new 200mhz p4's delayed! pwhahahaha!

[himura-dono]

not that amd is moving mad crazy shit right now, but let me revel in an intel fuXor.

intel fall down and bump it's widdle p4 head (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1022686,00.asp)

Intel has discovered a bug in a small number of its new 3.0GHz Pentium 4 processors, and has halted shipments of the processor to customers.

Early this morning, Intel spokesperson George Alfs contacted ExtremeTech's Nick Stam and PC Magazine's Rich Fisco, to inform them of the "temporary delay." According to Alfs, Intel placed the processor on temporary shipment hold because of the company's commitment to quality.

--- more at the link

just let me note, PC manufacturers have these delayed cpu's in systems and i'm assuming are ready to ship them. can we say RECALL?

[kimpossible]

hush your mouth and buy intel processors. i need my stock to go back up.

[angelwiththesword]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Apr 14 2003, 02:15 PM
hush your mouth and buy intel processors. i need my stock to go back up.
if i was you, i'd sell your pentium stock, and invest in DOW chemical.

[himura-dono]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Apr 14 2003, 02:15 PM
hush your mouth and buy intel processors. i need my stock to go back up.
i commend intel for their chipsets and the new centrino has actually changed my mind about what i previously said about it. although, listing it as a pentium-m was pretty stupid.

[thaite]

P4? Hell, I thought they'd be into the P6 by now.

[MellowDrama]

Originally posted by himura-dono@Apr 14 2003, 04:13 PM
not that amd is moving mad crazy shit right now, but let me revel in an intel fuXor.

intel fall down and bump it's widdle p4 head (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1022686,00.asp)

Intel has discovered a bug in a small number of its new 3.0GHz Pentium 4 processors, and has halted shipments of the processor to customers.

Early this morning, Intel spokesperson George Alfs contacted ExtremeTech's Nick Stam and PC Magazine's Rich Fisco, to inform them of the "temporary delay." According to Alfs, Intel placed the processor on temporary shipment hold because of the company's commitment to quality.

--- more at the link

just let me note, PC manufacturers have these delayed cpu's in systems and i'm assuming are ready to ship them. can we say RECALL?
HOLLA! :P

[himura-dono]

Originally posted by thaite@Apr 14 2003, 03:30 PM
P4? Hell, I thought they'd be into the P6 by now.
they seem reluctant to change the platform. first they made a god awful chip under the p4 name, then the northwoods, and now the canterwoods.

[angelwiththesword]

Originally posted by himura-dono@Apr 14 2003, 04:11 PM
they seem reluctant to change the platform. first they made a god awful chip under the p4 name, then the northwoods, and now the canterwoods.
i think they are trying to stay away from the whole macintosh chain.

macs have os 1 through X, and all the integers inbetween
macs also had as many (if not many many more) different computer types as operating systems.

as far as i can see, PC's only had the 286-486, Pentium 1-4, and some other specialty ones like celeron(which sucks) and athelon and all that jazz.

[Tao]

i used to hate intel, back when amd was actually a formidable opponent, and when intel pissed off a lot of ppl with the whole rambus scandal. but now it seems that the tides have changed, and i'll proabably get a p5 or whatever, for my next pc.

[himura-dono]

Originally posted by Tao@Apr 14 2003, 05:15 PM
i used to hate intel, back when amd was actually a formidable opponent, and when intel pissed off a lot of ppl with the whole rambus scandal. but now it seems that the tides have changed, and i'll proabably get a p5 or whatever, for my next pc.
AMD's products are still top notch, but too many people buy into intel's bigger = better. i'd love to see an xp with the currently release p4 bus (533 [133 quad pumped]) because then i could laugh at the droves of people switching to AMD. AMD's cpu architecture blows the doors off the p4, but the bus is it's failing grace. AMD has unfortunately had too many delays and setbacks and thus is hurting and has been. But with all the commercial power of Intel, AMD gets bested. imho, intel makes great chipsets, mobile processors and many other things, but i see AMD's desktop cpu's as superior.

[kimpossible]

That should be a good thing for both companies then because Intel is shifting focus to mobile computing rather than desktop.

[537]

Originally posted by himura-dono@Apr 15 2003, 08:33 AM
AMD's products are still top notch, but too many people buy into intel's bigger = better. i'd love to see an xp with the currently release p4 bus (533 [133 quad pumped]) because then i could laugh at the droves of people switching to AMD. AMD's cpu architecture blows the doors off the p4, but the bus is it's failing grace. AMD has unfortunately had too many delays and setbacks and thus is hurting and has been. But with all the commercial power of Intel, AMD gets bested. imho, intel makes great chipsets, mobile processors and many other things, but i see AMD's desktop cpu's as superior.
Intel's HyperThreading technology totally kicks AMD's ass. :dance:

[Tao]

ht doesn't really have that great of an advantage when compared to the regular p4 chip, since most programs aren't programmed to take advantage of it.


and I just think amd's trying to kill their customer base, cause I haven't even seen the hyped up clawhammers in stores yet. and reviews of it indicates just a marginal gain over the p4 equivalent. all the while, intels just racking up th megahertz and getting more and more market share.

[537]

Originally posted by Tao@Apr 15 2003, 10:06 AM
ht doesn't really have that great of an advantage when compared to the regular p4 chip, since most programs aren't programmed to take advantage of it.
I believe this is where our experiences differ. There are plenty of programs/apps/games out there that take advantage of HT. In terms of OS, the Microsoft lineup does in fact recognize a HT cpu, and makes available the proper resources. Even if a specific app does not utilize HT's multiple thread capability in particular, Windows 2000/XP/2003 for example will assign processes to utilize all available resources i.e. HT's multiple threads, or assign affinity to a particular Processor. In ether of the cases given, HT provides a substantial gain on performance, in that there are simply more resources available.

In regards to run-of-the-mill consumer apps not taking advantage of the new technology, well that is actually changing very rapidly. Aside from backoffice applications already utilizing HT (such as IIS, SQL, Oracle, etc), anything that can utilize multiple physical processors will take advantage of HT's benefits. Of those that are not, however, developments in fact are underway to take advantage of these benefits.

Chalk it up to me being an Intel guy or what not, but I don't see AMD even coming close to HT or anything similar anytime soon...

:)

[himura-dono]

amd 3000+ beat out the 3.06ht

secondly, ht is about as useful for dual cpu apps as macs are for gamers. ht is wishful thinking. VERY wishful.

537, i'm sure you're not trying to say that mhz rules the roost. cause if you are..... :rolleyes:

[Azn Retribution]

eh. screw you AMD and Intel ancient X86 arhichtechture loyalists!

RISC and ALPHA 0wn3d both of ya'all years ago.
(In efficiency not sales or popularity as they are both now dead and rotting)

[himura-dono]

it's all about via c3 nehemiah!

[537]

Originally posted by himura-dono@Apr 15 2003, 11:06 PM
amd 3000+ beat out the 3.06ht

secondly, ht is about as useful for dual cpu apps as macs are for gamers.  ht is wishful thinking.  VERY wishful.

537, i'm sure you're not trying to say that mhz rules the roost.  cause if you are..... :rolleyes:
Where are you getting your info from? I'd like to see something that supports your claim that the 3000+ beats out the 3.06ht.

secondly, ht is about as useful for dual cpu apps as macs are for gamers.  ht is wishful thinking.  VERY wishful.

As for you saying HT is wishful thinking, are you going to provide some basis of argument for that? I have HT processor machines here at work that would smack you in the face with performance gains over non HT cpus. Try a metric of processor utilization decreased by +50% on a web server only. lol

537, i'm sure you're not trying to say that mhz rules the roost.  cause if you are..... :rolleyes:

And no, I am not saying that the cpu's clock speed rules the most. (That's what you meant when you referred to 'mhz' right?) Honestly, I don't think I ever brought the actual clock speed into any argument as you assume I have.

Just to reiterate my point, here is a quote from tomshardware:

Our benchmarks showed that the Athlon XP 3000+ at standard clock speed (13 x 166 MHz = 2166 MHz) can't hold a candle to the P4 3.06 GHz together with the latest applications. The only exception is in UT 2003, where the AMD CPU clearly took the lead. Once the Athlon with the Barton core is overclocked to 2500 MHz (15 x 166 MHz), it can hold its own or even beat the P4. Another factor weighing down the Athlon is the fact that more software is optimized for the P4's HyperThreading capabilities. In its testing information, AMD recommends running old DirectX 7 games. Some have been around for two years or more and are really over the hill. Anyone for a benchmark under MS DOS 3.1?

The entire comparison with the P4 3.06HT and the AMD 3000+ with the Barton core can be found here (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/index.html).


himura, if you find anything that clearly states otherwise, I'd be more than interested in reading it.

[yoMAMA]

hell, you guys talk about p4 p6 all day, I'm still on that lame ass celeron.

the 1.7 ghz version though :D