What's up with all the Intel bashing?

[joohang]

What's up with many people around here who just love to bash Intel?

I don't like Pentium 4 at the moment and prefer Athlon, but I don't see why Intel should be so hated for that.

If they can't release a product that does not perform as well as a lower clocked Thunderbird, that's their problem. It may be misleading to many customers, but that's their problems also. Maybe it just needs to be backed up with proper OS and software, just like the P6 performed poorly compared to Pentium MMX on Win9x. Just because they don't use something equivalent to "PR" rating, it doesn't make P4 so much inferior. I personally see quite a bit of potential from this new design, although I'm no CPU expert.

I have a lot of respect for Intel and except for some of the outrageous prices of RDRAM and P4, I have nothing against them. Even if they are priced higher than Athlon, that is their choice. If it's too expensive for consumers, they won't sell as many. I don't see why they should be hated for that and I don't see why people laugh at Intel's lower profit.

I think Intel did some great things in the past, and still is producing very high quality chips. I think they deserve more respect than that.

 

[YJase]

I think it's the price to performance ratio and overclockability compared to AMD.

 

[yakko]

Because Cyrix is the wave of the future. Down with Intel!

 

[JimmyEatWorld]

good lord....not another one of these threads.....
AMD ROX!!!!
AMD 0WNZ YOU!!!!
ALL YOUR CPU ARE BELONG TO AMD!!!!

lol.....
just thought I'd start the flames up nice and high

 

[joohang]

<< I think it's the price to performance ratio and overclockability compared to AMD. >>


Well.. I prefer AMD over Intel at the moment also. Is price/performance ratio a good reason to HATE Intel? Hmm...

That makes no sense to me.

 

[YJase]

I can't figure it out either

 

[JimmyEatWorld]

I apologize for the obnoxious post above......

I can't answer your quiery about why people are bashing Intel, but I for one am glad Intel is around. It makes my AMD chips cheaper, and encourages them to release higher clockspeeds, and in addition...the threat of Intel have a more advanced instruction pool means AMD has certainly doubled their efforts in the RnD process. So we get better prices, faster CPUs sooner, and improved technological advances. I love competition.

I think people are just vehemetly support AMD so much for succeeding as being the underdog, and still not getting the recognition amongst the general public that it deserves, that they resort to badmouthing Intel.

 

[thraashman]

I learned one thing after being here for a while. People here find it cool to bash whatever is the leader in any market at the time. Intel, MS, BOSE, AOL, whatever. Some things are deserving of being bashed a bit (or in AOL's case, alot), but the people here will bash anything just because it's the cool thing to do.

 

[ElFenix]

<< It may be misleading to many customers, but that's their[intel's] problems also. >>


actually, its AMD's problem



<< just like the P6 performed poorly compared to Pentium MMX on Win9x >>


the pentium mmx was out for 4 months before the p2 266 came out and blew the 200mmx (i don't think the 233 had been released just yet) out of the water. plus, the ppro was still clocked higher than any p5xy was out at the time. in fact... my pro200 benched consistantly higher than a friend's p166mmx... maybe it was my millenium vs his stealth 3000, i dunno.


EDIT: Bose deserves being shot, every one of them, plus all the best buy salespeople who dupe unwitting consumers into believing that bose is superior technology than anything on the planet, even though the yamamha line the BB carries is better.

 

[RGN]

Hmmm, Stable systems Intel are. AMD 100% stable is not. To be l337 g33|< one must not experience the Dark side of the processor world. Bad Intel is. bad. Fun to bash, yes, yes, HMMMM????

 

[joohang]

<<

<< It may be misleading to many customers, but that's their[intel's] problems also. >>


actually, its AMD's problem >>


I was referring to customers who should spend a bit more time to research before they make their purchase.

And I guess it's AMD's problem also.

But then it's also Intel's problem because P4 is now well-known as &quot;poorly performing&quot; CPU.

 

[Androck99]

It's like thrashman said, all those 1337 |-|4><0|2 fags think it's cool to hate what's popular...

 

[joohang]

<< the pentium mmx was out for 4 months before the p2 266 came out and blew the 200mmx (i don't think the 233 had been released just yet) out of the water. plus, the ppro was still clocked higher than any p5xy was out at the time. in fact... my pro200 benched consistantly higher than a friend's p166mmx... maybe it was my millenium vs his stealth 3000, i dunno. >>



I should've said &quot;initial&quot; P6 (Pentium Pro). IIRC, Pentium Pro performed poorly in Winstone-style benchmarks compared to Pentium MMX on 9x.

 

[Thegonagle]

I love the competition. If I were to place a higher priority on having the fastest computer hardware available, I'd surely have an AMD Athlon right now. But I can't fault Intel one bit. The quality is definitely there. I also love that they &quot;accidentally&quot; marketed a chip with virtually guaranteed 50% overclockabitity. My Celeron 300A has been going strong at 450 for almost 3 years now, with a &quot;stock&quot; HSF.

 

[ComputerGuy]

Because they have been trying to convince the public that their processors have features it doesn't through their exceedingly crappy advertising scheme (eg their &quot;Pentium 3 will speed up the internet&quot; bs). This really pisses me off, trying to monopolize the market through false advertising is defiantly not okay in my book. Intel isn't nearly as bad as Microsoft, but that's a differen't thread.

 

[Midnight Rambler]

The problem with wearing rose colored glasses and/or bashing is that it often leads to false information (performance, financial, ... whatever), which can in turn damage a company. And with the advent of widespread Internet use/access, this has become an even more serious problem. To the point where one can be held liable for making erroneous and/or damaging statements about a company. The recent Emulex hoax is a great example.

And for all their own missteps, it's MHO that at least half of what killed 3dfx was bad publicity based on misinformation, and a bit of the &quot;bullseye effect&quot; (ie., you're everybody elses' target).

 

[rlism]

bash bash!

oh wait, i have 3 intel machines.

 

[LAUST]

Not me I had it with AMD systems, I had em ever since I overclocked my 486 DX 40 to 50 Bus at 1X Clock.. I had K-6's and all that then came the Celeron, and no more Funky compatabilty problems.. people say it's all clear now but I get that warm fuzzy feelin of 30+ straight days of runnin for the cost of more money for the chip and less for the motherboard.

I don't have anything aginst either one. I see it as a chip and nothing more really, Intel isn't a tyrant thats trying to put AMD our of business. They are selling chips and making money, isn't that what it's all about.

 

[RGN]

Yup< i'm kinda pissed at my AMD system. It's a MSI Pro2A w/ 1.1 Ghz. Stable? Maaybe...

 

[Static911]

i like intel, but after being on this forum for a bit, i am gonna change to amd (T-Bird BABY!)

STatic911 <---welcome him soon to the amd club

 

[ThisIsMatt]

<< If they can't release a product that does not perform as well as a lower clocked Thunderbird, that's their problem. >>



Yeah, it is their problem, but they over hype their processors in false light.



<< It may be misleading to many customers, but that's their problems also. >>



yes, praise the misleading companies . Their advertising scheme is totally bogus (like said, the internet speed thing).



<< Maybe it just needs to be backed up with proper OS and software, just like the P6 performed poorly compared to Pentium MMX on Win9x. >>



So you want a proprietary OS and extra bloat in your software for a specific chip?

I don't think it's so much people &quot;hating&quot; Intel as it is people trying to break down the image that &quot;intel runs more stable and is more compatible and is faster&quot;. Stable? I have both an intel and an AMD system - the AMD runs more stable. More compatible? Haven't had any issue with either myself. Faster? Clock speed maybe, but performance wise...hmmmm

 

[Supradude]

No real preference here but i've been using Intel systems and they all run fine for me... What i do find odd is that when i first joined this forum, the motherboards forum was a good mix of all boards and all types... now it seems the majority of people with questions and problems are AMD owners needing help with their Athlon/Tbird/Mobo combination etc... Just something i found weird and slightly insightful...

 

[amb#cog]

Well after having about six Intel setups, and 4 or 5 AMD's. Not to count the 20 or so other mixed bag of rigs I've built, or helped spec out.

I can honestly say that you won't see me buy an AMD anytime soon. I know they're faster right now (this does not really matter all that much to me though), but I prefer ease of setup, and reliability to speed anyday.

Every, and I do mean every AMD setup I've seen has some sort of quirk, and/or incompatability issue. Yet all my Intel's have worked flawlessly for me.

My bud w/ a Duron is constantly saying how this, or that program won't work, or this demo doesn't work right, or it does this slower then it should. Sure he saved a lot of cash, and for the most part he's quite happy with it. I would be too if I didn't know that there was a blue screen free world out there.

My Intels are stable, and that's what I want.

Now why is this???

Makes me wonder actually. Is it possible that companies kiss Intels butt so much that they spend way more time making sure it works w/ Intel perfectly, and AMD is just an afterthought???
Is it a conspiricy???

I don't know, but I do know my rigs are very stable, and my biggest regret I've ever had building computers was trying to build an Athlon system. Sure I figured it all out in the end (after buying a whole other CPU/mobo combo to diagnose it), but I couldn't use my MX-300, which worked just fine in my Intel rig (even w/ a VIA mobo), and had more little &quot;things&quot; to contend with then I ever have on any system. After two + months of hell, and spending a fortune. I was lucky enough to sell it local, and recoup my losses, because by the time I figured it all out. The damn CPU was worth about half what I paid for it. :|

Please don't say I don't know what I'm doing either. It was totally the equipments fault. Now defective hardware happens, but this was way more then that. I refuse to deal with that again.

I like to throw a system together, install the OS + drivers, and be surfing/gaming in a few hours max. Not friggin months, and that is why I'll buy Intel.

I won't however buy a P4 anytime soon either.

Is AMD faster? Yup
Are they cheaper? Yup
Are they worth it in the end? Only if that's all you can afford, or are willing to sacrifice stability for speed (i.e. you get what you pay for).

Just my two bits.

 

[sandorski]

Ah yes, it used to be more fun to bash Intel. Nowadays I almost feel pity for them.

 

[Windogg]

Nope, nothing against Intel here. While I have found both Intel and AMD systems to run rockstable, it takes alot more legwork to get the AMD system stable. I am a geek so it's all part of the fun of getting a kickbutt system.