Can anyone explain Intel's new cpu numbering

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Intel says this gets away from cpu speed ratings but most are still
marketed with a cpu speed, all have H/T and 512mb, 1mb or 2mb cache.
Aside from the 3xx replacing Celerons, 5xx replacing P4s and Centrinos,
has anyone found or can explain what are the product features that
differentiates the 5xx class? What is the difference 515 vs 520 or 520
vs 530 when cpu speeds are relatively the same.

Thanks

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Forget about Intel's processors and buy an Athlon 64 or Opteron instead.

http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getarticle=606&go=0.53769656

jaster wrote:

> Intel says this gets away from cpu speed ratings but most are still
> marketed with a cpu speed, all have H/T and 512mb, 1mb or 2mb cache.
> Aside from the 3xx replacing Celerons, 5xx replacing P4s and Centrinos,
> has anyone found or can explain what are the product features that
> differentiates the 5xx class? What is the difference 515 vs 520 or 520
> vs 530 when cpu speeds are relatively the same.
>
> Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.14.18.24.25.820124@home.net...
> Intel says this gets away from cpu speed ratings but most are still
> marketed with a cpu speed, all have H/T and 512mb, 1mb or 2mb cache.
> Aside from the 3xx replacing Celerons, 5xx replacing P4s and Centrinos,
> has anyone found or can explain what are the product features that
> differentiates the 5xx class? What is the difference 515 vs 520 or 520
> vs 530 when cpu speeds are relatively the same.
>
> Thanks

Ummm . . . the differences are batching differences. (speeds and prices are
higher with higher numbers). For more information,

http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040619/index.html

I think it's smart to get away from speed ratings. I mean, after about
400MHz or so, any processor has more power than anybody needs. So why
bother rating it for speed? If you want to make value comparisons, run
benchmarks. And if you work for AMD, trash Intel at every
pportunity. -Dave

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

goodbye jerome....

"JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:416EC867.3CC2E4E7@netscape.net...
> Forget about Intel's processors and buy an Athlon 64 or Opteron
instead.
>
> http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getarticle=606&go=0.53769656
>
> jaster wrote:
>
> > Intel says this gets away from cpu speed ratings but most are
still
> > marketed with a cpu speed, all have H/T and 512mb, 1mb or 2mb
cache.
> > Aside from the 3xx replacing Celerons, 5xx replacing P4s and
Centrinos,
> > has anyone found or can explain what are the product features that
> > differentiates the 5xx class? What is the difference 515 vs 520
or 520
> > vs 530 when cpu speeds are relatively the same.
> >
> > Thanks
>

 

[dennis]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

easy:
Intel use the GHZ frequency.
AMD use the XP speed.

"jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.14.18.24.25.820124@home.net...
> Intel says this gets away from cpu speed ratings but most are still
> marketed with a cpu speed, all have H/T and 512mb, 1mb or 2mb cache.
> Aside from the 3xx replacing Celerons, 5xx replacing P4s and Centrinos,
> has anyone found or can explain what are the product features that
> differentiates the 5xx class? What is the difference 515 vs 520 or 520
> vs 530 when cpu speeds are relatively the same.
>
> Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

The only difference between the various "5xx" seroes is the cpu speed in
GHz.

--
DaveW



"jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.14.18.24.25.820124@home.net...
> Intel says this gets away from cpu speed ratings but most are still
> marketed with a cpu speed, all have H/T and 512mb, 1mb or 2mb cache.
> Aside from the 3xx replacing Celerons, 5xx replacing P4s and Centrinos,
> has anyone found or can explain what are the product features that
> differentiates the 5xx class? What is the difference 515 vs 520 or 520
> vs 530 when cpu speeds are relatively the same.
>
> Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Dave C. wrote:

> "jaster" <jaster@home.net> wrote in message
> newsan.2004.10.14.18.24.25.820124@home.net...
>
>>Intel says this gets away from cpu speed ratings but most are still
>>marketed with a cpu speed, all have H/T and 512mb, 1mb or 2mb cache.
>>Aside from the 3xx replacing Celerons, 5xx replacing P4s and Centrinos,
>>has anyone found or can explain what are the product features that
>>differentiates the 5xx class? What is the difference 515 vs 520 or 520
>>vs 530 when cpu speeds are relatively the same.
>>
>>Thanks
>
>
> Ummm . . . the differences are batching differences. (speeds and prices are
> higher with higher numbers). For more information,
>
> http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040619/index.html
>
> I think it's smart to get away from speed ratings. I mean, after about
> 400MHz or so, any processor has more power than anybody needs.

Speak for yourself, paleface.

I sure as heck don't want to encode video on a 400 Mhz processor.

> So why
> bother rating it for speed? If you want to make value comparisons, run
> benchmarks. And if you work for AMD, trash Intel at every
> pportunity. -Dave
>
>

 

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:41:43 -0400, JK wrote:

> Forget about Intel's processors and buy an Athlon 64 or Opteron instead.
>
> http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getarticle=606&go=0.53769656
>
[snip]
>> Thanks

Thanks JK and everyone.

I was curious how Intel expects someone to determine when a 530 cpu is
needed over 540 cpu other than the number or price is higher.

I read that article before and those on tomshardware and anatech.
Absolutely 939 chipset over 775 but it looks like in the 2.8 - 3.2ghz 478
platforms beat the AMD 64 3000-3400 non-939 platforms in OpenGl, Dx9,
encoding and now pricing. The performance differences are fairly close
between those Intels and the non-939 AMD 64s in other categories. After a
happy year or so on this XP2000 it's molasses encoding video and I
installed C&C Generals which unfortunately slows down to a crawl mid-play.

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jaster wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:41:43 -0400, JK wrote:
>
> > Forget about Intel's processors and buy an Athlon 64 or Opteron instead.
> >
> > http://techny.com/articles.cfm?getarticle=606&go=0.53769656
> >
> [snip]
> >> Thanks
>
> Thanks JK and everyone.
>
> I was curious how Intel expects someone to determine when a 530 cpu is
> needed over 540 cpu other than the number or price is higher.
>
> I read that article before and those on tomshardware and anatech.
> Absolutely 939 chipset over 775 but it looks like in the 2.8 - 3.2ghz 478
> platforms beat the AMD 64 3000-3400 non-939 platforms in OpenGl,

Not quite.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=10

> Dx9,

They look even here.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=8

>
> encoding

Encoding will probably benefit greatly from the move to 64 bit software.

I expect the Athlon 64 running 64 bit software to beat comparably priced
Pentium 4 chips running 32 bit software. I also expect Athlon 64 and Opteron
chips to beat comparably priced 64 bit Pentium 4 and 64 bit Xeon chips
running 64 bit encoding software.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1

> and now pricing.





> The performance differences are fairly close
> between those Intels and the non-939 AMD 64s in other categories.

Not really. Notice that a $150 Athlon 64 3000+ socket 754 beats an
$815 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE in Doom 3.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

Notice that a $185 Athlon 64 3200+ socket 754 beats a $1000
Pentium 4 3.4 ghz EE in Business Winstone 2004.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

> After a
> happy year or so on this XP2000 it's molasses encoding video and I
> installed C&C Generals which unfortunately slows down to a crawl mid-play.

 

[jaster]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:44:22 -0400, JK wrote:


>
[snip]
>
>>
>> I was curious how Intel expects someone to determine when a 530 cpu is
>> needed over 540 cpu other than the number or price is higher.

[snip]
> Not quite.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=10
>
> They look even here.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=8
>
>
> Encoding will probably benefit greatly from the move to 64 bit software.
>
> I expect the Athlon 64 running 64 bit software to beat comparably priced
> Pentium 4 chips running 32 bit software. I also expect Athlon 64 and
> Opteron chips to beat comparably priced 64 bit Pentium 4 and 64 bit Xeon
> chips running 64 bit encoding software.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=1
>

> Not really. Notice that a $150 Athlon 64 3000+ socket 754 beats an $815
> Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE in Doom 3.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
>
> Notice that a $185 Athlon 64 3200+ socket 754 beats a $1000 Pentium 4
> 3.4 ghz EE in Business Winstone 2004.
>
>
Thanks.

Sorry JK, I don't play Doom3 and I'm looking at the overall cpu
performance. The P4 EE are very expensive but the Northgate and Prescotts
are coming down in price compared to the 754 and 939 chipsets. I was
doing quite a bit of encoding for a while so that's important to me. The
865 and 875 chipsets are looking good and mature for the 478 chips.

I agree other than encoding the 754, 745, 865, 875 for 2.8 - 3.2ghz are
pretty evenly matched.