- Feb 9, 2003
- 8,248
- 0
- 30,780
Prescott or Barton
- Thread starter HardWareBoss
- Start date
-
- Tags
- SATA Windows XP
Mephistopheles
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2003
- 2,444
- 0
- 19,780
Actually, from the feeling I´ve been getting about the specs on Prescott, i´m pretty sure it *should* be faster than the barton. This is mainly because Prescott is a redesign of the current Northwood core, with a number of enhancements, and Barton lacks further enhancements, except maybe increased fsb and larger cache. (a northwood is already scheduled for may with 800mhz fsb, 3.2Ghz core clock, to go with springdale/canterwood chipsets - note: this is NOT the prescott yet!)
I´d expect the Prescott to be competition to Hammer, and not to Barton. Also, I think the prescott won´t be introduced for a while, so the real competition for barton would be the 3.2Ghz, 800Mhz, HT-enabled Northwood. But still, it looks to me like this Northwood, coupled with Canterwood, will be VERY tough for barton to beat. Looks like Canterwood is a theoretical trump card for intel, even more so than nForce for AMD, and if it lives up to the expectations, then, well...
The hard part about the whole thing is this: the new 3.2Ghz should not be 4.3% faster than the 3.066Ghz, as would be the case with perfect scaling, because of newer chipsets and the (highly) increased fsb. But then, how will the PR rating cope with that? If AMD is planning on countering the 3.2Ghz with a barton, they´d rate it a 3200+, but how should they know what performance to expect, if they have nothing to relate to? Those PR ratings must be causing them a lot of headache right about now.
I´d expect the Prescott to be competition to Hammer, and not to Barton. Also, I think the prescott won´t be introduced for a while, so the real competition for barton would be the 3.2Ghz, 800Mhz, HT-enabled Northwood. But still, it looks to me like this Northwood, coupled with Canterwood, will be VERY tough for barton to beat. Looks like Canterwood is a theoretical trump card for intel, even more so than nForce for AMD, and if it lives up to the expectations, then, well...
The hard part about the whole thing is this: the new 3.2Ghz should not be 4.3% faster than the 3.066Ghz, as would be the case with perfect scaling, because of newer chipsets and the (highly) increased fsb. But then, how will the PR rating cope with that? If AMD is planning on countering the 3.2Ghz with a barton, they´d rate it a 3200+, but how should they know what performance to expect, if they have nothing to relate to? Those PR ratings must be causing them a lot of headache right about now.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram