Intel launches newest speed demon !

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

SpaceDonkey

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2004
79
0
18,630
Woha, hats off to intel. A new blazingly fast P4 chip made available:
<A HREF="http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2004/03/11&pages=A1&seq=1" target="_new">http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2004/03/11&pages=A1&seq=1</A>

2.4/533 with a 30+ long pipeline might make celeron an attractive proposition ! Intel's 90nm process seems to rock ! The 3.2 and 3.4 prescotts are paper launches, poor performers and incredibly hot (air). anyone hoping for a 4 Ghz part this year should prepare for another 1.13 GHz P3 disaster. Intel is screwed.

---------------------------------------------------
I am severly limited in what my mind can perceive.
 
backfill for the 845 chipset still in production. 845 chipset supports the prescott for those want to upgrade in that direction instead of buying a new mobo and ram. But AMD Fanboys like yourself look for anything to rag Intel because that is just how lame you are.

I am 100% positive that 2.4Ghz w/533FSB Prescott is far faster than anything you own or even used. Get back to your donkey show, you are up next.

<b>My sig is better than yours.<b>
 
AXP 2400+ will eat your amazing Scotty "533" P4 in everything except SSE2 optimized encoding/rendering apps.

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
 
You really consider 5 fps in a game that runs over 100 fps that important? As long as the game is at 60 its perfect. In encoding the faster the better cuz ull always notice the diff. My 2.4/533 Northwood is faster than a scotty at 2.4 so I'd go for the 3.06 HT Northwood way before any 533 bus scotty. I had an AXP 2400+ in a laptop. Ran like crap so I sold it and got a P4 3.06 HT laptop. Total world of difference! Scotty isnt a bad chip, its only slower than A64 in most apps and it is faster than AXP in most so how is it bad, especially considering that as its clock speed goes it up gains more and more performance in each jump. The diff between a 2.8 and a 3.0 for example is less than the diff between a 3.0 and a 3.2. << www.anandtech.com In video editing/encoding scotty and especially northwood are kick azz so why call them bad? maybe cuz your an amd fanboy! i prefer intel but i dont say amd's chips suck. The AXPs are a great value but the P4 is faster. A64 is definetly the best right now because 64 bit is going to be the way of things and the A64 has excellent performance. The only thing A64 must submit to P4 hands down is HT. HT makes multitasking so much faster. Ive done my own benchmarks on my system and i can see the difference! Too bad the 2.4/533 scotty has no HT. Not a worth wile chip to buy.

Ya don't say? Is that so?
 
whats the price difference between axp 2400+ and a p4 3.06 HT?

</font color=red><font color=orange><b>visit my site. then send me your freakin picture.
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com" target="_new"><font color=red>www.lochel.com</A>
 
There's not that much of a difference.... ^^
Only a few dollars.

<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=1820114224" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=1820114224</A>
46,400 , movin on up. 48k new goal.
 
Try 200% more in price litle difference in over clocked performance (advantage p4-3.0) but at stock speeds the p4-3.0 will eat the xp2400 for breakfast.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
 
Yeah, this new uberchip from intel maybe faster than an obsolete 2400+. And it might even beat the VIA C3. Whoohoo.
$120 buys you a 2800+ with spare change, and that is comparing intels future list price per 1000, with todays pricewatch prices for the 2800+. Also keep in mind prescott scales better than northwood, so while this gives you better performance at higher clockfrequencies (with cross over appearing near 3.4 GHz), this also means worse performance at lower clockspeeds. A 2.4/533 prescott is not likely to outperform a 2.2-2.4/400 NW. Awesome performance for a brand new chip on a brand new process. Its like AMD would introduce a 1.4 GHz 2400+ A64 on s939 on 90nm. You know something is wrong when they do that.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 
Was'nt the Prescott 0.09 nm process just meant to increase the die/waffer count, making it possible for Intel to flood the market with cheaper CPUs ?

It sure was'nt meant to replace the Northwood 'cause the Prescott is inferior to its predecessor in the IPC and power consumption/heat dissipation departement according to the reviews, testimonies and articles I read.

Although I agree that a very small percentage of Prescott cores seem to be extremely good overclockers, the vast majority of them seem to end up in the "lame" end of the spectrum.

I do expect the Prescott to perform better once it will be mated with the LGA775 platform, along with the new chipsets, BTX form factor, DDR2 and PCI Express.

Will the Prescott, once it is paired up with Intel's upcomming standards, be able to compete with AMD's Socket 939 platform ?

Are the rumors about the Prescott being 64bit capable true ?

Why does the Prescott feature twice as many transistors than the Northwood ?

Are the longer pipelines, extra cache and the hypothetical 64bit & SSE3 extentions to the x86 code responsible for the 70M extra transistors ?




Fok Speling Misstake
 
>Was'nt the Prescott 0.09 nm process just meant to increase
>the die/waffer count, making it possible for Intel to flood
>the market with cheaper CPUs ?

This is always the advantage of a smaller process, lower variable costs. But it would not require a new core, a shrunk Northwood core would have been considerable smaller than prescott, faster per clock, and probably cooler as well. So prescotts aim was not to flood the market with cheap chips, it was to enable future faster chips.

>It sure was'nt meant to replace the Northwood 'cause the
>Prescott is inferior to its predecessor in the IPC and
>power consumption/heat dissipation departement according to
>the reviews, testimonies and articles I read.

It sure was meant to replace NW.

>Will the Prescott, once it is paired up with Intel's
>upcomming standards, be able to compete with AMD's Socket
>939 platform

If nothing else changes, no. If they can drastically reduce power consumption and/or enable some of the "hidden features" in prescott, maybe.

>Are the rumors about the Prescott being 64bit capable true

Yes, but its not turned on yet. May require a new stepping to iron out some issues. ETA unknown.

>Why does the Prescott feature twice as many transistors
>than the Northwood

Ahh.. the 1 million dollar question. No one knows.

>Are the longer pipelines, extra cache and the hypothetical
>64bit & SSE3 extentions to the x86 code responsible for the
>70M extra transistors ?

No, not likely. From what I read elsewhere, those would not even account for half the extra transistor count. Some rumours point to a broken DMT (dynamic MultiThreading) implementation, others claim debugging transistors, some even think dual core though that last one is not likley. It would be apparent from the die pictures. DMT seems likely.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 
Cache alone can't explain the sudden jump from 55M to 125M transistors when we compare the Northwood and Prescott P4 cores.

Numbers don't quite add up, Intel could have done a lot of things with those 70M transistors, again, the extra cache does'nt require that many transistors.

Problem is, the Prescott performances are abysmally low when compared to a similarly clocked Northwood, be it in the IPC, power consumption or heat dissipation departements.

What is the reason behind Intel's decision to castrate their new flagship CPU by disabling all the new stuff they managed to develop and fit in the Prescott core ?

Why spend all that R&D money developping and manufacturing a 125M transistors core, only to disable most of them ?

If it is due to an incomplete implementation, when can we expect Intel to actually finish the Prescott developpement ?

Will it cooincide with the relase of LGA775 ?

Fok Speling Misstake
 
and anyone here has said a mobile ahtlon 2400+ would be a p4 3ghz? i think that is somehting every can agree on obviously. it is true taht for video encoding and most rendering apps, the p4 is favored and prefered, but not everyone does that like you do, so its not the best option for everyone. The ahtlon 64 doesnt only have an edge, i didnt say huge, in gaming, but in a couple 3d rendering apps and also in compiling, not to mention office apps, but that doesnt matter to most people. The fact is, right now both chips are great, the best depends on which area your focused on.
 
the only "fanboy" post i see is you, defending a sub par product just because of its manufacturers name

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom