Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Really???????? WHY INTEL, WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 8:59:48 AM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

3 eggs, apperently a space heater... WHY???????? 115 watts???? the 2500k is 95 watts


i thoughts intel was good SadFace...

More about : intel

March 24, 2012 10:12:42 AM

melikepie said:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

3 eggs, apperently a space heater... WHY???????? 115 watts???? the 2500k is 95 watts


i thoughts intel was good SadFace...


I probably should point out that you're comparing a processor released in 2011, versus one released in the early 2000's at the latest. It's a single core P4. Back then that's best they could do. AMD would have had the same "space heater". Thus why it's $12.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 12:02:29 PM

To add to that, the P4 was horribly inefficient (look up net burst architecture), and at the time AMD was giving them a good stomp down with the Athlon 64.

Related resources
a c 448 à CPUs
a c 111 å Intel
March 24, 2012 1:38:31 PM

Really... being a bit over dramatic aren't we... like a drama queen...

The P4 Presscott was made back in 2004 using a 90nm die process. The core i5-2500k was made in 2011 using the 32nm die process.

a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 1:43:16 PM

jaguarskx said:
Really... being a bit over dramatic aren't we... like a drama queen...

The P4 Presscott was made back in 2004 using a 90nm die process. The core i5-2500k was made in 2011 using the 32nm die process.


Somewhere, someone just had an epiphany lol.
a c 214 à CPUs
a c 128 å Intel
March 24, 2012 1:53:11 PM

Some people will just post anything without doing any research.
a c 83 à CPUs
March 24, 2012 4:22:43 PM

Any my old 130nm Athlon 64 consumed more power than my 45nm Athlon II X4 640, whats your point? Technology clearly advances over time. lol
a c 123 à CPUs
March 24, 2012 4:31:25 PM

I am just suprised you can still actually buy them. Weird.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 4:54:45 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I am just suprised you can still actually buy them. Weird.

+1
a c 218 à CPUs
a b å Intel
March 24, 2012 5:47:03 PM

This post made me laugh.

Hopefully OP was trolling. If not then he needs to spend a few months educating himself before trying to help anyone on the forums!
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 9:57:46 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I am just suprised you can still actually buy them. Weird.

yep
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 9:58:43 PM

inzone said:
Some people will just post anything without doing any research.

well i don't see why intel made a chip so bad.
March 24, 2012 10:07:44 PM

melikepie said:
well i don't see why intel made a chip so bad.


The chip is only bad on today's standards. If you're trolling, please stop.
a c 184 à CPUs
a b å Intel
March 24, 2012 10:12:55 PM

It was good back then...?

How well do these oc?
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 10:17:56 PM

AndrewK1 said:
The chip is only bad on today's standards. If you're trolling, please stop.

well that chip does not seem usfull, to many watts so little time!
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 10:19:20 PM

amuffin said:
It was good back then...?

How well do these oc?

i used one when around athlon time... it's alright but the athlon seemed better at bigger loads but i never overclocked it.
a c 184 à CPUs
a b å Intel
March 24, 2012 10:22:49 PM

melikepie said:
well that chip does not seem usfull, to many watts so little time!

Though why are you complaining? This is a very old processor.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 10:24:25 PM

amuffin said:
Though why are you complaining? This is a very old processor.

the specs were suprising
a c 184 à CPUs
a b å Intel
March 24, 2012 10:27:24 PM

melikepie said:
the specs were suprising

How so?
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 10:36:45 PM

amuffin said:
How so?

by high wattage i though around 65 watts which is like twice the sb per-core wattage, not more then the i5
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 11:00:33 PM

melikepie said:
by high wattage i though around 65 watts which is like twice the sb per-core wattage, not more then the i5


actually the one you linked has 115 watts per core and the sb 2500k has about 24 watts per core.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 11:06:48 PM

Is it April 1st already? On a serious note, you can't compare a CPU made back in 2004 to one made in 2011. It's like comparing the graphics of a Nintendo N64 to the Xbox360.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 11:37:46 PM

runswindows95 said:
Is it April 1st already? On a serious note, you can't compare a CPU made back in 2004 to one made in 2011. It's like comparing the graphics of a Nintendo N64 to the Xbox360.


It's like comparing the graphics of a Nintendo wii to the the Xbox360 (fixed)
March 24, 2012 11:46:23 PM

I too find that seeing this in stock and for sale fascinating.. I almost want to buy one just to keep as a collectable. Such an infamous chip.

Though would still be a halfway decent and super cheap upgrade for someone with an old system.
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 11:46:26 PM

Just what is a 'REFURBISHED' CPU?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 24, 2012 11:55:31 PM

DelroyMonjo said:
Just what is a 'REFURBISHED' CPU?


They removed the thermal paste :D 
March 25, 2012 1:12:48 AM

Quote:
They removed the thermal paste :D 



Haha that's good! I also wonder. Not like they are going to rip open the thermal package and re-tune the fabrication process.
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2012 1:15:13 AM

lemlo said:
Haha that's good! I also wonder. Not like they are going to rip open the thermal package and re-tune the fabrication process.

lol
a c 123 à CPUs
March 25, 2012 1:48:22 AM

melikepie said:
by high wattage i though around 65 watts which is like twice the sb per-core wattage, not more then the i5


You still forget that that was also on 90nm process compared to 32nm process, which is almost 1/3rd of the process size.

I bet if they took that same CPU and shrunk it down to 32nm it would have a TDP of 38w, or about 1/3rd of its original TDP.
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2012 2:16:47 AM

DelroyMonjo said:
Just what is a 'REFURBISHED' CPU?

Intel found it under one of thier fab machines while installing the 3B upgrade, dusted it off.
March 25, 2012 2:55:51 AM

jimmysmitty said:
You still forget that that was also on 90nm process compared to 32nm process, which is almost 1/3rd of the process size.

I bet if they took that same CPU and shrunk it down to 32nm it would have a TDP of 38w, or about 1/3rd of its original TDP.


actually going from the pentium 4 90nm transistors to 32nm should see far greater temp reduction. transistor size is squared so 90nm is actually 90nm x 90nm, just by going to 65nm you half the transistor size. This should half the power consumption at the same performance. So by going to 45nm you'd be at about 38w since its a 4th of 90nm size.
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2012 3:18:51 AM

Phyrexiancure said:
actually going from the pentium 4 90nm transistors to 32nm should see far greater temp reduction. transistor size is squared so 90nm is actually 90nm x 90nm, just by going to 65nm you half the transistor size. This should half the power consumption at the same performance. So by going to 45nm you'd be at about 38w since its a 4th of 90nm size.

netburst has potentiol (misspelled), 22nm and a few fixes would be great but sb might still be better
March 25, 2012 9:39:16 AM

noob2222 said:
Intel found it under one of thier fab machines while installing the 3B upgrade, dusted it off.


You mean they stuck it under one of the legs to keep the machine level? :D 
!