AMD Sempron ships

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Are you the unofficial spokesman for AMD? Why is this posted to the Intel
site... just curious.


"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:VKLNc.529$CQV.176@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Looks like AMD has taken the wraps off of its budget Sempron line a few
days
> early.
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/ent-ne [...] hp/3387051
>
> There are two distinct lines of Semprons, several K7-based Socket A and a
> K8-based Socket 754. The K8 Semprons have their 64-bit capabilities
> disabled. The K7's range in performance from 2200+ to 2800+, while the K8
is
> at 3100+.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M4CF229E8
>
>
http://www.computerweekly.com/arti [...] h=&nPage=1
>
> Here's the benches:
>
> http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2139
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
> --
> Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
> Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:34:40 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:33:59 -0600, Judd wrote:
>
>> Are you the unofficial spokesman for AMD?
>
>Oh, good grief! Everyone with a brain is an AMD supporter!
>
>> Why is this posted to the Intel site... just curious.
>
>My my, somone has their panties in a twist! You don't consider AMD worthy
>of talk in an Intel "Site" (I don't think CSI is supported by Intel, nor
>is the Usenet a "site" of any reasonable description). OTOH, you might
>just learn something from Mr. Khan (though I am stretching belief here).
>
>...not to mention this is also posted to CSIPHC where all us Intel haters
>hang out. ;-)
>
>In short, you're nothing but a top-posting maroon!

lmao! no prisoners taken here!

/daytripper (not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
newsan.2004.07.30.02.34.39.752244@att.bizzzz...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:33:59 -0600, Judd wrote:
>
> > Are you the unofficial spokesman for AMD?
>
> Oh, good grief! Everyone with a brain is an AMD supporter!
>

Rah, rah, rah... go stick a sempron up your ass.

> > Why is this posted to the Intel site... just curious.
>
> My my, somone has their panties in a twist! You don't consider AMD worthy
> of talk in an Intel "Site" (I don't think CSI is supported by Intel, nor
> is the Usenet a "site" of any reasonable description). OTOH, you might
> just learn something from Mr. Khan (though I am stretching belief here).
>
> ...not to mention this is also posted to CSIPHC where all us Intel haters
> hang out. ;-)
>
> In short, you're nothing but a top-posting maroon!

What's a "maroon"? Webster says: " a dark red " and "a descendant of such
a slave".
Well, I may be a "maroon", but you are clearly a retard.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
without the constant bashing. There should be a
comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 18:49:45 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote:

>"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote in message
>news:10gjkp78m5iah88@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> > In short, you're nothing but a top-posting maroon!
>>
>> What's a "maroon"? Webster says: " a dark red " and "a descendant
>of such
>> a slave".
>> Well, I may be a "maroon", but you are clearly a retard.
>
>I'm addressing this to all 3 readers of comp.arch who aren't Bugs
>Bunny cartoon fans. When Bugs wanted to denigrate the intelligence of
>another cartoon character, he would **intend** to say "What a moron!"
>but what actually came out (in the cartoon) would be "What a maroon!",
>suggesting some ambiguity as to whose sagacity should be impugned. I
>believe that this is the sense in which Keith was writing.
>
>If you seriously want to challenge someone's intellectual dexterity, I
>suggest sweetly inquiring if they rode the short bus to school. ;-)

Too cute by half.
My current fave:
"I don't know what your problem is, but I bet it's hard to spell"

;-)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:51:22 GMT, "Lee Waun" <leewaun@telus.net> wrote:

>
>"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
>> It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
>> that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
>> Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
>> processor will provide better performance at each price point.
>>
>>
>
>No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need you
>AMD lovers cramming it down our throats.
[flushed]

"We"?

Go play in traffic...

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:

>The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
>flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
>can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
>without the constant bashing. There should be a
>comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.

I'm sure you can find an "Intel site", where you can conduct iSeances in
peace, if that's what you have in mind. As already pointed out to you,
this is Usenet, the comp.sys... hierarchy specifically. If Outlook
doesn't have an "ignore thread" feature, you could also consider using a
real newsreader.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, Judd wrote:

> The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
> flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda.

Fact <> propaganda. Propaganda is what you are left with when you
refuse to listen.

> It's to the point now where you
> can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
> without the constant bashing. There should be a
> comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.

If you're that thin-skinned perhas the Usenet isn't for you? Or does it
depress you that much to know that you are what you claim others to be?

Maroon! ;-)

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Felger Carbon wrote:
> If you seriously want to challenge someone's intellectual dexterity, I
> suggest sweetly inquiring if they rode the short bus to school. ;-)

In Canada, all that means is did you ever go to kindergarten? The short
buses were for the littlest kids that went for only half a day.

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:

>
>
> Keith wrote:
>>
> [...]
>
>> > True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
>>
>> You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
>> you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.
>
> Not a mistake. The Northwood was quite a good choice everything considered.
> The performance issue is not as clear cut as you seem to suggest, you can
> probably find favourable benchmarks in both directions, depending on which
> team you belong.

You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as another
cartoon character, to be named later, once said)

> I have also built using Northwoord, but belong to neither team.

Now there is a laugh! ...and on many levels! ;-))

> Once the computer was completed, the processor type was not foremost
> in my mind.

Well, duh! You're saying that once you made your decisions youu
didn't look back? At least you make *some* sense.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Lee Waun <leewaun@telus.net> wrote:
> No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need
> you AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater
> for I computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the
> prescotts which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once
> again Intel is superior.

No, actually it's more like, historically comp.sys.intel was *never* just
about Intel. It was always about the architecture that Intel started. So
competing products that are compatible with Intel's products are on-topic.
When the group was originally started it seemed like a good idea to call it
"Intel", it seemed generic enough while being descriptive enough at the
time.

Similarly, a group called comp.sys.IBM.PC.hardware is not limited to the
discussion of IBM products, let alone IBM PC products. In fact, very little
IBM products discussions actually ever goes on in this group. Again, at the
time the group was created, it seemed like a good description, but that
market has evolved since then.

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 23:10:54 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

> "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> newsan.2004.08.01.02.20.16.584376@att.bizzzz...
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:37 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>>
>> You haven't been around here long, have you? Good grief! (as
> another
>> cartoon character, to be named later, once said)
>
> You're obviously referring to Amadeus Mozart Drobnik.

Felger, you're always giving answers for free! Where's the fun in
teasing kidz when you soil the punch line? I doubt the kidz of today even
read Drobnik's strip in the Sunday comics. ...much less anything more
sophisticated.

> Having failed
> (despite his parents' expectations) as a professional musician, he
> learned that there was a B-25 Mitchell twin-engine bomber stuck in the
> side of the Empire State Building, a few floors beneith King Kong's
> former perch. So he donned a colorful leotard-cap outfit, and rode the
> elevator to the location of the stuck bomber.
>
> Alas, while struggling heroically to displace the B-25, he slipped and
> fell. The cape, a cheap Chinese knock-off, bore a label stating "If
> cape fails to function properly, return to Pei Ping for free
> replacement." Wouldn't you know it, the cape did malfunction in an
> aerodynamic sense. Poor Drobnik.

Felg! We all know how badly GWB has screwed up the economy by sending
cape manufacturing off-shore, but can you really blame the
Chi-Comms on the Mitchell's navigation system too? <oops, that was
Clinton that sold the INS stuff>

> [Sternly] Keith, you know better to bring up this Drobnik episode!
> Obviously, AMD belongs in another newsgroup!

comp.sys.alternate.reality?

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:09:14 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
<johs@nsaeccueuesizefitterwruovweswernuao.com> wrote:
>> Everything considered? Did you consider a 64 bit OS and 64 bit software????
>
>No I didn't. I can't afford to buy new OS and new 64 bit compilers which will
>cost a fortune, so I stick to what I've got at the moment, and it does the job
>to everybody's satisfaction

<Tony dons his flame-proof suit>

Well the obviously answer here is that you should be running Linux and
using the free GCC compiler! :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Rupert Pigott wrote:
>
> Johannes H Andersen wrote:
> >
> > JK wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >>Interesting software projects? It is a pity that none of them are 64 bit.
> >
> >
> > Maybe for you, but my software is solving real problems in the real world.
>
> I've solved some real world problems that didn't need 64bit addressing
> but they *really* flew SIMD style with 64bit registers as opposed to
> 32bit... That was back in 1996 too, pretty sure printing presses are
> still running so I figure that real world problem will still be there
> too.

I can beat that since I programmed on a Cray-1 in 1978. 64 bits is nothing new.

> If your business is compiling you might want to consider AMD (XP or A64)
> in preference to P4 chips anyway. The AMD chips seem to offer far better
> bang for buck in that department.

Possibly, but see other posts.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:

>The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
>flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
>can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
>without the constant bashing. There should be a
>comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.

Don't bait the AMD lovers in here. There's too many of them and
they're too easily whipped-up into a frenzy. When you're in the
minority, you need to tread lightly, especially now that AMD is, once
again, temporarily in the lead. 8)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:05:47 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com> wrote:
>
>>The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
>>flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
>>can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
>>without the constant bashing. There should be a
>>comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
>
> Don't bait the AMD lovers in here. There's too many of them and
> they're too easily whipped-up into a frenzy. When you're in the
> minority, you need to tread lightly, especially now that AMD is, once
> again, temporarily in the lead. 8)

Certainly! When you're *wrong* it pays to keep silent. There are vary
few excuses to buy Intel at this particular point. There are many reasons
to go elsewhere.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Keith wrote:
>> Technologically, yes, but still a long way to go marketing wise.
>
> I won't even give AMD the technology edge. Certainly I'll give
> them the management edge. Intel has been impressive in their
> corporate attempts to paint themselves into a corner. AMD has simply
> found that heel and executed rather well. The K6 equalled the PII,
> then the K7 took over. While Intel toyed with the Itanic (and a few
> $Billion), AMD learned by reading the history books.

It wasn't so long ago when people were critisizing AMD's management (prior
to the Hammer processors coming out), because all it had competing against
the P4 was the Athlon XPs, which weren't being updated at a fast enough
pace.

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:je8og0dj2hpr34elq2r8hkrgqfg8872fpe@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
> >flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
> >can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
> >without the constant bashing. There should be a
> >comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
> >
> Ever heard of the 1st Amendment? If you don't like it, you are free
> to go someplace like Cuba. Over there, neither INTC nor AMD is
> superior, that definition is reserved for Fidel exclusively. Oh, by
> the way, you'd be lucky to have just any CPU and 9.6k dialup over
> there...
>

Believe it or not some people here are not American and really don't care
one bit about your stupid yankee 1st Amendment. Cuba is a nice place to
vacation too. Several of my friends have been there several times.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Lee Waun <leewaun@telus.net> wrote:
> Believe it or not some people here are not American and really
> don't care one bit about your stupid yankee 1st Amendment.

Ah, but Americans care very much about the 1st Amendment and will
behave accordingly. Helping you be free whether you want it or not.

Freedom anywhere advances freedom everywhere.

-- Robert

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:45:28 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:

>
> "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:je8og0dj2hpr34elq2r8hkrgqfg8872fpe@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:00:34 -0600, "Judd" <IhateSpam@stopspam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The Intel haters and AMD lovers should post to that group rather than
>> >flooding comp.sys.intel with propoganda. It's to the point now where you
>> >can't talk nor get any information on Intel processors and architecture
>> >without the constant bashing. There should be a
>> >comp.religious.processor.wars or something more suitable for that stuff.
>> >
>> Ever heard of the 1st Amendment? If you don't like it, you are free
>> to go someplace like Cuba. Over there, neither INTC nor AMD is
>> superior, that definition is reserved for Fidel exclusively. Oh, by
>> the way, you'd be lucky to have just any CPU and 9.6k dialup over
>> there...
>>
>
> Believe it or not some people here are not American and really don't care
> one bit about your stupid yankee 1st Amendment. Cuba is a nice place to
> vacation too. Several of my friends have been there several times.

I hear the Cubans love living there too. Perhaps you should think this
trough before commenting again.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Lee Waun wrote:
> "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> newsan.2004.07.31.17.44.33.167510@att.bizzzz...
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:51:22 +0000, Lee Waun wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>news:410AA9D0.A6AA3FBC@netscape.net...
>>>
>>>>It is not a matter of bashing, it is a matter of explaining to people
>>>>that they should research the alternatives first, then decide if an
>>>>Intel processor is a good choice. In most instances, an AMD
>>>>processor will provide better performance at each price point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>No if we want to learn about AMD we can go research it. We don't need
>
> you
>
>>>AMD lovers cramming it down our throats. If I want a space heater for I
>>>computer I would have bought a AMD years ago. Now Intel has the
>
> prescotts
>
>>>which are even better space heaters than the AMD's so once again Intel
>
> is
>
>>>superior.
>>
>>Ok, you're saying, "I'm stupid and wish to remain so"? Or more like, "my
>>mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts"?
>>
>>>True I just want a computer so I will stick to my Northwood.
>>
>>You didn't research before you bought and now don't want to be told that
>>you made a mistake? Burry your head deeper. The world will ignore you.
>>
>>--
>
> No I did all the research I needed too and I don't want AMD. I want the
> industry standard which is Intel. Not AMD.
>

And that is why standards improve so slowly - because
people settle for the "standard" when better things
abound.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>Anyways, technical management issues aside, now that Intel has got its
>64-bit Xeons, and now that it's even evident that it's released 64-bit
>Prescotts, one of the marketing advantages of AMD is completely gone. I
>suppose AMD could try to claim that it was "the original 64-bit" processor
>maker, which would sound great, but would be booed off the stage by people
>claiming everything from MIPS and Alpha to Nintendo got there before it.
>Then they might change the slogan to "the original 64-bit x86 processor",
>which would be received with blank stares by people who would ask "what in
>the heck is an x86 processor?" More factually accurate, but less marketingly
>attractive. Perhaps they would go for, "the original Microsoft Windows
>64-bit processor?" Which could be challenged by Intel saying that since
>Microsoft Windows for 64-bit extended systems isn't here yet, by the time it
>actually arrives, Intel will be there alongside AMD. Ah the life of a
>marketeer.

None of that matters. In the constantly-changing CPU market, what you
did last year is irrelevant. All that matters is the performance and
price of what you are selling today. I don't see any reason to
believe that there will be a change in the pattern of the last decade,
i.e. Intel, being the market leader, sets prices, and AMD follows with
somewhat lower prices for any given level of perceived performance.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <7qb4h05q3dti5kbahqtq9lm3hs1f4maa0s@4ax.com>,
chrisv@nospam.invalid says...
> Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 06:52:42 +0000, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >>
> >> It wasn't so long ago when people were critisizing AMD's management (prior
> >> to the Hammer processors coming out), because all it had competing against
> >> the P4 was the Athlon XPs, which weren't being updated at a fast enough
> >> pace.
> >
> >Only the impatient kidz on Christmas morning who couldn't wait for a
> >hammer. I don't see Intel racing for 6GHz (as promised) either.
>
> Well, no surprise that good things happen for those who wait, but that
> doesn't mean that NOT waiting is a poor decision, if your machine
> isn't keeping up with what you want it to do...

So far, I agree 100%.

> And lot's of folks
> would argue that the AMD64 didn't become truly appealing until socket
> 939 came out, which was only recently, and is still expensive.

Not quite 100%. My Opteron 144 s/940 system (including the 19"
professional grade monitor) cost me $1100ish. My first IBMPC with a
4.77MHz 8088 and 12" green-screen cost $2500ish (after a quite
substantial discount). ...not to mention the 22 years difference in
the dollar (or the fact that it's not the salary for a month, rather
more like half a week). Sure it's more expensive than a stick of
celery, but hardly *expensive*.

OTOH, I didn't buy a G5 because that was too "expensive". ;-)

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> I hear the Cubans love living there too. Perhaps you should think this
> trough before commenting again.

What is the first amandment anyway? Any reason why should give a ****?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> OTOH, I didn't buy a G5 because that was too "expensive". ;-)

I thought Americans are rich, average income is nearly $50,000 per capita,
so even average guy could easily afford to use few K's in electronic gadget.
With that income I am amazed that price is always the #1 issue in the NG, I
take most participants are from Cuba?