RichPLS
Champion
- Aug 24, 2004
- 15,858
- 0
- 50,780
I anticipated the Mondays when Tom would release his news on product updates, and read within the hour of it being posted that the Pentium 1.13 had serious problems and Intel should rework design instead of going to market.
They did not listen at first, it took going to market to get the hint.
They did not listen at first, it took going to market to get the hint.
Sorry to burst your bubble jesse, but I'm guessing living that close to an N weapons site has affected your memory.
This thread isn't even about that. It is about the fact that THG has the balls to totally ignore the slot a chips, and say Inmtel reached 1 ghz while Amd was still playing with K6-2s.
Intel has done more than it's share of rewriting history, they dont need Omid's help. Mostly though, that kind of inacuracy tees me right off. Then again who needs credability when you have Intel god on your side.
It was a socket A chip that Amd came out with.
This thread isn't even about that. It is about the fact that THG has the balls to totally ignore the slot a chips, and say Inmtel reached 1 ghz while Amd was still playing with K6-2s.
Intel has done more than it's share of rewriting history, they dont need Omid's help. Mostly though, that kind of inacuracy tees me right off. Then again who needs credability when you have Intel god on your side.
picture_perfect
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2003
- 278
- 0
- 18,780
i dont care who was first. from what i gather amd never had to play the gigahertz race because they were more effecient.
This was against the old P111 chips. Some of them were more efficient than Amd's offering. At the time, it was a real horse race, for a while. Of course, as today, some benches gave extra points for the Intel name, but for the most part, it was a tight race.
intelamduser
Distinguished
- Feb 19, 2004
- 183
- 0
- 18,680
One post with an address and came in smelling like a troll?
Some of you here need to grow up and start using this forum for what it is intended for. I have read this forum here for 3 or 4 years and at one time was able to pick up some pretty good information, or places to find the information from those who posted.
It was getting better again for a while but the fanboy monniker and childish behavier are once again making the forum useless.
And my opinion on cpu's is whatever works. We have 56 machines with various different processors and they all work just fine for what they are intended. Speed is not near as important as reliability, compatibility, and ease of replacement. Both AMD and Intel based machines have worked well for us on the high and low end.
Some of you here need to grow up and start using this forum for what it is intended for. I have read this forum here for 3 or 4 years and at one time was able to pick up some pretty good information, or places to find the information from those who posted.
It was getting better again for a while but the fanboy monniker and childish behavier are once again making the forum useless.
And my opinion on cpu's is whatever works. We have 56 machines with various different processors and they all work just fine for what they are intended. Speed is not near as important as reliability, compatibility, and ease of replacement. Both AMD and Intel based machines have worked well for us on the high and low end.
Howdy Stranger. Reread the original post. It was about idiot Intel bs. If you are going to come in here as a stranger, and post in support of Intel, do you think you deserve a title other than Troll?
Go back, and read the original post in this thread, then read your post, and tell me what you think.
Go back, and read the original post in this thread, then read your post, and tell me what you think.
intelamduser
Distinguished
- Feb 19, 2004
- 183
- 0
- 18,680
I guess selective reading disorder is pretty common these days.
The title of this thread is (Intel hit 1 ghz first?)
I did nothing more than post a link where it was shown that Intel had hit the 1 ghz mark period, nothing in favor of anything or anyone.
Are you saying that because I posted this that I came out in favor of Intel? You must see the intel boogie man everywhere.
Go back and read my last post and see if you havn't helped to prove to point.
I will sign off and leave you and the other children here to ruin what once was a helpfull and informitive forum.
The title of this thread is (Intel hit 1 ghz first?)
I did nothing more than post a link where it was shown that Intel had hit the 1 ghz mark period, nothing in favor of anything or anyone.
Are you saying that because I posted this that I came out in favor of Intel? You must see the intel boogie man everywhere.
Go back and read my last post and see if you havn't helped to prove to point.
I will sign off and leave you and the other children here to ruin what once was a helpfull and informitive forum.
Endyen:
You seriously need to relax! He isn't trolling. Trolling is posting something deliberatly controversial and false in order to stir up heated discussion.
He pointed out that Intel had been the first to break the 1Ghz barrier since IBM two years before. No-where in the thread title or first post does it say that demonstration chips are not to be discussed.
Intelamduser made a valid point, at which point he was labelled a troll and told to leave. That is not going to lead to a fair debate, because, contrary to what you might enjoy telling yourself, you are one biased sunuvabi7ch.
Steele
PS: If anyone is being condescending, other than myself, it is you.
You seriously need to relax! He isn't trolling. Trolling is posting something deliberatly controversial and false in order to stir up heated discussion.
He pointed out that Intel had been the first to break the 1Ghz barrier since IBM two years before. No-where in the thread title or first post does it say that demonstration chips are not to be discussed.
Intelamduser made a valid point, at which point he was labelled a troll and told to leave. That is not going to lead to a fair debate, because, contrary to what you might enjoy telling yourself, you are one biased sunuvabi7ch.
Steele
PS: If anyone is being condescending, other than myself, it is you.
The point he seemed to be making to me, is that because Intel had displayed an overclocked chip, the chart should stand as a valid historic representation.
Speaking of which, do you believe the chart to be historicly accurate?
How do you feel about it?
Speaking of which, do you believe the chart to be historicly accurate?
How do you feel about it?
If that was the point you thought he was making, then why didn't you respond to that point instead of calling him a condescending fanboy?
Do I think the chart is accurate per se? No, not really, because if you consider Intel's 1Ghz demonstration, which you should, the blue Intel line should break 1000Mhz in early 1999, instead of 2000, like the chart says.
My take on the chart is that it is abstract, meant to represent the caption under it: that cpu speeds skyrocketed in the last couple years of the previous century and first couple years of this century, and before and since have stagnated. The chart very accurately demonstrates that.
Steele
Do I think the chart is accurate per se? No, not really, because if you consider Intel's 1Ghz demonstration, which you should, the blue Intel line should break 1000Mhz in early 1999, instead of 2000, like the chart says.
My take on the chart is that it is abstract, meant to represent the caption under it: that cpu speeds skyrocketed in the last couple years of the previous century and first couple years of this century, and before and since have stagnated. The chart very accurately demonstrates that.
Steele
What it says below the chart is that cpu speeds increased tenfold in the 6 years between 1993 and 1999, but less than doubled in the last 2 years.
What the chart shows is that between /93 and /99 chips went from 60 mhz to 600 mhz, while from then to today they went from 600 mhz to 3800 mhz. Hardly what I would call stagnant. Just the same, that is not what this post is about. The post is about whether it is valid for THG to show Amd in a negative light once again.
What the chart shows is that between /93 and /99 chips went from 60 mhz to 600 mhz, while from then to today they went from 600 mhz to 3800 mhz. Hardly what I would call stagnant. Just the same, that is not what this post is about. The post is about whether it is valid for THG to show Amd in a negative light once again.
If that (THG being unfairly negative towards AMD) is what this is about, then you are drawing far too many conclusions from a simple chart.
What do you suppose is more likely?
That whoever drew that graph thought to himself, "Hey, we could really screw up AMD's market share and prestige if we skew this line a little bit towards Intel..."
or that they drew the graph longhand, and maybe mis-matched an Intel number with an AMD number or something like that.
Steele
PS: The graph shows exactly what it says. 60-600 is a 10-fold increase in only 6 years -- tremendous growth. Compare that to the change of the last two years. Zero.
What do you suppose is more likely?
That whoever drew that graph thought to himself, "Hey, we could really screw up AMD's market share and prestige if we skew this line a little bit towards Intel..."
or that they drew the graph longhand, and maybe mis-matched an Intel number with an AMD number or something like that.
Steele
PS: The graph shows exactly what it says. 60-600 is a 10-fold increase in only 6 years -- tremendous growth. Compare that to the change of the last two years. Zero.
More like " We could help to destroy Amd's image, if we make it look like they have always been way behind Intel."
Not that it really matters what reasoning they had, it all comes down to the same thing. THG is an Intel sight. They lack integrity.
The 1 ghz speed point was one of the most significant marks in the history of chip development. To arbitrarily ignore that Amd was first to market with a chip at that speed, is tantamount to denying Amd chips any validity whatsoever.
It is an Intel rewriting of history.
An Intel re-writing of history? Right...
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20000217/index.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/19990813/cool_athlon-07.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/19991025/index.html
If THG is really as Intel-focused as you claim, then these articles have no business existing.
Re-writing history is claiming that the Nazis didn't kill anyone, or that the Chinese reached America before Columbus, or such like. No-where does anyone claim that AMD did not have a 1Ghz chip before Intel, nor do they claim the opposite. Who knows what level of chip the graph is based on. Who knows how much research they put into making the graph. The point of the graph is that chip speeds skyrocketed for a while, but lately have stagnated. Nothing more.
Besides, how do you know they arbitrarily ignored AMD's 1Ghz chip? How do you know it wasn't unintentional? What if the chart is based on percentage of each manufacturer's sales? What if it is an average of the clock speeds of the entire suite of chips? It could be any number of things beyond simple AMD-hatred, and by simply ruling out any other possiblilty, you have labelled yourself as biased as you claim THG to be.
Steele
Steele
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20000217/index.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/19990813/cool_athlon-07.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/19991025/index.html
If THG is really as Intel-focused as you claim, then these articles have no business existing.
Re-writing history is claiming that the Nazis didn't kill anyone, or that the Chinese reached America before Columbus, or such like. No-where does anyone claim that AMD did not have a 1Ghz chip before Intel, nor do they claim the opposite. Who knows what level of chip the graph is based on. Who knows how much research they put into making the graph. The point of the graph is that chip speeds skyrocketed for a while, but lately have stagnated. Nothing more.
Besides, how do you know they arbitrarily ignored AMD's 1Ghz chip? How do you know it wasn't unintentional? What if the chart is based on percentage of each manufacturer's sales? What if it is an average of the clock speeds of the entire suite of chips? It could be any number of things beyond simple AMD-hatred, and by simply ruling out any other possiblilty, you have labelled yourself as biased as you claim THG to be.
Steele
Steele
And perhaos if you used paint instead of photoshop, it would be close enough for your customers.
Let's face it. Tom's is supposed to be a leading tech jornalism site. I wouldn't accept that kind of error in any news media. It would be just as bad for NBC news to deny there was any "discomfort" around newyears eve 2000.
BTW, thanks for the choice of articles, 2 were by Tom.
Most people here consider T Pabst a man of integrity. I doubt that he would allow the "inaccuracy" were he still in charge.
The present editor in chief is a character named Omid, who may be temporarily blinded, when second hand smoke gets in his eyes.
Let's face it. Tom's is supposed to be a leading tech jornalism site. I wouldn't accept that kind of error in any news media. It would be just as bad for NBC news to deny there was any "discomfort" around newyears eve 2000.
BTW, thanks for the choice of articles, 2 were by Tom.
Most people here consider T Pabst a man of integrity. I doubt that he would allow the "inaccuracy" were he still in charge.
The present editor in chief is a character named Omid, who may be temporarily blinded, when second hand smoke gets in his eyes.
I think that you are so dead set on THG being anti-AMD that you are going to see that whether or not it exists.
It's like those people who believe that JFK was killed by Freemasons and Aliens and Gov. O'Connor and stuff that they either take evidence out of context or mis-interpret it, or just plain ignore it if it refutes their claims.
Do you honestly believe that whoever made that graph was out to stick it to AMD?
Steele
It's like those people who believe that JFK was killed by Freemasons and Aliens and Gov. O'Connor and stuff that they either take evidence out of context or mis-interpret it, or just plain ignore it if it refutes their claims.
Do you honestly believe that whoever made that graph was out to stick it to AMD?
Steele
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram