Was the P4 an 'engineering failure'?

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: apoppin
of course the intel engineers "intended" more ...

That wasn?t my intent.

*who else* advised their superiors of progress and whether they *thought* they could get more Ghz with Prescott or with NW?

Engineers don?t 'think', they analyze, research, estimate, test, deduct and conclude, no guessing or thinking involved. Whenever an engineer say "I think..." and the decision making level relied on his "thoughts" that is bad decision making.

O.k. how about this approach: missing deadlines/projection is the management fault - they should have hired more/better engineers and/or allocated more time/money to the project. The management decided on the deadlines/projection therefore it is their responsibility to achieve them.

. . .

Hey don?t look at me like that (yes I'm referring to that rolling eyes) it's just the same kind of logic you're using, the narrow absolute kind.

/edit

it *failed* to reach intel's target of 10Ghz ... by over 6Ghz
that's a *missfire* in any language

Wrong, by 2.9 GHz.

Intel?s Pentium 4 Overclocked to 7.1GHz, Sets World?s Record

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: myocardia
Do you honestly believe this crap that's spewing from your lips/fingertips? Wait, I'll put on my hipwaders. The definitions of both of these words have been the same for many hundreds of years: #1 engineering and #2 failure. Does your thesaurus, assuming you own one, say that failure=success? Because, from what I keep seeing you say, it sure does seem like it. Oh, and where exactly did you think that the people in the marketing dept. got the idea that Netburst was capable of ~10 Ghz, from a secretary?:laugh:

Try to keep up with the conversation, will ya? This has nothing to do with dictionary definitions of "engineering" and "failure". It does have everything to do with how the specific meaning of those words applies in this situation. Given the vague-ness of the phrase "engineering failure", there is ample room for the debate we've been having, in spite of your pithy (and totally irrelevant) dictionary-thumping.

of course not, your conversation has noting to do with logic or sense - otOh, it has everything to do with blind fanboyism and twisting definitions to fit your preconceived fantasy of distorted history.

You have *zero* to support your position and yet you continue to blabber and spew illogic

of course THIS fanboy 'tries':

Originally posted by: kobymu

Engineers don?t 'think', they analyze, research, estimate, test, deduct and conclude, no guessing or thinking involved. Whenever an engineer say "I think..." and the decision making level relied on his "thoughts" that is bad decision making.

O.k. how about this approach: missing deadlines/projection is the management fault - they should have hired more/better engineers and/or allocated more time/money to the project. The management decided on the deadlines/projection therefore it is their responsibility to achieve them.

. . .

Hey don?t look at me like that (yes I'm referring to that rolling eyes) it's just the same kind of logic you're using, the narrow absolute kind.

/edit

it *failed* to reach intel's target of 10Ghz ... by over 6Ghz
that's a *missfire* in any language

Wrong, by 2.9 GHz.

Intel?s Pentium 4 Overclocked to 7.1GHz, Sets World?s Record

so now *engineers don't think* is a really stupid statement ... i know some intel engineers here on these forums that would certainly be offended

engineers offer much to management besides being "stupid robots" ... i'm certain intel's management consulted with their engineering staff before they issued the "confident 10Ghz" prediction and even had roadmaps indicating it - for years

their engineers failed to reach their goals by over 6Ghz

and now you pick *one* narrow and absurd example .. what a *joke*

A Japanese overclocker has managed to overclock Intel Pentium 4 670 microprocessor to 7.132GHz and even run certain benchmarks on the system that was cooled down by liquid nitrogen.

it wasn't stable [period] and probably didn't "run" for more than a minute at a time
:thumbsdown:

come up with something to *support* your position .... besides a P4 freakshow and a put-down of intel engineers as mindless clones
:roll:

 

[kobymu]

so now *engineers don't think* is a really stupid statement ... i know some intel engineers here on these forums that would certainly be offended

Because what you have said is so much better :laugh:

According to you Intel engineers have virtually guaranteed to the management level they can achieve a 10 GHz proc in a certain time frame.:thumbsdown:

Think again on who's making them look bad. :roll:

/edit

Projection based on "[/i]thoughts[/i]" is management, pure management, hell it's almost management 101.

Engineers don't project as in "[/i]this is what i think...[/i]", engineer estimate, they almost never project.

engineers offer much to management besides being "stupid robots" .

[violin]Think of the poor engineers that have no choice but analyzing, researching, estimating, testing, deducting and concluding, in that order, poor guys, doing the work of stupid robots...
[/violin]

/end edit

The thinking and (*gasp*, shock, horror) creativity goes into the *design*, not projections, that?s the management, mid-level, high-level, doesn't matter.

and now you pick *one* narrow and absurd example .. what a *joke*

:light: :roll:

come up with something to *support* your position .

You first, what proof do you have for stating that 10GHz on the roadmaps are nothing more then projections.

of course THIS fanboy 'tries':

Yes, I'm a fanboy, but not of Intel, guess again, really, please, I'm interested.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: kobymu

so now *engineers don't think* is a really stupid statement ... i know some intel engineers here on these forums that would certainly be offended

Because what you have said is so much better :laugh:

According to you Intel engineers have virtually guaranteed to the management level they can achieve a 10 GHz proc in a certain time frame.:thumbsdown:

Think again on who's making them look bad. :roll:

The thinking and (*gasp*, shock, horror) creativity goes into the *design*, not projections, that?s the management, mid-level, high-level, doesn't matter.

and now you pick *one* narrow and absurd example .. what a *joke*

:light: :roll:

come up with something to *support* your position .

You first, what proof do you have for stating that 10GHz on the roadmaps are nothing more then projections.

of course THIS fanboy 'tries':

Yes, I'm a fanboy, but not of Intel, guess again, really, please, I'm interested.

a fanboy of fantasy and illogic ... clearly
--one who makes up his own definitions to support a silly position not held by any but intel fanboys ;0

you are the one that said "engineers don't think"

IF we are to believe you ... by letting logic lapse completely ... then 'marketing' picked a figure "out of the air' with no input from engineering whatsoever

your illogic makes intel even more "stupid" - including their engineers ... who *look ahead* - project - in designing a new architecture ...
:thumbsdown:

You first, what proof do you have for stating that 10GHz on the roadmaps are nothing more then projections.

*why me first*? you failed to answer ANY of my previous arguments

of course, now you will attempt to *twist* the dictionary definition of projection:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=projection

pro·jec·tion /pr?'d??k??n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-jek-shuhn]

9. calculation of some future thing: They fell short of their projection for the rate of growth.

yes intels engineers *projected* the P4 architecture as being capable of much more than 3.8Ghz ... and they failed to reach their goal due to a PROCESS failure - which you already admitted - that they could not fix [period]

you are arguing with yourself

come on ... just ONE link to support your view ...


not that BS about *one* Unstable P4 reaching 7Ghz on liquid nitrogen for a few seconds
:roll:

 

[kobymu]

yes intels engineers PROJECTED the P4 architecture as being capable of much more than 3.8Ghz ...

You always keep claming that with no " something to *support* ".

And now it's only "much more than 3.8Ghz" then 10GHz.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: kobymu

yes intels engineers PROJECTED the P4 architecture as being capable of much more than 3.8Ghz ...

You always keep claming that with no " something to *support* ".

And now it's only "much more than 3.8Ghz" then 10GHz.

i answered your question ... they *projected* 10Ghz ... it IS 'much more' than 3.8Ghz ... even with your really stupid example of ONE unstable liquid nitrogen cooled P4 - intel fell way short ... of even their 'competition's performance' at half the price

so now, since you have *nothing* to support your impossible position, you are nitpicking my *words*

*show us* something that shows the P4 was NOT an engineering failure
*challenge*

i linked to the *rest* of the tech world that supports my PoV

lets see *something* - beside you - that supports what you 'claim'

or stop posting

in the real world, it's called put up or shut up!

 

[kobymu]

From your previous post:

IF we are to believe you ... by letting logic lapse completely ... then 'marketing' picked a figure "out of the air' with no input from engineering whatsoever

And that would have been the first time in history!?

Past record is all they need to come up with those projections, take the frequencies increases from the Willamette to the northwood, take that time frame and multiply the time frame by its proportional frequencies gain/time and Walla 10 GHz in x months.

/edit

its math so it has to be right

/edit end

Originally posted by: apoppin
that shows the P4 was NOT an engineering failure





*challenge*

for everyone .

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: apoppin
of course not, your conversation has noting to do with logic or sense

If mine doesn't, neither does yours. Nothing you've linked to indicates Netburst was an "engineering failure". Lots of it deals with marketing and the mistakes it made, but nothing has to do with engineering.

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
i think some ppl forget all the P4 fun we had

northwood was far from a failure, prescott was a serious failure tho.

NW was *wonderful* .. the pinnacle of the P4 architecture and .. yes .. engineering

i did *not* forget the fun we had or the FACT that you and i ... both with ANCIENT agp intel rigs ... well over 3 years old each ... are *Still competitive* with the latest midrange [plus] PCIe rigs in gaming ... nevermind office uses.

However, that does not *excuse* the fact that intel's engineers intended "much more" than 3.73Ghz with the last 1066FSB Gallatin/NW CPU

they ran into "issues" that prevented them from reaching 4Ghz ... forget 10ghz as projected in '05.

instead of attempting to shrink NW's core, they unwisely decided on Prescott ... it was supposed to run cooler

but they failed ... instead, they kept getting *misses* in their 'predictions' in the ever-lengthening pipelines of Prescott ... intel's engineers realized it *could* take many years to find and identify and fix the myriad problems plaguing the *process*

that IS an engineering failure ... intel cut their losses, tossed P4 and NetBurst in the trash and went back to perfecting PIII-M type CPUs with success.

the above is history ... as told by an intel fanboy ... since my first CPU in my Atari800xl [MOS 6502C ... i think it was 1.77Mhz and i did not try to OC it] ... then a long gap of 'nothing' - all my rigs have had 'intel inside'

.... purely coincidently ... i would not have minded ... or would mind even now, AMD
[btw, i got to try my first nvidia GPU - 7800GS OC .. since my first GeForce SDR ... only last month - nice! ... after a run of all ATi ... weird ]


btw, TR ... what is the NB fan to get for the IC7? ... mine is finally starting to annoy me

the biggest failure of P4 was memory. it didnt take us long to figure out that there was more performance to be gained in memory then there was in raw GHZ. this is where the IC7 motherboard shined... memory tweaks and memory performance. still wasnt enough tho as there wasnt and still isnt good enough DCDDR to give it the speed and bandwidth it craves for.

i dont use a NB fan, just the stock (IC7) heatsink with the fan removed. it doesnt need any more then that.

i have bothered to upgrade my 2.26b (that can run benchmarks upto 3.91ghz) because there isnt anything worth upgrading too.

my 2.26b thread is still online over at BleedinEdge.com... link

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
i think some ppl forget all the P4 fun we had

northwood was far from a failure, prescott was a serious failure tho.

NW was *wonderful* .. the pinnacle of the P4 architecture and .. yes .. engineering

i did *not* forget the fun we had or the FACT that you and i ... both with ANCIENT agp intel rigs ... well over 3 years old each ... are *Still competitive* with the latest midrange [plus] PCIe rigs in gaming ... nevermind office uses.

However, that does not *excuse* the fact that intel's engineers intended "much more" than 3.73Ghz with the last 1066FSB Gallatin/NW CPU

they ran into "issues" that prevented them from reaching 4Ghz ... forget 10ghz as projected in '05.

instead of attempting to shrink NW's core, they unwisely decided on Prescott ... it was supposed to run cooler

but they failed ... instead, they kept getting *misses* in their 'predictions' in the ever-lengthening pipelines of Prescott ... intel's engineers realized it *could* take many years to find and identify and fix the myriad problems plaguing the *process*

that IS an engineering failure ... intel cut their losses, tossed P4 and NetBurst in the trash and went back to perfecting PIII-M type CPUs with success.

the above is history ... as told by an intel fanboy ... since my first CPU in my Atari800xl [MOS 6502C ... i think it was 1.77Mhz and i did not try to OC it] ... then a long gap of 'nothing' - all my rigs have had 'intel inside'

.... purely coincidently ... i would not have minded ... or would mind even now, AMD
[btw, i got to try my first nvidia GPU - 7800GS OC .. since my first GeForce SDR ... only last month - nice! ... after a run of all ATi ... weird ]


btw, TR ... what is the NB fan to get for the IC7? ... mine is finally starting to annoy me

the biggest failure of P4 was memory. it didnt take us long to figure out that there was more performance to be gained in memory then there was in raw GHZ. this is where the IC7 motherboard shined... memory tweaks and memory performance. still wasnt enough tho as there wasnt and still isnt good enough DCDDR to give it the speed and bandwidth it craves for.

i dont use a NB fan, just the stock (IC7) heatsink with the fan removed. it doesnt need any more then that.

i have bothered to upgrade my 2.26b (that can run benchmarks upto 3.91ghz) because there isnt anything worth upgrading too.

my 2.26b thread is still online over at BleedinEdge.com... link

yep, unlike with my 2.80c you are the top of the P4 food chain ... what video card are you running?

you're kidding ... no NB fan ... i can just stop that sucker?
:Q



aren't there 2 ic7 versions, though? one with a HS/F and one with just a crappy fan?


lack of bandwitth was always P4's "weak point" ... but i wouldn't call it a failure ... the 1066FSB just started to tap it's potential and you're right ... no DDR fast enough for your rig to let it fully 'express' itself.

i'd have to say the P4's *biggest* failure was Prescott ... BESIDES the memory limitations ... the engineers ran into insurmountable problems ... with *everything* ... it was a mess ... unsolvable ... that IS an engineering failure

otoh, if intel had the sense to *stop* P4 with NWc ... it might have been *different* ... a CPU that was *triumph* of engineering ... the core just maxed out around 3.75Hgz ...

we also can't speculate what would have happened if intel simply decided to shrink NW instead of going with Prescott ... and then head back to the Pentium M

i think someone got fired at intel over this
:Q

 

[imported_pendragon]

I run a Zalman heat sink on the northbridge of my IC7. Passive, model 32J or something, don't remember but it works fine.
There were 2 different Abit oem northbridge hsfs for IC7's. One a little bigger than the other.
They reminded me of Blue Orbs. Both gave out quickly.
I run a 2.8c @ 3.1, + - for a few years now. No problem for the little Zalman.
I epoxied it on with thermal epoxy that came with the Zalman.
Voided my warrranty but that's a moot point now.
The silence is wonderful.

 

[apoppin]

but if i can just disconnect it ... *right now* ... it would be ...
wonderful

i didn't realize how loud my x850xt and old TT PS and i guess old intel HS/Fan were

the OCZ 850 is dead silent and the x1950p only whines when it goes to maximum ... rarely


so now that little growl is getting annoying
[i tamed it many times with 3-in1 ... no more]

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: apoppin
yep, unlike with my 2.80c you are the top of the P4 food chain ... what video card are you running?

you're kidding ... no NB fan ... i can just stop that sucker?

aren't there 2 ic7 versions, though? one with a HS/F and one with just a crappy fan?


we also can't speculate what would have happened if intel simply decided to shrink NW instead of going with Prescott ... and then head back to the Pentium M

vid card is a 6800U using my modded GTU bios.

yes 2 diff NB HSF... the hockey puck and the blue orb thing.
remove the fan from the blue orb thing and itll be just fine.

yes, Pentium III M showed us what "could have been" for a desktop platform.
even at the time we knew Intel was going in the wrong direction, and we also knew that memory (not GHZ or FSB) was the limiting performance factor.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: apoppin
yep, unlike with my 2.80c you are the top of the P4 food chain ... what video card are you running?

you're kidding ... no NB fan ... i can just stop that sucker?

aren't there 2 ic7 versions, though? one with a HS/F and one with just a crappy fan?


we also can't speculate what would have happened if intel simply decided to shrink NW instead of going with Prescott ... and then head back to the Pentium M

vid card is a 6800U using my modded GTU bios.

yes 2 diff NB HSF... the hockey puck and the blue orb thing.
remove the fan from the blue orb thing and itll be just fine.

yes, Pentium III M showed us what "could have been" for a desktop platform.
even at the time we knew Intel was going in the wrong direction, and we also knew that memory (not GHZ or FSB) was the limiting performance factor.

thanks! .. i have the 'blue orb' and i just disconnected the fan wire from the MB
... but didn't remove the fan itself ... do i need to? {HW Doc shows 'NB fan turn off'}


i can hear it now ...


*silence*

it IS golden ... and i have an Aspire case with the side case fan blowing right on it ... i should have done this over a month ago

 

[Macattak1]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
This is to settle a debate.

I want to hear opinions on why the P4 was a failure, or why it wasn't.

Personally I think it was, and it only survived because of intel's marketing and brand recognition.

:beer:

Somewhere between No and Mediocre. Better than mediocre. But easily not the best. But not generally trounced either.

If I recall correctly, the P4 scalled fairly well did it not? 1 ghz to over 3 ghz. I would say that it allowed them the time it took to bring the CD 2 to market was success. I would not say the P4 was very successful.

Regardless, it sure sold a bucket load.

Peace and Blessings.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: myocardia
Do you honestly believe this crap that's spewing from your lips/fingertips? Wait, I'll put on my hipwaders. The definitions of both of these words have been the same for many hundreds of years: #1 engineering and #2 failure. Does your thesaurus, assuming you own one, say that failure=success? Because, from what I keep seeing you say, it sure does seem like it. Oh, and where exactly did you think that the people in the marketing dept. got the idea that Netburst was capable of ~10 Ghz, from a secretary?:laugh:

Try to keep up with the conversation, will ya? This has nothing to do with dictionary definitions of "engineering" and "failure". It does have everything to do with how the specific meaning of those words applies in this situation. Given the vague-ness of the phrase "engineering failure", there is ample room for the debate we've been having, in spite of your pithy (and totally irrelevant) dictionary-thumping.

Trouble with reading comprehension, huh?

Originally posted by: myocardia
If you're going to be a part of a society, and/or speak a language, you can not just make up definitions as you see fit.

And in case you missed it, here's a link for you: high-level Intel exec claiming ~10 Ghz out of Netburst. Also, I guess this slipped past your brilliant mind, but engineers don't give interviews, especially if they work for Intel. My friend that's an engineer at Intel said that they have to sign an agreement, the day they are hired, that would preclude any interactions with any type of press, unless it has been okayed beforehand by Intel execs.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
the biggest failure of P4 was memory. it didnt take us long to figure out that there was more performance to be gained in memory then there was in raw GHZ. this is where the IC7 motherboard shined... memory tweaks and memory performance. still wasnt enough tho as there wasnt and still isnt good enough DCDDR to give it the speed and bandwidth it craves for.

i dont use a NB fan, just the stock (IC7) heatsink with the fan removed. it doesnt need any more then that.

i have bothered to upgrade my 2.26b (that can run benchmarks upto 3.91ghz) because there isnt anything worth upgrading too.

my 2.26b thread is still online over at BleedinEdge.com... link

Thugs! I thought you had disappeared forever, at least from AT. I honestly thought that you would have been one of the first people on the C2D bandwagon, since they overclock even better than 2.4B's and 2.4C's. And now I find out that you're running a 2.26B @ 3.5 Ghz? You are definitely the premier overclocker of all time. Well, at least you finally got rid of that vanilla FX5900.:laugh:

 

[apoppin]

this thread was useful ... just to hear from TR!
-i remember the "good times" here with the NW OC'ing
:thumbsup:

my system is *quiet* with NB fan stopped
-everything's Zen ... i don't think so

[well as soon as my 1GB RAM arrives for a total of 1.5GB]




and yeah, it's *obvious* the P4 was an engineering failure ... ultimately ... with PressHOT

NW was an excellent CPU ... the *only* hi-point of P4 ... damn glad i got my 'EE'
:thumbsup:

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: apoppin
this thread was useful ... just to hear from TR!
-i remember the "good times" here with the NW OC'ing
:thumbsup:

No doubt, man. Maybe we (you) should start a P4 thread on a regular basis.

NW was an excellent CPU ... the *only* hi-point of P4 ... damn glad i got my 'EE'
:thumbsup:

I agree; all of the P4C's, and some of the P4B's were excellent, although the P4B's were underperformers, at least until you got the FSB up near 200 Mhz. That's when they started to "come alive".

edit: I had already started saving my money, so I could buy a P4C, when the A64's came out. That's the only reason I never owned one.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: apoppin
this thread was useful ... just to hear from TR!
-i remember the "good times" here with the NW OC'ing
:thumbsup:

No doubt, man. Maybe we (you) should start a P4 thread on a regular basis.

NW was an excellent CPU ... the *only* hi-point of P4 ... damn glad i got my 'EE'
:thumbsup:

I agree; all of the P4C's, and some of the P4B's were excellent, although the P4B's were underperformers, at least until you got the FSB up near 200 Mhz. That's when they started to "come alive".

edit: I had already started saving my money, so I could buy a P4C, when the A64's came out. That's the only reason I never owned one.

i DID start 2 P4 threads

Got a Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz -for my Abit IC7 - tops out at 3.74Ghz
--and TR was in *both* of them!
:Q

His 2.26B sure is *alive*

and back in Jan '04, i got a 2.80c over a a64 2800+ because the A64 platform literally went up +25% 'overnight' at NewEgg - in the middle of my GH 'what shall i buy?' thread

i planned my upgrade to 3.4 for over 3 years
:shocked:

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i DID start 2 P4 threads

Got a Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.4GHz -for my Abit IC7 - tops out at 3.74Ghz
--and TR was in *both* of them!
:Q

Yeah, I noticed that. That was why I said something about starting P4 threads on a regular basis. Thugsrook was/is by far my favorite person to read responses by; they're always correct, yet with a good sense of humor.

i planned my upgrade to 3.4 for over 3 years
:shocked:

Hey, it's not your fault that it took that chip that long to come down to a reasonable price.

 

[apoppin]

true ... but *until* i upgraded to x1950p a few months ago ... i didn't *need* it

"timing" was perfect ... i wanted it for less than $100
:thumbsup:

i expect we will finally hear -regularly - from TR when he decides to upgrade

--hopefully that'll be just before i do
[i am set till '08 ... between Jan and Dec should about 'right' to upgrade]



--about the only thing TR needs is a more capable video card ... the x1950xt will be out in AGP shortly, it appears

 

[Cheex]

Failure is definitely too strong a word. They were mediocre but by no means useless.

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
the biggest failure of P4 was memory. it didnt take us long to figure out that there was more performance to be gained in memory then there was in raw GHZ. this is where the IC7 motherboard shined... memory tweaks and memory performance. still wasnt enough tho as there wasnt and still isnt good enough DCDDR to give it the speed and bandwidth it craves for.

i dont use a NB fan, just the stock (IC7) heatsink with the fan removed. it doesnt need any more then that.

i have bothered to upgrade my 2.26b (that can run benchmarks upto 3.91ghz) because there isnt anything worth upgrading too.

my 2.26b thread is still online over at BleedinEdge.com... link

Thugs! I thought you had disappeared forever, at least from AT. I honestly thought that you would have been one of the first people on the C2D bandwagon, since they overclock even better than 2.4B's and 2.4C's. And now I find out that you're running a 2.26B @ 3.5 Ghz? You are definitely the premier overclocker of all time. Well, at least you finally got rid of that vanilla FX5900.:laugh:

hehe ~ thx, its good to see you guys too

the 2.26b is actually over 2 years old now, and my memory is 4 years old
the 2.26b is a "M0" stepping which actually meant it was a Gallatin core cpu.
still keeps up with the latest and greatest tho.
(there is a ton of benchmark results and 2.8c comparisons in the BleedinEdge link above, a typical TR thread )

yea the 5900 got replaced a few years ago when those "Ultra PCB based Evga LE 6800 cards" came out.
quite a few of us worked on bios modifications to turn those cards into normal Ultras, and eventually "GT Ultras" which worked on all Ultra based cards.
there was a thread on that in the video forum, and a compete rightup on the BleedinEdge website that got a alot of attention.

keep on OCin guys :thumbsup:

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Trouble with reading comprehension, huh?

Thanks for pointing out your own problems.

Originally posted by: myocardia
And in case you missed it, here's a link for you: high-level Intel exec claiming ~10 Ghz out of Netburst. Also, I guess this slipped past your brilliant mind, but engineers don't give interviews, especially if they work for Intel. My friend that's an engineer at Intel said that they have to sign an agreement, the day they are hired, that would preclude any interactions with any type of press, unless it has been okayed beforehand by Intel execs.

From the article you linked: "Lisa Hambrick, director of enterprise processor marketing at Intel."

Thanks again for making my case for me.