Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 17:20:50 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 20:15:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 09, 2004 at 17:33:56, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On February 09, 2004 at 15:28:21, Frank Phillips wrote: >> >>>On February 09, 2004 at 14:23:55, Aloisio Ponti Lopes wrote: >>> >>>>... by releasing their processors at the same speed in GHz ? >>>> >>>>As a consumer I can`t understand that. It seems to me that AMD`s problem is the >>>>heat issue... so the important thing to do when buying an AMD processor is to >>>>liquid-cool it or get some sort of special (refrigerated) case to build the >>>>system, if you want to push it to the limit by overclocking ? >>> >>>Are you sure an AMD cpu produces more heat than Intel, at the same performance >>>rating? >> >>Athlon 64 3400+ is faster than the Pentium 4 3.4GHz E (New Prescott CPU) and >>runs MUCH cooler. The Athlon 64 3400+ is 89 watts compared to the P4-3.4E's 127 > >It's not even close to 89 WATT and P4 3.4E is not even close to 127 either. > >That's their TDP's :) > >A64 is more like 51 watt versus P4E like a 100 watt. If you've ever done any C/W testing you'd see you can get the processors up to about 90% of their maximum designed wattage. Which wattages I stated earlier. That is still 80 and 117 watts. Even then the P4 is still **MUCH** hotter. Ever tried testing anything Vincent? :) >>watts. The P4 is slower and dumps over 40% more heat. Way to go Intel. :) If you >>think about it.. MHz for MHz the P3 is faster and cooler than the P4.. and >>Intels new "revised" P4 is slower and hotter than the old P4. Seems like they >>keep taking steps backwards. By 2006 I predict Intel will end up with 386 > >Yes very dissappointing the P4E. > >It proofs simply that intels whole strategy of tiny L1 caches and/or with trace >caches has failed. > >AMD should be wiser and simply clock 1 small stupid nonsense thing of the >processor to 4 Ghz to claim it is faster clocked than intel. That's all they >should do. > >It's trivial that the L1 and L2 cache win it. In the past intel was the best >clocking their caches high. Now it's AMD winning there. > >Yet from marketing viewpoint, intel wins hands down. > >>processors again but running 15GHz and will need liquid nitrogen cooling. :) > >the P4E won't reach 5Ghz soon. In fact 4.1Ghz will be a major problem, yet >that's what it is designed for. Let's sit and wait. > >There must be a reason they are using so much more power, let's see what intel >has up at their sleeve. > >>Almost forgot to mention.. when you're not using your CPU or doing something not >>so cpu intensive the Athlon 64 (if the option is enabled) will clock your CPU >>down in steps (you won't notice the speed decrease). This allows the processor >>to go down to about 35 watts from 89. I'd love this option on my cpu.. I >>personally don't like dumping tons of heat into the air when I'm typing up stuff >>on the CCC, checking email, listening to mp3s, etc. > >51 watt to 35 already sounds a lot less interesting right? > >>As I've mentioned before the ONLY good thing Intel has going for them is >>marketing.. and making crap chips clocked sky is great for marketing. Most > >Do not forget intel is dominating the laptop world, which is an ever >increasingly more important world to dominate in. > >Pentium-M is a nice cpu i'm told. > >>everyone that doesn't know much about computers looks at clock speed alone for >>processor speed guessimations. Those people should know however that people >>wouldn't have created benchmarks to test such chips if you could just say, "Oh.. >>this 3.0GHz cpu is faster than this 2.2GHz cpu because 3 > 2.2". >> >>>> >>>>I was also looking for a good notebook as I have 2 medical offices now, and >>>>buying another desktop was not my idea... but I began to search for an AMD >>>>notebook, and... guess what?! It`s really difficult to find one here (Brazil)... >>>>there are Toshibas everywhere, from Celeron to Pentium 4, and of course there >>>>are the new Centrinos with Wi-FI (from Acer too), but they`re extremelly >>>>expensive here... so the AMD processors rocks for chess, but their marketing >>>>sucks; I could only find a HP XP 2400+ (2.0 GHz) with DVD/CD-RW and 512 MB RAM. >>>>Only one model. No other models or options to compare... >>>> >>>>Maybe it`s time for AMD to look for an smarter CEO or at least someone to put >>>>some fire on the market, like Steve Jobs (Apple) or Lee Iacoca (Chrysler) did >>>>some years ago... >>>> >>>>A. Ponti
This page took 0 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.