• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2.4 GHz? What is Intel Afraid of?

W

Whitedog

Diamond Member
OK. They just released the 2.2GHz not too long ago and are cranking out 200 more MHz already. Are we going to get 2.6GHz May 1st? This is craziness! hahahaha

Just think, if AMD didn?t exist we would still be running 850MHz Piii?s. 6 months apart we would get an additional 50MHz too. Hehe?

Oh, I know what it is that?s driving Intel to crank out the MHZ every month? It?s those new AMDForce CPU?s that will be coming out now that we have AmVidia 😀

hehehe
 


<< Most people only need a 850MHz P3. >>



guess i'm an exception😉

seriously i have p-3 500 p-3 866 p-4 1.5 and am going to build a newer one very soon

i notice the speeds very much 500 is too slow 866 is alright but compared to my 1.5 shees no way the speed is and always will be to me a great reason to upgrade lol

maybe for web surfing reading mail shopping but man gaming i want more speed go intel go amd 5 gigs by 2004 please😛

peace
 
Well, I guess I should have stated it like this.

We would only be able to buy a 850mhz and we would pay $750 for it too. The average user would only be able to afford a P200.

That's what we would be living in if it weren't for AMD.
 


<< Most people only need a 850MHz P3. >>



Most people don't even need that, and nobody needs anything faster. But then, it isn't about need, never has been, never will be. It's about how much a person's time is worth to the company he or she works for, how valuable one's personal time is to the individual, and how patient we all are at any given time.

Who needs an automobile with more than 4 cylinders, or more than 1500CC displacement. Nobody. Even pro racer's don't. They can race with lawn mower engines. But then, it isn't about need, never has been, and never will. Do I really need to say more?
 
edipis, not really...

there isn't any 32-bit x86 application [that i know of] that requires a greater than 850mhz processor as minimum...therefore, anything greater isn't NEEDED.

though it dependsin what sense u're using NEED...if u mean need, as in run things at such and such operations per second, then that's another story.
 
850 MHz? Are you kidding me? I use a 266 MHz PII running Windows XP for most tasks.

Speed comes in handy with more demanding applications - rendering, CAD, encoding, some games - speed really counts here. I sure as heck wouldn't want to encode a DivX file or play Max Payne on a 266 MHz machine.

I don't see why you beleive Intel is "afraid" of anything. The Pentium 4 was designed for high clock speeds and if all the overclocking stories on |H|ardOCP are true, Intel could release a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 if they wanted to.
 
What the #$)(*Q# Do you mean... No one Needs more than 850MHZ??? Are you a Tard? <<there isn't any 32-bit x86 application [that i know of] that requires a greater than 850mhz processor as minimum...therefore, anything greater isn't NEEDED.>>

Dewey illustrated it pretty well I think.

Playing a game is supposed to be FUN!
In order to play a game and have FUN, you NEED a Smooth playing environment.
In order to get a smooth playing environment, you NEED 2x the mimimum clock speed minimum required to run the game.

If you played every game with a system that had only the MINIMUM required CPU Needed, you would go insane and go kill people...

Therefore, if you are a Gamer, you NEED 1.6GiggerHurts in order to get the full fun factor out of your computer.

A minimum requirement computer is a Worthless Piece of $&(T to a gamer.

You gamers please back me up and say AMEN!

😀
 
<<I don't see why you beleive Intel is "afraid" of anything.>>

Here's another word you can add to your vocabulary. Look it up yourself 😱

"Sarcasm"
 


<< Playing a game is supposed to be FUN!
In order to play a game and have FUN, you NEED a Smooth playing environment.
In order to get a smooth playing environment, you NEED 2x the mimimum clock speed minimum required to run the game. >>


Fun... I remember that.
Gameplay should come before fancy graphics.
Gameplay should come before anything.
There's plenty of old arcade games that are/were just plain FUN in spite of the fact they weren't Quake17 in 3.3D at 7000FPS.
I find most of the games today to be just so much junk. Same boring thing over and over and over again...
Eg: Half-Life was great. Now there's dozens of clones, most of them suck.
How about concentrating on gameplay first? You don't need a supercomputer for that.
 


<<

<< Fun... I remember that.
Gameplay should come before fancy graphics.
Gameplay should come before anything.
There's plenty of old arcade games that are/were just plain FUN in spite of the fact they weren't Quake17 in 3.3D at 7000FPS.
I find most of the games today to be just so much junk. Same boring thing over and over and over again...
Eg: Half-Life was great. Now there's dozens of clones, most of them suck.
How about concentrating on gameplay first? You don't need a supercomputer for that. >>



Amen!

When I graduate I hope I can find a job at a game company that understands this principle.

But all things being equal, graphics and sound do make it better. Also good AI isnt without its overhead too. Its like buisness apps. When designing buisness apps speed shouldnt be your primary concern. maintainable bug free code should be.

with games graphics shouldnt be your primary concern. gameplay should be. then speed then graphics.

well I guess my analogy isnt as coherant as I first thought... Ill call it v1.00
 
Most people don't even need that, and nobody needs anything faster.

i do some computer graphics for fun. take a look at this. i could certainly use an 850mhz p!!! for these things. i could also use my outdated 386/16 for such tasks but rendering would take days. plus some of these images require gobs of memory. the one i'm working on now uses 240mb of memory at its peak during rendering.
 


<<

<< Playing a game is supposed to be FUN!
In order to play a game and have FUN, you NEED a Smooth playing environment.
In order to get a smooth playing environment, you NEED 2x the mimimum clock speed minimum required to run the game. >>


Fun... I remember that.
Gameplay should come before fancy graphics.
Gameplay should come before anything.
There's plenty of old arcade games that are/were just plain FUN in spite of the fact they weren't Quake17 in 3.3D at 7000FPS.
I find most of the games today to be just so much junk. Same boring thing over and over and over again...
Eg: Half-Life was great. Now there's dozens of clones, most of them suck.
How about concentrating on gameplay first? You don't need a supercomputer for that. >>



Fancy graphics are standard now because minimum expectations of games are higher. Yes, gameplay is important, but I don't care how well a game plays, if I can't stand to look at it, I'm not going to play it. It doesn't matter how well written a movie script is, if it's poorly directed and poorly acted, it's not a good movie. Graphics are a part of the game, just as gameplay is. The reason we play video games over (or in addition to), say, a board game, is because it's just that; video.

Dozens of clones? It's a bigger market. There are more development groups than "in the old days." Speaking of the dawn of video games, the reason why there were so many "revolutionary" and "original" games was because there hadn't been much groundwork before. Think of Wolfenstien. It single-handedly revolutionized PC gaming and PC gaming hardware. Yet all it was was a change in perspective. They just moved the camera from a side-pan to first-person. It's such a small idea, not exactly insanely creative. Now think of Black & White, tesellating engine, unparallel adaptive-AI, fluid icon-less interface, now that's creative. Yet it wasn't hailed as a giant leap in gaming. Why? Standards are higher, more groundwork has been laid. People aren't as easily impressed anymore. There's more competition and more games coming out in a few months than in years back in the 80's.

If you want to compare originality in games, you have to compare them on equal terms. You can't compare a very old game with a very new one, because it was a different market then. Nearly any idea was a new idea. If one of your fun "classic" games was released today instead of years' past (so there would be no knowledge of it), I guarantee you wouldn't think it's so much fun.
 


<< Well, I guess I should have stated it like this.

We would only be able to buy a 850mhz and we would pay $750 for it too. The average user would only be able to afford a P200.

That's what we would be living in if it weren't for AMD. >>



This is an illogical assumption.

First, were that the case Intel would have sold far fewer processors and motherboards. The computer industry thrives on planned obsolescence. Intel has made far more money regularly stepping up processor speeds and making their old processors obsolete than they ever could have the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, competition has been good for pricing and innovation, but it has not been the only thing driving it. Intel HAS to keep making better and faster chips to compete with their own product as well. If not, they'd quickly saturate the market and go out of business.
 


<<

<< Well, I guess I should have stated it like this.

We would only be able to buy a 850mhz and we would pay $750 for it too. The average user would only be able to afford a P200.

That's what we would be living in if it weren't for AMD. >>



This is an illogical assumption.

First, were that the case Intel would have sold far fewer processors and motherboards. The computer industry thrives on planned obsolescence. Intel has made far more money regularly stepping up processor speeds and making their old processors obsolete than they ever could have the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, competition has been good for pricing and innovation, but it has not been the only thing driving it. Intel HAS to keep making better and faster chips to compete with their own product as well. If not, they'd quickly saturate the market and go out of business. >>




i disagree

yes intel could sell far less processors and boards but at $1000+ a chip for their top of the line their processors they're profit margins would be astronomical and i would say their net profit would be the same or greater had AMD never entered the market.

think about it they would spend much less on R & D and sell processors for much much more

AMD has forced intel to innovate and i am thankful for that

 
"...Most people don't even need that, and nobody needs anything faster...."

Dude, this is one of the most retarded things I've read on Anandtech.

Speak for yourself - I *needs* the speeds mang... 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top