Slashdot Mirror
1.3GHz Duron Arrives
zebadee writes: "Tom's Hardware has the news that AMD have released a 1.3GHz Duron to the "mainstream PC market" that has been optimised for use with WindowsXP. The article also asks 'why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips, as it would be assumed the market for these will be consumers who don't generally look at benchmark figures?' More information can be found at the AMD website."
Why oh why do we chase the MHz
Why oh why indeed
When a 6502 will suffice
Without making my pocket bleed
...any motherboards that can handle dual Durons? Also, assuming they exist, does Linux play nice with it?
-------------------------------------------------
charlton heston is more of a man than yo
Shouldn't the OS be optimised for the hardware? Not the hardware comprimised for the OS?
ender-iii
The answer to the question is pretty obvious: AMD doesn't feel the need to use their marketing ploy with their budget chips because they're clocked at about the same point as Intel's Celerons. AMD only wants to use the system in areas where they're behind, of course.
I dig AMD. But I'm not a fan of their megahertz-doesn't-equal-performance marketing, because it just seems designed to mislead consumers. And we know most consumers are misled in the first place, but this doesn't strike me as an instance of two wrongs making a right.
My DirectTV emulation is gonna scream with this baby...anyone need an unused hard drive?
[Insert the usual disclaimer here]
~~~
Any details on this optimisation for XP?
Will it boost my linux?!
Anyone?
Maybe AMD calls their Durons by their MHz value because they feel the performance numbers are reflected in the clock frequency. If the Duron at 1.3GHz runs as well as a Celeron at 1.3GHz then, they'd, in theory, call the Duron a "1300+" Duron, even though that's the same number as the clock frequency.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe AMD is honest about their intentions with this numbering system?
echo Prpv a\'rfg cnf har cvcr | tr Pacfghnrvp Cnpstuaeic
probably because it is meant to compete with the celeron and the PIII, neither of which have the artificially inflated clock speeds of the P4.
Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
And the Celeron? For a few bucks more, one can get the Athlon XP or the Pentium 4.
I just don't see buying a chip these days with old architecture, since the technology moves so fast these days.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
Does anyone have info on this?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Hopefully this is a sign that AMD realizes the 1600+ crap was a mistake. All the "Intel Equivalent" numbers do is make AMD look like an Intel wannabe.
And as an enthusiast, I like knowing the actual MHz. It's not like the MHz information isn't widespread on the Internet anyway. AMD might as well tell it like it is.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
That this is the purpose of their new marketing scheme, using the 2000+, and the 1900+ to make consumers think that it is actually running at 2.0ghz, or 1.9ghz.
Im quite pleased with my 1900+ running @ 1.6ghz.
--------------------------
Is this a sig?
--------------------------
So, how well does the Duron fare in a dual configuration? I'm considering an upgrade and I'd be interested to hear your experiences.
Reboot macht Frei.
What in the heck does that question mean in English?
...why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips, as it would be assumed the market for these will be consumers who don't generally look at benchmark figures?'
They should stick to convention in this case.
one thing that makes me nervous though, the quote
"optimized for Windows XP Home and Professional OSs".
Could prove ugly in the not too distant future?
John, I'm Only Dancing!
... this guy's logic?
I know I haven't griped about this in a while, but if AMD switched to its new "MHz doesn't equal performance" naming scheme for its higher end Athlons (where one would assume that the users probably look at benchmarks) why is it sticking with GHz for "mainstream PC" chips (where you would imagine that users are less likely to look at benchmarks)?
Well, the reason they're naming their mainstream processors by clock rate is precisely because the users are less likely to look at benchmarks. The effect the clock rate has on the overall speed of a computer is minimal, but if you ask the everyday person, even your average best buy or gateway store worker, they'll tell you that high clock = fast. So, if you want people who don't know anything about benchmarks to buy your chip, just say it's got a high clock rate, and they'll think it's fast.
~ now you know
Bet you, AOL is not gonna like this.
IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me exactly what the differences between this, and, say, the Athlon (Tbird) 1.3GHz processor? *boggle*
I'm not sure I understand exactly what the purpose for actually having multiple lines running with completely different yet comparible chips. Isn't it silly, 'spec considering the Durons where touted as being a lower cost alternative, yet shelf price for these buggers is actually *HIGHER* then the still in production 1.3 Athlon chips?
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
1.3GHz AMD Duron Arrives
A mere two weeks after releasing the Athlon XP 2000+, AMD today announced the 1.3GHz AMD Duron processor for the "mainstream PC market." AMD says the new Duron processor is optimized for Windows XP Home and Professional OSs and supports DDR memory. It'll be priced at $118 in 1,000-unit quantities. The 1.3GHz Duron has 192KB of total on-chip cache, a 200MHz front-side bus, a superscalar floating point unit with 3DNow! Professional technology, and hardware data pre-fetch. Durons are manufactured on AMD's 0.18 micron process. I know I haven't griped about this in a while, but if AMD switched to its new "MHz doesn't equal performance" naming scheme for its higher end Athlons (where one would assume that the users probably look at benchmarks) why is it sticking with GHz for "mainstream PC" chips (where you would imagine that users are less likely to look at benchmarks)?
"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do" - Quoted from 'fortune -m lefts' Offtopic, I know, but /. is for people who get a kick out of the fortune program, so I had to share.
And, slightly more on topic, what would you consider a viable method for trying to shift consumer thinking so as not to mislead them? Or would you not consider this a worthy goal?
Wow! This must be a PERSONAL letter, just for me!
Why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips, as it would be assumed the market for these will be consumers who don't generally look at benchmark figures?
Because the Duron competes against the P3-based Celeron, not the P4 that runs far slower clock-to-clock than its predecessor. If Intel hadn't deliberately designed the P4 for clock speed at the expense of performence, AMD would not have needed their True Performence Initiative.
In this case, two wrongs DO make a right. At least AMD's "wrong" is just marketing fluff rather than deliberately misdesigned engineering.
why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips
Maybe because it makes Athlons look better?
Is this thing capable of playing decent games on it? 1.3Ghz is probably overkill for just conventional usage (Quicken, Word, Browsing, etc) and just for a few bucks more one could get a PIV or an Athlon - and play games with it.
There also seems to be an issue with finding a motherboard that will support these - I havn't really looked into that much though.
I live under the bridge, in a pile of feces.
That is precisely the logic behind them calling their 1.6GHz processors 2.0+ (probably not the right numbers, but you get the drift)
Using this logic they should be calling this chip 1.5+, or something like that.
The technical consumer know to look for the real clock frequency, while the average consumer just sees this higher, "equivalent", number.
It's about time. AMD seemed to be falling behind in the race...
The Only Person Willing to be Me is ME!
Athlon's are being marketed against the PIV's however, and the PIV's have changed their architecture significantly. This has the effect of the PIV actually being slower at equivalent clock speeds. A PIII 2GHz would be faster, for most apps, than a PIV 2GHz. To counter this unfair MHz advantage, AMD came up with their PR numbers to show that Athlon XP's perfrom equivently to a higher rated PIV. Of course, once software is programmed to take advantage of the PIV's new architecture (rememebr when Pentium Pro's hit the scene?), I wonder if AMD will push those XP ratings down. =)
However, any individual with rudimentary computer knowledge (say, one who watches ads on television, or has taken an 'intro to computing' course at highschool or college level)has been taught about Hz and that it does roughly determine how fast a computer operates, and gives them a basis for comparison (however weak).
A good friend next door came over and asked me about Hz or MHz which they were teaching her about in her intro to computing class. Of course I told her that it's the speed at which the computer operates. She doesn't know anything about computers, so how am I supposed to educate her about all the other factors that affect performance such as bottlenecks, pipelining, cache, bus, etc.
As soon as you get into a discussion such as that the computer jargon goes flying. AMD is left with the exact same problem to contend with. How are they supposed to claim that their computers are magically better than the competition's when the supposed benchmark for computers is their clock? Would the consumer even understand or care? They need a way to comparison shop, that's what consumers do, and MHz (now GHz) has become the basis for that comparison.
?-|||-----x<*))))><
The reason seems to be that nobody is comparing the Durons to P4s. If AMD started putting 1600+ on their Duron CPUs, it would look pretty bad when a 1.2MHZ Celeron caught up with it, just like Intel looks bad when the P4 isn't grossly more powerful than the Athlon, despite a several hundred megahertz gap in speed, and a few hundred dollar difference in price.
as for the intel is wrong in marketing the p4 vs the AMD is wrong for marketing the Athlon 2000+ people, remember this: It's marketing. There is no good, no evil. Just trying to manipulate the public into buying your product. Such is Marketing.
It's been a long time.
Because people who can't afford the higher-end processors usually arent all that knowledgeable about computers and are more likely to believe MHz=performance (this isnt completely true, as i know plenty of people who are geniuses, and still work off a P2 300).
Thus, if you are Joe Schlub, you know how to work the start button on windows xp, and you are looking for an upgrade to your old machine, you aren't gonna look at many benchmarks, you're gonna look at 1.3GHz, and think "wow, this is great! im gonna go and buy one!"
This is what AMD is banking on, that less knowledeable people will go for the older processors, so they dont get stuck with a bunch of 1.3's as Intel's rolling out the "New 2.8GHz whatever-the-hell-they-plan-to-call-it".
And as an enthusiast, I like knowing the actual MHz
Why?
If a 1.6 GHz (AMD) chip is faster than a 2.0 GHz (Intel) chip, then this seems to be a singularly useless number... if only had any meaning when the two companies had more similar architectures where the MHz figures were at least roughly comparable.
Note, incidently that the original speed measure was MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per Second), but this was not MIPS of the CPU/computer in question, but rather MIPS normalized to a VAX 780 having 1 MIPS.
How on earth we got to the point that people started to measure speed by MHz is beyond me. For the previous generation x86 CPUS it was admittedly semi-reasonable, but across architectures it was always useless.... Have you ever checked the clock speeds of the top SPECINT scores...
According to the Inquirer, when the Duron starts using the Appaloosa chip (0.13 micron), it will then start using AMD's CPU nomenclature.
http://www.theinquirer.net/20010201.htm
http://www.theinquirer.net/20010203.htm
The difference bewteen athlons and durons is the cache (im not sure how much) and the Front Side Bus, the athlons have 133x2 and the durons have 100x2. this makes a BIG difference. A duron will run ok but a athlon will always be faster. Answer your question?
-
The Athlon, of course, is competing with the Pentioum 4 and is able to keep performance pace, but not clock pace. In that market clock speed causes confusion about actual performance, so the performance rating makes sense there.
That's my best guess as to why they don't use the performance rating system on Durons.
It could also be that AMD has no problem saying that the Duron achieves performance and clock parity with the Pentium 4. I haven't seen any benchmark comparisons between the Pentium 4 and the Duron, nor have I looked for them, but I have no problem believing that a 1.3GHz Duron qualifies for a 1300+ rating, or even a 1500+ rating. Giving it that rating, however, would place it in direct competition with hte Athlon. That maybe seems a little underhanded, but ask yourself what's more underhanded: limiting competition between your high- and low-end products through naming convention, or limiting it by intentionally crippling the low-end product?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Obviously not by my long going thread in a MS newsgroup:
n &s coring=d&selm=fa8f861.0201210250.2959a5c0%40postin g.google.com&rnum=3
Basically I'm having USB and XP problems and the people there say that it's gotta be a hardware problem. Even though the problem doesn't exist in any other OS, even Microsoft ones. They can only suggest buying more hardware... although it was getting this XP that `broke` USB on my PC. They don't understand that `Hardware Problem` == `Broken/Dead Hardware`
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=imalamer&hl=e
Or This Link
Get your Unix fortune now!
~~~
Especially now, since the price of the XP processors are ever increasing. For less than $150 I can get a Duron 1200 and a very capable companion motherboard, the ECS K7S5A. For $65 after shipping from Newegg.com (No, I have no vested interests in Newegg, I just like their customer support and shipping), you get a solid performing, stable, compatable motherboard with built in Sound and Lan. Nothing to scoff at. It even has overclockability using such programs as CPUFSB. The Durons are a great family, I think I may go ahead and get one now :)
How do you optimize a chip for an operating system, anyway?
Props to the original poster at -1
Another proud carrier of the $rtbl flag
Yes another one of these posts, it has nothing to do with the hardware!
But does anyone here but me want to question 'Benchmarks' instead of Mhz? I mean the CPU does run at said Mhz, that hasn't changed.
The problem is, when I see a chart comparing two companies chips, I can't believe it. I want to look for the footnote that says their system was tested with 93749234 GB of RAM, while the other companies was only tested with 1 MB of RAM.
That is why they should just give the CPU a name, or number, or whatever and let use read these reviews. Although sometimes reviews can also be biased, I can't trust anything that comes right from the company.
I used to have a chart showing how an AMD chip was like 50% faster than a Pentium of the same clock speed. This bothered me to no end. [it could be the other way around, that isn't important. What is: I didn't trust it.]
It's like a detergent commercial by 'Tide' which shows you two shirts and it cleans the whole stain while 'Era' doesn't. Just seems faked.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Marketing.
Most of the complex questions us slashdotters face is the result of poor marketing decisions, or decisions that make little sense.
I'm sure AMD has their reasons for not sticking with the 'Performance Rating' crockery they gave birth to last year. I personally don't understand why there was a need to change.. and NOW...
If the average user is too dense-headed to understand that MHz != Performance, then why are they keeping the MHz rating for their LOW end chips? Especially since using the performance rating on the Duron would net more sales. What sounds better? $118 AMD Duron 1.3GHz or $118 AMD Duron 1500+ ?
That brings up another point, maybe AMD is losing money on these lower end chips, and they don't want someone to look at a 'MegaBargain' Duron instead of shelling out a bit more for an Athlon. In the consumer mind, Duron 1.3GHz or Athlon 1500+ isn't a hard question to answer, most people will go with the Athlon 1500 even though they are both probably the same clock speed.
-fc
. echo -e \\04 >
So is it going to BSOD faster?
Tom's Hardware has a nice review and comparison of the athlon 1300 vs. the Celeron 1300.
With or without the extended paging bug?
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips, as it would be assumed the market for these will be consumers who don't generally look at benchmark figures?
My guess: Because they don't want to compete with *themselves*.
If a consumer sees a Duron rated to "1.3 GHz" (1300 MHz), and an Athlon XYZ rated to "1600 FooUnits", which will they want?
Right.
The fact that Celeron clock numbers are no better than Duron numbers is icing on the cake.
What does it mean?
~~~
BLOW ME!
AppleWorks would scream at 4 GHz.
I remember using AppleWorks 3.0 on an Apple IIe back in middle school. Now they're up to 6.2, except now it runs not on an Apple II but instead on a Mac. Has AppleWorks been around longer than Microsoft Office?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I'm kinda-sorta thinking about picking up a new processor/MB/case, and I know I want an AMD chip, but I've yet to find any easy to understand table that clearly deliniates what the differences are between the various Athlons.
Anybody got a source for such a beast? Or even feel like explaining it here?
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
d00d there's nothing that pisses off mods more than telling them you can take a 3 point hit and let it roll off. heh.
I do not get it. Why slashdot all of sudden interested in AMD (or Intel) chips that they crank out every month or so with new Hz and nothing new inside? Just to get "imagine beowulf claster of clasters of these"? Is it "stuff that matters"?
:) ?
Beside tomshardware there are a lot more sites with nice covering of whatever you want (http://xbit-labs.com for example).
Yeah, right, toms is heavy loaded with ads (I think I never saw any site that has more per page ads), so may be slashdot decided to have 10% of revenue from it for just redirecting bunch of "cool folks"
Couple years ago slashdot was much more "ahead of time", I used to find "things" there first, and after couple days notice same references or articles on other sites. Now it is opposite -- you find cool thing, and completely not sure if you will ever see discussion of this on slashdot (slashdot is famous for comments, not for articles).
If 2 years is "lifetime" of modern PC, and you upgrade it, may be it is a time for slashers to upgrade to something cool or at least to be up to date? It is not a MTV, it should get better year to year...
tandr.
Dude, the only thing that thread proves is that you are a complete fucking asshole. You obviously are just soliciting others to say Windows XP is crap, and when they don't agree with you you whine like a bitch. It's like talking to chicks they want to tell you about their problems, but they don't want them solved. Bitch bitch bitch. If XP doesn't work with your hardware don't use it. It doesn't really matter why or what anyone else thinks.
You wrote:
For all I know I could be older than
windows. [I am]
Since Windows 1.0 came out in 1985 I'm guessing you're a whopping 17 and still in high-school or you think Windows means Windows 95 and you're about 10. Otherwise you would have said somthing intelligent like "Show me some respect, I was in 'Nam dammit!"
For anyone who needs a good laugh, read this guy's usenet thread. ROFLMAO.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
yeah, I know, "clusters". But aren't we at slashdot :) ?
"Optimized for Windows XP" has little to do with the performance and/or features of the chip. It has more to do with the "standard" PC that Microsoft and Intel require you to have to get the "Designed for..." logos on your computer system.
The PC Design Checklist has a set of requirements that your hardware must meet in order to be certified for use with Windows XP. Basically, if you're a system manufacturer and want to pre-install Windows, you must follow these guidelines and use only parts that also meet the guidelines. AMD certified their products with Microsoft so that OEMs would be able to include them in PCs that have Windows pre-installed.
Microsoft and Intel come out with new requirements every year for PCs to get the latest "Designed for..." label and to preinstall Windows. Some of the latest requirements are that PCs are not allowed to have ISA devices and that the PC must be at the desktop/login stage no more than 35 seconds after the power button is pressed. (See the link I posted above for full details.)
It's not a conspiracy by Microsoft and Intel, or anything of that sort. It's the same thing that a lot of manufacturers go through to say that their products are "certified" for such-and-such uses. Note that you, as a PC manufacturer, are free to not certify your computer with Microsoft, but you lose the OEM discounts on Windows preinstalls if you do, and you lose the free advertising provided by Microsoft.
This, overall, is a Good Thing -- otherwise, cheap manufacturers might still be trying to force-feed us ISA devices and no USB ports.
TPI seems to actually be achieving some credibility at this point: techies regard it as a necessary marketing ploy and mostly ture, and all the consumers I've seen in electronics stores that were using clock frequency to compare performance seem to be willing to buy any number a chip manufacturer wants to slap on the machine. There was adiscussion on macslash as to whether the AIM PowerPC chips should be marketed under the TPI numbers. The main problem (this was in Nov.) was that everyone seemed to regard TPI as a cheap trick. Has this changed enough for us to see them adopt it. Having every consumer system that didn't use an Intel chip use TPI numbers would also lend more credibility to the initiative, it would seem, and both AMD and Apple could benefit from this. So, will there be an iMac G4 1900+ in our future?
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
If you're too cheap to get a $20 ethernet card, you have no right to be whining about Windows XP.
Let me guess: you think you're 1337 because you pirated Windows XP off Morpheus. Now you're stuck, because you can't get real tech support from Microsoft. Guess what? If you had actually bought Windows XP, you would be entitled to free tech support and possibly a bugfix. Instead, you're stuck whining to a newsgroup that doesn't want to hear it. Pathetic.
I can sympathise with that guy though. I read the entire thread, and while he comes off badly, he has a valid point.
It's like;
"my USB cable modem doesn't work under XP. It works under 2000, NT, 98, 95, and ME."
"You should buy another USB port."
"but it's not a hardware problem. It works under every other MS OS."
"You should buy a new USB cable modem."
"But it's not hardware, it's XP. I've established that."
"Try the drivers. Probably never worked under XP."
"But Microsoft Certified them. They've tested the drivers, and the drivers worked, according to them."
"Yeah, probably the drivers."
"But it's not. The fact that the modem works under 2000 proves it. Besides, if it didn't work, and MS certified it, then MS is at fault anyway..."
"You're being blind here. It's the drivers."
"Listen, fucknut, it can't be the drivers. It can't be the hardware. It must be XP. I'm asking for suggestions on how I could get XP to work with my cable modem."
"You're being blind, retard, it's obviously the drivers! Sometimes manufacturers fuck up. Get over it."
"That's it. This conversation is over. I just returned XP and am using 98 again."
Interesting read(and quite humorous), since everybody else came off as calm, but the fact remains, the process of elimination did point to XP, and everybody kept on insisting that he should run out and buy more hardware.
I also understand why he was pissed off though. He went out and paid 200 bucks for XP, and it didn't work as advertised. The fact that people blamed his hardware for some reason only made the situation worse.
It's been a long time.
AMD don't need to change the ratings of the Durons. Intel need to start selling the low end P4s as budget vs AMDs Duron. The Celeron could probably last out to 1500Mhz but there just isn't any point Intel probably hope to replace it with an older remodelled P$. Duron could get up to 2Ghz easy.
:)
The P42000 and XP2000+ can fight it out for the fat wallets or greedy hackers and the "low spec" machines of everyone else have equal ratings BUT!! I bet AMD will pull the price rug from under Intel.... yuup.... and for once AMD has a good selection of integrated motherboards as well.... yum...
Will Intel sell P4s under the Celeron name??? Yeah... right....
"None of this shit works" -W.Shatner
Dude, the only thing that thread proves is that you are a complete fucking asshole. You obviously are just soliciting others to say Windows XP is crap, and when they don't agree with you you whine like a bitch. It's like talking to chicks they want to tell you about their problems, but they don't want them solved. Bitch bitch bitch. If XP doesn't work with your hardware don't use it. It doesn't really matter why or what anyone else thinks.
I love you. You show the type of smarts I would want on my team. I just want someone to fix this problem I'm having. Calling MS doesn't help. Toshiba says it's out of their hands... what should I do? The mobo maker and AMD both say they can't do anything because they didn't write the OS. I actually like XP. I use it as well as other products. I was a beta tester for '98. I don't like however, the fact that people like you just want to label me and that's it.
Sure, I am so stupid as to think 'Windows' means Windows 95. I'm only 17. Sure. I'm so dumb to think a problem I have only with XP isn't an XP problem at all. Surely I faked those two other posts by people who have the same problem as me. I didn't recently break a stack of CD-R's because I'm so pissed that I wasted so much money on XP to find out that it has 'crippled' USB on my system.
From Toshiba tech support:
[name cut],
This is very interesting, but is most likely a problem with XP as it is such a new operating system. I will look into this and let you know my findings.
If you have any additional questions, feel free to e-mail or call.
[name cut]
Toshiba America Information Systems
Network Products Division
Direct : [number cut]
Support : [number cut]
Fax : [number cut]
http://www.internet.toshiba.com
Seems kinda mysterious to me. Why can't anyone figure it out. And when I say 'figure it out' I don't mean the problem, I mean that I'm not 'bashing' I'm trying to get a fix.
Sorry I'm verbal about it. I think it will be the only way to get things done.
Buying hardware and ingnoring the problem helps no one but the hardware maker.
Get your Unix fortune now!
He's completely right, and fighting a stupid troll at that. Yes, the bug is in the fucking chip, not the OSes. I'm a big AMD fan, but I think my next chip will be Intel...
Most people commenting on the subject, including you, seem to implicitly assume that comparing durons to something else to get a PR, that is not directly comparable to XP's PR, is acceptable. Yet I'm sure most of us would whine without end if they ever did this. PR numbers has to be consistent if they were to be applied to all product lines. In other words to use the tag of, say, a 1500+ rating, a Duron has to perform as well as 1133 MHz Athlon XP. Now, with some applications (very small data set, computing intensive) Duron can do that at 1133 MHz , while for some others (streaming data, low computing requirement) Duron needs at least 1500MHz, and with still others (data set size about 300kb, multiple iterations on whole set with random access) Duron cannot catch up XP even at much higher speeds. PR ratings when applied to XP-P4 comparison are already inconsistent across applications, trying to devise another number for Duron would make things a lot worse. Another thing is, if AMD tries to be conservative with PR ratings for Durons, the PR rating would be about the same as clock speed, which beats the purpose and may raise a lot of confusion ("What? A Duron 1600+ outperforms XP 1800+? I though they were budget chips!")
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
oh, reading this response has let me have faith in humanity again.
/. thread you can see my response from Toshiba. He even said it seems to be a OS problem because like me he knows how the process of elimination works.
I am pissed. I was pissed, on the inside when I started that thread. But since I stated in the opening article that those types of suggestions aren't needed it came out through my keyboard.
Just to mention, I'm not the only one. I also have a USB camera which doesn't work. Before putting XP back on this machine I tested Redhat with that. The USB camera dies just like the Cable Modem. After loading Red Hat, the cam worked fine. Then I took Red Hat off. I can't use Red Hat on this machine due to a riptide sound card.
Not saying anything like 'linux vs windows'. I just wanted to troubleshoot. If you look on this
Thank you, I don't even care that you said I was an asshole. I'm steaming from this shit. Do you know what it's like when you are doing something and the connection dies every 10 mins? Try putting up with that for at least a month... I've thought about suicide and blaming Bill Gates in the note.
Get your Unix fortune now!
It may not be where you heard the story, but it is on page 177 of "The Practice of Programming" by Kernighan and Pike.
Cocksucker.
Thank you, I don't even care that you said I was an asshole. I'm steaming from this shit. Do you know what it's like when you are doing something and the connection dies every 10 mins? Try putting up with that for at least a month... I've thought about suicide and blaming Bill Gates in the note.
First, I didn't call you an asshole, I just said you came off that way.
secondly, I know exactly what that's like, and because of it, I swore I'd never buy a PC Chips motherboard again. the damn modem never worked on it. It'd kick off, and it'd do things even worse sometimes, like just sit there, not sending or recieving. The worst part is that to fix the modem, I needed to get on the internet, but the internet sucked with that modem... All I can say is that I'm glad PC Chips has cleaned up their image. I have their 830LMR board right now, and it runs like a clock, and it's the fastest board on the benchmarks.
It's been a long time.
'why haven't AMD gone with the MHz doesn't equal performance as they have done with the new XP/MP chips
Because it's deceptive marketing. I'm an AMD user myself (TBird 1.2 GHz), but it really annoys me that they would be willing to mark a processor as something that it is not. Please don't try to tell me that 'performance rating...blah blah...equivalent speed in old architecture.' They are marking the new processors as speeds that they do not run at, period.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
I was reading Tom's Hardware this morning and I stumbled upon a very interesting article concerning the lack of thermal protection for two AMD processors.
IMHO, this video is a "must-see" as the viewer watches two processors "go up in smoke" literally, after the cooling systems are disabled.
Below are two links to the same video. Enjoy!
server 1:
server 2:
Hopefully this hasn't been posted before, I apologize if it has, but I felt it was an interesting aspect to contribute to the discussion.
This greatly reminds me of the PowerPC Mhz discussions. For example, 1Ghz PIII vs a PPC G4 500Mhz. The PIII sounds like it whips the G4 but it doesn't. Thanks to some of the G4's features, like AltiVec, the G4 performs better than the PIII. Of course the average user doesn't look at benchmarks when they buy their computer. The average user doesn't understand them anyway.
AppleWorks has been around since (IIRC) 1985. What Apple is now calling AppleWorks started life as ClarisWorks, but I don't know when ClarisWorks first appeared. The first versions of Word and Excel appeared on the Mac sometime in the mid-80s, but I don't think they were bundled together as Office until later.
Most sources usually credit AppleWorks as being the first integrated-software package. (If you want to get really nitpicky, though, the first would be III EZ Pieces, a package for the Apple III that mutated into AppleWorks when it became clear that the III was going nowhere in the marketplace.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Funky music, but no video of a CPU blowing up, maybe just your mind is blowing up instead
`find / -name "*your_base*" -exec chown us:us {} \;`
goddamned fucking moderators are smoking crack again, it seems. where's the qef? I feel funny.
Thank you for being on my side.
In your case you knew where the problem was, and there was a fix. Who was responsible for the fix? The person who made the hardware right?
In my case the hardware is fine. It's XP that is broken. Why is only clear to us that THEY need to do something about it, not me?
I mean, buying hardware to replace my 'Certified' hardware is silly.
[i'm sorry about the asshole thing, if you want to you can call me that now. *blushing*]
Get your Unix fortune now!
"I think that the apes could figure out how to use a spell checker and have a basic grasp of sentance structure"
Hey fuckwit, you should try using that spell checker yourself. Sentence doesn't have an a in it
At the second page [ http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020121/duron
This is patently UNTRUE.
I AM USING A CELERON 1.2 GHz with SDRAM 133 MHZ CAS2.
I truly hope that for once, people will do an ACTUAL REAL WORLD comparison, rather than that cripple-one-side-so-to-make-the-other-looks-good variety.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Does the newly released Duron suffer the same bugs with 4m pages as the older Duron's? .. In previous comments there were a few model/steppings that were bug-free, did they fix it on this one?
Hi Troll! Suck a lot of cock lately?
-Mode 001100110001(fuck you mr so witty sig)
I ordered the 1200MHz Duron from Newegg last Wednesday. It came today.
When I ordered it, it was the fastest availble Duron on the planet. When I received it, it was the second fastest...
Oh well!
Yes, I know of several sites that have beaten Slashdot to the last four 'important' stories: the AMD bug ( actually reported on TuxReports and not slashdot, not newsforge, and not the Register), the XFree86 4.2 release, the Red Hat / AOL story, and now the AMD Duron 1.3 release.
The AMD Duron 1.3 has been on MANY websites for the past few weeks. It's OLD news. The only reason it is on here now is because of a press release. Booo.
And about Tom's Hardware. It suffers from ego; too much ego and not enough info.
Yeah! Now I can
you still alive, man? strat666 from a.r-n-r.m-m here. How's things going?
Because I revel in the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that my 1.4 GHz Athlon blows the pants off my braggard delusional friend's 1.8 GHz Pentium 4.
Sometimes understatement is the way to go.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Did you major in marketing?
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
All the comparisons done show that the Athlon 1800 (at, IIRC, 1.63Ghz) is roughly equivalent to the 2Ghz Pentium4.
Megahertz-doesn't-equal-performance isn't "designed to mislead consumers" - to NOT do so is.