An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
No intel is dropping the pentium \"brand\" they said it was something they should have done since the pentium 2 because it would get confusing they said. They also said they might even sell the name to amd.
ChrisMG, your contradicting yourself first you say,
Besides, in designing the P4, Intel made a few critical mistakes.
which i agree in and is discussed here http://in.geocities.com/mirrorsite1/news.htm i quote a few major issues \" What really pisses me off though is the fact that 32 bit assembly instructions which Intel developed, take 14 cycles to process on a Pentium 4 1.4 GHz, while on a Pentium 3 833 MHz, they only take 5 (lower is better). well, that is stupid..totally\"
\"The Pentium 4's are fastest if the code is grouped in 3's, while on every other processor, its best to be grouped in 2's. Grouping in 3's technically doesn't add any speed advantage and should have been left the way they were originally.( This is up to the programmer)\"
a P3 1GHZ outperformed a P4 1.5GHZ figure that huh?
then you say,
Pickle, I highly agree with you. There isn't anything wrong with the P4.
then you say,
I just prefer AMD because I'm a poor cop who doesn't have the money to dish out for a Prescott
This may be true on the prescott but CPU's like the 805 are MUCH cheaper than amd X2
My opinion currently is to stay neutral and just buy the better performer in the same price range which in sometimes can be Intel when looking at full desktop pc's.
Just imagine how much Intel would kick AMD's butt if they didnt have as many bottle necks Etcetera...
Last edited by krazykaveman on Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
They just need to clock their core duos up to about 2.6 GHz (or higher), and put them on a 1066MHz bus. That would really make a comotion. And they could probably just continue using the same Prescott coolers they are currently using!
That's what Conroe is.
The difference here though... the Core Duo goes between 1.66 and 2.33 GHz on a 667 MHz front side bus. It has SSE3, micro-ops fusion and it is a 3-issue processor (capable of issuing 3 instructions per clock cycle). It has 2 MB of shared cache.
Conroe goes between 2.33 and 3.33 GHz, runs on a 1066 MHz front side bus, has SSE4, micro-ops fusion, macro-ops fusion and is a 4-issue processor. It also has 4 MB of shared cache, and it can run in 64-bit mode. Oooh.
Yes, Intel made mistakes with the P4. But just because _I_ think they made a mistake with it doesn't mean that it's not a great processor. Does it run stable? Yes. Does it sell? Yes. Does it perform? Yes. Therefore, there isn't anything wrong with it. Down to the core objectives, there is nothing wrong with it. What I was getting at was the fact that there are a whole lot of people that knock the P4 for absolutely no reason. I use AMD basically exclusively, but if it came down to it, I would use a Pentium. Why? Because when you get right down to it, they work.
I make mistakes basically on a daily basis, as we all do, but that doesn't mean that there is something wrong with me.
Oh, by the way, I couldn't afford much more than what I've got now, which is 5 computers that I built from spare parts, donations from friends, etc. I can't afford a high end processor, either Intel nor AMD.
Quote:
My opinion currently is to stay neutral and just buy the better performer in the same price range which in sometimes can be Intel when looking at full desktop pc's.
We share opinions. I get what I can afford, be it Intel or AMD. It just happens to be AMD more often, at least the low end CPUs.
Last edited by ChrisMG on Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:39 am; edited 1 time in total
I prefer AMD because CURRENTLY, they make better desktop processors (especially at the top of the line). I also have a thing for using the 'little' guys. Now if Intel decides they finally want to put out something that DECISIVELY beats AMD for at least a few months, then I may go to Intel.
I love P3's and P2's and Pentium Pros. They are awesome little workers!
sorry Chris if i offended you and i dont think there is anything wrong with you. It just seemed to me you were kinda going whichever way the wind was blowin'
Why do you think that it is fair to compare Intel's next gen cpus to AMD's current gen? Even if you compared next gen to next gen, you couldn't tell for sure till they really come out.
There's some degree of truth to that, but not quite enough. There are benchmarks of AM2 available, and frankly, the Athlon 64 wasn't suffering from any bandwidth starvation in the first place. The fact is that this will result in.... more bandwidth, something which, frankly wasn't needed in the first place.
Furthermore, Conroe is pitted against an Athlon 64-FX-60 overclocked to 2.8 GHz, a 200 MHz jump from it's normal operating speed, or an 8% increase in speed. Optimistic hopes put AM2 having 10-15% faster, clock-for-clock. That means that the benchmark in which the overclocked FX-60 comes closest to matching Conroe, would put the two at a standstill. And that's only on the closest benchmark, between a stock, high-end Intel unit versus an overclocked, enthusiast AMD unit with optimistic appraisals of AM2's performance.
I agree, I can't wait for the actual samples benchmarked inside independent reviewer labs (that'll seal any doubts ;)), but Intel's got some pretty kickass tweaks in that core that lead me to think that it's not too much of a stretch. Added to that, Anand Shrimpi is one of the industry's most renowned reviewsers. He's very objective, and wasn't bashful at all to say that AMD had the lead when it did. Even still, Intel thought highly enough of him to give him an engineering sample of Yonah before it was launched. He didn't find anything fishy about the system, as he notes on his website. I trust he knows what he's talking about.
-Pikl
Last edited by A_Pickle on Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Heh, presumably. Conroe shouldn't be too expensive, a 2.4 GHz version *should* be available for $315, with many available even more cheaply. We have ALWAYS seen, however, AMD chips fall below their Intel equivalents in price, however.
That said, these should make insane overclockers, and should result in some ridiculous performance increases once coders get to adopting Conroe's ability to knock 128-bit SSE instructions (that's SSE's 1-4) in one fell swoop (clockcycle :D). I'm not much of an overclocker, I did it with my video card once and, while it knocked me ahead of 5,000 in 3DMark05 (:() it just isn't necessary with today's hardware.
Intel's Core Duo is already out. You're thinking of Conroe. The Core Duo is right about even with an Athlon 64 X2 of equivalent clockspeed, the Conroe is just... amazing. If the benchmarks hold true.
Conroe is Intel's forthcoming chip, for desktops. There hasn't been any indication of it's performance until Spring Intel Developer Forum, a tech conference sponsored by and hosted by Intel which took place in San Francisco this past week. While the whole of the tech world has known about Conroe for a long time, there have been no conclusive benchmark tests yet.
Intel allowed a number of review sites like Tech Report, Hexus, PC Perspective, Bit-Tech and Anandtech to run performance benchmarks on a Conroe against a similarly configured AMD system with an FX-60. Initial numbers are strikingly impressive, but as it has been pointed out by may people, we won't know for sure until those third-party review sites get a Conroe in their hands.
As for the Core Duo, like I said, it's already being manufactured. You can buy them on Newegg already, and a number of companies are making Core Duo notebooks. Dell had a great looking Core Duo notebook, but they recently swapped the GPU out for a crappier one, so it looks like my hunt for a dual-core notebook continues. :(
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
