If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
As of the time of the article, the P4 3.2 EE hadn't even been released yet. And I still don't think it's been released. The 3.2 was the only reven announced so anythuing over that speed is an overclock. He represents this with darker colored bars in the benchmarks. BTW, I don't really care which one wins, I won't be buying one anytime soon anyway.:-) - I dont understand AMD's reason for the 64 but there sure wont be many sold,kind of a pointless exercise. The P4 2.4chas to be the buy of the century right now,hyperthreading,and overclocks like crazy for about $170. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Doesn't the new P4 have 2 or 3 MEGABYTES of extra cache? It's not a big
surprise it beats a CPU at lesser mhz and lesser cache. From a performance perspective, the P4EE beats the A64 in most benchmarks in 32-bit at least, and as 64-bit is total pie-in-the-sky at present, this is really all that matters. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Toby Groves" wrote in message ...
In article , rstlne ?.?@?.? writes It's not all about core speed Intel says it is.. Intel funded reviewsites say it is.. Make your own mind up.. I'm perfectly capable, as is anyone on this group, of seeing through Intel hype. Unfortunately the average punter isn't. I think AMD are hoping that customers will see the "64" and think they must have that, in much the same way as Intel have been selling P4s purely off the back of the raw Mhz speed. lets wait until these systems acutally start hitting the market and the users will be able to tell the truth I'm afraid I don't have your faith in the average consumer. And I don't have faith in the average "journalist". Many journalists are repeating the dubious claim that the processor "won't make much of a difference for web browsing or word processing for the average user". They just wade through the simple fact that the processor will not work unless paired with the motherboard made for it, which is very new in design, including such enhancements as ATA serial connections in some instances. I suspect that many computer users would benefit just from the new motherboard, let alone the chip. Putting some of the "windows bloat" in the background (virus scanners, other tsr applications, firewalls, etc.) that would save me 10 minutes a day is in my opinion just as useful as a one week vacation every year. I think AMD is getting the short end of the marketing stick, I hope it gets a little bit upset about it. Without AMD, Intel has no incentive to compete. So, evaluate about the improvements you will get with the new motherboard, the new operating system (XP enhanced), and the chip, I think all those things combined will paint a better picture for those who "just do word processing or browse the web". Browsing the web with several applications can slow some people down. In my opinion, it is harder to figure out if a dual processor system is better than the 64 bit processor system, I think that is the challenge to AMD marketing. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"YanquiDawg" wrote in message ... Doesn't the new P4 have 2 or 3 MEGABYTES of extra cache? It's not a big surprise it beats a CPU at lesser mhz and lesser cache. it has 512k L2 cache L2 doesnt mean 2 megs The Athlon64 has 1024k L2 cache now like I guess depending on how it's used, it's the same.. 16,000 lines of data for both processors, but I am just kinda blindly assuming that it's like a simple stack.. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:43:53 +0100, wrote:
"YanquiDawg" wrote in message ... Doesn't the new P4 have 2 or 3 MEGABYTES of extra cache? It's not a big surprise it beats a CPU at lesser mhz and lesser cache. it has 512k L2 cache L2 doesnt mean 2 megs But it has 2 megs of L3 cache.:-) That's the new P4 EE. Release date? The Athlon64 has 1024k L2 cache and 0 L3. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:46:42 +0000, Courseyauto wrote:
I dont understand AMD's reason for the 64 but there sure wont be many sold,kind of a pointless exercise. It's a 64bit cpu. That's reason enough to buy one if you need real power. Running 64bit apps, it'll blow away 32bit machines. Consider a 16bit cpu (8086) compared to a 32bit cpu (386DX). And the platform will have more room for expansion. This is the next generation. The P4 2.4chas to be the buy of the century right now,hyperthreading,and overclocks like crazy for about $170. And I can beat it in most apps with a $43 AMD cpu overclocked to 2.4GHz. Now that's what I call a buy.:-) -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Never anonymous
Bud writes Having skipped an E.L.F. meeting to be here, "Toby Groves" scribbled: I have since wondered whether the 3.6Ghz was in fact an overclocked CPU, as at the time of reading I assumed it was a released product. I don't remember the review stating this, if indeed it was the case, which is extremely naughty. They clearly state that the 3.4ghz P4 they had wasn't multiplier-locked, so they upped the speed to 3.6ghz exactly as Intel will, soon. Hmm, must of missed that, my bad -- Toby |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Wes Newell
writes On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:46:42 +0000, Courseyauto wrote: I dont understand AMD's reason for the 64 but there sure wont be many sold,kind of a pointless exercise. It's a 64bit cpu. That's reason enough to buy one if you need real power. Running 64bit apps, it'll blow away 32bit machines. Consider a 16bit cpu (8086) compared to a 32bit cpu (386DX). And the platform will have more room for expansion. This is the next generation. My point was that, for the time being, there are no 64-bit apps or a 64-bit OS to run them on, so it's the processors 32-bit performance that matters. As and when 64-bit takes off, Prescott has the Yamhill 64-bit extensions lying in wait, with which Intel can seriously rain on AMD's parade. The P4 2.4chas to be the buy of the century right now,hyperthreading,and overclocks like crazy for about $170. And I can beat it in most apps with a $43 AMD cpu overclocked to 2.4GHz. Now that's what I call a buy.:-) EXACTLY! This is AMD's major problem! They are very popular amongst users such as us because their processors are cheap and can be overclocked, but AMD can't afford to sell cheap processors anymore. They need people to start buying the more expensive ones if they are to make any real money, and as long as you can buy a dirt cheap CPU and overclock the tits off it, who the hell is gonna buy an A64? -- Toby |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:22:45 +0000, Never anonymous Bud wrote:
Having skipped an E.L.F. meeting to be here, "Wes Newell" scribbled: It's a 64bit cpu. That's reason enough to buy one if you need real power. Explain exactly how a 64 bit CPU is 'more powerful'. Now let me think... I wonder why we're not still using 8bit 8088 cpu's.:-) Data reads of 8bit cpu=1 byte per read. Data reads of 32bit cpu=4 bytes per read. Data reads of 64bit cpu=8 bytes per read. Next compare register size, etc., etc, etc. And I can beat it in most apps with a $43 AMD cpu overclocked to 2.4GHz. Now that's what I call a buy.:-) That's what *I* call wishful thinking! Not really. It's a proven fact. That would equate to about a 3600+. -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:03:08 GMT, "Wes Newell"
wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:43:53 +0100, wrote: "YanquiDawg" wrote in message ... Doesn't the new P4 have 2 or 3 MEGABYTES of extra cache? It's not a big surprise it beats a CPU at lesser mhz and lesser cache. it has 512k L2 cache L2 doesnt mean 2 megs But it has 2 megs of L3 cache.:-) That's the new P4 EE. Release date? The Athlon64 has 1024k L2 cache and 0 L3. I like the idea of the L3 cache - not enough room in the L1, so pull it into L2. Oh, not enough room in the L2, so pull the required data into L3. Okay, so it won't take many extra clock cycles but that's the thing - it takes EXTRA. Why did Intel panic build an L3 cache onto their chips? Why not increase the size of the L2 instead? Not only but also, I keep hearing how the new A64 is crap compared to a clocked-to-3.6GHz Intel P4. And? Has everyone who has a poke at AMD forgotten that the A64 is running @ 2.2GHz and can beat the Intel CPU in most things except what seems to be some multimedia and all Hyperthreading apps. Whoop-de-do. Hyperthreading is exclusively Intel based - so AMD won't get a look in there. What if AMD could include it? I used to run Inel and only Intel. Now I find my old Athlon 800A can beat my Celeron 1GHz in anything I care to run on either platform. I also have a little contest running between (another) two of my AMD based systems against a friend's two somewhat faster Intel systems - all running SETI @ home. I'm keeping ahead of him even though he doesn't spend a fair amount of time playing CPU/video intensive games and I do. My better half is running an Athlon XP 2000+ (christ, I hate the numbering system they went with) against another friend's P4 2.6GHz box, still using SETI @ home as the weapon of choice. Her score this month is 135 against his 89 - and she's only got 256MB of PC133 against his sooper dooper 512 DDR (whatever) MHz stuff. I'm not knocking Intel CPUs - they *do* have their uses and are pretty good but, in this household, they would tend to be used as a replacement for drawing pins in the corkboard on the wall - holding my wish list of computer parts probably. Gary -------------------------------------------------- Reply to gary at data dot mildenhall dot com -------------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|