...

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Duvie

I already handed out "idiot of the day" pabster but you may be in the running for the "weeks" title.....

And you just might be crowned King, read: Idiot of the YEAR!

there are many different opterons setups and at 2500 you must be looking at the 875 models....275 models for 4 way is about that much for 2 cpus for 4 cores...175 for dual core (basically an X2 1mb chip) can be had for in the 800 dollar range I believe....Now the 875s are 2600 a piece but it would be 8 core setups and just phenomenal power....

My point was never about Opteron! That was some AMD zealots threadjacking and changing the discussion, as usual. No one was discussing 8-way servers here.

[So pabster how did you get an 840 EE with the 9100 when you cant pick it in the customization section??? Did you talk to a CS person???

No, I didn't speak to a CS person. I configured the machine via the web on the very first day they were available, when the EE 840 was an option. Apparently it no longer is. But like I said, I'll be posting CPU-Z screenies for all you weasels to drool over when it arrives

Seems a lot of people are awful concerned about a CPU that "sucks" (EE 840). LOL!

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Duvie

I already handed out "idiot of the day" pabster but you may be in the running for the "weeks" title.....

And you just might be crowned King, read: Idiot of the YEAR!

there are many different opterons setups and at 2500 you must be looking at the 875 models....275 models for 4 way is about that much for 2 cpus for 4 cores...175 for dual core (basically an X2 1mb chip) can be had for in the 800 dollar range I believe....Now the 875s are 2600 a piece but it would be 8 core setups and just phenomenal power....

My point was never about Opteron! That was some AMD zealots threadjacking and changing the discussion, as usual. No one was discussing 8-way servers here.

[So pabster how did you get an 840 EE with the 9100 when you cant pick it in the customization section??? Did you talk to a CS person???

No, I didn't speak to a CS person. I configured the machine via the web on the very first day they were available, when the EE 840 was an option. Apparently it no longer is. But like I said, I'll be posting CPU-Z screenies for all you weasels to drool over when it arrives

Seems a lot of people are awful concerned about a CPU that "sucks" (EE 840). LOL!

trust me I am not concerned!! I saw in the Gen model setup an 840 EE (XE) model was an 1135 dollar upgrade to already picked cpu so I will be laughing when my 580 dollar chip will spank your bloated chip.....

Post all the screenies you want...I have seen enough from honest persons and sites to know I wont be impressed....

 

[imported_brandon]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Duvie

I already handed out "idiot of the day" pabster but you may be in the running for the "weeks" title.....

And you just might be crowned King, read: Idiot of the YEAR!

there are many different opterons setups and at 2500 you must be looking at the 875 models....275 models for 4 way is about that much for 2 cpus for 4 cores...175 for dual core (basically an X2 1mb chip) can be had for in the 800 dollar range I believe....Now the 875s are 2600 a piece but it would be 8 core setups and just phenomenal power....

My point was never about Opteron! That was some AMD zealots threadjacking and changing the discussion, as usual. No one was discussing 8-way servers here.

[So pabster how did you get an 840 EE with the 9100 when you cant pick it in the customization section??? Did you talk to a CS person???

No, I didn't speak to a CS person. I configured the machine via the web on the very first day they were available, when the EE 840 was an option. Apparently it no longer is. But like I said, I'll be posting CPU-Z screenies for all you weasels to drool over when it arrives

Seems a lot of people are awful concerned about a CPU that "sucks" (EE 840). LOL!

The EE 840 is a good chip, but it gets beaten by a chip that costs close to $500 less.

The power it uses isn't exactly low either...

All in all, if you buy either dual core, you can't lose... Well, maybe you can lose your house, because you couldn't pay the mortgage, but other than that, both will do well for multi-tasking, even though HT actually hurts the EE 840 more than it helps it.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Duvie
trust me I am not concerned!! I saw in the Gen model setup an 840 EE (XE) model was an 1135 dollar upgrade to already picked cpu so I will be laughing when my 580 dollar chip will spank your bloated chip.....

Post all the screenies you want...I have seen enough from honest persons and sites to know I wont be impressed....

LOL. We'll just need to have a duel then, eh?

Yeah the XPS Gen 5 are the big-dollar money makers for Dell. You can do a lot better on your own. I like the Dimension models although the base configurations leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Idiot ! $300 up ! The ony $2500 Opteron is the cream of the crop 875 8-way Opteron at the highest speed... Boy, you r trolling skills need some improvment. I can get TWO dual core opterons at the highest speed for $2600.....

LOL. So let me get this straight. You're gonna drop down $2600 for a couple dual core Opterons and $500 for a board. And a few hundred more for registered DIMMs. How many people are doing that for a DESKTOP PC? Get a grip!

And guess what? The people who are buying Opteron WANT the 8-way configuration. So the $2500 price tag (875's) is a realistic one. I don't think too many people would settle for the lowly 275 models.

YOUR trolling skills need improvement. AMD zealots are real good at thread jacking. The problem is that this thread was intended to discuss P4 vs X2, NOT SERVER-CLASS PROCESSORS. No one here was discussing Xeon or Opteron.

You moron, I HAVE dual opterons, and I DON'T want an 8-way, and i might get 2 dual-cores... The point is, you are trolling, and don't have a point to stand on...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: brandon
The EE 840 is a good chip, but it gets beaten by a chip that costs close to $500 less.

That remains to be seen. I'd rather see it first-hand than looking at synthetic benchies.

The power it uses isn't exactly low either...

Bah, I couldn't care less if it used 100W or 200W. Funny how all the AMD zealots who cried foul when Intel fanatics criticized early Athlon models for their heat and power consumption are now battering on about the "big" power requirements. LOL!

All in all, if you buy either dual core, you can't lose... Well, maybe you can lose your house, because you couldn't pay the mortgage, but other than that, both will do well for multi-tasking, even though HT actually hurts the EE 840 more than it helps it.

Well, at least there is ONE statement I can agree with

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
You moron, I HAVE dual opterons, and I DON'T want an 8-way, and i might get 2 dual-cores... The point is, you are trolling, and don't have a point to stand on...

Do you want a cookie?

My point is that this thread WAS NEVER ABOUT SERVER CHIPS. No one was EVER DISCUSSING Opteron. So WTF are you carrying on about it?

If you want to debate Opteron and server configurations, start a new thread.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Pabster

POT->KETTLE->BLACK

Hey troll.... STFU. Do you have a real job? I notice your timestamps are right in the middle of the work day. Or are you a programmer who sits around watching his P4 grind through compilations all day so you can claim you work 12-hour days? Or are you just fvcking around on your boss's dime?

Again - STFU. I'm sick of seeing your stupid rants. Diamond member or not, you sound like a real freakin' juvenile. Your life revolves around a freakin' PROCESSOR? I wish the non-existent "moderators" would flag you.

Man. Go get laid. You're wound way too tight and far too much into antagonizing people for no good reason.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Pabster

LOL. So let me get this straight. You're gonna drop down $2600 for a couple dual core Opterons and $500 for a board. And a few hundred more for registered DIMMs. How many people are doing that for a DESKTOP PC? Get a grip!

And guess what? The people who are buying Opteron WANT the 8-way configuration. So the $2500 price tag (875's) is a realistic one. I don't think too many people would settle for the lowly 275 models.

YOUR trolling skills need improvement. AMD zealots are real good at thread jacking. The problem is that this thread was intended to discuss P4 vs X2, NOT SERVER-CLASS PROCESSORS. No one here was discussing Xeon or Opteron.

This has got to be your stupidest post up to date, Pabster. You're runing low on arguments, pal, and keeping this up will make you look even worse... like we cared, right?

And guess what? You have no idea of what people want Opterons for. That "lowly" 275 model you speak of is one of the most used in high-end workstations. You know workstations, right? Bad ass computers used for CAD, profesional video edition, and stuff?

Opteron is NOT a Server-only processor, Pabster. Today's most powerful workstations use AMD chipset (now their using nVidia's nForce Pro, too) and dual Opterons.

Also, Apple IS NOT going to use Intel processors on 2006, at least not for their computers. They will be using the Xscale processor for their iPods. Get facts straight and stop trolling. Please.

 

[Aenslead]

Oh, I forgot adding your "", "LOL", "ROFLMAO" and other childish expresions you use when you pretend to be laughing... maybe because you are so nervous trying to go on, somehow trying to convince anyone that everyone is wrong by liking so much more X2 rather than any possible incarnation of the P4.

Zebo's analogy of the map is right: still knowing you're going the wrong way, you just keep driving... that's sad. Honest.

 

[clarkey01]

Pabster just got his ass handed to him by some of biggest names on the board.

"Plays the sad but true riff"

Next time dont go around telling everyone that AMD chipsets are sh*t, unless you have numbers to back it up.

 

[drifter106]

nevermind...geeesh

 

[RussianSensation]

dual-core this...dual-core that.

How about A64 3000+ Venice @ 2.8ghz for $150. That's real value for the $.

Spanking FX55

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Hey troll.... STFU. Do you have a real job? I notice your timestamps are right in the middle of the work day. Or are you a programmer who sits around watching his P4 grind through compilations all day so you can claim you work 12-hour days? Or are you just fvcking around on your boss's dime?

No, you can shut the fvck up troll. Now wonder your post count is so low. You've probably taken a few "vacations" I would imagine!

And you're right, my job allows me to sit on my ass and get paid good for it. Are you jealous little troll?

Again - STFU. I'm sick of seeing your stupid rants. Diamond member or not, you sound like a real freakin' juvenile. Your life revolves around a freakin' PROCESSOR? I wish the non-existent "moderators" would flag you.

LOL. Between the idiots "praying" for me to shut up and those looking for moderator help, I'm not sure which is more comical. STFU.

Man. Go get laid. You're wound way too tight and far too much into antagonizing people for no good reason.

Heh. I'm wound too tight? The only ones who are being antagonized are those who throw the first stone.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
This has got to be your stupidest post up to date, Pabster. You're runing low on arguments, pal, and keeping this up will make you look even worse... like we cared, right?

LOL, so I guess we all look to Aenslead for opinion? ROFLMAO. Get a grip!

And guess what? You have no idea of what people want Opterons for. That "lowly" 275 model you speak of is one of the most used in high-end workstations. You know workstations, right? Bad ass computers used for CAD, profesional video edition, and stuff?

Here we go again. When did I ever bring up Opteron or servers, except when the zealots went off-topic and started in about it? I never ONCE brought either of those topics up.

Opteron is NOT a Server-only processor, Pabster. Today's most powerful workstations use AMD chipset (now their using nVidia's nForce Pro, too) and dual Opterons.

Chee, sounds like a line straight from AMD.com!

Also, Apple IS NOT going to use Intel processors on 2006, at least not for their computers. They will be using the Xscale processor for their iPods. Get facts straight and stop trolling. Please.

We'll see. And did I ever mention any specifics? NO. I said Apple will be using Intel processors in 2006, and they WILL. Exactly where and in what configurations remains to be seen.

Now, back to your little cave. You've got some idiots to keep company.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
Pabster just got his ass handed to him by some of biggest names on the board.

ROFLMAO. I don't know who you consider a "big name" here (maybe Aenslead? ) but you are mistaken. No one handed me anything. Back to your nest, troll.

"Plays the sad but true riff"

Next time dont go around telling everyone that AMD chipsets are sh*t, unless you have numbers to back it up.

Hmmm, precisely what I told you. Put up some evidence or STFU. I have, you haven't.

 

[Technonut]

Also, Apple IS NOT going to use Intel processors on 2006, at least not for their computers. They will be using the Xscale processor for their iPods. Get facts straight and stop trolling. Please.

I read this HERE...

Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.

Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

...........

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Pabster

We'll see. And did I ever mention any specifics? NO. I said Apple will be using Intel processors in 2006, and they WILL. Exactly where and in what configurations remains to be seen.

Now, back to your little cave. You've got some idiots to keep company.

But we're talking about "desktop" processors here, aren't we?

And don't be so stuborn. Opteron 2xx series is a workstation class processor. Isn't that as good as a very-high-end desktop? It doesn't come form AMD.com; there are many sites on the net that focus on profesional hardware, and they have AMD solutions right on par with the mid-end and low end solutions: right on the very top.


Stop yelling that "AMD does not have X2" whatsoever. We ALL knew that they where going after Dual-core server/workstation processors first, and then for desktop, unlike Intel who did it othewise. Still, AMD will have both solutions ready and Intel will only have one.

No one argues that you love Intel or whatever, simply stop arguing nonsense. If you are happy with what you got, GREAT! But don't try to justify your mistakes contradicting us (who are certainly MORE informed than you are) just because you're unsatisfied.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Technonut

Also, Apple IS NOT going to use Intel processors on 2006, at least not for their computers. They will be using the Xscale processor for their iPods. Get facts straight and stop trolling. Please.

I read this HERE...

Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.

Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994, but will begin a phased transition to Intel's chips, sources familiar with the situation said. Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.

...........

Ah... ...

Hm. My. That's an... uhm... interesting turn of events...

Lets wait for monday then and see if they actually make the anouncment.

I honesly never thought it could happen, due the fact that they would have to:
a.- Apple make a new OS compiled to x68
b.- Intel would have to make a new line of processors for the Mac.

My mistake. Thankyou for the link.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
But we're talking about "desktop" processors here, aren't we?

Well, we were, until a select few idiots started talking Opteron and servers.

And don't be so stuborn. Opteron 2xx series is a workstation class processor. Isn't that as good as a very-high-end desktop? It doesn't come form AMD.com; there are many sites on the net that focus on profesional hardware, and they have AMD solutions right on par with the mid-end and low end solutions: right on the very top.

Your quote about "The world's best servers are powered by AMD" or whatever is exactly the kind of line they quote on their web site. That's where that reference came from.

Stop yelling that "AMD does not have X2" whatsoever. We ALL knew that they where going after Dual-core server/workstation processors first, and then for desktop, unlike Intel who did it othewise. Still, AMD will have both solutions ready and Intel will only have one.

That's wonderful. But I'm not concerned with servers. I could care less what either company was offering in that arena. I'm interested in DESKTOP stuff here. Jeez, when are you gonna get that through your head?

No one argues that you love Intel or whatever, simply stop arguing nonsense. If you are happy with what you got, GREAT! But don't try to justify your mistakes contradicting us (who are certainly MORE informed than you are) just because you're unsatisfied.

You are purporting to be "more informed" than me? ROFLMAO! If that's the case, why don't you show it -- instead of babbling useless garbage and spewing OPINION rather than FACT. You've shown yourself to be utterly MISinformed.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Just drop it or take it off-line. No reason to get worked-up over a cpu.

 

[MDme]

let's not forget one other equation here....ownership costs. the PD may be cheaper (depending on components0 or may have better price/performance ratio (depending on who you believe: zebo or jpeyton) but since the PD is 30-60% slower, then it will cost you time as well (something you can't easily qualify in terms of costs but is important)...don't forget the power consumption too (which bites your a$$ back in terms of electric bills)...and don't get me started on the PD when it starts throttling due to heat issues (which will make it slower).

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: MDme
let's not forget one other equation here....ownership costs. the PD may be cheaper (depending on components0 or may have better price/performance ratio (depending on who you believe: zebo or jpeyton) but since the PD is 30-60% slower, then it will cost you time as well (something you can't easily qualify in terms of costs but is important)...don't forget the power consumption too (which bites your a$$ back in terms of electric bills)...and don't get me started on the PD when it starts throttling due to heat issues (which will make it slower).

<PLONK>

You, sir, are an idiot. Do you really believe the difference in power consumption between the X2 and P4-D will be significant enough to affect someone's energy bills in any significant way?

And, as for "throttling", you have no idea what you're talking about. All Intel chips will throttle, but only under the most EXTREME of conditions. Prescott (for example) needs to be over 80C before it will even BEGIN throttling. If the CPU were to get that hot, then a major incident has occurred (fan failure(s), heatsink off CPU, et al.) in which case the throttle is to protect the CPU from PHYSICAL DAMAGE.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Intel fanboys are crying so lets let this one drop.

Is 50-60% slower than cheapest X2 in many tests


Globally speaking it's 30% slower. You do the math. Cheap 939 mobo plus DDR plus X2 will come out ahead in both price/performance and obviously overall performance. That's a rare combo. Usually the performance leader is justified in charging much much more making the cheap chip more attractive. Not here.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/pentiumd-820/index.x?pg=1

Never let it drop Zebo! CHARGE! For the best price/performance ratio, no fanboys allowed!

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: Pabster


*Sounds of Troll Stampede*

[humor]

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'

Keep movin', movin', movin',
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them doggies movin' Rawhide!

[/humor]

Aside from the Fact Craig Barrett, said Intel was Canning the PRESCOTT based Pentium 4 4-GHz chip(on his knees apologising), and Paul Otellini is changing the companies direction towards the lower power consumption cores. I would think that any reasonably minded person would call what Intels future (oh yes forgot they scrapped that too) roadmap is/was a failure.

I just had to make sure that you do realize (here comes another shocker, brace yourselves) AMD at this point in time HAS the techonological advantage over Intel across the desktop spectrum. Pentium M seems to be the chip more apt to be voted on for a laptop solution, so Intel can safely hold the mobile crown.

I had to live through this during the post 2800+ era, where Intels Scalability (IE increasing Clock speed, on Netburst Architecture, Northwood based chip) exceeded the PR rating performance metric on XP processors. Nobody could claim a 3000+ or 3200+ XP performed at the same levels as a 3 GHz+ Pentium 4. The performance just wasn't there to justify the PR rating on the AMD side. AMDers accepted the fact. Intel is now on the flip side of the coin (read AT THIS MOMENT) and I'd assume that Intelers would realize that as well.

Can you come up with an arguement that doesnt involve, Roffling, Three Stooges Sound effects, or the tried and true though oftenly incorrectly and overused Pot meet Kettle joke.

I have no bias to one side or the other. I've owned Intel with great joy, I've owned AMD with great joy, and now I'm again at AMDs camp. Based on my only metric of Gaming performance, AMD will give me more for my money. So here I am. I've stopped roffling, can you?

(Just a side note, you can find articles on Intel commiting to 4GHz by 2004, and 5 GHz by 2005. This Internet stuff if neat. TY Al Gore)