Intel says Penryn "complete"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Conroe is no Netburst. Conroe is already 20-30% faster per clock than K8... Do you realize how much K8L would have to improve over K8 to make it as fast as, let alone faster than a higher clocked Conroe?
Click to expand...

LOL. :)

Where do you get your numbers from?
And please, don't tell me that JumpingJack (or some other intel troll) have told you so).

Conroe is only 10-15% better than K8 OVERALL!!!
Also, don't count K8L yet. LMAO. I was kind of expecting you to say that...so instead of pulling numbers out of your a$s, why don't you back it up with some data?

EDIT: Here is a link... http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=1

Ok, well after look over these benchmark results... I guess its more like 15-66% :) If you would like I could make a table and graph the results...

Judging from clairvoyant's post, C2D is 18% better in real world usage than K8 (what I've been saying), but you have to take that chart with a grain of salt since it was made from an intel fanboy and with THG's benchmark scores. I wasn't talking about that chart... Look at the data yourself. There are plenty of C2D reviews online. After looking at the chart posted here, it looks fine to me... although this data was not taken from THG but from Anandtech. Also, the average in that chart is a bit off because the benchmark results with the lowest difference are mostly IO bound... that throws off the mean average some. BTW, you still have not provided any data to back what you have said.
 
I was hoping that was something I can just pop out.
Thanks for the reply...
Click to expand...

Sadly, no --- it was the older VRM's that prevented Core 2 Duo from being a drop-in on existing 775 MBs.... I have not heard if Penryn will require new VRMs, I doubt it will but that is speculation.

Jack

I guess Intel will require us to upgrade our boards for 45nm products :?
Especially if it wants to bundle Bearlake chipset with 45nm CPUs.
 
I was hoping that was something I can just pop out.
Thanks for the reply...
Click to expand...

Sadly, no --- it was the older VRM's that prevented Core 2 Duo from being a drop-in on existing 775 MBs.... I have not heard if Penryn will require new VRMs, I doubt it will but that is speculation.

Jack

I guess Intel will require us to upgrade our boards for 45nm products :?
Especially if it wants to bundle Bearlake chipset with 45nm CPUs.

I REALLY hope not. DDR2 and 1066 FSB is good enough for me for a while.
 
All speculation, like Jack mentioned, if it needs a new VRM like Conroe, all bets are off. Still, maybe buying that 975x wasn't such a good idea...
 
Eh, cheaper too (in many instances). I mainly bought my P5W DH because it supports up to 4 IDE devices (have a IDE HDD). Regarding new technology, I don't see any advantage 975X has over P965, both overclock well, and now the latter supports Crossfire (not that everyone is using that).
 
I am sure all new chipsets are good now (except for maybe ones from SiS)
What I was worried about is if the p965 VRM has the "range" to work with the early 45nm CPUs.
Bearlake comes out only 1 year after the p965. So, I hope I don't need to trash my new p965 just to run the next generation CPUs.

About crossfire (off the subject).
I really hate crossfire and SLI, if I have 2 16x slots, I should put whatever I want in them.
I will also rather get ATI video cards. I like Nvidia also, but ATI is usually more advanced 2 of 3 years. ATI kept the least most months after the 9700 Pro. I will know soon after the R600 comes out.
 
True - It's starting to look like x86 is currently the only way to go at any platform level.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you on this one.

x86 is the driving force on desktops, laptops and servers. Even Power and itanium are being displaced by x86 processors in the HPC segment.

I'm not sure what your on (about). In the top ten supercomputers, two are amd and two are intels... There are three IBMs (# 1 and # 3...) and one (two? lost count) itaniums So 20% of the top 10 are amd... Matched by intel...
 
I actually only looked at the top 10, but the results are similar. If you break out the intel ia's out into their various categories, ie ia 32 and ia 64, and seperate out the xeons, THEN amd looks a bit better. But the opty's aren't given different categories.

And I think someone will take IBM's top ranking 'some day', but I'd not like to place a wager on it.
 
But if you now add back in the xeon pentium 4's... Geesh. AMD has a long way to go.

Maybe Japan will expand the Earth Simulator one day... Or build an Earth Simulator II. That's the only way anyone at this time has any chance of displacing IBM at the top.
 
But if you now add back in the xeon pentium 4's... Geesh. AMD has a long way to go.

Maybe Japan will expand the Earth Simulator one day... Or build an Earth Simulator II. That's the only way anyone at this time has any chance of displacing IBM at the top.
Click to expand...

The only one who I see displacing IBM from the Top 1 is definately Cray with their first Petaflop supercomputer featuring AMD's Barcelona cores.
Second place will go to IBM's and their hybrid RoadRunner supercomputer which consist of 32000 processors (half are K8L cores and the other half are Cell processors).
On the third place my best guess would be Sun or HP clusters which will also feature K8L cores.

That' my take on it.
 
dont forget this
http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/04/isscc_2007_preview/
Click to expand...

CELL as a stand-alone processor won't cut it even against a K7 or a crappy netburst chip on "Joe" apps. CELL strongest point is if it's used as a coprocessor.
 
The problem with being a fanboi of any stripe is all the time you have to spend in the corner licking your wounds when your expectations aren't matched by the reality of the world. ~12,500 desktop pcs in our corp, 1500 are macs, the rest are cpu's of varying ages but none are AMD... We do have a few servers using AMD, but most are either running SPARCs or Xeons. (no, we do not and would not go to Dell for our desktops)

I doubt that we are that far different from most corps.
 
There are two ways that you can make a CPU perform faster:

1. Keep the clock speed constant and increase the number of instructions done per clock. This is the current method being used to boost CPU performance- more cores = more instructions processed per clock tick.

2. Keep the number of instructions executed per clock constant and increase the number of clock ticks per time period.

#1 has a limited usefulness as certain programs have a limited amount of operations that the CPU can work on at once. If the CPU can crunch six instructions per nanosecond (1 GHz) and the program can only issue one instruction per clock tick as it needs the first instruction to finish before it can send out the second one, then you'll only get 1 billion operations done per second. However, if you have a CPU that can only process two instructions every clock tick but can process an instruction every 333 picoseconds (3 GHz) then you'll have completed 3 billion instructions in one second. This is exactly what we're seeing in current CPUs with single-threaded applications running slower on the 2.67 GHz Core 2 Quadro than the 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo X6800.

The reason that high clock speeds are vilified is twofold. The first is that higher clock speeds means that your processor gets significantly hotter than a lower-clocked one. The second is that the last approach to very high-clocked CPUs- NetBurst- had CPUs that clocked very high but didn't do very many instructions per clock tick. So those CPUs ran hotter and didn't do any more work per time period than lower-clocked Pentium M and Athlon 64 CPUs. But high clock speeds are certainly a good thing- probably the best thing for overall CPU performance as I might add- as long as you can keep the instructions per clock (IPC) high and the temperatures down. I think that with the current focus on good energy and thermal characteristics that we'll only see high-clocked CPUs that stay reasonably cool- no more Prescotts.
 
But high clock speeds are certainly a good thing- probably the best thing for overall CPU performance as I might add- as long as you can keep the instructions per clock (IPC) high and the temperatures down. I think that with the current focus on good energy and thermal characteristics that we'll only see high-clocked CPUs that stay reasonably cool- no more Prescotts.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Many AMD fanboys love saying.."clock-speed doesn't matter anymore"....not true. If that's true, then why is AMD pushing K8 to the brink..(@3GHz it's pretty much topped out, with no headroom left). There's even rumors of a 3.2GHz K8...but if GHz doesn't matter, why bother? It's the old double-standard. :?
 
Exactly. Many AMD fanboys love saying.."clock-speed doesn't matter anymore"....not true. If that's true, then why is AMD pushing K8 to the brink..(@3GHz it's pretty much topped out, with no headroom left). There's even rumors of a 3.2GHz K8...but if GHz doesn't matter, why bother? It's the old double-standard. :?
Click to expand...

Some of the AMD fanboys are non-sense. :wink:
 
Exactly. Many AMD fanboys love saying.."clock-speed doesn't matter anymore"....not true. If that's true, then why is AMD pushing K8 to the brink..(@3GHz it's pretty much topped out, with no headroom left). There's even rumors of a 3.2GHz K8...but if GHz doesn't matter, why bother? It's the old double-standard. :?
Click to expand...

Some of the AMD fanboys are non-sense. :wink:

and Intel fans boys are ? ... I clearly remember the heatburst days when Intel fan boys were claimng that Intel was superior ....
 
But high clock speeds are certainly a good thing- probably the best thing for overall CPU performance as I might add- as long as you can keep the instructions per clock (IPC) high and the temperatures down. I think that with the current focus on good energy and thermal characteristics that we'll only see high-clocked CPUs that stay reasonably cool- no more Prescotts.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Many AMD fanboys love saying.."clock-speed doesn't matter anymore"....not true. If that's true, then why is AMD pushing K8 to the brink..(@3GHz it's pretty much topped out, with no headroom left). There's even rumors of a 3.2GHz K8...but if GHz doesn't matter, why bother? It's the old double-standard. :?

As the industry has evolved, you cant base clock speed alone to represent total performace, it may be 50% of the performance. Sure p3's and p4's could be justified 100% by clock for performance rating becuase they didnt have much else if anything else that would provide other performace justifications. Modern cpu's are more sophisticated than that therefor can not be compaired to just clock speed alone.......be it athlon 64 or core 2 duo. wth? Your not making much sense... A P3@1.4GHz is faster than a P4@1.4GHz. Performance justifications? Just run some benchmarks... Processors are getting more complex but these are the same problems all over again. Higher clock speed Vs. higher IPC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom