bye bye x86

spud · Oct 15, 2002

Reading over your posts several times I came to a conclusion, you are clueless. My turn to clarify some of your common "misconceptions".

Let's see what I am remembering now - things that have disappointed me:

1. The P3 1,13Ghz launches; a total failure.

The cpu had reached the limits of the cores initial specifications. Most likely a bell curve issue resulting in poor signal quality. But that’s besides the point the cpu was rushed we all know that, most likely because Intel wanted to be the "fastest" kid on the block so quality testing was cut short. But harping on it won’t change that fact. Considering if us "Intel" guys harped on the poor over clocking of the AXP rev. a. Or the huge amount of heat it’s producing. Or the joke the K6-2 was. We would never hear the end of it. Maybe well just mention the joke the current AMD "me" campaign is. Point being it’s pointless and rather droll to constantly bring up useless points like that.

Intel's reaction was something like:

if you have nothing better to do, then go ahead and write your article, because we are so BIGGGG anyway and we don't care. Loosing some customers is no big deal. They WILL come back because they have no option.

That’s statement there is the most ... man I don’t know one of the stupidest statements I have ever read. That’s just retarded that you would even say that. That’s like saying Sanders goes and eggs Andy Groves house, or Texas Techie has insider information regarding cpu cores. Both are equally stupid and nonfactual.

2. Remember the bug that was found in Intel's infamous 'i820' or 'Camino' chipset?
Read this: (I will have nothing more to say on this matter)

Ya I remember that oh ya it was because people complained they couldn’t use sd-ram so Intel tried and failed to make a chipset that could do both. Harping on that is like harping on AMD for making the 760 and then giving up on it. Both are equally a waste of time and thought.

I would point of more stupidness that you seem to be posting but that would take me to your stupidness level and I don’t want to be any more stupid than I already am so well stop at it. I’m not sure what your problem is with Intel corp. or their cup’s or their business decisions but if I was you I would seriously rethink what I was saying cause it just sounds… well stupid.

-Jeremy

Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man

slvr_phoenix · Oct 15, 2002

Sorry razvan, but I've got to back up spud's sentimentality. (Though perhaps not his attitude.) Let's take this one step at a time...

Now let's go on to Intel: I think that one can write a book about their ugly things that they have done only in the last year. If you don't agree with me on this point I will give you the list

Funny how you specified in the last year and then bring up the P3 1.13GHz and the Camino/MTH bug, both of which happened, if I remember correctly, way back in early 2000. This makes both well past two years ago, not 'in the last year'. More on them later. First though, by chance do you actually have any list of items within the last year?

Let's think about Intel: some 6 months ago they where all RAMBUS. Rambus all the way. Some 3 weeks ago they said - we are going DDR. We will not develop any Rambus solution. The clients where puzzled - those who have invested a lot of money in Rambus. After the client's pressure they said that i850 will be further developed at least for RDRAM1066. That is Intel: going with the wind...

So what you are saying is that you don't want a company that will give you what you need to meet your computing needs? You want a company that will ignore your every suggestion and every need and just do what they think is best?

I have an IBM keyboard aged to more that 10 years. It weights more that 3 kilo. Yet it is working like new. I also have an IBM mouse - the same age. Still working very well. This computer is of no use today - of course!! - but when it was useful it was not spared. I don't know many companies that can do such good - quality items.

A lot! I still have a working 8-bit Nintendo. Hell, I still have a working C=64. I still use both. Generally, electronics that don't involve motors and don't overheat last a long time.

1. The P3 1,13Ghz launches; a total failure. It was not working.

Obviously you don't even know what you're talking about. The P3 1.13GHz actually worked quite well most of the time. It was only in rare instances that certain software could cause it to fail. Granted, that isn't the best CPU in the world, but it certainly wasn't a total failure. The CPU did work the vast majority of the time.

And yet, Intel recalled it immediately and replaced or refunded every single sale. Pretty nice of them considering how companies like AMD never did such for their K5s and K6s that had 'incompatability' problems. Not to knock AMD, because that was far in the past. I'm just pointing out that Intel didn't have to recall them in the first place. They made a mistake, yes. But they also handled the mistake quite nicely, which cannot exactly be said for all other companies out there.

2. remember the bug that was found in Intel's infamous 'i820' or 'Camino' chipset?

No. I remember the bug that was introduced in motherboards using the MTH by motherboard manufacturers who couldn't follow tight specs. The Camino chipset itself wasn't bad. The MTH itself worked. (It was a stupid concept, but it worked.) However, motherboard manufacturers didn't adhere to the tight specs Intel required for the MTH and so some motherboards that used the MTH were unstable. And it was less than 20% at that.

And even though it should have been the responsability of the individual motherboard manufacturers to handle any sort of a recall, Intel took it upon themselves to handle that when they didn't have to. They did refund or replace any defective motherboard to my knowledge. My cousin had no problem getting a replacement and got better performance with his PC800 than with his PC133 anyway. So while it was annoying, it also resulted in a notable PC upgrade, free of charge.

I got tons of mails from upset owners of Intel CC820 motherboards, who told me that Intel-officials deny the replacement or refund categorically. The answers of those official Intel-spokespeople go from "We won't replace any memory" to "Only affected CC820 boards, which is about 15-20% of them, get replaced". Both statements are simply WRONG.

No offense to Dr. Pabst, but four months after the whole Caminogate thing, I hadn't heard a single complaint from any of the people affected by the bad mobos. It sounds like he made much ado about nothing to me. But then again, that's probably why it was in a BLURB, a personal rant, not in a professional article.

3. the P4 high frequency

First of all, anyone who spends a grand or more on a purchase without properly researching it deserves whatever problems they get. So those first P4 purchasers have no sympathy from me.

Second of all, the P4 architecture of a high-speed chip is a perfectly valid way of achieving end-result performance, just as is AMD's way of using a low-speed chip is. End performance is vaguely represented by the equation 'Performance = Freq x IPC'. Intel chose to ramp the frequency faster. AMD chose to continue to rely on IPC instead.

There is no 'deceptive' practice in designing a CPU architecture. Benchmarks don't lie, and if you look at anything else to judge performance, then you're a bloody moron.

The latest proc from Intel - Itanium hasn't the same architecture (low IPC, high freq). Well... WHY? If this is the future: low IPC, high freq then WHY?

Are you really this clueless or just being a whinge? X86 is designed to run code in serial. Itanium is designed to execute code in parallel. Different approaches at code execution require different CPU designs.

?!! Rambus is performing better on P4. On P3 this was NOT true. I repeat: it was NOT true. Search this site's archive and get convinced.

Actually, you're considerably wrong and appearantly unable to take your own advice to search the site. PC800 ran better than SDRAM for the P3. For example, check out the quote "First things first. Intel's i820 chipset with the 'elitist', super expensive RDRAM is still the overall fastest mainstream chipset for Coppermine." from the article <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q1/000302" target="_new">Performance Showdown at 133 MHz FSB - The best Platform for Coppermine</A>. Just look at how badly RDRAM on the P3 whooped up on SDRAM.

Are you suggesting that Intel did that because they care about people's opinions? I'm sorry for this expression, but: quit the crap. They did it because they where loosing money; they did it because their evil monopoly that they tried to create with Rambus was a failure.

First of all, if listening to people's opinions means making more money, then of course they listen to people's opinions. They're a business, an organization that endeavors to make money. Funny how that works. Listen to the customer, give them what they want, and make money. I'd say that Intel cares a lot about people's opinions because that's what makes them rich. It's self-serving, but then what for-profit organization isn't? Can you name me one company that at it's heart doesn't just want to take your money?

Second of all, appearantly your English skills aren't too great or else you would know that Monopoly partially derives it's meaning from the Latin word for one. Intel plus Rambus equals two, not one. So it couldn't even have been a monopoly if they had tried.

Thirdly, RDRAM outperformed SDRAM, whether on a P3 or a P4. Hell, on a P4 RDRAM clearly still outperforms DDR SDRAM. So you're blaming Intel for chosing a memory type that gives it's users the most performance. Those evil bastards!

Why forcing the market to use only one option? Perhaps I don't care about 10% of lost performance and I want to save money. This should be MY choice.

Tell that to AMD. Intel currently provides both SDRAM (DDR and SDR are both SDRAM), and RDRAM solutions for the P4. AMD offers only SDRAM. So Intel at present gives people more choice than any of their competitors.

In the beginning Intel has not licensed anybody for the P4 bus tech and it has sued VIA for developing such a solution

Intel sued VIA for producing P4 chipsets when VIA didn't actually have a license to do so. Had VIA properly obtained a license, Intel wouldn't have sued them.

My point too. In other words: those who decide what server to buy are more informed than the average Joe; they are not easy to trick. So.. why bother to trick? Just give them a fair solution.

Trick? Whom is tricking whom now? Name one P4 owner who doesn't get the performance that they paid for. There are no tricks there.

Yes, that is a solution. I am hoping that sooner or later the x86 platform will be replaced so that such compromises will not be necessary any more.

Compromises? We're talking about two very dissimilar instruction engines and resulting architectures. What compromise are you talking about? Are you even in the same discussion as the rest of us?

Sorry razvan, but not only are you living in the distant past, but you can't even remember that distant past correctly. Your facts are all wrong. Your points are weaker than water. So far, you've sounded like a blithering fool with an unjustified grudge against Intel.

Which is fine if that's who you are, but don't expect anyone to respect you for it. If you want to be upset with Intel, fine. At least have a reason that you can justify with actual proof though.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=45775#45775" target="_new">Join the THGC LAN Party!</A>

spud · Oct 15, 2002

Water isnt weak.... oh boy I smell a lawsuit from a fluid that expands when frozon. Poor silver water is pretty big I think they control 71% of the market for earths water supply I think your in for it.

-Jeremy

Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man

razvan · Oct 16, 2002

That’s statement there is the most ... man I don’t know one of the stupidest statements I have ever read. That’s just retarded that you would even say that.

You are retarded for using such words.

I would point of more stupidness that you seem to be posting but that would take me to your stupidness level and I don’t want to be any more stupid than I already am so well stop at it.

Who the [-peep-] are you trying to intimidate you freak? Your profile is empty because you want to insult people and get away with it. Just don't pollute my thread you stupid lamer.

Where do you live? I will make you eat your dirty words you stupid [-peep-].

razvan · Oct 16, 2002

You disappointed me.

I didn't post here because I know everything. Even if I am not right I didn't do anything to justify your insults and the insults or of this stupid lamer SPUD. Having more points to sustain what I have said is of no importance now. I didn't come here to be insulted.

Your insults convinced me that I am wrong.

TroubleBear · Oct 16, 2002

The following is all in good fun. :tongue:

Second of all, appearantly [sic] your English skills aren't too great or else you would know that Monopoly partially derives it's meaning from the Latin word for one. Intel plus Rambus equals two, not one. So it couldn't even have been a monopoly if they had tried.

You have three problems in the above statement (not counting the typo).

One, mono- is Greek, not Latin. It entered into English via Latin, but it was borrowed into Latin from Greek sometime in the pre-empire Res Publica. The Latin word for 'one' (at least in this context) is uni, as in unicycle.

Second, your understanding of the legal definition of 'monopoly' (the Modern English word) is less than complete. While it is true that at one time a 'monopoly' was defined strictly as a single entity that eliminated competition via control of all the links in the chain of production and distribution (or at least control of enough links to eliminate competition), courts today tend to emphasize the competition (or lack thereof) aspect over the 'single entity' aspect when finding whether an entity, or entities, have monopolistic power. An Intel/Rambus agreement to use only Rambus memory is anti-competitive on its face, though it is not necessarily unfairly anti-competitive. The use of monopolistic power is not itself a violation of the Sherman Act; it is the unfair use of monopolistic power that is a violation. Had a court found that Intel and Rambus colluded to eliminate other types of computer system memory, and that their agreement for the exclusive use of RAMBUS memory for Intel P4 based systems was evidentiary, then it is possible that the two companies would have jointly violated anti-trust legislation via the implementation of unfair anti-competitive policies and thus would have constituted a de facto ‘monopoly’. In other words, in the modern reality of corporate dealings the use of monopolistic power can spring from multiple entity agreements.

Third, do you not think it would be better to write that razvan’s Greek skills are not to good, not his English skills? :tongue:

-----

Also, perhaps people who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones:

Trick? Whom is tricking whom now? Name one P4 owner who doesn't get the performance that they paid for. There are no tricks there.

Your first ‘whom’ is clearly nominative; it is not accusative or dative. Thus, the correct sentence would be, “Who is tricking whom now?”

Remember, this is all in fun. Substantively, I agree with most of your arguments. Stylistically, I am afraid that you lose a few points.

spud · Oct 16, 2002

Haha ok thug you wanna come beat me up. Ok thats funny we got a forum thug again. What you want my address phone number what let me know how I can help you get into jail faster. BTW you are pretty stupid and childish now.

-Jeremy

Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man

spud · Oct 16, 2002

Updated my profile for you princess, enjoy stalking me.

-Jeremy

Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man

Kelledin · Oct 16, 2002

Sorry, I at least partly agree with you, but there are a couple of points in error here.

And yet, Intel recalled it immediately and replaced or refunded every single sale. Pretty nice of them considering how companies like AMD never did such for their K5s and K6s that had 'incompatability' problems. Not to knock AMD, because that was far in the past.

Not to knock AMD, because that wasn't AMD's problem. Put the K5 or K6 on an Intel chipset, and it worked just fine; Crashman can attest to that. I have a couple such CPUs that are still working just fine, so they have no problem lasting for years.

Intel got a lot of flak for the 1.13GHz Coppermine because it was possibly the worst manufacturing error ever made with x86 CPUs. AMD, for all that Intel zealots deride it for producing supposedly "unreliable" products, never screwed up so badly as that, no matter how far behind they were or how desperate to save face. AMD never screwed up in chipsets so badly as the Camino, either--their problem is they let third parties shoulder too much of the chipset manufacturing burden.

Actually, you're considerably wrong and appearantly unable to take your own advice to search the site. PC800 ran better than SDRAM for the P3. For example, check out the quote "First things first. Intel's i820 chipset with the 'elitist', super expensive RDRAM is still the overall fastest mainstream chipset for Coppermine." from the article Performance Showdown at 133 MHz FSB - The best Platform for Coppermine. Just look at how badly RDRAM on the P3 whooped up on SDRAM.

Perhaps you've forgotten this, but a long time ago, Intel made the mistake of having two benchmarks on their site at the same time (one for PC800/i820, and one for PC133/i815), and the i815 pulled ahead in nine out of eleven tests. Even though the two benchmarks were hosted in separate sections of the intel.com website, someone was clever enough to dig them up and put them side by side.

I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.

eden · Oct 16, 2002

HOLY CRAP
All of my posts yesterday were gone, damn it!
I had asked imgod2u something. Damn forum bugs....

To imgod2u, I asked if the IA64's ease of use, would actually help to reduce pipeline lenghts yet clocking is not as much harder?
I mean if the work inside the stages seems less hard due to the compiler who has already done the work, shouldn't that allow even better clocking?

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=19957#19957" target="_new">Tell here!</A>

eden · Oct 16, 2002

I want something that says power and looks power

HUMMPPH, I happen to think that a white sphere looking computer that spits its tongue out (CDROM) at you, screams of mad power!!!

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=19957#19957" target="_new">Tell here!</A>

imgod2u · Oct 16, 2002

To imgod2u, I asked if the IA64's ease of use, would actually help to reduce pipeline lenghts yet clocking is not as much harder?
I mean if the work inside the stages seems less hard due to the compiler who has already done the work, shouldn't that allow even better clocking?

This has come up before. For x86 code, the official word from Intel is that optimal pipeline length is somewhere around 50 stages for the integer pipeline. In a more advanced ISA that is designed for parallelism, the optimal integer pipeline length would be somewhere around 8-12 stages, as seen by most of the RISC-like processor designs out there. That is not to say though, that Intel won't be designing a hugely hyperpipelined IA-64 MPU for the desktop because as we all know, MHz sells. Unless of course, Intel wants to develope a PR system........

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.

slvr_phoenix · Oct 16, 2002

Water isnt weak.... oh boy I smell a lawsuit from a fluid that expands when frozon. Poor silver water is pretty big I think they control 71% of the market for earths water supply I think your in for it.

I was meaning in reference to alcoholic beverages. Though if you want to compare solid water to other solids (such as iron, titanium, quartz, diamond, etc.) it's still weak. Just because there is a lot of it doesn't make it strong. 😛

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=45775#45775" target="_new">Join the THGC LAN Party!</A>

slvr_phoenix · Oct 16, 2002

You disappointed me.

I didn't post here because I know everything. Even if I am not right I didn't do anything to justify your insults and the insults or of this stupid lamer SPUD. Having more points to sustain what I have said is of no importance now. I didn't come here to be insulted.

Your insults convinced me that I am wrong.

Give me one single direct personal insult that I nailed you with. The fact that you're so blatantly wrong isn't an insult.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=45775#45775" target="_new">Join the THGC LAN Party!</A>

slvr_phoenix · Oct 16, 2002

The following is all in good fun. :tongue:

Good.

I like good fun. If we can't laugh at ourselves, who can we laugh at? 😉

You have three problems in the above statement (not counting the typo).

Actually, I'm rather amazed at the number of typos that I made. I usually make many more than that. 😉 I must actually be getting over my phonetic upbringing.

One, mono- is Greek, not Latin. It entered into English via Latin, but it was borrowed into Latin from Greek sometime in the pre-empire Res Publica. The Latin word for 'one' (at least in this context) is uni, as in unicycle.

Ach! You got me there. Something didn't feel perfectly right about that, but I wasn't up to actually doing research. I already spent more time on that post than I'd have cared to. **LOL** You're right though. How silly of me.

Second, your understanding of the legal definition of 'monopoly' (the Modern English word) is less than complete.

Well, that's debatable really. The definition of monopoly, legal or not, remains the same. I can't help it if people commonly use the term wrong. In legal slang, I suppose you have a point. However I have never been a fan of using slang for definitions.

And still, even had Rambus become the only memory for Intel the Durons, Athlons, C3s, Crusoes, etc. (even all Macintosh systems for that matter) all still used SDRAM. So it would not have even been an unfairly anti-competetive venture.

Third, do you not think it would be better to write that razvan’s Greek skills are not to good, not his English skills? :tongue:

Hmm ... you have a good point. That does bring up a good question: Is an English word which derives meaning from the Greek language subject to skill in English or Greek? I suppose it's really a little of both. Then again, that is one of the major problems with the English language. It has far too many derivations from other languages, making it both difficult to know how to pronounce and difficult to comprehend at times. It only gets worse with the Americanization of the English language, though I suspect that the English themselves have quite a few interesting problems of their own with the language. 😉

Your first ‘whom’ is clearly nominative; it is not accusative or dative. Thus, the correct sentence would be, “Who is tricking whom now?”

Would you believe that even as I wrote that, I knew that it was wrong? Heh heh. Yet I still left it. Goodness knows why I didn't feel like correcting it then, but still it is good for a laugh none the less.

You're right though, my post was hardly perfect English, misspellings included.

Still, considering the nature of schools in America these days, I like to think that I've managed to come out considerably ahead of the game. 😉 (Even if I still like using things like contractions, ASCII emoticons, and other horrors not belonging in proper English. Tsk tsk on me!)

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=45775#45775" target="_new">Join the THGC LAN Party!</A>

slvr_phoenix · Oct 16, 2002

Sorry, I at least partly agree with you, but there are a couple of points in error here.

Sorry Kelledin, while I respect your attempt so far I find your corrections flawed.

Not to knock AMD, because that wasn't AMD's problem. Put the K5 or K6 on an Intel chipset, and it worked just fine; Crashman can attest to that. I have a couple such CPUs that are still working just fine, so they have no problem lasting for years.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with you because I have seen in person a K5 chip on an Intel motherboard that still had a very obvious flaw. It wasn't a very problamatic flaw, but still obvious. Windows would draw the desktop background completely, and yet no window nor mouse could ever access the top 25% of the screen. A maximized window would even only fill the lower 75% of the screen. It was most amusing, but still a flaw from a K5 chip on an Intel motherboard that was corrected when the K5 chip was replaced with a Pentium chip.

Yes, the bugs in the K5 and K6 reduced dramatically when run on Intel chipsets. That aside, there were still rare bugs within the chips themselves that no chipset would fix. This was at least true of the K5. Perhaps it is not true of the latter K6s though.

Intel got a lot of flak for the 1.13GHz Coppermine because it was possibly the worst manufacturing error ever made with x86 CPUs.

I agree that it was a very rushed-to-market chip and that it was nothing more than a typical overclock done professionally at the factory. In that regard, it was laughable. It required a specially-designed Intel motherboard to run stabily.

However, when using the complete package that Intel put together for the P3 1.13GHz, it was stable and ran most software flawlessly. And since the only sales of the P3 1.13GHz were to OEMs and since OEM's should test their complete systems prior to shipping to customers, the chances of an end customer even getting an unstable P3 1.13GHz system were virtually nil.

So to call it 'worst manufacturing error ever made' is to me a very undeserved label. Perhaps one of the worst managerial decisions ever made. That aside, I personally can't label it as the worst manufacturing error ever made. Maybe you can, but my point of view differs from that.

Yet in the end, it didn't really matter anyway as Intel did recall the CPUs and did replace or refund anyone who had purchased one (which was very few indeed).

Intel got a lot of flak for it. Some of that flak was even deserved, yes. However, a sizable portion of that flak was not deserved as practically no one but OEMs were even affected by the recall in the first place, and the recall was handled both quickly and fairly. So all in all, manufacturing error or not, virtually no end-customer was adversely affected by it.

AMD, for all that Intel zealots deride it for producing supposedly "unreliable" products, never screwed up so badly as that, no matter how far behind they were or how desperate to save face.

I really hadn't wanted to turn this into an AMD vs. Intel debate, so I'm going to refrain from counterpointing this.

AMD never screwed up in chipsets so badly as the Camino, either--their problem is they let third parties shoulder too much of the chipset manufacturing burden.

I suggest you try doing more research. The Camino chipset worked perfectly fine. The MTH worked perfectly fine when specs were followed. It was not a chipset problem. It wasn't even an MTH problem. It was a problem with motherboard manufacturers not following specs to the letter.

Much like the new Asus motherboards with the SiS chipset. The chipset works perfectly fine, as Gigabyte has proven.

You really shouldn't blame the chipset manufacturer when it is in fact the motherboard manufacturer that caused the bugs.

Perhaps you've forgotten this, but a long time ago, Intel made the mistake of having two benchmarks on their site at the same time (one for PC800/i820, and one for PC133/i815), and the i815 pulled ahead in nine out of eleven tests. Even though the two benchmarks were hosted in separate sections of the intel.com website, someone was clever enough to dig them up and put them side by side.

I hadn't by any means forgotten that. It was an immensely funny event.

I just don't consider it to be any reasonably professional comparison. There weren't enough specifics on the systems to compare them directly. Any good benchmarker knows that you have to use systems that are as identical as possible to one another to get fair results. And considering the benchmarks that we have seen from professionals that show RDRAM beating SDRAM time and time again, I have a difficult time believing that Intel's website was a valid comparison, which is perhaps why Intel didn't directly do the comparison themselves.

If you can show me one single review with benchmarks of systems identical except for motherboard and RAM where an i815 with CAS2 PC133 definitively beats a i840 with 40ns PC800 then I'll gladly accede that the P3 benefitted more from SDRAM than from RDRAM. Until then, there's much better proof that though much more expensive, RDRAM solutions still performed better for the P3 than PC133 did.

And yes, I'm picky on the specifics of the RDRAM there, but only because we all know that just using any old PC133 (such as CAS3) would clearly lose. So if we're going to be picky about one memory type, then lets be picky about both. And I also don't consider the 440BX comparisons fair because a 133MHz FSB was never officially supported on them and as far as I know, to do so always ran the PCI and AGP cards out of spec, making it highly unfair to begin with.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=45775#45775" target="_new">Join the THGC LAN Party!</A>

Search

bye bye x86

spud

Distinguished

slvr_phoenix

Splendid

spud

Distinguished

razvan

Distinguished

razvan

Distinguished

TroubleBear

Distinguished

spud

Distinguished

spud

Distinguished

Kelledin

Distinguished

eden

Champion

eden

Champion

imgod2u

Distinguished

slvr_phoenix

Splendid

slvr_phoenix

Splendid

slvr_phoenix

Splendid

slvr_phoenix

Splendid

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page