I've seen those articles about the clock-throttling. It hasn't happened with this machine. Full speed, all the time, no stepping-back. No heat issues, either ... but I am not using a stock heatsink. In retrospect, an Asus board would have been better, because this BIOS leaves much to be desired, especially for overclocking ... it looks much like the kind of limited OEM BIOS made for proprietary machines, like a Compaq. Fortunately, I haven't needed to make any real adjustments, or you would have heard me yelling! <GRIN>
I hope all of you will notice ... my previous post was not made so much in defense of Intel, but against a traumatic experience with hardware designed by AMD, VIA and MSI. The reason I had bought the AMD/VIA machine in the first place was because of several factors. Those would have been:
1. Competition ... it's good for all of us. It's good because it drives the market, for prices, and for accelerated development.
2.) Rambus. I didn't like the latency issues, or the price, the moment I first heard about it. I don't like being forced to use a particular kind of RAM. As a consumer, I don't like being dismissed ... it was a radical mistake on Intel's part to assume that the average Joe would leap at having a higher clock speed and meekly submit to throwing out every stick of SDRAM in the house, simply because Intel became committed to using RDRAM. That made me angry, and I know that I'm not alone in that.
3.) There's no doubt that AMD processors have the edge in terms of performance for most applications. And who wouldn't want that? Not in every benchmarking test, and not with every application ... but in enough to be convincing. You might argue ... but benchmarking tests don't lie ... and I've looked at testing results until they're coming out of my ears. I continue to do so, as I have been for the last two years. You can look at a lot of test results in that much time.
4.) At the time, there was also the consideration of upgrading. Sockets vs Slots ... and what will be around long enough to make an upgrade later on feasible. These days, it's hard to tell ... even sockets are being retired within a turn-around of less than a year.
Those are pretty good reasons for trying out a newer technology, and thumbing your nose at the Goliath. Certainly I expected a few bugs ... that's nothing new. But this was also the first time that I had a system that I couldn't keep running, even with what would be considered "heroic" measures.
It's unfortunate, that as a fallback position, I had nowhere else to turn BUT Intel when the AMD machine gave up the ghost. But I value stability over sheer speed. You can't be altogether pleased at the numbers if the machine is sitting in the corner and refuses to boot for hours at a time .. or if every single week, an expensive component appears to implode.
That's my response, as well as my excuse. Somebody call me when a mature chipset is developed for the Athlon ... preferably with a decent upgrading path, so I don't have to swap out motherboards every year. It's one thing to do it for fun ... quite another to feel forced. Right now, I'm not so sure that anyone is one the consumer's side, regardless of the outfit. This is why these AMD vs Intel wars seem so ridiculous to me ... where's the third alternative? Neither one of them really have anything I want to spend my money on ... but if I want to use a computer, and have some "relative" stability ... I can't recommend anything with a VIA chipset. I know people here in my area who refuse to build computers with an AMD platform, because there are too many problems associated with them, and it is time-consuming to support the platform.
That doesn't mean that Intel is the clear winner, or the best for everyone. But in the end ... name another option.
Toejam31
<font color=purple>My Rig:</font color=purple> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>