Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-17-2005, 03:00 AM   #71
In Runtime
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 194
Default

They do, it often annoys me on review sites when people who have no idea slag it off as slow. It was never designed for processing large amounts of data. Its designed to be cool, low power and secure. Which is why I brought it up, it does this task better than the P4 or Athlon ever could. Cheap too, you can pick then up for under 20.
__________________

__________________
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Venice (skt938), ABit AN8-SLI Mobo, nVidia GeForce 6600 GT, 1Gb Crucial PC3200 DDR Memory, 160Gb Hitachi 7K250, NEC 16x DL DVD/RW, Coolermaster Centuron Case, Tegan PSU,
Post Count +1, IQ -1.
Delta is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 03:07 AM   #72
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Intel's 64-bit article brough to you by CNET and also a little SLI prices

I'm not an idiot.

Who is the one who would buy a VIA CPU?
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 05:30 AM   #73
Daemon Poster
 
connchri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 1,019
Send a message via MSN to connchri
Default Re: Intel's 64-bit article brough to you by CNET and also a little SLI prices

Gian, read Delta's Post. What he's meaning is that the Cyrix 3 can, which is perfectly correct, do somthing Intel and AMD cant - Run without any cooling hardware - because at maxium output they run at 7watts.

Now, that even makes the Athlon 64 look like a volcanoe.

I'm guessing he would use a C3 for something that has to be silent and cool. I'm going to be using a dual mini ITX motherboard and 2 C3 CPU's built into a car radio case. along with a slot loading DVD Drive and Laptop HDD for a car media system. I couldn't use an AMD or an Intel CPU for that.

Another thing, Did you check out the last link I posted up? As for which CPU is best, I have looked at the new benchmarks and found that AMD does not knock it out cold, but more neck and neck, with intel leading with the video encoding, and AMD with the games.

I'll get it, and someone can compare - Anyone got a A64 3000+ and will do benchmarks with me? no overclocking of any sort allowed.

Also, I don't dissagree that the AMD CPU is a great CPU, I just think that as far as future profing goes, they may not be as good as the P4 6xx series. Although they are both 64bit, the Winchestor cores only have 512KB cache, while the P4 6xx has 2MB. I think in a couple of years time, when software starts comming out that tax's both these CPU, and athlough this extra cache does little for the P4 the now, differences such as this will have a profound hit on performance - i.e. I think AMD's 512KB of cache will kill it with tommorrows software, 64bit code can only be bigger. Same goes for SSE3 and hyperthreading support. Look at my sig, I'm not one for upgrading all the time, hence I would personally go with the P4 6xx CPU this time. As you could gather from the GFX card I use in my main rig, I don't do gaming very much, so think about it - The P4 would be better for me, as I reckon me and it could have a good 2-3 year relationship.

Man, I gotta say, this forum grew 4 pages, in a nights sleep! well, in order to be cool, I gotta do it to, Pawned! - all of ya! :P ....hehe
__________________
Delta: "What's wrong Chris?? Chris: "I miss my old Cyrix"
connchri is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 05:44 AM   #74
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Intel's 64-bit article brough to you by CNET and also a little SLI prices

I never said anything about power. i'm just saying Cyrix.. well I had a bad history with them in the past... poor reliability is one.

Quote:
they may not be as good as the P4 6xx series.
Absolutely not. The AMD 64 is better then P4 6xx series. The P4 6xx is junk in my mind.

Quote:
hence I would personally go with the P4 6xx CPU this time
What a massive mistake.

Besides the 2MB cache on the P4 6xx is not L1 Cache. So basically I don't think you know what you are talking about. THe P4 is not good for anyone other then those people who live in the arctic. You can heat up your house. Additionally, the P4 6xx will not have a long shelf life at all. Intel just keeps coming up with one crappy CPU after another.. as if the Prescotts weren't enough.

You don't PWN anyone.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 05:57 AM   #75
Daemon Poster
 
connchri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 1,019
Send a message via MSN to connchri
Default Re: Intel's 64-bit article brough to you by CNET and also a little SLI prices

Your right, the 2MB cache is not L1, it's L2. The 6xx series has 16KB of L1 cache - where the last series (5xx) had 8KB. I never said it was otherwise - failed to specify!

The 512KB on the Athlon 64 is also not L1 so why would you throw that up (about the 2MB on the 6xx Series) if YOU knew what you were talking about.

Yes, I know the A64 also has a hugh 128KB L1 cache - 64KB for Data, 64KB for Code, but there's a reason for that - mainly to do with the RISC orinentated core that it uses - the code is much larger than CISC equivlent. I have Computer Archetecture SVQ's, I do know what I'm talking about.

As for the Cyrix, I'll always love them. Was my 1st CPU you know, ahh, they were the day's. When they actually were faster than the intel equivelents. I reckon the AMD K6 series was more unstable than the C2, definalty.
__________________
Delta: "What's wrong Chris?? Chris: "I miss my old Cyrix"
connchri is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 06:01 AM   #76
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Intel's 64-bit article brough to you by CNET and also a little SLI prices

No offense or all but if you think that 16KB of L1 Cache is enough... you re completely wrong. I know what I'm talking about too. Apparently I just nabbed you on the fact that the 2MB L2 cache on the P4 means next to nothing.

I never mentioned how much cache the Athlon 64 has in the first place. However 128KB L1 is far better then a pathetic 16KB. So Intel essentialy screwed itself in benchmarks by under-equipping its CPUs.

Cyrix.. yeah I had a C2.. it burned out. Actually I had two of them. I switched over to the AMD k6-2 when i abandoned Cyrix.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 06:14 AM   #77
Daemon Poster
 
connchri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 1,019
Send a message via MSN to connchri
Default Re: Intel's 64-bit article brough to you by CNET and also a little SLI prices

Would you say that the P2 and the P3 were under equiped? look at these CPU now, and see how they compare in modern bechmarks compare to the K6-2/3. They kill it and it also had the 128KB L1 cache and the intel's had there own little 8KB L1 cache at the time and still won hads down - this is what I mean by future proffing problems. Ok, different story with the Athlon but the latest P3's still gave it a run for it's money.

Also, that was a point in my last post, read it. The 2MB L2 cache is nothing the now, but in 2 years time it would be used.

It seams you forgot the majour fact that the ammount of L1 cache in a P4 (rather, make that the entire Intel series of CPU) does not make that huge a difference compare to the AMD CPU. I pointed this out. The AMD CPU needs this extra cache because 1- it needs the workspace to covert CISC code to RISC, and 2, RISC code is a lot bigger than CISC code. Look at the cache sizes on the Apple CPU's for instance, all hugh compared to even AMD's L1. Intel don't need to do any of this because it is purely a CISC CPU.

Go and learn about the archetecture you actually using.

As for the C2, I stand by what I said. You have to admit, the K6 series was slightly unpredictable.
__________________
Delta: "What's wrong Chris?? Chris: "I miss my old Cyrix"
connchri is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 12:29 PM   #78
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Intel's 64-bit article brough to you by CNET and also a little SLI prices

That's because the architecture of the K6 series itself was bad. It overheated easily and had a series of problems. I consider that AMDs emergence stage. The Athlon is a different story and has been since it came out first in 32-bit mode.

I do not think the 2MB L2 Cache will come useful because it is not needed.

I don't care about RISC and CISC. I care about performance benchmarks and out of all of the ones I have seen the Pentium 6xx lags. This is sad because even on another attempt of Intel they still falter. AMD however is still relying on CPUs they released quite some time ago.

You should learn about the facts.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 12:54 PM   #79
Daemon Poster
 
connchri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 1,019
Send a message via MSN to connchri
Default Re: Intel's 64-bit article brough to you by CNET and also a little SLI prices

Listen mate, I ain't gonna acknowledge you anymore outside this thread- we're both too much like stuborn mules with different points of view, and nothing going to change.

You tell me I need to know my facts all the time, yet it seems all I do is feed them to you.

Examples -

You said the P4 6xx is not 64 bit - It is

You said apple was not ahead in 64bit terms - it is. The G5 is 64bit, and in OS X.3 used some 64bit code enhancements for some programs. OS X.4 has more.

Now that you know why they Athlon has such a large cache L1, you seem to wipe of the fact that the 16KB on the Intel CPU is plenty for it - why, because you didn't know!

The technical reason why Intel CPU's are nothing like AMDs performance wise is it's 21 (in Northwood core) and 29 (in Prescot core) stage pipline that they use, where as AMD's is 7 and 9 depending on whats being done for the Athlon XP and 9 and 11 depending on whats being done on the Athlon 64. The Quantispeed architecture on the AthlonXP that it allows it to do more work per clock(I'll admit, I'm not sure technically what it is, I'm guesing it's because the Athlon now has 3 FPU)

Right, There's how the Athlon is more superior to the P4 for now. For once, you state some facts similarly indepth to mine as how the P4 6xx ain't 64bit and that the 2MB cache over the P4 might not make the P4 the better CPU in the long run!
__________________
Delta: "What's wrong Chris?? Chris: "I miss my old Cyrix"
connchri is offline  
Old 03-17-2005, 04:15 PM   #80
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Intel's 64-bit article brough to you by CNET and also a little SLI prices

Quote:
Originally Posted by connchri
You said the P4 6xx is not 64 bit - It is

You said apple was not ahead in 64bit terms - it is. The G5 is 64bit, and in OS X.3 used some 64bit code enhancements for some programs. OS X.4 has more.
The P4 6xx is not 64-bit.

I never said Apple was not 64-bit. It is 6t4-bit. But it is far behind speed wise.

Quote:
Right, There's how the Athlon is more superior to the P4 for now. For once, you state some facts similarly indepth to mine as how the P4 6xx ain't 64bit and that the 2MB cache over the P4 might not make the P4 the better CPU in the long run!
Don't mock me. Especially not now. The P4 is not the better CPU in any sense. Whether it be in the short term or long term.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0