best processor?

[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.

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 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

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

[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.
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]
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.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Toaster,

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

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.

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. 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.

[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.

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]

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

[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.