Re: OT Processor: AMD Duron

yep, the chip is fantastic (very often the case with AMD) and you will always get a lame ass guy who will talk to you about intel compatibility or something like that.... When will they understand ? INTEL IS SHIT !!!! What are the last BIG problems in computer chip ? hmmmmm ? 1) PENTIUM FPU ERROR IN 1995 2) P3 BUGS 3) i820 CHIPSET In the meantime there has been like 3 progs that wouldn't work with cyrix chips in 96-97 (patches came out in 2-3 weeks)....AMD, never a prob, VERY easy to oc (as easy as celeron 1st generation) and about 40% cheaper than INTEL.... Bottomline, buy a duron or an athlon NanaKofi <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : [email hidden]... > Well, from what I've read so far, this processor seems to kick theINTEL > Celeron's butt..! > Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? > > -Thanks...NK

Well, from what I've read so far, this processor seems to kick the INTEL Celeron's butt..! Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? -Thanks...NK

Better yet, buy the processor with which you feel the most comfortable. You realize it's hard to make a persuasive argument when you say "Intell is SHIT!"? Oh, if you're going to bring up Intels problems with chips in 1995 you might want to bring up the fact that AMD had the hardest damn time shipping a product in the same time period. The company was synonymous with vaporware during those years. "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > yep, the chip is fantastic (very often the case with AMD) and you will > always get a lame ass guy who will talk to you about intel compatibilityor

Quoted text (28 lines)

> something like that.... > > When will they understand ? INTEL IS SHIT !!!! > > What are the last BIG problems in computer chip ? hmmmmm ? > > 1) PENTIUM FPU ERROR IN 1995 > 2) P3 BUGS > 3) i820 CHIPSET > > In the meantime there has been like 3 progs that wouldn't work with cyrix > chips in 96-97 (patches came out in 2-3 weeks)....AMD, never a prob, VERY > easy to oc (as easy as celeron 1st generation) and about 40% cheaper than > INTEL.... > > Bottomline, buy a duron or an athlon > > > NanaKofi <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : > [email hidden]... > > Well, from what I've read so far, this processor seems to kick the > INTEL > > Celeron's butt..! > > Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? > > > > -Thanks...NK > >

What's so stupid is you think Intel won't have a cheap processor to slap this AMD around in a while. Have you not noticed that AMD puts something out, but then a few weeks/months Intel comes around and has something that is better and cheaper...I'm sure reading this will piss some AMD huggin and Linux lovin people (fight the power right? bet you love the fact that Intel and MS are gonna make an Intel specific OS) but just look at what P3 vs. Athlon battle's has been like..not to mention the awesome K6 which is about 3 times slower than a PP equivalent!!! It's nice that compeition is happening but I guess we are also suffering because in a few years both companies will be spent and have no more they can do for a long time and then we'll see who's the king of the heap...but right now it's still Intel. Jon "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > yep, the chip is fantastic (very often the case with AMD) and you will > always get a lame ass guy who will talk to you about intel compatibilityor

Quoted text (28 lines)

> something like that.... > > When will they understand ? INTEL IS SHIT !!!! > > What are the last BIG problems in computer chip ? hmmmmm ? > > 1) PENTIUM FPU ERROR IN 1995 > 2) P3 BUGS > 3) i820 CHIPSET > > In the meantime there has been like 3 progs that wouldn't work with cyrix > chips in 96-97 (patches came out in 2-3 weeks)....AMD, never a prob, VERY > easy to oc (as easy as celeron 1st generation) and about 40% cheaper than > INTEL.... > > Bottomline, buy a duron or an athlon > > > NanaKofi <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : > [email hidden]... > > Well, from what I've read so far, this processor seems to kick the > INTEL > > Celeron's butt..! > > Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? > > > > -Thanks...NK > >

Txl wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> yep, the chip is fantastic (very often the case with AMD) and you will > always get a lame ass guy who will talk to you about intel compatibility or > something like that.... > > When will they understand ? INTEL IS SHIT !!!! > > What are the last BIG problems in computer chip ? hmmmmm ? > > 1) PENTIUM FPU ERROR IN 1995

Which affected mainly astrophysicists and rocket scientists. Made ZERO difference to the average user. > > 2) P3 BUGS Such as? My P3700E is a great overclock at 7x133 with stock hs/fan and default core voltage. Rock solid, and $215 for a (near) 1GHz CPU is a deal. > In the meantime there has been like 3 progs that wouldn't work with cyrix > chips in 96-97 (patches came out in 2-3 weeks)....AMD, never a prob, VERY > easy to oc (as easy as celeron 1st generation) and about 40% cheaper than > INTEL.... Obviously you have only recently been using AMD products ... Plus, you conveniently neglected to mention the huge amount of motherboard and power supply problems when using the new AMD chips. Never seen an Intel CPU have a problem just because of the size and/or brand of P.S., but AMD has managed to add this "feature" to theirs. Gateway didn't recall all their 1GHz Thunderbird-based systems just for fun either!

Don't sit on the fence dammit !

Don't sit on the fence dammit !

<snip>

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Obviously you have only recently been using AMD products ... > > Plus, you conveniently neglected to mention the huge amount of motherboard and > power supply problems when using the new AMD chips. Never seen an Intel CPU > have a problem just because of the size and/or brand of P.S., but AMD has > managed to add this "feature" to theirs. Gateway didn't recall all their 1GHz > Thunderbird-based systems just for fun either!

I notice you conveniently neglected to mention the 900,000 or so i820 motherboards that were recalled, probably for the simple reason that Intel has their hand in Rambus's pants. No mention of those early "cacheless" Celerons either. Very nice brush off on the FPU error as well. I'm not anti-AMD or anti-Intel, nor am I a diehard brand loyalist for either. The best thing that can possibly happen, for all of us IMHO, is for Intel and AMD to remain neck and neck and keep incrementally one-upping each other. It keeps both companies healthy and hungry, and lowers the cost for the end user. Anyone who thinks they'd still only be paying $215 for an Intel 700E if AMD hadn't introduced the Athlon has a bad case of bowel optics. They've both had their dogs and their winners, that's the price paid for daring and innovation. Doug

Doug Schneider wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> <snip> > > Obviously you have only recently been using AMD products ... > > > > Plus, you conveniently neglected to mention the huge amount of motherboard and > > power supply problems when using the new AMD chips. Never seen an Intel CPU > > have a problem just because of the size and/or brand of P.S., but AMD has > > managed to add this "feature" to theirs. Gateway didn't recall all their 1GHz > > Thunderbird-based systems just for fun either! > > I notice you conveniently neglected to mention the 900,000 or so i820 > motherboards that were recalled, probably for the simple reason that > Intel has their hand in Rambus's pants.

I didn't mention that because it has nothing to do with the topic, ie. CPUs. Besides, are we really sure there was a problem with the MTH and timings, or <gasp> could RDRAM be the real culprit - we'll never know for sure ... As for Intel's relationship with RAMBUST, they had some motivation, namely stock options on 10M shares at around $2 or so. However, there was a stipulation to their agreement - for Intel to be able to exercise these options, their shipment of i820 logic sets has to be at least a 20% or greater share of their total chipset shipments. They haven't even come close. And Intel is distancing itself further and further from RAMBUST. Check out their web site where they actually show (in benchmarks) that RAMBUST is not faster. They didn't let VIA off the hook for no good reason ... > No mention of those early "cacheless" Celerons either. There was no problem with those first 'Cellies. Sure, adding cache speeded them up quite nicely, but for some time, the "mongo" overclocker among CPU freaks was the C266. Not having the cache actually made them better overclockers, as at the time, all other CPUs (with cache) had separate cache (running at less than the core's speed) from the CPU. Only when Intel went to on-die cache running at full core speed with the C300A did a better overclocking candidate arise. > Very nice brush off on the FPU error as well. That was no brush-off, it was fact. Unless of course, you use software that would be affected by an error in the 16th decimal place (or further) out. > I'm not anti-AMD or anti-Intel, nor am I a diehard brand loyalist for > either. Neither am I. I'm well invested in to both companies. <g> > They've both had their dogs and their winners, that's the price paid for > daring and innovation. So far, AMD has had only a couple winners, and a lot of dogs. And it took them hiring away the top design guru from Intel to achieve their recent success(es). Unfortunately for AMD, Atiq has moved on to a little company named Transmeta. But the biggest problem AMD has is still the miserable problems with the mobo support and P.S.'s. And these are not going away, they're still a headache with the T-Bird.