Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mani1 who wrote (109661)	5/7/2000 4:59:00 PM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576329

gamepc.com Since the thread has been covering motherboard incompatibilities and such, read the above Celeron review and the troubles to come with motherboards and the Celeron multipliers.

To: Mani1 who wrote (109661)	5/7/2000 5:10:00 PM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 1576329

Tom's KX133 Review of 12 MB's tomshardware.com Benchmarks www7.tomshardware.com www7.tomshardware.com Final Words This comparison test shows one thing very clearly: The KX133 chipset is certainly superior to the AMD 750 in terms of performance. Even though most boards still came with early BIOS versions (partially beta), the majority of the tested boards ran stable in day-to-day operations under Windows 98 SE and NT 4.0 - if the BIOS settings were correct. However, the individual candidates displayed significant performance differences: while the Asus K7V and the Abit KA7 are in the lead in almost all benchmark disciplines, the LuckyStar K7VA133 and the Aopen AK 72 end up in last place. At least the slow performance of the Aopen AK72 is counterbalanced by a stable system behavior. Windows 2000 Pro still shows distinct problems in connection with the KX133 chipset and a GeForce card. The VIAAGP.SYS driver that just does not want to work with the pre-release drivers from Nvidia (Detonator 5.14) at all caused the biggest problems. Here we can just wait for VIA to offer an appropriate driver update that also updates the file MACHINE.INF. On the other hand, we generally did not experience any problems under Windows 98 SE; all boards did the test run without complaints. A word about OpenGL performance: As already known from previous tests, all boards performed slightly better under Windows NT 4.0 than under Windows 98 SE. This is mainly due to the more powerful software architecture of Windows NT 4.0. Fans of games based on the Quake engine are still better off with the old NT platform (and a GeForce card with 5.x driver). Unfortunately NT does not offer any Direct3D hardware acceleration. Nevertheless, performance is not everything. Other major criterions for motherboards are the features they offer. This includes the number of slots and connectors or a sensible arrangement of all interfaces. On some contestants, like for example the Aopen AK72 and QDI Kinetiz 7A, the power supply connector is much too close to the CPU slot. This makes it impossible to use a large heat sink with fan (maybe as replacement for an insufficient standard heat sink). Other shortcomings are the labels on all connectors and interfaces, that are often much too small. It requires using the handbook for desired clock adjustments. Another advantage of the KX133 chipset compared to the AMD 750 chipset is the fact, that the memory clock can be operated asynchronously to the Front Side Bus clock. It is also possible to use fast VC-SDRAM modules; they are hardly available on the market, however. We are going to cover the performance gain with VC-SDRAM versus SDRAM memory at a later time in a separate article. As soon as a solution for the Windows 2000 driver problems becomes available, we will inform you about the performance of the test candidates under Microsoft's latest operating system. www7.tomshardware.com

To: Mani1 who wrote (109661)	5/8/2000 12:29:00 AM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576329

<I think your heavy criticism of AMD is completely unfounded. > It was founded on some very cold logic that a lot of people on this thread seems to have agreed with since. <No company has perfect execution and companies need to be judged according to their competition not arbitrary expectations. > True. AMD's competition has wide availability of PC133 since Q4 99. AMD doesn't. If that sounds that vaccum to you then so be it. Companies seeking to grow market share need to be very aggressive to make that happen - the track record needs to be near perfect. Keeping up with the Jones's is OK when one is not seeking for relative market share gain. <It is easy to be tough judge and criticize everything, ...> Clearly, anyone who says I am criticizing everything that AMD is doing is not reading my posts. <..but it is much harder to fair.> "Fair" is extremely subjective. An eye for eye might be fair to someone and it might seem totally primitive to someone else. What sounds "fair" to you in this context seems like being a "blind bull" to me. "Intel is god and can do no wrong" is the attitude that that made Paul and his band of Intel longs look so incredibly ridiculous. And finally, I see an over dose of reality check as a nice counter to the overabundant bullishness.