Does anyone like intel?

[nickcpu]

I just bought a new Pentium 4 system at 1.3GHz. I think its wonderful. It seems that this board is very AMD loyal and I would like to know strait out what makes you think AMD beats Intel or why Intel beats AMD. Besides the price. The 400 MHz system speed of the Pentium 4 and the memory seems to be a good performance enhancer.

I like intel.
Prove me wrong

[otheos]

You're happy with it? We're happy for you.

[Mr.Garrison]

No one has to Prove you wrong, it is a matter of preference. If you prefer to pay a high price, and are willing to sacrifice performance for the intel name, then that is your right as a consumer. It is a simple fact that AMD has the lead in price point, performance and seems to be ahead of the curve for development at the moment. Intel will rise again, maybe with the next chipset release the P4 will finally realize its potential. Right now, however, the hevyweight champ is american micro devices. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[JCB]

Intel makes great chips. But... they do set a hefty price on them. They are just too conceited for me, thinking that they have the world by the ****.

They need to come back down to earth and bring their prices w/ them.

And if it weren't for AMD the prices would be even higher. And we'd all still be using our old PI's.

[nickcpu]

Thanks, but does anyone like intel more than AMD? I hope im not alone.

[dyer_maker]

Right now I prefer Intel over AMD...just for the simple fact that I have never owned an AMD and don't really have anything to compare it to. My PIII 600mhz runs similar benchmarks to an AMD system with basically the same specs. So for right now I am happy. It is all about personal preference. Same thing with vehicles. One person prefers Chevy over Dodge (i like Chevy's) and the next prefer's a Dodge.

[otheos]

Regardless of products, since you put it this way, no, we don't like intel and I don't think anyone should.

Reason 1: The universal...

Why like a company? they're after your money and they'll do anything for it. You can appreciate a company based on it's efforts to keep customers happy, but not like it.

Reason 2: The specific...

Intel is not a company that is worth of your (or your parents) hard earned money. Why? if you had followed intel tactics in the past 10 years you woul notice that they have not treated public with respect. I will just mention the 486SX case here and someone will explain if you want. No, intel is not a nice company to put it simply, but you sort of expect this from any large company that's first with difference.
I am not saying AMD is nice because they are nicer to their customers, or because they try to keep upgrade paths for longer (btw, yet one more reason not to buy your new P4; it'll be end of life by November and you'll need a new mobo to upgrade). I am sure if they were at intel's position they'd had done the same.


Also remember, people like the underdog. Competitions is always good (look at the prices of these CPUs. oops sorry didn't mean to hurt you).

[This message has been edited by otheos (edited 08-06-2001).]

[BBA]

Regardless of products, since you put it this way, no, we don't like intel and I don't think anyone should.
Reason 1: The universal...

Why like a company? they're after your money and they'll do anything for it. You can appreciate a company based on it's efforts to keep customers happy, but not like it.


Ummm...thats the biggest line of bs I ever heard.

TRUST ME ALL companies are after your money. There is no other way to stay in business.

If one company is the underdog...it will make more attractive deals until such time as it is competitive with the 'BIG DOGS'.

Right now AMD is the underdog, and Intel is starting to realize that...which is why they are dropping their prices ( Ever hear of a P3 Xeon 733 for $75? Look on pricewatch ) and coming out with better CPU's.

As of yet, I still have not seen a AMD CPU that will outperforma P3 Tulatin with 512K cache at the same speeds. I do know people who run P3 Tulatins with 512K cache overclocked to 1.5GHZ and even 1.9GHz.

So, being objective, I say AMD is coming on strong with an attractive package for most users. Intel will fight tooth and nail to stay ahead of them technologically...but Intel only releases it's products in such time as absolutely necessary to prevent AMD from taking all the glory from existing Intel lines.

My question is why have I not see any of these so called "Tech" sites review a 512K cache Tully? They have been readily available for over two months now!

[deadkenny]

Gotta like Intel for their manufacturing process, quality and stability. AMD is making very competitive processors now, arguably better than Intel. But Intel themselves really opened the door by some of their stupid marketing decisions. The RDRAM with the PIII (820 chipset) made no sense at all. They also pushed the P4 too soon (long before there was any software out there to take advantage of the new architecture). If they had concentrated on coming out with the Tualatin chip with DDR support, it would have clearly been better than the path they chose. The biggest problem with Intel is having to live with their marketing decisions, such as shunning DDR. The biggest problems with AMD are the heat / power consumption of their processors, and having to go with chipsets that are not of the same quality or stability as Intel's. Too bad, long gone are the days of "Socket7-like" compatibility. I'd love to run a Tbird on an Intel chipset mobo. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

BTW, I think the idea of getting a low end P4 now makes a lot of sense with the way the prices have come down. That way you'll also have a future upgrade path. If you get a 1.8GHz P4 now, you'll have to pay a high price, but your motherboard will not be usable for the next gen of P4 (.13micron). That's another advantage of AMD, as they're keeping the socket A mobo's alive for the next gen of Athlon.

[Dputiger]

There's nothing 'wrong' with liking Intel. I, however, have become increasingly convinced that Intel is no longer run by engineers, but by marketing executives.

The P4 is all hype. Its 'the center of my digital world.' Fact is, it requires incredibly specific conditions to show its muscle.

I'd recommend the P3 (Coppermine or Tualatin) long before the P4, but guess what? Intel doesn't plan to keep them around.

[JCB]

And that has been the story of Intel greed for a year now.

If you look back at the posts around here from a year back, you'd see more intel support. It's no longer the case. You'd think that the marketing boys would be starting to get the message.

While RDRAM did start the downfall, because they released it before it was tested and ready. I think it smokes SD and DDR. It's too bad, really. It should have taken off, but, never got off the ground running (pun intended).

People want compatibility and interchangability. Especially those of us who build our own.

I wish that the board manufacturers would help AMD build an RDRAM system.

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

I actually don't like Intel, It's a big company, that knows it's big, and pushes what it wants, not what the consumers want, whereas AMD has understanding of what the customer wants, to list some

Cheaper memory
AMd chose DDR not RDRAM
Intel chose RDRAm not based on cost, but proposed speed (oopps, guess that wasn't a good guess)

Upgradability
AMD uses the same socket from 600Mhz up to 1.4Ghz durons and athlons.
intel uses 3 platforms in 1.5 years that means every 6 months get ready for a new board.

Cost
AMD is cheap
Intel ......

performance
AMD is very fast for price
Intel ......

The list can go on but I think you get the picture.

Intel instead of competeing is rushing things out the door. P3 1.13Ghz ring a bell, P4 could have performed better if it Had the FPU fixed(I believe that's the drawback) Intel has had 20 or 30 chipsets in the past 2 years. AMD has had 8 made by various manufac.

I don't hate intel, but thier tactics are to disgusting to bear, They want it, they push it, the consumer has to decide but 75% are ignorant to the workings of a computer so a 1.7Ghz has to be better then 1.4Ghz, then they have to upgrade the Memory and they can't understand the huge bill when thier buddy who had an AMD system upgraded to 512Mb ram for less then 50$ and thiers cost 500$. And what does intel say? Oh well it SHOULD perform better.

I've owned all AMD except for 2 machines,

My 286 10 and my P166MMX, then the K6-2 series came out and bye bye intel.

Intel instead of competing on thier level has reduced the quality of thier chips, jacked up the clocks and slapped a huge price tag on it. never telling the customer that thier 1Ghz P3 is actually an OC'd 800 that has tested to work. or that thier P4 1.7Ghz will be slaughtered by a 1.4Ghz AMD.

but everyone knows the intel name, and right now the only thing keeping them up is ignorance.

[DanU]

I LOVE INTEL http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif... but only because when intel and amd fight... the consumer wins! If only intel or only amd were providing x86 cpus then we would be seeing drastically higher prices for much slower processors.

BTW my main system is an AMD, but my laptop is an Intel. The systems that I've built before were a mix of AMD and intel... depending on who what the most cost-effective at the time.

[prexaspes]

I hate to say it, but if Inter had a 100 mhz fsb celeron 500 that O/C'd to 1200 @ 150 mhz, more people would be loving Intel right now.

[Ballastboss]

Ever hear of a P3 Xeon 733 for $75?
No and I'd didn't find one for anything close to that.I'll have twoof what your drinking though.
http://www.google.com/search?q=P3+Xeon+733+&btnG=Google+Search
Cheap doesn't mean poor quality any more than Expensive means superior quality

[This message has been edited by Ballastboss (edited 08-06-2001).]

[Jeffy]

I'm on both sides. Intel, i liked my p3, n that computer worked wonders for me. but their tactics and scheming **** me off. amd, i liked my k6-2, n my duron is ok. but amd really needs to reinforce their cores and increase their hardware compatibilty with such things as mem n power supply. Both are good, but since amd is the underdog and offer good stuff, we root for amd. n intel is just becoming like microsoft, so that's why we hate them, not their cpu's.

[BBA]

SO...I guess www.pricewatch.com (http://www.pricewatch.com) is just a figment of my imagination?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever hear of a P3 Xeon 733 for $75?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No and I'd didn't find one for anything close to that.I'll have twoof what your drinking though. http://www.google.com/search?q=P3+Xeon+733+&btnG=Google+Search
Cheap doesn't mean poor quality any more than Expensive means superior quality


Ok...So your buying two Xeons?
http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/2238-1.htm

[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 08-06-2001).]

[Ballastboss]

Yeah, thats what is said but unfortunatly if you click on their link and jump though the hoops their is noP3 Xeon 733 for $75 http://www.lonestarmemory.com/ http://www.lonestarmemory.com/micro.html#Intel%20Processors
Funny theres no prices listed at all...What do ya think of that?

[This message has been edited by Ballastboss (edited 08-06-2001).]

[BBA]

Thats not the same website that is advertising them.

Besides, doesn't it say mention Pricewatch on order?

[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 08-06-2001).]

[Ballastboss]

Thats the one I saw for $75.Link please.
But it doesn't matter it's hard not to like AMDs price to performce.;=)

[This message has been edited by Ballastboss (edited 08-07-2001).]

[Dave_H]

BBA,
You mentioned that the P3 Tulatin with 512K cache has been availible for a couple months. Do you know anyone currently offering it?

I been following your discussions on this chip and I'm actually very seriously considering one. I apprechiate your leads and respect your opinion. I saw a few links you posted a while back and have been checking up on them. This one says availible 8-6 and I'll be e-mailing them tomarrow for an update. http://www.enpc.com/inpeniii113g1.html

This other site you posted by the way only offers the 256KB chip. http://www.dallasmemory.com/CPUs.htm
(Although they really impressed me with a one hour response).

While your at it, give me your opinion on this if you don't mind. This board will be availible next week or so at googlegear and will support the Tulatin with DDR RAM. http://event.asus.com.tw/computex2001/product/mb_tua266.htm

Best regards,
Dave

BTW- I was really reluctant to post in the other threads because I really don't want a Intel vs AMD discussion. I hope everyone respects my decision. Sure I know it's going to cost more than other systems but sometimes curiosity counts for something.

[JCB]

Brand loyalty can cost ya though.

But, if you have the board & RAM for it. Go for it. I personally wouldn't do intel without going RDRAM. RDRAM would be my only reason for doing so.

[SoopaStar]

I loved my dual Intel PII 400. Then I loved my athlon 750...then I hated it. Now I adore my PIII800eb with my Intel Mobo. Talk about stable!! This thing runs for 2 weeks at a time in win2k. My athlon...I MAYBE got 5 days. My athlon system just had too many problems (abit ka7-100) for my likings. I was tired of Via's and Windows's problems and incompatabilities.
HOWEVER. Intel's P4? waste of time and money. worthless CPU. There was a newspost on the frontpage of sysopt a while back where someone posted an article from another news site. It discussed the problems with the P4. It made a whole lotta sense. Started from the first CPU's and onward about the progression and success/life of a processor.
It made some very valid references to intels marketing schemes and why the P4 just cannot compete to the performance of its P3.
Intel made and oopsie. It will take them at least 3 to 5 years to pickup the 1st place seat for good. AMD has come a long way.
Congratulations AMD for a job well done. Intel, you had it right with the P3. get your *** back in gear.

Paul

[otheos]

BBA,

erm, you agree yet you think I'm bsting?

Read the whole post next time.

[card_magic]

I agree with the sentiments of those who dislike Intel right now. As a matter of fact, ever since that whole pentium bug thing, with the floating point errors, I really haven't found any reason to buy their products. And I don't think the issue is just big-dog versus little-dog. I think some companies use marketing and hard-ball strategy as a way to make money, and I think other companies rely on their products to make money. Its all on where the company puts it's emphasis. The reasons I dislike Intel (aside from the technical reasons already listed), are the same reasons I dislike Bose speakers, and Best Buy stores. They all play the consumer, and do a really good job at it. If you look beyond the hype, you'll see past their marketing schemes. You'll find out that, hey.. there are better places to shop for electronics than Best Buy. Klipsch, Paradigm, and B&W speakers will kick the pants off of any Bose system. And AMD is a much better performer than a similar spec Intel. Sorry if I got too much into my other opinions on this one. I just feel strongly about it. But then again, its all just my opinion. Many people don't have the time or they don't care, to educate themselves about processors. Sorry if I offended anyone with my opinions.


-Jim
btw.. Trinitron tubed flat-screen monitors suck too. Samsung is better.

[msterzer]

I had a P3 550 slot one go bad on me. It took just over 5 months for intel to finally get a new processor to me. That is not good service and it lost them at least one customer. Sorry that you are looking for some intel lovers. I'm sure there are some.

[AndreRIO]

if i had the money i would choose intel. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif

[Hellmund]

If I had the money......I'd actually probaly get a vapochill, pump 2.2V through my duron and run it at 1.6ghz but that's not the issue. Given the money I'd pick an AMD solution, the fact is that current real-world application run faster on a slower clocked athlon than the P4 clocked @1.8ghz. Sure with software optimisation it'l be very fast but the sad fact is most application still aren't even fully supporting SSE or 3Dnow. Unless intel starts getting really aggressive about getting application re-compiled it'll be quite a while before we see P4's beating athlons. Also the huge memory bandwidth of RDRAM is really because it's dual-channel, NVIDIA's crush shipset has a dual-channel DDR chipset, it's incredibly expensive even more than the I850 but coupled with PC2100 DDR RAM is offers almost the same bandwidth with lower latency. The Price of the boards will be a lot but combined with the Athlon and DDR RAM it'll even out still to be a lot less than a P4 setup. It should offer similar or better performance in memory intensive applications. Intel do make good processors but it'll be a while before we start seeing their potention. I like both companies, competition benefits us all, just wish intel would lower their prices more, extend the tualatin instead of phasing it out so they'd be more competited. Right now they relying on the ignorant or those that seriously need memory bandwidth.

[gwinters]

You can't really compare an Athlon to a P4. The Athlon was designed to compete with the PIII. AMD's answer to the P4 isn't out yet, maybe because they want it to work right before it hits the shelves. Both companies have their good and bad. There really isn't any way to tell who is 'better', but you can benchmark the processors.

As far as preference, I had a PIII 600E and an ASUS P3B-F and it was solid. I had a Celeron 300A @ 450 before that. It was solid as well for about a year (until the end when I had to buy the 600). Now I have a TBird 1.2G processor and I still don't have any stability issues. Most of the people that I know that don't like Intel or don't like AMD say it because they bought a processor and fried it because they didn't know what they were doing or they just got a bad chip. It happens.

Back in the day, I recommended Intel processors because they were more stable and they had a faster FPU. A lot has changed since then, and now I'm not convinced either way. It does seem that Intel is run by marketing execs and hasn't really come up with anything new lately (besides the P4). As for who will come out on top in the next five years, flip a coin. Either company could do something fantastic or something ridiculous that would ruin them. Time will tell...

[Fingers]

IMHO, there are more reason to dislike Intel than AMD, but none of those reasons make Intel chips any less viable. So you don't like their marketing... fine I don't like the tactics of many companies, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of the product.

Everyone has at least two choices these days, AMD or Intel... so choose whichever you want, both can be extremely stable, and both can be flaky in certain situations, but lets stop dragging the other guy through the mud for marketing decisons that have nothing to do with processor performance.

I prefer Intel myself, but I can't say anything bad about AMD except that their obvious success at getting back into the game has contributed to Intel making a few bad decisions lately, but that's still Intel's own fault, not AMD's.

[Nick66]

I use both. Both have good & bad. Can't stand Intels tactics, Can't stand Via chipsets.
Love Intel stability, love AMD price/performance. *shrugs*

[BBA]

See, I have recommended AMD to several people. There was a time line when it made no sense to buy Intel...and Intel marketing has screwed up with the P3 SMP and P4 SMP advertising, plus erroneously changing spec sheets to fool people in the name of selling the big brother Xeon.

RDRAM was still probably the biggest screwup Intel made...not because of Intel, but because Rambus was ran by a bunch of money grubbing lawyers who decided to take advantage of everyone they could...that really hurt Intel.

Now Intel is coming out with much better products to play catch up in public opinion...like this month they are announcing a 57% drop in price of most of it's processors..and possibly another reduction 2 days later if that does not stimulate sales.

So, buying Intel might be smart sometimes, not others...it's all about who has the better deal at the time.

BTW: As for the $75 Xeon, the second one listed was a 733 256K cache from a different company. The first one was a 500 or 533.

[BBA]

Oh...Dave, I really like this part:

The ASUS TUA266 features a variety of easy overclocking options:
ASUS JumperFree™ Mode enables overclocking from the BIOS screen
DIP switches allow quick manual overclocking
Core voltage may be adjusted in 0.05V increments up to 0.30V over default settings.
Frequency settings of 1MHz increments for optimized performance

Looks like a killer board.
I know of three people who actually have the 512K tullies, two have had them over two months. Did they get really lucky to get5 them? Maybe, but then again...why would the websites not be reviewing them?

[Dave_H]

I have spent considerable time looking for a review of the 512k version and I don't think there are any. Perhaps there not giving out freebies for review since it really won't be very popular to the mainstream users.

Your friends just might have been lucky to get a couple early ones while everyone else has to wait for them to work there way thru the supply chain. That first site you posted now has them availible as of today, hopefully others will follow by weeks end. http://www.enpc.com/inpeniii113g1.html

Thanks for your input BBA, as always it is respected and apprechiated.
Dave

[Fingers]

Again, they only mention the 512KB Tualatin in passing. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif

CPU Wars 2001 - PCWORLD.com (http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,55996,00.asp)

[charmler]

I had a 386 that Intel replaced a few years back. They replaced it because of errors in the output. It only affected a small number of users so Intel chose not to recall all the faulty chips, just replacing the ones that users wanted to replace as the error was noticed by them. It was the last time I used Intel. Every chip I have used since will run error free running any OS and application I have used. I have an AMD 486-100, AMD-K5-233, WINCHIP-180, AMD-K6-300, AMD-K62-333, AMD-K63-450, AMD-TBIRD-900. Every chip is still good and they all, except the 386, were overclocked. INTEL has too many errors in both the CHIPS and CHIPSETS. BOO!!

[gfunkmartin]

I'm kinda neutral on this issue too. I love my Athlon TB 750, it's still going strong for me. Honestly, I don't have any need for a 1.4 GHz Athlon or a 1.8 GHz P4, but if I did I would probably get the Athlon, simply because I am a poor college student. I think AMD has the best price for what you get, but I still find it hard to shake the old ideas of Intel being the most stable trick in town. I wouldn't get a P4 though. RDRAM isn't worth it. hmm...install the sticks in pairs...what does that remind you of? http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Honestly, I run them both, and it depends on what I want to do. I work I only run Intel, because they are stable and 95% of our computers are clocked at 233 or lower.

At home I run AMD because they are the most cost-effective for me.

Whatever.

[Nick CPU]

Is it really fair to eliminate an entire company just because of one old PC chip that they fixed for you. I'm not saying go out and buy intel chips but I would try out a few before ruling them out completely.

[wing7788]

Blablablablabla... blabla... bla bla.
Blablabla. Blabla. Bla. AMD

[voogru]

i worked on a friends pc not long ago it was a brand spanking new P IV 1400. there were like oh how fast! ouuuuuuuuuuuuu ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh and ****. i began installing there prgs and ****. then they wanted a dsl modem. (which i had a spare one to sell) i went ahead installed it. worked great but at first there was a conflict
i right click on my compyter went to properties and then clicked on the device manager tab. the system stalled for about 13 seconds then finally showed up the device manager. i also noticed slight lags (as i always notice on the best buy computers that are Pentium based) but i thought they were setup wrong. strange thing i always noticed a Intel based computer is SLOWER than AMD based regardless of clock speed.i broght my computer over there hooked it up and all just to prove it was faster.
it out perfromed the Pentium in everything but photoshop (darn SSE)

thats just my 0.02 cents

-voogru

[Hellmund]

How much RAM and what OS, the PIV can be excused a little due to the high-latency of RDRAM but the PIII's shouldn't be doing that, sounds like lack of memory.<128mb machines on Win2k/ME?

[BBA]

Dave..look here, this guy has had one for almost a month now. ( 512K T )
http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?s=384b9016773ab821b1609ee6f5e006b5&threadid=8166

That comment about AMD's being faster is completely the opposite to what I have seen.
Earlier AMD chips had always been slower, unless you put them on an Intel based board, then they could compete, but not nearly as overclockable.

The Athlon changed most of that image...it was and is a good chip. The the P3 came out and wiped everything until the original Athlon came out... Even then the coppermine came out and beat the Athlon in both performance and price ( remember the P3 1GHz was $800 while the 1GHz Athlon was $1100 ).

The big turning point was Intel screwing up with Rambus deals and AMD making the T-Bird.

The P4 is faster, but mostly I see ill configured hardware from manufacturers...making people notice that P4's just don't seem to work right. Tha is a problem for Intel.

Now the 512K cache Tulatin comes out...it scores better than T-Birds that are clocked at even a faster MHz speed...and no one reviews it.

Here's something funny...I think Intel is probably going to kick AMD again by releasing a .13 P4 with 512K cache.


So, to summarize....Intel ruled for a while...then AMD caught up, and they have been fighting neck and neck since! The end result is you and me can have super fast PC's for relatively low cost's. Be happy about it...if not for Intel...we would not even be having this discussion http://www.sysopt.com/forum/biggrin.gif

[Dputiger]

BBA,

You've got that Athlon / P3 situation COMPLETELY reversed.

The Athlon 1 Ghz chip dropped in price quickly--when the P3 1 Ghz FINALLY showed up for retail consumption (which was, by the way, in October--EIGHT months after being paper-launched) it cost $800 bucks when a 1 Ghz T-bird was FAR less.

The Athlon 1 Ghz ALWAYS was cheaper than the P3.

[BipolarBill]

I have no issues with AMD *processors*. They are excellent. I do have an issue with *all the different chipsets* that support AMD. They all stink, plain and simple.

Intel just plain rocks when it comes to chipsets.

[Dputiger]

Bill,

If you are looking for solid, 'non-stinky' AMD chipsets I recommend the SiS 735 (the first non-stinky chipset from SiS period) and the AMD 760 on a motherbard that ALSO uses the AMD762 Southbridge.

There are NO known issues with the AMD760 DDR chipset.

[Speeder1]

BBA, how are you not able to find reviews on the Tualatin with 512 KB of L2.

Go to http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1509&p=7 and you will see all the benchmarks you will ever need on Tualatin.

Btw, a 1.2 Athlon MP and a 1.2 Tualatin are basically equal in performance (slightly in favor of MP). However the MP is definitely much cheaper. With an AMD chipset you can't lose.

[CoNeSsIuS]

OK I have to put my 2 cents in. I'm not sure if anybody will actually read this because it's at the bottom of this post and not sure if I'll see it again either to hear a report of what I said.


AMD VS. Intel
Well as far as Amd I like Amd better becuase of the cheaper prices plus Amd works better in games. However only down fall I see to Amd's is that there has always been patches you needed to load to make it work faster, or make it compatable with windows. After you load the VIA patch for chipset's then your good to go.

As with Intel I find them to be more stable as far as a business machine. I use them at the courthouse I work at due to that stability. I don't have time to load patches all day for any problems they may have. It's enough keeping up with Microsoft and their patches/Service packs. Only downfall I see to Intel is that they get scared when AMD comes out with a faster and stable chip then Intel will push out a chip on the market only to recall it a couple months later. Example's are the first chip but I don't blame it on competetion. FPU's was a new thing for them to play with. Recently I have seen Intel push the first P4's out and then recalled a few batches. Then pushed some of the titulans out to compete with prices.


For my final Conclusion. I will use AMD's for all my gamming systems and will use Intels lower end Cpu's (500 - 1 ghrtz) that don't cost as much for my server end.

Remmeber back in school on the teater totter? http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[crunchyriff]

I usually gravitate towards the underdog. I have no problem with 'big' companies, however. I don't begrudge them thier success.
I have been an Intel user thus far;, and everytime I plan to buy AMD, something happens to my freind's AMD sys (relating to the amd architecture)that confirms I made the right choice FOR ME.

AMD cpu's are a great, cost-effective product. But now that it's time to upgrade my PII400, and I just recently bought an ABIT BE-6II mobo 'cause my seattle mobo died; you can bet I'll be sticking with Intel, and probably going with a PIII866.

For us at home, the combination of games, business apps, and intensive graphics/art programs that we run,I think are better served by an Intel cpu.
And, FWIW, I hear that the P4 1.7Ghz blows away the original p4.

For all of you, whatever you you choose, ENJOY!

[Kinmon]

Had an Intel 486, Pentium 133, Pentium II 233 and Pentium III 500mhz, but now that i've got AMD Athlon 1.333ghz, it's smokingly AMAZING! I find it better than Intel, consider the price, quality and speed that AMD offer. Just amazing! Also, Pentium 4 rambus sucks!

[doctj]

Dputiger is there any mobo that uses a 760 northbridge with the 762 southbridge? Last time I checked I couldn't find any, the mobo manufacturers prefer the via 686 bugset to cut costs.

[Dputiger]

doctj,

I believe there are a few. Actually, at this point, you'd be better off waiting for nForce--those boards should start showing up in a few weeks to a month. Also, I'm not sure what the SiS735 uses for a NB/SB.

[samwichse]

The SiS 735 chipset has no separate North and South bridge. The two functions are integrated into a single chip, much like nVidia has done with it's new chipset. That is one of the reasons that they're so cheap, less real estate taken up and fewer connects because two chips don't have to be wired together.

[BBA]

Speeder1...Anand reviewed a 256K cache Tulatin in that article. The 1.2GHz Tulatin has only 256K cache.

Now...do you see my point? A 512K Tulatin 1.133GHz P3 outperforms the AMD at the same speed and even faster.



[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 08-09-2001).]