Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Pointless Thread

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 10, 2006 11:26:03 PM

Hmm...why are you reading this?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

More about : pointless thread

April 10, 2006 11:33:18 PM

Only thing I'm really sceptical about 64bit platforms is MS, rather then intel or amd...

I'd rather wait till all crap hits the fan, and all the cleaners come around and fix things up..

One reason why I'm holding on to what I have now.
April 10, 2006 11:34:43 PM

Quote:
Only thing I'm really sceptical about 64bit platforms is MS, rather then intel or amd...

I'd rather wait till all crap hits the fan, and all the cleaners come around and fix things up..

One reason why I'm holding on to what I have now.


Most of the huge performance gains are under Linux x64, which bring enormous performance gains to the AMD64 architecture.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
Related resources
April 10, 2006 11:35:07 PM

Wait, so you won't believe any benchmarks nor have you read much about conroe but you know that conroe will perform poorly in x86-64 despite not testing it?
April 10, 2006 11:38:59 PM

Quote:
Wait, so you won't believe any benchmarks nor have you read much about conroe but you know that conroe will perform poorly in x86-64 despite not testing it?


I never said anything of Conroe's x64, but rather it's performance in x86 is lacking compared to x86 in an AMD64. The benchmarks done using AMD64 x64 were not SuperPI, which is an Intel Fanboys favorite Benchmark, but rather End-User Benchmarks in Multi-Tasking and Workstation Load, which prove real-world performance.

PS: Intel has not stated anything on Conroe having vast improvements to EM64T, which could easily mean it's the same as a P4.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 10, 2006 11:42:33 PM

Quote:
but rather it's performance in x86 is lacking compared to x86 in an AMD64.


And you're basing this on?

Quote:
PS: Intel has not stated anything on Conroe having vast improvements to EM64T, which could easily mean it's the same as a P4.


That's what we call an assumption.
April 10, 2006 11:44:36 PM

Quote:
but rather it's performance in x86 is lacking compared to x86 in an AMD64.


And you're basing this on?

Quote:
PS: Intel has not stated anything on Conroe having vast improvements to EM64T, which could easily mean it's the same as a P4.


That's what we call an assumption.

On These Benchmarks

Conroe's Cache is what gives it the boost, not the Architecture's Performance.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 10, 2006 11:59:43 PM

Interesting that they didn't test anything else.
April 11, 2006 12:03:10 AM

Quote:
On These Benchmarks

Conroe's Cache is what gives it the boost, not the Architecture's Performance.


What I get from the benchmarks in the link your provide is that that is a P4 ("Core"), not Conroe. They mention "Core" and P4 a number of times and not once Conroe.

And no, Conroe has a different architecture (and evolution of the Pentium 3/M) instead of Netburst; i.e. Conroe is wide and shallow instead of deep and narrow. Lower clock with more execution units.

Interesting how the same people dismissed the Conroe benchmarks are already singing AMD's praises in regards to beating Conroe :lol:  Seriously though, to "conclude" that any improvements in Conroe performance over Netburst is cache related is waaaaaaay early.

So, can I get 2 or 3 links of benchmarks demonstrating Conroe's performance leap is all cache related?
April 11, 2006 12:03:20 AM

Quote:
Interesting that they didn't test anything else.


Wanna know why? Because only those benchmarks test a CPU directly, unlike SuperPI and others that test using Cache which is where Conroe exceeds. Once AM2 uses greater than 4MB Cache, we will start seeing AM2 take the lead in SuperPI...which is no longer a CPU Test, but a "How much cache you got gives you the lead" Test.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 12:04:45 AM

Quote:
On These Benchmarks

Conroe's Cache is what gives it the boost, not the Architecture's Performance.


What I get from the benchmarks is that that is a P4 ("Core"), not Conroe.

And no, Conroe has a different architecture (and evolution of the Pentium 3/M) instead of Netburst; i.e. Conroe is wide and shallow instead of deep and narrow. Lower clock with more execution units.

Interesting how the same people dismissed the Conroe benchmarks are already singing AMD's praises in regards to beating Conroe :lol:  Seriously though, to "conclude" that any improvements in Conroe performance over Netburst is cache related is waaaaaaay early.

So, can I get 2 or 3 links of benchmarks demonstrating Conroe's performance leap is all cache related?

Maybe you should reread it there slick:

"Detecting 2 processors...
GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 000 @ 2.40GHz
2394.054199 MHz
GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 000 @ 2.40GHz
2394.053467 MHz
Intel Streaming SIMD (SSE) processor instructions supported.
Intel Streaming SIMD 2 (SSE2) processor instructions supported.
Hyperthreading Technology (HTT) supported.
- 2 logic processors per physical processor.
Intel Streaming SIMD 3 (SSE3) processor instructions supported.
AMD64 instruction set supported"

That's Conroe buddy.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 12:06:23 AM

Quote:
Wanna know why?


Because it probably wins in most real world situations?

Also odd that it says it has hyperthreading. No screens either?
April 11, 2006 12:07:41 AM

Quote:
Wanna know why?


Because it probably wins in most real world situations?

Also odd that it says it has hyperthreading. No screens either?

LOL, your ignorance overwhelms me sometimes Action. I'm surprised you haven't put up your Keyboard, god I love seeing that thing...it brightens my day ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 12:09:06 AM

Just leave the caps lock on... hint.. hint.. HINT :oops: 
April 11, 2006 12:11:22 AM

Quote:
In the end it's the games and softwares we use that matter.
Anandtech has already shown us who's the clear winner in that.

Go ahead, buy yourself the best raw power x86 CPU.


LOL, AnandIntel has not shown me anything but an AM2 CPU that AMD is releasing to lure Intel into a false sense of security..

Hey, bet you didn't know Intel's stipulation of using Conroe was you weren't allowed to peek into Windows Device Manager...I wonder what they had in there that they didn't want use to see ;) .

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 12:16:38 AM

Quote:
LOL, AnandIntel has not shown me anything but an AM2 CPU that AMD is releasing to lure Intel into a false sense of security..

More uneducated assumptions.

Yeah, because you're the messiah of information along with AnandIntel and IntelSystems.org (Also known as KiddySystems.org to REAL overclockers).

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 12:17:23 AM

Quote:
LOL, your ignorance overwhelms me sometimes Action.


Greatest comeback ever.

April 11, 2006 12:17:49 AM

Quote:
Maybe you should reread it there slick:

----

That's Conroe buddy.


Sorry to rain on your parade there, but the author (a forum poster with no pics... yay!) explicitly calls it a P4/Pentium D/Core (all terms currently applied to Netburst... Conroe wont have the Pentium name) and never Conroe. It could be Conroe he is testing, but he provides very little information. In the least the author is confusing the names and architecture.

Still waiting for some clear links & some elaboration on your architecture comments. My bet is you cannot backup your cache/architecture statement.

I don't really care if it is Conroe or not, but you are making some pretty bold claims without really backing anything up.

Quote:
but from what Intel and AMD are posting in their roadmaps, it appears that Intel's Next Generation MicroArchitecture is just that...Micro compared to AMD64.

Quote:
Even the newest Intel Conroe is not performing in even x86 environments

Quote:
64-bit is proving to give 40% increase in performance in AMD64 compared to x86, and once one incorporates the newest technologies of IBM & AMD's collarboration, it appears up to 85% Increase In Performance for the AMD64 Architecture under x64 environments.


Like where in the world did you pull the 85% increase from??

Like Action_Man stated, you dismiss the Intel stuff (understandibly) but then you make leaps and bounds in conclusions and start drawing up crazy big performance leaps without any benchmarks.
April 11, 2006 12:22:26 AM

Well, if you dismiss those as being a P4 benchmarked, you must dismiss all of the other ones, because they ALL report the same

Detecting 2 processors...
GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 000 @ 2.40GHz
2394.054199 MHz
GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 000 @ 2.40GHz
2394.053467 MHz
Intel Streaming SIMD (SSE) processor instructions supported.
Intel Streaming SIMD 2 (SSE2) processor instructions supported.
Hyperthreading Technology (HTT) supported.
- 2 logic processors per physical processor.
Intel Streaming SIMD 3 (SSE3) processor instructions supported.
AMD64 instruction set supported.

and have the SAME CPU-Z Shots....hmm...

I said it would APPEAR which is an assumption and my opinion, but the improvements are not assumptions, because x64 AMD64 already outperforms 40%, add in the 40% touted by IBM & AMD, and factor in the extra cache, a simple addition brings about 85%. I guess some things are too much for Intel Fanboys to hear, such as THE TRUTH. :roll:

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 12:23:29 AM

Quote:
And there you go again without any prove what so ever.
I'm not in the pwning mood today. Don't force me.


Oh dear god you are a kid, LOL. I thought you were a business man of sort, but rather you are a immature child, lol this is too funny.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 12:33:33 AM

Quote:
I said it would APPEAR which is an assumption and my opinion, but the improvements are not assumptions, because x64 AMD64 already outperforms 40%, add in the 40% touted by IBM & AMD, and factor in the extra cache, a simple addition brings about 85%. I guess some things are too much for Intel Fanboys to hear, such as THE TRUTH. :roll:


Hold on there Michael, who is the fanboy?

You dismiss Anandtech's benchmarks -- understandably -- but you are taking theoretical numbers from AMD (not even working chips!) at face value?

Talk about being a hypocritical fanboy.

That is even less honest than someone comparing Intel's PR speak on Conroe and just assuming it goes across the board against AMD at the time of chip launch (which of course in 6 months AMD will also have faster chips and AM2). It is pretty ignorant to assume the gains on the Conroe chips Anandtech tested will represent the final product (we need to know more on pricing, availability, and AMD's competitive offerings at the time of launch), but what you are doing -- comparing hypothetical increases without working silicon -- is laughable! :lol: 

Part of integrity is determining the value and accuracy of benchmarks. The link you posted raises a number of questions -- your noobish conclusions in regards to Cache and Architecture likewise raise eyebrows.

Asking for some further information/substantiation is not uncalled for--making wild performance claims, performance crowns, and flaming anyone who says, "Hold on a moment" is uncalled for. Seems pretty clear you have a double standard that clearly favors AMD. So is there any value discussing this with you are should we just all ignore your thread?

So if you would like to get back on topic and explain your CACHE / ARCHITECTURE comment we can maybe get some productive discussion. So, where's the beef?
a c 99 à CPUs
April 11, 2006 12:37:25 AM

Yes, I have had *great* luck with Linux on x86_64 on my X2. I have also used 64-bit Linux on a dual-Xeon EM64T rig. My AMD seemed to speed up a bit versus 32-bit and the Intel was indifferent as to whether it ran on 32 or 64 bits.
April 11, 2006 12:39:54 AM

Quote:
I said it would APPEAR which is an assumption and my opinion, but the improvements are not assumptions, because x64 AMD64 already outperforms 40%, add in the 40% touted by IBM & AMD, and factor in the extra cache, a simple addition brings about 85%. I guess some things are too much for Intel Fanboys to hear, such as THE TRUTH. :roll:


Hold on there Michael, who is the fanboy?

You dismiss Anandtech's benchmarks -- understandably -- but you are taking theoretical numbers from AMD (not even working chips!) at face value?

Talk about being a hypocritical fanboy.

That is even less honest than someone comparing Intel's PR speak on Conroe and just assuming it goes across the board against AMD at the time of chip launch (which of course in 6 months AMD will also have faster chips and AM2). It is pretty ignorant to assume the gains on the Conroe chips Anandtech tested will represent the final product (we need to know more on pricing, availability, and AMD's competitive offerings at the time of launch), but what you are doing -- comparing hypothetical increases without working silicon -- is laughable! :lol: 

Part of integrity is determining the value and accuracy of benchmarks. The link you posted raises a number of questions -- your noobish conclusions in regards to Cache and Architecture likewise raise eyebrows.

Asking for some further information/substantiation is not uncalled for--making wild performance claims, performance crowns, and flaming anyone who says, "Hold on a moment" is uncalled for. Seems pretty clear you have a double standard that clearly favors AMD. So is there any value discussing this with you are should we just all ignore your thread?

So if you would like to get back on topic and explain your CACHE / ARCHITECTURE comment we can maybe get some productive discussion. So, where's the beef?

First off, it's not Ignorant, it's Bold. My Claims are not only my own, but rather shared among a community of Non-Intel Fanboys (One community you would not wish to join). Run any program benchmark that doesn't involve multitasking or large memory, and ANY processor with large amounts of Cache (Such as Conroe) will prevail. Take SuperPI....wait, don't, that's just a hillarious benchmark too funny and innacurate to quote, sorry.

@Wusy: I am not insulting you, but I REALLY believe you are a teenager or a kid, no ADULT speaks of "Pwning" another in a serious manner, it's a little too juvenile.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 1:03:05 AM

Mike,

There ya go again :-)

You want to know why your (not so well written) CPU thread has not made it to stickydom? Because of your inate bias toward AMD. This is really a "forest for the trees" type thing for you.

Mike I sincerely hope that you take some internals classes. You will have a much greater (and much more accurate) understanding of not only CPUs but also caching, switching, SMP, file system structures, and much more.

These courses should be available at your local schools. You certainly seem to have the WANT to learn about the topics that you are STATING right now.

Your statements about HT and the FSB limitations are hilarious. Yes there are limitations. Yes there are latencies. What you fail to understand is that these all provide for timings. These timings allow task switching from different areas/quadrants of the CPU. Try looking up "context switching" you will learn something.

A CPUs performance is based on a large number of variables. Things such as instructions/cycle, memory bandwidth, blocking, wait states, IO throttling and soooooo much more. You could take the fastest CPU out there and slap it into a poorly built MB which could effectively cripple it. Same as the OS in which it runs.
April 11, 2006 1:05:27 AM

Quote:
Mike,

There ya go again :-)

You want to know why your (not so well written) CPU thread has not made it to stickydom? Because of your inate bias toward AMD. This is really a "forest for the trees" type thing for you.

Mike I sincerely hope that you take some internals classes. You will have a much greater (and much more accurate) understanding of not only CPUs but also caching, switching, SMP, file system structures, and much more.

These courses should be available at your local schools. You certainly seem to have the WANT to learn about the topics that you are STATING right now.

Your statements about HT and the FSB limitations are hilarious. Yes there are limitations. Yes there are latencies. What you fail to understand is that these all provide for timings. These timings allow task switching from different areas/quadrants of the CPU. Try looking up "context switching" you will learn something.

A CPUs performance is based on a large number of variables. Things such as instructions/cycle, memory bandwidth, blocking, wait states, IO throttling and soooooo much more. You could take the fastest CPU out there and slap it into a poorly built MB which could effectively cripple it. Same as the OS in which it runs.


That's what I call good entertainment, thanks, but I'm watching WWE right now and that's all the entertainment I need for the night Fanboy.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 1:14:52 AM

By the way memory performance is also based on a number of variables as well. What memory model is a multiprocessor/multi-core CPU running UMA, NUMA, NORMA or some newer variant? Just so ya know.... The P4 dual core arch would normally be refered to as a UMA Memory model where Multiple CPUs/Cores attach to a single BUS. Versus the AMD which works on NUMA where the CPUs/cores attach to a switching environment (crossbar).

Each of these archs have its own advantages and disadvantages. The NUMA model almost NEEDS hardware support to maintain its useability. The UMA model offers a little more bend in what hardware is needed to suport.

Things like "Lost Wakeup" or "Thundering Herd" issues abound in multicore environments. This is why things like Semaphores are implemented in code.

Early Multi-CPU not Multi-CORE archeitectures gave advances by doing simple things like not throttling IO through a single CPU "see the DEC ALPHA where IO was sent through ONLY CPU0".

There is a whole lot more to this than my BUS is better than yours..
April 11, 2006 1:17:22 AM

Mike,

As long as you are entertained :-)

Just keep looking at the shinny object. Oooh Oooh is that an AMD?
April 11, 2006 1:20:01 AM

Quote:
By the way memory performance is also based on a number of variables as well. What memory model is a multiprocessor/multi-core CPU running UMA, NUMA, NORMA or some newer variant? Just so ya know.... The P4 dual core arch would normally be refered to as a UMA Memory model where Multiple CPUs/Cores attach to a single BUS. Versus the AMD which works on NUMA where the CPUs/cores attach to a switching environment (crossbar).

Each of these archs have its own advantages and disadvantages. The NUMA model almost NEEDS hardware support to maintain its useability. The UMA model offers a little more bend in what hardware is needed to suport.

Things like "Lost Wakeup" or "Thundering Herd" issues abound in multicore environments. This is why things like Semaphores are implemented in code.

Early Multi-CPU not Multi-CORE archeitectures gave advances by doing simple things like not throttling IO through a single CPU "see the DEC ALPHA where IO was sent through ONLY CPU0".

There is a whole lot more to this than my BUS is better than yours..


Are we in a E-Penis / Google.com Competition? (Not to mention Spelling Bee :roll: ). You either know what you're talking about, or are good at perusing Wikipedia and Google (The latter is convincing me :roll: ) but either way, it matters not, because I do not get into specifics extreme like you like to along with others, not to say I can't if I wished to. The End-User doesn't care nor can comprehend NUMA, UMA, IO, etc., they care about LAYMAN's descriptions of performance, which is what I give them. You may do good in a Technology Forum (though I doubt that) but here and abroad in the REAL WORLD, people like you need to Shut It and listen to people like me. Listen to a seminar or presentation by a Company Owner or such, Attitude is the Major Player, not what you know my friend.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig
April 11, 2006 1:22:57 AM

I've been to the future and it is .........can't say about CPU's ,don't want to affect anything.........but when I passed through Sept 2007 there where tanks outside Alienware HQ in Florida. Seems Dell wants them "In-House" in Texas.
April 11, 2006 1:23:36 AM

Mikey,

Don't take my word for it (I would NEVER take yours). Please understand that you can go to local college and pick up a used copy of UNIX INTERNALS The New Frontiers by Uresh Vahalia. It is a little dated now and maybe there is an update for you.

I am being nice by referring you to the UNIX Internals since you can use it later in life should you decide to maybe do something professional a little later on.

Mikey do you know what an inode is? Quick do the GOOGLE thing :-)
April 11, 2006 1:27:41 AM

Quote:
Mikey,

Don't take my word for it (I would NEVER take yours). Please understand that you can go to local college and pick up a used copy of UNIX INTERNALS The New Frontiers by Uresh Vahalia. It is a little dated now and maybe there is an update for you.

I am being nice by referring you to the UNIX Internals since you can use it later in life should you decide to maybe do something professional a little later on.

Mikey do you know what an inode is? Quick do the GOOGLE thing :-)


:roll: Oh Shucks......I spend too much time in the Real World to read books, can you summarize it for me?

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 1:30:23 AM

Mikey,

The problem is? Those little technical thingys I am talking about are REAL. They are needed to be known per Hardware and Software Architecture if you are to write anything of use. Bloatware is all over right now because people do not know the DETAILS.

You come on here steering people in a certain direction with some of them thinking YOU know the details. Right now I would have to say that you are at about 50,000 feet up and hoping to land before you fuel runs out (or at least your dinner).
April 11, 2006 1:32:39 AM

Quote:
Mikey,

The problem is? Those little technical thingys I am talking about are REAL. They are needed to be known per Hardware and Software Architecture if you are to write anything of use. Bloatware is all over right now because people do not know the DETAILS.

You come on here steering people in a certain direction with some of them thinking YOU know the details. Right now I would have to say that you are at about 50,000 feet up and hoping to land before you fuel runs out (or at least your dinner).


? :roll: ? Hmm.....what? Never said I couldn't talk technical, but as I said before mr. I-Can't-Open-My-Eyes-And-Ears, End-Users want Laymens.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 1:38:24 AM

So your thread, which you attempt to update/bump, and which is totally biased toward AMD is not meant at all to be TECHNICAL?

Well I would have to agree with you mostly on that :-)

Just so you know, I can right now write an application that would compile and Execute on both INTEL and AMD that would imediately show INTEL as an obvious LEADER to the untrained observer. I could also turn around and do the Opposite. So I do agree with you that there are NO good Benchies out there since none of them take into account the specifics of the Architecture.
April 11, 2006 1:41:26 AM

Quote:
So your thread which you attempt to update/bump which is totally biased toward AMD is not meant at all to be TECHNICAL?

Well I would have to agree with you mostly on that :-)

Just so you know, I can right now write an application that would compile and Execute on both INTEL and AMD that would imediately show INTEL as an obvious LEADER to the untrained observer. I could also turn around and do the Opposite. So I do agree with you that there are NO good Benchies out there since none of them take into account the specifics of the Architecture.


You mean you can spin some code and toss it into A compiler with sets for Intel and then toss it into B compiler with sets for AMD.
April 11, 2006 1:42:08 AM

Quote:
So your thread which you attempt to update/bump which is totally biased toward AMD is not meant at all to be TECHNICAL?

Well I would have to agree with you mostly on that :-)

Just so you know, I can right now write an application that would compile and Execute on both INTEL and AMD that would imediately show INTEL as an obvious LEADER to the untrained observer. I could also turn around and do the Opposite. So I do agree with you that there are NO good Benchies out there since none of them take into account the specifics of the Architecture.


Fanboys like you take FACTS to be BIASED when they don't point your way, my hardware guide has all FACTS, sorry if it's making you poopy in your pants, but The Truth Hurts :oops: .

I suggest you go write that application, and hundreds more, it's better than having you ramble on and on on these forums with essays that make no sense or matterance (I don't think it's a word, but I'll call Webster's and have it added) to an End-User....which only makes up the Entire World....=/

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 1:45:11 AM

Quote:

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time


Looks like you're doing two at once. :lol: 
April 11, 2006 1:45:17 AM

Might even try and do some optimization link in a library like ACML :) 
April 11, 2006 1:46:49 AM

Quote:
Might even try and do some optimization link in a library like ACML :) 


Word.
April 11, 2006 1:47:01 AM

Quote:

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time


Looks like you're doing two at once. :lol: 

I'm trying to Multitask and I don't have HyperThreading, so I can forget things.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 1:49:57 AM

Sorry Mikey,

But the problem I have is you are trying to pass things on as facts too.

The TRUTH is you can make any system "STAND UP AND DANCE" if you know its nuances.

Ya ever stop to think that games run better on AMDs because they are written and optimized for that platform? Or maybe they seem to have a preference for a certain video card? I wonder why? maybe those details in which your USER doc lacks.
April 11, 2006 1:52:05 AM

What, no ILP?
April 11, 2006 1:53:21 AM

ILP - man where is my Wikipedia :) 
April 11, 2006 1:56:42 AM

Instruction level parallelism.
April 11, 2006 1:57:25 AM

By the way Mikey,

If you were to say in your biased thread things like "The Intel P4 has nearly hit its Thermal Wall and that is the reason for a much needed change to the Conroe archeitecture" I would completely agree.

See it is not so bad. FACTS Good, Speculation Bad..

Say it with me Mikey... You know you want to.
April 11, 2006 1:58:09 AM

Well FORK you too action_man :) 
April 11, 2006 1:58:51 AM

Quote:
By the way Mikey,

If you were to say in your biased thread things like "The Intel P4 has nearly hit its Thermal Wall and that is the reason for a much needed change to the Conroe archeitecture" I would completely agree.

See it is not so bad. FACTS Good, Speculation Bad..

Say it with me Mikey... You know you want to.


AMD64 K8 is the reason for Conroe, that's the fact fanboy.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 2:04:47 AM

Quote:
By the way Mikey,

If you were to say in your biased thread things like "The Intel P4 has nearly hit its Thermal Wall and that is the reason for a much needed change to the Conroe archeitecture" I would completely agree.

See it is not so bad. FACTS Good, Speculation Bad..

Say it with me Mikey... You know you want to.


AMD64 K8 is the reason for Conroe, that's the fact fanboy.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

But the Pentium M was well into final production models before Intel took notice that the Pentium 4 design was not so glorious as they once thought.

In essence the K7 was created to deal with the P6 but that point isnt really all that important.
April 11, 2006 2:06:43 AM

Quote:
By the way Mikey,

If you were to say in your biased thread things like "The Intel P4 has nearly hit its Thermal Wall and that is the reason for a much needed change to the Conroe archeitecture" I would completely agree.

See it is not so bad. FACTS Good, Speculation Bad..

Say it with me Mikey... You know you want to.


AMD64 K8 is the reason for Conroe, that's the fact fanboy.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

But the Pentium M was well into final production models before Intel took notice that the Pentium 4 design was not so glorious as they once thought.

In essence the K7 was created to deal with the P6 but that point isnt really all that important.

You really have no idea why P4 was ever taken as far as it was....but that little fact will escape you and everybody else on these forums, so I will lack telling it.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
April 11, 2006 2:08:42 AM

Man you are Sooo funny.

Up boy up, good boy. :) 

The reason for the change is the thermal considerations of the current design. You think for a minute that they would not go to a Marketing Genius Leadership if they were the first to go mainstream with a 4.0ghz proc?

You and I know that in P4 form that the AMD would still be faster at most things. But it (the P4 4.0) would rip right through those USERs you keep talking about.

Oh man did you hear Intel just released a 4.0ghz machine (Drool).

Excuse me Best B_y person could you please tell me the speed of this machine "it is 4.0ghz". And this one? "Oh it is 2.8ghz" "but it is really a faster machine". Yeah, well I'll take the 4.0ghz as he rolls his eyes. :roll:

Cause everyone knows a V8 is ALWAYS faster than a I4. :) 

So yeah I could see where they would be in a hurry to MATCH ghz with AMD. :roll:
!