Teen Programmers Unite  
 

 

Return to forum top

Why Intel Sucks

Posted by CHollman82 [send private reply] at August 15, 2001, 12:08:55 AM

If you still use Intel products I garuntee that you won't buy another one after you read this:

http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm

Posted by TheTutor [send private reply] at August 15, 2001, 12:26:12 PM

I wouldn't necessarily say Intel sucks, but they are victims of their own success ı They felt untouchable and didnıt take the precautions necessary to maintain there dominance by having ıthe best processorsı ı Theyıre going to start feeling some stiff completion from other chip makers which can only mean better products for us the consumers :)

Posted by RedX [send private reply] at August 15, 2001, 04:25:31 PM

Reminds me of the Pentium 90Mhz bug, a few years ago. This means AMD is going to win more costumers from Intel.

RedX

Posted by gian [send private reply] at August 15, 2001, 10:56:30 PM

I'm buying AMD simply because, here it is cheaper. A few cycles really doesn't bother me :-)

Posted by CHollman82 [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 12:31:05 AM

A few cycles? did you read the article Gian? In many circumstances a 1.5 gig P4 will be throttled down to sub 200mhz speed, that's a gigantic performance hit. It turns your state of the art machine into an early 90's machine.

Posted by buzgub [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 12:53:29 AM

That article does seem to be anti-intel propoganda to me (but I'm still supporting AMD)

Posted by CHollman82 [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 12:55:50 AM

Obviously, but I don't think they would outright lie, do you?

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 01:01:23 AM

Can't see why they wouldn't, really.. There's a war going on between AMD and Intel, and as we all know, war makes people do stupid things.

Oh well, I still think Intel processors (P-II and P-III) are the best choice for servers, while AMD's T-Birds are best for gaming and regular users. Intel's CPUs are slower and they cost more, but they're more stable, and doesn't have the same problems with overheating as AMD's Athlon-series does. :o)

Posted by buzgub [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 01:02:40 AM

They seem to not have a vested interest in either side, so they have no reason to lie outright. It does still seem that they manipulated the benchmark numbers slightly, especially with the encoding thing. The P4 finished first, and they still go through why all the others are actually better. AMD is still the better option for price-to-performance ratio, though :)

Posted by CHollman82 [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 01:37:42 AM

The reason for that is that, if you look at the numbers, the P4 BARELY beat a processor (Athlon) that was 600mz SLOWER than it. Also, multimedia applications is what this processor was built and optimized (laugh) for. An equally clocked Athlon would blow it away. God I love my 1.33 Athy

Posted by CHollman82 [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 01:43:18 AM

And yes, AngelOD, they do get HOT, but what do you expect, their outperforming the competition by 40%. Slap a HSF on there and the problems solved.

Posted by AngelOD [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 01:41:56 AM

Actually, Mr. Hollman. I am one of the few people here to acknowledge AMD's superior processing powers, which is why I'm getting a T-Bird. :P

Posted by buzgub [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 04:20:12 AM

I still love my 1.2 ghz t-bird :)

Posted by sphinX [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 08:02:58 AM

i still don't understand why you people complain about t-birds getting hot....i have a 1.2 o/cd to 1.3 and it runs *hot* at 45 degC, and idles at 38degC.....of course, this was after applying some really great thermal grease.....so that's my suggestion: grease 'er up and let the bird fly...

Posted by gian [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 05:30:42 PM

I hate my underclocked 486 66mhz ;-)

Posted by buzgub [send private reply] at August 16, 2001, 11:49:34 PM

My condolences to you, gian. I was using an old P200 with no graphics card worth speaking of until a few months ago.

Posted by gian [send private reply] at August 17, 2001, 02:01:21 AM

I was joking, actually.... what I do have is much worse... P3-733 with INTEGRATED GRAPHICS!!!! Bla.... yeahhhch. 4mb of stogdy video card crap. And the best part: I have no AGP slot! Dam, you should see the i810 incompatibility list... it took hours to load!

Posted by buzgub [send private reply] at August 17, 2001, 03:55:18 AM

Ouch. Why on earth don't you get a oldish PCI TNT2 graphics card or something?

Posted by nt543 [send private reply] at August 17, 2001, 12:48:32 PM

Just try and execute the F00FC7C8 (hex) instruction on any Pentium

Posted by RedX [send private reply] at August 17, 2001, 02:34:00 PM

I see Intel hasn't been very clear. See, the P4 isn't an ordinary processor. It's actually the first processor with build in self-modifying-system based on a timemachine. Unfortunatly, at the moment the timemachine can only switch between the present and the past. Sometimes people happen to make system modify itself into an 8088. But with the release of the P26 these problems should be fixed.

RedX

Posted by Linux_Penguin [send private reply] at August 19, 2001, 08:11:48 PM

Well I just read an article which plays pretty much on these lines. It was in this months issue of Linux magazine entitled 'Super Chips'. It goes on to talk about how Intel is giving up on Microsoft and moving into the Linux market, and how AMD is forced to go there due to know support from Microsoft. Intel's new chips aren't going to be able to do 32 bit so they are going to have to emulate, AMD on the otherhand is going to be able to do both 64 and 32 bit. Anywho Intel is getting better, and AMD is (looks like it) the best choice for PC.

Posted by brandon6684 [send private reply] at August 19, 2001, 09:35:23 PM

I guess for the moment I'm still stuck with my pentium 120, but I'd take either intel or amd, which ever I could get my hands on

Posted by CHollman82 [send private reply] at August 19, 2001, 10:24:01 PM

What are you waiting for? you can get a 1.4ghz Athlon for $120, Add a nice Mobo (Abit, Asus) for $100, 256mb RAM for $40, 20gb HDD for $80, and a $60 case and you got yourself a kickass machine for just $400

Posted by ronybc [send private reply] at November 11, 2001, 09:23:26 AM

i have a celeron 333 mega hertz with 96 million bytes of memory. it wurkz very fine. and i've successfully overclocked from 66 to 68 MHz FSB..! but can't reach 75 or above. Not a single beep even after try disconnecting HDD, VGA, NIC and sound card from the motherboard. why my LX motherboard sucks...? my memory is PC100 rated. clock chip is W83193R-04(Winbond).

Somebody please help me.... i want The POWER of 375MHz

Posted by sphinX [send private reply] at November 11, 2001, 09:40:20 PM

I pity you, for both your system and your lack of humour.

Posted by gian [send private reply] at November 11, 2001, 11:15:35 PM

:-)
I've never felt the need to overclock my system, although I have a 1.2Ghz athlon, so....

Posted by have_dinner [send private reply] at November 12, 2001, 04:11:38 AM

this ronybc seems to be a bit of the kind of person that goes on a page like this.. posts heaps of sh*t and never returns... so i think we can safely ignore him yes?

Posted by ronybc [send private reply] at November 12, 2001, 09:52:10 AM

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

Posted by ronybc [send private reply] at November 12, 2001, 09:53:23 AM

ho ho hoooo... thanx everybloody for the damn response.
changing my first reply b'coz its a byte bad... Anyway... a 1000 Hmmmm's for sphinx, gian and dinner... whatz wrong with you people...?

Rony BC

Posted by taubz [send private reply] at November 12, 2001, 03:57:02 PM

I think we (royal we) are off to a bad start here...

- taubz

Posted by gian [send private reply] at November 12, 2001, 08:03:46 PM

We are not amused!

We have another Hollman on our hands. You get rid of one, 1000 take their place.

Posted by sphinX [send private reply] at November 14, 2001, 01:47:18 AM

ronybc: nothing is "wrong" with us...we just don't like the fact that you show up, start insulting admins (ie gian), post a lot of crap in a lot of old threats, make a lot of really bad jokes, and then dare to ask what's wrong with us? We have no problem with you, just tone down the sarcasm and cynicism a little....

sphinX (you're local neighbourhood mediator)

Posted by ronybc [send private reply] at November 14, 2001, 10:41:30 AM

OK .... :)

Posted by CodeRed [send private reply] at November 14, 2001, 11:11:46 AM

Hollman seems to have contributed quite a bit to these forums, judging by the sheer number of posts he has anyways

Posted by gian [send private reply] at November 16, 2001, 10:20:19 PM

Yes and no. He was usually involved in useless flames and the like.

You must be logged in to post messages and see which you have already read.

Log on
Username:
Password:
Save for later automatic logon

Register as a new user
 
Copyright TPU 2002. See the Credits and About TPU for more information.