Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Conroe – the Axe for Intel Pentium 4?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 1, 2004 8:41:59 PM

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040222123818..." target="_new">Click to read</A>

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2004 2:46:43 AM

LOL, 20-30% gains...based on the Pentium-M...wait, wasn't the PIII 20-30% faster than the P4, clock for clock? Hmm, isn't the Pentium-M based on the Pentium III?

AMD proved that a similar architecture could be stretched...indefinately, by making the original Athlon into the XP followed by the A64!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
March 2, 2004 4:38:02 AM

RE: AMD proved that a similar architecture could be stretched...indefinately, by making the original Athlon into the XP followed by the A64!

AMD streched nothing...The way I see it Intel proved idiots (the general public) could be fooled by the MHz myth at least with marketing crap now referd to as blue crystals. It was Intel that pushed marketing crap over performance only to revert back at a later time. AMD stuck to what really maters performance.

The high MHz p4 is now giving Intel nothing but headaches because its not delivering in performance (top gun wise) Intel (IMHO will change back to simalar clock speeds as AMD uses) why because the game is over high MHz and sub par performance will only push your stock price for so long. Sooner or later Intel needs to adopt what is best for performance or risk being exposed for marketing crap or becomming #2.

I think we can all agree Intel will be smart enough to get back on track and stop pushing MHz.


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2004 5:39:12 AM

Quote:
AMD streched nothing...

The A64 and Opteron are based on 90's technology, yet you claim they stretched (the lifespan of) no(technological)thing. Now who's the idiot?

AMD has always struggled to stretch OLD technology to it's limit, with the 5x86 (486), the K5K6/K6-2/K6-III, and now the Athlon. Intel on the other hand is always trying to force new technology even when it isn't better. For example the first Pentiums were horrible, worse than the 486's of the day. Etc. It's funny how Intel thinks it's more financially sound to dump proven technology rather than continue updating it.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
March 2, 2004 5:46:02 AM

Re: Now who's the idiot?

As always crash you are the idiot.

Show me a conversation we had were you are not proven an idiot.

As always crash you reek of bias.


Re: The A64 and Opteron are based on 90's technology

Gimme a frigging break, do I need to even answer that idiot line.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2004 6:37:16 AM

LOL, you've never proven a thing, except your own bias and hatred for the truth. Heck, you probably through your money at both GW AND the Taliban just because they both lie so well. Anyway, you've never won an argument with me, in fact I doubt you've ever won an argument with anyone, and your opinion that A64 and Opteron are NOT based on the original Athlon core goes against the facts.

Idiot line? Hehe, you haven't even looked at the Opteron or A64 have you? At the heart of every one is an Athlon core, revised slightly from the original circa 1999.


Let me guess, you wouldn't argue against the Pentium-M being based on the Pentium Pro core, would you? And you call ME biased. You couldn't even win an argument with a rock, because a rock...by remaining silent, wouldn't say anything wrong!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
March 2, 2004 7:22:36 AM

Crash I said show a link were I did not prove you a fool.

Yet I get a bunch of garbage.

typical coming from a bias fool.

Re: and your opinion that A64 and Opteron are NOT based on the original Athlon core goes against the facts.


Where are you getting this? Quit feeding everyone BS.... Where did I ever say that was my opinion. Besides that is a huge debate in its self..

Re: Let me guess, you wouldn't argue against the P4-M being based on the Pentium Pro core, would you?

What? have you totally lost it? I'll argue with anyone who is wrong including him. Problem is the guy is right an awful lot more than you are.


Crash keep Osomid and the Taliban out of this. Lets try and stick to the facts.

Like I said show a conversation I had with you where you were not proven a bias fool.

And keep it up crash because if you don't drop it I will show the links.
That's a promise so don't make me go there.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by darko21 on 03/02/04 04:25 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 2, 2004 7:57:38 AM

>>Let me guess, you wouldn't argue against the P4-M being based on the Pentium Pro core, would you

I would argue. The P4-M is a mobile P4, not the Pentium-M. :wink:



For arguments sake, all CPUs use technology from the 60's and backwards, so using tech from the, oh horror, 90's is OK.

If something streches, why not strech it? I don't see what is so wrong in what AMD does. Yes, the A64 is based on the original Athlon core, which in turn is based(albeit loosly) on the very first 8086. If it performs, and performs well, while using less power that competing solutions, I would'nt care if it was based on my toaster.

Unless of course you're a real geek, with a new-tech fetish or something... :tongue:




A long long time ago, but I can still remember, how that music used to make me smile... <A HREF="http://www.nexus.hu/zonix/DIGGER.MID" target="_new"><b><font color=blue>Digger rulz</font color=blue></b></A>
March 2, 2004 7:58:21 AM

Quote:

>>>Let me guess, you wouldn't argue against the P4-M being based on the Pentium
>>>Pro core, would you?

What? have you totally lost it? I'll argue with anyone who is wrong including him. Problem is the guy is right an awful lot more than you are.

Just to keep a good mudfight going, I believe Crash was referring to the P4-Mobile chip, not our beloved P4Man.


BigMac

<A HREF="http://www.p3int.com/product_center_NWO_The_Story.asp" target="_new">New World Order</A>
March 2, 2004 8:06:59 AM

Yup I mis read based as biased and asummed p4man my mistake.

Other than that I stand by what I said.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2004 4:40:44 PM

Hey, you caught a typo, since it was the Conroe and Pentium-M I was comparing from the outset. I'll fix the post in a few minutes, after giving you that time to gloat.

So show me where you've actually proved me wrong! LOL, you claim that every conversation we've had...has ended up you proving me a fool, I don't even know how long it's been since I've talked to you, but you're obviously confused.

Anyway, I'm sure you can find a post SOMEWHERE where you can distort sarcasm as a lie, or a typo as a logical error, etc. Good luck on your quest.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2004 4:42:25 PM

Yeh, I know I know, I was typing too fast maybe, but you knew what I meant. I'll fix it.

Yes, Intel's "throw they baby out with the bathwater" approach has cost them how much?

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2004 4:44:12 PM

wow, too many post about a typing mistake, so...it's fixed, sorry, yes I meant the Pentium-M, as you can see from my previous post.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
March 2, 2004 4:44:20 PM

extending nextgen core

i need to change useur name.
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2004 9:00:47 PM

I believe it was developed in 1997, but production problems held it back for a while, I don't remember when it was introduced, but it was the LATE 90's, which makes it nearly as old as the Pentium Pro core was when Intel axed the PIII.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
March 2, 2004 9:20:51 PM

To the general audiance

K7 was develope by Nextgen
K8 use the same core that K7
Hyper transport or LTD was develope at alpha in the time of Dick meyer was still there.Also intergrade memory controleur was done there also.

i need to change useur name.
March 2, 2004 9:44:33 PM

Quote:
Intel needs to adopt what is best for performance or risk being exposed for marketing crap

I can tell which side of the fense is greener to you. :smile: But before you blame Intel for ALL the marketing crap, don't forget AMD's naming scheme. Sure their "+" scheme was started because they were losing the MHz wars, and it was more than conservative from the start as the p4 Willimettes got toasted by equivalent XP's. But once Intel released the 800 bus chips, AMD's naming scheme became a joke. Yet many "fools" might still think a XP2800+ is faster than a P4 - 2.8C. I don't think AMD minds these fools buying their cpu while falling for the XP+ naming scheme. To some extent I'd imagine most hardware manufacturers could be flamed for marketing crap at some point in time. Intel, AMD, NVida, Gainward, Powercolor, etc.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
March 2, 2004 10:30:11 PM

Re: But once Intel released the 800 bus chips, AMD's naming scheme became a joke.

I agree the xprating system was designed to combat the lower performing higher MHz of the early p4. But you gotta realize that the xp-rating system uses a thunderbird running a specific set of benchmarks to come to a final score. as the xp improves more MHZ on die cache sse etc etc the higher the xp-rating #.

While it is misleading when comparing to a p4 such as the "c" chip, what was amd to do? Do you expect amd to change the benchmarks and formula every single time Intel adds some cache or increases the FSB. That’s not a reasonable expectation. I believe amd has adjusted the amd rating with the amd-64 (I think)

Look at it this way if the prescott performed a little worse over all at 3.2 Giz over a p4 "c" at 3.2 giz can AMD bump all there current cpu rating #'s that would be stupid. I don't see why Intel needs to be the yard stick by which a CPU's performance is measured anyway. But because of the uneducated public AMD does do it that way.

Personally I'd like to see all CPU's use the same formula so the public knows what it is getting for the money. I could see AMD agreeing to this but not Intel. It does not go with there marketing strategy more MHz higher sales.

You should watch P4-Man's video it's long and a little dry but its has a former chief p4 engineer explaining Intel’s marketing as (blue crystals) implementing things that do pretty much nothing but help with marketing such as very high but less performance MHz. The Intel CPU designers say its a bad thing technically but possible to do so they do it but face grief down the road such as lots of heat.

PS what are blue crystals? The former intel engineer describes them like the little blue crystals you see in a certain big name brand laundary soap. They are blue shinny crystals but they don't do a single thing other than help with marketing.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
!