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.
AMD's X2 4800+ still is faster than Intel's new 65nm Pesler Dual Core. Even in the Multitasking both McAfee VirusScan and DivX 6.1, AMD comes on top by far.
Intel is suppposed to switch their desktop line to a brand new architecture closer to the A64 and Pentium M (i.e. lower clockspeeds, more work done per clock cycle) around the summer.
Intel is suppposed to switch their desktop line to a brand new architecture closer to the A64 and Pentium M (i.e. lower clockspeeds, more work done per clock cycle) around the summer.
Well, that would be a nice change for Intel. I thought they are going to release a completely CPU design with new CSI bus technology around late 2007 to early 2008?
Well, AMD's X2 4800+ is still faster & with lower clock speed by @ least 1000MHz
Performance-per-clock doesn't matter. Performance-per-watt and bang for buck does. I'm aware that the 4800+ will trounc the 955 by a ton yet, but.... yeah. I don't give a dang how many clock cycles a chip has.
PS: I have a newfound respect for Windows ME due to events taking place in my basement as I type... 0_o ...
Intel is suppposed to switch their desktop line to a brand new architecture closer to the A64 and Pentium M (i.e. lower clockspeeds, more work done per clock cycle) around the summer.
Well, that would be a nice change for Intel. I thought they are going to release a completely CPU design with new CSI bus technology around late 2007 to early 2008?
yea i heard about that, starting to get on my neves the ammmount of times they change the soc.'s of there boards..
No... a friend of mine has this old Dell laptop with a Pentium 1 and Windows ME on it. And he uhm.... he went and felt like deleting half of the files in C:\WINDOWS.
IT STILL BOOTED.... albeit the mouse disappeared.... BUT IT BOOTED...
No... a friend of mine has this old Dell laptop with a Pentium 1 and Windows ME on it. And he uhm.... he went and felt like deleting half of the files in C:\WINDOWS.
IT STILL BOOTED.... albeit the mouse disappeared.... BUT IT BOOTED...
And you're saying... I mean, who cares if it booted? Boot or no boot, it won't work right.
I think Intel will make a come back, but I also think that they will NOT release anything newer then what they have. Just a rehash of the P4.
I would say that it would be very wise of you to do further research -- because I can say already that you're flatly wrong. NetBurst and anything Pentium 4-related is effectively dead, with the only exceptions being what you will see on their next generation chips.
That sounds like a contradiction, but it really isn't. Their next chips are based off of the Pentium M architecture, which isn't at ALL like the Pentium 4 in that it doesn't rely on a combination of low IPC (instructions per clock) yet high clockspeeds. That was a fundamental part of the Pentium 4 architecture, which, frankly, worked, up until the Athlon 64 was released and then Prescott.
The Pentium M features a very short pipeline, resulting in low clockspeeds but some fantastic IPC. It features some NetBurst components, namely the Pentium 4's high-speed, low latency cache is and will continue to be implemented on the architecture, as well as the Pentium 4's AGTL+ front side bus. It has something called Micro-Ops Fusion, an architectural tweak where two instructions of similar or identical nature may be fused and sent down the pipeline as a single instruction, thus taking half the clock-time necessary for it to complete.
The Core Duo is the first of this \"Next Generation Micro Architecture,\" as Intel has so affectionately dubbed it. It has a 667 MHz AGTL+ front side bus, it now features SSE3 support, some SSE instructions are now compatible as Micro-Ops Fusion instructions, etc. The shared cache enables both of the Core Duo's cores to access each bit of it. The advantage here is that data won't have to occupy the front side bus while going from one core to another -- leaving the front side bus to more useful applications of it's bandwidth.
It's completely different from the Pentium 4, and initial results are showing that it's significantly better, too.
Quote:
Maybe dual FSB or something, that is old. But AMD will contimue to pressure Intel with there better technology.
I don't understand the necessity or the basis of thrashing Intel like this. Frankly, I'd like to know what better technology? The Core Duo uses this supposedly \"old\" technology you speak of, yet, a 2.0 GHz Core Duo is a pretty even match to a 2.0 GHz Athlon 64 X2 (3800+), but the Athlon consumes 89 watts of power, while the Core Duo consumes 31 watts.
Justify that better technology statement -- frankly, I see Intel putting out an equally powerful processor as AMD, yet it consumes nearly 1/3 the power. I consider Intel's better technology.
Quote:
I say AMD keeps its performance crown for 2006 & 2007.
I'm not riding that boat. If the Core Duo can achieve what it did at 2.0 GHz, 31W and 667 MHz of front side bus, I'm anxious to see what the Pentium 5 is going to do with 2.66 GHz, 50W, and a 1066 MHz front side bus.
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
