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: tejek who wrote (136340)	4/16/2001 12:00:54 AM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584067

tejek... You are just a little twerp with a big mouth just like Scumbria. All you do is blow gas (need some Beano). Thank you for the entertainment. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Try as hard as you will, your emulation of Scumbria lacks. You need to get a few more tips. LMAO!!! PS. Give Scumbria my best wishes. Tell him I miss him. Ask him how it feels to be the laughing stock of the boards. I mean, a true moron is the only one that can get terminated from SI. Be careful. LOL!!!

To: tejek who wrote (136340)	4/16/2001 12:23:49 AM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584067

tejek... I know that you are disappointed that SI terminated Scumbria. But you and the others on the boards have to realize how Scumbria violated so many rules. Scumbria had been warned of his violations, but yet he continued. He felt he was ABOVE THE LAW of the boards. When you blatantly violate the rules, you have no one else to blame but yourself. One day, when Scumbria grows up, they may let him come back if he can be more civil. I applaud SI for their action. I wrote to them and told them how I felt and agreed with their action. Maybe if he says he's sorry and asks for forgiveness, then, and only then, will they consider reinstating him. Only time will tell.

To: tejek who wrote (136340)	4/16/2001 1:22:15 AM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1584067

tejek... Will AMD make their numbers of 39 cents? eom

To: tejek who wrote (136340)	4/16/2001 1:46:12 AM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584067

tejek... What's up with this? What's up with this? Athlon-Pentium 4 fans overheat, then overclock.... theinquirer.net Athlon-Pentium 4 fans overheat, then overclock Huge water cooler or maybe liquid nitrogen needed as tempers fray By Mike Magee, 15 April 2001 11.45 BST AN UNSEEMLY ROW has broken out over on Ace's Hardware Forum following an article posted by Bert McComas, co-founder of market research company InQuest. The piece has generated so much heat on Ace's that we reckon it could give Vesuvius points for noxious sulphurous emanations, heat, and rocks flying in all directions. We referred to that article on our site a couple of days back, - and you can find our account of it here. The thread, which starts at this point, poses the question whether Intel has lied about power dissipation on its Pentium 4 platform. The first post points to an allegation in McComas' article that Intel uses "clock throttling" (we've heard that phrase before somewhere) which limits the Pentium 4's performance if the chip gets too hot, effectively reducing, for example, its clock speed from say 1.5GHz to half of that. That led to accusations that Bert McComas, and Van Smith, who works for InQuest too, are involved in a campaign to rubbish the Pentium 4 and the Rambus platform, with the next poster saying: "Lemme ask again-- who pays van smith and bert mccomas for this stuff? Why is it seemingly quoted around the web like it was unbiased benchmarking? These guys ain't Consumers Report--they are paid guns. Why are they doing this? Why have they been doing it for 3-4 years?." After this point, the discussions fork into two main streams - one where Van Smith denies this poster's response that McComas is in any way a "paid gun", and another, more technical stream, discussing whether the facts of the allegations are true. The attacks in the first fork become ever more personal and we can leave them there. [Are you sure, Mike? Personal attacks are always much more interesting than technical arguments - Ed.] The technical discussions become more interesting for those interested in heat, that is, with engineers and others piling in with their views about the heat generated by Pentium 4s and Athlons respectively. The heat generated by the different views refuses to be throttled, however, with people taking time out from feeding their Easter Bunnies to chip in their views on thermal management and clock throttling. So what does it all mean? This post by sw, yesterday, kind of sums it up: "This is what the article says: "If performance critical applications drive CPU power above its artificially low 54.7 watt limit, the CPU is halted with a 50% duty cycle (alternating 2 microseconds on; 2 microseconds off) until it cools down. This effectively turns your 1.5GHz processor into a 750MHz processor - just at the moment you demand peak performance." This particular poster concludes that, as it stands, all that statement does is generate fear, uncertainty and doubt and he claims that McComas clearly has an agenda. Unfortunately, as this is the season of good will towards all men [wrong season, Mike. Do this once more and you're fired, Ed], neither Intel nor AMD could be contacted to either fan the flames or cool the heat. µ