking about and whois > full of s***. Good luck. > > >
Yousuf Khan 20 May 2001 19:03 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#184222
"Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jJTN6.14134$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)> "Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Just because it was 300w doesn't mean it was an adequate PS for the > > AMD cpu. You need to look at the amp ratings on the rail. Not all 300w > > power supplies are created equal. > > True. Luckily not all PS have to be on AMD's approved listing to work > either. The specifics can be found on AMD's web site. > > All my local PC builders tested several models and then decided which ones > were their best bet for the money. Some would not even sell you an Athlon > motherboard unless you purchased the PS from them to boot as there were
too > many returns due to this problem. This PS problem is going to become more and more prominent as time goes on, for all processors from all manufacturers. Until now PS's were just an install and forget item (i.e. a PS is a PS is a PS, etc.). But with electronic components requiring less and less voltages all of the time these days, tolerances have come plummetting down. A tolerance of 10% @ 5V was +/-0.5V; but a tolerance of 10% @ 1.5V is +/-0.15V. This is not so much because we need 300W+ PS's to power ever hungrier components, but because we need steadier and steadier electrical power characteristics. There's more tolerance in higher wattage PS's than in lower wattage ones. Yousuf Khan
Allan Parent 20 May 2001 20:33 UTC↳ reply to JD#184234
Why would I feel insecure about purchasing a 1.33Ghz Tbird? It's stable, fast and cheap. What's not to like? Allan JD wrote:
Quoted text (20 lines)> > Thus spake [email hidden] (RenderedBrian) on 20 May > 2001 07:41:27 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just > yet! :)" > > >Exactly. Which is why an engine (or a cpu) should throttle back if it is > >overheating! If the *car* is badly designed, with poor airflow over the > >engine bay, then the engine will overheat. Is that the fault of the engine, > >or the car manufacturer? > > Exactly. Why is this so hard to understand? I personally have > nothing against the current AMD product line... but I gotta > believe there are a lot of AMD purchasers out there who are > feeling very insecure with their decision for one reason or > another. This article, and the argument it spawned here, is > nothing but straw grasping. > > > Regards, JD > [email hidden]
Jagg 20 May 2001 20:46 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#184235
On Sun, 20 May 2001 18:07:11 GMT, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)>True. Luckily not all PS have to be on AMD's approved listing to work >either. The specifics can be found on AMD's web site. > >All my local PC builders tested several models and then decided which ones >were their best bet for the money. Some would not even sell you an Athlon >motherboard unless you purchased the PS from them to boot as there were too >many returns due to this problem. > > >
Yea, even though I had a 300w PS when I went AMD, I checked the amp ratings on the rail and it did not meet the specs so I bought a 350w Enermax that does. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Allan Parent 20 May 2001 21:01 UTC↳ reply to Dan Brooks#184143
Dan, This is the first system I did not build myself in almost 10 years. I just didn't have time to build one this time due to a great decrease in free time for various reasons. I actually bought my system from Alienware after much research. The MB is a 1st Mainboard AD11 which is based on the AMD 761 system controller for the Northbridge and the VIA 686B. I have 384 megs of DDR ram. I don't know the brand name of the memory but I think it begins with an "A". Sorry but I have to look it up in my docs. Anyway, I decided on AMD over intel this time simply due to the fact that the AMD 1.33Ghz gives better performance for the $$$. The P4 chip was almost twice as expensive as the AMD when I purchased my system back in April. I have always used Intel chips up till now but I was hard pressed to select a P4 considering the price and performance of the T-bird. Allan Dan Brooks wrote:
Quoted text (48 lines)> > I'm considering the same upgrade. Allan, what MB and memory did you buy? > > Dan > > "Allan Parent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Well, I just put together a new system and had to make that same > > decision. I selected an AMD T-bird simply because it had more > > performance for the price. The benchmarks I saw showed the 1.33Ghz > > T-bird equal or better in many categories over a P4. But the final > > factor was price. At the time of purchase, the AMD was almost half the > > price of the P4. I have *always* gone with Intel up to this point. > > However, the AMD just has more performance for the $$$. At some point > > all of the P4's potential will be realised by software that takes > > advantage of its features. However, until that point, I will have a > > fast, economical and reliable chip in the form of the T-bird. I learned > > a while back not to purchase computer hardware based on future > > implementations. Buy something affordable that performs well on software > > you utilize. I am sure someone will step in with all of the detailed > > technical merits of each chip but that is why I purchased AMD over Intel > > this time around. > > > > Allan > > > > "E. J. Akely" wrote: > > > > > > I do not get it. As I'm about to buy a new CPU I would like to hear the > > > pros/cons of AMD/Intel. > > > > > > TIA, > > > MadMan > > > > > > "Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Fri, 18 May 2001 16:35:33 -0400, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >You are silly. > > > > > > > > > >The reason AMD ever 'got any' was because they sucked, for years, and > > > years. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're an idiot. Intel sucks now. Get it? > > > > -- > > > > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > > > > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 20 May 2001 21:20 UTC↳ reply to Allan Parent#184147
On Sun, 20 May 2001 16:01:22 -0500, Allan Parent <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)>Dan, > >This is the first system I did not build myself in almost 10 years. I >just didn't have time to build one this time due to a great decrease in >free time for various reasons. I actually bought my system from >Alienware after much research. The MB is a 1st Mainboard AD11 which is >based on the AMD 761 system controller for the Northbridge and the VIA >686B.
I'm also using the FIC-AD11 with Micron DDR ram. Very stable for me. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
JD 20 May 2001 22:43 UTC↳ reply to Allan Parent#184164
Thus spake Allan Parent <[email hidden]> on Sun, 20 May 2001 15:33:44 -0500, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >Why would I feel insecure about purchasing a 1.33Ghz Tbird? It's stable, >fast and cheap. What's not to like? Not talking about you specifically. It's just a general observation based on some of the "defensive" responses I've seen here. Regards, JD [email hidden]
Allan Parent 20 May 2001 23:01 UTC↳ reply to JD#184169
I think AMD has come a long way. Like I said before it basically came down to price vs. performance. In my opinion the T-bird just offers more bang for the buck. I have nothing against Intel, it's just that the AMD seemed more cost efficient. Oh well, that's why there is chocolate and vanilla :-) Allan JD wrote:
Quoted text (15 lines)> > Thus spake Allan Parent <[email hidden]> on Sun, 20 May 2001 > 15:33:44 -0500, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just > yet! :)" > > >Why would I feel insecure about purchasing a 1.33Ghz Tbird? It's stable, > >fast and cheap. What's not to like? > > Not talking about you specifically. It's just a general > observation based on some of the "defensive" responses I've seen > here. > > > Regards, JD > [email hidden]
JD 20 May 2001 23:06 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184177
Thus spake Jagg <[email hidden]> on Sun, 20 May 2001 16:56:02 -0400, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >Keep telling yourself that and you will actually believe it one day. Such is the power of hope and repetition... a combination used to good effect by the author of the article in question, as you so aptly demonstrate. Regards, JD [email hidden]
Allan Parent 20 May 2001 23:07 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184175
Jagg wrote: > > I'm also using the FIC-AD11 with Micron DDR ram. Very stable for me. Yep, rock solid and I have put it throught the gauntlet. No complaints here either. Allan
JD 20 May 2001 23:36 UTC↳ reply to Allan Parent#184185
Thus spake Allan Parent <[email hidden]> on Sun, 20 May 2001 18:01:15 -0500, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >I think AMD has come a long way. Like I said before it basically came >down to price vs. performance. In my opinion the T-bird just offers more >bang for the buck. I have nothing against Intel, it's just that the AMD >seemed more cost efficient. Oh well, that's why there is chocolate and >vanilla :-) You might be surprised to know that I agree with you. If I were buying/upgrading any of my personal machines right now, I'd probably go with AMD. I don't take exception to that choice, but to this P4 overheat protection nonsense being tossed about in defense of that choice. I find it ironic that some here feel the need to wield that web article like Holy Scripture... as if to validate their own opinions and decisions. It's just not necessary. I think the current AMD products stand quite well on their own merits. Regards, JD [email hidden]
Allan Parent 21 May 2001 00:10 UTC↳ reply to JD#184096
Personally, given the choice I would rather have a chip throttle back in order to save itself rather than burn up. I don't overclock so maybe that is what has some people fired up against the P4. I think the max core temp for the P4 is lower than the T-Bird's but as long as it's cooled correctly, the throttle back should never come into play whether you overclock or not, at least as far as I can see. Allan JD wrote:
Quoted text (19 lines)> > > >I think AMD has come a long way. Like I said before it basically came > >down to price vs. performance. In my opinion the T-bird just offers more > >bang for the buck. I have nothing against Intel, it's just that the AMD > >seemed more cost efficient. Oh well, that's why there is chocolate and > >vanilla :-) > > You might be surprised to know that I agree with you. If I were > buying/upgrading any of my personal machines right now, I'd > probably go with AMD. > > I don't take exception to that choice, but to this P4 overheat > protection nonsense being tossed about in defense of that choice. > I find it ironic that some here feel the need to wield that web > article like Holy Scripture... as if to validate their own > opinions and decisions. It's just not necessary. I think the > current AMD products stand quite well on their own merits. >
Jagg 21 May 2001 00:33 UTC↳ reply to JD#184100
On Sun, 20 May 2001 23:06:18 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)>Such is the power of hope and repetition... a combination used to >good effect by the author of the article in question, as you so >aptly demonstrate. > > >Regards, JD >[email hidden]
Yea, but the big diffference here is that I have both AMD and Intel based computers here which gives my opinion a bit more validity and is less imparsialist than yours. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 21 May 2001 00:38 UTC↳ reply to JD#183696
On Sun, 20 May 2001 23:36:04 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> wrote: >I don't take exception to that choice, but to this P4 overheat >protection nonsense being tossed about in defense of that choice. >I find it ironic that some here feel the need to wield that web >article like Holy Scripture... as if to validate their own >opinions and decisions. It's just not necessary. I think the >current AMD products stand quite well on their own merits. It's not to validate our purchase, it's to help potential purchasers make a wiser choice. Let's face it, the cards are stacked against AMD due to brand recognition, some of us want to see them do well because they deserve to. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 21 May 2001 00:42 UTC↳ reply to Allan Parent#184103
On Sun, 20 May 2001 19:10:42 -0500, Allan Parent <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (9 lines)>Personally, given the choice I would rather have a chip throttle back in >order to save itself rather than burn up. I don't overclock so maybe >that is what has some people fired up against the P4. I think the max >core temp for the P4 is lower than the T-Bird's but as long as it's >cooled correctly, the throttle back should never come into play whether >you overclock or not, at least as far as I can see. > > >Allan
Well, that's the problem. It does come into play as shown by the Quake3 test. I don't play Q3A, but I do overclcock and I just don't see this throttling back as a good thing. If I paid for a P4 1.5ghz then I would expect it to perform at 1.5ghz *all* the time. If it has problems with heat running at spec then it shouldn't be sold as a 1.5ghz cpu. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Allan Parent 21 May 2001 01:45 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184110
Ok, let me get this straight. It throttles back even when running at spec and being cooled properly? I don't play Q3A either but why the hell would it do that? Does it only happen in Q3A or has there been other documented instances? I can see throttling back to save the chip but during normal usage it shouldn't have to do that. I am missing something? Allan Jagg wrote:
Quoted text (23 lines)> > On Sun, 20 May 2001 19:10:42 -0500, Allan Parent <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Personally, given the choice I would rather have a chip throttle back in > >order to save itself rather than burn up. I don't overclock so maybe > >that is what has some people fired up against the P4. I think the max > >core temp for the P4 is lower than the T-Bird's but as long as it's > >cooled correctly, the throttle back should never come into play whether > >you overclock or not, at least as far as I can see. > > > > > >Allan > > Well, that's the problem. It does come into play as shown by the > Quake3 test. I don't play Q3A, but I do overclcock and I just don't > see this throttling back as a good thing. If I paid for a P4 1.5ghz > then I would expect it to perform at 1.5ghz *all* the time. If it has > problems with heat running at spec then it shouldn't be sold as a > 1.5ghz cpu. > -- > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Gonzo 21 May 2001 02:34 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184115
"Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GxUN6.20532$[email hidden]... > This PS problem is going to become more and more prominent as time goeson, > for all processors from all manufacturers. Until now PS's were just an > install and forget item (i.e. a PS is a PS is a PS, etc.). But with > electronic components requiring less and less voltages all of the timethese > days, tolerances have come plummetting down. A tolerance of 10% @ 5V was > +/-0.5V; but a tolerance of 10% @ 1.5V is +/-0.15V. > > This is not so much because we need 300W+ PS's to power ever hungrier > components, but because we need steadier and steadier electrical power > characteristics. There's more tolerance in higher wattage PS's than inlower > wattage ones. Yep, it's not as simple as it used to be. Even 3D graphics cards are requiring more juice and everything new seems to have a fan or two on it now. Look at the last Voodoo cards that came out. 3Dfx knew there would be a problem so they simply added a power plug to the darn thing to nip it in the bud. Once we start moving over to 64bit systems we will need even more juice unless AMD and Intel can shrink their silicone even more etc.
Jagg 21 May 2001 03:13 UTC↳ reply to Allan Parent#184117
On Sun, 20 May 2001 20:45:15 -0500, Allan Parent <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)>Ok, let me get this straight. It throttles back even when running at >spec and being cooled properly? I don't play Q3A either but why the hell >would it do that? Does it only happen in Q3A or has there been other >documented instances? I can see throttling back to save the chip but >during normal usage it shouldn't have to do that. I am missing >something? > >Allan
Didn't you read the article at the beginning of this thread? That was a major part of the article. The link to the Q3A article is within that article. I would consider running Q3A normal usage. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Yousuf Khan 21 May 2001 06:42 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184053
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (14 lines)> On Sun, 20 May 2001 19:10:42 -0500, Allan Parent <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Personally, given the choice I would rather have a chip throttle back in > >order to save itself rather than burn up. I don't overclock so maybe > > > >Allan > > Well, that's the problem. It does come into play as shown by the > Quake3 test. I don't play Q3A, but I do overclcock and I just don't > see this throttling back as a good thing. If I paid for a P4 1.5ghz > then I would expect it to perform at 1.5ghz *all* the time. If it has > problems with heat running at spec then it shouldn't be sold as a > 1.5ghz cpu.
It's quite likely that this effect doesn't come into play on all Pentium 4's. Given the wide tolerances inside a diode, it's possible that depending on the processor one gets, in some cases the diode will come into play well before the actual thermal limit of the processor. That's why you wouldn't want any automatic thermal throttling, just in case the diode is wrong. It's interesting that the new Palomino Athlon 4's have a thermal diode in them too, but you can set it all through software. You are not obligated to use it. Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan 21 May 2001 06:52 UTC↳ reply to Allan Parent#184056
"Allan Parent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)> Ok, let me get this straight. It throttles back even when running at > spec and being cooled properly? I don't play Q3A either but why the hell > would it do that? Does it only happen in Q3A or has there been other > documented instances? I can see throttling back to save the chip but > during normal usage it shouldn't have to do that. I am missing > something? > > Allan
Because of large tolerance limits of diodes, it's speculated that some P4's might be triggering their thermal throttling even if the limit hasn't been reached. If for example the thermal diode has a specified limit of 75C, but it has a tolerance of +/-20C, the lower limit might be 55C rather than 75C. In fact, if the tolerances are that large, and Intel knew about it, then it's likely that Intel wouldn't want to reach the upper tolerance limit (95C), so to be safe they might set the diode for 65C so the tolerances would be between 45C-85C. Yousuf Khan
Ryan Mitchley 21 May 2001 09:57 UTC↳ reply to EldredP#184071
"EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Some people buy things that do the job for THEM. Obviously. My point was that the assessment of which CPU does THEIR JOB better is generally quite straight forward. Choosing an appropriate benchmark is usually the hardest problem, although this is pretty much a solved problem for gamers. > Different people also have > different criterium. Price, speed, compatibility(both with software and > existing hardware). Price and speed account for 99.9% of the criteria, which was exactly my point. Compatibility is largely (and increasingly) a non-issue, especially if only Intel and AMD processors are considered. Sure, there are subtleties of upgrade options, etc, but I'm mainly responding to someone who chooses to ignore one manufacture entirely on an irrational basis. > Putting down someone for making a personal choice seems close-minded... I think it's rather more close-minded to ignore ALL of the offerings from a manufacturer with a fairly significant market share. I have nothing against personal choice in general. "Personal choice" is bandied about rather a lot in these postmodern times (I am neither supporting nor criticising the trend). This is fine when you're choosing furniture or clothes (or religion? ;-) ), but blatantly stupid when picking a CPU, unless your choice is supported by quality information. Ryan
Allan Parent 21 May 2001 10:58 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184076
Yep, I read the article but I assumed that it was being overclocked for some reason, otherwise there is no reason it should throttle back. Allan Jagg wrote:
Quoted text (19 lines)> > On Sun, 20 May 2001 20:45:15 -0500, Allan Parent <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Ok, let me get this straight. It throttles back even when running at > >spec and being cooled properly? I don't play Q3A either but why the hell > >would it do that? Does it only happen in Q3A or has there been other > >documented instances? I can see throttling back to save the chip but > >during normal usage it shouldn't have to do that. I am missing > >something? > > > >Allan > > Didn't you read the article at the beginning of this thread? That was > a major part of the article. The link to the Q3A article is within > that article. I would consider running Q3A normal usage. > -- > eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format > http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Remco Moedt 21 May 2001 11:14 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184077
Jagg <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (12 lines)>On Sat, 19 May 2001 14:53:13 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> >wrote: > > >>What, actually. I've read the article. I don't see these "facts" >>you mention supporting their conclusions. Sorry. >> >> >>Regards, JD >>[email hidden] > >Did you also read the articel link to the problems with Q3A on a P4?
I did. I see this problem occured with one Mobo + CPU combination only.... Remco
Jagg 21 May 2001 15:46 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184028
On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:42:02 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It's interesting that the new Palomino Athlon 4's have a thermal diode in >them too, but you can set it all through software. You are not obligated to >use it. > > Yousuf Khan > Is the P4 controllable through software too, or just the Athlon4? Is that diode just for the mobile Palomino maybe? -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 21 May 2001 15:48 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184030
On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:52:04 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)> then >it's likely that Intel wouldn't want to reach the upper tolerance limit >(95C), so to be safe they might set the diode for 65C so the tolerances >would be between 45C-85C. > > Yousuf Khan >
I read the P4 has a max core of 70c, it's the T-Bird 1.33c that is 95c. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Yousuf Khan 21 May 2001 15:51 UTC↳ reply to Remco Moedt#184023
"Remco Moedt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I did. I see this problem occured with one Mobo + CPU combination > only.... They mentioned it happened on a number of mobo combinations, although they didn't mention which mobos they were (except that they were Intel mobos). Yousuf Khan
Neal Shifflett 21 May 2001 16:09 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#184029
On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:42:02 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip>
Quoted text (9 lines)>It's quite likely that this effect doesn't come into play on all Pentium >4's. Given the wide tolerances inside a diode, it's possible that depending >on the processor one gets, in some cases the diode will come into play well >before the actual thermal limit of the processor. That's why you wouldn't >want any automatic thermal throttling, just in case the diode is wrong. > >It's interesting that the new Palomino Athlon 4's have a thermal diode in >them too, but you can set it all through software. You are not obligated to >use it.
I've seen mention in a couple of places about Athlon's not having a thermal diode. Am I to assume that the diode you speak of is not the same as the one that is telling me the core temperature on my 1.3 tbird? I've had some confusion over this. Clarification is welcome. Neal Neal "Headcrash" Shifflett [email hidden] remove "NOTAT" to replay by email. "I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure what you heard was what I meant!"
M 21 May 2001 16:26 UTC↳ reply to KdF#184034
KdF wrote in message ... ><Slaps Pasha> (e-mail me you looney so I can get your real address) Ok, gib me a Manute. >To wait or not to wait..... > >-- >KdF =^) Always wait, if you can stand it. P
Yousuf Khan 21 May 2001 16:34 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184036
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:42:02 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >It's interesting that the new Palomino Athlon 4's have a thermal diode in > >them too, but you can set it all through software. You are not obligatedto > >use it. > > Is the P4 controllable through software too, or just the Athlon4? Is > that diode just for the mobile Palomino maybe? The P4 is supposed to have a software controllable thermal sensor, but apparently it's also got a secondary failsafe thermal diode which is not controllable through software, which kicks in at the very highest limits of temperature. As for A4, I don't know if this is only for the mobile A4's, or if they will retain these on the desktop versions, whenever they come out. Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan 21 May 2001 16:40 UTC↳ reply to Neal Shifflett#184037
"Neal Shifflett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:42:02 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >It's interesting that the new Palomino Athlon 4's have a thermal diode in > >them too, but you can set it all through software. You are not obligatedto
Quoted text (8 lines)> >use it. > > I've seen mention in a couple of places about Athlon's not having a > thermal diode. Am I to assume that the diode you speak of is not the > same as the one that is telling me the core temperature on my 1.3 > tbird? > > I've had some confusion over this. Clarification is welcome.
Yeah, I am only referring to the newest Athlons, the Athlon 4's, with the new Palomino cores. They were just introduced last week for the laptop market only, so it's likely you haven't heard about it yet. The existing Thunderbird Athlons don't have any thermal diodes in them. Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan 21 May 2001 16:40 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#184038
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (13 lines)> On Mon, 21 May 2001 06:52:04 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > then > >it's likely that Intel wouldn't want to reach the upper tolerance limit > >(95C), so to be safe they might set the diode for 65C so the tolerances > >would be between 45C-85C. > > > > Yousuf Khan > > > > I read the P4 has a max core of 70c, it's the T-Bird 1.33c that is > 95c.
It was just an example I was using for illustration. Not necessarily based on any real processor or their thermal diode settings. I don't even know what the tolerances are on these diodes, I was just using +/-20C as an example too. It could be +/-10C, but who knows? The only point being that there is a tolerance and in some P4's the diode might be at the lower regions of tolerance, whereas in others it might be in the upper regions. It's a crap shoot whether you get a P4 with lower tolerances or higher tolerances. The ones with higher tolerances might not exhibit any performance deficiencies. Yousuf Khan
Neal Shifflett 21 May 2001 17:18 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#183945
On Mon, 21 May 2001 16:40:34 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip>
Quoted text (7 lines)>Yeah, I am only referring to the newest Athlons, the Athlon 4's, with the >new Palomino cores. They were just introduced last week for the laptop >market only, so it's likely you haven't heard about it yet. > >The existing Thunderbird Athlons don't have any thermal diodes in them. > > Yousuf Khan
Hmm...So where is the CPU temp I'm seeing reported in the BIOS and in my motherboard monitoring software coming from? Neal Neal "Headcrash" Shifflett [email hidden] remove "NOTAT" to replay by email. "I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure what you heard was what I meant!"
Yousuf Khan 21 May 2001 18:14 UTC↳ reply to Neal Shifflett#183955
"Neal Shifflett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)> On Mon, 21 May 2001 16:40:34 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > >The existing Thunderbird Athlons don't have any thermal diodes in them. > > > > Yousuf Khan > > Hmm...So where is the CPU temp I'm seeing reported in the BIOS and in > my motherboard monitoring software coming from?
The CPU temperature you are getting off of your motherboard is not coming from the CPU core itself, but from a temperature sensor attached to the socket that your CPU connects to. So once newer revisions of motherboards come out with support for the internal diode readings, then there is a possibility of more accurate readings of the temperature of the core. But the current motherboard-based CPU temperature readers are pretty good guideposts too. Yousuf Khan
Jagg 21 May 2001 18:27 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#183956
On Mon, 21 May 2001 18:14:33 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (11 lines)>The CPU temperature you are getting off of your motherboard is not coming >from the CPU core itself, but from a temperature sensor attached to the >socket that your CPU connects to. > >So once newer revisions of motherboards come out with support for the >internal diode readings, then there is a possibility of more accurate >readings of the temperature of the core. But the current motherboard-based >CPU temperature readers are pretty good guideposts too. > > Yousuf Khan >
Yea, I've been wondering about this. People post their cpu temp reading, but it must vary from mb manufacturer to maufacturer, unless they all place the sensor in the exact same spot. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
M 21 May 2001 19:57 UTC↳ reply to Allan Parent#183976
Allan Parent wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >Why would I feel insecure about purchasing a 1.33Ghz Tbird? It's stable, >fast and cheap. What's not to like? > >Allan 1. It's all about your apps. I have to use Intel, and I would if I didn't *have* because I feel safe there. 2. It's all about your preferences. I prefer stability on my non-game apps, over game performance. P3 is better than AMD thingy for what I do. 3. It all works better than it did 2-3 years ago. 4. It all works way better than an Apple 2e. :) Pasha
M 21 May 2001 20:00 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#183977
Jagg wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >Yea, but the big diffference here is that I have both AMD and Intel >based computers here which gives my opinion a bit more validity and is >less imparsialist than yours. > I've never seen JD post anything I didn't have to agree with, and I don't consider him partial to a brand. You can say he is, but you'd be missing the point. Pasha
M 21 May 2001 20:02 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#183980
Jagg wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >On 20 May 2001 18:16:56 GMT, "Rick Fisk" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>Holy crap! A post from somebody with some common sense and a reasonable >>attitude. What is this newsgroup coming to? <g> > >Which post is that? You quoted two people. He was talking about me. =) Pasha
JD 22 May 2001 00:10 UTC↳ reply to M#183933
Thus spake "M" <[email hidden]> on Mon, 21 May 2001 16:00:36 -0400, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >I've never seen JD post anything I didn't have to agree with, and I don't >consider him partial to a brand. I'm flattered! And no folks... we are not the same person posting under different \alphas\. J + D = N, not M. <g> Regards, JD [email hidden]
Yousuf Khan 22 May 2001 00:10 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#183930
"Jagg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Yea, I've been wondering about this. People post their cpu temp > reading, but it must vary from mb manufacturer to maufacturer, unless > they all place the sensor in the exact same spot. It doesn't really vary from motherboard manufacturer to manufacturer. They all seem to be using the exact same pieces of silicon to obtain the CPU temperatures. I think the chips usually come from either Winbond, or Dallas Semiconductor, or something. The temperature really is taken off of the pins of the CPU, rather than from within the core itself. Since the pins are metallic and in direct contact with the CPU, chances are that they have a good reading of the internal average temperature of the CPU. Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan 22 May 2001 00:10 UTC↳ reply to M#183931
"M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oreO6.92112$[email hidden]... > 1. It's all about your apps. I have to use Intel, and I would if I didn't > *have* because I feel safe there. > > 2. It's all about your preferences. I prefer stability on my non-gameapps, > over game performance. P3 is better than AMD thingy for what I do. > > 3. It all works better than it did 2-3 years ago. > > 4. It all works way better than an Apple 2e. So the fact that AMD has been producing x86 processors for over twenty years now, with an exemplenary record of compatibility, and the fact that it's got nearly a 1/4 of the market for x86 processors doesn't help to make you feel "safe"? If that doesn't help, then all I can suggest is to buy a steel cage for your work area, you'll feel plenty "safe" in there. :-) Yousuf Khan
Jagg 22 May 2001 07:09 UTC↳ reply to JD#183789
On Tue, 22 May 2001 00:10:01 GMT, JD <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)>I'm flattered! > >And no folks... we are not the same person posting under different >\alphas\. > >J + D = N, not M. <g> > > >Regards, JD >[email hidden]
The guy needs to read the Pied Piper of Hamelin. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
Jagg 22 May 2001 12:12 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#183814
More fodder for you guys that think this throttling is a good thing. http://www.amdmb.com/index.php#News-1836 Pentium 4 Throttling - Lars - Sun, May 20, 2001 - 01:44 PM top I was just over at JC's and saw he has posted some goodies.....one of the things I really enjoyed was to read about the Intel Pentium 4.....because I feel people have the right to know the truth about any products they buy.....and I find it fascinating that you can buy a processor that will run at half speed occasionally...when you are paying a small fortune for it....and when it's the flagship of the company.....here's what JC had to say: Hmmm .... Something interesting was uncovered by the clock throttling brigade. Now, I'm still not sure that this is any reason to panic or complain or anything, but it is acknowledged in an Intel whitepaper (pdf) that the Pentium 4 is indeed expected to occasionally throttle down fifty percent (but not often) even when proper cooling methods are used. This effectively liberates analyst Bert McComas of InQuest, whose detractors have stated that this 'throttling' only occurs with improperly implemented cooling practices. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
M 22 May 2001 22:32 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#183598
Yousuf Khan wrote in message ... >So the fact that AMD has been producing x86 processors for over twentyyears >now, with an exemplenary record of compatibility, and the fact that it'sgot >nearly a 1/4 of the market for x86 processors doesn't help to make you feel >"safe"? The manufacturers statement that my software is made to take advantage of Intel's instructions, and the big list of things that cause problems that I have read over the course of x# of years saying "AMD"... >If that doesn't help, then all I can suggest is to buy a steel cage foryour >work area, you'll feel plenty "safe" in there. :-) > > Yousuf Khan Shit! No way dood! I guess you don't know that I work submerged, in a viral fluid, with tiny man-eating sharks. =o0 I'd die! I'd need a glass bubble. Pasha -hamster trot-
M 22 May 2001 22:36 UTC↳ reply to JD#183599
JD wrote in message <[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (7 lines)>And no folks... we are not the same person posting under different >\alphas\. > >J + D = N, not M. <g> > > >Regards, JD
We can't go on fooling everyone... We are Bill Gates..... Vernon is the other leg, and the head.. Pasha -what kind of mushrooms were in that salad?-
M 22 May 2001 22:38 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#183601
Jagg wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >More fodder for you guys that think this throttling is a good thing. > Still, I can't reach your neck from here! =oP Pasha
E. J. Akely 23 May 2001 12:29 UTC↳ reply to M#183515
ROTFL! Good funny post! MadMan "M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gUBO6.14666$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)> > Jagg wrote in message <[email hidden]>... > >More fodder for you guys that think this throttling is a good thing. > > > > > > Still, I can't reach your neck from here! > > =oP > > > Pasha > >
M 23 May 2001 13:51 UTC↳ reply to M#183533
Gunslinger wrote in message ... /In Andy Sherriff Taylor Voice Pasha my man.. you have problems.. Deeeeeeeeeeepp problems boy ;) -Gunslinger -in Aunt Bea voice- Yes Andy, yes I do. :) I just thought the people that were holding off, from the other thread, would like to know. Pasha -adjusts girdle-
pw 24 May 2001 04:39 UTC↳ reply to M#183332
Quoted text (19 lines)> >Gunslinger wrote in message ... > >/In Andy Sherriff Taylor Voice > >Pasha my man.. you have problems.. >Deeeeeeeeeeepp problems boy >;) > >-Gunslinger > > > >-in Aunt Bea voice- > >Yes Andy, yes I do. > >:) >
You beat everything Barney, you know that?? ;-) -pw
Quoted text (7 lines)>I just thought the people that were holding off, from the other thread, >would like to know. > > >Pasha >-adjusts girdle- >
M 24 May 2001 06:16 UTC↳ reply to pw#183246
pw wrote in message <9ei3aq$kdh$[email hidden]>...
Quoted text (7 lines)>> > >You beat everything Barney, you know that?? > >;-) > >-pw
I swear, between the Clampets, and Andy Griffith, who needs the other 978 channels? :) Pasha -heads out to the ceement pond-
M 24 May 2001 09:50 UTC↳ reply to JD#183285
JD wrote in message ... > >You might be surprised to know that I agree with you. If I were >buying/upgrading any of my personal machines right now, I'd >probably go with AMD. I wouldn't be suprised.
Quoted text (7 lines)>I don't take exception to that choice, but to this P4 overheat >protection nonsense being tossed about in defense of that choice. >I find it ironic that some here feel the need to wield that web >article like Holy Scripture... as if to validate their own >opinions and decisions. > >Regards, JD
Everything I've ever read stated that the internet was purified truth, sifted through love, and held in a hall of honor. Pasha
Vernon Pellerin 24 May 2001 17:19 UTC↳ reply to M#183139
In article <qSBO6.14663$[email hidden]>, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)>>J + D = N, not M. <g> >> >> >>Regards, JD > >We can't go on fooling everyone... > >We are Bill Gates..... Vernon is the other leg, and the head..
Actually, I'm the long appendage between the legs. This explains why I can be both the "other leg" and the "head".
Vernon Pellerin 24 May 2001 17:24 UTC↳ reply to M#183142
In article <vQ4P6.19238$[email hidden]>, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote: [snip]
Quoted text (12 lines)>>I find it ironic that some here feel the need to wield that web >>article like Holy Scripture... as if to validate their own >>opinions and decisions. >> >>Regards, JD > > >Everything I've ever read stated that the internet was purified truth, >sifted through love, and held in a hall of honor. > > >Pasha
Have you read the blessed chapter: www.chickswithdicks.com ??? It's spiritually uplifting.
pw 24 May 2001 17:33 UTC↳ reply to M#183146
Quoted text (16 lines)> >pw wrote in message <9ei3aq$kdh$[email hidden]>... > >>> >> >>You beat everything Barney, you know that?? >> >>;-) >> >>-pw > > > >I swear, between the Clampets, and Andy Griffith, who needs the other 978 >channels? >
Not me! -pw
Quoted text (7 lines)>:) > > > >Pasha >-heads out to the ceement pond- >
M 24 May 2001 20:26 UTC↳ reply to Vernon Pellerin#183184
Vernon Pellerin wrote in message ... >Actually, I'm the long appendage between the legs. This explains why I canbe >both the "other leg" and the "head". ;-) Pasha
M 24 May 2001 20:28 UTC↳ reply to Vernon Pellerin#183186
Vernon Pellerin wrote in message ...
Quoted text (9 lines)>> >>Everything I've ever read stated that the internet was purified truth, >>sifted through love, and held in a hall of honor. >> >> >>Pasha > >Have you read the blessed chapter: www.chickswithdicks.com ??? >It's spiritually uplifting.
Bless you my son, psalm 101 says something about www.guyswithtits.com ......strangely enough, it also resolves there, in the crystaline house of hope. Pasha
Jagg 24 May 2001 20:34 UTC↳ reply to Vernon Pellerin#183089
>>>I find it ironic that some here feel the need to wield that web >>>article like Holy Scripture... as if to validate their own >>>opinions and decisions. >>> >>>Regards, JD And I am supposed to take the word of a WinTel weenie instead?? I posted links to two articles and a 3rd article was linked within one of those articles. That makes for three seperate articles stating the same evidence. Do I need to part the Atlantic Ocean to make you a believer or what? -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
M 24 May 2001 21:13 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#183102
Jagg wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >Do I need to part the Atlantic Ocean to make you a >believer or what? I'd accept that. :) Pasha -PlOnK!-
Vernon Pellerin 25 May 2001 17:08 UTC↳ reply to M#182898
In article <6QeP6.98945$[email hidden]>, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Jagg wrote in message <[email hidden]>... > >>Do I need to part the Atlantic Ocean to make you a >>believer or what? cliche' My great-great-great grandaddy (Moses) did that trick eons ago. Got any fresh material? Visit Sigfreid and Roy in LV if ya need some inspiration.
Jagg 25 May 2001 17:57 UTC↳ reply to Vernon Pellerin#182904
On Fri, 25 May 2001 17:08:11 GMT, [email hidden] (Vernon Pellerin) wrote: >cliche' >My great-great-great grandaddy (Moses) did that trick eons ago. Got any fresh >material? Visit Sigfreid and Roy in LV if ya need some inspiration. That was the Red Sea, I'm talking aobut the Atlantic Ocean dammit! What Moses did is nothing compared to my great abilities. -- eFalcon keyboard chart in PDF format http://storm.prohosting.com/~nos146/ef4_keys.zip
M 25 May 2001 18:51 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#182921
Jagg wrote in message ... . > >That was the Red Sea, I'm talking aobut the Atlantic Ocean dammit! >What Moses did is nothing compared to my great abilities. uhhh.... Moses used a 286. Pasha
Vernon Pellerin 26 May 2001 07:22 UTC↳ reply to M#182811
In article <fRxP6.23180$[email hidden]>, "M" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (12 lines)> >Jagg wrote in message ... >.. >> >>That was the Red Sea, I'm talking aobut the Atlantic Ocean dammit! >>What Moses did is nothing compared to my great abilities. > > > > > >uhhh.... Moses used a 286.
Running on DR-DOS
JD 26 May 2001 13:45 UTC↳ reply to Vernon Pellerin#182753
Thus spake [email hidden] (Vernon Pellerin) on Sat, 26 May 2001 07:22:15 GMT, as he held forth on "Re: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)" >>>That was the Red Sea, I'm talking aobut the Atlantic Ocean dammit! >>>What Moses did is nothing compared to my great abilities. >> >>uhhh.... Moses used a 286. > >Running on DR-DOS Yeah, but those Egyptians in hot pursuit there were running CP/M powered chariots.... it wasn't exactly a fair fight. Regards, JD [email hidden]
jalo 01 Jun 2001 15:37 UTC↳ reply to RenderedBrian#181239
> Throttling back when the cpu overheats *IS* a good thing. If i had spent > several hundred pouds on a cpu, I do not want it to die! And this my friends is exactly why intel put this feature in. It's all marketing. I've built many, many computers. My friends also build there own computers. I have never seen a CPU fail. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that when a CPU fails, it's a very rare thing. I personally wouldn't want a CPU that will throttle back when playing a game. Kinda defeats the purpose of buying a high end CPU, actually. I mean, a P4 1.7 is what, maybe 10% faster than a P4 1.5, then if it throttles back 30%, what do you have? A P4 1.2. So why is the P4 better than the Athlon again?
Bad-Boy 01 Jun 2001 16:12 UTC↳ reply to jalo#181242
"jalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jFOR6.66609$[email hidden]... .... > I personally wouldn't > want a CPU that will throttle back when playing a game. Kinda defeats the > purpose of buying a high end CPU, actually. I mean, a P4 1.7 is what,maybe > 10% faster than a P4 1.5, then if it throttles back 30%, what do you have?A > P4 1.2. So why is the P4 better than the Athlon again? If you do the sensible thing and put an efficient cooling system on the chip then it will never need to throttle back. Chip density is now making cooling critical. A number of companies offer differing cooling solutions with differing reliability and performance. You do know that if your case fan dies and you have a new m/board it may well shut the whole system off as the temp rises !! It's called "protecting your investment", it's been done in high-end servers for decades. Now that we're putting that kind of heat generation on our desks, we're needing similar protection. It should be recognised that Intel are giving a benefit in providing this insurance and we should make sure our ancillaries are good enough that it's never needed ! Me ? I'll go with the fastest for the $$$ and THEN add the BEST cooler I can find. ( work for a company who's just patented one of the best :-) and *THEN* I'll overclock :-). Find out when it throttles back and then adjust speed ( or cooling ) to keep below that threshold. I don't care who's logo is on the "li'l black thing with legs/pads" :-) BB
Alain 02 Jun 2001 16:13 UTC↳ reply to jalo#181098
It's VERY easy to have a CPU fail... I was at the computer store a month ago, and this newbie tech. guy installed a new CPU HSF in the wrong direction, so the the HSF pad was not in contact with the CPU die. The CPU was an Athlon-C 1.2GHz. Within 30 seconds it started smelling like burnt metal... the CPU died just as the PC finished booting. It was really dead, the dumb tech. couldn't believe it. Obviously your experience doesn't include the latest generation of CPUs! "jalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jFOR6.66609$[email hidden]... > [...] > marketing. I've built many, many computers. My friends also build thereown > computers. I have never seen a CPU fail. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, > just that when a CPU fails, it's a very rare thing. I personally wouldn't >[...]
Gonzo 02 Jun 2001 21:30 UTC↳ reply to Alain#181133
Yep, I have even burned a K6-2 300 one time because I ran it for less than a min without a heat sink. Well, that's all it took and poof it was dead. IMHO, AMD and Intel need to get their die down small enough so that these things will run cooler like back in the 486 days when a heat sink wasn't really required. Luckily, most newer motherboards are smart enough to either warn you and / or turn themselves off before you fry your CPU. "Alain" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2l8S6.20269$[email hidden]... > It's VERY easy to have a CPU fail... I was at the computer store a month > ago, and this newbie tech. guy installed a new CPU HSF in the wrong > direction, so the the HSF pad was not in contact with the CPU die. TheCPU > was an Athlon-C 1.2GHz. Within 30 seconds it started smelling like burnt > metal... the CPU died just as the PC finished booting. It was reallydead,
Quoted text (9 lines)> the dumb tech. couldn't believe it. Obviously your experience doesn't > include the latest generation of CPUs! > > "jalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:jFOR6.66609$[email hidden]... > > [...] > > marketing. I've built many, many computers. My friends also build there > own > > computers. I have never seen a CPU fail. I'm not saying it doesn't
happen, > > just that when a CPU fails, it's a very rare thing. I personallywouldn't > >[...] > >
EldredP 02 Jun 2001 21:53 UTC↳ reply to Alain#181136
In article <2l8S6.20269$[email hidden]>, "Alain" <[email hidden]> writes:
Quoted text (16 lines)>It's VERY easy to have a CPU fail... I was at the computer store a month >ago, and this newbie tech. guy installed a new CPU HSF in the wrong >direction, so the the HSF pad was not in contact with the CPU die. The CPU >was an Athlon-C 1.2GHz. Within 30 seconds it started smelling like burnt >metal... the CPU died just as the PC finished booting. It was really dead, >the dumb tech. couldn't believe it. Obviously your experience doesn't >include the latest generation of CPUs! > >"jalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:jFOR6.66609$[email hidden]... >> [...] >> marketing. I've built many, many computers. My friends also build there >own >> computers. I have never seen a CPU fail. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, >> just that when a CPU fails, it's a very rare thing. I personally wouldn't >>[...]
But that's not a hardware error. That's a *technician* error... No offense, but that's not the same thing. Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +24.63...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Alain 02 Jun 2001 22:59 UTC↳ reply to EldredP#181141
Yes, I agree, but I was replying to a guy who said that a CPU will not easily die from overheating so CPU throttling was not necessary. I'm simply saying that if a CPU is allowed to overheat, it will die... "EldredP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > [...] > But that's not a hardware error. That's a *technician* error... Nooffense, > but that's not the same thing. > > Eldred
Jagg 02 Jun 2001 23:18 UTC↳ reply to Alain#181149
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:59:59 -0400, "Alain" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yes, I agree, but I was replying to a guy who said that a CPU will not >easily die from overheating so CPU throttling was not necessary. I'm simply >saying that if a CPU is allowed to overheat, it will die... My mb will shut down the computer if it gets too hot (user setting) so I don't need, or want, a cpu that throttles back 50% just because it's getting warm.
Alain 02 Jun 2001 23:28 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#181152
Hehehe... you're basically saying that you would rather have your PC instantly shutdown on you and lose all of your work instead of simply having the CPU throttle if your CPU were to overheat... that's funny. Think about it. If, that is *IF* your CPU WERE to overheat for some reason, how would you want your PC to handle it? Come on. "Nos" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:59:59 -0400, "Alain" <[email hidden]> wrote: > My mb will shut down the computer if it gets too hot (user setting) so > I don't need, or want, a cpu that throttles back 50% just because it's > getting warm.
Jagg 03 Jun 2001 04:10 UTC↳ reply to Alain#181176
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 19:28:46 -0400, "Alain" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Hehehe... you're basically saying that you would rather have your PC >instantly shutdown on you and lose all of your work instead of simply having >the CPU throttle if your CPU were to overheat... that's funny. Think about >it. If, that is *IF* your CPU WERE to overheat for some reason, how would >you want your PC to handle it? Come on. OK, you have a point. :-) But, I can change that to just warn me so it is preventable and still have some protection. The problem here though is that the P4 has been shown to throttle back before it reaches a critical point. That may be no big deal to a person using a computer for business apps, but for a gamer that is a really bad thing. That is what this thread is really about, not whether the theory of throttling back is a bad or good thing. I just don't want a cpu that might affect gaming performance.
Alain 03 Jun 2001 14:16 UTC↳ reply to Jagg#181007
I didn't hear about the P4 throttling back in normal circumstances... I heard it was just a safety feature that was included "in case of" the worst circumstances. If what you say is true, and that is the case, then the P4 is not functioning as advertised, and I agree with you. But you say "that the P4 has been shown to throttle back before it reaches a critical point"... can you point me to some reliable info about this? I'm really surprised at this, it's news to me. I mean, I'm not a P4 fan, but I'm still surprised. "Nos" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)> On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 19:28:46 -0400, "Alain" <[email hidden]> wrote: > [...] > OK, you have a point. :-) But, I can change that to just warn me so it > is preventable and still have some protection. The problem here though > is that the P4 has been shown to throttle back before it reaches a > critical point. That may be no big deal to a person using a computer > for business apps, but for a gamer that is a really bad thing. That is > what this thread is really about, not whether the theory of throttling > back is a bad or good thing. I just don't want a cpu that might affect > gaming performance.
Jagg 03 Jun 2001 15:59 UTC↳ reply to Alain#181017
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 10:16:54 -0400, "Alain" <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)>I didn't hear about the P4 throttling back in normal circumstances... I >heard it was just a safety feature that was included "in case of" the worst >circumstances. If what you say is true, and that is the case, then the P4 >is not functioning as advertised, and I agree with you. But you say "that >the P4 has been shown to throttle back before it reaches a critical >point"... can you point me to some reliable info about this? I'm really >surprised at this, it's news to me. I mean, I'm not a P4 fan, but I'm still >surprised.
That is how this thread started. An article was posted at the front of this thread about throttleing problems on the P4. Get the very first header of this thread for the link. I don't have it anymore so can't direct you to the article, sorry.
Neal Shifflett 04 Jun 2001 01:24 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#180925
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:30:21 GMT, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Yep, I have even burned a K6-2 300 one time because I ran it for less than a >min without a heat sink. Well, that's all it took and poof it was dead. I've got that one beat. I was working on my machine without unplugging it. I've been inside the things so many times over the years and at work that I take it for granted. Anyway, I had the HSF off my Athlon 1.33ghz when I bumped the power button with my knee. Before the machine even posted there was SMOKE coming off the processor die. I immediately held the power button in waiting for the 5-second cutoff. Yep...deader than doornail in less than 7 seconds. Them T-birds sure run hot! Neal Neal "Headcrash" Shifflett [email hidden] remove "NOTAT" to replay by email. "I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure what you heard was what I meant!"
Gonzo 04 Jun 2001 01:49 UTC↳ reply to Neal Shifflett#180929
"Neal Shifflett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:30:21 GMT, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Yep, I have even burned a K6-2 300 one time because I ran it for lessthan a
Quoted text (11 lines)> >min without a heat sink. Well, that's all it took and poof it was dead. > > I've got that one beat. I was working on my machine without > unplugging it. I've been inside the things so many times over the > years and at work that I take it for granted. Anyway, I had the HSF > off my Athlon 1.33ghz when I bumped the power button with my knee. > Before the machine even posted there was SMOKE coming off the > processor die. I immediately held the power button in waiting for the > 5-second cutoff. Yep...deader than doornail in less than 7 seconds. > > Them T-birds sure run hot!
Ouch! That's when you get that sick feeling in the pit of your stomach and the words "Oh God No!" fly through your head as you breath the stench of the electical fire LOL. Ive done even dummer things but Im too embareased to post them. Complacency is the breeding ground for accidents waiting to happen. Now that Im poor and can't afford new toys, Im much more carefull though LOL.
Yousuf Khan 04 Jun 2001 02:52 UTC↳ reply to Neal Shifflett#180935
"Neal Shifflett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)> I've got that one beat. I was working on my machine without > unplugging it. I've been inside the things so many times over the > years and at work that I take it for granted. Anyway, I had the HSF > off my Athlon 1.33ghz when I bumped the power button with my knee. > Before the machine even posted there was SMOKE coming off the > processor die. I immediately held the power button in waiting for the > 5-second cutoff. Yep...deader than doornail in less than 7 seconds. > > Them T-birds sure run hot!
I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that these processors are so fragile, or that the power buttons on these things are not simple on/off switches anymore, but rather "software power switches". They oughta have a real mechanical power switch on these things, otherwise start reaching for the power cord on the back as soon as possible. Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan 04 Jun 2001 04:35 UTC↳ reply to Alain#180845
"Alain" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6FrS6.1428$[email hidden]... > I didn't hear about the P4 throttling back in normal circumstances... I > heard it was just a safety feature that was included "in case of" theworst > circumstances. If what you say is true, and that is the case, then the P4 > is not functioning as advertised, and I agree with you. But you say "that > the P4 has been shown to throttle back before it reaches a critical > point"... can you point me to some reliable info about this? I'm really > surprised at this, it's news to me. I mean, I'm not a P4 fan, but I'mstill > surprised. As others have said, this is what started this whole thread in the first place. If it were simply a safety feature protecting against dire emergency situations, then fine, nobody would have an issue with it -- in fact people would be applauding the approach. But it seems to also be a feature to advertise higher clock speeds on the P4 than is actually available to it. Here's the original posting in the thread: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim,rec.autos.simulators Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 6:08 PM Subject: Don't buy that P4 just yet! :)
Quoted text (7 lines)> http://www.inqst.com/articles/athlon4/0516main.htm > > rms > [email hidden] > > >
Gonzo 04 Jun 2001 05:00 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#180851
"Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4KCS6.127480$[email hidden]... > I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that these processors are so fragile,or > that the power buttons on these things are not simple on/off switches > anymore, but rather "software power switches". They oughta have a real > mechanical power switch on these things, otherwise start reaching for the > power cord on the back as soon as possible. Most newer motherboards let you configure it either way in CMOS most of my newer machines will let me set to either 4 sec delay / keyboard ON or to instant OFF. I still think that CPUs should not be so darn fragil though. But at least they are cheaper.
Yousuf Khan 04 Jun 2001 11:56 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#180869
"Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:rBES6.79537$[email hidden]... > "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4KCS6.127480$[email hidden]... > > I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that these processors are sofragile, > or > > that the power buttons on these things are not simple on/off switches > > anymore, but rather "software power switches". They oughta have a real > > mechanical power switch on these things, otherwise start reaching forthe > > power cord on the back as soon as possible. > > Most newer motherboards let you configure it either way in CMOS most of my > newer machines will let me set to either 4 sec delay / keyboard ON or to > instant OFF. I still think that CPUs should not be so darn fragil though. > But at least they are cheaper. Yes, they do allow you to configure between a 4 sec delay and an instant off, but you'll notice one thing: this is still a software-based feature, and therefore it doesn't work in during certain sections of the boot sequence. The instant off feature doesn't take effect until after many events have already taken place, such as the RAM counter test, etc. You'll notice that during this time that the power switch is still assuming 4 seconds until it has had a chance to read its settings in CMOS which tell it that "no, you must power off instantly from this point forward". So really it's a useless feature. You still need a true mechanical on/off switch. Yousuf Khan
Jagg 04 Jun 2001 15:17 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#180886
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:56:17 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote: >So really it's a useless feature. You still need a true mechanical on/off >switch. > > Yousuf Khan > There is one on the better power supplies, but of course that's at the back of the computer and may not be easy to access.
Gonzo 04 Jun 2001 17:41 UTC↳ reply to Yousuf Khan#180808
"Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BHKS6.131071$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (14 lines)> "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:rBES6.79537$[email hidden]... > > "Yousuf Khan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:4KCS6.127480$[email hidden]... > > > I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that these processors are so > fragile, > > or > > > that the power buttons on these things are not simple on/off switches > > > anymore, but rather "software power switches". They oughta have a real > > > mechanical power switch on these things, otherwise start reaching for > the > > > power cord on the back as soon as possible. > > > > Most newer motherboards let you configure it either way in CMOS most of
my > > newer machines will let me set to either 4 sec delay / keyboard ON or to > > instant OFF. I still think that CPUs should not be so darn fragilthough.
Quoted text (9 lines)> > But at least they are cheaper. > > Yes, they do allow you to configure between a 4 sec delay and an instant > off, but you'll notice one thing: this is still a software-based feature, > and therefore it doesn't work in during certain sections of the boot > sequence. The instant off feature doesn't take effect until after many > events have already taken place, such as the RAM counter test, etc. You'll > notice that during this time that the power switch is still assuming 4 > seconds until it has had a chance to read its settings in CMOS which tell
it > that "no, you must power off instantly from this point forward". > > So really it's a useless feature. You still need a true mechanical on/off > switch. Actually, I have a true on/off switch on the back of my power supply :o). Unfortunately, most ATX PSs do not have such a switch and that's a pity.
EldredP 04 Jun 2001 18:27 UTC↳ reply to Neal Shifflett#180821
In article <[email hidden]>, Neal Shifflett <[email hidden]> writes:
Quoted text (13 lines)>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:30:21 GMT, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> >wrote: > >>Yep, I have even burned a K6-2 300 one time because I ran it for less than a >>min without a heat sink. Well, that's all it took and poof it was dead. > >I've got that one beat. I was working on my machine without >unplugging it. I've been inside the things so many times over the >years and at work that I take it for granted. Anyway, I had the HSF >off my Athlon 1.33ghz when I bumped the power button with my knee. >Before the machine even posted there was SMOKE coming off the >processor die. I immediately held the power button in waiting for the >5-second cutoff. Yep...deader than doornail in less than 7 seconds.
Oh, damn - that sucks. But why didn't you unplug the machine? That would have saved you the 5 second shutdown... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +24.63...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.
Neal Shifflett 05 Jun 2001 04:08 UTC↳ reply to Gonzo#180646
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:49:28 GMT, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote: <snip> >Now that Im poor and can't afford new toys, Im much more carefull though >LOL. Roger that! I'm in the same boat as you now. Imagine how it went when I had to go tell my angelic wife I needed to buy another processor to replace the one I bought less than two weeks previous. She just smiled and looked at me like I was retarded. Neal Neal "Headcrash" Shifflett [email hidden] remove "NOTAT" to replay by email. "I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure what you heard was what I meant!"
EldredP 11 Jun 2001 16:30 UTC↳ reply to Neal Shifflett#179395
In article <[email hidden]>, Neal Shifflett <[email hidden]> writes: >"I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure >what you heard was what I meant!" Sounds like something a politician would say... :) Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +20.90...F2 +151.26... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Sponsors

Affiliate Links

Sim Gaming Expo MOZA Racing Sim-Lab Fanatec TrakRacer Asetek Internet Privacy From NordVPN Dreamhost Capital One Credit Card Application Fanatical CDKeys Amazon Amazon UK Project Motor Racing iRacing Get your racing gloves, boots and more from Demon Tweeks. Enlist at Roberts Space Industries, developers of Star Citizen and Squadron 42


Back from the ashes since July, 2019. First created in 2001 with the merger of Legends Central (founded 1999) and simracing.dk.

A site by a sort of sim racer, for sim racers, about racing sims. News and information on both modern and historic sim racing software titles.

All products and licenses property of their respective owners.

Facebook Threads Bluesky Twitter Mastodon Instagram YouTube Tiktok Twitch Reddit Google News Apple News Subscribe via WordPress Flipboard eBay

News

All News
Software News
Hardware News
Developer News
Mod News

Articles

All Articles
Previews/Reviews
Interviews
Lost Titles
Software
Hardware

Database

Developers
Software
Cars/Bikes
Tracks
Downloads
Print Ads
3D Box Scans
Web Archives
On This Day

Guides

Car Setup
How To Run
Race Sim Central © 1999-2026 | Some links pay RSC a commission. Advertising does not equal endorsement.Cookie Policy