Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

1.13GHz Pentium3 Processors Unstable? Answer:Yes

Hemos posted more than 13 years ago | from the still-working-out-a-few-bugs-in-the-system dept.

Intel 171

brennan73 writes "Last week, Tom's Hardware wrote a very critical review of the Pentium3 1.13GHz, specifically mentioning serious stability issues. Today, HardOCP wrote an article of their own backing Tom up and describing their own experiences; they even got Anand in on it. Probably the most interesting thing to me is that none of the tested sample CPUs was able to run Tom's Linux kernel compilation test. After Rambus, this is the last thing Intel needs. Are they shooting themselves in the foot AGAIN?". Update by: HeUnique : Tom has updated the story, so I recommend to read the update.Update: 08/28 06:44 PM by H :Check out the latest burst from ZDNet - it appears that Intel will be recalling the Pentium3 1.13 Ghz. Thanks Evan.

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Did this have anything to do with... (1)

Tebriel (192168) | more than 13 years ago | (#821859)

an error in a float operation? Nah...could never happen

cha-ching! (1)

KevlarBxers (225689) | more than 13 years ago | (#821860)

Looks like it's tome to start pumping cash into those AMD stocks again...

Running scared (4)

BrK (39585) | more than 13 years ago | (#821861)

It seems that Intel thinks the only thing we care about is raw speed. Trying to one-up AMD is simply going to get them into a hole in terms of public perception. I'm surprised that a company as big and diverse as Intel would stake their reputation on a speed pissing-contest.

Re:cha-ching! (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 13 years ago | (#821862)

They laughed at me when I sold my intel stocks for AMD last year.... muhahahaha...


-- "Almost everyone is an idiot. If you think I'm exaggerating, then you're one of them."

Intel is getting worse... (1)

YerMaster (227294) | more than 13 years ago | (#821863)

...first of all, they've gotten really expensive nowadays, they can't supply their newest chips and the worst of all their newest addition is unstable? Oh my...

You're addicted to the net when
- You call 911 when your ISP goes down

Re:Did this have anything to do with... (1)

don_carnage (145494) | more than 13 years ago | (#821864)

Oh come on now -- the only way we could ever make an Intel chip blow it's floating point math was with a specially designed program, remember? Didn't AMD write that program? 8^)

--

M$ marketting tactics? (4)

jabber01 (225154) | more than 13 years ago | (#821865)

I know, I know, there's enough M$ bashing here as it is, but... They (M$) did start this trend that Intel (and numerous .coms) seems to have picked up.

They announce a product before it's completely designed. They "release" an unstable, unworkable version 1.0 of something, just to get their name out on a press-release. All to divert attention from a competitors product and get some cash flowing in to fund the development of version 2.0 (or 3.1) which is the actual product.

The competitor releases their offering later, but it's of higher quality. Still, the vapour has already dulled people's minds to the competitor's efforts and value.

Techies know better, but how many home-users and managers do? We have to make it clear to the business decision makers and the casual users, that this is not about Intel being technologically superior or better able to deliver on schedule than AMD or Transmeta or anyone else - it's marketting and it needs to be stated as such.

Not that I think Transmeta is a God-send, but let's let numbers and solid products do the talking. A 1.3Ghz CPU from Intel, even though it's been demoed, is still vapour-ware, until it's solid and readily available.

The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196

Go AMD (4)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 13 years ago | (#821866)

Yeah there are quite a few UK magazines and websites citing similar problems and even DOAs with the 1.13ghz chips.

That isn't to mention the severe shortage of the actual chips. UK Mags dont even get their own chip, they have it for a few days and then instructions on who to post it to next.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is just an overclocked 1ghz chip, and they've picked the best few to ship at 1.13 in a desperate attempt to one-up AMD.

However AMD today announced real tangible availability of their 1.1ghz ath's and Compaq, Big Blue, HP, Gateway and Fujitsu Siemens are amonst the big names about to ship this in systems.

Looks damn good for AMD

Intel Racing Off of a Cliff? (5)

Luminous (192747) | more than 13 years ago | (#821867)

It seems Intel is pushing itself to disaster. I could rant on about issues of quality control and being far better to create something that is stable and useful to sell to the public than something that just gives you bragging rights.

This actually makes me nervous about all the Gig chips being built. What kind of testing is really going on with these chips and is it adequate enough or are the manufacturers so eager to get another press release out in order to get a boost to their stock they are failing to realize their design is flawed?

Intel has been suffering some serious blows, both in the technical world and in the business world and cannot afford another setback, especially since these new gig plus chips are supposed to be selling for the holiday season (as gamers are one of the first to eat up such advancements).

If I had any advice for Intel, it would be to retrench and spew out tons of 700+ chips at low prices to build up marketshare while focusing on turning the Gig plus chips into something worthwhile. This is just an off the cuff suggestion as IANA-MBA.

The problem with huge corporations... (3)

dominion (3153) | more than 13 years ago | (#821868)


The odd thing is that we're seeing stuff go wrong now with corporate capitalism what we saw go wrong with communism.

These huge corporations keep getting bigger and bigger, allowing themselves a stranglehold on the industry, and in doing so, they become hugely beauracratic, heirarchical, and conservative.

So some horrible design issue is found in one of Intel's products, something that would guarantee failure for a smaller company, and what happens? Intel denies a few allegations, issues a few workarounds to Microsoft, and hires a few new spin doctors to make sure everything works okay.

The computer industry is just catching on to this. The oil and tobacco industries have been doing it for years. Microsoft shows an uncanny brilliance for turning a bumbling mistake into a "feature." But at least, unlike Shell, they're covering up system crashes and not genocide.

It took Communism around 80 years to become so big and unwieldy that it collapsed under it's own weight. After 114 years of corporate rule (SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY [tourolaw.edu] ), it seems that the incredible arrogance of corporate capitalism is putting it on the same route.


Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net

Re:Running scared (1)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 13 years ago | (#821869)

The question is..

Is this REALLY a pissing contest if AMD is shipping stable production quality processors? Isnt that just natural progression?

How is it a pissing contest if AMD is not rushing to ship stuff (okay im sure there is some 'rush') but thats competition bud

AMD is shipping stable stuff that is very fast.. I dont see this as a pissing contest.. its past that.. Intel is just palying catchup and playing marketing games.

Jeremy

INTEL: In related news... (5)

mwalker (66677) | more than 13 years ago | (#821870)

In related news, Intel Corportaion recently purchased "Tom's Hardware Guide" and "HardOCP" for a record 1 billion dollars. Intel's spokesperson had these comments early this morning:
"We really like their [Tom's Hardware] input, and we wanted everyone in Newfoundland to be able to recieve the bounty of his wisdom. That's why we've purchased Tom's organization, and we're strategically relocating Tom to Newfoundland, where he will perform a streaming audio broadcast to everyone within earshot in his new deep, dark, hole in the ground."

Further updates as events warrant. Rambus Corporation (Nas: RAMBUS) had no comment, but their stock spiked 30 points on the news.

Oh yeah.... that sounds credible (1)

megalomang (217790) | more than 13 years ago | (#821871)

From the referenced article: Intel and HardOCP have recently struck up a relationship that somehow involves folks other than lawyers for a change. They were kind enough to send us their new Pentium III 1.13GHz CPU to test. Along with that, they sent an Intel VC820 (i820 chipset) mainboard and some RAMBUS. Basically, they sent a computer in a box except for the hard drive. They asked us to test their 1.13GHz part on the i820 platform. Seemed like a no-brainer to me (perfect for us). Well it did not turn out that way

Yeah, Intel approached you and requested politely, "Please test our chip on our motherboard." Hahah, sounds innocent enough. Hahaha... there's one more anti-Intel site I won't be spending my idle moments visiting.

Old news? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#821872)

I thought I read this two weeks ago... Tom trashed Intel, then contacted Intel to report a possible flaky sample. Inappropriate and hardly objective behavior. It's worth noting that Dell [dell.com] is claiming to offer the 1.13 Ghz systems.

Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000

What they don't tell you (1)

griffjon (14945) | more than 13 years ago | (#821873)

Is that the clockspeed as reported by the chip isn't 1.13, but 1.12999999999999.

(Ah, now I feel all nostalgic about the old Pentium I humor, "Quality is job 0.9", etc.)

AMD and Intel Rushing things? (4)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 13 years ago | (#821874)

Disclaimer: I have AMD and Intel CPU's at home. I'm agnostic when it comes to processors, give me speed and stability and I don't care who it is from!

Check out the review of the 1.1 ghz Athlon at
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/reviews/cp u/thunderbird_1-1ghz/

Good marks, great performance. However, look at this blurb from the review about the high return rates of high speed Athlons:

"We haven't had any more AMD CPUs fry on us, but we did talk to a mail order house that said some disturbing things. They told us that they have had approximately a 10% return rate on AMD Athlon Thunderbird CPUs. That is a painfully high failure rate. They said that some distributors place bar codes on the underside of the Athlon Thunderbird CPUs and that these barcoded CPUs often come back with their barcodes burnt. Their Duron failure rate, however, has fallen to normal and acceptable levels."

Could it be that both Intel and AMD are too busy racing each other to take proper care in the Quality Control arena?

Maybe they were just duds? (5)

icqqm (132707) | more than 13 years ago | (#821875)

I'm sure that the Intel 1.13GHz chip works fine and it's just that there was a strange coincidence and three duds were sent out to be tested.

Also, it's a software problem

</FUD>

Intel still has it (1)

Segfault 11 (201269) | more than 13 years ago | (#821876)

Putting recent events aside, Intel is still offering the best systems for just about anyone on the market. As I and several other hardware sites have said, there likely won't be anything quite as good as the Intel BX chipset for a long time.

Re:Old news? (1)

brennan73 (94035) | more than 13 years ago | (#821877)

It was mostly news to me because HardOCP posted their story today, and it confirms that others besides Tom are having problems. It's particularly notable because some of the larger enthusiast sites seem to be confirming one another's data.

-brennan

Re:AMD and Intel Rushing things? (1)

avandesande (143899) | more than 13 years ago | (#821878)

Apparently the package on the Thunderbird is fragile and can be easily broken when mounting fans or heatsinks. Sorry I don't have a link.

Once again, Marketing shoots Design in the foot. (2)

AFCArchvile (221494) | more than 13 years ago | (#821879)

Kinda reminds me of the Dilbert that went:

"We asked for 6 months to work on this, and you gave us one month. Right now, all it does is erase your disk drive. If you're on a network, it erases everyone's disk drives. And god forbid if you have a modem, it calls up your friends and erases their disk drives."

"We'll call it 'Quick Protect'"

"If you have a soundcard, it swears at you."

I wish to make a call to the hardware designers to stop releasing alpha stage hardware, and stop mis-labeling them with "1.0" version numbers. For instance, the Linux Kernel 2.2.14 should really be 0.6.02.

One-ups-manship (1)

Crixus (97721) | more than 13 years ago | (#821880)

Yes, and lets remember that competition is a GOOD thing.

It has to be true, some daytime radio talk-show host (really just a shock-jock) said so, and things like this prove it.

Rich...

Crusoe (1)

jabber01 (225154) | more than 13 years ago | (#821881)

Very true, except that Crusoe hasn't been officially released - only announced as 'being in development' - 'pending production' - etc.

Dell is accepting orders for thie Intel 1.3 Ghz chips right now, but the chip may not be usable.

While it is true that Crusoe is not yet shipping, TransMeta isn't retailing it either. Intel IS selling their chip, well, actually, they're selling it's hype.

The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196

Tom's Good but Biased (1)

_J_ (30559) | more than 13 years ago | (#821882)

In this article [tomshardware.com] (I couldn't follow the link above - looks broken) I can't help but notice Tom's consistant use of the term "Satan Clara." Now maybe he's gone through a rough time with Intel, but this term really doesn't bode well for Subsequent reviews of Intel's products.

Noticed some similar stuff with Tom's infamous Q3Test disaster of '99 [tomshardware.com] . Very passionate fellow. His reviews are still worth the effort.

IMHO, as per

J:)

Error: << is not defined for float (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 13 years ago | (#821883)

float value; ... value

I thought C didn't allow bitshifting floating point numbers.


<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]

Re:Running scared (3)

Firefalcon (7323) | more than 13 years ago | (#821884)

To the non techy user, it's the speed that sells, and that's something that the PC manufacturers seem to play on as well. Generally, unless your doing some serous work on your computer, a 500Mhz chip should be fine. At work we've been getting 550 PIIs as the cheapest that our supplier can provide, and from now on it going to be 650 PIIIs.

Anyway, I was reading in my daily news from ZDNet:

"Every five to six weeks between now and early next year, AMD will introduce faster Athlons - beginning at 1.1GHz, Monday"

So they will be ahead of Intel again shortly.

The rest of the story is at:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/ 33/ns-17477.html [zdnet.co.uk]

Re:The problem with huge corporations... (2)

MOMOCROME (207697) | more than 13 years ago | (#821885)

the difference is that companies have competition.

so Intel becomes too massive and unweildy someday, so what? See how AMD and transmeta and VIA are all pounding at the door already? We've already seen IBM have it's lunch eaten, so now if Intel gets popped through this type of negligence/incompetence, a new company (at a different stage in its lifecycle) will step in to fill the gap. Thus companies can be as arrogant and rude as they like, eventually the people that have to work with them or the target customer base will look elsewhere for the product, to avoid dealing with the arrogant corp.

If this process gets out-of-whack somehow and a company is able to entrench itself as the only game in town, then the DOJ steps in to crack em open.

All of this serves to maintain a stable system, a corporate ecology. Birth, life and death are all factored in so that the system may perpetuate itself. There were no such measures taken for communism.

btw, spilkas, how'd you acquire such a low UID?


-=(V)0(V)0cr0(V)3=-

I never saw any program like that (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821886)

Maybe a link?

They don't have to here's why (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821887)

Personally I have never even used an AMD processor simply because every one of the machines that I have are from about 1981-1993. I don't think AMD really mattered then. Furthermore all of my machines have never needed to have their CPUs replaced. In fact they work like a rock.

Re:Old news? (1)

NotQuiteSonic (23451) | more than 13 years ago | (#821888)

I disagree, that is absolutely objective behavior: he reported on what he had. He stated that not everyone agreed with his results. You can only claim he is incompetant (which he isn't) not non-objective.

Re:Running scared (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 13 years ago | (#821889)

Intel might, perhaps, be largely correct in thinking that (if they indeed do).

How many casual computer users have the time and motivation to learn about computer architecture? Concepts like cache latency, pipeline depth, and superscalar architecture haven't really flooded lunchtime conversation, methinks.

The MHz rating is an easy number to check; it's heavily advertised (machines labelled as "800 MHz Pentium II", with PII pretty much being a brand (and denoting IBM-type versus Mac-type)) and it's probably what a lot of folks observe.

These same folks probably won't buy a 1.13 GHz machine as soon as it comes out, but when the prices are lowered on 800MHz machines and slower models, they may still use MHz to compare.

It's also very expensive (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821890)

That should be noted as well. Also remember that you can't pick up a really nice system with an AMD chip extremely cheaply. Personally I want hard evidence that it's really "better". Isn't the AMD an x86 compatable and not really an x86 because intel defines what an x86 is right?

Motorola/IBM not so far behind? (1)

pohl (872) | more than 13 years ago | (#821891)

The criticism du jour for the PowerPC line of CPUs is that Intel is so far ahead with regards to clockrate. Who wants a mere 500Mhz G4, they say, when the intel world is in the 1 Ghz range. Does this news regarding stability problems imply that the PPC is not so far behind as we were led to believe?

Of course there is a difference (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821892)

Generally, unless your doing some serous
work on your computer, a 500Mhz chip should be fine.


Unless you want to boot windows 2000. Then that's another matter entirely.

Re:Oh yeah.... that sounds credible (1)

VulgarBoatman (213054) | more than 13 years ago | (#821893)

Yeah. Hahah. hahaha. Ohh, that's a good one.

(wipes tear from eye)

... Wait.

I don't get it.

Hey, I love yummy sarcasm as much as the next guy, but what the hell are you talking about? Are you implying that Intel did, or didn't want them to test the chip? Are they both too buddy-buddy with Intel *and* "anti-Intel"? Do you suggest that they made up the "Intel asked us pretty please" scenario to give their review street cred? Sorry, but it's shaping up to be a low-tolerance Monday.

Get a refund maybe? (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821894)

That might work

Talk about biased! (1)

evan1l38 (73680) | more than 13 years ago | (#821895)

I have to say that Tom's article is one of the most biased things I've ever read. Usually the bias is a bit more subtle, but Tom starts out saying that IBM's "incomprehensible" choice of intel's chip leaves him certain that IBM's execs constatly wish for a time machine so that they could go back and use a motorola chip, goes on to give a relatively reasonable explanation for the existence of microcode, then complains because his boards from before this chip came out don't already have this new "mystical" microcode (what's mystical about it?) and finishes up referring to Satan Clara. I ended up thinking that his problems may have been real, but it seems like he was determined to maximize his issues rather than try to really resolve them. I ended up disregarding all of his conclusions as he seems just too biased to take his word on this. Would you believe Microsoft if they benchmarked Linux? Why believe every work of this guy if he tests a chip he obviously hates before he opens the box?

Evan Reynolds evanthx@hotmail.com

Tom's review of the Athlon 1.1Ghz refers to this.. (3)

jbridges (70118) | more than 13 years ago | (#821896)

I found out about this from Tom's review of the Athlon 1.1ghz, here is the key quote I forwarded to a few friends:

It turned out that the kernel compilation failed on all three Pentium III
1.13 GHz samples in Kyle's lab, right in front of the eyes of Intel's
engineer. My CPU happened to be the flakiest of the three, as it failed in
other tests on different platforms as well.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q3/000828/athl on-02.html

Re:The problem with huge corporations... (2)

dominion (3153) | more than 13 years ago | (#821897)


the difference is that companies have competition.

You're forgetting that communist regimes have competition too. Competition with capitalism is what the Bolsheviks (and more importantly, later, the Stalinists) used to justify their attrocities.

Corporations are creating this strange new form of nationalism. And same thing we saw with the Communist and Capitalist countries who were all too willing to work together to increase their mutual power over citizens, we're seeing competing corporations who will work together in order to increase their control over consumers.

Strange days, no?

All of this serves to maintain a stable system, a corporate ecology. Birth, life and death are all factored in so that the system may perpetuate itself. There were no such measures taken for communism.

Maybe Adam Smith's version of capitalism, yes. But remember that theory and practice are very different beasts. Marx's communism had people in control of the government. Has that ever happened? No.

Witness the amount of control corporations have over each of the candidates [billionair...orgore.com] . Would Adam Smith or any of the "fathers of capitalism" have condoned corporate control of electoral democracy?

btw, spilkas, how'd you acquire such a low UID?

I've been on Slashdot since about 1997 or so.

Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net

Re:M$ marketting tactics? (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 13 years ago | (#821898)

It's called "vaporware" dude. And it's long been a feature of the computer industry. It's also a common feature of the open source/free software movement. "Can we say 'Hurd'?" Thought so.

Yeah, this is sorta flamey. But it's a legit comment no the less.

Re:Motorola/IBM not so far behind? (2)

Tridus (79566) | more than 13 years ago | (#821899)

AFAIK, they aren't really behind at all, because its a faster cpu clock for clock.

So sure, you may only have 500mhz, but if you can do twice as much with 1mhz then an Intel cpu can, then really there is actually no difference except that one sounds nicer on a box.

I don't know what the exact numbers are, but the situation is something like that.

Unless of course you look at RC5 benchmarks, the Altivec PPC's just destroy anything Intel can make.

Re:I never saw any program like that (1)

Thundar (29149) | more than 13 years ago | (#821900)

I did, it was written by Dr. Nicely at Lynchburg College, very cool guy, used to mow his grass ;)

Tom's Hardware 'objectivity' (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 13 years ago | (#821901)

While I don't discount the numerous problems that people have had with the 1.13ghz PIII, let's not pretend that Tom isn't strongly biased against Intel. He always has been, which in my book casts doubt on his credibility.

That being said, there is obviously a problem with the 1.13ghz part. I would not just take Tom's word on it though. The other articles/reviews mentioned add credence to this.

Re:It's also very expensive (1)

Ryokurin (74729) | more than 13 years ago | (#821902)

Well, if you want proof. then just look at the benchmarks, and the overall chip design. You can find it if you just look for it on google or something.

Also. If the world lived by your terms, then ford could say that all other cars arn't cars because they basically invented them. the same with IBM. they can say that todays PCs arn't PC because they invented them, even though todays PC are 100% compatible with the old IBM PCs

Re:Motorola/IBM not so far behind? (2)

wbb4 (60942) | more than 13 years ago | (#821903)

Difference is that the 500Mhz G4 processor is a completely different architecture.

Are you going to tell me a 1Ghz x86 is faster than a 750Mhz Alpha?

Clock speed doesn't matter near as much when comparing architectures. You can't say "This is faster cause its 1Ghz"

Re:The problem with huge corporations... (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 13 years ago | (#821904)

Who ate IBM's lunch? Seriously. IBM is a very strong company and the only reason they even had difficulties was because they had their shit stomped on by the feds. Sure MS is now "bigger" on Wall Street, but IBM is still huge, strong, stable, and not over valuated like certain tech companies (ORCL, MSFT).

Re:Go AMD (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821905)

Generally, unless your doing some serous
work on your computer, a 500Mhz chip should be fine.


I though it was almost impossible to "overclock" most of these new chips because of design changes. What happened?

hmm, was this done on purpose? (2)

cswiii (11061) | more than 13 years ago | (#821906)

From Tom's....

Intel's Next Paper Release -
The Pentium III at 1133 MHz
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


:)

Any info on him? (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821907)

Isn't Lynchburg in Maryland?

Re:They don't have to here's why (2)

Ryokurin (74729) | more than 13 years ago | (#821908)

you may be using AMD chips and not even know about it. Since your chips come from 1981-83, then at least most of them came from the time when AMD was liscensed to make exact replicas of Intel chips (As was required from IBM when they chose Intel chips for the IBM PC.)

also, I do remember back in the 386-486 days getting PCs that just stated that they had a x86 processor, and opening them up and finding out that I got a amd processor. Back then the brand didn't matter. Intel made that a issue when they started advertising in 1994

Re:It's also very expensive (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821909)

Well, if you want proof. then just look at the benchmarks, and the overall chip design.

I thought that there was a modified saying like "There are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks" or something like that. What about proper linux preformance and cheap price.

Re:Talk about biased! (2)

NotQuiteSonic (23451) | more than 13 years ago | (#821910)

I agree that this article taken alone might be considered bias, but part of his job is opinion based on numerical facts.

He has proof which he (and after reading all the articles I also) believe in. He has historically not shown a preference to Intel or AMD, but has been wary of Intel's pressure to churn out the "best" chip.

What you are describing is opinion, which he bases on fact (his tests). Compiling a Linux Kernel is a good way to test a system and if that Sig11's then there is a hardware problem. People read his articles because they respect his opinion and his tests.

Please don't confuse this with bias (like slashdot has against Microsoft), which is arbitrary and not always based on specific fact.

The computer has an "Intel Inside" sticker on it:) (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821911)

That's one good indication.

It runs and boots on my machine. (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821912)

I can actually attest that the kernels *prior* to the 1.0 release worked on x86 hardware of the day. Case in point I have a copy of a debian beta that works on kernel 0.99 or something and it worked when I decided to install it on my 486/66 proof enough for you?

Re:It's also very expensive (1)

pyro the maniak (203887) | more than 13 years ago | (#821913)

Intel doesn't really control x86. For example AMD's 3Dnow are x86 extentions available only on on AMD chips. Now AMD is going even further by extending x86 to 64bits.
The two chips are more or less equal in performace (try the INDEPENDENT benchmarks) but AMD is now 50% cheaper. You'd be crazy not to get it (not to mention that it will have DDR support before intel...)

Re:Bad Dell (1)

(WC)-AntiMatter (226192) | more than 13 years ago | (#821914)

I've pretty much lost all respect for Dell. They used to be semi-kewl, but their philosophy of sticking with Intel to the bitter end is pretty bad. They've talked smack about AMD not being able to provide the performace and stability of an Intel chip. And just a few weeks ago, I read an article on ZDNet that Intel was trying its best to supply Dell with chips and screw all others. Hmm someone stroking the other persons chicken?

no faith in intel's stress testing ability (3)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 13 years ago | (#821915)

ever since the failure of the bx chipset to sustain high compute loads in SMP mode, I've not trusted intel's ability to really test their cpu chips and chipsets.

its pretty well known that if you run SMP on a bx-board, you better cool the hell out of that bx chip. and even this won't stop the inevitable lockup that will occur days or weeks after the last reboot. its a fact. and if your SMP bx system isn't locking up, you're not loading it down enough. try 4 instances of seti@home (2 per cpu) and wait a few weeks. it will lockup.

given this track record, I don't doubt that the ghz p3 chip will also be unstable.

--

Re:AMD and Intel Rushing things? (1)

(WC)-AntiMatter (226192) | more than 13 years ago | (#821916)

I bought an OEM thunderbird 700. The only thing I didn't like, was the Heatsink was a bitch to fit on. I've had socket heatsinks before, but this was rediculously tight. Also, the new T-bird motherbirds like the FIC AZ11 make overclocking easy by just offering some bios settings. I'll bet any amount that out of the 10% returns, 50% of them are people pushing the CPU way tooo high.

If it's unstable now... (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 13 years ago | (#821917)

Wait until some dope overclocks the silly thing...

Here's the thing I don't really understand (well, I understand it, but I don't accept it): Most programs and games don't need that fast a processor, so why are people buying it? The need for speed?

At what point is it going to be impossible to have a decent market processor that doesn't explode? Or is it just Intel?

Oh well, AMD is looking better and better now...

Kierthos

Why do people constantly like communism. (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821918)

Personally I thought that the affinity with communism was basically dead after the Regan years and such but I guess the young never learn easily.

Well, if you want proof. then just look at the benchmarks, and the overall chip design.

What that the countries are broke and people are starving en mass. Nope.

These huge corporations keep getting bigger and bigger, allowing themselves a stranglehold on the industry, and in doing so, they become hugely beauracratic,
heirarchical, and conservative.


Under capitalism you don't need to be big. In fact early American merchants who operated under capitalism didn't have problems. In fact it took almost roughly 50-75 years to see a glimmer of problems. Even that wasn't bad because these developments appear to actually develop society.

So some horrible design issue is found in one of Intel's products, something that would guarantee failure for a smaller company, and what happens? Intel denies a
few allegations, issues a few workarounds to Microsoft, and hires a few new spin doctors to make sure everything works okay.


Those things are called lies. Kind of like "We are at war with Eurasia we have always been at war with Eurasia" and like the Russian films that were still being played in 1980's Moscow that depicted America living in the Great Depression right? Learn to read a history book along with all those O' Reiley publications.

The computer industry is just catching on to this. The oil and tobacco industries have been doing it for years. Microsoft shows an uncanny brilliance for turning a
bumbling mistake into a "feature." But at least, unlike Shell, they're covering up system crashes and not genocide.

Whoa hold on there now I actually want you to show me that Shell is operating concentration camps or commiting mass murder before you make statements like that. I think you are stretching the truth.

And preventing bad news from becomming public has been a feature of men in high places since Sumeria it won't stop any time soon.

It took Communism around 80 years to become so big and unwieldy that it collapsed under it's own weight. After 114 years of corporate rule (SANTA CLARA
COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ), it seems that the incredible arrogance of corporate capitalism is putting it on the same route.


Corporations are not exactly the best model for capitalism. More like mom and pop types of things. The whole idea of capitalism was for *anyone* to start selling *now* instead of getting billions in venture capital to get it going.

Oh and nice going the Railroad monopolies were broken at least 100 years ago and they havn't been back since. Remember Credit Mobielaire? This isn't the Grant Administration.

Updated info (4)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#821919)

the above links on Tom's Hardware were published a month ago. For an article published today on thje AMD 1.1 Ghz, go here [tomshardware.com]

Re:Old news? (1)

ascheuch (30478) | more than 13 years ago | (#821920)

I thought I read this two weeks ago... Tom trashed Intel, then contacted Intel to report a possible flaky sample.

Hey, if you could get Intel to send you free 1+ Ghz chips, even after writing a poor review, I say go for it! Maybe Tom's can get them to send a few computers...

Now all I want is to have NVIDIA send me some more GeForce 2 Ultra cards ...
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/00q3/000814/ index.html

:P

Re:Of course there is a difference (1)

David P (170482) | more than 13 years ago | (#821921)

I'm running Windows 2000 on a K6-2 with 64MB of RAM, and it runs a lot faster than Win 98 did.

---------------

Re:Old news? (3)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#821922)

In Tom's original article he utterly trashed Intel and the sample before contacting Intel about the flaky nature of his specimen.

He should have contacted Intel first, before writing his review. It benefits me more, as a potential customer, to know how Intel handles such a situation. That he contacted PR (public relations) doesn't help me much, as I'm sure I wouldn't contact that department with a quality issue.

Through the articles Tom has written concerning Intel, it's not difficult to see him as bearing some sort of grudge. Other companies products may not cut the mustard in his tests, but he rarely trashes them.

IMHO it is good for Intel to have such a critic, but it helps better if he gives them the benefit of doubt before writing their specimen off as typical of their entire offering. I would at the very least assume it may have suffered some damage in shipping and request a replacement. Returning the defective part to them may give up his "evidence", but allows Intel to determine what may have gone wrong.


Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000

Re:The problem with huge corporations... (2)

dpilot (134227) | more than 13 years ago | (#821924)

is that they cease to be capitalists. The cornerstone of capitalism is a free market. An essential part of the free market is that it includes downward mobility as well as upward.

As they get big enough, corporations cease to like the idea of the free market, because now they're on top and want to stay there. The game quits being one of attracting customers by making a better product, and trying to find ways to FORCE the customer to buy their product.

Ballmer call Linux "Communism". But it's really Capitalism, only measured in a non-cash currency. (prestige) Others have similarly likened Windows to other governing/economic styles. I won't comment.

Dominion mentions that it took Communism 80 years to fall. I'd further assert that the amount of chaos in the aftermath is (directly?) proportional to the amount of time past its natural life that a dominating institution has existed. By that criteria, I think Intel could disappear less disruptively than Microsoft.

Re:Running scared (2)

ncc74656 (45571) | more than 13 years ago | (#821925)

It seems that Intel thinks the only thing we care about is raw speed.

Haven't there been some preliminary reports that Willamette will likely not run substantially faster than existing products, despite being clocked considerably faster than current products. Intel's trying to make this into a dick-size contest...the funny thing is that, this time, size really won't matter a damn.

On a slightly related note, if Willamette is to be known informally as P4, what are we going to call the successor to Willamette? P5's already taken (codename for the original Pentium from back in the day), so I propose "Roadkill."

_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/

Re:Motorola/IBM not so far behind? (1)

skoda (211470) | more than 13 years ago | (#821926)

My recollection is that benchmarks show that an X MHz PPC has the same speed as an X, or 1.2 X, MHz Pentium. That is, a 500 MHz PPC runs like a 500-600 MHz P3. Unless you have specially coded Altivec code vs. regular P3 code, you'll never see 2x performance gains.

Sad, but true.
-----
D. Fischer

Thanks (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#821927)

Looks interesting

How do you get a Linux fan to hate a chip maker? (1)

piku (161975) | more than 13 years ago | (#821928)

Say that you couldn't compile the Linux kernel without it crashing! Now watch as thousands of Intel processors suddenly show up in the garbage and AMD recieves a massive sales spike!

hehe ;P

Thunderbird/Duron heatsinks (3)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 13 years ago | (#821929)

The issue is that heatsinks for PIII/Celeron and Thunderbird/Duron arn't interchangeable due to different physical dimensions of the chips. If you use an AMD approved heatsink or one specifically designed for T-Bird/Duron (e.g. there is a special Golden Orb version for them) then it'll be fine, but if you use one made for an Intel CPU then you may well damage the CPU.

The way it's supposed to work. . . (1)

jafac (1449) | more than 13 years ago | (#821930)

When companies lie, people are supposed to eventually find out about it ("ya can't fool all the people all the time, so now you see the light" - Bob Marley), and say "hey, that company sucks, I'm going to stop buying their products, because they lie."

Unfortunately, reality is a different picture.

Maybe somebody needs to make a vapor-tracking web-site, with a list of all companies, all their products, all of their press releases and release dates (and feature sets), and a running history of how many features disappear, and how the schedules slip, and whether the product even makes it to market at all.

if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!

Re:Tom's Good but Biased (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#821931)

Agreed. I've read both and a few other articles on Tom's site and he has reminded me how important it is to take all things with a grain of salt. Good, bad or ugly.

Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000

Re:Intel Racing Off of a Cliff? (2)

jafac (1449) | more than 13 years ago | (#821932)

I think Intel can affort mucho setbacks. They are so far up the ailementary canal of the industry; I bet if you go out on the street and ask 100 people who makes the best chips in the world, you'll get 99 answers of "Intel", and if you ask them about AMD, Sun, Motorola, or IBM, they'll say "who?".

if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!

Re:no faith in intel's stress testing ability (1)

Peter Dyck (201979) | more than 13 years ago | (#821933)

4 instances of seti@home (2 per cpu)

Why would you do something like that? You won't get any more analysed blocks that way. Once the processors are fully loaded (=2 seti processes), you can only lose by adding processes; yoyu're making the scheduler work harder.

Re:AMD and Intel Rushing things? (3)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 13 years ago | (#821934)

Burnt barcodes sounds like inadequately cooled CPU's to me. It'd be interesting to know if those were using boxed processor "thermal solutions", and whether they were being oc'd or not.

If T-Birds in general had a 10% failure rate, then I think we'd have heard about it from Compaq, Gateway, HP et al.

Maybe Sharky's has a bone to grind...

Re:The problem with huge corporations... (1)

SquidBoy (208635) | more than 13 years ago | (#821935)

Interesting comments. However, as a philosophy student, I must question whether they are a posteriori, ie based on experience, or a priori, ie based on theory.

I believe the latter to be the case. Clearly, if you start with the assumptions of classical economics, and all the above can be argued with ease.

However, if you look at the real world for evidence, to prove MONOCROME's assertion we would have to establish: (1) That competitors have free access to all markets, and (2) That the DOJ always acts in the interests of free competition and against the interests of monopolies.

The first assertion is demonstrably false: consider oil production - you can only drill for oil if you own an oilfield; there are only a finite number of oilfields in the world; therefore not everyone can compete in the oil industry. Many other areas have similar restrictions, in terms of resources or capital. You may wish to set up as a competitor to Intel tomorrow, but without a few billion $$ for your fab plant, you may be at a disadvantage.

The second is equally untrue: for a few decades America had fairly powerful anti-trust laws, but sadly Ronald Reagan repealed most of them. And furthermore, there are many areas where the DOJ cannot or does not intervene, because it has no jurisdiction or legal mandate.

Therefore, it can be seen that nothing has been proven; the benefits of capitalism are merely asserted without evidence.

SMP (2)

Peter Dyck (201979) | more than 13 years ago | (#821936)

As long as AMD (or someone else) won't produce an SMP chipset, there's a definite need for Intel processors. I'd rather have two or four slower processors than one blindingly fast.

I can believe in Intel... (2)

boinger (4618) | more than 13 years ago | (#821937)

...as long as they provide a way for me to prove that 2 plus 2 is still equal to 5.

Re:Of course there is a difference (1)

DrQu+xum (218745) | more than 13 years ago | (#821938)

Generally, unless your doing some serous work on your computer, a 500Mhz chip should be fine.
Unless you want to boot windows 2000. Then that's another matter entirely.

I'm booting Win2k on a PII-266 *AND* do serious work on it. It pukes daily.

I'm just waiting for the first set of SMP Athlon mobo's. 4xThunderbird would be nice.

Re:Motorola/IBM not so far behind? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#821939)

[I'd look this up, but I'm too lazy, atm] the key here is factors like Instructions Per Cycle, speed of Write and Fetch and a few other real measures of CPU horsepower, as well as mating that CPU to a good motherboard architecture. The end user benchmarks are what consumers should pay attention to, and something Apple and publications make available, regarding time to do image operations, spreadsheet calcuations, spell check documents, etc. For gamers, how many frames per second of Quake III or some other game.

The burden for Wintel systems is having to tune the hardware and OS to work the best. Not something a lot of cheap clone makers do well. You may buy a 1Ghz PIII, but if it's thrown together it may run like a well tuned 200MHz PII.

Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000

I wonder... (4)

Tridus (79566) | more than 13 years ago | (#821940)

I wonder if the problem with Intel right now is simply that they're trying too hard.

Maybe they're trying to stay ahead of AMD, and thats causing them to do things more quickly then they should, resulting in mistakes. It probably can't be good for morale over there to see that seemingly out of nowhere AMD has come in and almost taken over the high end single cpu market.

So the guys at Intel simply want to be better then AMD, but they don't have time to do what that would actually require (some pretty major architechture changes), and so we end up with stuff like this P3, since they have to release *something*.

I bet if management were to walk down there and say "ok, we're not going to release anything new for the next few months, I want you guys to take as much time as you need to redesign things so we're on top again", they could probably do it.

Of course, they aren't being given a mandate like that.

CPU can't compile? (3)

ravi_n (175591) | more than 13 years ago | (#821941)

I think this is a huge blow to Intel. Speeding up big, hairy compiles (like the Linux kernel) is one of the few reasons I could think of for getting a 1GHz+ CPU. If it can't do that what good is it?

Re:It's also very expensive (1)

extar-bags (161628) | more than 13 years ago | (#821942)

so AMD chips are more expensive now than intel chips? isn't that itself evidence that they are better? I mean, AMD has been the "bargain" chip brand for years, for people who wanted a deal and maybe wouldn't mind risking a lower quality chip if the price was right.

So isn't the fact that the demand for Athlons has been great enough to raise the price higher than the "market leader's" price enough? What more evidence do you need?
--------

----------

Re:Tom's Good but Biased (1)

RangerElf (32760) | more than 13 years ago | (#821943)

Agreed. I've read both and a few other articles on Tom's site and he has reminded me how important it is to take all things with a grain of salt. Good, bad or ugly.

What does a good grain of salt look like? Or a bad one? Or worse, an ugly one? Hmmm... Methinks I'll take the good grain of salt.

-elf

Re:The problem with huge corporations... (2)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 13 years ago | (#821944)

Corporations are creating this strange new form of nationalism.


Nationalism is earned by civic pride, good leadership, and all sorts of intangible things. Modern corporations, and Intel in particular, and buying mindshare with cold hard cash. Someone jump in with Intel's 2000 advertising budget. My guess is about 150 million bucks.

People ask me computer questions all the time (I'm sure most of you can relate) and when asked what kind of computer they have, most of the time the response is "*something* megahertz Intel". That's the kind of massive mindshare they have and that's why the "megahertz race" is so important to them.

I'll end with an anecdote: Five minutes after the head of the studio (I forget which one) saw the film Godzilla, he doubled the advertising budget. He knew that the film and word of mouth weren't going to put people in the seats, and tons of advertising would have to make up for it. Godzilla actually made money, entirely due to that advertising.

-B

Re:cha-ching! (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 13 years ago | (#821945)

we should call it the G00F bug ;-)

Re:Go AMD (2)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 13 years ago | (#821946)

Well a quick check on www.overclockers.co.uk shows they are selling P3 650's guaranteed to 866mhz. Celeron 600's guaranteed to 900. and Ath 750's guaranteed to 950mhz.

Overclocking aint dead yet.

Re:Motorola/IBM not so far behind? (1)

rakslice (90330) | more than 13 years ago | (#821947)

"having to tune the hardware and OS to work the best"

What are you talking about? Want to elaborate on that?

Re:It's also very expensive (3)

molog (110171) | more than 13 years ago | (#821948)

AMD expensive? Last I checked the're processors were close to half the price of the Intel versions. Where you might get hit is the motherboards can be a little bit more but the most expensive one I have seen is $140 and even then, the FIC is around $100 flat and that is one of the best ones (I didn't say best so please don't nail me for that) you can get. You might need to buy brand name RAM but even then that is cheaper then RAMBus. As far as pre-assembled systems go, gateway sells them as do most of the PC manufactures. Isn't Dell the only hold out? I have seen AMD systems consistantly cheaper then the other stuff. For a direct cost comparison, see pricewatch [pricewatch.com] or compare Dell prices verses systems containing AMD processors.
Molog

So Linus, what are we doing tonight?

Re:Intel Racing Off of a Cliff? (2)

Luminous (192747) | more than 13 years ago | (#821949)

I agree with the sentiment, but I disagree with the analysis. At one point in time Intel stock split fairly regularly, but hasn't in awhile. The chip shortages, technical glitches, and the AMD slashing prices on chips prior to its Gig chip release as reported here [cnet.com] has put Intel in a tight spot, trying to keep its growth steady in light of investor expectations.

The general populace do believe Intel is the only chipmaker, but that belief is slowly being eroded with cheaper AMD chips coming out. Intel needs to take decisive action in the areas it already holds marketshare. Again, I feel I need to state, IANA-MBA.

Re:The problem with huge corporations... (1)

MOMOCROME (207697) | more than 13 years ago | (#821950)

the difference is that companies have competition.

>You're forgetting that communist regimes have
>competition too. Competition with
>capitalism is what the Bolsheviks (and more
>importantly, later, the Stalinists)
>used to justify their attrocities.

Soviet Communism also collapsed under this competition. This bolsters the position that the competition principle is strong enough to overcome any arrogance (or tyranny). Eventually, the individuals involved will realize the benefit of the new, fresh corporation over the old, entrenched monopoly, and change will be effected.

>Corporations are creating this strange new form
>of nationalism. And same thing we saw with the
>Communist and Capitalist countries who were all
>too willing to work together to increase their
>mutual power over citizens, we're seeing
>competing corporations who will work together in
>order to increase their control over consumers.

I don't think the 'nationalism' is all that strange or new. It is actually similar to the feudal system in many ways. Your employer being the leige-lord, of course, but everyone can have an opinion about who should be kings and ministers... the way the peasants had an opinion of Mary, Queen of Scotts or vote for United States President. I've personally been viewing the corporation as a type of first class citizen, an analogue of nobility, for some time now. There will always be some folk that are fine with such a stable and palpable heirarchy to offer up their loyalty for the benefit of that stability.

Strange days, no?

oh, yes!

All of this serves to maintain a stable system, a corporate
ecology. Birth, life and death are all factored in so that the system may
perpetuate itself. There were no such measures taken for communism.


>Maybe Adam Smith's version of capitalism, yes.
>But remember that theory and practice are very
>different beasts. Marx's communism had people in
>control of the government. Has that ever
>happened? No.

The leaders of soviet russia were never confused over this, however. They realized from the onset that their power was absolute, even though the citizens may have bought into the marxist prozlityizing. Corporations, on the other hand, are guided clearly and simply by the hunger for revenues, ie sales, which are ultimately in the hands of the consummer.

>Witness the amount of control corporations have
>over each of the candidates.

>Would Adam Smith or any of the "fathers of
>capitalism" have condoned corporate control of
>electoral democracy?

No, Mr. Smith would not have condoned this arrangement, but that hardly equates to Stalinist Russia or any atrocities on that scale (like China, today). At worst, the system is similar to feudalism. The CEO's and Boardmembers seem to rule the US from their oak veneer throne rooms. But there are benefits- the straight corporate interest (as opposed to the entrenched military-industrial interest) primarily seeks to grease the skids towards more and more profit, which is passed along to the second class citizens in the form of a stocks and salaries. Overall, the system is charged with a fast and healthy metabolism, though tangible change may come slowly, there is a lot of frantic activity to make it happen at all. this keeps everyone on their toes, and with so much competition (in such a large economy), almost all interests stand an equal chance of finding a politician that will play ball with them.

btw, spilkas, how'd you acquire such
a low UID?


>I've been on Slashdot since about 1997 or so.

oh, sorry, that was just a little joke about spiralx. nothing personal.


-=(V)0(V)0cr0(V)3=-

What's wrong with BX again? (1)

Benley (102665) | more than 13 years ago | (#821951)

I have here on my desk a dual PII/350 system on a BX board, and it has uptimes of upwards of a month at a time. No problems. In fact, I even have it _overclocked_ so the chipset is running at 112 MHz, and it _still_ has months of uptime. I can go even further and say that I have at least _three_ other BX SMP systems, including one overclocked to 133 MHz with a pair of PIII/600eb chips on it, and THAT has months at a time of uptime.

In other words, the BX chipset is just peachy. The last chipset to be as relatively "beefy" in my opinion was the 440fx, judging from the dual PPro 200 servers I've got that _never_ get rebooted, they just keep chugging away.

:-)

Let's have some fun with this OT garbage (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 13 years ago | (#821952)

News flash:

Intel Bullshovicks have joined forces with MS operators to kill all the lazy techs who have for years been sucking the life's blood out of the working classes by building AMD systems.

"We can tell them by their smooth unburnt hands, and shoot them on sight," claimed Komrad Gates. "We started this revolution, and now we shall finish it!"

Really. A quick review of Soviet erea computing shows they had trouble building so much as a calculator.

Any AC from Intel want to say what really happened?

The Perfect Combination (1)

Craig Davison (37723) | more than 13 years ago | (#821953)

i820 + P3/1133 + Windows 98

Like Mac 'n Cheese.

Re:Of course there is a difference (1)

MrBogus (173033) | more than 13 years ago | (#821954)

W2K runs as fast as NT4+Active Desktop on my P-133/112MB/SCSI-2 system. Have you been smoking the Intel crack to the point that you think a desktop OS is CPU-bound, rather than memory/swap bound?

Re:The problem with huge corporations... (1)

ravi_n (175591) | more than 13 years ago | (#821955)

The second is equally untrue: for a few decades America had fairly powerful anti-trust laws, but sadly Ronald Reagan repealed most of them. And furthermore, there are many areas where the DOJ cannot or does not intervene, because it has no jurisdiction or legal mandate.

Citation please? I know that Reagan changed the philosophy of antitrust enforcement at the DoJ (and Clinton changed it yet again), but I have never seen anything that suggests Reagan moved to have any anti-trust laws repealed. It seemes extremely unlikely because of the Democratic Congress Reagan was dealing with. They would have loved such a clear-cut big business vs. working people issue an an antitrust repeal would be.

There has also been a second, mostly unrelated, reason for a more laissez-faire drift in antitrust enforcement in recent years: a shift in the positions of the judiciary. Some of this is due to judges Reagan appointed, more is due to economic arguments that cast doubts on the effectiveness of antitrust regulation (especially because the economic counterarguments are more complex and harder to understand), and another contributing factor may be the "legal retreats" that many corporations run for federal judges (see this Salon article [salon.com] for more on them).

Re:yawn (1)

dominion (3153) | more than 13 years ago | (#821956)


Umm, I don't know who the hell you are, but I've never posted that link before.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net

Re:Intel Racing Off of a Cliff? (2)

Jbrecken (107271) | more than 13 years ago | (#821957)

I bet if you go out on the street and ask 100 people who makes the best chips in the world, you'll get 99 answers of "Intel",

I'll take that bet. I figure more people will say Frito-Lay. I suppose it depends what street you go out on.

Re:Motorola/IBM not so far behind? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#821958)

I'm not going to get in-depth on this, but the primary issue with Windows is that it usually comes installed in Jack-of-all-Trades manner. For those familiar with the end use of a PC or workstation a custom install can be performed to omit certain features and designate how resources will be used (memory, caching, paging, etc.) The less tasks the OS has to manage, the more efficiently it usually accomplishes each. (My PC at work is usually paging (swapping memory to disk) with only a couple small applications running (but I didn't set this beast up.) Problem is, most users just assume when things get slow that they need more power. Often better drivers become available for controllers or other devices which can reduce memory usage or run faster. The typical end user doesn't know and usually can't be bothered with such details.


Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>