Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 19:09:09 06/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2003 at 20:30:31, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On June 23, 2003 at 19:38:54, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>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. > >AMD chips aren't complex? Also, I'd rather have a good chip that doesn't need to >get replaced when something happens or more bugs pop up. You said it yourself.. >you "wait to see what bugs pop up" on Intel chips before buying. > >>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. > >There have been many people who have tried this, just because Tomshardware tried >it... and a LOT of those people ended up with dead Pentium 4 chips. Some >also reported that the chip got super-hot, throttled, and then remained >permanently throttled AFTER cooling down.. which means they now have a ~200MHz >Pentium 4. > >Also, P4's are more susceptible to dying at higher voltages than Athlons too. >Some overclockers call it, "SIDS", sudden intel death syndrome. They're >reporting the chips dying from 1-3 months at 1.85v and more. I've run multiple >Athlons over 2v (some for > 2 years), and so have thousands of other people.. no >cpu related problems so far. > >Who here has had a heatsink magically fall off? I have always ensured the >heatsink is properly mounted on all of my systems. I have not had one fall off >in the 14 some years I've been building computers. If you think a P4 is safe >from dying, go analyze a chess position and rip the heatsink off. If/when it >dies, don't say I didn't warn you. It has happened many times. > >>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. > >It has the IPC (instructions per cycle) of an old 486 in some applications. >Leave it to Intel to slap SIMD instructions on a 486, put it on a high latency >high bandwidth bus & sell it for $700 :) > >They only did the low IPC/high MHz scheme for marketing. It's working perfectly >too, as most people are fixated on MHz and/or the garbage Tomshardware (and >similar pages) spews. Ah-huh...ok... Tom's Hardware has it's faults but it's a reasonable source. Tom is also an AMD fan!:o) BTW I thought Intel worked with low voltage, less heat, and tighter circuits? Also, yes greater sophistication then AMD...not saying AMD isn't complex of course it is! 486 cycles.....that I doubt...very much.. I'll have to look into this:o)
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.