Hell has frozen over, the rumours will now end..

[sandorski]

> 1 Million of AMD cpu's purchased, AMD systems to become 15% of Desktop Systems line

Seems kinda odd for them to do it now, but after their recent dismal fiscal performance it seems Dell has learned the perils of tying themselves down to one Supplier/Product.

Should ease AMD's loss of Performance Crown.

 

[dexvx]

Shouldnt come as a surprise. Dell and Intel has had a falling out starting 2004, some of which has nothing to do with CPU's.

 

[myocardia]

Actually, the only thing that surprises me is that Dell was able to hold on to such a huge chunk of the pre-built market share, all the while the fastest processor they had in their boxes wasn't much faster than a Sempron. I'm just glad that all of the Intel fans will finally admit to how slow a Pentium actually was, now that "their" company has the C2D.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Actually, the only thing that surprises me is that Dell was able to hold on to such a huge chunk of the pre-built market share, all the while the fastest processor they had in their boxes wasn't much faster than a Sempron. I'm just glad that all of the Intel fans will finally admit to how slow a Pentium actually was, now that "their" company has the C2D.

This is just............... well, dim.

Anyway. Pentium 4 processors (Northwood, Prescott, Smithfield, Presler) are not slow by any stretch of the imagination. They were just not as fast as (X2, FX, etc.) A64 AMD CPU's. Are A64 CPU's slow? Now that we have faster Core 2 Duo CPU's? Of course not. Just not as fast as Core 2 Duo.

 

[hennethannun]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

This is just............... well, dim.

Anyway. Pentium 4 processors (Northwood, Prescott, Smithfield, Presler) are not slow by any stretch of the imagination. They were just not as fast as (X2, FX, etc.) A64 AMD CPU's. Are A64 CPU's slow? Now that we have faster Core 2 Duo CPU's? Of course not. Just not as fast as Core 2 Duo.

You're right, P4 was not really slow. it was just power-hungry and very hot-running, all while providing less performance than Athlon 64 processors.

that was the real problem with P4, it wasn't particularly bad at anything, it was just slightly worse than AMD across the board (except for media encoding), and because AMD was clocked lower to begin with, every incremental clock increase was proportionally larger and made their lead even bigger...

 

[eelw]

Exactly. I love how fanboys always twist things to their own favour. If Netburst is crap and is about 5-10% slower than K8, what does a 20-30% advantage by Conroe mean for A64/X2???

 

[Markfw]

try 15%, not 20-30....

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: eelw
Exactly. I love how fanboys always twist things to their own favour. If Netburst is crap and is about 5-10% slower than K8, what does a 20-30% advantage by Conroe mean for A64/X2???

The reason we're not so harsh on AMD is because their chip design was smart from the start. But Intel's P4 architecture was crap. The first chips were slower clock-for-clock than Intel's P3. They started actually performing in the 2-3.5Ghz range. After that they overheated. For a chip that could be pumped to 10+ Ghz (plan for Netburst), a slow start could be understandable. But when the chips topped out at 3.5Ghz (well 3.8 but most of the time it had to clock itself back)....it truly became apparent that the Pentium 4 had sucked from the start.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
try 15%, not 20-30....

LMAO! It shows it's ugly head again. Why don't we call it just 14%, just to float that boat of yours. :thumbsdown:

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: eelw
Exactly. I love how fanboys always twist things to their own favour. If Netburst is crap and is about 5-10% slower than K8, what does a 20-30% advantage by Conroe mean for A64/X2???

The reason we're not so harsh on AMD is because their chip design was smart from the start. But Intel's P4 architecture was crap. The first chips were slower clock-for-clock than Intel's P3. They started actually performing in the 2-3.5Ghz range. After that they overheated. For a chip that could be pumped to 10+ Ghz (plan for Netburst), a slow start could be understandable. But when the chips topped out at 3.5Ghz (well 3.8 but most of the time it had to clock itself back)....it truly became apparent that the Pentium 4 had sucked from the start.

Once again, the Pentium 4 architecture was/is not crap. Just not as good as A64's efficient architecture. Northwoods ran cooler and better than Athlon XP's. Does this make Athlon XP's crap? Of course not. Just not as good as Northy's. And in turn, Northy's were not as good as A64. You guys are pretty deluded to the notion that if a company is not at the top, they are crap. WTF?. When a new CPU architecture comes out, and is faster/better than it's competition, this does not automatically make the previous title holder crap. Do you understand this?

Core 2 Duo has not rendered AMD's best offerings down to crap status. A64, X2, FX are excellent CPU's. So, AMD's status, at worst, has gone from spectacular, to great. Core 2 Duo now has the spectacular tag. When K8L comes around, and outperforms Intels best offering at that time, Does Core technology suddenly become crap? Duh. No.

Early Willy P4's made me think twice though. I didn't get rid of my PIII 1.13 until Northy 2.0a surfaced and P4 started to show some muscle.. Then made my platform change.

 

[Regs]

I'd say the Prescott was crap though.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: eelw
Exactly. I love how fanboys always twist things to their own favour. If Netburst is crap and is about 5-10% slower than K8, what does a 20-30% advantage by Conroe mean for A64/X2???

The reason we're not so harsh on AMD is because their chip design was smart from the start. But Intel's P4 architecture was crap. The first chips were slower clock-for-clock than Intel's P3. They started actually performing in the 2-3.5Ghz range. After that they overheated. For a chip that could be pumped to 10+ Ghz (plan for Netburst), a slow start could be understandable. But when the chips topped out at 3.5Ghz (well 3.8 but most of the time it had to clock itself back)....it truly became apparent that the Pentium 4 had sucked from the start.

Once again, the Pentium 4 architecture was/is not crap. Just not as good as A64's efficient architecture. Northwoods ran cooler and better than Athlon XP's. Does this make Athlon XP's crap? Of course not. Just not as good as Northy's. And in turn, Northy's were not as good as A64. You guys are pretty deluded to the notion that if a company is not at the top, they are crap. WTF?. When a new CPU architecture comes out, and is faster/better than it's competition, this does not automatically make the previous title holder crap. Do you understand this?

Core 2 Duo has not rendered AMD's best offerings down to crap status. A64, X2, FX are excellent CPU's. So, AMD's status, at worst, has gone from spectacular, to great. Core 2 Duo now has the spectacular tag. When K8L comes around, and outperforms Intels best offering at that time, Does Core technology suddenly become crap? Duh. No.

Early Willy P4's made me think twice though. I didn't get rid of my PIII 1.13 until Northy 2.0a surfaced and P4 started to show some muscle.. Then made my platform change.

Well said keys! :thumbsup:

 

[carlosd]

But prescotts were crap...HOT, expensive, and slow, If it isn't crap, tell me what is...Al least Athlon XPs were dirty cheap (with decent performance) compared to Northwoods, but the prescotts were always more expensive and a lot hotter than K8s (not talking about general performance). And wahetever you say you have to admit that nutburst was the crappiest intel architechture ever!
An to hell with dell, now that AMD have the inferior architecture, they finally will their CPUs, why didn't they get the k8s in their stellar moment. The answer: intel was afraid of losing dell marketshare, now intel doesn't have to be worried, they have the superior CPU.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: carlosd
But prescotts were crap...HOT, expensive, and slow, If it isn't crap, tell me what is...Al least Athlon XPs were dirty cheap (with decent performance) compared to Northwoods, but the prescotts were always more expensive and a lot hotter than K8s (not talking about general performance). And wahetever you say you have to admit that nutburst was the crappiest intel architechture ever!
An to hell with dell, now that AMD have the inferior architecture, they finally will their CPUs, why didn't they get the k8s in their stellar moment. The answer: intel was afraid of losing dell marketshare, now intel doesn't have to be worried, they have the superior CPU.

Prescotts: Hot? Yes. Expensive? Yes. Slow? By no means. Slower than A64? Yes. You forget that Intel expected Netburst to scale to 10GHz. The wall was hit FAR short as you can see. Had there not been a wall and Netburst scaled like it was thought to, A64's may have been the "crap" as you call it. Netburst was definately not a crap architecture. Just different.

I, as others, most definitely prefer Northy's over Prescott for obvious reasons. Although Prescott ran hot, and used much juice, it still wasn't slow, as you put it. I had a 3.0E for quite a while, and I can assure you, it was not slow in the least bit. Not as fast as A64, no question there, but slow is the wrong word, or context to use to describe a Pentium 4 Prescott, or Northy for that matter. (Includes Smithfield and Presler of course.)

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: carlosd
But prescotts were crap...HOT, expensive, and slow, If it isn't crap, tell me what is...Al least Athlon XPs were dirty cheap (with decent performance) compared to Northwoods, but the prescotts were always more expensive and a lot hotter than K8s (not talking about general performance). And wahetever you say you have to admit that nutburst was the crappiest intel architechture ever!
An to hell with dell, now that AMD have the inferior architecture, they finally will their CPUs, why didn't they get the k8s in their stellar moment. The answer: intel was afraid of losing dell marketshare, now intel doesn't have to be worried, they have the superior CPU.

Prescotts: Hot? Yes. Expensive? Yes. Slow? By no means. Slower than A64? Yes. You forget that Intel expected Netburst to scale to 10GHz. The wall was hit FAR short as you can see. Had there not been a wall and Netburst scaled like it was thought to, A64's may have been the "crap" as you call it. Netburst was definately not a crap architecture. Just different.

Was that supposed to be a pro Intel post?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: carlosd
But prescotts were crap...HOT, expensive, and slow, If it isn't crap, tell me what is...Al least Athlon XPs were dirty cheap (with decent performance) compared to Northwoods, but the prescotts were always more expensive and a lot hotter than K8s (not talking about general performance). And wahetever you say you have to admit that nutburst was the crappiest intel architechture ever!
An to hell with dell, now that AMD have the inferior architecture, they finally will their CPUs, why didn't they get the k8s in their stellar moment. The answer: intel was afraid of losing dell marketshare, now intel doesn't have to be worried, they have the superior CPU.

Prescotts: Hot? Yes. Expensive? Yes. Slow? By no means. Slower than A64? Yes. You forget that Intel expected Netburst to scale to 10GHz. The wall was hit FAR short as you can see. Had there not been a wall and Netburst scaled like it was thought to, A64's may have been the "crap" as you call it. Netburst was definately not a crap architecture. Just different.

Was that supposed to be a pro Intel post?

No why? Just trying to keep it real. :thumbsup:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: carlosd
But prescotts were crap...HOT, expensive, and slow, If it isn't crap, tell me what is...Al least Athlon XPs were dirty cheap (with decent performance) compared to Northwoods, but the prescotts were always more expensive and a lot hotter than K8s (not talking about general performance). And wahetever you say you have to admit that nutburst was the crappiest intel architechture ever!
An to hell with dell, now that AMD have the inferior architecture, they finally will their CPUs, why didn't they get the k8s in their stellar moment. The answer: intel was afraid of losing dell marketshare, now intel doesn't have to be worried, they have the superior CPU.

Don't exaggerate, please.

I'm still running a 630 based machine that is very snappy. You can make an argument on heat and power consumption, but Prescott's were not that slow.

 

[Zap]

So... when did Michael Dell die?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Zap
So... when did Michael Dell die?

I know what you mean. I guess all is fair in love and war... er, business. :thumbsup:

 

[Zenoth]

I loved my Northwood. I miss it, even if I currently own the very best system I myself have ever built. It didn't offer me the same "wow" effet I had by going from VIA C3 to Northwood. Going to A64 X2 from Northwood was decently better, I do NOT regret it, but I will always remember the very day I played most of my newest games on my newly built Northwood back then, just as if it was a few hours ago. It was a priceless bliss of fun and astonishment.

 

[MrUniq]

Dell still sucks....I've witnessed nothing but subpar products from them and their foreign tech suppport.

 

[TekDemon]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
try 15%, not 20-30....

Heh well if we start counting overclocking headroom then it'd be more like 40%.

 

[tylerw13]

Originally posted by: MrUniq
Dell still sucks....I've witnessed nothing but subpar products from them and their foreign tech suppport.

i would have to agree with you!! dell doesnt make that great of products...i would never ever buy another computer again...if ppl knew how easy it was to build your own pc...and cheaper at that. i had a dell laptop and it has had problems since i got it...i ve had to replace the mother board twice...video card ram just about everything...they dont build that great of products

 

[zsdersw]

I'm surprised. I didn't expect anyone here to have the same opinion of Dell now that they'll be selling AMD-based systems. I thought Dell would become everyone's favorite.. because it was never the cheap-o hardware, tech support, or any other of the typical complaints.. it was because they didn't use AMD chips in some of their systems.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
I'm surprised. I didn't expect anyone here to have the same opinion of Dell now that they'll be selling AMD-based systems. I thought Dell would become everyone's favorite.. because it was never the cheap-o hardware, tech support, or any other of the typical complaints.. it was because they didn't use AMD chips in some of their systems.

It used to be that, but over the last year or so the other issues began to make Dell less popular.