Lately I've given up even caring about anything you write 'pope', since frankly you're about as scientifically accurate as the Catholic church is biblicly accurate. This case is, of course, no exception.
The only reason that I'm even bothering at all is simply because you're spreading considerable FUD that even the article that you linked to doesn't back up. And come on, 'the inquirer'? You couldn't find a more inacurate news source if you tried to.
the MB problem with prescott rumour was the first sign of process problems with PRESCOTT
I don't know where in the world you get this idea from. Besides the fact that there is no known motherboard problem yet, even if there was it would simply have been a matter of 3rd party mobo manufacturers not following Intel's electrical specs for Prescott. And since those have been widely available and unchanged for quite some time, it really is a matter of the 3rd party manu's choice, not of any actual flaw in the chipset. So there is absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work for any manu that chose to make it work. Which is why a number of manus have already stated explicitely that their mobos <i>will</i> run Prescott. So not only was this <i>not</i> an indication of process problems in Scotty, but this rumor <i>has</i> been proven to be nothing but a lie. Any mobo from a manu that claims Scotty runs on their mobos will indeed run Scotty.
Intel fans shot it down as BS RUMORS
If you call motherboard manufacturers 'Intel fans', then yes. And rightly so, because it <i>was</i> a BS rumor.
Then it started coming out that PRESCOTT at a much smaller MICRON was actually hotter and sucking more juice than the .13 Northwood.
Gee, I wonder why.
<sarcasm>I mean it wasn't like Intel didn't double the ondie cache, the most frequently used and thus heat generating part of the CPU. And certainly the improved hyperthreading that enables the CPU to utilize even more of it's maximum processing power has nothing to do with a heat and power increase either. It couldn't possibly be that Scotty runs hotter at least in part because Scotty simply utilizes even more of the maximum capability of the CPU than a P4 has ever done before, and thus Scotty's typical power and heat is much closer to it's theoretical maximum than any P4 has ever been at before. No. That couldn't possibly be why at all. It must be completely and totally a process problem and has absolutely nothing to do with anything that Intel has done to improve the core and thus raise the IPC.</sarcasm>
Intel Fans said HOGWASH. I mean INTEL never has process issues ever. (P3 1.13 GHZ)
I haven't heard/read a single person who has ever said it is 'hogwash', Intel fan or not. Everyone knows that a new process has issues. Always has, always will. Intel and AMD both have had quite their share of issues when moving to a new process. Frankly, to even expect otherwise would be just plain stupid. This is why almost no one buys the absolute latest and greatest right when it first comes out, because <i>most</i> people are wary of these quite frequent problems that <i>all</i> companies have had. I dare you to even provide five links to 'Intel fans' who have said 'hogwash'.
NOw there are rumours that INTEL is having massive gate leakages with the .90 process and Prescott wont see the light of day for some time.
Funny how electron migration works. It's everybody's problem. Intel, being the first to go to a .09 micron process is the first to have to actually deal with the problem. You say this as though anyone else who is working on the same process wouldn't have the exact same problems.
However, the rumor that Scotty will be delayed is so far just that, <i>a rumor</i>. Even Intel themselves when faced directly has said Scotty is right on schedule. It may indeed be hot (Like the P4 3.06 wasn't?) but it's still right on schedule <i>and</i> a core revision to help fix this problem is <i>already</i> being worked on. So not only will Scotty be on schedule, but ScottyB with a lower heat output will be right on ScottyA's tail, <i>according to Intel</i>.
So '<font color=red>wont see the light of day for some time</font color=red>'? Not even your linked article from the monkeys at 'the inquirer' back you up on this.
Intel fans again say THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE...after all this is INTEL we are talking about.
Exactly. It <i>is</i> utter nonsense. Not even 'the inquirer' backs you up about a delay on Scotty. And Intel, unlike AMD, actually meets the deadlines on their roadmaps. Or do we have to remind you about Athlon64's history?
Now INTEL themselves have said "YES PRESCOTT IS A MICROWAVE OVEN"
You know that when you 'quote' things like that which are in fact lies, that is called libel (at least in print) and you <i>can</i> be sued for it. Intel has never said any such thing. Intel didn't even confirm 100W. They said "close to that number". For all that we <i>know</i> it could be 95W. Only an AMDummy would turn 'close to 100W' into 'is a microwave oven'. (Especially since even if it was <b>5000W</b> you still couldn't use it as a microwave oven.)
I have no doubt INTEL will fix the problem...in time... But this is a window of oppurtunity for u know who
There is no doubt. Intel will fix any and all problems. They have quite an excellent record for doing so.
And even 'the inquirer' knows who's window of opportunity it is: "<i>Companies such as Astek or Corsair and others working on </i>(water)<i> cooling solution</i>".
As for AMD, they can't even get an AthlonXP that will compete with a top-end Northwood. Surely after seeing all of the Opteron benchmarks out there only an AMDummy would believe that A64 will compete with a top-end Prescott, even with heat issues.
popegoldx, if you want to post links and hold <i>intelligent</i> discussions that's peachy-keen. But just flat out lying and even having the link that you point to as 'proof' not back up your FUD is just plain sad. The only person that you're fooling here is yourself.
"<i>Let's see what <b>Paragraph 84-B</b> has to say about it.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030724" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>