Penryn is a monster 3.78 WATTS at idle!!!!

[beerandcandy]

crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yes i typed 3.78 watts its not a typo
4Ghz on air
i cant wait
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/page40.html

 

[dragonsprayer]

its only looking woarse and woarse for amd

the new amd chips for 08 will smoke amd

the 3.2ghz 45nm will run over 4ghz

the $300 45nm quad will run 3.8-4ghz

 

[beerandcandy]

the new amd chips for 08 will smoke amd?

 

[Dahak]

Hey man,everyone makes spellling mistakes.Dragon has the right of it though.The new AMD chips will smoke the INTEL chips.People have so little faith in the underpowered,smaller company.Remember,INTEL has had years more experience than AMD,but yet,AMD was able to produce a 64 bit processor,whereas INTEL took much longer to come up with something to compete with AMD.I think if we all sit back and put our feet up for awhile,we'll find AMD coming up with something quite extrodinary in the next few years.Remember,RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT can take several years before a breakthrough is made.

Dahak

M2N32-SLI DELUXE WE
X2 5600+ STOCK (2.8GHZ)
2X1GIG DDR2 800 IN DUAL CHANNEL
TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
EVGA 7950 GX2 550/1400
SMILIDON RAIDMAX GAMING CASE
ACER 22IN WS LCD 1680X1050
250GIG HD/320GIG HD
G5 GAMING MOUSE
WIN XP MCE SP2

 

[randomizer]

No Penryn won't smoke AMD (seriously, at 3.78W how can it smoke anything?), Nehalem will.

 

[randomizer]

I wonder how low you can take the vcore at stock speeds. I see a silent quad core system appearing pretty soon.

 

[itotallybelieveyou]

wow.... intel must've gotten alien technology

 

[jsc]

Dahak,
You need to look a little more closely at history. Intel had a 64 bit CPU quite a bit before AMD. What AMD did - and got right - was make an X86 compatible CPU. Intel wasn't interested until they saw which way the market was going. They had planned to emulate the X86 instruction set. And even now, most PC's are still running 32 bit operating systems. And you seem to think that Intel is going sit back and take a breather.

Intel has an almost astronomical R&D budget. In fact, it is larger that the GNP of many small countries. They have design teams all over the world. That lets them cherry pick. If one approach deadends (netburst for example), they can try something else. AMD, on the other hand, has to get it right every time.

Now, lest I be accused of being a (gray haired) fanboy, look at my sig. Box #3 was my best PC bargain ever. Think back to the 1 GHz P3 days about 7 years. $460 would buy an Intel 1 GHz P3 if you could find one. $460 would also buy a 1 GHz Athlon, an Asus A7V motherboard and 128 M of Crucial DRAM. Box #2 was a relatively inexpensive "good enough" system. It's still my workhorse system.

I do not want AMD to turn into another Via. I want them alive, kicking, and competitive. Competition has given us $300, high performance, quad-core CPU's.

 

[Reynod]

If Intel were that smart then pray tell me why did they go with Netburst for so long knowing that it was slower than the P3 at the same speed?

Why not ramp the P3 with some fine tuning ... er the M??

http://www.emulators.com/docs/pentium_1.htm

Analyzing the results - why the Pentium 4 fails to deliver

MISTAKE #1 - Small L1 data cache -
MISTAKE #2 - No L3 cache -
MISTAKE #4 - Trace cache throughput too low
MISTAKE #5 - Wrong distribution of execution units
MISTAKE #6 - Shifts and rotates are slow
MISTAKE # 7 - Fixed the partial register stall with a worse solution
MISTAKE #8 - Instructions take more clock cycles to complete
MISTAKE #9 - Thermal issues at higher speed

Make no mistake ... engineers do not run this world ... or they would have butchered that cow and rejigged the P3 before it ever saw the light of day.

The executive at Intel overlooked all of the advice they were being given by a nuimber of engineers because the lead team on the P4 project were obviously very good at pulling the wool over their eyes.

Any company is capable of being mislead.

People run the world ... people make mistakes.

Thankfully they learned and the new core2 Penryn are next.

Hopefully the Nehalem project will be something equally as good.

I have a soft spot for the underdog (AMD) but hey ... never said I was an engineer either.

 

[beerandcandy]

net burst is gone lol why talk about it why not talk about core 2 which is something you can buy or whats comming up instead

 

[jsc]

Think back just 2 or 3 years. Everyone, even AMD to a certain extent, was in a speed race to 4 GHz. Until the end, efficiency, power consumption, and the thermal envelope didn't matter.

And Pentium M was the father of C2D - courtesy of Intel' s design team in Israel.

I brought up netburst to illustrate a point. If you check my sig, you'll notice two things: latest build is a C2D, and the other two boxes aren't Intel P4's.

And next year, I am going to put a Penryn C2Q in Box #1.

Oh, and you can still buy late generation P4's. Except for the replacement market, though, I'm not sure why anyone would.

 

[beerandcandy]

anyone buying a p4 doesnt know what penryn is anyways
RIP p4

 

[Ycon]

I like the idea of the 8-core at the bottom of the page.
Would still burn same power or less power than Angina and only like 15-20W more than Taliban.

 

[yomamafor1]

reynod, as you said, people make mistakes. Intel made their mistakes, and the result was AMD eating into their market share.

In the Pentium 4 days, Intel's execution was extremely weak, and erratic, where AMD's execution was flawless. The distinctive difference between the two companies behavior reshape the Intel dominated industry. We can have high performance computers that doesn't melt your motherboard socket.

But time has changed. Now Intel is executing flawlessly, where AMD is executing erratically. Because of AMD's execution, Intel was able to regain market share, raise their ASP, increase their profit, at the expense of AMD's rising debt, bleeding financials, and losing in the performance segment.

That's just how the industry works.

 

[joefriday]

If Intel were that smart then pray tell me why did they go with Netburst for so long knowing that it was slower than the P3 at the same speed?

Is this a rhetorical question? I think you know the answer. The PIII could not clock near as high as Netburst, so therefore Netburst outperformed PIII by shear clock speed. A win is a win, and P4 won over PIII.

Why not ramp the P3 with some fine tuning ... er the M??

The PIII with fine tuning was done already. It was called Tualatin, launched in July 2001, 8 months after the P4 launch. That was an improved design on .13 micron architecture, that was clocked to 1.4GHz, and even at that speed, only matched the performance of the 1.8GHz P4 Williamette, which was still being made on the larger .18 micron architecture. PIII, during that time, had no chance of outperforming Pentium 4. Once Intel moved P4 over to the Northwood .13 micron architecture in January 2002, 3GHz+ speeds were possible. That's twice the clock speed of a PIII Tualatin on the same .13 micron transistor node. P4 didn't have the IPC of PIII, but it had a huge clock potential that overcame the IPC handicap.

The Pentium M didn't launch until 2003, and it didn't reach clock speeds high enough to actually challenge P4 until the switch to 90nm Dothan in February 2004. That's more than 3 years after the initial launch of P4 before a Pentium III derivative was actually a contender to P4. In the meantime P4 did it's job, and did it well, being an excellent multimedia CPU. The only real fault it had is that is stuck around about a year too long, as it became glaringly outdated by the middle of 2005 when AMD's FX-57 and X2 processors were running uncontested for the performance crown.

 

[MrCommunistGen]

Sounds like a quad-core notebook processor might not be too far off.

-mcg