zephead said:
at the time intel processors were superior in quality and could take more thermal and electrical abuse than thier competitor's products. im talking about when amd started making thier own product (k-5), not a rip-off of something intel designed.
AMD has not "ripped-off" an Intel design anymore than IBM, Cyrix, ST or Toshiba has. Remember, without the quote "ripping off" of major companies, we would not have Pepsi, or Chevy, or Jack In The Box.
However, since you mentioned the K5, I'll run with that.
So you are saying that the k5 was a poor overclocked compared to, well, the competetion. The Pentium.
The K5 was originally introduced in 1996. It ran for an extrenely short time in the world of processors, not even making it a full year. The release of the K5 was late and AMD already had the K6, which was vastly superior in both performance and cost to the Pentium-MMX, intels latest innovation in '97.
However, this is straying from the point. The K5 was introductory processor. Although it was nowhere near the "Pentium-Killer" it was touted to be, it was there. 9 months later, it wasn't. AMD had been producing competeting processors against Intel for a decade before.
And now we are a nearly a decade later.
Are you telling me that because of a 9-month span in a spit of time around 20 years long, you can say AMD cpus were poor overclockers "back in the day" ?
Well, I quite clearly disagree. If you were actually building, or perhaps overclocking, you would have remembered the original Pentium, P54C, was a non-overclockable chip that was *extremely* hot. Yes, we all remember the heat nightmares with the Socket 4 Pentium.
Intel quickly improved the Pentium and released the first Pentium to introduce what had already been introduced (and not by Intel) years earlier, clock doubling. The first Socket 5 pentium was the P-75. From 75mhz to 166mhz, through a core revision allowing speeds up to 200mhz, and a final core revision to implement MMX, topping out at 233mhz for desktops, 266mhz for laptops.
Then came the P2 and the K6/2.
Now, zephead, before you get defensive, let me show you the point I am trying to make. It seems to me you attempt to discredit AMD at completely random times. You also attempt to discredit other manufacturers, too. Such, as you so tactfully say, "
asian board makers".
So rather than dispute this with you, I will simply say, as an unbiased computer technician, overall, Intel has frowned upon overclockers far more than AMD has and has made it much more difficult to do such, under the guise of protecting the consumer. Intel has had TWO processors that were worthy of actually buying for the purpose of an overclock: The Celeron A and the Pentium 4 northwood. AMD has had many, and for nearly two decades has always had chips that were easy to overclock.