Fastest CPU in April

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:54:05 -0800, "JAD"
wrote:


"wizzywiz" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"wizzywiz" wrote in message
ups.com...
Howdy.....I know the Core Duo and Woodcrest are on top now......just
wondering what people may know about things coming down the pike by
April or May.....

Thanks much.....

For desktop systems, not much. With Intel's release of the
quad-core QX6700 it's going to take software developers
a few years (at least) to catch up. There's no need for more
cpu power in the meantime.




When my program takes days to execute, there is definately a need for
more cpu power.


Days? You are believing your own exagerations...it hasn't taken 'days' to
execute a program since liesure suit larry on 6 / 5 1/4 floppys. Just be
honest and tell the world that it is simply the need to have the bragging
rights.

Uhh, there *are* some people who still do real computing - there are
numerial problems which run for hours and even days.... and no the
economics do not justify the expense of adapting the algorithm and
purchasing a "supercomputer".

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

"George Macdonald" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:54:05 -0800, "JAD"
wrote:


"wizzywiz" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"wizzywiz" wrote in message
ups.com...
Howdy.....I know the Core Duo and Woodcrest are on top
now......just
wondering what people may know about things coming down the pike by
April or May.....

Thanks much.....

For desktop systems, not much. With Intel's release of the
quad-core QX6700 it's going to take software developers
a few years (at least) to catch up. There's no need for more
cpu power in the meantime.




When my program takes days to execute, there is definately a need for
more cpu power.


Days? You are believing your own exagerations...it hasn't taken 'days'
to
execute a program since liesure suit larry on 6 / 5 1/4 floppys. Just be
honest and tell the world that it is simply the need to have the bragging
rights.

Uhh, there *are* some people who still do real computing - there are
numerial problems which run for hours and even days.... and no the
economics do not justify the expense of adapting the algorithm and
purchasing a "supercomputer".



Uhhh He said *'execute'* . Geee and all i thought people did was read mail
and run SETI......

JAD wrote:
"wizzywiz" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
"wizzywiz" wrote in message
ps.com...
Howdy.....I know the Core Duo and Woodcrest are on top now......just
wondering what people may know about things coming down the pike by
April or May.....

Thanks much.....

For desktop systems, not much. With Intel's release of the
quad-core QX6700 it's going to take software developers
a few years (at least) to catch up. There's no need for more
cpu power in the meantime.




When my program takes days to execute, there is definately a need for
more cpu power.


Days? You are believing your own exagerations...it hasn't taken 'days' to
execute a program since liesure suit larry on 6 / 5 1/4 floppys. Just be
honest and tell the world that it is simply the need to have the bragging
rights.



Sorry to disappoint you. With an 8 gig dual processor Opteron 248,
days.

You're welcome to write faster software for us though.

"wizzywiz" wrote in message
ps.com...

JAD wrote:
"wizzywiz" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
"wizzywiz" wrote in message
ps.com...
Howdy.....I know the Core Duo and Woodcrest are on top
now......just
wondering what people may know about things coming down the pike
by
April or May.....

Thanks much.....

For desktop systems, not much. With Intel's release of the
quad-core QX6700 it's going to take software developers
a few years (at least) to catch up. There's no need for more
cpu power in the meantime.




When my program takes days to execute, there is definately a need for
more cpu power.


Days? You are believing your own exagerations...it hasn't taken 'days'
to
execute a program since liesure suit larry on 6 / 5 1/4 floppys. Just be
honest and tell the world that it is simply the need to have the
bragging
rights.



Sorry to disappoint you. With an 8 gig dual processor Opteron 248,
days.

Horse pucky..........I don't suppose you'll get around to telling us what it
might be, That takes 'days' to 'execute'.




You're welcome to write faster software for us though.

never said I could....

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:47:36 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:04:33 -0500, Tony Hill
wrote:
Well, they already have all 3 product names. Core 2 Duo is primarily
for the $200+ processor market, Pentium is primarily for the $100-$200
market and Celeron for the sub-$100 market. Changing the products but
leaving the name and the price scheme the same seems like the plan
here.

My point is: I just don't see a future for anything lower than the Pentium
E2000 mentioned in the article - I guess we'll see if maybe some wafer-edge
chips come out at 512KB unified L2.:-) Now that I think of it, I haven't
seen a mention of a Core Solo desktop chip.

Now that I read aobut it, it actually makes perfectly good sense. The
Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad can hold up the high-end with quad core and
higher-end dual core systems, these "Pentium E2000" series chips can
take up the middle ground of dual-core chips and Celeron will replace
the "Core Solo" brand for single-core chips. Fairly neat market
segmentation actually.

I really expect them to get rid of the micro-architecture, it makes no
sense to keep producing it.

And *yet*!

I can't imagine that Intel is in anything other than phase-out mode
with the old Netburst core. Certainly they weren't about to switch
100% of production immediately to the new Core architecture, bu surely
they must be moving in that direction! Assuming they've got all the
bugs worked out of the process it gives them a faster processor with
lower power consumption and a smaller die to boot.

The die size of a Core 2 Duo chip with
4MB of cache is smaller than that of a Pentium D with 2MB of cache.
Admittedly the Pentium D has a slight advantage in being two separate
(smaller) dies instead of just one (bigger) die, but it seems unlikely
that it would be any cheaper for Intel to produce the chips. Probably
they are about even in terms of manufacturing costs, while performance
STRONGLY favors the Core 2 Duo.

Two separate dice? I thought that went away with even later 90nm Pentium
Ds.

The 90nm Pentium D (the 800 series) were a single die, the 65nm
Pentium D (the 900 series) were two dies.

The Pentium name though, that's another story. I beleive that it's
expected to live on with a Core-based as a branding for future Core
based processors (same goes for the Celeron brand).

Yeah well the article said Pentium E2000 when previous indications were
that the name might go away. Celeron?... like I said I don't see a slot
for anything below the Pentium E2000.

All I see indicate that the E2000 will still be a dual-core chip. That
leaves lots of room for a single-core Celeron. The trick will be in
pricing. The E2000 series will have a small price/performance niche
to fill between the Core 2 Duo (which are already under $200 for the
lowest cost E6300 model) and the Celeron.

Keep in mind thought that the Celeron brand is mostly selling for
$50-$75. The most expensive Celeron carried at Newegg is the Celeron
356 (3.33GHz, 533MT/s bus, 512KB cache) that they list at $65. There
is definitely room for pricing between the $75 Celeron and the $150+
Core 2 Duo, but it's not huge.

Viiv seems like a massive failure and VPro seems to have died before
leaving the starting blocks. Intel's stuck in an odd position of
having such a great brand but having trouble moving beyond it. Their
new brands get judged against their old brands, just like their
competitors, and often fail. Even Celeron was, at best, only a
moderate success. Many people I know still associate the name with a
less reliable chip than a Pentium-branded chip, despite the fact that
they might very well be the exact same chip underneath the packaging.
I think maybe Intel got a little carried away by the success of
Centrino and figured that everything else would just automatically do
the same.

As mentioned elsewhere, even Centrino has lost some of its shine - diluted
by more confusing terms for umm, "T"s, "Families" & "Platforms". I can't
imagine how your average CompUSA/BestBuy store clerk is going to handle the
kinds of questions such a multi-faceted array of choices presents to the
non-expert buyer. Too many line items confuses the channel... top to
bottom!

Definitely. With products changing as fast as they do in computers it
is tough for Intel to offer a competitive range of processors for all
price points without making things too complicated. In some ways the
Celeron line is probably where they are doing the best for this.
People pretty much all recognize the Celeron line as being the
low-cost value line where bigger numbers just mean a faster chip.
Intel should have little trouble going from a Celeron D 375 up to a
"Celeron E" 1015 or some such thing. Most people should recognize
this as a better chip and therefore worth more than the previous
Celeron, but still not as good as a Pentium. Simple, easy, fits the
price/performance model nicely.

It's everything else that gets complicated. I'm not really sure what
the answer is. Intel tried clock speed but that became an absolute
mess (especially from an OEM perspective, having 6 different chips
that were marked mostly the same was terrible!). Then they tried
model numbers, but there were just too many versions and therefore too
many numbers. Simplifying the product line, offering fewer
incremental choices, seems like an obvious solution. But then they
run the risk that AMD will outmaneuver them and offer a better
price/performance product until the next product refresh. Probably
the solution will be a combination of the both.
--
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

"JAD" wrote in message
...

Horse pucky..........I don't suppose you'll get around to telling us what
it
might be, That takes 'days' to 'execute'.


Off the top of my head, weather simulations, Gene Folding (and a plethera of
other medical related problems), simulation of the interations between
atomic (and or sub-atomic) particals... I'm sure there are *many* more
problems which could present run times of hours, days, months, years....
Just because your Athlon or Pentium can give you sweet graphics in games it
doesn't mean we've run out of difficult to solve (or impossible) computing
problems...

Carlo

Don't take it personally.
This troll is just frustrated because his system sucks.


Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!h wmnpeer03.lga!hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!newsfe06.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "JAD" kapasitor earthcharter.net
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.p c-homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.c omp.hardware.amd.x86-64
References: 1165084819.670651.92570 f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com Ngnch.6866$wc5.332 newssvr25.news.prodigy.net 1165388526.657851.14980 j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com eLCeh.153$sZ4.59 newsfe06.lga 1165712373.597558.70340 73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
Subject: Fastest CPU in April
Lines: 54
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: CfJeh.224$sZ4.200 newsfe06.lga
X-Trace: lalincmlnekeejjfkannfilpcpbbolnmhedplfnoglkcaldcln ijfcjfbjnkiolengboflaopmfmkopggbneeljgacigbijgankb coajbmhacoifmjifkddopaobafbgenfnojecgjgcfcij
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:18:26 MST
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 17:18:14 -0800
Xref: prodigy.net comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips:463234 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:480662 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:1679426 alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64:13230


"wizzywiz" jimkk umich.edu wrote in message
news:1165712373.597558.70340 73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...

JAD wrote:
"wizzywiz" jimkk umich.edu wrote in message
news:1165388526.657851.14980 j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

blahblah_nospam sbcglobal.net wrote:
"wizzywiz" jimkk umich.edu wrote in message
news:1165084819.670651.92570 f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Howdy.....I know the Core Duo and Woodcrest are on top
now......just
wondering what people may know about things coming down the pike
by
April or May.....

Thanks much.....

For desktop systems, not much. With Intel's release of the
quad-core QX6700 it's going to take software developers
a few years (at least) to catch up. There's no need for more
cpu power in the meantime.




When my program takes days to execute, there is definately a need for
more cpu power.


Days? You are believing your own exagerations...it hasn't taken 'days'
to
execute a program since liesure suit larry on 6 / 5 1/4 floppys. Just be
honest and tell the world that it is simply the need to have the
bragging
rights.



Sorry to disappoint you. With an 8 gig dual processor Opteron 248,
days.

Horse pucky..........I don't suppose you'll get around to telling us what it
might be, That takes 'days' to 'execute'.




You're welcome to write faster software for us though.

never said I could....

Tony Hill hilla_nospam_20 yahoo.com wrote:

Keep in mind thought that the Celeron brand is mostly selling for
$50-$75. The most expensive Celeron carried at Newegg is the
Celeron 356 (3.33GHz, 533MT/s bus, 512KB cache) that they list at
$65. There is definitely room for pricing between the $75 Celeron
and the $150+ Core 2 Duo, but it's not huge.

At Newegg USA, the Celeron is $43 to $65 and the the Core 2 Duo is
$180 to $650.









--
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca


Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!n x02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!216.196. 98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!bord er2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!sn-xt-sjc-05!sn-xt-sjc-06!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: Tony Hill hilla_nospam_20 yahoo.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,alt.comp.hardware.p c-homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.c omp.hardware.amd.x86-64
Subject: Fastest CPU in April
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:07:38 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: um7nn2hh8u1nfsv89fl8nmjdcltdje1sje 4ax.com
References: 1165084819.670651.92570 f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com ssKdnbEs_oZe-u7YnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d comcast.com j1q6n25dm5bs9b3th4qv7tucap47saenub 4ax.com i7r6n21cp45q43jc8g9vulf9cpcvkt451j 4ax.com gs9en2pagp02h90im1c23gnomccntntcjf 4ax.com 57dhn294v7m12s7skad59d25f5v1a64nbo 4ax.com cipin2lc289n1l9sr5b208ejbniltss0oc 4ax.com pfckn2hn64dltvb4q4h0kum2asfh7q4qre 4ax.com o77mn2h24j98v7bv1nilqm8im15ab28er5 4ax.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.0/32.1071
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 112
Xref: prodigy.net comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips:463238 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:480672 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:1679533 alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64:13231

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:24:48 -0800, "JAD"
wrote:


"George Macdonald" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:54:05 -0800, "JAD"
wrote:


"wizzywiz" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"wizzywiz" wrote in message
ups.com...
Howdy.....I know the Core Duo and Woodcrest are on top
now......just
wondering what people may know about things coming down the pike by
April or May.....

Thanks much.....

For desktop systems, not much. With Intel's release of the
quad-core QX6700 it's going to take software developers
a few years (at least) to catch up. There's no need for more
cpu power in the meantime.




When my program takes days to execute, there is definately a need for
more cpu power.


Days? You are believing your own exagerations...it hasn't taken 'days'
to
execute a program since liesure suit larry on 6 / 5 1/4 floppys. Just be
honest and tell the world that it is simply the need to have the bragging
rights.

Uhh, there *are* some people who still do real computing - there are
numerial problems which run for hours and even days.... and no the
economics do not justify the expense of adapting the algorithm and
purchasing a "supercomputer".



Uhhh He said *'execute'* . Geee and all i thought people did was read mail
and run SETI......

SO?? What is it that *you* do with umm, executable programs?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 02:07:38 -0500, Tony Hill
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:47:36 -0500, George Macdonald
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:04:33 -0500, Tony Hill
wrote:
Well, they already have all 3 product names. Core 2 Duo is primarily
for the $200+ processor market, Pentium is primarily for the $100-$200
market and Celeron for the sub-$100 market. Changing the products but
leaving the name and the price scheme the same seems like the plan
here.

My point is: I just don't see a future for anything lower than the Pentium
E2000 mentioned in the article - I guess we'll see if maybe some wafer-edge
chips come out at 512KB unified L2.:-) Now that I think of it, I haven't
seen a mention of a Core Solo desktop chip.

Now that I read aobut it, it actually makes perfectly good sense. The
Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad can hold up the high-end with quad core and
higher-end dual core systems, these "Pentium E2000" series chips can
take up the middle ground of dual-core chips and Celeron will replace
the "Core Solo" brand for single-core chips. Fairly neat market
segmentation actually.

But Core Solo/Duo is the new naming within the Centrino and Viiv & VPro
platform strategies which Mr. Otellini enunciated back in early summer.

I really expect them to get rid of the micro-architecture, it makes no
sense to keep producing it.

And *yet*!

I can't imagine that Intel is in anything other than phase-out mode
with the old Netburst core. Certainly they weren't about to switch
100% of production immediately to the new Core architecture, bu surely
they must be moving in that direction! Assuming they've got all the
bugs worked out of the process it gives them a faster processor with
lower power consumption and a smaller die to boot.

And *yet*.... they just released a whole new Pentium D series with low
power characteristics in August(?) or so. Someone just couldn't bear to
trash the new masks after all the months of work?:-)

The die size of a Core 2 Duo chip with
4MB of cache is smaller than that of a Pentium D with 2MB of cache.
Admittedly the Pentium D has a slight advantage in being two separate
(smaller) dies instead of just one (bigger) die, but it seems unlikely
that it would be any cheaper for Intel to produce the chips. Probably
they are about even in terms of manufacturing costs, while performance
STRONGLY favors the Core 2 Duo.

Two separate dice? I thought that went away with even later 90nm Pentium
Ds.

The 90nm Pentium D (the 800 series) were a single die, the 65nm
Pentium D (the 900 series) were two dies.

Hmph I missed that - they went backward... from a twin die to two separate
dice glued together?

The Pentium name though, that's another story. I beleive that it's
expected to live on with a Core-based as a branding for future Core
based processors (same goes for the Celeron brand).

Yeah well the article said Pentium E2000 when previous indications were
that the name might go away. Celeron?... like I said I don't see a slot
for anything below the Pentium E2000.

All I see indicate that the E2000 will still be a dual-core chip. That
leaves lots of room for a single-core Celeron. The trick will be in
pricing. The E2000 series will have a small price/performance niche
to fill between the Core 2 Duo (which are already under $200 for the
lowest cost E6300 model) and the Celeron.

Keep in mind thought that the Celeron brand is mostly selling for
$50-$75. The most expensive Celeron carried at Newegg is the Celeron
356 (3.33GHz, 533MT/s bus, 512KB cache) that they list at $65. There
is definitely room for pricing between the $75 Celeron and the $150+
Core 2 Duo, but it's not huge.

Well it goes against the new "announced" strategy, AIUI, but anything's
possible I suppose.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald