New Extreme Edition - WTF!!!

[prosser13]

The Prescott was a step backwards, in fact, it was at least 4 steps backwards. Intel can't even master 90nm technology so I don't know why they are going to build a new 65nm factory in China, when they can't even get the easier stuff right.

The Extreme Edition chips now use Prescott cores??? And your calling them good??? OMG! The Prescott cores are the worst thing which have ever happened to Intel for God's sake! At least the Gallatin core was stable.

And I didn't say they were practise cores, I said that Intel and AMD are seeing what market they are going to aim the Dual-Core chips at. I haven't built my pc yet but I'm not going to wait over a year just to get a Dual-Core when we have no idea about how good they will be.

The only good processor that Intel makes is the Pentium M. Full stop.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

The Prescott was a step backwards, in fact, it was at least 4 steps backwards. Intel can't even master 90nm technology so I don't know why they are going to build a new 65nm factory in China, when they can't even get the easier stuff right.

Haha; can AMD even do 90nm yet, eh eh? Eitherway; why hold back trying to get 90nm right when they could be trying to get 65nm right.

The Extreme Edition chips now use Prescott cores??? And your calling them good??? OMG! The Prescott cores are the worst thing which have ever happened to Intel for God's sake! At least the Gallatin core was stable.

Gallatin was nice; and it shows in the benchmarks. The Gallatin with the 2Meg Cache and 1,066Mhz Bus would have been nice but there are Dual Core Processors to produce and having too many different Processor Cores on the lines would take up too much space. As a fan of AMD you should know the feeling of needing to save Core Production Time

And I didn't say they were practise cores, I said that Intel and AMD are seeing what market they are going to aim the Dual-Core chips at. I haven't built my pc yet but I'm not going to wait over a year just to get a Dual-Core when we have no idea about how good they will be.

Well its obvious how good they're going to be But yeah; that's what these fill-in Proccessors are for, some people aren't very patient.

 

[SSE4]

Can't even master 90nm technology? It is apparent you don't quite understand and I'll leave it at that. The Pentium 4's have their advantages especially to the average user, but you don't seem to quite grasp the whole situation. Multi-core processors are going to allow both AMD and Intel to reach higher clock speeds, there's no doubt that they will be good. The Pentium M isn't just a good processor, it's an excellent processor. The Dothan (Code name for Pentium M) is a 90nm processor and the Pentium M (And architectures similar to) are going to be powering Yonah (Directly), Presler, and Cedar Mill. These single-core processors are just wetting the lips. The EE isn't designed to outperform the AMD64's and neither is the 6xx series. Intel knows they can't scale down the NetBurst architecture to be more like the Pentium M, and they can't just continue to scale it up. Well at least they could with the Prescott, but there would be almost no point.

AMD wont have a "complete grip on the top of the market" because it's the low-end. Being an enthusiast chip doesn't change that fact. And it's obvious which markets the multi-core chips will be aimed at. Servers are likely to find it useful, and so are enthusiasts. The average user is likely to get it but the "change" from single-core to multi-core will take some time since people really wont care as much. You also seem to be confused. As if you think Intel is just some "n00bz0r" corporation that doesn't know how to play "the game". You are sorely mistaken. AMD may be struggling to take it's FX series further but Intel seems to be more focused on abandoning the P4 NetBurst architecture and building onto the gem that is the Pentium M. That's what Intel gets for not building a new core sooner. After all, the P4 and NetBurst architecture competed with the XP's.

And as far as FPU goes, you will find that the instruction sets like 3D Now! and SSE aid in the arithmetic and calculations of a processor. AMD not only has a more efficient processor in regards to calculations and arithmetic but it also has more instruction sets to aid these processes. That's why AMD64's outperform the Intel's in gaming. Not to mention the onboard memory controller. But who cares if Intel releases another EE to attempt to grab the average consumer and turn him into an "enthusiast"? It doesn't bother AMD people. Intel's fooling around with NetBurst. You people get offended as if it's trying to kick AMD of it's gaming 'perch' when it's exactly the opposite. Intel is shying away from it and putting more focus on it's 2006 processors. But you know what? Intel is still going to make a lot of money due to it's influence on the market and companies like Dell.

Oh and "needforspeed". You should really try forming your own opinion through experience and should at the very least try to moderate your reliance on "online benchmarks". Seriously. You don't even really quite understand what you're talking about but you seem so quick to take up arms against anything Intel. I've seen more posts to online benchmarks and websites in your posts than I've ever seen in my life. Try genuinely learning about the processors first. So AMD processors are excellent processors. I acknowledge that and I support Intel. Intel dropped the ball this time around because it failed to make a new processor to compete with the new AMD64's. We'll see how things go next year. I personally have both and I like to see the strengths in both AMD and Intel. And I look forward to what 2006 has in store for us from Intel's end.

 

[prosser13]

So now it's me against two Intel lovers. Interesting. For you SSE4, I don't know who the hell you are and I don't really give a damn. The reason I use online benchmarks is because so does Lord Kalthorn. What I was trying to show him was that there are hundreds of different benchmarking applications, there are hundreds of different results, and, most of all, you can't really trust anything. The people's opinions I used were ones which are similiar to my own, I know there are hundreds of reviewers and enthusiasts out there who would easily say that Intel is the best just the same as how I vouch for AMD. One more thing, I don't like Dell, as I have an old Dell which had to been sent into repairs seven times in the first year I had it, so please don't bring them up too much. It's just a personal dislike, that's all. Anyway, I like the way you talk, so welcome to these forums. I hope you'll become a regular.

Lord Kalthorn, let's get back on subject. If Intel cannot master 90nm technology I don't see how they have a hope with 65nm. Anyway, the Winchester cores AMD have been producing are amazing, and with the experience they will get from producing the even better Venice cores they will be ready for the Dual-Cores if they are made via 90nm or 65nm technology. Or even 130nm technology.

Anyway, you said yourself that too many cores are bad for Intel. And with a new 65nm plant, they will have to make a new core if they plan to release a 65nm single core, and if they don't they have two roads, build lots more and use them for making Dual-Cores, or use it as a test plant. And that would be one expensive test plant!

 

[SSE4]

I'm not an Intel lover. I'm an Intel supporter. It doesn't mean that I don't have an AMD. The Winchester cores are decent in comparison to the Newcastles, but if you look at exactly what the P4 was designed for you can understand that heat is going to be an issue. Like I had said, the Dothan is a 90nm processor, and just look at what it has achieved. I wouldn't expect any enthusiast to like Dell either. They're definitely one of the worst companies out there, but the average consumer doesn't know the difference and buys from them anyway. Not to mention they only sell Intel processors.

There are far too many biased opinions on the net, and I am not one of them. The Intel doesn't perform better than the AMD64 in very many areas, but gaming is the big one. However Intel P4s do have a lot to offer the average 'power user'.

 

[prosser13]

Well said. The Winchester cores are way better than the Newcastle cores, but there are too many Prescott cores. You would have thought that by now Intel would have recognised they made a mistake and either reverted back to the Northwood cores or designed a new core.

Dell are a company to avoid. I've spent the last day or so trying to convince my auntie not to buy a Dell and buy, say, a Mesh. Or the VooDoo PC Rage F5!(what a pc! I'd be round 24/7) It is hard work because she has a Dell and it works fine, but Dell have gone downhill since the 1990s.

The problem with the net is there are always going to be biased reviews. And, if one non-biased review site comes out on top, I wouldn't put it past some companies to actually buy the reviewers off. That's the problem - everyone has their own personal preferences.

I am quite annoyed at AMD, as they had the top spot for over a year, when they bought out their new Athlon 64 with AMD64. And what did they do? Nothing much. If they had SSE3 out 6 months ago, and were now developing a rival to HT, which is the one part I admit that Intel shines in, then AMD in 6 months could own the market. But, then again, I don't know what goes on inside the FABS and the design workshops so I shouldn't really be saying this. But what the hell!

 

[SSE4]

The reason Intel made the "switch" to the Prescott core was to have it do even less work-per-cycle (And less cycles per second) so that they could scale the core frequency even higher. Their goal was to reach speeds like 4.0GHz, but for one reason or another they stopped. The Prescott introduced SSE3 and a 1MB l2 cache that added on to the Northwood but fell short in performance per Hz. But that's how Intel had gone since Willamette. Well, not true, I think Northwood was better than Willamette although I can't be too sure. But ever since the Pentium M has come around they have been more interested in multi-cores because this solves not only the heat dissipation and power consumption problems of the P4, but it's also efficient.

Companies like Dell used to be good, just not anymore more. Too much cheap hardware and integrated junk combined with horrible customer service even when the computer is under "advanced" warranty. Everyone does have their own personal preference. That's where my preference of Intel comes in. It isn't based off benchmarks or "scientific calculations" of any sort. But when I got my Winchester 3500+ I can safely say it felt very slow in comparison to my 3.2GHz Northwood. The extremely high core frequency and HT provide a noticeable difference that caught my eye. However the second you start gaming you will instantly notice the difference in framerates between the two and the efficiency of the AMD64 is truly shown.

The AMD64 models already have a fair deal of instruction sets and I'm pretty sure they came out before SSE3. But I think they should have added another instruction set during the change to Winchester like Intel did with Prescott, but there is likely a good reason they didn't, due to limitations in the architecture at the time or simply the cost of implementing it. I would have thought that AMD would have come out with something similar to HT some time ago myself, but they don't seem incredibly interested in it. However they do have HyperTransport (Which an AMD friend thought was the AMD equivalent to Intel's Hyper-Threading) which offers a fair exchange. Some people would rather have the processor communicate with other parts of the computer at higher speeds than have the benefits of HT. Once again, it's mostly personal preference.

 

[prosser13]

But frequency doesn't matter any more. Imagine a processor which ran at 200000000000GHz but did 0.00001 instructions per second. True, the first number looks good, but the chip itself wouldn't be very good.

Dell laptops are still actually quite good, and I would recommend them as a potential buy, but their desktops just don't cut the mustard. I'm sorry Dell but it's true. I'm not sure about Intels, so where about in their range was the 3.2GHz Northwood?

THe AMD64 models do have a fair deal of instruction sets, and they did come out before SSE3, because there isn't an AMD model out with SSE3, for desktops at least. It will come out with the Venice cores. I too am very suprise that AMD haven't got anything to rival Intel for HT. They have got HyperTransport, which I like, but it doesn't do half as much to the performance scores as Hyper-Threading does. Now, if only there was a way to cut out the Hyper-Threading bit of an Intel and stick it on the end of a FX-55...

 

[Giancarlo]

Anyone foolish enough to say that Athlon is low end of the market is pretty brain dead. Let me explain why, AMD has clearly mastered the 90nm standard. Additionally, Intel has suffered from poor business decisions, like the releasing of the Prescott. I don't think you Intel defenders, supporters, fanboys or whatever the hell you call yourselves, can or should defend the Prescott. Needforspeed, the fact remains that AMD was establishing itself in the market and doesn't have the resources to churn out instruction set after instruction set. They needed to establish themselves, and they did. People are claiming that Hyper-threading beats AMD's HyperTransport. The two are not the same thing. And AMD does in fact defeat Intel in multi-tasking.

But when I got my Winchester 3500+ I can safely say it felt very slow in comparison to my 3.2GHz Northwood.

Well apparently you are doing something wrong. My AMD 64 3000+ beats the 3.2GHz P4 with HT.

 

[prosser13]

Go Giancarlo. Nice to see someone else is on the right side and is following this post! Nice sig by the way.