Abit IC7
I'm a big fan of my IC7. I would have loved to get the Max 3 but it wasn't available at the time. It would have been nice to have that onboard IDE RAID capability. I was very impressed with the flash utility that Abit offers, it was ridiculously easy.
And that had nothing to do with the NF7, hope you guys like them
.
And that had nothing to do with the NF7, hope you guys like them
. 0
Comments
Haha what's the matter with Intel?
I did build an AMD system for my mom. It's alright, using it right now. It's got nothing on my (
Mine wasn't too pricey. Didn't cost me much at all really, I sold my 1.6a and got this one. Never should have done it, but that's a different story.
Floating Point Unit: Formerly called the math co-processor, and a secondary chip you had on the motherboard before the advent of sub-.24u engineering, the FPU is responsible for assisting the ALU in mathematics. The Athlon's is better by a long shot. The Northwoods are rumoured to be unable to multiply, which is a bitch and a half.
Arithmetic Logic Unit: This is the part of the processor that actually does the math-work needed for programs to run. The Athlon's is faster.
Bus efficiency: This is how well a processor can use the RAM and the bandwidth available to it. Athlon is ~90% efficiency, Pentium 4 is ~82% efficiency
Pipeline length: The pipeline is the actual stages the math has to go through to produce a final result the computer can understand. The pentium 4 needs 20 stages for a calculation, the Athlon needs 10.
Branch prediction: Programming "Branches," that is certain functions in a program go certain directions as the user works through the program. The branch prediction unit is responsible for patterning the user's actions and trying to figure out what he/she will do next. A mistake in branch prediction means the processor needs to start the calculation all over. This is a slowdown, invisible, but there. Athlon has the better BPU.
On top of these inequities, I find it hard to respect any company that ACTIVELY produces and markets a grossly inferior product as a superior one. The very fact that a p4 needs ~600MHz over an Athlon to be competitive, or over 1GHz against an Athlon64, speaks volumes for the piss-poor engineering that went into the Pentium4.
Furthermore, the miserable DESIGN of the chip would make any person with an idea of efficiency CRINGE. They knew their chip was bad, so they extended the pipeline to 20 stages, made it slow as hell at a given clockspeed, then put the clockspeed through the roof to make up for it, knowing that consumers would take it hook line and sinker.
What else is Intel good for?
Lying about the thermal dissipation of their CPUs, which through our own in-house testing has been proved true. This is the source for the rumour of the "AMD IS HOTTER" myth, which is exactly what I said it is, a myth.
There's a laundry list a mile long relating to all the poor design decisions the Pentium4 has. It extends into the Xeon line also. A whole NEW series of design flaws can be pointed out in their Itanium processors as well.
It seems the only thing they CAN do right is the Pentium III, and their chipsets...
What else is there to be said about a product that was marketed solely for reliance upon the stupidity of consumers, not for quality?
Not a whole lot..That's good enough.
I'm pretty brand loyal once I like what I get. I had the 1.6a and the thing was amazing. I should have never gotten rid of it. I got the 2.4C with the same thing in mind. It's alright but nothing like the 1.6a IMO.
I have no problems with AMD's, never have. That's why I set my mom's PC as an AMD machine. She wanted bang for the buck and this was the way to go. Next machine I build will probably be an AMD, I'll give it a try. It's nice to know that AMD has loyalists as well, you seem rather knowledgeable.
The wiliamettes were <b>terrible</b>. Quite possibly the worst chip Intel has EVER made.
It was a Northwood. Apparently you aren't to knowledgeable about the enemy
2
3
And I'd put a Barton 2500+ (1.83ghz) & a Abit NF7-S up against a P4 2.4C any day.
PS: It's also interesting how for the Centrino CPU Intel uses a 1MB Cache Pentium 3 based design instead of the P4.
Epox 4PCA3+
1.6A's were amazing CPU's! Very similar to the Celeron 300A's of our modern times.
Yes, they were Northwoods, mPGA478, 400 MHz FSB, 512 KB L2.
dak125... I've learned not to get the AMD-ites riled up around here. They are faster to pounce on you than a pack of ravenous wolves on a dead animal carcas. No matter what they say, I'm happy with my system, whatever the monetary cost.
As for the Willie's, they were Intel's first fray into uncharted territory. They had to start somewhere, considering that it was a complete chip design, moving away from Intel's P6 Dynamic Execution design that had been used since the Pentium Pro. The Intel NetBurst Microarchitecture may not have necessarily been the best performing chip (considering that the early 1.4, 1.5 & 1.7 P4's got whacked by the 1.00 & 1.13 GHz P3's, but the NetBurst Microarchitecture is designed for high scalability.
The reason they didn't produce Socket 478 off the bat? The 0.13 micron process was not mature enough. If you take a look at old Willie CPU's, they contain something that look's very similar to today's Socket 478 CPU's, except because of space requirements, they needed to branch out into an extra layer of connection circutry (that green PCB space around the core).
And unlike AMD, they executed it miserably as it got spanked by AMD's flagship CPU, the supposed inferior, as well as their own Pentium III line.
And even today, the Netburst Microarchitecture, idiotically named, is designed to <s>lure consumers with big numbers</s> scale...Just scale...Not perform as the clock speed would suggest.
Done mainly for power consumption reasons. Ever seen how efficient those Banias CPU's are? Based off the Tualatin, they smoke today's P4's because they use Intel's much more efficient P6 Dynamic Execution chip/pipeline design. Coupled with 1 MB cache, they offer superior performance to the P4, using less than 1/2 the electricity and dissipating less than a 1/3 of the heat.
Pretty impressive for a CPU that's used in notebooks.
Except, if this scenario were to be true, they'd be caught ****-faced when their new flagship debuts slower than the P4 and still rocks it senseless.
It's pretty much a marketting gimick. NetBurst Microarchitecture? It was launched Q3 2000, during the height of the Internet bandwagon. Ohh! My processor has the word NET in it! It must make the intarweb go fastar!
They should have named the thing "56K Microarchitecture" in order to more properly address it's efficiency problems.
I wonder if its a possibility. I don't think Intel would EVER use a "rating" system like the AXP's do, but if it were to happen, a desktop Banias CPU with 1 MB L2 would kick serious ass.
Banias with 64-bit extensions? mmm... a viable alternative to the A64, but it would never happen. Intel's driven the "megahurtz=powar" mentality into too many customers that they can't offer that Banias solution to desktop users.
However, for notebook users who are used to slower clock speeds and want prolonged battery life, it makes perfect sense.
Consider that Intel engineers are bright people. They respin the Tualatin ASIC, adding performance enhancements to the P6 Dynamic Execution architecture, double the cache and reduce power consumption, designing a CPU that offers superior performance to the P4. It's an amazing CPU that works, clock for clock, I'm guessing identical to the Athlon XP, maybe closer to an Athlon 64 (I'm guessing here).
However, marketing says "Nope. Can't sell that. It will make our overpriced P4 look bad. It doesn't have NetBurst. It doesn't have large numbers."
Engineers: "What about a rating system?"
Marketing: "Out of the question. Intel has a reputation of upholding our great leader Moore and his Law. Without Moore's Law, we would be nothing. Customers must continually see that we strive to reach Moore's Law's outcomes with our products. With a rating system, we would only be hiding behind a shadow of performance. We must stick to Moore's Law. The P4 stays!"
Engineers: "Idiot marketing bastards. Notebooks it is."
I still stick with my statement that my 1.6a was the best CPU I've used. That thing overclocked like there was no tomorrow with no voltage changes.
BTW, any chance I can have the title of this thread changed? I think it sounds rather ridiculous. If possible change it to Abit IC7 or anything other than what it is. Thanks
I think Omega65 split the threads apart, as the "NF7-S Thread" was getting off topic with Intel-speak
Nah, this isn't a war. Check out TomsHardware.com or HardOCP and look for a REAL AMD/Intel war.
This is just discussion that's a little more... civilized and factual.
Understandable, still caught me off guard. I can't change the title of my own thread here can I?
Unfortunately not. PM Omega65 and he can do it for ya
I know what you mean though. I was posting a rebuttal to one of Thrax's messages in the older NF7-S thread. Once it was posted, all of the Intel discussion was completely removed. Took me a second to figure out what happened, thinking "oh ****.. did I delete something I wasn't supposed to?"
Sounds good thanks.
BTW, Welcome to Short-Media!