lol, all you amd lovers

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
That's the first board that came to my mind because almost every review site uses that. That's because it's probably the best performing board for the Pentium 4. But even if I accept that the IC7 does exactly the same job, please tell me what does that change? If you look carefully, I didn't even mention mobo prices in my initial post because even without taking the motherboard into consideration, the A64 3000+ is right now a more atractive platform to get.

And it doesn't matter whether it is AMD or not! Can you get that into your thick head? Search the boards and find all my suggestions just before the release of the A64. I never suggested a Barton, except for users that were on a really tight budget. It's not my fault if you are so biased that you can't see clearly what's best for your pocket. And I can accept that the difference is not that big so if someone chooses a P4 platform, I can't say he made the wrong choice, just not the best one based on my opinion. But on the other hand, all the other things you have been saying for the past few days in this thread about AMD are pure crap!
 
Attractive good sir are you telling us you are sexually attracted to semi-conductors.

BTW I still havent figured out the infactuation with defending ones manufacturer of your microprocessor. Really just correct the man on his oviously incorrect statements and be done with it. Instead of haveing a pissing fight over a company and their product.

-taitertot

I carry the legacy of one of your fallen; let us remember him fondly for he is always watching.
 
<""I didn't even mention mobo prices"">

liar

<""P.S.S. In order to achieve the performance of the Pentium 4 @ 3.2GHz as showed in all the online reviews, a <b>more expensive i875 board</b> should be used instead of the cheaper i865P chipset that most people actually use. This factor <b>will also</b> <b>add up to the total cost</b> of the Pentium system described above."">

<""that you can't see clearly what's best for your pocket"">

best for my pocket is my precious time that I can use only once in this life time, and yer thin head can't save it when I have to troubleshoot my AMD system when it craps out.

<""choice, just not the best one based on my opinion"">

Right, it's just "yer opinion", I need experience as a matter of fact.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
I am afraid you are scarred of looking into the eyes of truth, troll. Have a nice day yeself.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
Can some body tell me what does "troll" mean?
Click to expand...
I don't know who this guy is, but he summed it up well.

<A HREF="http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html" target="_new">Troll</A>

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...
 
Well Blah, looks like a pretty good definition of a troll to me. I'd say the shoe fits you pretty good (to a T)

This thread is rediculous and should die.

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.
 
Children please. Say sorry to each other, and go play nicely.

What you buy depends on your budget NOW, how often you upgrade, etc.

Every time I upgrade I change my motherboard, so arguments for getting something on the basis that faster CPUs will be eventually available for that particular socket are completely irrelevant to <b><i>me</i></b>. I also tend to upgrade fairly often, so likewise buying something which I won't need for at least a year or so (i.e. native 64-bit support) NOW, would also make no sense for <b><i>me</i></b>, as all I do now is 32-bit stuff. I'm also quite happy to overclock, so that also has a bearing on the choice.

Based on all this, and my budget, my last upgrade was an overclocked AthlonXP system. If I was to buy a new system <i>right now</i> I would get a P4 2.6C and overclock the hell out of it, because that will give me the best performance for my needs, at the sort of price point I'd be happy with.

If, however, I wanted to build a system for a friend <i>right now</i> and they want it to last 5 years or something, then I would quite possibly go for a A64, so when 64-bit software becomes more common they won't have any problems with running it, plus it's a pretty decent 32-bit performer in its own right.

No one company's products are better than the other. It depends <i>entirely</i> on what's available and the needs of the person who'll be using it.

What drives people to post stupid fanboyistic garbage? do they have huge amounts of shares in AMD or Intel?

[/RANT]

---
<font color=red>Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.</font color=red> :wink:
 
<""This thread is rediculous"">

What is so "rediculous" in the post. I just pointed out the truth. Is it somethnig you can't cope with?

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
<"""I don't know who this guy is"">

How long have you known him? I guess you are trying to promote your site 😉

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
all you said to SoB was that you have lots of brain sells e<b>vapor</b>ated, and you are trying to use the rest of them to put people down, so it makes you look "not that stupid" in our eyes.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
Okay, so I actually said it TO Wuzy in reference to people like yourself and SoD.

Here it is: I really do hate it when somebody only discredits one company, whether it be AMD or Intel--they both make quality chips and make the other keep improving.

You discredit AMD on an argument that sucks...which is precisely why I called you an idiot.

Damn Rambus.
 
The guy has nothing of the qualities of a true troll. True trolling is an art, and it's never this obvious. Blah is no troll, he is an idiot.

People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt newsgroups, and simply to make trouble.

Career trollers tend for the latter two whilst the former is the mark of the <b>clueless newbie and should be ignored. </b>
Click to expand...
<b> A mosquito is just a small woodpecker. </b>
 
<""which is.. why I called you an idiot"">

I don't usually call people "idiot" when they are a little upset about performance of the company/person they like and express their frustration in a calm and peaceful way. You are very rude to me, and even I don't like your attitude, I do feel for your luck of intelligence. All I have said in the original post, that AMD becomes paranoid with PR ratings (MHZ wize) which is a no go with Pentium-M.


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
here you go, at least one person that believed me. I was trying to point out my innocence that I am not a troll, and you were a big help.

but on the other hand, even I don't know you, you have very big luck of communication ability (call nice peepel "idiot"), and should be ignored in the future (ie - <b>clueless.. and should be ignored</b>). That article is a complete ferry tale, the person was just paranoid and bored, so ended up with writing a SiFi thing, which you (<b>clueless</b> peepel) are grasping onto as it were a life saver, sigh..


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
It fully appeared that you were TRYING to start an AMD vs. Intel war, which is idiotic. Neither company would be where they are today without the other. Also, CPUs wouldn't be the the way they are today without both companies existing and competing.

Frankly, I don't see what your problem is with AMD's PR rating. In a desktop, the A64 3000+ takes down a 3.0C in most arenas of performance. But when it's brought over to laptops where it loses to a 1.7GHz processor, you become idiotically distressed. Do you expect AMD to change it to a 1700+? They won't!! You want to know why?? Because it can take down the P4-M 3.0GHz, which is, arguably, its competition.

Pentium M (and the entire Centrino technology set) was designed to implemented into a portable computer that can perform. A64s were designed for desktops, with a laptop version that is (and will be) implemented into a performance computer that can be portable.

The Pentium M was ultimately designed to save battery and be ultra-portable. To do this, Intel kept the MHz down in the mid 1GHz category. From there they developed the performance of the chip. AMD did it the exact opposite way because they designed a desktop chip.

I understand that they are both the highest performing laptop chips each company has to offer and can subsequently be tested because of this. However, they really do have two different purposes.

Additionally, you just proved a point FOR AMD...if they were so paranoid about PR ratings, they would have renamed their laptop chip the 1700+.

I still don't understand why people are so picky about the naming of AMD chips!! Sure, it may not be accurate, but it's still their naming system, let them do whatever they want!! I think ALL companies should go the way of the FX and Opteron naming, making completely arbitrary (Opteron isn't exactly arbitrary, it's actually quite logical) and then basing the rest of their chips off of the first one. MHz are no longer the deciding factor for overall performance!!

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
 
dude, your thinkability is not straight presently. you see things through "is it approves my view" glasses. why?

<""renamed their laptop chip the 1700+."">

it should of have being named "1600+M" as a matter of fact, caz it's newest from AMD and theoretically competes with newest from Intel.


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
Or Intel could have named their 1.7 a 1800+ to compete with the 3000+'s 1.8GHz. Can't you see that it doesn't make a difference what AMD or Intel calls their chips!?

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
 
come-on, you know what I'm talking about, Intel can't embarrass itself by dropping to knees like AMD does. who is a catchupper here?

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
How is AMD embarassed?? Pray tell.

I really don't see why you are grasping to AMD's PR rating system as it's only basis of performance. AMD's PR rating is meant to target the P4s (the A64's <b>+</b> comes into use often, too), not the Pentium M! In fact, the PR rating system was released WAY before the P-M, so how could it target it?? Also, why would AMD name something a 1600+M when it runs at 1.8GHz??

Looks like someone has a lot of explaining to do.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
 
<""Also, why would AMD name something a 1600+M"">

caz it can't compete with P-M 1.7GHZ, so it is lower, isn't it obvious?

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom