best processor?

[bhome83]

Ive heard that the best processor out there right now is the Tbird 1.4ghz. I know this is all a matter of opinion but wouldn't a pentium 4 2.0ghz or higher be even better? Does thunderbird make better processors? i really want to build a computer but not sure what would be better to get a tbird or a pentium? thanks for the help.

[Floppyman]

Hi,

Before I turn this into an AMD vs. Intel debate, I'm going to ask a question: What will you mainly be using the computer for? Perhaps based on that information it would be wise to go with one processor over the other. Remember though, with today's high speed chips, mhz (or ghz for that matter:)) isn't everything. HTH

[Nelreem]

:D this will probably make some intel fans mad, but... the new Athlon XP 1900+ (1.6 GHz) is faster than the Pentium 4 2.0 GHz in almost every benchmark i have seen. AMD makes the T-Bird line of processors, and the highest is 1.4. I have a 1.33 that is fast enough for me, but it is OCed to 1.425. Either will be fast enough. It also depends on what you plan to do with your computer... gaming or office work(word, excel, internet)

[Nelreem]

floppyman, your too quick for me. i dont want another war thread too. btw, the benchmarks i saw were at tomshardware.com

[bhome83]

i want to get a really good computer so i would need a really good processor. i use the computer for basically everything. games, internet, movies etc. I can't really play games right now on my crappy computer because it only has 8mb video card on a 400mghz machine. just wondering what would be the best processor for this? right now im not thinking about money. i figure ill save a ton of money anyway by building it myself. is there a big difference between a tbird and intel? are there any other processors that compete with these two? what would u recommend? any more help would be appreciated. thanks.

[Nelreem]

i built a pretty good system for under 600 bucks. I have a 1.33 AMD Athlon t-bird @1.425, 64MB value video card, SBlive 5.1 sound card(but i have had problems), 30GB HD. If you have a large budget, it is really up to preference. A pentium 4 2.0 and the athlon XP 1900 are basically the same in speed, although the intel chip is more stable, and usually less problems. if your not going to overclock, get the pentium(im gonna regret saying this). It is a good chip with less bugs. when i first built my system, it crashed alot. now, it works fine

[Cricket]

Hi bhome83,

Here are my thoughts on this matter: Both the Intel P4 and AMD Athlon XP are "good" processors. The important thing when building a new computer is making sure you pick the right components to go along with the CPU...you want to avoid incompatibilities that can result in an unstable system before you start your build.

Which ever CPU you decide on, make sure you match it to a high quality, name brand motherboard that has a proven track record.

The same goes for all the other components...get good quality RAM, a good case with an approved high quality power supply, a good video card, sound card, hard drive, etc...

Careful planning before you buy your parts and put them together will go a long way toward whether you end up with an "okay" system that you don't mind using, or a "great" system that you love to use.

A good computer is the sum of it's parts. Consider the whole picture when you plan your build.

:) Cricket

[Colonel Sanders]

First thing I should noteif you haven't noticed already is that T-bird isn't a brand name, it's a model by AMD("AMD Athlon Thunderbird"). It, like a lot of other AMD CPUs is a socket A design. There is also a Duron and Athlon XP line of processors. in my opinion, the Athlon XP 1800 would be the best buy since it is cheap, the motherboard for it is cheap, and it preforms great. At equal speeds, an XP will outpreform a T-bird.

However if your an Intell fan, than the P4 in my opinion isn't such a hot deal right now. AMD is preforming as good if not better with less MHz and lower prices. The tricky thing about buying a P4 is the TWO versions avaliable, the old(socket 423) and new (socket 478?). I believe the 2GHz is the last for the old socket. The new is supposed to preform a lot better, be the actual finalized design.

It is hard to say that that 2GHz P4 is actually better than the XP1600 because of the large differences between the CPU, so don't go by MHz alone.

What is the 400MHz and what are your plans for it? I might be interested in buying it form you(mobo and CPU only, maybe HDD). Are you planning to get a pre-built or make your own? I highly recomend the build your own option.

Logan

[altivec]

if you'd ask me, i'll go for amd. no questions asked. it's pros out-weights it's cons, it's affordable, just as reliable as the pentiums but amd's are faster.

[bhome83]

i want to make my own but don't have any experience building computers. right now im not planning on selling my computer. deciding on the components to put into my computer would probably be the hardest thing. i want the computer to not crash. 400mghz was top of the line a few years ago when i bought it. hate technology. everything gets outdated in a year or so now. got one more question. should i decide on the cpu first? or should i decide on a motherboard first? thanks for the help.

[Electron]

As bhome83 is going to use this for gaming (amongst other things) and without turning this into the AMD vs. Intel war, what experiences do people have with games.

I built myself and my son an AMD K6-2 450MHZ machine each back when that was a high end chip and had no end of problems with freezing and lock-ups with games.
But since upgrading mine to a PIII 600mhz it is rock solid and plays any game i throw at it. While his still has the same problems. Even with games that only need low specs. He will often get a game, load it on his and after a few minutes it will lock up. After a while i find that he has uninstalled it and loaded it on mine, which then plays fine for hours.

Are games more stable on the Tbird or XP, i am considering building a new machine for myself and giving this one to my son. Vowing never to go back to AMD i have been waiting for the new chipset boards for the Pentium IV, but i am tempted to go with the XP.

Any views appreciated.

[Nelreem]

if you get a socket A mobo, you will *probably* be getting an AMD t-bird/xp. just be sure that its not for a k6-II or something. intel, however changes formats all too frequently.

[dead_eye]

I think the XP is a minor core update, an evolutionary step so there shouldn't be any stability dicrepencies. The older AMD chips were unstable. XP 1600+ and t-bird 1.4 are the best deals right now in terms of mhz per dollar as far as amd proc go. I haven't kept up with intel proc.

[Cricket]

Hi again,

Before you jump into building your own PC, please take the time to read the "Build Your Own PC" section found on this website. You'll want to prepare yourself before you start: http://www.pcmech.com/byopc/index.htm

As for which you should choose first...CPU or motherboard...you'll have to decide on the CPU first and then match it to a really good motherboard. Everything else will work with either set up (hard drive, video card, sound card, CD-ROM, CD-RW, floppy).

:) Cricket

[Demosthenes]

The XP is a minor core update, but not from the Thunderbird core. It is from the Palomino, the Athlon MP. This thread sparked another question from me. The concept of "stability" has been thrown about since the start. Are the processors the real issue in stability or is it the other hardware? Old AMD processors were a value line processor, not performance, so it makes sense that components made for them were of value line also. I have always figured a processor is a processor. You put the same numbers into two processors with the same command and you will get the same number out (except with the old Intel floating point rounding error. Yeah, you wanna talk about rock solid performance, then?) :rolleyes: So, is it really the processors themselves that are "unstable"? I really do not know. What are peoples views on this?

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[bhome83]

does this seem like a good deal for a computer with these specs. i found it on ebay but to me it seems too good to be true, or else there is something missing that im not catching.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1294460489

[Nelreem]

pretty good, but it is an MX200 video card. the only thing i found strange was that you had to install the ram in pairs. that didnt make sense to me, i have never heard of that.

[whr2206]

hmmm another debate...or war about to go down... I say screw the benchmarks, and go wiht what you have tried and like.... amd cores arent as good in my opinion.....they are cheaper....and the xp's are just as good as p4's.... I dont really care ha the benchmarks say....I for a new builder I'd suggest Itel. the reason why is, you have much more room for error. if you install the h/f..and it jsut pops off while running your computer, than you are screwed kiss you tbird good bye...on the other hand, if that happens to your intel, you cna jsut shut it down, and MOST of the tiem, no harm done to teh board or cpu... plus...with an intel chipset on top of an intel cpu, is the most stable thing people have told me in this forum. Not sure about how the xp handles heat though, so i cant say. IN my opinion...you can save a few bucks, buy an amd...the same speed, or slightly better (but you can notice anyways...1 ghz and up is fast anyways) and run the risk of error, you being a newbie...or you cna spend a couple mroe bucks, buy an intel, and be a little more on the safe side...

[Nelreem]

also, not a name-brand board, doesnt mention chipset. find that out before you buy.

[Colonel Sanders]

I think the stabilitty is not too big an issue.

Electron, my experiences have ben the opposite of your post, not because I was on an ancinet PC with a P2 333. However, I think what harmed it the most were the files on the HDD. I recently "killed" Win98 on my PC(see "mouse problems") over nothing, and I'm running a 1.2GHz T-bird which had crashed once before in 3 months, and I believe that was low memory related. So now I'm stuck in Win2K and I'm considering re-formating my HDDto get rid of Win98.

Anyways, back to CPU choice. I would have to agree with whoever said about the CPU being reliabe or the system. I haven't seen many cases of "my AMD CPU killed my PC" or "my Intell CPU saved my PC"(which so many seem to believe). Why is AMD lower priced? Because they want to take over Intell by convincing pre-builders to stray away from Intell but the public keeps screaming for Intell. I actually met someone who had no clue what an AMD was, and he is, among other things, the CAD teacher at the school(good thing he isn't the "PC tech" teacher). BTW, he owns a ~Compaq~ *shiver*.

So, in an attempt to end this war I now believe PC problems are related to that little myster box, your HDD.

The PC on eBay looks like a good deal, that video card aint the best but it is pretty good.

Logan

[Cricket]

Hi bhome83,

Although it looks like a really good deal...remember: "You get what you pay for".
That system will probably be built with a no-name case with a no-name power supply (read: cheap). The motherboard will not be top quality. And it looks like a number of other components are no-name items too. Plus, it comes without the operating system installed.

You should steer clear of this type of deal if you want a PC that won't give you too much trouble.

:) Cricket

[bhome83]

ok thanks for the help. i figured that when a price is too good to be true there is always a catch. thanks. i think i just look into building my own.

[HAL9000]

They are both good processors, but come on, which is fast? Take a drag race, one car goes the quarter in 10 seconds at 130Mph, the next one rockets out of the hole to a top speed of 120Mph, but since it gets to it's top speed almost instantly, finishes in 8 seconds. Technically the first one is "faster", but the second one gets to the finish line first. Face it, at 1.5Ghz+, they are all frickin' fast.

[old dog]

Just a few thoughts. If you are not dependent on the system you are planning to build, ie must have for business or school, Build your own. The knowledge you will gain is invaluable. If you are not heavy into Gaming, processor speed is not an issue, save a little on the cpu and spend it on the video card. Dont wast your money on items that will be "good enough", you will regret it. you dont have to use the latest and greatest to get great results just use quality parts. One last thing, You can't do it just once. The desire to build another one is overwhelming. The people on this board are good, really good, and they dont mind helping you. Even an old dog like me has learned from them.

[Shikwa]

Benchmarks are all very nice and illustrative (however synthetic they may be) but from my point of view they usually measure performance discrepancies beyond human detection. Personally I can’t tell the difference between 200 frames per second (FPS) and 100 FPS let alone 180 FPS. If you can’t feel the difference what good is it.. other than for bragging rights? Well.. there is one important reason I can think of- "future resistance"... One rule I go by when buying PC hardware is to buy as much (speed, space etc.) as my budget will allow within reasonable price ranges. Buying an 800mhz processor today might be more than adequate to run all one’s current applications, games etc .. but within the near future it will definitely begin slowing things down- unless you’re not into upgrading your software/peripherals (I’m sure there are still some satisfied 486 users out there with 14.4Kbps modems running Windows 3.11 ;)). Going for a processor that is faster than you will ever need in the near future is not a bad idea but buying top-of-the-line for premium bucks will only improve your social status- for a short while :D. A couple of years ago a 50mhz speed difference between the fastest processors and those right behind them would have cost some 25-35% extra, if not more .. yet by today’s standards they’re both just plain slow.
OK.. speed is important but so is stability. I’m not recommending one processor brand or the other here... all I’m doing here is echoing what others have mentioned above: go for a tried motherboard/chipset/processor setup... there’s a lot of end-user beta testing going on out there.. I just like to stay out of it. Isn’t it strange that the so-called "latest" technology is not only the most expensive but often also the least reliable?!
While choosing a fast reliable processor is essential other system components are just as important, as others have pointed out too. Since the hard disk is by far the slowest component in a PC a fast reliable one is just as important as a fast stable processor. Where gaming is concerned a decent graphics card and good monitor always make a hell of a difference. I’m puzzled buy the fact that some people will opt to pay $200+ for a graphics card upgrade yet are satisfied with their 5 year old 15” monitor? .. blame it on the benchmarks???

[lpc300]

Hi bhome83,

Just a couple of thoughts. Interesting, with a thread title like 'best processor', this really didn't turn into a 'AMD vs. Intel' war. Keeping with that, and though I am an AMD fan, I would agree that for what you seem to planning on using your system for, either processor would be plenty fast. Both, also, are high quality and would do you well. Important things to remember are to match your components to your processor. Also, for some performance tweaks that will, certainly, make a difference beyond the processor, get enough RAM, and get a high quality video card. At the processor speeds you're talking about, good memory and vid card choices will make more of a difference than chosing between an AMD XP or a P4

[Xayd]

Originally posted by Demosthenes
This thread sparked another question from me. The concept of "stability" has been thrown about since the start. Are the processors the real issue in stability or is it the other hardware?

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

No, folks just don't like Via chipsets. AMD doesn't put much effort into the mobo chipsets, only the processors. Yeah, they've released a few, but they're just chipsets to "tide people over" until Via replaces it.

When I built my current machine a year and a half or so ago, AMD was the clear choice because the Intel alternative was a lot more expensive. I could get a Duron 650 that'd OC to 1000 for about 60 bucks, and the equivalent Celeron/BX combo would've cost me well over $300 instead of just under $200, and speeds in excess of a gigahertz with Intel were questionable at the time. I haven't gone DDR yet so can't comment much on those mobos/chipsets, but the KT133A board I have has been great (Abit KT7A). My uptime on this machine with Win2k is generally about 10 days at a time, and that's gaming every day, irc client open 24/7, overclocked past 140mhz bus, etc.

[glc]

I don't see a bit of difference between "stability" of an AMD vs. Intel processor. The issue is the motherboard chipset. For pure stability you still can't beat Intel processors on an Intel chipset. Put an Intel processor on a Via (or any other 3rd party) chipset and you have the same stability (or lack thereof) as an AMD processor on a Via chipset. Speed is another issue, and as Hal says, anything over 1.5 gigs is just gravy anyway. Too bad Intel doesn't make AMD-compatible chipsets, but that would be cutting their own throats.

[PardeGT]

The issue is the motherboard chipset. For pure stability you still can't beat Intel processors on an Intel chipset. Put an Intel processor on a Via (or any other 3rd party) chipset and you have the same stability (or lack thereof) as an AMD processor on a Via chipset....Too bad Intel doesn't make AMD-compatible chipsets, but that would be cutting their own throats.

Glc

Interesting point and I agree. A good example would be to look at the nForce chipset - in the early stages it looks to do for AMD cpus/sytems what intel chipsets does for intel cpus/systems.

If you go with a P4 wait till boards come out supporting ddr. As the ones now use rambus which is way to expensive and is not going to last in the market or sdram which doesn't benefit the capabilities of the P4.

I do recommend you build it as it will be a great learning experience and you will follow many (including myself) who have come to this forum and started from where you are now. Do a lot of looking around on this site and read many of the other posts that are similar and you will gain a lot of info to base your conclusion on. Stay within your means. You can build the top of the line and spend mucho $ and in a year kick yourself because there is something out that is now twice as fast. Or you can do a build that is just a step below - has proven components and is very fast. You will save yourself some money and you won't really notice a difference in speed. The money you saved can be used to upgrade later or whatever.

Don't be afraid to ask questions! :)

[Cricket]

I'm going to chime in here (and maybe ruffle a few feathers) but my feeling is that the stability (or instability) of any given system can be partly attributed to the human element.

When a system is being assembled, there are all kinds of variables involved. How knowledgeable the builder is, how much actual hands-on experience he has, how much effort he actually puts into the build, how careful he is at every step can make a big difference in how the system ends up. Yes, the quality of all the parts is very important...but even the best parts when assembled hap-hazardly by an uncaring builder can result in a fussy or unstable system.

Also, a good system in the hands of inexperienced or uncaring user can become a mess in short amount of time. Once a system leaves the builder, it's up to the owner to learn how to keep his system running smooth. If he chooses not to, the system will become unstable very quickly because of bad computing practices or habits.

Yes, there are issues when using certain parts in combination with other suspect parts, but many times there is a fix available (or being worked on) and it's up to the owner of the system to stay on top of it. If he doesn't, it's not the fault of the builder or the parts.

I'm sure the members here all work hard at keeping their systems in tip-top shape, and many times I'll see comments made of how their systems never crash (either AMD or Intel). When you read a thread where a person is asking for help with a problem, I've noticed it's mostly people who are just starting out and are attemping to build their first system. Sure they are upset or frustrated and are venting about how much trouble their system (AMD or Intel)is giving them, but that doesn't mean the parts are at fault. It's mostly a lack of knowledge and experience (which they will gain by working hard at solving the problem) that is causing them to have a difficult time. Once the problem is solved and the system is up and running, they will have gained some valuable knowledge and experience that they can use on their next build.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is don't always blame the parts (unless you're using cheap, no-name generic stuff).

:) Cricket

[Electron]

Some interesting points.

Put an Intel processor on a Via (or any other 3rd party) chipset and you have the same stability (or lack thereof) as an AMD processor on a Via chipset.
GLC

The PIII 600mhz i upgraded to and have no stability problems with is on an Abit Via chipset board.

Are the processors the real issue in stability or is it the other hardware?
Respectfully,
Demosthenes

Apart from case, motherboard and CPU i used everything out of the old box, including HDD, FDD, Graphics card, modem etc.

So for me the stability came from the Intel chip.

[Terrorbyte]

The answer is simple and can not be disputed, AMD XP 1500 - 1800.
there are no others worth a mention.
P4's really suck.

[HAL9000]

That's all a matter of personal opinion now isn't it. You can give me your reasons as to why AMD is so much better, but can only spew out that P4 sucks. To me, AMD sucks. Well, I wouldn't actually go that far, I just prefer Intel for my own reasons. We can all do the same and have a back and forth flame war, but that would be somewhat pointless as they are both a quality product from a failure, or lack of failure point of view. They are both really frickin' fast, they both have their strong points and their weak points, be realistic, if AMD was strong points only, there would be no Intel and if you really think you would get a cheap AMD processor without Intel around, it must be a nice fantasy world to live in :D

[wrelax]

i agree with terrorbyte
As for HAL dissin AMD
To me, AMD sucks.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Toaster]

Yet another CPU flamefest!

Well, You folks know where I stand: Intel or RISC

Benchmarks are essentially worthless as they can be "edged" to a particular CPU.
Worse yet, benchmarks are not "real" in that they have little bearing on "real" applications.
So which is best?
If you buy an Intel, get a system board with the Intel chipset, period.
If you buy an AMD variant, cross your fingers and hope for the best.

AMD loves the "approved this and that" game. Remember this when you consider building an AMD.
Now, read the forums and count the number of posts dealing with AMD class systems.
Many with installation probs and stability issues.
As far as the P4, ignore the 423 pin CPU and go for the later version.
RAMBUS may be dying but with the P4 it shows a 25% speed increase over SDRAM and a 20% increase over DDR. DDR based system utilized the VIA chipset and have problems with stability.

As system speeds exceed 1ghz, stability becomes an issue. If you buy the cheapest they got you will have no end in goofy problems.


It is my personal hypothosis that VIA has far too many problems to be considered under any circumstance. The AMD chipsets have thier problems as well.
The biggest problem that I see is that the CPUs (AMD) are being built in faster and faster types and no one is taking the time to build a decent chipset/system board. They add options but they won't refine existing chipsets.
On top of this, add the "4 in 1" driver suite offered by VIA. VIA chose to update/patch the drivers rather then the chipset.
An Intel chipset and an AMD CPU? Never I'd think but even I might consider something akin this.
With a poor chipset, the fastest CPU regardless of make can only provide the fastest BSODs.

So...if the P4 were only available with a VIA chipset, I would NOT recommend it.
However, the P4 has both VIA and Intel chipsets. My opinion is simple, if Intel, use the Intel chipset. If not an Intel CPU, avoid via if possible.
Its not that i'm biased toward Intel but rather disgusted with VIA.
Its not that i'm biased toward Intel but rather disgusted with AMD for playing the "approved this and that" to sway folks from thinking thier CPUs are "unfinnished" and "unrefined".
AMD "could" be a decent CPU were they to refine it and its associated chipsets.
AMD nor Intel can stay the course of the battle lines they both have drawn in the sand. However, Intel is in a FAR better posistion to "cast the last stone" due to thier emmense monitary reserves.
Don't give me the "underdog" line where AMD is taking on "chipzilla". This is a bullsheet line if I ever heard one. Remember the evil empire of Micky$oft whoom you all swore allegience to.

[DrZaius]

I don't have much to add to this weeks Intel vs. AMD fest, just to reiterate my previous points which Xayd, Toaster, and glc have also made: It's not the processor that determines stability, it's the motherboard and chipset. Give me any processor on a VIA board and it will crash.

[lpc300]

Hi all,

Here's an interesting thought:

Since M$, mostly, stands alone in the software market, they don't have to push themselves to new heights. But with the competition between Intel and AMD, BOTH companies have been pushing newer and more superior products. We've gone from just cracking 1 ghz to 2 ghz in under a year. Might that have happened if we only had Intel? I don't know, but I think the competition has helped both companies...and all of us.

Although I am an 'AMD fan' I wouldn't throw a P4 out the window. I think both processor have their strong points, and neither 'suck'.

Anyway, as Hal has said many times, once you're over 1.5 ghz, that's plenty fast.

[HAL9000]

You can almost guarantee that if either AMD or Intel stood alone without any competition, you wouldn't own half the system that you do today. Marketing would govern pricing and the release of a new processor.

[glc]

You know, we had a really good, intelligent discussion going on here till someone said that "*** Sucks". ENOUGH!

If that's all you have to say about it, we don't want to hear it, you know where the door is. Take that childish type of comment somewhere else, we are above that here. You are more than welcome to state exactly WHY you think that something is deficient, but a flippant comment such as that without justification is worthless.

[Nelreem]

the only problem with the P4 is that it puts out instructions slightly slower then the P3. if someone would do a benchmark showing a p3 oced to 1.4(if you can) and a p4 1.4, you would see that they would be equal due to pipeline effects made in the p4. pentium 4 is a good processor, i just think that it is too expensive to be worth it.

[Nelreem]

btw, those are the reasons i dont like the p4, despite it sucks...

[lpc300]

You know, we had a really good, intelligent discussion going on here till someone said that "*** Sucks". ENOUGH!

RIGHT ON, glc. If you can't discuss things intelligently, don't discuss them at all.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Stability. Stability. Stability. Everybody assumes stability is primarily a hardware issue.This processor or that chipset are more stable than that processor or chipset. I have 11 computers, 4 at home and 7 at my office. Six are intel and five are AMD. Nine of my computers are rock solid. Two of my computers (one intel and the other AMD) have lockup problems and by anybody's standards would be considered unstable. The AMD uses a much maligned VIA chipset and the Intel uses the vaunted BX chipset. The reason the two computers are unstable has nothing to do with hardware. Software is the culprit. Both of the "unstable" computers run the same combination of software packages--time/billing and accounting--on the same OS (Win98). Both packages work wonderfully well if left alone. Until I find something better, both are necessary to the functioning of my business. Never underestimate the power of a lazy or time pressed software engineer to screw up somebody else's application.

My point is that sometimes we worry too much about hardware and not enough about the software we are running. As to games being unstable, remember that a lot of games are maximized for performance on a very narrow range of hardware choices not because the designers are bad people, but because they don't have the kind of time or financing needed to test every possible hardware/software combination. Intel/AMD is sort of like Chevy/Ford. There is an endless debate between Chevy fans and Ford followers. The truth is both make fine cars that, if used properly, will get people from here to there.

CH

[Bobo23]

My friend built an AMD computer (AMD 1.3 ghz TBird) and it had a good heatsinkfan and everything. The instant he turned it on the cpu started overheating. His Chip and Motherboard were both fried. He wasn't even overclocking. Now he has a 1.7ghz P4 and has had no trouble with it.

I guess my point is that, even though I have never built one, I have enough information to show that AMD processors are not worth the money. Sure they are cheaper, but you run a huge risk of overheating. Its something about their architecture or something. Also, I have been using Intel processor's all my life and have never had a processor problem (though I did have a dud HDD once).

Now I'm building a P4 1.5ghz w/ Intel D850GB mobo. Its the most stable thing you can buy and the chip cost me $145 and the mobo cost me $152. Its not that much more than the AMD. Also, the heatsinkfan that came with it plugs into the motherboard. The motherboard has a build in heat detection system/thermometer which scales the fan use to keep temperature down. It only uses 70% when temp is between 31 and 46 degrees, above that it uses full. It also comes with a CD program that monitors the temperature and alerts you if it gets above 46 degrees. It is very useful and I don't think my processor will EVER overheat. BTW I think the program also shuts down the computer if it gets over like 55 degrees. (I am not sure about this since my processor has never gotten that hot!!)




Ben

Trying your best means nothing!!!!

[HAL9000]

Nelreem, GLC already posted a comment about "it sucks" so lets leave it to die. I personally use Intel, but don't take your comment as an insult, but others might and the comment "you suck" will soon follow resulting in closure of the thread and action towards those involved if necessary.

As for not being worth it, biases aside, look at an AMD XP 1900 and a P4 1900Mhz. Although the XP actually runs at 1.6Ghz, it performs reasonably to the tune of a P4 1.9Ghz,or slightly better. Now remember that I said all bias aside as there are benchmarks out there biased toward Intel as well that show a 1.7 performing better than the 1900+, so we will go with the AMD claim of 1900+ (I believe this to be reasonably fair.

XP 1900+ = $265

P4 1900 = $275

$10 is a huge difference for processors that perform equally? Don't go into AMD beats at this and that because it's just a flame war that comes back with Intel beats AMD at these and those. But really, $10????? If somebody walked into a computer store and looked at identically equipped AMD and P4 systems and saw that the Intel was $1299, but the AMD was $1289, it becomes a no contest for him/her?

[Nelreem]

i said that the pentium 4 is a good processor, it just comes out with instructions slower than comparable processor. that is why a 1.6 ghz athlon can perform as well as a 1.9 pentium

[wrelax]

AMD= King of overclocking

You know you act like if i get a 1900+ amd i'll keep it at that? lolzz.... i mean i don't even have to o'c and it'll still be better than a shanty P4 2ghz. However, you overclock that to i'd say 1.8 ghz (from 1.6) atleast, and now ur talking SUPER FAST. Killz p4 anyday and if u object then ur wrong.

Sorry for how i came out but i got sick of reading all these intel biased statements u people wrote also thinking like stock speeds is what amd people use. I'll tell it how it is, like it or not.

AMD RULES

[Nelreem]

uh oh, sounds like an AMD vs. Intel war. well, pcmech has a whole bunch of good articles on cpus, and so does toms hardware

[HAL9000]

And Intel can't overclock? 1.5Ghz goes to 2Ghz without even trying. Suffice to say, at 1.5Ghz+, they're all frickin' fast.

[Nelreem]

click here (http://www.pcmech.com/cat/intel/135) to see about the calculations i told you about

[wrelax]

great thats 400+ mhz of worthless intelness.

Anywho, i agree anything above 1.5 ghz is friggin fast. So i will end it here about amd vs intel. Choose what u want, i choose amd u choose intel, we're both damn fast.

CYA

[Bobo23]

Wow, nobody seems to be responding to what I said.

I agree with HAL about the fact that once you pass the 1 GHz mark the actual speed is irrelevant. You compare a AMD XP 1900+ with a 1.9 GHz P4 and you may get some difference in the benchmarks. But try actually using the two CPU's. You will clearly see that if you hadn't installed the processor yourself, you wouldn't know which was in there. The difference is not even close to noticable.

I therefore submit that past the 1 GHz mark speed is irrelevant and we must turn to other values to determine the better processor. Some of these values are:

Price
Stability (crashing, slowdowns, etc.)
Physicality (overheating is the main issue for this one)

If anyone has any more of these values to add please tell me.

Price:
As HAL9000 pointed out, there is only a $10 difference between the two processors I mentioned above...too insignificant an amount to argue on. Price is a less significant value since most people are willing to pay more if it gets them a better product.

Stability:
I submit that an Intel processor will be more stable than a comparable AMD. The fact is that Intel processor's don't crash as much. Its been tested just like the speed benchmarks. From my personal experience with Intel processors, I have had 0 problems with the processors (my problems were with WINDOWS!!!!! I will start a post about how bad all windows OS's are later)

Physicality:
Everyone knows from personal experience and from reviews that AMD processors run at a higher temperature. Even with a good heatsink and fan my friends homebuilt AMD Tbird computer fried its processor and motherboard due to overheating. I have never heard anyone tell me that their Pentium overheated, and if one did, I'm sure it was because they didn't have a good heatsinkfan or none at all.

Those are the values and Intel stands tall in all of them. For those of you who want to bash me and say the Intel can't overclock...go ahead, thats only useful for the below 1 GHz range. As I said above and countless people before me have said, above 1 GHz processor clock speed becomes irrelevant and arbitrary.

Thoughts, comments, anger, please give me these.

HOBOMAN

[Nelreem]

and for the record: Hal(the computer, not hal9000), in 2001 a space oddesey, probably used a cyrix, cuz he probably used a via chipset, cuz he went crazy

[Nelreem]

whoa, that last post ended up strange
i meant to say that he went crazy because he used a Via chipset, just like my computer

[wrelax]

BOBO, ur a good guy and all, ur point is good.

however, i wouldn't say anything above 1ghz is all the same. i'd say around 1.4 and above. Anyways i get ur point.

[Bobo23]

wrelax

maybe 1 ghz is a little low. i bought a 1.5 ghz p4 and its going to be unnoticably slower than a 2 ghz.

I seem to be reiterating the point everyone has been trying to make. Everyone look at my above most and see some of the other factors that affect processor quality since speed is no longer the main issue.

[HAL9000]

I use 1.5Ghz as a reference only because I have recently had now an Intel 1.6Ghz and an AMD XP 1600+ on my bench at the same time and have challenged customers to tell me which processor is which without checking the system properties. So far, out of 15 people, 5 have chosen correctly and statistically, this is low as it should come out at about 50/50. If it comes out that they can correctly identify them more than 50% of the time consitently, then there is something to be said for one being significantly stronger.

If the HAL9000 were a Cyrix, even with the chill of outer space, he would have overheated long before going crazy :D

[Toaster]

So some folks think AMD are king of overclocking? Those are fight'n words! :D
Take a peek into a few years back and you'll find Intel put overclocking on the map, anyone who disputes that is ill informed.
Lets see and AMD best its rated (marked) speed by 100%, Intel can.
Intel CPUs are rated in this fashion:
The CPU speed in mhz is the suggested starting point only used for refrence.


Unused instructions on the Intel P4?
Gimme a break, there are literally tens even hundreds of unused instructions dependant on the program/app used. All those things you say are so bad for Intel but AMD does the same thing and then copies the X86 instruction set?
Remember, the following are Intel intellectual property and users of the copyrights pay a royalty:
1. The X86 (also called CISC) instruction set.
2. The PCI bus
3 The AGP bus
4 The ATX formfactor
5. The connectors/wiring used in the ATX power supply. (system board 20 pin connector)
6. The ISA bus. (actually an IBM unlicensable bus. AKA: freeware)

C'mon AMD, make something with your own with your own 2 hands and call it yours.
Arn't ya big enough to play with the big boys yet?
Oh...and the SMP compliant AMD....still vapor ware?
If they "go it alone" in the SMP field, throw away your software. If they stick to standards, thank Intel with appropriate royalties.
Monkey see, Monkey do. See Monkey do AMD.

There are a number of P4 instructions that are not used with "micky$oft" for the simple reason its too costly for Micky$oft to implememnt them. Why should they implement them, your going to buy it anyhow....right?

Intel is marketing the 64bit CPU....guess what....now AMD wants to play too.
So....AMD is going to RUSH out thier next generation CPU. You folks will buy it even if its problematic.
Simple math....misplaced loyalties.



Computer hobbiest:
Stability is EVERYTHING. It must be 100% or I do something else.
If you have random lock-ups with "everything", maybe you need a new ..... :D

Many of us here in the forums have no such problems.
My lowly quad P-Pro system had its 2nd birthday without a restart or lock-up. Thats 2 years. Granted, it never saw a Micky$oft product in its life.
That should clarify a few things. BTW, this quad P-Pro system is running at 266mhz/ea. up from 200mhz. Stability? Sure, if not, its not worth the trouble or my time.
Still, my eyes have swayed from Intel to the 64bit world. Now, its Alphas and MIPS oh my! Then again, these system run flawlessly and you AMD folks wouldn't want that...would ya?

[HAL9000]

OK, now you guys have done it, you woke Toaster up TWICE in the same thread! :eek: :D

[whr2206]

man I used to be able to understand this thread:) whew this is above me...Ill just sit back and enjoy this..and try to make sense of this...how do you guys figure this stuff out??:eek: :)

[bhome83]

ok im the one that started this post and never thought it go this long. if i want a processor that i won't be using for overclocking(whatever that is?) i think i might just go with intel. they seem the most stable and i have one now and haven't had any problems. i don't want the problem of overheating. id rather buy an intel than buy an amd processor where i run a slightly bigger risk of overheating. what is the best intel processor for the money? thanks for the many replys. helps alot.

[whr2206]

whenever you have a post subject like that, theres going to be alot of debates, and posts....i gain form it though...I learn alot of peoples opinions...

[Bobo23]

You say the P4 can be overclocked?

Hmm, well maybe you need a 3rd party motherboard because my motherboard doesn't do it.

Eh, the downside of the Intel P4 / D850GB Board combo is that it only has 2 different sets of jumpers, the BIOS setting and the USB port setting. What other things can a Normal board set?

PS. It also has a jumper to turn of the onboard NIC, but none to turn of the sound!!!!!!
I want a SB Live 5.1 but i can't turn of my onboard sound!!!!!!!!!!

[Nelreem]

i agree with toaster. it would be nice if AMD came out with something new. it copied intel in the days of old (socket 7) by naming the chips the same as intel chips. now, intel has the copyrights, and amd came out with new name it came out with the DDR fsb(for 266), and intel made the QDR fsb(400). the memory-to-cpu is 133 and 100 despite marketing claims. those fsb speeds are to the north bridge i believe. enhancing speed, but not as much as some would like to think. the major enhancement for the memory to cpu is DDR SDRAM and RDRAM. intel came out with the pci slot, which is the most widely used slot that i know of. new slots are not always easily accepted e.g. AMR and CNR. it would be nice if AMD came out with something new, but, if it failed, AMD would have a huge money loss, would have not been able to keep up with processor speeds, and therefore losing much market share. this would make it like the socket 7 days, when intel had no competition, and they upgraded processors in 33 Mhz almost all the time. the amd vs intel threads are good, meaning that competition is strong and keeps the pc market goin.

[Bobo23]

Bhome,

the best p4 for the money is definitely the 1.5 Ghz, 423 pin or 478. I got my 1.5 ghz 423pin for $145, less than $10 per .1 Ghz!!

You made the right choice my man! Intel is far more stabile and i've never heard of an intel overheating.

[bhome83]

i found on ebay a pentium 4 1.5ghz for $110. is this a good deal if anyone knows?
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1295423037

[Bobo23]

Bhome,

Megaman001 sells all the P4 processors at very low prices. However they are all OEM meaning they don't come with heatsinkfan and they don't have a warranty except the 30 day DOA warranty Megaman001 himself provides. This is fine if you don't mind having to buy a brand new processor if you get a defective one. You see, as trustworthy and as stable as P4 is, there are glitches in the production process and its good to have warranty. I bought a retail version and its great. If you don't mind not having a warranty and buying your own heatsinkfan then by all means go for it!

[HAL9000]

1.5 to 1.8Ghz seems to be the best value for a P4 at the moment. You definitely want Socket 478 as Socket 423 is out. You most likely cannot overclock on an Intel brand motherboard. With the ASUS motherboards, they crank up quite nicely while remaining in a very reasonable temperature range.

ALL OEM Intel processors have a 30 day warranty, DOA or flakey, but situations such as that are extremely rare for AMD or Intel.

[wrelax]

alright whats up with this slight chance of overheating crapo. You run that risk with every cpu intel or amd. Only people who make stupid arse mistakes and don't even know how to put on a heatsink burn up their cpus. Its not that hard folks, once u slap on the damn thing w/ a descent heatsink and thermal paste, it will run fine. Only risk is the fan failing but that can happen on an intel comp too.

[Bobo23]

Yeah that can happen on an intel comp, but luckily intel comps can live without the fan for a while. Also, P4 intel's come with a cd which gives you software that detects CPU temp and alerts you if it gets to high. does Athlon have that?

Also, a small or bad heatsink, or a weak fan can lead to an easy overheating on an Athlon, but just about any heatsink fan will do with an Intel P4.

I have a P2 MMX 350 and a P2 MMX 266 and neither one has a fan, just really big heatsinks. Intel is clearly cooler running.

[wrelax]

oh yeah just outa curiosity, can u bump up the fsb and multiplier on the p4?

[Bobo23]

Why would I need to do that? Everyone on this thread agrees that beyond 1.5 Ghz the clock speed is irrelevant since they are all frigin fast!

Overclocking makes such a small change and at the same time increases your risk of overheating.

[wrelax]

alright once again, if u have a descent heatsink/fan/thermal paste u will run fine w/out any overheating. Yes amd runs hotter but thats the price u pay for more performance ;) Besides they are workin on the heat problem, the new xp's run much cooler. As i've seen it w/ a couple of friends of mine running 10c cooler at higher speeds than older t-birds.

[wrelax]

i don't need ur intel biased answer, i want to know can u raise fsb and multiplier on p4? (i seriously don't know)

oh yeah and the xp can live through the fan failing as well from what i heard. Also, you there is software for the comp to shutdown if cpu temp raises as well. MBM5 and Shutdownnow...

[Bobo23]

hmmm, the price i pay for better performance.

Don't make me repeat myself again, ok.
The speed above 1.5 Ghz is so fast that its not noticable. Its like one car going 100 mph and the other going 110 mph. One car is going faster but they both are going way over the speed limit.

[Bobo23]

on my board I can't raise the FSB and multiplier, unless you guys know something I don't.

If you do please tell me

[HAL9000]

You can only raise the FSB on an Intel, the multiplier is locked. As for overheating, you can literally pull the heat sink from an Intel CPU and the thermal protection will shut it down and not fry the CPU. AMD has finally introduced a thermal diode, but it is far from being perfected. They can tolerate a fan failure and a temperature increase of less than 1'C per second. While this may seem fast, depending on the cooling, it may/may not be fast enough. With adequate cooling and NOT overclocked, it may be able to shut the system down fast enough, but overclocked, the potential risk increases.

[wrelax]

alright hal thanks for the info

[Terrorbyte]

OK, STOP. I didnt say that Intel P4's suck, I said was that intel P4 really suck, I still own a P3-1gh as a backup and to use when the XP is doing something else much more technical and advanced.
The P3-1gh seems to be where Intel had a good product, but then they lost the plot with the P4 in a vain attempt to catch up with the AMD which is cheaper and faster.
I guess it seems that when those who own an intel chip get very touchy when they are told that something else which costs a lot less goes a lot faster than the product that they spent all their bickies on.
For the converted to AMD chip family, g'day friends, the rest can please themself, remember I OWN BOTH !! so I am not biased, I can see the difference.
I dont have shares in AMD, I still own two other P3 systems and while they work fine they are very SLOW in comparison, and yes I know that the AMD is a bigger chip to start with so a genuine comparison is very difficult, (I am not going to bother with all those benchmark points).
I go by what I see in front of me, and both systems are on the same desk side by side, the AMD is visibly twice ++ as fast, so there!

for the record;
AMD XP 1600
Aopen VIA KT266, AK77 pro
512mb DDR 2100 ram
40Gb IBM UATA 100
Geforce 64mb MX400
Voodoo 3 3DFX
12/8/32 ACer writer
52x Aopen CD
LS 120mb INT IDE drive
HP 6100C Scanner
BJC 3000 printer
Sony 19" FS mon.
onboard sound on M/b, so sue me.
and a sound system that pops out the windows...

and the backup is

Intel P3-1gh
ASUS CUSL2-C
256mb pc 133 sdram
20gb Quantam UATA100
share printer and scanners
Matrox 32mb G450 dual head
Voodoo 2 12mb
Pioneer 32x slot CD
LS120 EXT parr.
Acer v771 and Mitsubishi 772i
Creative PCI 128 sound



etc bla bla

[wrelax]

HA!

:P

[HAL9000]

They are not a lot less, as I pointed out earlier, a 1600+ is $265 and a 1.6 is $275, I don't exactly call that a lot.

As for your 1600+ being visibly faster than your 1Ghz, I should hope so, but since my PIII 800 is visibly faster than my neighbours k6-2 500, has Intel become superior again? Compare some apples to apples here. As I mentioned at before, at work I have 2 virtually identical machines, An Intel 1.6 and an XP 1600+, both with Radeon 32Mb DDR cards, 7200RPM drives and so far only 5 out of 15 people can tell me which is which, statistically it should be 7-8 getting the answer correct by guessing, higher if one can actually notice a performance difference and label each correctly.

My Ferarri is faster than your Chevette.... what's your point?

[Terrorbyte]

Is it really worth the worry ?
who really cares anyway, I have a P2-300 in the cupboard here that screams along, it was a freak, unfortunately it is now obselete, mush like Intel ?? LOL LOL

[HAL9000]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[wrelax]

HAL, your loss is my gain. As for that 10 buck difference u keep referring to. THat is like one case where the chip is close in price. I'm pretty damn sure the 1600+ is hella betta then the 1600 p4 neways. You want to compare a single case? Fine, a duron 1ghz is 59 bucks, a p3 1 ghz is 153 bucks. Thats close to 100 bucks. Or how about at 1.2 ghz? t-bird is 82 bucks, intel?? p3 is 260 bucks. YOU do the math. Man you just got played ;P

[HAL9000]

Yea... whatever :rolleyes: A Viper is $80K, a Metro is under 10K, so long as we're comparing similar produts, both cars right? If you're ever in my area in Canada, I invite you to tell me which is which, and when built similarly, come out to a very similar price.

[DrZaius]

Ok, this is turning ugly (as usual)... :o

[Nelreem]

look, since no one can seem to tell, why pay more? look, the P4 2.0 is comparable to the XP 1900+, however, the p4 2.0 costs 386 dollars, but, the xp costs about 261 dollars. i got these prices from pricewatch, so they are as low as you can go (just about ;) ). also on price watch: DDR-SDRAM PC2100 256MB $22; RDRAM 256 MB $81
so, if there is just a $10 price difference from 1.9 and 1900+, you lose $60 on RAM. thats $70 you could spend on something else.

btw, the itanium costs $3012. lets see any normal person use that in a computer.

[wrelax]

well obviously ur just referring to Mhz here as you keep comparing how that 1600MHz is close in price. so what ur saying, the 1.2 ghz t-bird is the metro and the 1.2 p3 is the viper? man i just don't get you. I think terror has it right.

I guess it seems that when those who own an intel chip get very touchy when they are told that something else which costs a lot less goes a lot faster than the product that they spent all their bickies on.

[HAL9000]

But the 1900+ is comparable to a 1.9, not a 2.0, even AMD says this. As I said, I currently have the 1600+ running along side a 1.6 and people can't tell the difference, so the AMD claim is justified. If we happen to get an Intel 1.7 or above, I'll continue my experiment and see how people answer, it could prove interesting. I have yet to really believe any of the hardware sites to be unbiased as there are so many that conflict. I even have a bookmark at work showing the P4 1.7 beating out the 1900+. Each has their strong and weak points. Face it, if either were truely 100% superiour, the other wouldn't exist and if the other didn't exist, do you really think you would get a 1.6Ghz processor for less than $300.... good luck.

Well, I grow tired of this. As I have stated many times, AMD or Intel, at 1.5Ghz+, they are both frickin' fast. Take your pick, choose for your own reasons and not somebody elses. Come to the MECH to give and receive advice, not to put down someone elses pride and joy.

Later.

[lpc300]

Seems like there are some that are still not getting Hal's point that anything over 1.5 ghz is fast regardless of the processor. I too have worked on both AMD and Intel systems this fast and can't tell the difference.

I've identified myself as an "AMD fan', but if Intel 'sucks' so much how come it's been around so long without any serious competition. If a product 'sucks', it ceases to be an industry leader, as a competitor will run it out of business.

On the other hand, a reason that AMD doesn't come up with a 'new industry standard' is that it would make no sense to. An entire industry would be resistant such a drastic change. It would be like Linux trying to convince the world to dump M$. Doesn't matter whether it's better or not, getting everyone to change, install and, relearn would not be possible.

Lastly, we were all 'newbies' once. Someone who struggles with a heatsink/fan, especially the first time or two, is not a 'stupid arse'. I challenge ANYONE to say they've NEVER made a mistake. I've been coming here for a couple of months now, and one of the things I most like, is that 'newbies' or anyone with a 'simple' question is not flamed. Not only does it keep people asking and learning, but it turns 'newbies' into 'Computing Graduate Students'. :D

[Nelreem]

hal, you forgot that your 10 dollar price difference is correct, but the ram difference is about 60 dollars. therefore, you are 70 dollars richer if you use all the same parts and a mobo that cost the same amount.

[Guzano]

It seems that Intel chips overheat and die less because most computers with these chips are store buys. HP and the big C. In the other hand, most computers with AMD chips overheat and die a little more often because idiots like me think we can build a computer and kill it. The user, not the chip. Hell, give me water and I will burn it also. When I buy I look at the best price and how the modo and the cpu will work together and what kind of goodies I will get in the modo. At 1.5g I just dont see the difference between them both, really.

[glc]

Folks - it's getting a bit rough in here again, let's cut the passion down a bit, please.

Speaking of overclocking - have any of you tried filling in the bridges on an XP and pushing it yet? Just curious, because I read that they are using a laser to really burn the bridges off now.

The discussion on ram prices will soon be in the past when Intel gets the DDR boards out. I do agree that a P-4 with SDRAM is doggy.

Let's see - this particular box has been through 4 processors, 2 AMD (486DX4-100 and K6/2-500 underclocked to 417) and 2 Intel (P90 and P200MMX).......the next upgrade will be Intel simply because I *have* the CPU (P3-550) ready to go, waiting on a BX motherboard. The K6 running at 417 does what I need - I dunno why I'm upgrading except I have this nice P3-550 sitting here looking for a home and I want to replace NT with Win2K so I don't have to boot to 98 to play what few games I do play.

[archie]

Bhome83 has made up his mind and will get an Intel chip because that is what he wants and feels confortable with. There are those who prefer Intel and others who prefer AMD. Both are making good choices ... hopefully the choice/competition between the two players will always exist.

However, as someone who still uses PCs with older processors from both manufacturers, I do object to some previous statements in this thread that claim earlier AMD CPUs were not reliable and that AMD only recently started making things right. Both Intel and AMD have had good products for several years ... this going back to the P1/P2/K6-2 and even to the 486 days and before.
From my experiences, reliability problems are caused by other factors than the CPU.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Toaster

I agree about stability, but a new "what?" Machine? Operating System? Software application? I'd like to know how to spend my money.

I know that sometimes people face real hardware stability issues. I believe that most of the time,however, you need to look elsewhere. I also believe that AMD would have long since been out of business if such problems weren't isolated or relatively few. The internet tends to amplify every problem while it diminishs general success.

By the way if I was building a new machine, it would probably be a P-4, but I think I'm going to wait until the memory thing is resolved.

Well, got to go to teach Sunday school. Talk about opinionated people. Those fundimentalist Episcopalians believe they are fully compatible with God.:D :D

CH

[HAL9000]

Originally posted by Guzano
It seems that Intel chips overheat and die less because most computers with these chips are store buys. HP and the big C. In the other hand, most computers with AMD chips overheat and die a little more often because idiots like me think we can build a computer and kill it. The user, not the chip. Hell, give me water and I will burn it also. When I buy I look at the best price and how the modo and the cpu will work together and what kind of goodies I will get in the modo. At 1.5g I just dont see the difference between them both, really.

Overheating has nothing to do with store bought or home built machines. I know it's drastic, but watch this video (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010917/heatvideo-05.html#download_the_first_toms_hardware_test_lab_video) to see what I mean. I know many of you may say how is the heat sink ever going to fall off, while rare, yes, I have seen it happen. Keep in mind too that for the AMD thermal protection to hold up, 1) the motherboard must support the thermal protection, and 2) the increase in temperature must be at a rate less than 1'C per second to catch it in time. While 1'C per second may seem sufficient, really, it's not as even with a failed fan, temperature increases can go well beyond 3 or 4'C per second, especially if overclocked.

[wrelax]

yeah that video was made on the same block as an intel factory. talk about intel biased. and who the heck takes off their heatsink in the middle of game to see what happens?? it just seems very ridiculous this whole "overheating" problem. If you can't freaking put on a heatsink then u should reconsider building an amd comp or watch someone do it first.

[HAL9000]

Look, I build on a daily basis and have on rare occasions seen heat sinks fall off during shipping and due to a clip failure (either the socket itself, or even once the bottom of the metal clip broken off from a crack that was not caught at the factory). I wouldn't try it with an AMD chip, but I have tried it with an Intel chip and they do shut down and survive. This is a well known fact that an AMD chip will last about 6 seconds without a heatsink and goes to stand that it would not be in a good situation during a fan failure especially if overclocked.

I've always found Toms's Hardware to be a reasonably fair site as well as I'm sure others will agree as the AMD users sure seem to point Intel users there for the benchmarks now, don't they.

[wrelax]

alright HAL, i'm done on this subject. No hard feelings man, just a stupid amd vs intel argument. We should both just stop here its getting a little crazy now. PCMECH aint a place for arguing w/ other members, i believe. So i'll stop my amd crap.

Anywho, whoever posted this subject, get yourself whatever you want.

k laters

[Demosthenes]

First off, cooling fans "suck." People do not "suck."
Second off, cooling fans "blow." People do not "blow." (under most circumstances).
Third off, I am curious, does anyone hold such devout loyalty to toothpastes? I for one enjoy the minty, cool refreshing, plaque killing power of Crest. I think Colgate tastes like dirt and Mentadent smells too much. Anyone want to attack that?

I think AMD has created technology, just as Intel has. They pioneered the 1GHz limit and made DDR. These are just the two obvious ones. As for creating new standards, I would want to see anyone change PCI and AGP. I, for one, wish they would abandon both and create something new, but that would require really going out on a limb. AMD, however, has clung to Intel tech, just as Intel has clung to their own tech. If Intel really wanted to do something about it, they would create something new and give it a name they can copyright (kinda like "Pentium"). So, someone asked if AMD could ever create something with their own hands and not just clone Intel technology. Your answer is the much awaited i845 DDR chipset.

As for 1.5GHz being faster than what anyone could possibly need. I no longer believe this. I stopped believing that statement years ago when I thought my 486DX would pass the test of time. Everyone believed this. Give it time, new software will divide the gap surely enough. If you follow the Microsoft curve (the MS Law states that Morse law of increasing transistor density and ultimately CPU speed is negated by newer slower versions of Windows) then WinXP is being produced at just the right time to negate our 1GHz leap. Notice how Windows versions are being produced faster now to compete with faster chips. :)

I think AMD has much to learn from Intel. While some are small issues that only some people quibble about, others are noteworthy. Thermal management could be brought to and surpass Intel par, and hopefully, this is what AMD is doing. AMD also needs a good chipset desperately. All those 4-in-1 things and bad chipsets and 'a' revisions just confuse me. I want to see what the nForce will do. I think Intel has much to learn from AMD. When a competitor can create a CPU that is comparable to yours and its release price is the same as your current market price, then there is something to worry about. Just as VIA and AMD have tweaked their products, it seems Intel has finally created a Pentium4 that is worth buying. When I built a new home machine, it was between and Athlon and a PentiumIII. P4's never entered the picture because of fantastic prices in both CPU and RAM which were unjustifiable for the speeds they ran at. So, both have finally created a product worth shouting over. It is about time.

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[HAL9000]

YEA!!! CREST TOOTHPASTE!, ALL OTHERS SUCK!

LOL :D

wrelax, yea, I think it's gone past long enough :D Tis always fun though :D

[Toaster]

Hmmmph!

As most folks are quite aware, AMD class CPUs are NOT thermally protected.
This means that the CPU will go into "thermal run-away". This is where the CPU uses more current as heat rises. This continues until the silicon cannot dissapate the generated heat faster then its generated. AMD CPUs suffer very quickly from this fatal fate. Intel CPUs ARE thermally protected and will shut down when temps exceed about 188 degrees. (this varies to some degree by CPU type)
The reason "why" someone would remove a heatsink/fan assy while in operation is to serve a point only to demonstrate the above. Most folks have had the following happen on one or more systems:
1. The CPU fan either failed or was stalled by cables or other obstruction.
2. Ventilation of the system was severely obstructed resulting in a sharp rise of internal temps.
3. The heatsink/fan actually came away from the CPU or shifted and its contact area drasticly reduced.
4. The power supply fan failed resulting in overall overheating.

On RISC based systems utilizing the MIPs, Alpha and even the PA-RISC based CPUs have a system board/BIOS utility that senses the CPU fan rotation. If this rotational figure falls below a set minimum, the BIOS/systemboard initiates a system shutdown via a common call to software. Micky$oft decided that this call to software was inconsistant with "their" needs and as such was not included.
Virtually all recent variants of UNIX (Linux, UNIX, IRIX, SunOS and many others abide by the standard to protect your investment. Micky$oft on the otherhand relies on third party software vendors to provide this protection.
Micky$oft will always side with the "buck", plain and simple because they know there are millions of "mouse pushers" who will eat up their offerings regardless of promises.

I personally must have a system that is 100% stable for certain tasks.
These tasks are:
1. Data retrieval (for those that suddenly realized "why" one should back-up)
2. Data recovery (same as above for damaged file systems)
3. Data alignment/computation/management.
(I have a 40 node Bewulf class cluster that I do "computational" work for hire)
4. Computational verification.
(applies to 3 above to verify findings and add a checksum)

Stability is EVERYTHING! Stability first, speed second.


On the Intel system board:
Intel system boards are designed to be ultra-reliable. With this, they omitted the capabilities of FSB/Multiplier selection in many cases.
While Intel is fully aware that thier CPUs are often overclocked, they themselves do not offer the option to the masses.
Overclocking an Intel specific board is possible but only suggested for those willing to take certain risks.
It is (currently) not possible to null the multiplier lock on the P4 but when I decide to spring for one, that may change. :D
The differences between the PIII and P4 are massive. However, an operating system privy to these enhancements is necessary to utilize these benifits.
Once again, as usual, Micky$oft failed the computing masses and those with enhanced equipment must turn to alternate O/Ss. People are begining to turn away from Mick$oft in bigger and bigger numbers. This is what keeps Billy Gates awake at night and rightfully so. Micky$oft stocks are on the downward trend as they have to fight the DOJ and other entities. Thier newest O/Ss are not selling to thier expectations and many insurance companies (Lords of London and others) impose a "surcharge" for systems utilizing Micky$oft O/Ss for "hacker" insurance. Alas the world is finally awakened. Too late will Micky$oft awaken to see the path ahead and its future.



I have sucessfully unlocked the Celeron2 (the cel-mine) and the PIII-E.
Many folks are unaware that Intel based CPUs are "programmable" in that during manufacture, Intel "programs" thier chip(s) to a particular speed/capability.
Some of the Intel CPUs were altered physically to limit thier ability to achive faster speeds. Intel didn't want a repeat of the original Celeron to take on the then top of the line PII. The Celeron 300a overclocked to 450/504 would eat any PII for lunch with ease and take on the PIII (512k variant) in its own back yard and give it a run for its money. Often, this overclocked Celeron would achive 90% of the capabilities of the PIII-450. At 504mhz, the Celeron overtook the PIII-450 by a narrow margin. But, folks soon found the PIII-450 to be overclockable as well and speeds exceeding 600mhz were virtually guaranteed.
The Celeron (original variant) was then replaced as it maxed out at 533mhz which would only overclock to 600mhz for most folks at best.
Along comes the "cel-mine" and copper-mine PIII and again overclockers the world over rejoiced. However, Intel "knew" this would happen and with this in mind, they crippled the Cel-mine with a higher cache latency as well as a smaller cache. (there are other changes as well)
A PIII (second gen) running at 850mhz and a CeleronII running overclocked to 850mhz (the Cel-mine 566) still had a comfortable edge. Intel limited the cache sub-system and other instruction on the Cel-mine to keep the lines of the PIII and the Cel-mine clear. Intel briefly entered the "speed race" and produced a problematic PIII at 1.133ghz. For some these were problematic, for some not.
However, Intel recalled the CPU at great cost. Has AMD ever admitted to a boo-boo? (think before you reply)
Intel realized the P6 architecture was becoming obsolete and did a total revamp.
Hundreds of new instructions were added and the die was an all new variant. Intel called this beast the P4. First releases were the 1.3ghz and were quickly replaced with faster cores. The pinout was changed for performance reasons and to accept upcoming/future processors.
While RDRAM was a minimal speed improvement of SDRAM on PIII class systems, under the P4 the difference was more dramatic. However, the then much higher cost of RDRAM swayed folks to alternate CPU/system boards.
So..Intel revised thier chipset(s) to accept SDRAM and DDR memories.
This had a negative performance impact but thats what folks wanted to see.
The vaunted 850i chipset utilizing "multi-bank" RDRAM has memory performance of almost a full 50% faster then that of the "legendary" BX chipset.
The performance of the BX chipset has yet to be overshadowed by VIA or AMD, or for that matter anyone save Intel.
DDR memories are nothing more then a "patch". At best, DDR memories offer only about 10-15% improvements over SDRAM at 100mhz/133mhz FSB respectfully.
Memory moves are the bottleneck of the mellenium. Processor speeds climb while memory speeds remain near static. Multi-bank RDRAM relieved this to some degree and were this allowed to fully evolve, memory addressing speeds of 100% beyond current was a target easily seen. Alas, folks pounded Intel to produce a variant that would accept SD/DDR memories. Thats what you folks wanted and thus Intel provided.
Bottom line being that what you want may not be "what you really want".
You wanted cheap goodies and most manufacturers obliged, all for the sake of performance. So now you want the baddest, meanest, absolute fastest computer on the face of our little planet. This, "THIS" is the time for you to put your mind before your wallet. What you want is there and available "TODAY". All you need to do is go buy it and make use of it. But you scream "cheaper". You want to save 100-200 bucks over what you seem to think is a small dividend in performance. Its not as small as you think. While each subsystem in itself offers but 10-20% increases, combined they offer 40-60%. All totalled, all combined, the difference is more then noticable. Reliability stays near 99.99% and performance that is "top shelf". You do however have to "really" want such an animal because the little mind that resides in your wallet will try to sway you otherwise. Bottom line? You get what you pay for and only you can be held accountable. It "WAS" YOUR Decision.


Sorry for the babbling.....

[archie]

Oh that's quite alright my friend ... except maybe the part about Micky$oft [how come that always finds its way in a thread] :D
Both you and Hal have made some good points about the heat thingy ... something to consider when getting a CPU as the fan is likely to stop functioning at one point or another ... I've seen that enough times. :eek:

[Computer Hobbyist]

Toaster,

your babbling is better and brighter than many college disertations. Way to go on your last post.:p

I'm still not afraid to buy AMD, but I'm equally unafraid to buy Intel.

The weekend is nearly over and its time to put an end to this latest AMD/Intel fight. Archie's right, the guy who asked the initial question should buy what he wants with the knowledge that "youse gets whats youuse pays for."

You think the AMD v. Intel fight is passionate, right up there with Chevy v. Ford, as the pilots amoung us are well aware, this fight doesn't even come close to multi-engine v. single engine. Now there is a hotly contested debate with lives on the line.

BTW, I like CREST.

CH

[Toaster]

Howdy again,
Thank-you kind hobbiest Sir.
Archie, you of all people KNOW my "passionate" dislike/distrust of the world you folks call "Micky$oft". A company so deathly afraid of competition deserves all they contract. Proven over and over in the courts of our fair land, Micky$oft all but said: "quilty as charged..so what". Still, people flock to some Micky$oft products. This however is changing and has those that work at Micky$oft "more" then nervous. To be charged a "surcharge" by world renouned insurance companies should serve as a warning. Between 1990 through 1996, Micky$oft made a usable product with minimal interference regarding competing applicaions. Yet, Micky$oft attempted and were charged with "Monopolizing" thier O/S rendering competing apps unstable and problematic. What would have happend if Micky$oft were to stay the course and let thier products stand on thier own 2 feet instead of "forcing" IE and other apps? The thought horrified them to think they would "actually" have to comete and build something someone would "want to use" instead of "use this or else because we know whats best for you".
THAT...THAT is what annoys me with Micky$oft. The American dream to compete with a superior product has been redefined by Micky$oft. Thier motto would be something akin: "What else ya gunna use...Linux?" YES!!!! Chow babies!
Time and time again, I get random Emails from both Micky$oft and Intel. Micky$oft promises to be "difficult" should I cross the line and Intel randomly applauds my sayings and at times questions where I get "sensitive" material. Still, I bought any particular CPU and in NO case did I violate any "intellectual" property agreement listed on thier packaging.
(some folks might recall my past difficulties dealing with Intel CPUs)
In the latter part of the year 1999, I toured an Intel production facility.
This facility was then and i'm sure is now, "state of the art". Then, I was inquiring for a posistion available at the plant. Several areas were "off limits" and I was under guard the whole time I was in the facility.
My goings and discussions were monitored and some taped I surmize.
After about 90mins, my tour was at an end. I was VERY impressed about the final assembly areas and the "tech" areas. For some reason, they let me talk to a few of these techs. A few months later, one of these techs approached me and asked about my "gifted insight" into Microprocessor design and implementation. After several such encounters, he then decided that the information I was recieving was whats available in Intel "white papers". These "white papers" give great detail in "whats there" and suggestions as to whats "there but not catagorized".
I soon had a new friend. He has since moved to other departments and even another production facility. I trust he reads my posts as when I suggest a possible way to do "something", he invariably Emails me/calls me.
He offered no "sensitive" material of any sort. He simply suggests that I keep plugging in the area I suspect to hold promise.
Intels production "details" are unknown to me but I can surmize the following from what I've learned:

1. A "target" processor is produced.
(This "target" seems to be aimed at 1ghz)
2. Final assembly commences and each "part" (the CPU) is rigorously tested under somewhat adverse conditions.
3. The tested "parts" are seperated into groups relating to speed, silicon errors and the like.
4. These newly catagorized parts are now sent to final test and "programming".
5. Here at the programming station, the multiplier/FSB options are "carved in stone" so to speak and locked at predetirmined values.
6. Should the new CPU be a CeleronII, the CPU is "crippled" via additional programming or the addition/deletion of certain external parts. (assume FC-PGA)
7. Final assembly, final/functional/burn-in tests are done here. Those that fail would be sent to R&D for analysis to detirmine root cause.
8. Packaging and sent to the shipping areas. Parts appear on your store shelves.


I guess what I'm really trying to say is thus:
There are things "left unknown" about a great many things my thier representitive builder/designer. Often, things are added/deleted during a production run as a sort of internal R&D. I wouldn't mind "playing" with an AMD based CPU (I only messed with the original Athlon) but my methods can wreck havoc to some chipsets/CPUs.
In the Intel world, I can get away with this to some extent. Twice when I attempted the same thing on an athlon, the chipset intervened and nulled my attempt. What I did find with VIA is "patched" silicon. More so, they patch the drivers to get around errors in the silicon design(s).
Other items suggest "intellectual" properties OTHER then VIA. I know for fact that VIA and Intel have done battle in our courts of law.
So give a "copy cat" the time of day...no.
Give credit to companies that use other designs/phylosophies and call it thier own....no.
To give credit to a company that simply plays the "me too" game?...no.
AMD has been riding the coat tails of Intel since day one. They even went so far as calling thier own chip(s) a "486" simply because a number is difficult to patent. Give credit to AMD...no, but AMD SHOULD give credit to Intel for all thier insight and R&D.
Imagine the 2 companies working "together". Imagine what would be on your desktop today. Imagine a "universal" operating system that you "want" to use instead of it being force fed to you.
Its simple, its called competition. Its okay for AMD and Intel huh? Not okay for Micky$oft though?
Off you go to "root" for the underdog. Touting thier flag in your camp conveying they are best. Remember "where" the underdog came from.
In closing, I too am thankful for AMD to some extent. They did foster competition. Some during this fight fell by the wayside.
Fall Micky$oft, I await to see thee in recievership "begging" for help to stay afloat. I will be there with "Tux" in hand (Linus Travolds mascott). I will be the one smiling as you struggle for your life. Compete with that!
Toodle-oo!

[Nelreem]

i think that if AMD and intel combined, we would have the ultimate processor. intel chipsets are proven stable, and an AMD 1.6 can equal and sometimes beat a pentium 4 1.9. well, if that happens, someone buy the devil a snow jacket

[Bobo23]

Wow,
a lot has happened since i last read this thread. I agree that if AMD and Intel worked together we could be a lot farther. However, isn't that true for any product. I think that in order to end the Microsoft problem the government should take over, make a standard operating system that every American can have just for being and American (and paying taxes). People at Microsoft would still have they're jobs, every american could have a fair operating system that didn't limit them, and best of all, Bill Gates would lose all his money.

Don't get me wrong, i'm a Mickey$oft Shareholder!

It is my belief that there is a lot of advancement out there people aren't telling us about. I'm fairly certain there are 3 and 4 Ghz processors out there that aren't being retailed. I'm fairly certain that the government is controlling these. The government has a lot of technology we don't know about. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, because I don't think its a conspiracy, I just think they have technology they aren't telling us about.

Think about communism for a minute. Though it can't possibly be made to work, its ideals are basically the ideals we strive for in a democracy. The government that controls everything will inevitably gain to much power and enslave all the people it is meant to serve, right. But we believe in the government having a significant role in our lives. They provide defense, retirement money, education, etc. as well as things to support people (medicare, welfare, etc.).

Think of some other things the government could control...We could have the government control all healthcare (like in Norway), the government could control the distribution of food (there is enough food in the world to feed all people but millions go hungry because we lock it up in supermarkets, if the government owned all the food then everyone who payed taxes wouldn't have to worry about food again)...Banks (I don't really know the details of how this would work but I've heard it tossed around)...and Computer Hardware and Software...

What if the government strictly regulated Microsoft, basically taking over the management of it. The government would pay each employee's salary and every american would have an operating system. They want to end the monopoly, well instead they could enlist it. With microsoft working under the government they could make it compatible with all internet browsers.

What about Chipmaking...wouldn't it be great if the government made all chips? Yes, because the forces of intel and AMD would be working together, and there would be no need for the competitiveness since they are working toward a common goal.

BY THE WAY...I happen to think Internet Explorer is a great Browser (the best) and I don't see why the government is making a big deal. Netscape is far inferior and less user friendly. IE6 is the best one yet and is also much faster than netscape!!!!

All these would raise taxes! But it would be good to get all that out of our system.

---Don't lynch me, I'm a democrat but a moderate one, I just think it would be good if the goverment had control over these things. I AM NOT A COMMUNIST, i just like the ideals it puts forth.

[lpc300]

Wow! This place sure gets interesting. The thread starts off with a simple question about chosing a processor, and eventually a debate about economic and political philosophies ensues. Seems like one really does need a 'Computing Doctorate' to post here.:p

Anyway, my 2 cents worth. I do not think that if Intel and AMD combined we would get a better product. On the contrary. Healthy competition breeds innovation. This is why processors have been becoming better so quickly. If the two companies worked together, it would be like having one company: there would be no need to push to put out a better product because there is but ONE product. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, money is what motivates. AMD puts out a better product, minimally to push ahead with technology, but mostly so it would make more money than Intel. Intel does the same. This is how capitalism works and why it works well. This is also the basic problem with the M$ OS. If there was an AMD out there in the OS world, M$ would have reason to make a better product. Right now, there is no reason. Whether it's good or it sucks, everyone buys it, because it's the only game it town, mostly. If people at M$ had any real business sense they would realize that fostering healthy competition would push their people to put out a better product, raising public opinion of the company and boosting sales more than they are. Think about it. Many won't buy WinXP because many will see it as just another Windows OS. If there was another popular OS out there, competing, M$ would get many more wanting to buy XP to 'try something different'. That's what many tell me when they buy an AMD or an Intel.

The one problem I see with multiple popular OS's is having an industry standard, so compatibility between systems doesn't suffer. One doesn't have to learn to use an AMD processor if they've used Intel all their lives. One would have to learn another OS.

As far as communism goes, I agree that, in principle, it is a fair an equitable philosophy. Unfortunately, with human psychology as it is, telling everyone to take their fair share and that's it, wouldn't work. If just one person wants (and takes) a little more and is, therefore, a little richer, the system starts to crumble. Not a political or economic issue...a psychological one.

[Hpro]

I'm not going to fuel it up but I can remember back in 1973 I had applied for a computer course in programming and actually also started to learn there (never finished it because of wasn't ready for it at the time I guess )- just the basics of computer languages -.. I started again 20 years later - this time I was and I'm ready for it..

That time back there were PC-DOS , then IBM-DOS - and ATARI (Now Apple wich started out in garage somewhere in the USA) also unix and a few others already around on the globe - In germany there was Nixdorf using it's own OS - BTW still in use today but there was this big huge compatibility problem - no one was able to use a program made for the other kind of OS - or programming language - this was when Bill Gates & Steve Balmer jumped in borrowed here a bit and there a bit and made a OS which would cut down this incompatible OS Stand to a minimum.. He should be awarded for this...Bill Gates was the guy who brougth this onto a standard level where you was able to cross plattforms and computer languages - and that's why he made a fortune out of it...

But this doesn't mean that everything what is going out of microsoft is JUST - no it isn't or that I agree with all what comes from Microsoft - or Unix or Linux.. .

Toaster you made the point there and I agree..

I also agree with GLC and there is actually where the bottom line comes -

It isn't important what kind of CPU - Motherboard (with a few exceptions only for MOBO) you buy - as long as it does what you need and want it to do..and that you are happy with it..!!!

I have to disagree with LPC that the CPU's are getting better - if you look at the failure rate then it has gotten worse .. Do not take speed alone to justify that it is better...
Thanks for reading..

[Toaster]

I am in agreement with HPro on the "better CPU" topic.
Faster, yes. Better, no.
True that compitition helps evolves a product and that is my point.
The idea of our government (The USA i'm assuming) providing citizens with an O/S is absurd on the onset. Imagine the things our governmemt would do with such an awesome power such as the "windows" O/S.
Having to have our governmemt get involved is the LAST thing we need them to do.
Too much involvement as it is with too little headway. Meet you all in Boston harbor for a party?
As far as "unsoliceted" technologies being withheld, thats a "gimmie", virtually guaranteed. Then again, "some things" are left out of regular "Joes" hands for good reason. Those of you over about 40 remeber when it was suggested that all households would have thier own nuclear reactor providing power. Our governmemt was actively researching nuclear powered aircraft.
And you want the average "Joe" to have access to all technologies?
No...lets not.
We needn't our governmemts unbridaled access to our personal lives when we are connected to the Internet. A governmemtal issued O/S could do such as this.
No...there is far far too much untapped power in everyones home to allow unbridaled use by any one governmemt.

After some extensive research, our government decided that nuclear reactors shouldn't fly. They also decided that "shooting to the moon" nuclear waste was also unacceptable. Ask anyone close to a large hunk of skylab for advice on this one folks!

[Toaster]

Gawd my spell'n sucks today...!
Mommy can you fix it?
Sheesh!

[Nelreem]

toasters right about how faster isnt always better. cars can go super fast(stock cars), but, the faster, the more dangerous(frying your cpu due to overclocking)
shoot, we went from processors to economical and political philosphies to nuclear reactors. hey, maybe someday processors will be nuclear reactors.

[lpc300]

Sorry all. :o When I said better, I meant faster, improved technology, improved architechture. I agree with everyone, though. All this may mean improved (from a previous generation's speed, tech, etc...) but not better. So many failures certainly is not better. Consider this: often technology is improving faster than stability can catch up. By the time one generation is 'rock solid' a new one is often developed.

And BTW, if processors did become nuclear reactors how 'unstable' might they be. :D

[Demosthenes]

Things are not getting better? I do not believe that for a second. Perhaps in a very short sighted perspective that is true. Everyone takes a nostalgic look back sometimes, perhaps twenty years ago, even ten years ago, when life was so much simpler then. No annoying cell phone calls in restaurants. What is this "in-ter-net"? Is LOL some kind of disease? Yeah, I clean my windows every six months, too. Even two years ago, technology was laughable by today's standards. I am not limiting my scope to trivial things like desktop computers either, but the overall influence of microprocessors into every aspect of our life. This is history that has not been written in the books yet. I believe our progress is just fine. I have to believe this; my life depends upon it.

As for should we "give credit to companies that use other designs/philosophies and call it thier own....no," this is silly. Everyone copies eachother. That is progress. Cadillac had the first crankless ignition, the first battery, first electric headlights, etc. Now, all this is "standard," in fact, who would buy a car without this? The same holds true with computers. It does not matter who invented it, but how it is used. I do not think there has been any revolutionary thought in microprocessing since its beginning. We still use the same primitive process of destroying silicon to create a processor. The same primitive spinning magnetic disks for storage.

I always dreamed of neighborhood fuel cells instead of nukes that would power the grid instead of centralized power plants. This would make the grid much more difficult to destroy, which was the reason for the DARPAnet. By the by, I think the only reason we do not shoot garbage into space is cost. If it were cheap, I would have no doubt in my mind that used condoms would be orbiting Earth. Keep that in mind next time it rains. :D

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[Computer Hobbyist]

Things better in the old days? Wow, take it from me things are better now than at any time in my lifetime (which is a long time by the standards of these forums). When I was a kid the pocket held calculator was something Issac Asimov suggested in one of his science fiction books. I never dreamed of personal computers. A computer was something the size of an office building, controlled by a college or big company and serviced by high priests in white jackets. Cars today are much better than they were when I was young. Airplanes too. Medicine has advanced tremendously. People are living longer and better. Education is more broadly available and more people have had an opportunity to invest in the future.

Last week I read about carbon based molecular sized transistors. They are supposed to revolutionize our world. If they do so as I think they will the next generation will see changes equal to or greater than mine. Bring on quantum computing and nanotechnology.

The areas where there has been central control are precisely where progress has not occured. Take the Space Program as an example. It used to be leading edge. It's now a backwater. My dream as a boy was flying first to the Moon and then to Mars. The first happened because of the Cold War. The second seems as distant as it was 50 years ago. The same could be argued about energy technology.

No guys, generally speaking things are better now than ever.

CH

[Toaster]

Howdy folks!

Things have the ABILITY to be better and some things are.
However, the US is a conglomeration of "buyers" and as such, market conditions are the defining element.
Lets take the AMD/Intel discussion.
This is little more then a "speed race". Much like the muscle car era when bigger, faster sold autos. Soon, under this guise, one could have a Hemi-Cuda or such like animal. You have the "ability" to go fast, but at a price. Same applies to the computer world. You have the ability and again at a cost.
With such equipment, comes the hidden price tag. The "options" which make any particular item stand out from the crowd. This applies to most ecerything in the computer world as well as the automotive world.
Now, at near 1.50/gal (or more) for gas, a gas guzzling "monster car" is cool but at 10MPG its quite expensive. The market is dictated by you, the consumer.
What you want will be provided in one form or another. You also stand the chance of getting what you asked for but not what you really want.
Now, CPUs have broken the 2ghz barrier and 5ghz CPUs are within the confines of the next year. Certainly 3ghz+ but probably closer to 5ghz.

Its like a 4cylinder engine in Jaguar. Sure it "can" go fast but it may take some time. Couple top shelf goodies with expertise and THEN you have something.
Couple the fastest CPU with the cheapest system board and you get something that "looks" fast but performs far from optimumly.

AMD/Intel are not "building" faster CPUs because they can but rather because you the consumer want them. In computers, MHZ/GHZ is only the CAPABILITY, not the end result. Iv'e seen over and over a fast CPU on a slug system board. The ABILITY is there but the system board will not take advantage of that ability.
As you assemble a "budget" system, each part defines the capability. As each part is less capable then another, performance falls to the point of the LEAST capable part. This is the "weak link" theory all are familiar with.
Sorta like a PentiumX (10) at 33GHZ with 16MB of ram on an PC-Sheetz system board. The ability is there but the other parts prohibit desent performance.

[Doobieduck]

<b><i>This user is exactly what (s)he claims to be .. certifiable
The posts are being edited out.
Sorry about any inconvenience<b></i>

[Computer Hobbyist]

Toaster, I think I prefer a society of consumers making choices to the command control of a monopolist. Years ago my former spouse took a trip to the old Soviet Union. She reported that people there were living under the control of the central government, which monopolized all decsions, and were at least a generation behind us in every respect. Central government, economic monopoly. Its all the same. One or a few folks making all the decisions. That is wrong and holds up progress. I hope the AMD/Intel debate continues for a long time. As long as it does, progress will be made.

CH

[WNeill]

Well said lpc300, I totally agree. I am one of those "newbies" you speak of and have found this forum to be the most helpful. As for the discussion, I have always believed that "you get what you pay for" in all things.

[LawyerRon]

Well folks all I can tell you is AMD must be doing something right because about 90% of ALL new systems being built by the members at this forum and others are AMD. Further, they all seem to be satisfied with them.

I'm a big fan of Intel but I think they've conceded the "enthusiast" market to AMD.

[Web Gecko]

bhome83 ,

Stability I think is key here. It makes sense to pair up an Intel processor with
an Intel chip set. If you are dealing with a P4 and RDRAM this is important
(have DDR chip sets for the P4 arrived yet ?) but then it's also important with fast AMD processors as well.

Stability as far as all your m/b and other components is important as well.

What interests me is how many core bugs/defects are actually slipping through the quality control process at Intel and AMD. The new processors are so bloody complex that to work at all the quality control process must be fine tuned and intensive. With multi-millions of transistors and shrinking micron/dye processes it's a miracle that these things even work.

In the old 8/16 bit micro days people often talked about undocumented instructions/features (bugs/defects ?) but I didn't see that many write ups about core defects. I wonder as regards the processor if this is the predominant source of crashes/instability with Windows and other applications software.

A networking consultant in Massachusettes (who I keep in touch with) tells me
he always goes for the tried and tested Intel platform for his business clients.
They require high levels of performance and reliability. He says his clients' Intel platforms go weeks without crashing/blue screening whereas he does not speak so highly of AMD in this regard (relegates AMD to the budget/home market).
I can understand his conservative approach especially where providing quality to his clients' is concerned.

Of course we all know that AMD are providing high class and quality opposition for Intels' Celeron, PIII and P4 processors (Duron, Tbird and XP). AMDs' product is very good.

But this is the main point I want to make. My consultant friend in MA says that he believes that most of our Windows and apps development and testing is done on
Intel platforms (interested to hear what others think) so we aren't necessarily screening/testing our software with enough AMD processor cores. It is of course in MSes and the other developers interests to ensure that major new software development and testing is done on as many Intel and AMD processor cores as possible.

I think that most of the crashes/blue screening and general instability we see on current systems may be due to this. Of course there are probably some core bugs/defects slipping through. These can't be major as quality/reliability and product image/market share would be affected too greatly.

I think this issue can also apply to other programmable chips on the m/b like your chip set etc..

Here is a question for someone. Are there any good sites out there with info/write ups on the current processor cores out there (Intel and AMD)
and pros and cons (plus bugs /defects) of these cores ?

Interested to hear what others think.

chou

The Web Gecko

[Toaster]

Hello there mister lizzard, :D

All CPU cores have some sort of "patchwork" to some degree.
While a site where these could be explored probably exists, I am not aware of such. I tend to seek out these and other "undocumented" goddies on my lonesome and with the help of others. Often (Intel does this), instructions are added/deleted during any given production run for a myriad of reasons. Often, cost of production is a chief reason. Other times, its sheer R&D to trial run certain ideas and concepts. As far as the chipsets, I only work with Intel specific sets to any degree. I don't/won't do VIA because what I did see didn't please me.
Intel on the otherhand has numerous undocumented registers in the BX and 810 chipsets. The BX is where I focused a great deal of my time.
I found in the BX chipset, the beginnings of RAMBUS memory implementation.
Seemed Intel knew that memory access speeds were staying static while faster and faster CPUs were being made.
A discovery me and a friend made showed great promise. This was a memory interleaving function that was built in but not made available through BIOS/jumper settings. This was when the system board had EQUAL pairs of memory slots. This most often worked with system boards sporting 4 sockets. When each socket was populated with alike modules (4-64MB/128MB), a register within the chipset can be "tripped" to utilize memory bank interleaving.
This resulted in a gain of 22% of memory access rates beyond nominal "good" figures. When we forced the register and a "latency" register to "1", memory speeds roze by nearly 40% without an impact on reliability.
These numbers approach multi-banked RDRAM figures under "ideal" settings. This is VERY fast memory moves that VIA can't come close to.
There are registers in both CPU and chipsets. Some are QUITE good and some downright disaterous. Many are set aside for "developmental/diagnostics" reasons and thier use is not recommended and often not supported by the system board.
Only the ASUS P2-B/F support these features to my knowledge.
Rumor has it the ABIT is the same but not the ABIT I have. (BH-6)

[Carl Price]

Originally posted by LawyerRon
Well folks all I can tell you is AMD must be doing something right because about 90% of ALL new systems being built by the members at this forum and others are AMD. Further, they all seem to be satisfied with them.

I'm a big fan of Intel but I think they've conceded the "enthusiast" market to AMD.

Ron, you may be right, but I like to think that the only people who truly want AMD systems are the people like us who can deal with the problems. I build Intel boxes because I can't afford to see each system 3-4 times for problems after it is sold. When you have to go to the "mechanic" with every problem you don't want any, especially if you are the "mechanic" and you are not getting paid extra for the job.

[Electron]

Going on the same quote from LawyerRon in Carl's reply above, i believe Intel have lost out at the moment because of the P4 and expensive Rambus. Over here in England most of the pre-built boxes are AMD and the general population are buying pre-builds being unable or unwilling to build their own. Also prices are more expensive over here and there is no way of competing with the big manufacturers.
Unless you understand about the different Mobo's and CPU's, how they perform, different types and speeds of RAM, on-board this and that, upgradability etc. etc. people are just looking at processor speed and price, for which the AMD will win.
Hopefully, this will change with the new chipset boards for the P4, when they arrive, which will probably be a few months after they are available in America. Then there might be more competition.

[Web Gecko]

Hey Toaster,

What you said about your discoveries with processors/chip sets was interesting.

How do you ID these undocumented registers etc.. ? Do you feed in a binary sequence into the register/operand area of your opcode or what i.e. which is outside the normal range for documented registers ?

How do you know you are dealing with undocumented registers ?
The memory interleaving sounds cool.

Interested.

cheers

The Web Gecko

[Toaster]

Hello again mister lizzard,
I use the old "push" "pull" trick of yore.
In the PC, "everything" has/uses an address. Thats how the lil mothers work.
I "push" values and/or "pop" values. This is an old school method but one I'm quite comfortable with. CPU registers are a bit different and have to be handled with care other wise a reset is often initiated.
If you are really intersted, Intel posts on thier web site thier "white papers".
This lists many addresses and register functions. Whats interesting is the ommisions and gaps that exist. I like to explore the gaps by plugging values into these registers. This MUST be done in a DOS or Unix environment.
In the Winderz environment, the CPU is often working and its common to initiate a "stall" which is more often then not fatal to the application.
I do the majority of my exploring in "X86" mode then "enhanced" or the more extended functions. On the chip side, I and others modified an existing register mod proggie so that what we call as "bad" registers are not trip