4.4 Ghz - When?

[fustercluck]

I've been wanting to build a new system for a while now, but i told myself i'd wait until i could get at least 4.4 ghz. When will this happen? Are a good number of some current Pentium chips overclocking to 4.4ghz and beyond yet? I'm really anxious to get back to a Pentium system. I'm fine with overclocking if that's what i have to do. Though I'm not going to pay $250+ for a CPU. Thanks.

 

[zebbedee]

When and if the 65nm process allows sufficient power-saving that higher clock speeds are attainable. But that might well be late 2006. If the marketing of Intel pushes software makers and game makers to utilise multiprocessors then it would probably be much more efficient to buy a dual-core chip instead of waiting for a 4.4 GHz CPU. And all the evidence seems to show that the best dual-core technology for the rest of this year at least will come from AMD.

 

[Acanthus]

4.4ghz is only attainable with water or better cooling right now, and 4.2ghz on water is very very lucky.

 

[RichUK]

why do you want to get back to intel and their PresHotts, have you not learnt anything on these forums

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

4.4 will probably never occur as Intel begins to switch away from Netburst and more to an updated Dothan core. Lower the pipelines increase the IPC for more efficiency.

Overclock your 3000+ to 2500 speeds and you will have an equivalent to 3700 PIV.

 

[fustercluck]

Do you mean 3500 speeds?

Well, i haven't liked my A64 system since i got it, but it's probably a different problem like ram or mobo anyways, perhaps i'll just look forward to a 3ghz a64...those around yet?

 

[Chocolate Pi]

From what I'm seeing, your mindset is being limited by a focus on clock speed. There is a whole big exciting world of dual-core chips coming out, and those are much more groundbreaking than a MHz increase. Look at some reviews and judge the processors based on performance.

 

[n7]

Yeah, i'm afraid you're going to be waiting for a long time if clockspeed is all that you want.

Your 3000+ could be OCed slightly, which would bring it's performance up a bit, but really, what exactly are you running that you feel a 4.4 GHz CPU is going to help you with?

If you're hoping everything is going to feel faster...those days are pretty much over.

I'd recommend a Raptor HDD if you find your OS too unresponsive.

 

[Appledrop]

Originally posted by: jacktackle
Do you mean 3500 speeds?

Well, i haven't liked my A64 system since i got it, but it's probably a different problem like ram or mobo anyways, perhaps i'll just look forward to a 3ghz a64...those around yet?

Whats the problem? Also if you are after better performance, 1gb ram is a nice step up from 512, especially if you game or photoshopetc.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

You definitely need another 512 stick of ram and you should get at least 200-300 overclock on the cpu.

My above post at you getting your 1800 3000+ to 2500 actuall megahertz speeds LOL. That 2500 actual overclocked speed equates to a 3800 PIV or so.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Chocolate Pi
From what I'm seeing, your mindset is being limited by a focus on clock speed. There is a whole big exciting world of dual-core chips coming out, and those are much more groundbreaking than a MHz increase. Look at some reviews and judge the processors based on performance.

Exactly, look at the CrystalMark competition thread. There is a P4 640 on phase change clocked to 4.4ghz and it scores 43k a distant second place to the X2 dual core at stock 2.4ghz which scores 53k. Zebo wizely points out in that thread that synthetic benches don't corelate to real world performance, but even with that said I can't think of a scenario where the dual core chip would not compete or beat any high mhz chip even in single threaded apps. And as multithreaded apps become more common, dual core will rule everything.

 

[Aenslead]

Maybe you're confusing a 4.4Ghz with the X2 4400+;

I REALLY, REALLY doubt there will be ANY part in the near future at such speed. It is very unlikely for Intel AND AMD.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: jacktackle
I've been wanting to build a new system for a while now, but i told myself i'd wait until i could get at least 4.4 ghz. When will this happen? Are a good number of some current Pentium chips overclocking to 4.4ghz and beyond yet? I'm really anxious to get back to a Pentium system. I'm fine with overclocking if that's what i have to do. Though I'm not going to pay $250+ for a CPU. Thanks.

And if you are not paying $250 USD for a processor, then I guess your best bet is an AMD 3500+; for the same price, I beleive you get a Pentium 4 630 at mere 3.0Ghz, based on the Prescott 2M.

 

[Emultra]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
4.4 will probably never occur...

That's a bit too much to say.

 

[TekDemon]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: Chocolate Pi
From what I'm seeing, your mindset is being limited by a focus on clock speed. There is a whole big exciting world of dual-core chips coming out, and those are much more groundbreaking than a MHz increase. Look at some reviews and judge the processors based on performance.

Exactly, look at the CrystalMark competition thread. There is a P4 640 on phase change clocked to 4.4ghz and it scores 43k a distant second place to the X2 dual core at stock 2.4ghz which scores 53k. Zebo wizely points out in that thread that synthetic benches don't corelate to real world performance, but even with that said I can't think of a scenario where the dual core chip would not compete or beat any high mhz chip even in single threaded apps. And as multithreaded apps become more common, dual core will rule everything.

Umm actually, I would consider that 43K first place over the X2.

Why? Because you can actually BUY one of those processors. The X2 is a PAPER LAUNCH. There is NO PRODUCT AVAILABILITY.
I might as well start posting stuff about how Intel's 2008 Quad Core processor gets 104K in this bench, because as of right now the X2 is about as available to me as that imaginary processor.

Yes it's great that these extreme overclockers have gotten ahold of these X2 processors, but for us mere mortals these are pure vaporware.

Any of us (budget allowing) could go out, buy a vapochill LS or mach II, then go buy a Pentium 4 and kick it up to 4Ghz+ right now. Whereas you cannot say the same thing an X2 based system.

When the X2 actually hits the street and I can actually go and buy one, it'll make sense for me to THEN compare it against Intel's comparable offerings. Keep in mind that AMD has said that availability of the X2's will likely not be UNTIL DECEMBER!!! That's six entire months away, and there's honestly no predicting what Intel will actually have on offer in 6 months.

Anyways I am not an Intel fanboy (I currently have a spare 1.2Ghz T-bird, an Athlon XP 1600+, a P4 2.4B, and a Centrino 1.4Ghz in a broken laptop). I always try to be objective about what CPU to buy, and I've always bought whatever was the best from the two companies at the time. So that's why I get pretty peeved when people seem to forget that paper launches are garbage.

What I do agree on however, is that the OP shouldn't focus on just Ghz, and also that AMD is probably the best bang for the buck right now. I'd also say that they have the fastest stock single-core CPUs available. But there are a few OEMs that are actually shipping Intel's dualcore solution now (high end gaming companies) whereas there is no such thing for AMD. So as of right now the fastest dualcore CPU you can actually buy is an Intel!

 

[TekDemon]

Originally posted by: Emultra

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
4.4 will probably never occur...

That's a bit too much to say.

haha especially since you could technically just extend the pipelines out even more just to hit it...

 

[Acanthus]

There will be a 65nm SOI netburst.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: jacktackle
Do you mean 3500 speeds?

Well, i haven't liked my A64 system since i got it, but it's probably a different problem like ram or mobo anyways, perhaps i'll just look forward to a 3ghz a64...those around yet?

What do you use your PC for ? What doesn't work well ?

 

[MDE]

Add another 512MB of RAM, overclock your CPU slightly and come back

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
4.4 will probably never occur as Intel begins to switch away from Netburst and more to an updated Dothan core. Lower the pipelines increase the IPC for more efficiency.

Overclock your 3000+ to 2500 speeds and you will have an equivalent to 3700 PIV.

 

[Chode Messiah]

Originally posted by: TekDemon
Umm actually, I would consider that 43K first place over the X2.

Why? Because you can actually BUY one of those processors. The X2 is a PAPER LAUNCH. There is NO PRODUCT AVAILABILITY.
I might as well start posting stuff about how Intel's 2008 Quad Core processor gets 104K in this bench, because as of right now the X2 is about as available to me as that imaginary processor.

Yes it's great that these extreme overclockers have gotten ahold of these X2 processors, but for us mere mortals these are pure vaporware.

Any of us (budget allowing) could go out, buy a vapochill LS or mach II, then go buy a Pentium 4 and kick it up to 4Ghz+ right now. Whereas you cannot say the same thing an X2 based system.

When the X2 actually hits the street and I can actually go and buy one, it'll make sense for me to THEN compare it against Intel's comparable offerings. Keep in mind that AMD has said that availability of the X2's will likely not be UNTIL DECEMBER!!! That's six entire months away, and there's honestly no predicting what Intel will actually have on offer in 6 months.

Anyways I am not an Intel fanboy (I currently have a spare 1.2Ghz T-bird, an Athlon XP 1600+, a P4 2.4B, and a Centrino 1.4Ghz in a broken laptop). I always try to be objective about what CPU to buy, and I've always bought whatever was the best from the two companies at the time. So that's why I get pretty peeved when people seem to forget that paper launches are garbage.

What I do agree on however, is that the OP shouldn't focus on just Ghz, and also that AMD is probably the best bang for the buck right now. I'd also say that they have the fastest stock single-core CPUs available. But there are a few OEMs that are actually shipping Intel's dualcore solution now (high end gaming companies) whereas there is no such thing for AMD. So as of right now the fastest dualcore CPU you can actually buy is an Intel!

:disgust:The X2 is a real cpu. That's how they could include it in the competition, because a select few actually have it. The X2's are already being preordered for June 8, at websites like Monarch. The X2 dominates!

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
There will be a 65nm SOI netburst.

I'm almost 100% sure that 65nm is not using SOI, it's using an enhanced version of strained silocone, but not SOI. In any case, maybe with the 65nm chips it will be possible to hit 4.4ghz, but it's really just a prescott shrink with some enhancements to the proccess to try and keep the heat and leakage under control.

 

[Chode Messiah]

never.

 

[fstime]

4.0 ghz isnt that hard with a xp-120 using the 6 series.

The 6 series are not hot even though ignornant people keep saying they are without knowing.

4.4 isnt that hard on phase.

As for air, you will have to wait.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
4.0 ghz isnt that hard with a xp-120 using the 6 series.

The 6 series are not hot even though ignornant people keep saying they are without knowing.

4.4 isnt that hard on phase.

As for air, you will have to wait.

I think you are missing the point, who cares.. With the X2 blowing the 840EE extreme out of the water on every benchmark, why would you want anything else ? And if you can't afford that, the Venice/SanDiego at 4000+ or OC'ed slower speeds blows every single core out of the water at anywhere close to the same price point.