New Sh*t Feature on Intel's new chipsets and new socket...

BCN · Post by **BCN** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:02 pm

http://www.overclockers.com/articles1049

Just read the article....

I am really dissapointed, because a 10% overclock is no hobby for me...

I want to cry!

Post by **Derek** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:57 pm

*shudders*

davd_bob · Post by **davd_bob** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:59 pm

NOOOOOOO !!!!!!

First I lost dual point distributers and modified carburation to electornic iginition and fuel injection...now this....

I agree that if Intel sucessfully pulls off the limit on FSB that AMD will soon follow.

24seven · Post by **24seven** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:08 am

I'm not sure on the AMD following.

Ive always though that AMD was for the overclockers, they have always made it fairly easy to overclock their chips.

BCN · Post by **BCN** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:09 am

AMD will follow, cause they were never for overclockers, because then why did they lock the multiplyer on XP's even though on some of them you could unlock it....

davd_bob · Post by **davd_bob** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:37 am

AMD, at a time when they were trying to survive(the intro of Intel's slot1) were overclocker friendly because it allowed them to stick with socket7 and also steal a group of IT oriented customers from Intel. Now AMD is well established and they can live without overclockers just as easily as Intel can live without us. In fact, we are now no-more then just an enigma that no one wants to claim.

BCN · Post by **BCN** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:21 am

the question is what will we do if they pull it away, as they are already doing it on their chipsets...

Will VIA or SiS present some products that do not have thy "feature", will their product be good?... Ah...

You know, for me Intel wrote down their death sentence, I will just not buy from them, no that shitty 9 series chip... just no way, no expendable socket... and no furnace...

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:27 am

BCN wrote:AMD will follow, cause they were never for overclockers, because then why did they lock the multiplyer on XP's even though on some of them you could unlock it....

Actually, the real reason for locking the processors was not to discourage people like you and me. It was to counteract those that were remarking processors and selling them for what they were not. The "lock" was also made in such a way that it could be unlocked by those who were persistent, like us overklockers.

I stopped buying Intel stuff years ago. I decided to put my money on AMD for a very good reason and that was to keep competition alive. It is because of AMD that speeds have been ramped up and prices have fallen, not because of Intel. Remember the Early Pentium days? I remember that when P90 was the fastest you could get, Intel made us wait for ages for a 100MHz variant and when it arrived, it did cost a tremendous amount of money and Intel treated it like it was a product that came from heaven!

I also believe that Intel is producing a lot of crap products these days. For a time they insisted that the MHz/GHz race was king and consumers swallowed. Now, with the event of Dothan they are all of a sudden reversing that marketing strategy. Another total fluke is HyperThreading. This is nothing but a marketing ploy to make people think that they are getting more. Sure, it works in some cases but I have seen so much evidence of it slowing down a system or making them unstable that I am not convinced. I dug into the Intel documentation on HyperThreading and I am convinced that this is the wrong way to go. This is poorer than a poor mans SMP system (which in my opinion dual core processors is). So don't believe the hype!

Nope. It is AMD for me the whole way. BP6 was an exception but then again I bought it used and not new!

davd_bob · Post by **davd_bob** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:36 am

Guys(and dolls too), the facts are:
CPU manufacturers are in business. Like car manufacturers, they live or die by people abandoning their older in exchange for their newest.
AMD did create compitition for Intel and OCing was just a byproduct, not a goal. Both of these bigboys wish they could kill any system out there that is now out of warrantee so everyone would have to buy new.
But its not just the CPU guys.
Sears, CompUSA, BestBuy, etc., also want consumers to dump last years and get a new one.
No major retailer warrents OC'ed equipment and ALL major retailers discourage all forms of it. I hate to say it but the true overclocking comunity is less then 1% of the buying community. Neither AMD nor Intel nor any retailers need or even want us.(AMD does like us making them look better then Intel though)
The good news is the BP6 will last until a way to get around the limits is discovered.
This is just my opinion.

BCN · Post by **BCN** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:51 am

there is away around, but it is only 5-10% more...

purrkur · Post by **purrkur** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:52 pm

http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread. ... did=165133

BCN · Post by **BCN** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:12 pm

yeah, I have already checked out their new board, but somehow I am not coming onboard with that SH*T 9 series...

BTW does anyone know if this so called "FEATURE" is included in "tumwater" (E7525) chipset or is it as all the ones before well overclokable?

Holodeck2 · Post by **Holodeck2** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:27 am

AMD will not follow, they'll stick to the ATX form factor
Intel's moving on to the BTX because of heat issues from the gimpy prescotts
motherboard manufactures HATE LGA because it means that the end user will fark up the motherboard and they'll have to replace it instead of intel
the only thing good about this is the way they mount the heatsink with the solid metal backing to prevent flexing of the board but this could be done with the old systems too

what's wrong with fuel injection and electronic ign?

davd_bob · Post by **davd_bob** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:35 pm

Holodeck2 wrote:what's wrong with fuel injection and electronic ign?

are you kidding? Nothing, but I can't 'OC the new technology like I could the older stuff. Well maybe I mean soup-up instead of oc, but you get the meaning. Anyway, nothing that runs on SDram can match the preformance of a DDR board, but we still love the BP6.

Holodeck2 · Post by **Holodeck2** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:08 pm

Old school, that's what I'm talking about, all these youngins have no idea what the heck we had to go through to get to this point, sigh. there are days when I feel old

Stobe · Post by **Stobe** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:33 am

Which reminds me, after reading another thread about Doom3, of the weekend I played "through" Doom 666 (which still is the best version btw) on my Intel 486/SX 33 MHz with VESA graphics (!)
Oh, man, my computer rocked in those days when most people had an SX 25, now my BP6 is not fit for a single modern game.

Holodeck2 · Post by **Holodeck2** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:38 am

my bp6 still plays starcraft

486DX-33 all the way! ph34r my enabled onboard co-processor!

davd_bob · Post by **davd_bob** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:27 pm

the musical juke box written in basic ran...ur make that "played" on my 8088,
um well maybe not played, but made the system internal speaker beep the right frequecy.

And it only had 256K of ram and a wopping 10mhz chip.