Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 02:49:35 01/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2002 at 17:30:37, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On January 07, 2002 at 16:00:58, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On January 07, 2002 at 12:53:17, Rajen Gupta wrote: >> >>>i'm afraid that amd may lose all the goodwill they have earned so far unless >>>they get their act together real soon >> >>Funny, I've been (and still am) thinking the same of Intel >>for quite a while. >> >>The P4 is garbage from a technical point of view, and >>their current Itaniums seem to be too, based on the benchmarks >>we have seen so far. Their only hope is to keep pushing up >>the clockspeed as high as they can, but the design has limits >>*somewhere*, as the original P3 at 1.13Ghz showed (totall recall >>due to instabily). >> >>When are they going to come with a _new_ CPU with a design >>that is _better_ than that of the Pentium Pro? > >Uhh, you seem a little confused. You apparently understand that the P3 (PPro) is >limited to ~1GHz at 0.18 um, and then imply that the P4 is not better? The P4 >runs at 2GHz with the same process and I have yet to see a benchmark where the >2GHz P4 doesn't outperform the 1GHz P3. I'm talking from a technical point of view, about the _design_. Yes, the thing runs at faster clockspeeds, but the design is all but impressive. Put a 1Ghz P4 vs a 1Ghz P3 and you will see what I mean. It's like taking a step back. It's faster only because of the clockspeed. Granted, that is made possible by the silly design, but it doesn't make it any nicer, especially compared vs the Athlons. -- GCP
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.