Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 16:38:54 06/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2003 at 18:40:27, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On June 23, 2003 at 17:29:50, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On June 23, 2003 at 10:54:24, Aaron Gordon wrote: >> >>>On June 23, 2003 at 09:07:34, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On June 23, 2003 at 07:44:42, Sally Weltrop wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 22, 2003 at 20:15:10, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 22, 2003 at 17:32:51, Dan Andersson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Nice way of spreading the DIY spirit in chess. But one can only wonder what >>>>>>>made him go Xeon. The reasons would be interesting to know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>MvH Dan Andersson >>>>>> >>>>>>Why does Amir and Shay? Why does Bob.....etc....maybe there is something >>>>>>better..over say a few hundred nodes per sec? >>>>>> >>>>>>Better parts? Better support? Got to be something?;-) >>>>> >>>>>maybe it's just emotion. What are comparisions for Dual Athlon & Intel in chess. >>>>>I am seriously thinking about getting a dual setup. Intel costs a lot more is >>>>>the first thing I noticed. >>>>>> >>>>>>Terry >>>> >>>> >>>>No...believe it or not you get what you pay for, as a rule. >>>> >>>>I would trust Intel over AMD, albiet you'll get maybe a bit more speed for the >>>>top duel Athlon, it will make little or no practical difference how well an >>>>engine will play. >>>> >>>>It may make no difference at all. I've seen an engine play the same moves with a >>>>50% speed up....so what will 10% do? Probably nothing. >>> >>>Get what you pay for? More like if you buy Intel, you DON'T get what you pay >>>for. If you check AMD/Intel history, Intel has had more cpu bugs, problems, >>>recalls and etc. over AMD by far. That is a fact, I'm sure many of the >>>progammers here know this. >>> >>>Just because something is more expensive doesn't mean it's better. >> >>That is true, however IMO this isn't the case and I know the history of both AMD >>and Intel. >> >>Intel isn't perfect (no one is) they can command more money, albeit partially >>for the name. But they are in many ways more advanced then AMD and have more >>sophisticated Fabs and Chip Designs. >> >>I trust them for support over AMD as well. The have less shortages as well;-) >> >>This is my take, on it and experience. >> >>Terry > >For one, Intel has shortages as well. They hardly had ANY P4s when they first >came out. > >Also, the history aspect I mention IS true. Can anyone here think of ANY AMD >bugs? Any recalls? I talked to several people, they couldn't think of one. > >Now, for Intel, you've got the FDIV, f00f, some bug in the P4 I forget what Matt >Taylor called it, exception unit or something bug, Dan0411 bug, RDMSR w/ >negative indicies, bugs here too: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5184. > >Also Intel has had problems with the i850 chipset, recently there has been mass >440BX southbridge failures (causing data corruption), Intel recalled the >P3-1.13GHz because it was unstable, Intel also 'overclocked' the Itanium too >much and offered customers a replacement if their chip was unstable, or they >could underclock it a few hundred MHz. ALSO Intel recalled the P4-3.0C due to >problems with the chip. These are only a few things, there are much more. > >I'll say it again.. Where are the AMD bugs? Where is the AMD cpu recalls? There >have been NO recalls and no bugs that I can think or (or any that a few >respected programmers can think of). > >Out of all of the systems I've had Intel systems have given me the most >problems, and I'm not kidding. With the extra you pay for one you'd at least >expect it to work properly. Well, sorry for your bad expriences...I've been fortunate, however I don't buy *first editions* as it sometimes takes awhile to find certain bugs, due to the complexity of Intel processors. I do know they'll replace faultly chips etc. They want to stay on top and Intel sometimes releases technology too soon. AMD has made some very faulty chips in the past, some so bad, they caught fire when a heatsink fell out of place, and this wasn't too long ago, in the last two or three years. I don't believe this would happen now. When it comes down to it, you need to take a certain amount of care when buying *new* technology. AMD is certainly a good competitor and I want it to stay that way to keep Intel on it's toes;-) I'll admit one thing that annoys me about Intel, that is making a very complex new processor, the P4 and in fact Mhz per Mhz the P4 is substantially slower, and I don't like the philosophy that with the P4 you can raise the clock speed to roughly compensate. I think to some extent that was a step backwards, even with two steps fowards.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.