Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 17:33:29 02/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2004 at 20:24:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 09, 2004 at 20:20:50, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>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? :) > >I believe the official testers more than i do believe you. > >Overclocked cpu's do not count. > >In case you missed it, diep was one of the first programs to get tested at the >prescott. > >You really should learn how to measure the power drain. > >Do NOT include the mainboard in that math. I've done the tests. I've looked at the technical data sheets from both AMD and Intel. I've done the simple ohms law equations to find out the maximum wattage (which is what both manufacturers do). For example.. the P4-3.4E is 1.4v, 91 amps. I have also used a heatsink with a known C/W to find out the wattage of a processor. It works perfectly.. and thats where I came up with the 90% figure. Another guy claims 88% (the one that wrote burnk7). Either figures are extremely close to the actual value.. which is about 90% of the maximum wattage I described earlier. Please test before you spam more babble, Vincent. At least *I* do. Why can't you? >>>>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.