-
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.
Was trolling this bad...
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
n7
Elite Member
I was around for the Athlon XP vs. Northwood P4, or more specifically, the 2.4C vs. Barton 2500+.
Most people went for the XP since it was far cheaper & could be overclocked so well till the multipliers got locked, but there were alot of Hyperthreading fans too.
However, there was no trolling like there is in this section now.
The amount of idiocy i have seen in this forum in the last few weeks has made me wish for thunder & lightning from the mods, & I still hope that happens.
Most people went for the XP since it was far cheaper & could be overclocked so well till the multipliers got locked, but there were alot of Hyperthreading fans too.
However, there was no trolling like there is in this section now.
The amount of idiocy i have seen in this forum in the last few weeks has made me wish for thunder & lightning from the mods, & I still hope that happens.
You have good memory and you hit it right on . Back when Intel lead by the benchies the only trolling was price to performance.
The truth be known other than multi tasking and hyper threading They were so close that in real world it would have been hard for to tell any differance . Intel had the crown but there just wasn't that much differance
I still have my 3.2c and still today it is a very good performer . I wanted to jump on the P4Pband wagon but for some reason David from the very beging said that this was a bad cheap. Right now today it takes the Intel P4EE 3.73. to best my lowly 3.2c
imported_Starman
Senior member
I was just thinking this morning on my drive to work that Intel will leverage its massive resources when it has to (and that it is still perfectly able to deliver the goods if called upon). So long as it has a grip on the market and is making huge profits then it won't move very much at all. Why should it? It's in business to make money, as any sound company should. However, don't mistake this good business sense for lack of engineering prowess. Intel is entirely capable of delivering processors that dwarf what AMD can produce; it's simply a matter of cost and practicality. I've been buying AMD for years because they've been delivering the best performance at the best price, but I respect Intel as a company and have full confidence they won't be uprooted anytime soon.
MobiusPizza
Platinum Member
Take Nvidia for example.
Respected leading GPU maker until they hit a rock with GeForce 5 because of a design flaw of using GDDR2, which gave ATi the advantage; and snatched off quite a bit of market share from Nvidia
Pentium 4's Netburst is the same analogy, Intel is Nvidia, AMD is ATi
The last time (for me) that Intel had a clear all-round major advantage was the Celeron 300a overclock.
Top notch performance at a VERY low price!
From then until this last year it's been fairly neck and neck...performance close enough to make no difference, and advantages based more on what you run rather than overall performance.
For the last year or so (since Prescott IMHO), AMD has pulled well ahead for awhile, and I don't see that changing until Merom/Conroe are released (and even then we shall have to see how they do).
JMHO
As to Trolls...there's plenty on both sides of the fence. There actually seems to be fewer recently because the AMD advantage is fairly hard to dispute at the moment (very little room for debate).
Top notch performance at a VERY low price!
From then until this last year it's been fairly neck and neck...performance close enough to make no difference, and advantages based more on what you run rather than overall performance.
For the last year or so (since Prescott IMHO), AMD has pulled well ahead for awhile, and I don't see that changing until Merom/Conroe are released (and even then we shall have to see how they do).
JMHO
As to Trolls...there's plenty on both sides of the fence. There actually seems to be fewer recently because the AMD advantage is fairly hard to dispute at the moment (very little room for debate).
The other side to it was not only CPU cost, but overall system cost. The P4s took too much of a performance hit with single channel RAM that you really had to pair it up with decently fast(i.e. expensive at the time) RAM. Until you got to the higher clockspeeds, the Athlon didn't benefit all that much from running at a higher FSB and you wouldn't lose all that much performance by going with a 133(266)FSB setup with PC2100(I.E. up to 2400+ speeds it was fine and still gave great performance for it's time). When the 400FSB bartons first came out, bench were showing that running a chip at 400FSB vs 333FSb at the same clockspeeds didn't really give the K7 any benefit until the higher clockspeeds(3000+ and up). The Northwood was a fine CPU if you wanted something really fast and didn't care about the price, but the Athlon had the value range tied up neatly.
Intel beat Xp's in synthetic benches (especially Mem band), encoding and Q3-based games. Everything else I remember was pretty much even or in amd's favor when you took your typical overclocks... such as 1700+ @ 2.55/2.4c @ 3.4.
There are always trolls. Intel seems to have MANY more trolls than AMD. But amd has more fanboys.
There are always trolls. Intel seems to have MANY more trolls than AMD. But amd has more fanboys.
imported_Starman
Senior member
I'd put it this way:
Intel is Microsoft
AMD is Apple
Intel, like Microsoft, has an excellent business model and enjoys great success at what it does. You can't fault them because they have customers for their products. Like Microsoft, if pushed, Intel can unleash hell and innovate the crap out of technology...but why bother? Business is good. They, like Microsoft, are a giant that needn't be concerned until there is a real, legitimate threat to their core business.
AMD, like Apple, is the David fighting Goliath. Like Apple, AMD must rely not on brute size, strength, and market share, but on creativity, innovations, and that "something" which the Goliath cannot provide...both companies require a niche. Apple has it with their following; AMD has it too with its own loyal customers (who've come to appreciate innovative, performace technology at affordable prices).
There is room for both types of companies, simply due to the fact that there is room for both types of consumers. We, the technically inclined, tend to favor the company that pushes technology the best and offers it a price points we can afford. However, we are a small fragment of the overall population who is quite content with a solid PC that will do a little bit of everything, but not anything particularly well. The customers for Apple and the customers for AMD are simply vastly outnumbered; it's a simple fact of reality, and so be it. As long as companies like AMD and Apple can remain profitable in their smaller roles then everything is fine, and as long as the government stays the hell out of the way of competition then we'll always have the chance to benefit from companies like Apple and AMD.
Zebo
Elite Member
Back when thugs and I were comparing benchs.. His OC 2.8C@3.5 $180 and my $77 Mobile XP@2600Mhz every mark was real close.. Losing of course in encoding and MM.
We shall see real shortly how X2 totally dominates P4Ds if someones willing to compare.. Already you need P4D @ 3600Mhz to match a stock 4400. It's that even possible with the heat they throw? Not to mention X2 will clock 2800Mhz pretty easy... meaning youd need a 4600Mhz P4D, really impossible I think.
didn't thugs disable HT? i remember his most recent chip (a 2.26b M0, which could be turned into a 3.4c-nonHT at default) and he clocked it at 3.8ghz.. not bad for a 67% o/c 😉
i'm always impartial, and i've used both camps all the time. amd's felt snappier to me (gaming was great), and intel was pretty good w/ a lot of programs running at the same time. that's just me though...
JackBurton
Lifer
I think you nailed it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
