Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The P4 is a mistake... Tualatin is the real deal.

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 19, 2001 3:55:43 PM

P3 core = 6 years...
1.13ghz = I'll make sure its above 2ghz
0.13micron = Overclockers Dream ;*)
256-bit cache = more data can be transfer
SSE2 = Great to add-on to a good cpu
166mhz fsb ? = I dont know much about this one
Well thats all i know.

Tualatin Should be called the P4. Not other crap intel cpu "Pentium 4"

My p3 broke :*( Well Tualatin is coming :*)
March 19, 2001 8:36:16 PM

Hey tbirdinside maybe im right here. Your afraid that the Tualatin could beat the athlon. Well this could hold up AMD till northwood comes. Well im right. Prove me wrong i dare you...

My p3 broke :*( Well Tualatin is coming :*)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2001 9:04:23 PM

No. You are very wrong. First of all Intel will only go as high as 1.26GHz cause if they went any higher 1.26PII would be challenging the higher end P4's like 1.7 and 1.8GHz P4's And 2 the P4 may one day become a good CPU. A few things need to happen. 1. SSE2, period. 2. A DDR P4 chipset with Single Channel PC3200 DDR (200Mhz. Clockspeed)

P.S. 1.26GHz it self may challeng 1.5P4!
Related resources
March 19, 2001 9:14:58 PM

Isn't the Tualatin just the .13 miron PIII? Being that it is, are you sure they are going to add SSE2 to it? I mean, to me, that seems too drastic of a design change to still be the PIII... The real deal is gonna be .13 micron Northwood Pentium 4, as Intel want's that to be theri flagship processor. Pentium III will kinda turn into the Celeron of today. Basically, at .13 micron, Pentium III cores will be puny, and I mean PUNY, unless they do make design changes to the core and incorporate things like SSE2. They'll be so small that so many will fit on their wafers. And I believe Intel is gonna be increasing their wafer size to 300 mm soon as well, further reducing cost. At .13 micron, you'll see Pentium 4s at the prices of todays Pentium III, and .13 micron Pentium IIIs at the price of todays Celerons. No way is Intel gonna make the Tualatin a kick ass processor, just like what they did with the Celeron.

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2001 9:19:08 PM

well, hopefully the P4 will evolve into northwood, which may be halfways decent....you never know

tualatin looks like it could be great, but i can see intel pulling the ol' shifty and deliberately slowing it down.

never mind, we can always speed it up again :) 

___________________________________________

Smoking is a major cause of statistics.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2001 9:24:43 PM

I agree the P4 is obviously the best intel has to offer right now...


So let me get this straight.
You think the new p3 will outperform its big brother the p4

i doubt intel is that foolish

I agree with Ksoth that it will just be the lower end processor and take off where the celeron will leave off

-- They have found a way to harness the power of a thunderstorm and expell it with great force!--
March 19, 2001 10:36:03 PM

But then again, I may be wrong... I mean, the Celeron is basically a Pentium III without the L2 cache, correct? There is no way that the Pentium III is gonna get it's cache taken away. So, on a clock for clock basis the Pentium III will wip the "current" Pentium 4. Will the Northwood P4, on a clock for clock basis, be much better than the current Willamette P4? If not too much better, the only way Intel can get away with selling Pentium IIIs is by intentionally leaving the clocks slow. P4 will probably hit 2.0-2.5 GHz by the end of the year, and I bet they'll keep PIIIs at 1.5 or so, just to make sure PIII will not outperform P4 (kind of like how the Celerons outperformed the more expensive PII when they first came out, which was stupid. They don't wanna do that again.) But, if Northwood P4 kick total ass and are completely superior on a clock for clock basis as the current P4 and PIII, you'd probably see both P4 and PIII hitting the same clock speeds of 2+ GHz by the end of the year. It's doubtful that Celerons will keep going, as there is not poing for Intel to have 3 different processor types.

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2001 10:53:40 PM

First of all the Celeron does have 128KB of L2 Cache, half of the PIII's. The only other difference is that all but the newer 800MHz Celeron has a 66MHz Bus, 800 has 100 FSB. I doubt very much that Tusaltin will have SSE2. All I've heard about it is that they are just giving it a die shrink just to make it be able to achieve higher clock speeds, and also they will NOT cut the PIII's L2 in half. If they're going to do that just get rid of the PIII and keep Celeron. And yeah there's no way in hell Tulsatin will out perform the P4. That would be suicide. I mean come on look at all they are having to do to get the P4 to succed. I truthfully cannot see how Northwood would be any better except for the fact that any DDR chipset most likely for P4 would be for Northwood and not Williamette. I mean all they're doing to it is changing it to a 0.13 micron process and MAYBE giving it L3 cache.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 19, 2001 10:59:02 PM

tualatin not having SSE2???

???????????????????????????

???

___________________________________________

Smoking is a major cause of statistics.
March 20, 2001 12:07:55 AM

It was the first Celerons that had no cache. In the slot 1 form factor, it was the same as the Pentium II/III, but just missing the external cache chips, right? Only when Intel moved to the Coppermine core did they include cache on the celeron, and wasn't it just recently with the "Celeron 2" that the cache level was 128 KB? Cuz the Duron, with its 64K L2 cahche or whatever truly spanked the Celeron, so Intel basically had to do it...

Well, apparantly the Wilammete P4 is a total hack job on the real core, and Northwood is supposedly going to have many improvments. I think the Northwood will have a larger L1 cache as well as the implimantation of an L3 cache, and some improvements to the FPU and other parts of the chip as well. That's what I've read from a couple of places, but then again that may all be just speculation. I only think L3 cache wasn't included in the Wilamette P4 because it would make the die too humungous (already it's huge), further hiking up the price and making even fewer people want to buy it. Intel would be retarded to keep the Northwood the same as the Wilamette, sans die shrink.

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 4:41:32 AM

I really don't think the PIII, even at .13 micron, is going to get much past 1.3GHz. Intel was only able to get 400Mhz out of the Coppermine (KATMAI maxed out at 600MHz). PIII is almost dead, even with a shrink. Athlon will hit at least 1.7GHz at .18 micron and probably 2.5GHz at .13u.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 2:46:20 PM

Yes, the first Celeron's had no cache. This is the Celeron's history:

First Celeron (Don't Know core name): 266MHz-300MHz I think, no L2 cache, Slot 1
Celeron A (Mendocino): 300MHz-533MHz. 128KB L2 Cache, running at Core Clock, Socket 370 PPGA package, don't know if there was a Slot 1 version.
Celeron B (Coppermine128): 533MHz-800MHz, 128KB L2 Cache, running at core clock, Socket 370, FC-PGA package.

Yeah I've heard the same rumors about Northwood, but the only certain thing is the die shrink. The most likely change is increase in L1 cache, and next most likely L3 cache. It would not be that suprising for Tusaltin not having SSE2. Like I have said allready Intel will make certain that Tusaltin won't compete with Williamette, and thus not go much higher than 1.26GHz. They will do all they can to make people think the PIII is dead, but it really isn't. Tusaltin could make it up there but Intel just won't do it in my opinion. I will say one thing about Athlon, AMD has done a terriffic job in making a Core that performes just as good if not better than it's competitors, and a core that will last a long time.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 2:51:52 PM

Your comment on Tualatin not competing directly with Willamette is interesting Here is an excerpt from a RUMOR (I EMPHASIZE RUMOR as in not confirmed but interesting as a topic for discussion as a possibility) posted on the Reg.:
"Second to lastly, but certainly not leastly, we hear that Intel is on the verge of restricting Tualatin technology, at least on its Pentium III family, to mobile processors only. This could be a blow for chipset manufacturers who think differently, but it won't be the first time such a thing has happened."
March 20, 2001 2:58:47 PM

Williamette sucks... the Tualatin is Intel's only hope left. OEM's are ready to switch AMD even Dell said there ready for the move. If the 1.13ghz Tualatin doesn't beat the Athlon 1.2ghz Intel is doomed...

My p3 broke :*( Well Tualatin is coming :*)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 3:13:33 PM

RC,
Although I agree with you that Wilamette "Sucks", I can't agree that Intel is doomed by any stretch. They are WAY to big for one bad product cycle to kill, and my prediction is that they will recover some of the "lost face" that this year has cost them. But, the misteps they have made this year have certainly opened the door for AMD to increase their market share. I think the days of no credible competition in the PC processor arena are done for good.

But what I am really interested in is the upcoming battle over 64 bit processing. Intel and AMD have taken two completely different paths on this one....Intel is sacrificing backward compatability/32 bit performance while AMD is going for a chip that supposedly will handle 32/64 bit performance equally well. If AMD can deliver, this could prove to be a huge advantage for them even IF their 64 bit performance is not quite as good as the Intel solution. They could provide a superior "transition" product for the move from 32 bit to 64 bit applications, allowing companies to start the move to 64 bit where they need it without having to throw out 32 bit applications that are performing just fine. This could accelerate their acceptance in the corporate arena, something that has proved to be difficult for them up to now and is just starting to happen. I DO NOT pretend to know how this will work out, but it sure is going to be interesting.
March 20, 2001 3:21:49 PM

You say PIII only got 400 MHz from the Katmai-Coppermine switchover, but that is like a 65% increase. Even if we were to base the next step on the same percentages, PIII should have no problems getting to atleast 1.65-1.7 GHz. Maybe higher if Intel uses silicon-on-insulator, but I think I remember reading something about how they are the only chip company that isn't going to adopt SOI... Not sure though. AMD road maps point to the Palomino .18 micron Athlon hitting 2 GHz by the end of the year. With Northwood P4s coming out (soon?), Athlons will need to atleast keep up in clock speed in order to compete.

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
March 20, 2001 3:24:20 PM

Well Northwood better be one hell of a good processor. Tualatin is in the spot to be very popular with OEM's. So, no SSE2 and cache under 256kb could equal the end of intel.

Second off...

SiS has 2 Tualatin chipsets coming out. Also the i815ep supports the Tualatin. I see intel has no choise but to keep the Tualatin vs. Athlon. Cause the Current P4 sucks!!!! and Northwood is so far away.

My p3 broke :*( Well Tualatin is coming :*)
March 20, 2001 3:50:03 PM

Why in the world do people keep thinking that the Tualatin will have any less cache than the Coppermine? It'll have the same cache, if not more. That's pretty guaranteed.

As for the Tualatin having SSE2, that's likely to be bogus. If I were an Intel exec planning out my company's future, I would do the following:

Release the Tualatin as a DIE SHRINK ONLY. Let the Tualatin core go up to however many GHz it can. Don't put SSE2 into the Tualatin.

Release the Northwood with the improved FPU and more L1 cache, and with an improved branch prediction when running unoptimized code. And continue SSE2 support in the Northwood. Also, put that ability for the Northwood to act as a dual-processor system all by itself in, as well as give the Northwood multiple-processor support.

What will this simple but effective plan do?

The Tualatin, not having SSE2, nor an extra-large cache, nor support for high memory bandwidth (same flaws as in P3 and Athlon) will replace the P3 and Celeron as Intel's low- budget champ. It's speeds will probably get somewhere around 2GHz. Even at 1.5GHz though, it'd be a success as a budget chip if the prices are low enough. And without SSE2 support and with it's bandwidth limitations, it will never be able to compete against the Northwood for performance.

Meanwhile the Northwood with it's superior memory bandwidth capabilities and SSE2 support, as well as it's much improved scalability, will be able to have higher GHz ratings and well out-perform the Tualatin. On a clock-for-clock comparison, the Northwood MIGHT (and I strongly stress the unlikeliness of that might) not perform as well as a Tualatin. But no one will care because the Northwood's GHz will be so much higher that the best Northwood will far exceed the performance of the best Tualatin.

Then, if the Itanium doesn't go over well, just make a 64bit version of the Northwood.

As for the debate over the Itanium vs. the SledgeHammer, so far it's ALL theoretical because emulator performance DOESN'T count worth a darn and REAL benchmarks haven't been released for either chip ... as far as I know. (If I'm wrong, please put the links to benchmarks of NON-EMULATED results here.) So we can't judge EITHER of the 64bit chips until they're actually released to the general public.

-Despite all my <font color=red>rage</font color=red>, I'm still just a <font color=orange>rat</font color=orange> in a <font color=white>cage</font color=white>.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 3:54:50 PM

Like I said Slvr, we can't evaluate the 64 bit arena yet. BUT, you have to admit that it could be the next big fight between these two adn the differences between the two companies approach to this issue are interesting. It is going to make for an interesting discussion/debate as it draws closer.
March 20, 2001 4:45:30 PM

Yeah.

It'll almost definately be their next battleground because computers really could use the upgrade to 64bits. This whole 2GB memory limitation is annoying. Besides, as a programmer, I'd enjoy seeing all of those nifty new variable types on a 64bit x86 system. Plus, it would be interesting to see what the 64bit assembler code is like with the larger registers and all.

I'm definately interested in the next-gen chips from AMD and Intel.

I get the feeling thought that AMD is aiming their Hammer chips more at the budget-server / home user. They bridge that gap, but they do it by sacrificing themselves from being able to be really powerful servers.

Where as Intel is pushing it's Itanium in the direction of high-end servers / supercomputers and ignoring the fact that home users might want a 64 bit processor.

I could be totally wrong. That's just the feeling that I'm getting about each chip. Performance-wise though, I'd really love to see the two as single-processor systems and the two as dual-processor systems, running against each other, benchmarks and all.

-Despite all my <font color=red>rage</font color=red>, I'm still just a <font color=orange>rat</font color=orange> in a <font color=white>cage</font color=white>.
March 20, 2001 6:23:23 PM

This is one huge problem I see with the Northwood/Tualatin comings from Intel. Ok, right now you have Celerons and Pentium III, both of which can go in the same motherboards. You buy a Celeron system, and for the most part you can upgrade just the processor by sticking a high megahertz Pentium III and you will get a much better computer in the end. Now, Tualatin Pentium III and Northwood Pentium 4 will not be the same socket type and will not be compatible on the same motherboards/chipsets, mainly because Pentium 4 works off the quad pumped 100 MHz bus. So, the problem I see if Intel truly were to turn Pentium III into their budget processor, people would totally not be able to upgrade their systems. They'd still have to buy a new mobo and maybe even new RAM, depending on how budget it is. I think doing that is plain retarded. Will they come out with a hacked up Northwood that will turn into their budget processor??? Seems a bit sucky to me...

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
March 20, 2001 6:49:32 PM

How did you figure that? Deshutes and Katmai, both .25, took the P6 core from the Pentium Pro, at 200MHz, to 600Mhz. Coppermine took it another 400Mhz. Now suddenly the Tualatin is going to break the trend and jump an astonishing 6-700MHz. NOT! Intel has already said they're not using SOI and even if they were the P6 will have trouble getting to 1.4GHz. Also, what AMD roadmap are you talking about? AMD's roadmap calls for 1.7 in the second half. Do you have a link?
March 20, 2001 6:52:35 PM

Are you serious?

The computer industry has changed socket/slot types how many times in the past ten years?

It seems like being unable to upgrade without replacing almost every internal component is the computer technician's motto.

The Northwood will use a totally new socket. The Tualatin will also use a totally new socket. I doubt that the two will EVER be able to run on the same motherboard.

But it seems pretty clear from Intel that Tualatin will be their low-cost processor and Northwood will be their performance processor.

So if you have a Tualatin and want to upgrade to a Northwood, you'll need an all new everything.

And if you own a P3, Celeron, or Wilamette, you may be totally screwed and need an all-new motherboard if you want to upgrade to a new Tualatin or Northwood.

But then how different is that from AMD's method? They did the whole socket to slot to socket mess too, and all the while tossing thoughts of compatability and upgradability to the wind ... until only just recently.

And from what I have heard their Hammers are supposed to use an all-new socket. And their .13micron upgrades for the Athlon and Duron are supposed to use new voltages. Same socket, but different voltages.

This means that if you have an SocketA motherboard right now, you MAY be able to support the new chips. Maybe. And again, you may not. It depends on how old the motherboard is. Just because it's SocketA doesn't mean that it will support the new chips though because it may not have the voltage settings needed.

My point? Upgradability is a real pain. When going with a significantly newer processor it should just be expected to go with a new motherboard and RAM, if not just purchase a whole new system. That, or you'll have to hunt for the specifics of what you can actually upgrade to and you'll have to be happy with less than the latest and greatest.

Such is life when PCs are involved.

It's a pain, but it's not likely to ever change.

Besides, the CPU isn't the only thing that should be upgraded to improve system performance anyway. Faster motherboards, memory, and video cards are always coming out. Sometimes you can severely improve your system performance without even touching the CPU itself. But if you're going to upgrade your CPU, you might as well make sure that it's using the best motherboard and memory possible anyway, because anything less would just slow it down.

-Despite all my <font color=red>rage</font color=red>, I'm still just a <font color=orange>rat</font color=orange> in a <font color=white>cage</font color=white>.
March 20, 2001 7:01:16 PM

If you read my post, I am talking about PERCENTAGE changes. A .25 to .18 micron shrink allowed for a 65% increase in clock speed for the Pentium III. So, if a .18 to .13 micron switch also allowed for the same PERCENTAGE increase in clock speed (65%), you may see Pentium III getting up to 1.65 GHz, a 65% increase in clock speed. It's probably not an exact science, but it makes more sense to me that using a percentage to guesstimate future clock speeds makes more sense than a set number. I mean, if you take it to the extremes, say you had a 10 GHz processor, so a die shrink would only allow a 10.4 GHz (400 MHz increase) chip? I don't think so. Do you kinda get what I'm saying now? If the Pentium III can only get to 1.4 GHz, that is a fatal move for Intel, considering Athlons are already close to hitting 1.4 GHz, soon to be much higher. A 400 MHz increase just doesn't seem like it has enough room to be successful, considering when 1.4 GHz Tualatins come out, Athlons will be quite a bit faster. Sure, if Intel is gonna be selling them as their budget chips that's not so bad, but by that time AMD might have a newer, better budget chip as well... Anyone know when Tualatin is scheduled for release?

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 7:03:03 PM

Several things, first of all. Intel is by no means dieing. Not only does it take one missed product, but also they are still very good with OEM's. I really think that Northwood will be a chip worth buying, as long as it's with DDR, and not Rambus. I did not say Tusaltin will have less L2 cache. I really believe that Tusaltin will only be and I mean only a die shrink just to squeez out a couple more faster PIII's but that's all, now weather it will be only a mobile processor is another matter. I do think that even though much you are saying is speculation and rumors slvr, I won't be suprised a bit it things turn out the way you are suggesting. Tusaltin will not be able to compete with Northwood, if it has most of what is being speculated (More L1 cache, L3 cache, improved FPU, DDR), but I just really don't think Tusaltin will go very high just so Intel can save Williamete's back from being beaten by Tusaltin. And as far as 64-bit CPU's no one evaluate it, and yes it will be very interesting later in the year about that situation.
March 20, 2001 7:10:33 PM

I agree.

And this is complete speculation and guesswork, but I believe that when the Northwood comes out, Intel will take the stance of, "Do whatever you want to discredit and mock the Wilamette, because we know it doesn't perform, but the Northwood does and I dare you to discredit it."

And so Intel won't care if their own Tualatin kicks the Wilamette's butt badly in every benchmark, just so long as their Northwood performs better than the Tualatin.

I could be wrong, but I get the strong impression that the Wilamette was a product that Intel pushed before it was actually ready because of the MHz battle with AMD and they won't care if it vanishes entirely once their Northwood is out.

I just want to see AMD's Hammer chips. Those right now are looking to be very interesting. I just hope that they'll be cheap enough for home use.

-Got your money for nothing, and your chips for free.
-I want my, I want my, I want my AMD.
March 20, 2001 7:14:02 PM

slvr_pheonix, what I mean is at the same time. At the same time, right now (before the P4), the Celeron and Pentium III both use the same slot/socket and both used the same chipsets/motherboards. I am not talking about when the industry as a whole switched sockets, like from socket 7 to slot 1 or whatever. The difference is that in the slot 1 and socket370 FCPGA, which is currently (before P4) what all Intel chips use. So, you could have a budget computer, but still have good upgradability by only buying a new chip. But, if Intel is pushing P4 as their performance chip and Tualatin as their budget, and only those, if you were to buy a Tualatin budget computer you could not upgrade to a performance computer by just buying a new chip. Get what I'm saying. Right now, if you were to buy a budget Celeron or Duron system, you could easily upgrade both to performance computers by just getting a new chip. If, at the same time, Intel is selling their two processors with two different chipsets/socket forms, this would no longer be possible. Do you get the difference now? I know that my Duron computer can be turned into a 1.3 GHz kick ass computer by just getting a new chip... But in the future, if I bought a Tualatin system, I could not upgrade to a kick ass computer by a simple chip switch.

I mean, you sound like you are disagreeing with what I said, but go and say the same things... What do you mean? You said "So if you have a Tualatin and want to upgrade to a Northwood, you'll need an all new everything," which was exactly what I was saying in my previous post...

You talk about how AMD's Hammer will not use the same socket. Again, I am not talking about that because at that time you will have the "performance" Sledgehammer and the "less-porformance" Clawhammer. At the same time those will be the choices, both using the same chipsets/motherboards/socket, so current socket A Athlons/Durons will be out of the picture. Do you get the difference in what you are saying and what I am saying?

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 7:45:27 PM

hey, did you guys see on the register, theres a rumor that tualatin might only come out for mobile chips now, not for desktops?? interesting...

but still, its only a rumor

___________________________________________

AMD. It gets you chicks.
March 20, 2001 7:54:00 PM

Sorry if I didn't quite express my point clearly.

My point is that in the past budget PCs and performance PCs have usually used two different socket/slot types. And in the future that is still the plan.

It's only for this brief period in time where things have ever been different. It's been an enjoyable fluke, but it's also caused a LOT of confusion.

Constantly people are trying to upgrade their old system with a new chip and find that their old motherboard doesn't support the new chip even though the slot/socket types are the same.

The general public is just too ignorant to research these things for themselves before they make purchases. And it's caused confusion and chaos, dispair and anger.

And it's something that I'm guessing Intel is trying to avoid ever happening again. I would imagine that they want to completely segregate the budget chips from the performance chips so that users clearly know what they have to do to upgrade.

AMD seems to be teetering on the edge of doing the same, but at the same time they seem to resist doing it. Who knows just what they'll end up doing exactly.

But my point is that it's not likely to ever happen again (at least any time soon) where you can put a budget Intel chip into a performance Intel motherboard and later upgrade to a performance Intel chip. It causes too much confusion in the general public to allow things like this.

As educated PC technicians, we can call it stupid and annoying.

But from marketting's and tech support's perspective, it makes a lot of sense.

And as the educated minority, we have to suffer for the ignorance of the majority.

But isn't that how democracy always works?

-Got your money for nothing, and your chips for free.
-I want my, I want my, I want my AMD.
March 20, 2001 8:47:30 PM

I disagree. I think that if someone is so computer illiterate that they find out their new processor isn't supported by their mobo, even if the socket is the same, wouldn't even be trying to upgrade their computer. Someone who knows nothing about computers probably wouldn't even know what type of socket they currently have, and wouldn't know where to begin to upgrade. Yes, the general public is too ignorant, that is why they pay Best Buy to upgrade their computer.

The thing is, segregating budget and performance chips from being compatible is a double edged sword from a business stand point, same so with making them compatible. A positive outcome from making them incompatible is they get to sell more motherboards, making more money. And that is a negative side of making them compatible, there are less different types of motherboards to sell. But, making them incompatible means that when someone does decide to upgrade, that leaves the window open for them upgrading their Intel budget system to an AMD performance system, and vice versa. Keeping them compatible eliminates this, because if someone can get a kick butt computer by just changing the chip out, that's the most likely course of action for most people... It gets confusing.

With AMD, it seems like their Hammer series will retain this compatibility, as there are currently two versions on the board, the 2-die/1-chip sledgehammer and the 1-die/1-chip clawhammer. Atleast I think that's how it works.

"We put the <i>fun</i> back into fundamentalist dogma!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 9:34:06 PM

"-Got your money for nothing, and your chips for free.
-I want my, I want my, I want my AMD."

now thats class. well done :) 


___________________________________________

AMD. It gets you chicks.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 9:41:12 PM

cheers... nice post
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 9:46:03 PM

haven't done any formal research on this one but if the AMD chips require more power than the pIIIs then wouldn't the total cost of ownership be higher for the athlon's due to increased electric bills creating only the illusion of winning price/performance?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 9:58:39 PM

but rambus requires more power than sd-ram so that could possibly balance it out :) 

how much power do the chipsets consume??

i think this is getting a bit pedantic

___________________________________________

AMD. It gets you chicks.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 10:50:38 PM

true my erudite friend :)  i tend to be very cavil, not to mention sententious! ;o

i was only considering a pIII with sdram. a pIII with rdram is not a wise purchase for performance or cost (no matter how much electricty the athlon's use). the p4 seems to eat up a lot of power too so i can't try this arugment out there either.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2001 11:17:02 PM

You've got a point there. I mean look every AMD system even the lower end Duron's need a 300W Power Supply, not to mention high quality HSF Units. I couldn't answer how much power chipsets consume but I will say many newer motherboards using newer chipsets (KT133A and Magik1 to be specific) have HSF units on them so they can produce an amount of heat. From a CPU makers stand point, I have to agree with ksoth, there are both pros and cons to having a single Socket/Slot for all of they're CPUs. But if I'm CEO of Intel or AMD, I go with a single Socket/Slot configuration because then not only does it streamline they're product lines, but also it would help them sell more CPU's cause if somebody only needs a new CPU instead of a new Motherboard that would help them sell more CPU's. And also you are absoultley right unless someone really knows all this stuff about Sockets he wouldn't be in there upgrading at all, he'd take it to the nearest Best Buy or CompUSA.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2001 12:37:37 AM

purchance you should provirate...it would prove pernacious to discombobulate your contrafibulations.

but on the whole power consumption thing, my reply would be "who gives a sh1t", but you do actually have a good point there. touche.

___________________________________________

AMD. It gets you chicks.
March 21, 2001 5:04:18 AM

gotta disagree, I have dealt with WAY too many people to go for that one...
"I bought a new Pentium 2, I need help getting it workin"
you own a socket 7 computer.
"I bought 128 megs ram, ditto"
168 pins don't fit 72 pins...
"why is my ata100 hard drive slow?"
cuz its on an AMD 5x86 133...
I deal with this regularly, people buying PCI modems for ISA slots, ISA game cards for PCI only systems, AGP cards for an Intel 810 system... etc.
how much money does Intel and AMD make from people like this?
gone are the beloved days of socket 7 and all cpu's working on a wonderful Intel chipset... doh

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
March 21, 2001 7:20:29 PM

how would Intel and AMD make money by people buying the wrong type of cards? *confused*

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone will ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 21, 2001 7:24:14 PM

'cause they're confused just like you!

"Amd cpu...Gone in 2 secs flat, it truly is a fast chip!"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AmdMeltdown on 03/21/01 04:24 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 21, 2001 7:32:39 PM

UH HUHUHUHU HUHUHUHUHH UH HU HUHUHUHU HUUHUH

UHUHUHUHUHUH CUZ THEY'RE LIKE YOU UUUHUUUHHUUHHHHUHHHHUHUHU

i guess your didn't get that transplant yet? im prayin' for ya. (i think we all are)

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone will ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s
March 21, 2001 7:33:33 PM

Exactly.

Though the conclusion seems to be in error.

The customer ends up returning the product and never buying from that company again. Or worse, the customer ends up calling tech support over and over and over and over. Actually, there should be a lot more repetition, but that gets droll.

My point is, stupid people with barely any computer knowledge make some really ignorant mistakes that even a little effort towards research would have rectified. And then said stupid people call tech support so many times that any money the company might have made by selling their product is soon lost in man-hours spend on this stupid person. And then this stupid person returns the product in the end anyway.

It simply saves money and time to differentiate the sockets.

Admittedly, you still get your REALLY stupid people who will mis-match products anyway. But that can't be solved no matter what any company does. That's what tech support is usually about.

-Got your money for nothing, and your chips for free.
-I want my, I want my, I want my AMD.
March 21, 2001 7:35:33 PM

Maybe he's in the middle of the operation and typing purely by reflex?

-Got your money for nothing, and your chips for free.
-I want my, I want my, I want my AMD.
March 21, 2001 7:37:10 PM

alot of companies around here will accept returns only for defective product, ie, JimBob over there buys an Intel PII for his socket 7, he just ate $300, cuz he can't take it back. I may can help him sell it, but not for retail.

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2001 8:01:40 AM

but i bet ppl who complain that there isnt one standard also complain about monopolies like microsoft. one standard MEANS a monopoly. thats life, get used to it. they both have their upsides and downsides. get over it

___________________________________________

AMD. It gets you chicks.
March 22, 2001 7:58:16 PM

sorry, yer wrong there buddy, SDRAM uses one standard, there's no monopoly.
open standards are good.

----------------------
why, oh WHY, is the world run by morons?
March 23, 2001 1:18:34 AM

Actually, emulator performance might very well count, even when the chip is running in 64-bit mode. The AMD Hammer series is supposed to be able to do virtual 32-bit mode while in 64-bit mode, much the same way the 386 and up are able to do virtual 8086 mode--at a speed comparable to or greater than the best previous generation CPU. This could be a serious score for the Hammer.

Kelledin
<A HREF="http://kelledin.tripod.com/scovsms.jpg" target="_new">http://kelledin.tripod.com/scovsms.jpg&lt;/A>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2001 3:28:43 AM

Also, about Sledgehammer.....

While Intel's McKinley chips may (maybe not?) outperform Sledgehammers, you can bet AMD will price the Hammers substantially less than the Intel parts. I would guess that if a McKinley is $4000.00, you'll be able to get a Sledgehammer for $1000.00?? Then, when you start talking about being able to connect multiple Sledgehammers via lightning fast Hypertransport connections for the same cost as one McKinley, and the Sledgehammer is also able to run all x86 code faster than anything on the planet, it might make Intel's solution very difficult for IT Managers to justify. Why reinvent the wheel if you don't have to.
March 23, 2001 4:19:32 AM

As far as i know the itainium isnt gonna even compete with the amd sledghammer its is supposed to be risc orienatated they wanna try and take sun on. Thats what i hear. plus if you huys are complainin about price now fer procesors yer gonna freak when you see the prices fer the 64 bit babies andthing below a grand is gonna be a rip.

SPUD

<font color=blue>Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood blue man </font color=blue> :smile:
!