Intel bribing THG? Is it possible?

Crashman · Sep 25, 2003

That sounds a lot more reasonable than your lie about the 3.2EE being overclocked. Maybe I don't hope your lies get you killed any more. Anyway, I disagree on the Q3 test for one simple reason: They lowered everything as much as possible to put the load on the CPU rather than the graphics card. This actually makes sense to me.

I'm still not bying a VIA chipset board, so which do you think will happen first, the P4EE actually being seen in the market, or nVidia fixing their chipset?

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

lxccl · Sep 25, 2003

boy.....computers sure ain't funny

Crashman · Sep 25, 2003

Heh, sometimes computer people are. Lying is intolerable however, it often gets the victim hurt.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

HardWareBoss · Sep 25, 2003

FX51 is rhe clone of Opti.

HardWareBoss · Sep 25, 2003

FX51 is the clone of Opti.

eden · Sep 25, 2003

There is a button called Edit right next to your Reply To:, try using that.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </A> :lol:

spud · Sep 25, 2003

*spud sprays more fagboy fanboy spray* die you little maggots,

-Jeremy

:evil:

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7013108" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1311896" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:

Guest · Sep 25, 2003

>That sounds a lot more reasonable than your lie about the
>3.2EE being overclocked.

Hu ?

>Maybe I don't hope your lies get you killed any more.

Huuu ?

Are you mistaken me for someone else, or am I just completely missing a point here ?

>Anyway, I disagree on the Q3 test for one simple reason:
>They lowered everything as much as possible to put the load
>on the CPU rather than the graphics card

In theory, maybe. But my rant was against Q3 in the first place. Q3 is about as old and relevant as Doom I. Secondly, I've seen other reviews where the performance shifts pretty much across platforms as the resolutions go up. I'm not sure why, but my guess is @640x480 you are testing as much the driver implementation as the cpu. Point is, if cpu A is faster at 64x480 and cpu B at 1024x768 regardless of theory, which one suits your needs best ? Also, don't tell me a Radeon 9800 PRO is really a bottleneck running Q3 @ 1024.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

endyen · Sep 25, 2003

Atempting suicide?

Crashman · Sep 25, 2003

Crashman is not infallable, but I was fairly certain it was you who said something about THG giving the win to an overclocked and unavailable processor (when they said the 3.2EE won, which might not be on the market this minute, but certainly isn't overclocked).

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

kinney · Sep 25, 2003

Atempting suicide?

ROFL!!! Nothing could be closer to the truth endyen.
Though he did say "maggots", plural. Lets not hope his girlfriend is not pregnant with his triplets or something!!!

Oh. And BTW, THG admitted they were "wrong" in putting those oc'd procs up..
Give it up fanboys! We were right.

-----
eden is my intel/ati superboy

Guest · Sep 25, 2003

To bad for THG thats not the only problem with there review, I wonder wether they are going to admit to all the other 'mistakes' too?

kinney · Sep 25, 2003

Oh and this.

AMD's rebranded Opteron however won't even touch a plain A64 mobo and needs the slower and more expensive ECC RAM just to run. So with AMD you end up with a complete and entire Opteron workstation, but with an Athlon label. Yeah. Great idea AMD.

Heres a repost of what I said in coolsquirtles thread.

Though the current 940pin A64FX isnt my cup of tea, I'm not as against it as most are... you arent really out in the cold when the 939s come out. You can still upgrade to a Opteron.

Thats more than what can be said for my Willamette system sitting here.

Its odvious the 940 A64FX was simply put out there as an 'uber' part to represent AMD for now until they can get the 939 with nonecc out the door. And I doubt the FX will sell well until then.
I applaud AMD for their choice in choosing the 940 opteron setup in the meantime for the FX processor, like I said above, it won't leave anyone completely out in the dark.

So actually yes, it is a great idea.

No more a "great idea" than a rebadged Xeon MP called a P4EE, but we don't hear you b*tching about that one fanboys.
Yeah. Great idea intel.

Ripping on the ECC mem 940pin FX is a waste of your short fanboy lives... theres your rhyme and reason for its existence and its actually a decent attempt by AMD for the time being.

Your hypocrisy is ringing loud and true. Maybe spud and eden can help you out here with some more witty quips.

-----
eden is my intel/ati superboy

spud · Sep 25, 2003

*psst psst PSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST* shite this kinney one is a tough one!!!

-Jeremy

:evil:

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7013108" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1311896" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:

Nikko · Sep 25, 2003

I normally don't read THG anymore. I haven't in at least a couple years. I only come around when there's a major launch, like the A64, just to reinforce what I already know. THG is a flawed, biased, corrupted site. I don't trust a word that these buffoons say. Every review I've read, accept for the one on this site, says the A64 FX is faster overall than the P4EE. I seriously think Intel's marketing department writes THG reviews.

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
<A HREF="http://www.faceintel.com" target="_new"> CLICK ME </A>

spud · Sep 25, 2003

*yawn* Nikko leave it you hate them soo bad we wount miss you.

-Jeremy

:evil:

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7013108" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1311896" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:

HardWareBoss · Sep 25, 2003

Ya I know I tried to stop when I sent it page was still there when I stoped. But looks like it posted.

slvr_phoenix · Sep 25, 2003

No more a "great idea" than a rebadged Xeon MP called a P4EE, but we don't hear you b*tching about that one fanboys.

kinney, are you really that stupid?

On one side we have an ex-server chip that was repackaged so that it fits into the desktop socket and doesn't require the more expensive and slower registered/ECC RAM. So when you buy a system with this CPU you get the lower-priced desktop mobo, the lower-priced (and higher performance) RAM. So even though it was a server chip once it is a desktop platform.

On the other side we have an ex-server chip that wasn't even repackaged (just renamed was all) that requires the more expensive server boards and the more expensive and slower registered/ECC RAM. So what do you have when you're done? A server system through and through.

Gee, which do you think was done the right way and which do you think was done the wrong way: the desktop platform that's being touted as a desktop platform or the server platform that's being touted as a desktop platform?

It this competition was about AMD and Intel servers then we'd be comparing Opterons to Xeons and Itaniums. We're however comparing desktop solutions. And the A64FX is not a desktop solution, no matter what AMD renames it to be. Intel's P4EE however is a desktop solution. End of story.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new">People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</A></pre>

slvr_phoenix · Sep 25, 2003

Yeah ok run a williamette core processor on a northwood board, enough with the motherboard issue.

What does that have to do with the price of sand in Hawaii?

For Intel it's a CPU that runs in a desktop. For AMD it's a CPU that runs in a server. Yeah, sure, you can make single-CPU servers/workstations. But the point is that they're still not a desktop no matter what you want to call them. And this was a desktop comparison. If Intel had just renamed their Itanium as a Pentium5 you wouldn't be dumb enough to believe that it's a desktop CPU now. So why isn't anyone concerned that the A64FX is nothing other than an Opteron running in a single-CPU configuration? (And for that matter the A64-FX even still has it's extra hypertransport layers, so you could use it in a multi-CPU configuration at that.)

And now to address the ECC Ram. Big deal, as demand goes up price will come down.

For ECC RAM? Can you honestly even say that demand is even going to go up enough to bring the price down? I sure couldn't go out on such an exteme limb to state something as ludicrous as that.

Most of the people that use thier computers to do more than just play games actually consider ECC to be a blessing not a curse.

I work in a scientific analysis company. I deal with everything from military projects to commercial projects to university projects. Not a single one piece of hardware that the company that I work for has sold for this, nor that of any of our competitors have ever sold, has ever used registered or ECC RAM. Ever. In fact, I don't even know a single person who isn't running a server that uses registered/ECC RAM. And in fact, I don't recall Dell, Gateway, or anyone ever offering registered/ECC RAM to typical PC customers. So that whole 0.00000000000001% market that likes AMD's use of registered/ECC RAM over normal RAM for 'desktops' is really not going to be nearly as large as the number of people who dislike that. Go ahead and prove me wrong if you can.

You want to run more than a gig of ram and not have ECC? Have fun!

The company that I work for, as well as all of our competitors, have been doing so for years without a single problem. It is fun. You save money and increase performance for nearly identical stability. What's not fun about that? 2GB? 3GB? It's all good. According to our statistics size doesn't make any difference. Again, prove me wrong if you can.

Furthermore, the requirement for Opteron and AthlonFX is registered memory, with ECC optional.

You go ahead and find me a single stick of low-latency registered DDR400 RAM for even close to the price of low-latency DDR400 and then come back and make this point in any way valid.

For those who find ECC unacceptable the 939 pin variant will not require it and will compete quite favorably with the p4.

And when AMD releases that 939 pin variant with it's lack of a registered RAM requirement and it's trimmed hypertransport layers to match that of actual desktop processors, I will then gladly call it a desktop CPU and welcome it's benchmark results as a desktop CPU with open arms. Until that day, it's just an Opteron. No matter what AMD names it, it's still an Opteron. Even a single-CPU Opteron box can make darn fine workstation for those who can afford it, but that's still not a desktop box no matter what name you sell it under.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new">People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</A></pre>

ChipDeath · Sep 25, 2003

How does overclocking a hand-picked engineering sample show how well the EE scales up?

*shrugs* shows what the core is capable of, it was air-cooled, and it worked. As a man who is no novice at overclocking, I was interested how an Oced P4 stacks up.
I still maintain that I don't think THG did anything wrong by including the chip(s), because they didn't make any claims that they were stock speeds, or that they were available, and they didn't mis-label them. Anyone who can read could see that, so I can only assume that it's the AMD fanclub desperately trying to find as much leverage as possible to discredit the review.

Crash:

Anyway, I disagree on the Q3 test for one simple reason: They lowered everything as much as possible to put the load on the CPU rather than the graphics card. This actually makes sense to me.

At least someone agrees with me there... It's stupid to do anything else in a CPU review, especially given the immaturity of the A64 Mobos. If all the chips would fit in the same mobo, then it wouldn't be of any real benifit or hinderance... But to some people this makes no sense, for reasons of their own.

---
The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong

Guest · Sep 25, 2003

man you sure make a big deal out of ECC "not being designed for desktops" or something. Now, first please tell me; according to you, what exactly is the difference between a workstation, and a (high end) desktop ?

To me, the FX is a high end gaming and workstation solution. Guess what, workstation users tend to appreciate ECC. If I run a huge simulation or render job on my Ultrasparc that takes hours, if not days, I am damn happy a bit flip in my 6 GB ram doesnt crash my puter or corrupt the result. I don't mind a few percent less performance (otherwise, I wouldnt be using SUN in the first place I guess). Trust me, I am REALLY trying to convince my employer to get me BOXX dual opteron machine, as the software I use is being ported to AMD64 under linux. If that doesnt work, trust me, a single CPU FX would make a great workstation for me too, as long as it takes (enough) ECC Ram.

Now, gamers is another thing. I agree that ECC/registered ram isnt a requirement for them. tough luck. Either you pay up for the more expensive RAM, or you don't. Same thing applied to the P4 initially, either you where willing to pay a HUGE price premium for couple megabytes of RDRAM, or you werent, and you picked something else. Its a cost consideration,nothing more, nothing less. Big deal.

BTW, if will be solved in a few months when socket 939 is launched.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Grub · Sep 25, 2003

DIE NEWBIE DIE!!!

Scamtron doesn't like my sig...

Ncogneto · Sep 25, 2003

For Intel it's a CPU that runs in a desktop. For AMD it's a CPU that runs in a server. Yeah, sure, you can make single-CPU servers/workstations. But the point is that they're still not a desktop no matter what you want to call them. And this was a desktop comparison.

Fact of the matter is workstation class computers and desktop class computers distinctions are getting less and less defined. I care not to argue this point with you as it will ultimaly come down to a matter of opinion and personal intrepetation. If AMD (or Intel with the P4EE for that matter) want to market there respective CPU's as desktops processors, who am I (or you) to argue.

For ECC RAM? Can you honestly even say that demand is even going to go up enough to bring the price down? I sure couldn't go out on such an exteme limb to state something as ludicrous as that.

Personally, yes I think so. No need to start a flame war here, until a signiicant period of time passes this will be pure speculation on either of our parts. Bear in mind at least three RAM manufactoreres released registered memory to co-ordinate with the launch of the A64. Am I saying it will come down to the price point of non-ECC Ram, no.

I work in a scientific analysis company..blah blah blah...I work in a scientific analysis company

Actually I am not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying you don't know anybody (your company withits servers included) that uses Registered ECC memory? I really find this hard to believe. I know my Fc-Raid card uses it for its cache memory.

The company that I work for, as well as all of our competitors, have been doing so for years without a single problem. It is fun. You save money and increase performance for nearly identical stability. What's not fun about that? 2GB? 3GB? It's all good. According to our statistics size doesn't make any difference. Again, prove me wrong if you can.

Nearly being the key word here. Just love it when you try to prove a point and uses arguments with relative statements like that. Why is it acceptable to pay a price premium for slightly more MHZ in a processor which yileds marginal gains but yet totally unacceptable to pay a price premium for more stability? I am sure (at least I hope so) that you understand what ECC is and why it is better(in terms of stability) than non ECC Ram. But, for those that may be reading and really don't quite grasp what it is for other than it is slightly slower and more expensive here is the reason in a nutshell. On non ECC Ram ever so often a bit can flip its state ( ie binary from 0 to 1 or vice versa) this is an error. The larger the total capacity of RAM, the more bits you will have flip. So, in larger RAM configurations it becomes increasingly possible to have enough of a significant amount of Error occuring in RAM to start to become a concern. With the new 64 bit processors being able to address much more RAM than thee 32 bit counterparts this becomes a concern

It's not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you!

saintbabs · Sep 25, 2003

The notion that Intel can buy print is ludricous for one very simple reason, Intel has very strict internal controls. They are a monopoly and under very close scrutiny so, everyone should put that "Intel payola" stuff aside. It doesn't happen.

I'll even go further, Intel has, in the past, come close to firing an ad agency that came back and complained about the placement of an ad near an AMD review in the CPU section. They were very cautious about keeping the separation between church and state, advertising and press.

Intel has no choice because, one hint of improprietary could mean millions of dollars worth of legal fees. Why does nobody get that. The company is not stupid enough to jeapordize its business and reputation because of what THG says. It's what the Wall Street Journal, or the NY Times says that ultimately seals the deal for Intel. If they are going to put big bucks into PR, it goes into the financial and general press. The review sites have never been Intel's strength.

When I hear this stuff, it makes me wonder whether the people writing it have every worked in a real corporation, or have even the slightest idea about how Intel and Microsoft have to work in order to protect themselves from "legal" problems.

The companies that try and control editorial are quite simply incompetent, or too small to deal with.

We're professionals, and no self-respecting journalist would want to be bought. They'd have no future in the business. You think PR guys would trust some weasel who sold out at the first drop of a dollar?

It just boggles the mind how people come up with this crap. It's juvenile.

As for what every site said about the Athlon 64 versus what THG said: since when where we obligated to be working for other sites? We are independent, and have our own opinions and procedures. I have seen other reviews and some tend to do is write what "you" want to hear. And some didn't differ that much from our conclusions, although some were less outspoken.

No-one wants to piss off the enthusiast, or AMD supporter. People are afraid of negative forum postings. Is that what you want from us? We should suck up to you? Does that make us independent, or better at our jobs, or more objective?

What the heck is debate all about? It's about disagreeing and arguing your points, but accusing THG of being bribed by Intel is weak, at best, and inane.

Enjoy the AMD versus Intel performance war. All that will matter is what the bottom line fourth quarter results are for AMD. That is the critical factor. No amount of fanboy support, or performance leadership, or 64-bit hype is going to help AMD unless they start to show results in the profit and loss statements for the coming quarters.

This launch, even without the P4 EE, doesn't prove AMD has turned the corner. We need to address that issue, and be harder on AMD because, they shouldn't be given a free pass. It doesn't help them compete with Intel.

Omid Rahmat
GM & Publisher
Tom's Guides Publishing LLC
www.tomshardware.com

kinney · Sep 25, 2003

Thanks for the information captain odvious.
I think everyone knew that.

You missed the point. AMD doesnt have all the time and resources in the world.
If you'd reread my quote from the thread above you might understand WHY they did it that way.
It was actually a crafty move.

And the A64FX is not a desktop solution, no matter what AMD renames it to be. Intel's P4EE however is a desktop solution. End of story.

Find me where you pulled this definition of a desktop PC using exclusively nonECC ram and ANY one kind of socket or slot format.

The FX appears to have become a "desktop" solution to me! As well as every reviewer and person in the world as of Sept. 23rd.
Are you lost????

-----
eden is my intel/ati superboy

Intel bribing THG? Is it possible?

Polypheme

Distinguished

Polypheme

Splendid

Splendid

Champion

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Splendid

Polypheme

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page