Intel's Dothan

[darko21]

Yep, you don't need more than a link to Newegg to see that AMD is producing better performing processors at slower clock speeds. You said only Intel was doing that.

Ok crash what "exactly" did I say? sounds like you misunderstood yet again. I looked and looked but I don't see it. I think you are once again twisting something around. I have been saying over and over MHz means nothing accept on identical cpu's I have always known full well that an a64 can be faster than a higher clocked xp. Why do you bring up idiot stuff like that we all know it. Maybe I said only intel plays the MHz game or something But I'd like you to point out "exactly" what I said and where? cause what you are saying is just plain stupid and it would appear to me you misunderstood something yet again and are trying to capitalize on it?

And you implied that I offered validity to the MHz myth, when I was actually stating the facts:

You will need to be more specific too many posts to figure what you think I implied or you yet again misunderstood. You did state the xp rating formula was just made up numbers and I fully yet again proved you wrong.

You refer to the XP rating system as valid,

It's certainly not made up numbers as you said. It was an honest attempt to compare opposing cpu's. Why is this so difficult for you?

yet you say that MHz doesn't mean anything.

The problem with MHz is it used to be more or less relative and now what does it mean look at a p4 celeron @ 2.7 giz and compare to a p4 @ 2.7giz. MHz used to mean something but now it means practically nothing unless comparing identical cpu's. While you and me might know the difference my parents sure don't say still think MHz is important. At least the xp formula tried to show relative performance with its competitor the p4.

Therefor the XP rating system, based on MHz, doesn't mean anything by your own logic.

You need to understand is based on performance not MHz Yes things like more cache higher fsb and MHz all effect what the benchies turn out thus the rating. Is this like the 30th time I have explained this to you.

And since you claim XP's are valid but MHz's aren't,

I'm not saying valid you could pick that apart forever but it is more or less relative to the p4 for comparison. MHz is not relative for performance unless dealing with exact identical cpu's. With all the different cpu's at different clocks with difference performance how is MHz relevant? XP rating to p4 MHz is more or less relevant but only cause amd designed it that way.

your logic fails.

I'm not the one grasping at straws here.

I don't know how to explain this to you any simpler terms, but to imply that I meant the MHz system is adequate would be dishonest on your part.

Ok now we are getting somewhere. Yes MHz is completely inadequate way to measure performance today. Unless measuring identical cpu's.

You see, I'm grasping all your BS. You can't have it both ways. For the XP rating system to be valid, the MHz myth has to be valid.

The the XP rating system is valid for comparing to the p4 which is is marketed by MHz so it's far from perfect but a valid attempt.

Since you and I both agree that basing performance purely on MHz is invalid, the XP rating system isn't perfect, and your logic is flawed.

The xp rating formula is only designed to compare relatively to the p4 not celeron or p3. The XP rating system is valid for comparing to the p4 which is marketed by MHz so it's far from perfect but a valid attempt.


I am implying you are a biased intel fanboy

Yes, you're biased, I'm not, so you spread your hate. Like a KKK member calling M.L. King a racist, it's worse than the pot calling the kettle black, it's like a cast iron pot calling a new stanless steal kettle black.

Whatever crash

Now back to the original "your logic fails" statement,

Maybe I said your logic fails.. Cause it does but I really thought that was your phrase. If I said then I said it and it sounds right I was just unaware I said it.

you have to actually read the entire paragraph to put the comment in context,

I have just trying to respond to everything you say. Sometimes one needs to break a paragraph down to do that.

but I knew you'd select whatever portions out of anything I said to suit your needs and imply a different meaning,

Unlike you I am not cherry picking what to respond to.

because that's what dishonest people do. As hard as you try, you can't prevent your obvious bias from blinding your judgement.

So you don’t like the fact that I respond to every sentence you make. Well too bad I don't like how you cherry pick the easy answers.


Big ego's and I am never wrong

You aren't? Ever? BTW, I'm just playing your game on this one, taking it out of context. Just thought I'd give you some of your own medicine, again.

No I have admitted I was wrong or made a mistake many times in these forums. Unlike you….. you move on or dance around it.


you said you were tricked or forced into saying AMD lied

Nope, I never said that about AMD, I've always stated that AMD's statement was untrue. Aparently it bothers you a lot more than it bothers me.

HMMMMMM after I relentlessly explained how the xp rating system works this is exactly what you said <font color=red> " I still say I was cornered into calling it a lie. Which is like saying I only shot you because you were pointing a gun at me. At that point I only had 2 options: Say it was the truth or a lie. Black or white. Intent be damned. </font color=red> Now you call AMD liars once again! Why do you do that crash?



I'm merely used it to show your bias.

No, you're mearly showing your own.

Whatever crash




Mistake, or misunderstanding? Are you not going to call yourself a liar?

No, I'm going to have to call you a liar because once again you took what I said out of context. I followed that statement with this one from you.

Crash that is kind of weak people misinterpret confuse make mistakes all the time in these forums. But it's weak and sad to call someone a liar over it. I'm just trying to show how stupid and desperate your liar claims are.



and you are WRONG amd went to a naming scheme cause Intel refused to adopt a proper benchmarking scheme

Conclusion was that I was not mistaken, you really did say it.

I said it and I stand by it. Have I ever denied saying that? It's an opinion but a very valid one.



You call me dishonest cause you misunderstand something. Keep it coming crash cause I will though it all back in your face.

No, you keep saying that I've said things I didn't, and purposely putting what I've said out of context,

I have tried very hard to break down every sentence with a reply to keep things accurate.

in order to suit your weak argument.

I have a weak argument? I am not the one saying over and over amd lied. Nor did I say the xp rating formula was a myth based on nothing. Now that is weak and has been proven wrong but I have yet to see you admit it.

And what is your argument? Do you even remember? Your argument is that Intel isn't doing the same thing as AMD, or for the same reasons, on their model names. Everything else you said is a vain attempt to distract everyone from your claims.

Good back to the original argument about time. Yes I find it ironic that amd pushed so hard for an honest system that would compare all cpu's (x86 anyway) based on relative performance. It's what the industry needs but intel would have no part of it. BTW why do you think that is crash? So intel refuses this initiative and amd starts to put a numbering system based on not really too much. But what is the alternative? There will be how many different cpu's with different clocks performing differently. How can amd compare? How can the consumer understand? Should amd stick with a formula like a64 should irrelevant MHz be the way to go or a numbering system. The fact is if intel is not on board it don't matter any more what amd does. Just seem ironic that you say amd started moving to a numbering system first when they tried for so long to get an honest system in place.



yes we all know the a64 performs slightly better that xp on a clock per clock entry level stuff here. What you don't grasp is why this is not misleading

I never said it was misleading.

That’s how I saw it.

In fact I said the A64 3200+ actually performs better than the XP3200+.Bonus

Yes almost everyone knows this.

You would imply that I was saying otherwise because it's in your nature to be deceptive.

Negative you’re just a tad defensive don't like being wrong do you. Hey crash your post is almost done I have not seen you admit you were wrong yet. Why is that? I did show the link for the benchmarks which you asked me to prove. I did prove it! it showed your xp rating system theory being based on nothing a falsehood. So when will you admit you were wrong. I guess that's coming up. Cause you would be big enough to admit you were wrong correct?

In fact, you knew I had a firm grasp of it.

FIRM GRASP! How many times have I argued with you over the xp rating formula? Remember when you just made up a lie saying amd changed the formula with the introduction of the xp2500 barton or just added 300 points to it? Remember how you thought if the formula was created with a tbird that a xp1600+ should be twice as fast as tbird or p3 800 and it's not (which it is not) so amd lied? Remember the big google search you did only to come up with tables as a methood of getting it in the bios? Which I’m sure is true but who cares? YEAH I'd say you got a firm grasp.

I never claimed it was misleading for AMD to offer a better performing processor with the same performance "rating" at a slower clock speed.

Good cause it's not.

The buyer benifits from the added performance,

The buyer benefits if he she knows what they are getting relative to any other choice.

so that the lower clock rate isn't important. I've been saying this all along,

Yes with so many cpu's and different performance levels MHz should not really mean to much for joe schmoe.

but it's your intent to imply otherwise because you can't "win"

You will need to clarify. MHz is a misleading thing unless comparing identical cpu's meaningless in my book. Can't win you mean you never admit you are wrong that's a given. BTW almost done still have not seen you admit it.

an honest argument based on your weak idea that Intel isn't doing now the sort of thing that AMD has already done.

No, it’s just ironic to see a person blame these ridiculous numbers system on amd when it was intel that refused to get onboard with a meaning full indicator for a cpu's performance. Once intel refused it don't matter much what anyone else does cause there is no real way for the novice to compare cpu's.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[Atolsammeek]

man this is too funny. Everyone do you remember Apple g 5 Ad on tv saying it the fastest computer out. Or that nut that was here 2 Months trying to say apple is faster. And he keep being proven wrong.

Everyone Look at each cpu. Each has there Pros and cons.
Like amd Low Mhz dont mean it slower. One thing I agree they should of done more Test. so that 3200+ 32 bit chip was as fast as Intel 3.2ghz chip. But the fact is the 3200+ was more like 2.8ghz. 5 Test dont cut it.

But Intel and amd leap frog each other. Every other year. Like the 1500+ and 1800+ was faster then Intel 1.5 and 1.8ghz but then it even out 2200+ 2.2ghz And amd started to slided for Amd. Then the Amd 64 came out even out then Amd 51 was out it was faster then the 3.2ghz but about even with the 3.2ee L3 2 megs cache. Then amd 55 came out and it faster then Intel 3.4 3.4ee L3 2 megs cache and Prescott 3.4. But Give it a Month or two Intel will be faster.

And one Fact to Look at. Amd INTEL and Apple. Pick Only the programs that make them look like they are faster. Then sell by that. Then we have tomshardware and other hardware places. Doing more test and finding out the TURE FACT.

 

[Crashman]

It's not about who's faster, we all know that AMD makes the fastest CPU's. We also know the on-die memory controller gives AMD enough performance advantage that they are able to produce even faster processors at slower clockrates. The only thing Darko is arguing about is this comment I made "Intel coppied AMD's idea, but using different numbers". The idea I spoke of is the model numbering system. Everything else he's said is an attempt to distract you, the audience, from the weakness of his arguments against that idea.

So it's not about Intel vs. AMD, it's about Darko vs. Common Sense.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

Ok crash what "exactly" did I say?

Here you go:

Re: Reason 2 is they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates.

Wrong again only Intel can do that. Because only Intel implemented a misleading design.

So did you misunderstand what you wrote, or were you just babbling? I've proven over and over again that both AMD and Intel are capable of producing faster processors at slower clock rates, yet you argue only Intel is doing it?

You did state the xp rating formula was just made up numbers and I fully yet again proved you wrong.

You won't admit that AMD used approximations because their system was supposedly based around a slightly higher number than 66.6 MHz per 100 XP units, but what does that have to do with the new modeling number system Intel is using and the fact that you say it's nothing like the model numbering system AMD uses on the Opteron or the FX?

BTW, just to cause you a little more grief, I did the math and the XP3000+ should have been called an XP2900+ except that AMD was following Intel's jump from 2.8 to 3.0 in their model numbers. But I digress, it still has nothing to do with your argument that Intel's new model number scheme is nothing like AMD's Opteron and FX model number scheme.

You need to understand is based on performance not MHz

I do understand that it's based on the performance approximation for a given MHz, hence the similarity in numbers. But you don't understand that it has nothing to do with the similarities between Intel and AMD moving to model numbers instead of MHz/XP's. Or you do, and are simply trying to sidetrack everyone.

I'm not the one grasping at straws here.

It certainly sounds that way.

The xp rating formula is only designed to compare relatively to the p4 not celeron or p3.

Which is the basic reason both AMD and Intel are moving to a model number model, rather than MHz.

Unlike you I am not cherry picking what to respond to.

LOL, that's the quote of the day! If I said something like "I might be gay, but in my case that would mean happy, not homosexual" and you'd simply copy the part that said "I might be gay" if you thought it would strengthen your argument.

BTW, I never attributed the original "your logic fails" statement to you. I said (in other words) that if you say Intel's MHz model is faulty, but another system based on it isn't, is faulty logic. If I said my home is 30 cubits long, you wouldn't know exactly how long it was in feet because you wouldn't know how long the arm was of the person who measured it. And yet I digress again, that still doesn't clarify your arguement that Intel's modeling number system has no parallels to AMD's FX and Opteron modeling number system.

No I have admitted I was wrong or made a mistake many times in these forums.

Not to me, because in your "humble" opinion you can never be wrong when talking to me, even if you say something as stupid as "only Intel can do that" when I've said "they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates".

HMMMMMM after I relentlessly explained how the xp rating system works this is exactly what you said " I still say I was cornered into calling it a lie. Which is like saying I only shot you because you were pointing a gun at me. At that point I only had 2 options: Say it was the truth or a lie. Black or white. Intent be damned.

Nope, I never said that about AMD. Sorry, you've got it mixed up with a comment I made about a video card review. Either that or you're purposely using a comment I made about a video card review to deceive people again, like you continuously try to do.

Crash that is kind of weak people misinterpret confuse make mistakes all the time in these forums. But it's weak and sad to call someone a liar over it.

No, you read what I say in context, then purposely break it down into small comments you can take out of context. You're not like other members of the forum who take things out of context by mistake, you do it on purpose.

Good back to the original argument about time.

I wasn't the one who sidetracked this conversation.

Just seem ironic that you say amd started moving to a numbering system first

Irony or not, it's accurate, both the Opteron and FX are using model numbers already, Intel is just now initiating their model number system.

You will need to clarify. MHz is a misleading...

Slap that sentence you broke in two back together and there is no need for clarification. I'll help you by using the entire statement: "The buyer benifits from the added performance, so that the lower clock rate isn't important. I've been saying this all along, but it's your intent to imply otherwise because you can't "win"." Now read both those sentences without breaking them into 3 parts.

No, it’s just ironic to see a person blame these ridiculous numbers system on amd

I didn't blame anyone, I simply stated the truth: AMD initiated the model number system, and now Intel is doing it, for very similar reasons. And you said it wasn't true. Wiggled around a lot, sidetracked as best you could, but the real problem is you can never admit when you're wrong.


<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[darko21]

So did you misunderstand what you wrote, or were you just babbling? I've proven over and over again that both AMD and Intel are capable of producing faster processors at slower clock rates, yet you argue only Intel is doing it?

Ok what I said (now that I know what you are talking about) "Wrong again only Intel can do that. Because only Intel implemented a misleading design."
should read "Wrong again only Intel does that. Because only Intel implemented a misleading design." You see MHz had some value before the p4 now it only has value for relative identical cpu's. The p4 design was a great big blue crystal designed to capitalize on MHz and mislead. Sure other cpus very on performance MHz or whatever but it was intel and the p4 design that really through a wrench into it. Misleading MHz was intels game. You did not really think I did not understand ipc MHz whatever so why did you try to capitalize on that? We all know it.

You did state the xp rating formula was just made up numbers and I fully yet again proved you wrong.


You won't admit that AMD used approximations because their system was supposedly based around a slightly higher number than 66.6 MHz per 100 XP units, but what does that have to do with the new modeling number system Intel is using and the fact that you say it's nothing like the model numbering system AMD uses on the Opteron or the FX?

BTW, just to cause you a little more grief, I did the math and the XP3000+ should have been called an XP2900+ except that AMD was following Intel's jump from 2.8 to 3.0 in their model numbers. But I digress, it still has nothing to do with your argument that Intel's new model number scheme is nothing like AMD's Opteron and FX model number scheme.

Approximations? maybe a little wiggle room due to the + and rounding. What math? you ran the formula? you just found out the benchmarks used!! You got a credible link to a mathematical formula that says amd don’t use benchies cause I showed a link proving they do. Anyhow does not a p4 2.6 really run at 2.56 giz or something like that. I don't see where you are going.

I do understand that it's based on the performance approximation for a given MHz,

Wrong. Its based on performance did you know an xp 2500 runs at way less MHz than a 2600 but gets a closer mark do to the extra cache. as a matter of fact a 2400 runs at higher MHz than 2500 but gets a lower rating because the extra cache benefits in the benchies more

hence the similarity in numbers.

Whatever

But you don't understand that it has nothing to do with the similarities between Intel and AMD moving to model numbers instead of MHz/XP's. Or you do, and are simply trying to sidetrack everyone.

I am not trying to fool anyone you are the one who believes he is protecting his children. Do you remember referring to others here as children crash?

I'm not the one grasping at straws here.


It certainly sounds that way.

Only to you.

The xp rating formula is only designed to compare relatively to the p4 not celeron or p3.

Which is the basic reason both AMD and Intel are moving to a model number model, rather than MHz.

No the reason they are moving is cause intel refused to adopt an industry wide initiative rating cpu's based on performance. Why do you think that is crash?

Unlike you I am not cherry picking what to respond to.


LOL, that's the quote of the day! If I said something like "I might be gay, but in my case that would mean happy, not homosexual" and you'd simply copy the part that said "I might be gay" if you thought it would strengthen your argument.

BTW, I never attributed the original "your logic fails" statement to you. I said (in other words) that if you say Intel's MHz model is faulty, but another system based on it isn't, is faulty logic. If I said my home is 30 cubits long, you wouldn't know exactly how long it was in feet because you wouldn't know how long the arm was of the person who measured it. And yet I digress again, that still doesn't clarify your arguement that Intel's modeling number system has no parallels to AMD's FX and Opteron modeling number system.

That was a waste of everyone’s time. And you do cherry pick no doubt about that.

No I have admitted I was wrong or made a mistake many times in these forums.


Not to me, because in your "humble" opinion you can never be wrong when talking to me, even if you say something as stupid as "only Intel can do that" when I've said "they both know they can produce faster performing processors at slower clock rates".

You might have a point there. I would doubt I have ever been wrong with you. No wait a minute I am bigger than that and I did make a mistake a while back. I'm a big man you are a spineless weasel so I will show a link.

<b> I did over state the 3200xp is 200% as a 1600xp do to scaling (score one for crash) but it's reasonably representative to the scaling of the p4 things got a little out of wack with 800 fsb (amd can't be rewritting the formula everytime intel adds some more cache or ups the fsb. The argument that an xp2500 is not faster then a xp2400 is only correct on certain benchmarks the xp2500 kills the xp2400 in many benchmarks and I'm saying amd did not come out with a new formula but the benchmark formula utilized the cache better. </b>

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=175346#175346" target="_new"> on 04 04 11:55 darko21 said he was wrong and made a mistake to crash Crash you are often wrong but you never admit it</A>

HMMMMMM after I relentlessly explained how the xp rating system works this is exactly what you said " I still say I was cornered into calling it a lie. Which is like saying I only shot you because you were pointing a gun at me. At that point I only had 2 options: Say it was the truth or a lie. Black or white. Intent be damned.


Nope, I never said that about AMD. Sorry, you've got it mixed up with a comment I made about a video card review. Either that or you're purposely using a comment I made about a video card review to deceive people again, like you continuously try to do.

HMMMMMM is that so mr honest and never wrong? Well lets just see about that.


<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=176512#176512" target="_new"> 8 up from the bottom you talking to me about amd your exact words just like I said </A> so am I still the liar here?

Crash that is kind of weak people misinterpret confuse make mistakes all the time in these forums. But it's weak and sad to call someone a liar over it.


No, you read what I say in context, then purposely break it down into small comments you can take out of context. You're not like other members of the forum who take things out of context by mistake, you do it on purpose.

I just don't want any confusion cause I got your act figured out. I am on to your game. It's necessary to be exact because you weasel around muddying the waters with confusion and denial.

Good back to the original argument about time.



I wasn't the one who sidetracked this conversation.

I think not 100% here but you second post in this thread "just as it was up to AMD to maintain honesty on the XP rating system." is what got the side track stuff going.

Just seem ironic that you say amd started moving to a numbering system first


Irony or not, it's accurate, both the Opteron and FX are using model numbers already, Intel is just now initiating their model number system.

Yes they did but whose fault is that crash?

You will need to clarify. MHz is a misleading...


Slap that sentence you broke in two back together and there is no need for clarification. I'll help you by using the entire statement: "The buyer benifits from the added performance, so that the lower clock rate isn't important. I've been saying this all along, but it's your intent to imply otherwise because you can't "win"." Now read both those sentences without breaking them into 3 parts.

Of course its not. We all know this stuff. but when the MHz is higher and the ipc lower it misleads which is the intention. to mislead that is why the blue crystal design of the p4 to mislead. But it would have been nice for the consumer if intel had adopted some kind of universal cpu rating system to let consumers understand what they are getting. Why do you think intel refused this crash?



No, it’s just ironic to see a person blame these ridiculous numbers system on amd

I didn't blame anyone, I simply stated the truth: AMD initiated the model number system, and now Intel is doing it, for very similar reasons. And you said it wasn't true. Wiggled around a lot, sidetracked as best you could, but the real problem is you can never admit when you're wrong.

Truth? hmmmm so why did amd introduce a number from a hat like intels up coming system? I'll tell you why because intel refused to adopted some kind of universal cpu rating system to let consumers understand what they are getting. And it no longer really matters what anyone does cause its all confusing to the novice. Why do you think intel refused this crash?


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[P4Man]

I'm not fond of popcorn, but I think i'll have some with this derailed, boring discussion.. or better, lets zap to another thread

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

 

[trooper11]

yeah just look at them go, suprising they have the energy to waste on this ^^

 

[Crashman]

Yes, I used the same math AMD uses on all their Barton processors to determine the model numbers, it's called addition. The benchmarks you see are only for verification. That's a good reason for the +, it's an approximation.

2500+=1833
1833+83.3=1917=2600+
1917+83.3=2000=2700+ (does not exist)
2000+83.3=2083=2800+
2083+83.3=2166=2900+ (does not exist)...BUT WAIT!

AMD produced a 2166MHz processor, 333MHz bus, and called it a 3000+! This is the 3000+ 333MHz FSB, as opposed to the 3000+ 400MHz FSB.

Why does the XP2700+ not exist? Because there was no P4 2.7. Why did the XP2900+ get named the 3000+? Because there was not P4 2.9. And this is the processor I refer to. AMD names them first, THEN get's someone to provide benchmarks to justify the name. They never have named them according to benchmarks. And YET AGAIN I digress because this has nothing to do with your argument that Intel isn't trying to do a model number scheme in a similar way that AMD has done it with the Opteron and FX.

No the reason they are moving is cause intel refused to adopt an industry wide initiative rating cpu's based on performance.

You argue for the sake of arguement. Intel is trying to represent their more efficient Dothan as a better processor than their less efficient P4's. Everything you're talking about is ancient history. In fact you only keep repeating yourself because you're hard headed and AMD biased.

I am not trying to fool anyone you are the one who believes he is protecting his children. Do you remember referring to others here as children crash?

A bunch of people here ARE children, I wouldn't say they are ALL children. But when you're dealing with newbs you have to treat them "as children", which means you have to treat them as though they haven't had the opportunity to learn these things. Unlike you who would choose to corrupt them.

I would doubt I have ever been wrong with you.

Actually, you've ALWAYS been wrong when arguing with me. Except that I should have held back a little bit calling one of the author's overgeneralizations a lie when someone insisted that it had to be "true". But you never said I should have refrained, you simply said that I was an Intel fanboi, so even when I was wrong you were too! Wow, are you ever right when talking to me? No. Not unless you're agreeing with me. "And why is that?" Because I'm more familiar with these things than you, and I care more about helping people than you. You see that over 80% of the time, when I'm talking to other people, I'm saying something instructive or helpfull. Heck, even when I'm mean I'm usually trying to be helpfull.

Why do you think intel refused this crash?

Since you asked and I don't know much about this, I'll have to guess: they probably couldn't reach agreement with AMD over a standard system of tests. And that would be secondary to the fact that Intel already had customers convinced with MHz. But you know, those are opinions, I like to stick to facts mostly because I'm so good at being right. It suits me well. I don't make excuses for Intel the way you make excuses for AMD, because unlike you, I'm not a fanboy.

8 up from the bottom you talking to me about amd your exact words just like I said so

Yes, you've been caught, I said what I said about a video card review, not AMD. It started when you post stuff from another thread into <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=176692#176692" target="_new">This Post</A> You knew that but instead tried to deceive everyone into thinking I said it of AMD. I suppose you want me to look up the original thread about the video card review? For more proof that you compound your own lies with even more lies?

Irony or not, it's accurate, both the Opteron and FX are using model numbers already, Intel is just now initiating their model number system.

Yes they did but whose fault is that crash?

Fault? That would imply it was a terrible idea. I mean, you normally assign blame when things are wrong. Are you saying that there's something wrong with the way Opterons or FX's are named? Or are you saying it's OK for AMD to do it but not Intel? I never blamed everyone because I can't see where anyone needs to be blamed. I think your bias is shadowing your view.

I am on to your game. It's necessary to be exact because you weasel around muddying the waters with confusion and denial.

No, that's what you do, it's called "projection" when you see your own faults in others.

No, it’s just ironic to see a person blame these ridiculous numbers system on amd

I'm not the one blaming, you are. You're like chicken little screaming "the sky is falling the sky is falling". You're the only one here looking to assign blame for something the rest of us would rather discuss rationally.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[SidVicious]

Yawn...

I was expecting some tasty technological morsels here, all I got is two <A HREF="http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html" target="_new">Ferrous Cranus</A> slugging it out...



Fok Speling Misstake

 

[P4Man]

This is a completely useless and tiresome discussion, and you guys should let it rest..and I havent read 95% of it, so God knows why I bother joining in .. but..

>Why does the XP2700+ not exist? Because there was no P4 2.7

Well, I guess you can buy these nonexistant cpu's for $80
<A HREF="http://www.pricewatch.com/1/3/4977-1.htm" target="_new"> linky </A>

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

 

[P4Man]

Yeah, lol, though I think <A HREF="http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame70.html" target="_new"> this one </A> is more appropriate

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

 

[Crashman]

That can't be a Barton core, because it's the wrong speed! But thanks for pointing out my oversight. I still don't see a 2700+ barton.

So this particular 2700+ is targetted at what, the 2.66?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[P4Man]

>That can't be a Barton core,

Never claimed it was, its a Tbred indeed.

>because it's the wrong speed!

"wrong speed" ?

>So this particular 2700+ is targetted at what, the 2.66?

Why should it be targetted that way at anything ? Its just a Tbred binned at 2.13 GHz, and that apparently performs faster than a 2600+ yet slower than a 2800+ on AMD's benchmark selection. You don't seriously expect AMD to either downclock it or underrate it just because intel doenst have a 2.7 GHz part ? Did they have a 1.9 GHz part when AMD offered 1900+ models ? Or a 2.1 GHz that the 2100+ was targetted at ?

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

 

[Mephistopheles]

Better make some extra popcorn, guys. And let's get some beer, for our sanity's sake, as well.

Or go to other threads, indeed!

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>

 

[MrPanther0]

MAN..you two are arguing for attention.. success! you guys appear intelligent infront of other computer hardware forum surfers... lets see.. the arguement is about a naming scheme of just one of the components in a computer? [-peep-] why dont yall go USE those CPUs and play a game or someething... those posts were disgustingly long

 

[CaptainNemo]

Heh - if the resident rhinos are butting heads over something as trivial as CPU labelling, then Dothan has to be good!

Axis of Stupid = coop, Kanavit, FUGGER, SoDNighthawk, and ninkey.

 

[darko21]

Ok 2500+ + 0 = 1833 MHz yup sure does

1833+83.3=1917=2600+ Yup add 83.3 to the MHz of a barton 2500 (1833) = 1917 or xp2600

So 1917 + 83.3 should = 2700+ 1917 + 83.3 = 2000.3 yet a 2700+ runs at 2.167 so your mathematical formula don’t work there.

So 2000.3 + 83.3 should = 2800+ 2000 + 83.3 = 2083 and yes it works. So so far 2 out of 13

so 2083 + 83.3 should = 2900+ buy your theory but it don't cause there is non comes in at 2166.3 around where a 2700+ is. so that don’t work.

so 2166.3 + 83.3 should = 3000+
lets see 2166.3 + 83.3 + = 2249.6 yet 3000+ = 2.167
So wong again on that one

This time we will try a 3200+

83.3 x 7 for 7 jumps = 583.1 add you base 0 @ 1833 = 2416.1 yet a 3200+ runs at 2200mhz. So wrong again.

You know I tried your theory on the others like 2400 etc 1833 - 83.3 and it don't work.


So out of 13 xp cpu's you added 83.3 to the MHz of a 2500 and it worked for a total of 2. So 2 or 3 out of 13 depending how you look at it. Takes 3 out of 3 for a pattern to be established. You are not even close.


AMD rating formula has never been exact to any intel cpu it was designed to put the numbers close to similar performing intel cpu's this did make it easier for novice people to compare over MHz. AMD rounds the numbers to whole numbers thus the + in the rating. You know it is a linear thing it should line up somewhat, I'm really surprised you did not find a better equation with a + - / x % thing I'm sure a mathematician could come up with something better than you did. But <font color=red> if amd says they use benchies in the formula (like they say they do) you should just try believing it and not bother so hard trying to discredit AMD </font color=red> . Kinda like the relentless amd lied about the formula, all mother boards for a64 are junk (old statement but it was ridiculous at the time), dell don't use amd because of thermal death or problematic motherboards or fans that can come off cpu when dropped from a desk.

You still waiting for amd to hire you?

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[darko21]

Yes, you've been caught, I said what I said about a video card review, not AMD.

Lets try this again shall we

You did say this to me about AMD not video cards or anything else just exactly like I said here is the exact <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=176736#176736" target="_new"> link </A>
and in this <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=176512#176512" target="_new"> thread </A> 8 up from the bottom post.

<font color=red>I still say I was cornered into calling it a lie. Which is like saying I only shot you because you were pointing a gun at me. At that point I only had 2 options: Say it was the truth or a lie. Black or white. Intent be damned. </font color=red>


Then you said

<font color=red>Nope, I never said that about AMD. Sorry, you've got it mixed up with a comment I made about a video card review. Either that or you're purposely using a comment I made about a video card review to deceive people again, like you continuously try to do. </font color=red>


So I show the link and proof and you denied it again! Why? Proof is there. Why denial. <b>AHHH yes you refuse to admit you were wrong.</b> This is the stuff that keeps hurting you. BTW I'm still waiting to admit you were wrong on xp rating formula being meaningless numbers.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[Crashman]

I never claimed that you claimed it was a Barton. Are you trying to start an argument after I conceeded?

"wrong speed" based on the speeds of the Barton core and the appropriate clock rates, which is why I suspected it might be a Thoroughbred. There is a numbering system which actually preceeds any performance validation.

Targetted because that seems to be the rule, with the 2700+ Tbred being the exception. There was a P4 1.9 based on the Willy. So that leaves the 2100+ and 2700+ as both exceptions to the norm. It's possible the 2100+ was released in anticipation of a 2100 or 2133 from Intel.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

Actually I'm not arguing about the naming scheme for the point of the naming scheme, I'm simply defending myself against a baseless attack by another member. He used to follow me around the forums and attack me every chance he got. Heck, I was trying to help a guy upgrade an old PIII system and he started in about AMD XP rating and stuff.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[darko21]

Lets see how many your 83 + rule work on these below? Notice 3 different xp2600+ cpu's



1500+ 133 fsb 256 cache 1333mhz

1600+ 133 fsb 256 cache 1400mhz

1700+ 133 fsb 256 cache 1467mhz

1800+ 133 fsb 256 cache 1533mhz

2000+ 133 fsb 256 cache 1667mhz

2100+ 133 fsb 256 cache 1733mhz

2200+ 133 fsb 256 cache 1800mhz

2400+ 133 fsb 256 cache 2000mhz

2500+ 166 fsb 512 cache 1833mhz

2600+ 166 fsb 512 cache 1910mhz

2600+ 166 fsb 256 cache 2083mhz

2600+ 133 fsb 256 cache 2133mhz

2700+ 166 fsb 256 cache 2167mhz

2800+ 166 fsb 512 cache 2083mhz

2800+ 166 fsb 256 cache 2250mhz

3000+ 166 fsb 512 cache 2167mhz

3000+ 200 fsb 512 cache 2100mhz

3200+ 200 fsb 512 cache 2200mhz

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[darko21]

Ok here is an example 10 cpu's 5 xp 5 p4

<A HREF="http://tech-report.com/reviews/2003q1/athlonxp-3000/index.x?pg=6" target="_new"> Content Creation Winstone 2001 2002 2003 + Business Winstone 2002 </A>



Same tests and cpu's but the p4 pulls ahead in 2003 version why? cpu's are the same. It's because different benchies produce different result depending how they are optimized but you cannot deni the xp rating scales more or less accurate depending on cache fsb or mhz and how benchie uses it. If the xp rating uses a large amount of benchies from 2001 it's reasonable to see how it works.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[Crashman]

2000.3 yet a 2700+ runs at 2.167 so your mathematical formula don’t work there.

Wrong. Lame, very lemming, I said Barton to begin with because you can only compare frequency to performance when you're comparing identicle cores with identicle bus speeds. But you knew that. You read it. The only way you can win any argument is to be dishonest. You read "Barton" and thought you'd throw in a Tbred and see if you could sneek it by. You knew I'd catch it, you're trying to gather support from less informed users.

So far I'm batting 1000 and you're a big 0.

can't3200+ runs at 2200mhz. So wrong again.

. No, you're wrong continuously.
You compare 400MHz bus processors, because AMD gives points for added bus speed. As well they should, since added bus speed provides added performance. But you knew all that and persisted in order to gain support once again from the peanut gallery with your dishonest misrepresentations.

all mother boards for a64 are junk

That's something you said. I said all the old A64 motherboards were junk save for the ECS 755-A2 and Soyo K8USA. I told people they'd be a lot happier with the nForce3 250 chipset boards, or the higher performance 755 chipset boards once they were released. And I was 100% correct, the nForce3 250 chipset is supperior to everything else out there. I can't help it if Asus and DFI never followed through on their 755 anouncements.

And AMD lied when they said the XP rating system was based on the performance of actual clock frequencies for the Thunderbird.

And here's another one for you: AMD and Intel have both released non-MHz based model numbering because both companies are producing higher performance processors at lower clock rates.

Where does Dell come into play? I've only ever had 1 heatsink fall off from over 100 AMD systems I've worked on, I've only SEEN 2 that have had the problem. And the heatsink that fell off was from a system I was doing software, not hardware, repairs on.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

I showed you the statement you made, from the same thread, concerning that video card review. <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=176664#176664" target="_new">Here's an ealier statement from that SAME THREAD where you brought in stuff from another thread.</A> In fact the earlier thread was about a video card review, just as I honestly said before. I don't have to admit anything because you're lying again.

I'd admit I was wrong about the XP rating numbers, except that would be lying, something I leave for you to do. I prefer honesty.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

And how many of those are on the 333MHz bus Barton core? Hehe, you'll go to any ends to prove you're right when you know you're wrong, won't you? I mean, geeze, I used all 333MHz bus CPU's for a reason, you knew that. I even put in the first sentence they were Bartons, you knew that too. And I've been saying all along that both AMD and Intel are producing faster performing CPU's at slower clock rates. So knowing the facts you continue your dishonesty.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>