- May 12, 2000
- 9,359
- 2
- 0
Let me preface this post by saying I am an Intel fan. I have owned every Intel CPU since the 8088 days (not every MHz model but every core model i.e. P-Pro, PII, PIII, etc) right up to the Pentium 4.
The last Intel based machine I built/owned was a Pentium III 1 GHz. I loved this system! I had previously built/owned an Athlon 850 MHz machine and was less than impressed. Don't get me wrong, it was a good machine, but it ran hot, was power hungry and prone to crashing (this issue may have been more related to the Via chipset but who knows). Needless to say I was happy to be back on an Intel system that "just worked" and didn't have any quirks.
I ran the hell out of that P3 system for a lot of years. During that time Intel released the Pentium 4. We were told it would be 64-bit, incorporate a new architecture called Net Burst and would attain clock speeds of 4GHz. Some of the features came later than expected - some never came at all. My first experience with a P4 box was a 1.7 GHz Compaq Evo desktop that my company gave me to evaluate - and my word, was it slow. Running that box side by side with my P3 box was night and day. I couldn't understand why the P4 box was performing so badly - and then to add insult to injury - I saw the asking price. Yikes! I returned the P4 machine to work and brushed off its poor performance as just being a new product with quirks to work out.
At some point in late 2003 I was looking to build a new system and my first instinct being a loyal Intel man was to go search around the web for reviews of the latest P4s and try to decide which would be the best price/performance/yadayada. To my surprise AMD was cleaning house. Their Athlon XP line of processors had Intel pinned in almost every category - and sadly Intel was still selling the same slow, hot, power hungry P4s they were a few years earlier - and they were still double the cost.
What was Intel thinking? That I was some sort of idiot? Why in the world would I pay a huge premium for a CPU that ran hot, ran slow, didn't perform and was getting its clock cleaned by the cheaper AMD offerings? Intel just expected me to buy their poor performing P4 because it was an Intel. And that is when I bought my Athlon XP 3200+. This AMD CPU served me well until 2006 when I picked up my current AMD CPU, the FX-60. Around the time the FX-60 came out the best thing Intel had was the 3.73 GHz P4 Extreme Edition. It has an extremely high costs and an Extreme appetite for power. Again it was a no brainer ? I picked up the AMD CPU for less money ($400 less at the time) and much better performance.
AMD managed to stay on top until mid 2006 when Intel release their Core 2 Duo line of CPUs - and for the first time in many, many years Intel had AMD honestly licked. I don't attribute AMDs success to superior engineering or better design. The truth is both these companies employ brilliant engineers and the likelihood that once company has considered an idea the other hasn't just isn't realistic. AMD was on top all those years because Intel clearly was attempting to sell their name and not their technology - and they wanted a hell of a lot more money for their name then AMD was asking for their technology.
This brings us to the real point of my story - the reason I can't buy Intel products. Years of overpriced, underperforming, hot, lousy, power hungry Pentium 4 CPUs that Intel expected us to buy at a great expense just because they were "Intel" CPUs. I would love to buy a new Core 2 Duo box, but I won't - because Intel doesn't deserve my business. Maybe next year, maybe the year after that once they have a few good product cycles I will go back. Today I am buying AMD not because they are somehow superior, but because they clearly sold me their best technology they had at the time - not their brand name.
Thanks for reading.
/flame suite on.
Pale.Rider
This topic HAS deteriorated into flaming - as the OP expected
-so it is LOCKED ... for now ... please PM the mod account if you disagree with my call
-CPU moderator apoppin
The last Intel based machine I built/owned was a Pentium III 1 GHz. I loved this system! I had previously built/owned an Athlon 850 MHz machine and was less than impressed. Don't get me wrong, it was a good machine, but it ran hot, was power hungry and prone to crashing (this issue may have been more related to the Via chipset but who knows). Needless to say I was happy to be back on an Intel system that "just worked" and didn't have any quirks.
I ran the hell out of that P3 system for a lot of years. During that time Intel released the Pentium 4. We were told it would be 64-bit, incorporate a new architecture called Net Burst and would attain clock speeds of 4GHz. Some of the features came later than expected - some never came at all. My first experience with a P4 box was a 1.7 GHz Compaq Evo desktop that my company gave me to evaluate - and my word, was it slow. Running that box side by side with my P3 box was night and day. I couldn't understand why the P4 box was performing so badly - and then to add insult to injury - I saw the asking price. Yikes! I returned the P4 machine to work and brushed off its poor performance as just being a new product with quirks to work out.
At some point in late 2003 I was looking to build a new system and my first instinct being a loyal Intel man was to go search around the web for reviews of the latest P4s and try to decide which would be the best price/performance/yadayada. To my surprise AMD was cleaning house. Their Athlon XP line of processors had Intel pinned in almost every category - and sadly Intel was still selling the same slow, hot, power hungry P4s they were a few years earlier - and they were still double the cost.
What was Intel thinking? That I was some sort of idiot? Why in the world would I pay a huge premium for a CPU that ran hot, ran slow, didn't perform and was getting its clock cleaned by the cheaper AMD offerings? Intel just expected me to buy their poor performing P4 because it was an Intel. And that is when I bought my Athlon XP 3200+. This AMD CPU served me well until 2006 when I picked up my current AMD CPU, the FX-60. Around the time the FX-60 came out the best thing Intel had was the 3.73 GHz P4 Extreme Edition. It has an extremely high costs and an Extreme appetite for power. Again it was a no brainer ? I picked up the AMD CPU for less money ($400 less at the time) and much better performance.
AMD managed to stay on top until mid 2006 when Intel release their Core 2 Duo line of CPUs - and for the first time in many, many years Intel had AMD honestly licked. I don't attribute AMDs success to superior engineering or better design. The truth is both these companies employ brilliant engineers and the likelihood that once company has considered an idea the other hasn't just isn't realistic. AMD was on top all those years because Intel clearly was attempting to sell their name and not their technology - and they wanted a hell of a lot more money for their name then AMD was asking for their technology.
This brings us to the real point of my story - the reason I can't buy Intel products. Years of overpriced, underperforming, hot, lousy, power hungry Pentium 4 CPUs that Intel expected us to buy at a great expense just because they were "Intel" CPUs. I would love to buy a new Core 2 Duo box, but I won't - because Intel doesn't deserve my business. Maybe next year, maybe the year after that once they have a few good product cycles I will go back. Today I am buying AMD not because they are somehow superior, but because they clearly sold me their best technology they had at the time - not their brand name.
Thanks for reading.
/flame suite on.
Pale.Rider
This topic HAS deteriorated into flaming - as the OP expected
-so it is LOCKED ... for now ... please PM the mod account if you disagree with my call
-CPU moderator apoppin
]
Facebook
Twitter