InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 8
Posts 1020
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 08/31/2003

Re: mas post# 26274

Monday, 02/16/2004 4:53:37 PM

Monday, February 16, 2004 4:53:37 PM

Post# of 97749
mas- Firstly you did say it and you are only spared being shown it now because of Aces crap lack of search facility as I am being forced to use Google to hunt your garbage down. However I do have it backed up somewhere and I will dig it out.

Keep looking. Ha. Bet even if you do find the thread, you won't post it. That's because I pointed out your ~120 W power dissipation calculation being bogus then, as I did again now. You neglected the thermal impedance junction to case. They say a little knowledge can make a person dangerous, here's a prime example. It's evident you never made calculations like these before. Otherwise you would have know what calbiker was talking about from the get-go.

Yes the great Calbiker said the 2800+ was maxed out power-wise it does not make it true though. So you are relying now on overclockers now to back up your statements, how 'technical' :).

No, not at all, I'm using overclockers to refute your statement that the 'small' Tbrd pipeline does not scale with frequency anymore. It's not true. It is power limited though.

BTW, calbiker also made a prediction where the current P4 would max out. I believe that prediction also came true. wink

p.s. so Eric Bron is a fool ? LOL, yeah right !

I think you're the only one who stated that. My discussion with him was about the validity of the effective bandwidth-latency equation. Calbiker showed him many scenarios where it provides the correct answer. He was constantly changing the ground-rules for the system, trying to disprove the equation. That was indeed a foolish argument. The equation is valid, even for embedded memory requests. It's just that the parameters need re-adjustments.

As calbiker sees it, the problem isn't with the equation but who presented it. And that is very, very foolish; it's hilarious! Ha.

The great Calbiker also argued ad-infinitum that an IHS will *decrease* the temperature of a cpu as opposed to a basic cpu/heatsink interface. Shame that EVERY known instance of removing a 'heatspreader' from a P4 or K8 has shown a drop in temperature and boy were some of his wacky theories sure fun reading on this topic for a laugh. :)

No mas, the laugh is on you and the rest of the fanboys. Even Opteron is now using an IHS. I've argued the merits of an IHS long before it was accepted as an effective device for reducing core temperatures. But some people will never learn. Ha.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent AMD News