Intel VS AMD help!!!

[Super XP]

Around 1997-1999 AMD started to beat out Intel at the same clock speeds, and for a long time they had the same clock speeds btu AMD's were always faster. Then AMD decided to just optimize their CPU's and Intel kept craking up the clock speed, driving themselves into a hole.

Intel will come back with a new & successful CPU architecture in late 2006 to early 2007. So, let's hope AMD has something better up their ally, because new Intel CPU's are going to have 12 to 13 pipelines with there new Bus technology called CSI.

I think AMD is working on an advanced Hyper Transport & a Dual Channel Integrated Mem controller on the chip @ 256MB. We shall see, because, clock speed will be clock vs. clock soon.

 

[one2]

Pentium M on the desktop

Pentium M

the best thing ever!


on DFI's motherboard ...

1) it's not OK at the moment (talking 'bout the thing i saw) ... it was 2 GHz ... but only 400 MHz front-side bus!
2) it's like magic when you OC this thing to 2'4 GHz with ONLY 533 FSB! ... BETTER than all P4 EE!!! in games - but because of it's slow fsb (only 133 MHz) isn't the best for some stuff.

LOOK AT THIS

Well yea, 133 MHz memory ... you see the stuff here:

Power consumption

WorldBench's MS Office test runs multiple applications simultaneously and switches between them, just as most users tend to do. As a result, the Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading really shines here, and the Hyper-Threading-deprived Pentium M does not.

3) so what more can come?! if we see this M doing magic with 2'4 GHz & only 533 FSB ... can they make it ... 2'8 GHz & 800 (maybe 1066)) FSB it would be like 'byebye AMD'

but now, this guys at Intel are just 2 stupid to do something like that - they HAD a dream 'bout 4GHz P4 ... well it's not happenin' -so hopefully they will do some desktop stuff with centrino or M tehnology!!!!

i want to buy INTEL in a year!

 

[wazzledoozle]

Intel will probably drop the Pentium D (Non dual core P4) bullshit and come out with a Pentium 5, and base on it the Pentium M.


And how do you know what AMD is going to have in a year? AMD's current chips are still better.

 

[one2]

1. Pentium M:

- 1'3 - 1'7 GHz
- 130 nm
- 77 million transistors
- 1 MB L2
- 400 MHz FSB


2. Pentium M:

- 1'5 - 2'1 GHz (the 2'0 GHz was testet on the photos I posted)
- 90 nm
- 140 million transistors
- 2 MB L2
- 400 MHz FSB


3. Pentium M:

- 1'6 - 2'13 GHz
- 90 nm
- 140 million transistors
- 2 MB L2
- 533 MHz FSB

------------------------------------------------------------------

This is WAY better than AMD!!!
There is only one thing we have to wait for ... desktop motherboards!

With 800 MHz FSB this Pentium M will be a monster - you saw, that 2 GHz OC'd to 2'4 GHz is like 3800+ & this M wasn't even ment to be a desktop stuff!

Intel's hitting with 65nm technology ... (+ with more FSB & less pipelines (Pentium M has it 'round 10 and not 20, 30 like P4)) -> Intel's back in the game

 

[Super XP]

1. Pentium M:

- 1'3 - 1'7 GHz
- 130 nm
- 77 million transistors
- 1 MB L2
- 400 MHz FSB


2. Pentium M:

- 1'5 - 2'1 GHz (the 2'0 GHz was testet on the photos I posted)
- 90 nm
- 140 million transistors
- 2 MB L2
- 400 MHz FSB


3. Pentium M:

- 1'6 - 2'13 GHz
- 90 nm
- 140 million transistors
- 2 MB L2
- 533 MHz FSB

------------------------------------------------------------------

This is WAY better than AMD!!!
There is only one thing we have to wait for ... desktop motherboards!

With 800 MHz FSB this Pentium M will be a monster - you saw, that 2 GHz OC'd to 2'4 GHz is like 3800+ & this M wasn't even ment to be a desktop stuff!

Intel's hitting with 65nm technology ... (+ with more FSB & less pipelines (Pentium M has it 'round 10 and not 20, 30 like P4)) -> Intel's back in the game

Pentium M's are way better than any 20 & 30 stage Pipeline Pentium 4's. The Pentium M's cost more money for Intel to produce & runs very similar to the Athlon 64.

The Pentium M is based on the Pentium 3 technology which has short pipelines. The 800FSB will probably help a little, but not to the point where it will take out an Athlon 64 @ clock to clock. Close, but not close enough.

If Intel had Half of a Brain, they would of scrapped the Pentium 4 a long time ago & build there next CPU based on the Pentium M.

 

[gR3iF]

hm i think they should sell only cpus with free multiplikator so every one can in a given guarented clokcrange decide what they want to have
for me:
i would downclock it for dvd and internet ando so on and raise for games so my pc is even very quiet while surfing and a bit louder while gaming that would be good but they dont want to have it

 

[15th Warlock]

hm i think they should sell only cpus with free multiplikator so every one can in a given guarented clokcrange decide what they want to have
for me:
i would downclock it for dvd and internet ando so on and raise for games so my pc is even very quiet while surfing and a bit louder while gaming that would be good but they dont want to have it

I know we all want free multipliers back, but, imagine how many ppl would benefit from selling OC procs like in the good ol' pentium 1 days. Two friends of mine payed for P1 200Mhz, and after opening their cases we found out they really had OC'd 166s!
How about paying for a 3.6 Ghz proc that really is an OC'd 3.2 proc?
Now, about the Pentium M, a lot of ppl have been claiming for a dual core dothan proc with 64 bits and 1066 FSB support, but so far, Intel keeps rehashing the "Netburst" line of procs When will they let the Israel guys do the magic and really give as a worthy succesor to the good ol' PIII??

 

[Super XP]

I know we all want free multipliers back, but, imagine how many ppl would benefit from selling OC procs like in the good ol' pentium 1 days. Two friends of mine payed for P1 200Mhz, and after opening their cases we found out they really had OC'd 166s!
How about paying for a 3.6 Ghz proc that really is an OC'd 3.2 proc?
Now, about the Pentium M, a lot of ppl have been claiming for a dual core dothan proc with 64 bits and 1066 FSB support, but so far, Intel keeps rehashing the "Netburst" line of procs When will they let the Israel guys do the magic and really give as a worthy succesor to the good ol' PIII??

Hey Warlock I think he meant that they sell CPU's without a clock speed, & when you buy the CPU, you have a ranged choice of programing your own speed, depending upon your cooling solution.

That is a need idea, but how much do you think that will cost & all CPU's are different by a very small margin. THis is why you get a A64 3200+ OC'ing better than another A64 3200+

 

[gR3iF]

hm but it should be like this there is a price for the cpu and thn u get a free multiplier range at elast to downcklock ut not like cool and qiuet freely!
then i would have 3200+ or something and let it run with multi 2 or soemthing would be enough for internet

 

[Deleted member 3]

Lower the MP... now I remember why I love Xeons again.

 

[gR3iF]

omg i love the price too
but it would be a great benefit for me. So i would be able to have a one fan system and cool but so running on 10 multi. I am not and when i turn on something like everest it goes from 5 to 10 and i loose about 10 fps in games so good work if the pc is dling something but bad for really cool and quiet performance

 

[Althon64@2.6GHz]

HT is useful

Intel HT is useful, WindowsXP has supported this technology quite well.

I have tested two system, they are Athlon64 2.2GHz and a Intel Pentium4 HT 3.0GHz.

Play video file with Mediaplayer, RealyOne, and WinAMP, and Run SUPER PI at the same time. You can see on Pentium 4 HT system, all video playing smoothly, but AMD system is laging.

I am currently use a Athlon64 2.6GHz, I feel it not as smooth as my friend's Pentium 4 3.0Ghz system when run few programs together. Actually your WinXP system run more than one processes all the time. I am guarantee, HT is really help to make system more smooth. Benchmark doesn't show this adventage very quite. But AMD is good for gaming, cheap, easy overclocking, so I still choose AMD. But I just want to correct something---HT is useful.

 

[blackmonkey]

I thought the dual cores were socket 940....thats what it says on gamedude.com.au

 

[Deleted member 3]

I thought the dual cores were socket 940....thats what it says on gamedude.com.au

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050505A2004.html

 

[gR3iF]

and i think there will be the new core in dual mode for socket 939

 

[Super XP]

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 4400+, 4600+, 4800+ & 5000+

I thought the dual cores were socket 940....thats what it says on gamedude.com.au

No, AMD has Dual Core Desktop & Server/Workstation. The Desktop are called Athlon 64 X2 4200+. All are Socket 939.

And in Mid 2006 or so, depending on Intel's move AMD is releasing a new Socket 1207 called the Windsor Core which is said to either support DDR2 667 low latencies or DDR3. And will house a better Integrated Dual Channel Memory Controller possibly 256-Bit or 512-Bit (Each Core should have there own 128-Bit or 256-Bit Integrated Mem controller) & there DSL Technology along with a better HTT & SSE3.

Both AMD & Intel R working hard to be on top. But I give full credit to AMD for there Innovation, Hard Dedicated Work in trying to keep compatibility alive to save us money. The underdog rocks.

 

[Deleted member 3]

No, AMD has Dual Core Desktop & Server/Workstation. The Desktop are called Athlon 64 X2 4200+. All are Socket 939.

And in Mid 2006 or so, depending on Intel's move AMD is releasing a new Socket 1207 called the Windsor Core which is said to either support DDR2 667 low latencies or DDR3. And will house a better Integrated Dual Channel Memory Controller possibly 256-Bit or 512-Bit (Each Core should have there own 128-Bit or 256-Bit Integrated Mem controller) & there DSL Technology along with a better HTT & SSE3.

Both AMD & Intel R working hard to be on top. But I give full credit to AMD for there Innovation, Hard Dedicated Work in trying to keep compatibility alive to save us money. The underdog rocks.

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/86/86886.shtml
I still count 940, positioned differently

 

[Super XP]

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/86/86886.shtml
I still count 940, positioned differently

Well, yes, some are 940 & most are 939,

 

[gR3iF]

but one is fore sure the dual core cpu isnt for fps breaking the best are one core high clocked things