Moderator: Edi
it's an intel chip, intel sucks.
Gotta give that one a big giant WTF.Mr Bean wrote: Tell me did you know there is a 2.6 GHTZ Celeron Avaible(Not publicly but I've seen it) that can be run at full-speed WITHOUT a Heatsink
No saddiy its one of those things they don't just toss around(Like the 5.5 GHTZ Chip Demosrated at Comdex)Gotta give that one a big giant WTF.
You have an article handy?
Funny, As the Murder of four AMD chips who's fans died and took the board with em I tend to belive Tom, To be fair however I don't own any p4s or Celeron p4s, just my two Celeron 550's as a Linux Server, besides that I've only bough AMD and I've killed alot of emif you got that data from tom's hardware, don't beleive it. i ran the same tests they did (with help and donations from local stores who wanted to prove it), the intels slag very quickly. to recreate the exact effects seen in that test, the intel chips are underclocked by nearly 50%, and the AMD overclocked at least 100-200%. even then the temp readings were NOT 600+F they slagged but didn't get that hot.
Personal experance speaks diffrently here, however it should be quested what boards where used? Two of mine where Asus, one Soyo and one Abitwith proper setup (no OC), the AMD chip will overheat and the bios will shut down the comp, if not, the framerates for the testgame drop by like 75%. on the intel it locked up quickly, it dropped out much faster than the AMD chip did.
Muuch Better Hyprion, I never said I was aurging with you, Mearly asking you to try a bit harderthose are the main reasons AMD is better, the pipeline being shorter and the fact it's a RISC core make it faster than the intel even at lower clockrates. it also gives the AMD systems more raw processing power. i know from experience that i can do stuff on my ancient AMD athlon-4 1100 system that you couldn't even hope to do on an intel P4 2.4GHZ without lugging it down to the point of being unusable. i'll post screenshots of this later on once i bring up my website.
a note on pipelines: if there's an error at any of the stages of the pipeline, the error is propogated down the line, causing more errors, witha 20 stage pipeline the chances of a catastrophic crash are much higher, whereas AMD's 8 stage propogates the error out much faster and before it can do too much damage.
if you want more data on the architecture and/or commandsets, or other data, just ask, i've got a stack of CS books in front of me.
lol, i know the feeling...Mr Bean wrote:No need, like yesterday's forcast I would quickly forget them in anycase
Doesn't the Itanium provide hardware assistance for (software-based) IA32 emution? It'll need a new OS but it should be able to run current IA32 software.Hyperion wrote:Intel Itanium: 64-bit CISC core, incompatible with anything below 64-bit, new software is needed to run on this.
With integral Fritz (TCPA/Palladium) components, from what I hear....AMD Clawhammer/Sledgehammer (MP): 64-bit RISC core w/ x86 CISC command interpreter, compatible down to 8 bit. all existing software will work on this.
Neither, yet. The market for 64-bit CPUs kinda evaporated when the economic boom did. And Intel's Itanium has already had an embarassingly rocky start. (The first versions were completely humilated in benchmarks by 32-bit PIIIs with similiar clock speeds.)Hyperion wrote:something of interest regarding AMD vs. Intel:
next gen chips:
Intel Itanium: 64-bit CISC core, incompatible with anything below 64-bit, new software is needed to run on this.
AMD Clawhammer/Sledgehammer (MP): 64-bit RISC core w/ x86 CISC command interpreter, compatible down to 8 bit. all existing software will work on this.
i wonder which one i'm going to use...
Actually, IIRC, the Athlon uses the same x86 CISC instruction set. Where it gets it's performance boost is, among other things, the shorter pipeline and the various tricks it employs to reduce it's CPI (cycles per instruction.)Hyperion wrote:if you got that data from tom's hardware, don't beleive it. i ran the same tests they did (with help and donations from local stores who wanted to prove it), the intels slag very quickly. to recreate the exact effects seen in that test, the intel chips are underclocked by nearly 50%, and the AMD overclocked at least 100-200%. even then the temp readings were NOT 600+F they slagged but didn't get that hot.
with proper setup (no OC), the AMD chip will overheat and the bios will shut down the comp, if not, the framerates for the testgame drop by like 75%. on the intel it locked up quickly, it dropped out much faster than the AMD chip did.
2.9GHZ on an intel, woofuckinghoo, a 1.83GHZ AMD athlonXP 2200+ would still outpace the fucker under load.
key differances between intel and AMD
pipeline:
intel: 20 stage
AMD: 8 stage
commandset:
intel: CISC x86
AMD: RISC w/ x86 CISC command interpreter
those are the main reasons AMD is better, the pipeline being shorter and the fact it's a RISC core make it faster than the intel even at lower clockrates. it also gives the AMD systems more raw processing power. i know from experience that i can do stuff on my ancient AMD athlon-4 1100 system that you couldn't even hope to do on an intel P4 2.4GHZ without lugging it down to the point of being unusable. i'll post screenshots of this later on once i bring up my website.
a note on pipelines: if there's an error at any of the stages of the pipeline, the error is propogated down the line, causing more errors, witha 20 stage pipeline the chances of a catastrophic crash are much higher, whereas AMD's 8 stage propogates the error out much faster and before it can do too much damage.
if you want more data on the architecture and/or commandsets, or other data, just ask, i've got a stack of CS books in front of me.
