PDA

View Full Version : P5 likely to fly 5GHz to 7GHz



XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:13 PM
Intel's Tejas/Pentium5 will likely sample internally in January 04. Possibly to market in the following 4 to 6 months. This is a 64-bit processor. It will have 2 MB L2 cash on .09 process. It may eventually develope a FSB as much as 4000MHz, although this may be reserved for the next chip along, the Nehalem.

Microsoft is ready to launch a version of Windows called Elements. Its a 32-bit module with 64-bit extensions for a 64-bit processor to be added.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11785

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:13 PM
Intel's Tejas/Pentium5 will likely sample internally in January 04. Possibly to market in the following 4 to 6 months. This is a 64-bit processor. It will have 2 MB L2 cash on .09 process. It may eventually develope a FSB as much as 4000MHz, although this may be reserved for the next chip along, the Nehalem.

Microsoft is ready to launch a version of Windows called Elements. Its a 32-bit module with 64-bit extensions for a 64-bit processor to be added.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11785

JerseyD
09-26-2003, 10:20 PM
I dont care cause if shes selling AMDs I'm buying/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://www.theinquirer.net/images/ads/Inquirer/amd2003.jpg


<Center>http://home.cfl.rr.com/jerseydevil/JerseyDevil's%20Frag%20Zone/Frag%20Zone_files/109chevysig.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/Sims/IL2/il2_skins_sports.htm)</center>

J¨rsé¿D¨v*L

<a href=http://www.diskworks.com/myth.html>The Jersey Devil (Fact or Fiction?)</a>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 11:57 PM
The problem is Intel is ramping up clock speeds without ranping up the processing power. A Athlon XP will work just as fast at 2.2GHz as a P-4 at 3.2. The P3 was a LOT faster then the P4 in terms of power, even with its 133MHz bus and SDR. A P3 1.2 blew the doors off the P4 1.7 and thats why they did not sell P3's over 1ghz. The P4 is slow, but clocks well and the MHz dont tell the real story

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:45 AM
Yes, there is more to it than MHz. For example
you have chips like the Ultra Sparc III. Only
goes to 1.2MHz, but has 4 floating point units
and a very good pipelining architecture and three
caches (biggest 8MB). For
a flightsim, with those 4 floating point units
it would be very good. So the MHz don't tell the
whole story by any means.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:50 AM
so whats better the AMD XP or P3?

well my name was spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 04:59 AM
If the P3 could ramp up to a few GHz, I would say yes. It had the processing power to win over a lot of current processors. P3 was a very good chip! The problem is, when you have such an efficiant design, it cant really reach high GHz. P3 started at 500MHz and ended at 1GHz (100% increase). P4's were built to ramp up and they started at 1.3GHz and some can now clock up to 4GHz. Thats almost 400%. Intel is selling GHz as speed, not efficiancy. If AMD's design could ramp up to 3.2, man. That would be FAST.

Gib

ST_Spyke wrote:
- so whats better the AMD XP or P3?
-
- well my name was spelled wrong



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 05:00 AM
Can you say liquid cool?

<center>http://www.gamespy.com/legacy/top10/movievillains/hal9000.jpg </center><center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hotlips.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 05:07 AM
ST_Spyke wrote:
- so whats better the AMD XP or P3?
-

AMD Athlon XP is targeted at the P4's. While AMD has elected to make the processor more efficient (my Athlon XP 2700+ is I think a 2.2 ghz chip but its in competition with 2.7Ghz and 2.8Ghz P4's) rather than ramp up the clock speed as Intel has done.

There are benefits to both models. Eventually you do have to do both. Raw clock speed is and can be important...but so is efficient processor design.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 05:26 AM
then tell me why P4 cost 2 times more?

<center> http://www.uploadit.org/files/060903-avia_036.jpg1.jpg <center>

<marquee> <FONT COLOR="red">[b] http://www.uploadit.org/files/070903-flugzeug4.gif <marquee> <FONT COLOR="red">[b]
<font color="red">I</font> <font color="blue">c</font><font color="green">a</font><font color="orange">n</font>
<font color="yellow">d</font><font color="pink">o</font> <font color="purple">c</font><font color="red">o</font><font color="blue">l</font><font color="lime">o</font><font color="yellow">r</font> /i/smilies/16x16_robot-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 05:40 AM
I will never buy amds ever again


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 05:50 AM
VMF513_Wolf wrote:
- then tell me why P4 cost 2 times more?

they're in higher demand, that's all. AMD is forced to make their CPUs more attractive by underpricing and making up for it by using a 'wider sieve' for their sorting bin. that's why they run hotter.

essentially, a P4 running at 2.2 GHz, 2.4, 2.6 and 2.8 are the same. the testing machinery (and there's an industry all by itself behind that) decides what the prices will be for a core. as the production process gets improved and yields better results, prices fall.

Intel can afford to be more picky with the sorting process and sells better quality for higher prices because they can get away with it.

AMD can't.

<center>Another BlitzPig</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 06:54 AM
Wow, some people seem to love old tech news.

Like gib here.

Gibbage1 wrote:
-
- A P3 1.2 blew the doors off the P4 1.7
-

Sorry Gib, but that is like an Intel fan saying a K5 was not as good as an Intel bla blah bla. Old news. Just stay current. You are talking OLD tech. Damn, you are even referring to the Willamette. (A little drama there, too.) One of Intels worst chips ever. Also, it was not around very long. What about the Northwood, which came after the Willy? Most of Intels chips are good, and good OC'ers. Of course, AMD makes good chips, too.

People, it is Ok to be fan-boys, but at least be current. I think that is important when discussions about what tech is good and what-not come up. (Gib, maybe you are an AMD fan, maybe not, but it sounds like it. No big deal, of course. http://forums.ubi.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )


VMF513_Wolf wrote:
- then tell me why P4 cost 2 times more?

A comperable Intel chip does not cost twice as much. At least last time I checked pricewatch it did not, which was awhile ago. Ahh, misinformation. Always good at any tech discussion! http://forums.ubi.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Just do some 'good' research when 'you' want to know things about current technology. Do not just listen to old info or fanboy posts.

AMD and Intel are both good chips, and are best chosen by what your intended use will be. (Pocket book may apply, in some cases.)

BTW, arcadeace, for future reference, threads like this usually go nowhere but down the drain, unless you do your utmost to just make it look like a news link and nothing else. Even then these threads usually go to hell. (Actually, I think your post was pretty tame.)

EDIT: Clarification.

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

Message Edited on 09/27/0301:30AM by RealKill

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 07:19 AM
one more thing i'd like to toss in here - i'm running the 'Eclipse' developing environment at work on a 2.6 GHz Intel linux system at home and on a 333 Mhz Solaris 2.6 UltraSparc at work.

it's a very processor and memory intensive development enviromnent.

the intel system outpeforms the ultrasparc, no question, but the Ultrasparc is holding its own! think about it! same software base. the difference is the operating system and the CPU and bus architecture. the 333 MHz Ultrasparc feels like a 1.5 GHz Intel.

of course, it doesn't run any games...

point is- don't get deceived by clocking numbers.

<center>Another BlitzPig</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 07:29 AM
Actually the AMD chips run at a higher operating temperature than the Intels, because of their design.

From some analysis I have read of the P4 architecture, it sounds as though part of what makes it run at such high frequencies is that Intel has used twin logic paths, running at half the clock speed, for the more complicated sections of the pipeline. Essentially, one path runs all the even instructions, while the other path runs all the odd instructions, and the two paths are interleaved togetehr at the end of the pipeline.

It's a bit more complex than that, as you have to have logic connections between the two paths, and so forth, but it allows one to double the effective speed, by merely doubling transistor count in select areas.

By contrast, AMD's chip seems to be a single path short pipe solution, running at very high speeds through out. While it requires better logic gates, and more effecient transistor design, the lower transistor count allows for other features to be implemented.

Now, I will point out that all of this is *speculative*. Intel's and AMD's design architectures are not in the public domain, and the designs are far to complex to allow any not for profit organisation to dissect and analyze.

(That, and it's very difficult to decipher the intended logic gate arrangement from just the transistors. One of the fun little quirks of logic design, is that for the same logic, you can have multiple, and different, logic gate arrangments, and different logic gate arrangements can end up with the same transistor arrangements. There is not a 1 to 1 mapping between the logic, the gates, or the transistor arrays. It makes exams real interesting for EEs.)

Basically, most of this speculation is based off of the patents AMD and Intel have filed for, transistor count jumps relative to functional increases, and that sort of thing.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 07:35 AM
I was compairing Intel to Intel. P3 was a faster and more efficiant then the P4's. I was compairing a P3 1.2 with 256K cache with 133MHz SDRAM to a P4 1.7 with 256K cache and 400MHz RDRAM, Intels WONDER RAM that flopped. Even with its "amazingly wide" bus, faster RAM, and a LOT more MHz, it still lost. Why? Because there is more to speed then MHz. BTW. The Northwood chip is based on the Willy, just a lower die size and more cache. Ow, and that SSE2 crap if I remember. How many programs use it other then MPEG encoding and Adobe Photoshop.

Gib

RealKill wrote:
- Wow, some people seem to love old tech news.
-
- Like gib here.
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
--
-- A P3 1.2 blew the doors off the P4 1.7
--
-
- Sorry Gib, but that is like an Intel fan saying a K5
- was not as good as an Intel bla blah bla. Old news.
- Just stay current. You are talking OLD tech.
- Damn, you are even referring to the Willamette. (A
- little drama there, too.) One of Intels worst chips
- ever. Also, it was not around very long. What
- about the Northwood, which came after the Willy?
- Most of Intels chips are good, and good OC'ers. Of
- course, AMD makes good chips, too.
-
-
- People, it is Ok to be fan-boys, but at least be
- current. I think that is important when
- discussions about what tech is good and what-not
- come up. (Gib, maybe you are an AMD fan, maybe not,
- but it sounds like it. No big deal, of course. :P
-
- VMF513_Wolf wrote:
-- then tell me why P4 cost 2 times more?
-
- A comperable Intel chip does not cost twice as much.
- At least last time I checked pricewatch it did not,
- which was awhile ago. Ahh, misinformation. Always
- good at any tech discission! <img
- src="http://forums.ubi.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-
- happy.gif">
-
-
-
- Just do some 'good' research when 'you' want to know
- things about current technology. Do not just listen
- to old info or fanboy posts.
-
- AMD and Intel are both good chips, and are best
- chosen by what your intended use will be. (Pocket
- book may apply, in some cases.)
-
- BTW, arcadeace, for future reference, threads like
- this usually go nowhere but down the drain, unless
- you do your utmost to just make it look like a news
- link and nothing else. Even then these threads
- usually go to hell. (Actually, I think your post
- was pretty tame.)
-
- EDIT: Clarification.
-
- <p align="center"><img
- src="http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-
- us-flag.gif"></br></br><font size="1"
- color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font
- size="1" color="#4A535C">
-
- Message Edited on 09/27/03 01:27AM by RealKill



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 07:54 AM
Gib, in a nutshell, you are talking about Intel CPU scalabilty. Now, putting it like that you may find a common denominator between the original posters info and yours. However, the way you put it, it is just 'out of place' in regards to said post. Sorry, but to me, you are coming off as an Intel basher. Hey, your perogative.

Also, you need to acquire, at the very least, Intel docs if you think the only dif between the Willamette and the Northwood is the smaller die process and the larger level 2 cache. I mean, just the smaller die entails more than just a 'smaller size'.

Bottom line... again... you are talking old news. You seem to just try and make it relevant to the original post, which IMO, it is not.

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 08:12 AM
AMD = Cheap and efficient...

My money goes on AMD everytime /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Can't believe the price of the high end P4 chips /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<center>http://www.appy55.dsl.pipex.com/FB/squigsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 08:13 AM
I felt this article was interesting because by mid-year 2004 many believe the competition will be limited to Athlon 64 FX and P4 Prescott. Even just 9 months from now, with significant changes underway who can really tell what will be available. If Tejas does hit the market, with a significant change in architecture compared to Prescott/P4, it may be a dramatic improvement from all previous Intel processors. And who knows, at .09 process AMD may ramp up their Athlon 64 speeds considerably faster than with their K7. There is info already available that the R420 and NV40 may use DDR3, starting out at 1.6 gigs.
Its all fascinating, and for me a bit frustrating. I don't have much money and I want the best bang for the buck - especially with a resource hog like FB. I keep thinking maybe in another few months... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 08:28 AM
Scragbat wrote:
- AMD = Cheap and efficient...
-
- My money goes on AMD everytime


you're still running Microsoft Windows though? where does Cheap and Efficient come in there?

face it- you run whatever serves your needs.

<center>Another BlitzPig</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:06 AM
harryw wrote:
- one more thing i'd like to toss in here - i'm
- running the 'Eclipse' developing environment at work
- on a 2.6 GHz Intel linux system at home and on a 333
- Mhz Solaris 2.6 UltraSparc at work.

How do you find Eclipse? I never really got to grips
with it, which is a shame as I was looking for something
to run on Solaris, Windows, and Linux.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:34 AM
Do you really take me for some kind of fool? Yes I understand there is a LOT more involved when shrinking the die to a lower process. It still used the same base designs. Im not some off the shelf Intel basher. I build both Intel and AMD, and like both chips. Did I say AMD was better? I said there design is more efficiant. I gave both good and bad points to both designs.

For your information, the Northwood core is only 5-15% faster then the Willy. In both games and apps. Most is attributed to the added cache. The new Intel Extreme has 2MB of L3 cache and again it only gains the same 5-15% performance they gained from going from 256 to 512. Thats clock for clock. Now, clock for clock, the P3 was faster then the P4 by 25%. THATS MY POINT! So, if the P3 could be ramped up to 3.2GHz, IT WOULD STILL BE FASTER THEN THE NORTHBRIDGE! BUT! IT cant due to limitations in its short pipeline. The P4 has an extreamly LONG pipeline that allows for greater clock speeds at lower performance CLOCK FOR CLOCK. Also, just for your "technical" information, the P3 1.2 Tilution is still beating the "Northwood" Celeron 2.0 by a HEFTY ammount. As you see, my point still remains. GHz is not the deturmining factor of CPU speeds.

P.S. How many PC's have you built? I myself have build well over 10,000 in the 14 years I have been working on computers. 95% of them being Intel. From 386 and 486 to the latest including dual and quad Zeons in large rack mount servers that would make your ears bleed. Its not about experance, but understanding.

Also, your little "Whaaaaa, your in Intel hater, I dont like you" message is whats out of place. I was simply explaining that 5GHz is nothing without an efficiant design.

Gib

RealKill wrote:
- Gib, in a nutshell, you are talking about Intel CPU
- scalabilty. Now, putting it like that you may find
- a common denominator between the original posters
- info and yours. However, the way you put it, it is
- just 'out of place' in regards to said post. Sorry,
- but to me, you are coming off as an Intel basher.
- Hey, your perogative.
-
- Also, you need to acquire, at the very least, Intel
- docs if you think the only dif between the
- Willamette and the Northwood is the smaller die
- process and the larger level 2 cache. I mean, just
- the smaller die entails more than just a 'smaller
- size'.
-
- Bottom line... again... you are talking old news.
- You seem to just try and make it relevant to the
- original post, which IMO, it is not.
-

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

Zayets
09-27-2003, 09:43 AM
I run eclipse on my rig (RH9/KDE) with very good performance (P4/1GB ram) but also I run eclipse on a G4 Mac (not the latest model , is a model from 2000 , only 400MHz or something like that) and I don't feel any difference. I run Yellow Dog on the mac and RH9 on the PC but KDE is big resource eater (once I've installed good GF drivers and added 1 GB RAM it moves smooth). Fact is that Intel is speeding only the clock speed and others put thier efforts in other area. I don't care what's says on the box if I have the speed I need.

Zayets out

http://www.arr.go.ro/iar81c.JPG

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:58 AM
AMD's suck, they burn out even when people underclock them. They are made by slave labour and they suck. Intel is true American labour, made with care. Intel rocks!

<center>
Yours
Killjoy

Killjoy2k2 a Nominee for the "Funniest community member" in The UBISOFT Community Awards 2002

<A HREF="Http://Www.Lamby.Tk/" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.swissquake.ch/chumbalum-soft/forum/attachment.php3?s=&postid=57518
</A>
Visit Lamby3D at...
Lamby.tk (Http://www.Lamby.tk)
Visit Lamby3D Forums at...
Lamby-3D Forums (Http://www.3dhangout.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?,v=mindex,b=Lamby3dtalk)
KKS Forums (Http://members.lycos.co.uk/killjoyskillshack/forums/)

"All praise Killjoy!!!" - oFZo

Run, and I will see you.
Hide, and I will find you.
Fight, and I will kill you.
Terror from all directions.

UbiSoft's Angel
Killjoy2k2 , Killjoy , and dont forget YER!!! and maybe a MER!!!"

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 10:08 AM
AaronGT wrote:
- How do you find Eclipse? I never really got to grips
- with it, which is a shame as I was looking for
- something
- to run on Solaris, Windows, and Linux.
-
-
it's very hard to go back to a regular editor from Eclipse. yes, it's not easy to get used to, but once you get there... oh well, this doesn't belong here. it's worth it though!


<center>Another BlitzPig</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 10:15 AM
What else is there? Linux? MS is a necessary evil we have to live with...

My OS is OEM XP from previous machine, so in that sense yes it is cheap. I never had to pay for it exclusively.

I use Blackvipers advice on XP services and have disabled those that I don't need and have saved a lot of unnecessary Megabytes.

I find XP extremely stable... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

harryw wrote:
-
- Scragbat wrote:
-- AMD = Cheap and efficient...
--
-- My money goes on AMD everytime
-
-
- you're still running Microsoft Windows though?
- where does Cheap and Efficient come in there?
-


<center>http://www.appy55.dsl.pipex.com/FB/squigsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 10:18 AM
AMD's Burning out? You have evidence of this?
You're saying P4's never burn out?
So they're made out of super-conductive material are they? Or housed in Liquid nitrogen?
No wonder they're so bloody exspensive /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Killjoy2k2 wrote:
- AMD's suck, they burn out even when people
- underclock them. They are made by slave labour and
- they suck. Intel is true American labour, made with
- care. Intel rocks!
-
-
- Yours
- Killjoy


<center>http://www.appy55.dsl.pipex.com/FB/squigsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:33 AM
I was only yesterday when Intel said there is no consumer market for 64-bits cpu's for 2 or 3 years and AMD64 was a complete and utter failure. Strange to see how a company like Intel discredits itself in such a short time.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:52 AM
Scragbat wrote:
- What else is there? Linux? MS is a necessary evil
- we have to live with...
-
I run linux its good dose alot more than windows can, only drawback is apps made for windows usually arnt going to work, sure winex can run the most popular games pretty good like bf42 gta3 etc but not homeworld2(well it dose jus in cvs) and il2fb(complains of sum java error).

As for intel and AMD ill always go amd their stuff is better value for money, i dont overclock i see no point in it, u want faster cpu u buy faster cpu, jus got a 2400xp its very quick compared to my 850mhz duron.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:40 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- The problem is Intel is ramping up clock speeds
- without ranping up the processing power. A Athlon
- XP will work just as fast at 2.2GHz as a P-4 at 3.2.
- The P3 was a LOT faster then the P4 in terms of
- power, even with its 133MHz bus and SDR. A P3 1.2
- blew the doors off the P4 1.7 and thats why they did
- not sell P3's over 1ghz. The P4 is slow, but clocks
- well and the MHz dont tell the real story
-
-
-

Problem is? I don't see any problem.. Intel and AMD chose different paths, and so far neither one of the paths were wrong. Meaning Top perfomance is about same.. it does not matter if P4 has 2 GHZ higher Clock frequensy as long as it works as fast, or faster than AMD products./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Sure the first Pentium4s were kinda crap, but that was long time ago.. Intel has hold the perfomance for very long time now, and is likely to do so in future too..



____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:41 PM
I've had plenty of both.... Ever since AMD started doing business.

On my current machines, my AMD is a bit flaky with some wierd crashes sometimes, but never had one burn out.

OTOH, Never have wierd crashed with intel, but I just had to scrap my 2.26/533 P4 because it burned out!

Intel cost is mostly in the name.. I buy whichever is the best bang for the buck. Right now, it happens to be intel... (this is just for my Games machine).. My home machine (not games) is going to be a Mac G5 dual 2 gigger pretty soon...

Theres room for everybody in the tent folks...

<img src=http://home.insightbb.com/%7Edspinnett/NonSpeed/SpeedToys.jpg </img>
http://hometown.aol.com/spinnetti/

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 01:09 PM
Killjoy2k2 wrote:
- AMD's suck, they burn out even when people
- underclock them. They are made by slave labour and
- they suck. Intel is true American labour, made with
- care. Intel rocks!



Killjoy is wrong again, as usual.

I expected no less from him.

But he is an entertaining fool./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.gorman/mortimer3.jpg

Nevermore!</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 04:21 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Do you really take me for some kind of fool?

-

Well, you are giving me reason to think that by you continuing to post nonsense in this thread. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

A person posts a link to a possible new Intel chip, and you come in to say, "...", well, basically, everything in your first post, which is what I originally replied to, was just, to be polite, irrelevant.

A person posts a link to a chip that will possibly be marketed towards the middle to end of 2004, and you want to bring up an Intel CPU that is years old by then to try and make a negative point about Intel chips in general, and the P4 specifically, and seeming to hope that 'insunuation' will be carried over to the Intel high-end chips being referenced by the original poster. (QUOTE: Gibbage1... "...well and the MHz dont tell the real story...")

QUOTE: Gibbage1...
"The P3 was a LOT faster then the P4 in terms of power..."

QUOTE: Gibbage1...
"A P3 1.2 blew the doors off the P4 1.7 and thats why they did not sell P3's over 1ghz."

Blew the doors off? Not exagerating are we? Also, attempt to tell us what else is completely wrong in regards to your statement immediately above. (I have to see THAT!)

At least you used "was", which is past tense. But again, you are talking about the latest and greatest P3, at that time, against the first desktop P4, the Willamette, which, even a reasonably sensible AMD fan-boy, would not bother referencing. And, how old will this P3 be when the 5GHz and 7GHz Intels hit the streets? Sheeesh.

Anyway, I doubt you even knew the code name, Willamette. I tell you what, 'I know exactly what chip you are talking about. And again, even an AMD fan-boy would not bother debating that CPU against anything.

-

- Yes I understand there is a LOT more involved when
- shrinking the die to a lower process. It still used
- the same base designs. Im not some off the shelf
- Intel basher. I build both Intel and AMD, and like
- both chips. Did I say AMD was better? I said there
- design is more efficiant. I gave both good and bad
- points to both designs.
-
- For your information, the Northwood core is only
- 5-15% faster then the Willy. In both games and
- apps. Most is attributed to the added cache. The
- new Intel Extreme has 2MB of L3 cache and again it
- only gains the same 5-15% performance they gained
- from going from 256 to 512. Thats clock for clock.
- Now, clock for clock, the P3 was faster then the P4
- by 25%. THATS MY POINT! So, if the P3 could be
- ramped up to 3.2GHz, IT WOULD STILL BE FASTER THEN
- THE NORTHBRIDGE! BUT! IT cant due to limitations
- in its short pipeline. The P4 has an extreamly LONG
- pipeline that allows for greater clock speeds at
- lower performance CLOCK FOR CLOCK. Also, just for
- your "technical" information, the P3 1.2 Tilution is
- still beating the "Northwood" Celeron 2.0 by a HEFTY
- ammount. As you see, my point still remains. GHz
- is not the deturmining factor of CPU speeds.

There is no need to reply to the above. It is basically the same thing you started off with. Except, you made some additional bad statements, but, why would I bother after your last post.

-

- P.S. How many PC's have you built? I myself have
- build well over 10,000 in the 14 years I have been
- working on computers. 95% of them being Intel.
- From 386 and 486 to the latest including dual and
- quad Zeons in large rack mount servers that would
- make your ears bleed. Its not about experance, but
- understanding.

Sorry, my ears have never bled, and surely your experience would not cause them to bleed now. It is a winnable bet that I have more experience than you in the computer industry in Product Engineering, Operations, and Manufacturing.

Also, since you have years and years of experience, and have built thousands of Intel systems, I guess you can tell us what the hell a "P3 1.2 Tilution" is, right? (Damn, man, if you are going to quote Tom's (yuk) Hardware, at least get the names right!)

-

- Also, your little "Whaaaaa, your in Intel hater, I
- dont like you" message is whats out of place. I was
- simply explaining that 5GHz is nothing without an
- efficiant design.

"Whaaaaa, your in Intel hater..."

Where do you see that? (OK, Gib, get yourself some reading glasses. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ) I basically said how you were 'appearing' to me. Beforehand, I offer a casual apology. Afterwards, I even say that is your perogative (prerogative).

"I dont like you...".

Again, WHERE do you see THAT? I am sure you are likable. Hell, I think I had already liked you. (smoooch)

You are getting a little silly, aren't you? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

"I was simply explaining that 5GHz is nothing without an efficiant design."

Well, 'kinda sort of'. You were 'attempting' to put down Intel CPUs, up to and including the 5GHz and 7GHz CPUs, by stating that the scale well. (HUH? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif )

About efficiency, it 'could' be said, in regards to more than one 'instance' concerning AMD CPU operations, that AMD CPUs are inefficient. For 'instance', an AMD CPU cannot perform matrix operations as well as an Intel CPU.

Uh, sooo, now what? D'OH!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

T_O_A_D
09-29-2003, 05:03 AM
The thing I like most about my pentium 2.4 800 is that its has a stock sink and fan and can multy task its *** off and host the game aswell, at around 97 deg F with room at 84F and at a whisper. My old AMD 1400 tbird had a 8000 Rpm fan was noisy as hell and ran 120+ F all the dang time just playing the game. Every thing is the same in my system short the mobo cpu and memory.

But on that note I took all the old stuff and passed it down to a kid/ Notice I didn't kick her out she still works flawlessly just make alot of noise doing it. LOL

<Left>
131st_VFW (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/index.htm)

<Left>
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif MY Track IR Fix (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_ts&id=zwqtg)


<Center>http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/Mad_toad.jpg </a>



Message Edited on 09/29/0304:04AM by T_O_A_D

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 05:39 AM
But remember guys that if it wasnt for AMD we would still be paying outrageous amounts for our home pc's.I have built my last 4 pc's and I can tell you that I am an AMD fan all the way just because they allowed me to run high speeds cheap.Dont forget that and lets keep AMD up there because if we lose them as some think they are gonna dive with there new 64 bit processor than we are screwed.Intel are a bunch of money sucking corporate freaks and will not give a *** about us if they become the only chip makers in near future.If that happens I will give up this simming hobby due to no way in hell gonna spend 3000 dollars again just to play a dam game!!!

Next system is
Abit NF7S
Overclocked 2500 to 3300 barton
1 GIG 3200 dual channel
Keep my G4-4200 since overclocked it runs FB pretty dam good and sound will be onboard from NF7S motherboard which has great sound.Aboout 330 dollars and Im set for another year unless those Intel monkeys get in charge again than I quit/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Oh yeah forgot to add that I have been overclcoking all my AMD chips and never had one fry/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 06:51 AM
i got a 2400xp on a MSI 6570L cost me much less than if i was to go with intel, i am happy with its performance the stock fan is very quiet its running about 3000-4000 rpm with cpu just under 50 deg C quiet a bit hotter than my duron but never gets into dangrous levels. I can barely hear my computer tho i think i would want a bit more noise somthing about quiet pcs makes me thing sumthings wrong.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:48 AM
Wolfstriked wrote:
- But remember guys that if it wasnt for AMD we would
- still be paying outrageous amounts for our home
- pc's.

Wolfstriked, sure you can give AMD some credit for lower CPU prices. However, how far can you go back in regards to AMD actually having a big affect on High-end CPU parts. Not too long.

But really, give the most credit, where the most credit is due... Microsoft. Microsoft, with their introduction of an OS with an easy to use GUI is what really, initially, and over the years, brought the prices of computer/computer parts down. The 'easier' they became to us, the more people starting buying them. Consequently, the more prices dropped, slowly but surely. The last few years AMD helped that along.

-

There are a LOT of people that are happy with their Intel systems... AND there are a LOT of people that are happy with their AMD systems. The only thing I do not like about that is, there are not at least two more heavy contenders for top CPU. At least, not for the consumer desktop. (Sure, you can say one contender is the Mac if you want.)

(Obviously, it was not JUST MS, or AMD vs Intel. There were 'other things' that helped bring down prices.

Yes, of course, good competition is great. We just need more of it.

EDIT:
BTW, T_O_A_D, my 2.4 <font size="2">C</font> has been running at 2.98GHz for months flawlessly. (Actually, I have two of those systems, almost exactly the same, running great.) Stock HS/Fan and vcore. The CPU temp is only 1? over what could be considered average for that CPU at stock settings.

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

Message Edited on 09/29/0303:05AM by RealKill