2Ghz Dothan by May

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Mephistopheles

Mephistopheles

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2003
2,444
0
19,780
Interesting news by the Inquirer...

Dothan will be introduced <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15176" target="_new">at speeds up to 2Ghz</A>. If this processor is to have higher IPC than Banias, then it will be one hell of a processor! 2MB cache, and all... Dothan was expected to be introduced late last year at speeds of up to 1.8Ghz, not a full 2Ghz. This is good news...

The inquirer also <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15175" target="_new">reported</A> that Intel is really ironing out the heat problems they were having. So they should be able to clock scotty up all the way to 4Ghz... 😎 If only they activated that damned 64-bitness... :frown:

Plus, Prescott-based Celerons <A HREF="http://www.x86-secret.com/popups/articleswindow.php?id=101" target="_new">don't suck</A> as usual, they're actually reasonable... Not for us, but it's not the usual ripoff.


<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
 
Ok, I am really really confused here. The new model numbers by Intel are supposed to be indicative of the performance of each chip, so a customer can make a better decision, right? (since we all know that MHz play only a small part in a CPU's performance)

Then, how come a 2GHz Dothan is called 755 and a 4GHz Prescott is called a 580? If I didn't know anything about computers and didn't know what the actual specs of each CPU really mean, then I would suppose that the 755 would absolutely crush the 580. I doubt this will be the case here !!!

If these models numbers are not of any indication of the actual performance of the chips, then what's the point in introducing them?

Can someone please explain this to me?
 
Erm.... that is a very good question.

But within the hundreds, higher numbers do mean higher performance.

Maybe they're trying to convey the idea that P-M is a superior architecture on which all processors will eventually be based on? After all, a 2Ghz Dothan will probably be one mean processor....

Good question, though.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
 
Maybe they're trying to convey the idea that P-M is a superior architecture on which all processors will eventually be based on? After all, a 2Ghz Dothan will probably be one mean processor....
Click to expand...

Unlikely (Well I don't think so anyway): The P-M architecture is arguably more similar to that of the P3 than the P4... But I agree, it is a very valid question.

RaPTuRe

Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk?
 
Actually, I was kind of making a joke... I don't think they would try to convey that idea... Plus, I think that a fully-fledged Scotty with its issues ironed out should be more than a match for the 2.13Ghz Dothan that will be out before year's end....

What they could do is try to name thinks like:

(P85 - Scotty @ 4.0Ghz, 1.066Ghz FSB)
P80 - Scotty @ 4.0Ghz
P70 - Scotty @ 3.8Ghz
P60 - Scotty @ 3.6Ghz
...

D55 - Dothan at 2Ghz
...

Or whatever... That would be much less comparable... D isn't bigger or smaller than P, right?

Also, on the 1066Mhz FSB issue, I think they'd go that way at some point, to even out AMD's 1Ghz HT link - that's what people are going to compare, anyway...


<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
 
Hey, funny sig. Nice one. :evil:

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
 
i was drooling at teh fact that they are releasing a 2ghz chip on that core soon


man thats gonna kick the prescotts ass , in more than one area (heat, etc)

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
 
Oh really?...

Ooops, didn't get that, sorry...

Oh, yes, I think that's a good enough reason to drool...

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
 
nice "secret edit" there 😉


i seen how you added to the end of it haha

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
 
Shhh, don't tell anyone....

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
 
too late! muahahahhahahahahAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahhahhahAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAhAHAhahahaha

omg i so pwned you so bad man

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
 
IIRC:
7xx is top of the line (Dothan and Gallatin)
5xx is performance (Prescott and Prescott - M)
3xx is crap (Prescott Celeron and Banias Celeron - M)

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
 
<ignoring phial>

Yeah, alright... but shouldn't Prescott be top-of-the-line?

Maybe adapted Noconas with 64-bit support will eventually be added to the desktop lineup as 7xxs?

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
 
Ok, I am really really confused here. The new model numbers by Intel are supposed to be indicative of the performance of each chip, so a customer can make a better decision, right? (since we all know that MHz play only a small part in a CPU's performance

Clock speed pay the largest part of the performance equation

Fell refreshing
 
Extreme edition will have the 7XX rating i not sure intel will get the new model number for xeon or itanium.

On the dothan vs prescott so now we compare desktop vs laptop.

Fell refreshing
 
You think the P4Es outperform P4EEs?! Gallatin pwns Scotty and runs cooler!

This will also give the EE (not just Gallatin, but also future generations) more separation in the name, likely increasing sales (afterall, 750/550 is like a 35% gain! [i.e., Intel is hoping the rating system will increase profit, not just decrease confusion]).

If I had to guess, the 7xx line will be the first with 64-bit (but still with an enlarged cache) and then the mainstream 5xx 64-bit (Nocona as we know it now) and maybe hitting the 3xx line by the time it turns to a 4xx line.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
 
You think the P4Es outperform P4EEs?! Gallatin pwns Scotty and runs cooler!
Click to expand...
I didn't mean that exactly. If we think it through, Scotty is an architecture that will, no doubt, surpass Gallatin by a long shot. After all, it will clock to 4Ghz and possibly beyond, so Gallatin won't be in the same performance league by then. So this is a mess in the long run, not in the short one. And it would only be corrected by introducing Nocona P4EEs - which is not an idea I like. I wanted this "FX vs EE" thing to end; the prices are absurd.

The problem is future proofing the damned thing.

(after all, idiot-proofing things is impossible since the world keeps making bettter idiots...)

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 04/06/04 09:57 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom