• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

8MB of cache Oh my!

It remains to be seen how much it will effect performance...Look at the move to 2mb from 1mb for the 6xx series of prescotss versus he 1mb...not much of a difference...Maybe they should start looking at increasing the L1 cache..

Also I would be more impressed to see how they better implement the cache (sharing and communicating between the 2 cores) then that POS design they have now...
 
If only intel would quit adding useless cache to CPUs and actually add performance, i would be a much happier hardware enthusiest...

Seriously, 2MB of cache didnt do jack, why do we need 8MB?

Give me more execution units, or useful features, or dont throw on the crappy cache and drop the price of the chip.
 
Duvie I would speculate this is the same fast cache as the Dothan maybe .

This is a dothan based CPU . If it is the same type of cache as dothan this will be awesome don't u think?

This is dual core and the four core version is in the works . Lets just leave Intel & AMD out of this .

THE CONROE is said to be 47 watt so heat should not be an issue.

To me this is very exciting if its true.

This is not Netburst ! This is the sister chip to Merom

Yonah is the first true dual core from Intel. and Conroe will be a true dual core also.

Ya I would have liked to seen a link to that roadmap also.

The inquire is a question mark . But they are correct most of the time.

*********************************************************************
Qoute: Acanthus

Like i said, an increase in clockspeed, more execution units, SOMETHING, ANYTHING to make me buy a new intel cpu. They have been stagnant for coming up on 2 years now, and i see no light in the tunnel until meram.
***********************************************************************
Everthing your asking for will be on this chip

The Conroe is a high clocked Merom thats why its rated at 47 watts instead of 31 watts . Excution units interesting would someone else care to post on this statement. After all there is enough information out on Yonah and Merom to link to.

The reason Dothan is held to low clock speeds is that its intended to run in a note book so its thermals must be held down 27 watts. . On the desk top it does not need to be held back.

This cpu supports all of the latest features from Intel . All!!!

In a recent artilce Amd FX 59 FX 61 FX 63 . The AMD @ 3.4 could not complete super PI THE dothan however was able to complete Super PI @ 3.4+ Interesting don't you think?
*************************************************************************
Quote: Sonoma 1993


are these 8mb chips going tobe ultimate extreme edition that cost $3500
*********************************************************************************************************************************************
I would guess that this would be the top of the line Intel. So it would no dought be 2x4MB cache and hyper threading . So it well be at least $1000+ .

But whats that got to do with anything .
***********************************************************************
Quote: Dapunisher

You are the Joseph Goebbels of Intel zealots.
***********************************************************************

Yep ! I posted a LINK

***************************************************************************
Quote: ZobraStyl

God, can't they just make a well rounded architecture? Before it was "more MHz!" now they are "more cache!" and soon to be "more cores!" Howzabout we simply produce a chip that isn't designed around some useless number that exists only for selling to clueless consumers. Consumer always assumes more is better...2 mb cache Prescott must be faster than my 512kb cache Winchester, right?

And as always with Intel, I only believe it when I see it at stores. Their predictions of anything more than one year ahead are always PR nonsense fit only for stock analysts with no concept of how a CPU functions.
*************************************************************************************************************

Talk about a bias untrue statement . Here's one
 
Exactly cache is expensive and just adds more thermals...In the 6xx series it didn't but there were other core and process enhancements there....

Intel i smplaying marketing games IMO with starting a cache race....

I would for one like to see quad cores or better implemented 2 cores....
 
Originally posted by: Intelia
Duvie I would speculate this is the same fast cache as the Dothan maybe .
Click to expand...

Regardless, if its still netburst, we are talking maybe a couple % over the EE in everything but superpi 1M and 2M.

Like i said, an increase in clockspeed, more execution units, SOMETHING, ANYTHING to make me buy a new intel cpu. They have been stagnant for coming up on 2 years now, and i see no light in the tunnel until meram.
 
Originally posted by: Intelia
Duvie I would speculate this is the same fast cache as the Dothan maybe .
Click to expand...



That is a big assumption....That is why the article does nothing...reports some dates and timelines that always seem wrong...
 
God, can't they just make a well rounded architecture? Before it was "more MHz!" now they are "more cache!" and soon to be "more cores!" Howzabout we simply produce a chip that isn't designed around some useless number that exists only for selling to clueless consumers. Consumer always assumes more is better...2 mb cache Prescott must be faster than my 512kb cache Winchester, right?

And as always with Intel, I only believe it when I see it at stores. Their predictions of anything more than one year ahead are always PR nonsense fit only for stock analysts with no concept of how a CPU functions.
 
Originally posted by: Acanthus

Regardless, if its still netburst, we are talking maybe a couple % over the EE in everything but superpi 1M and 2M.
Click to expand...

The processor mentioned in the linked article is Conroe, which will not be a Netburst CPU. It will be the desktop version of Yonah(or, rather, Yonah will be the mobile version of Conroe?). It should be similar to a beefed-up Pentium M.
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
Exactly cache is expensive and just adds more thermals...In the 6xx series it didn't but there were other core and process enhancements there....

Intel i smplaying marketing games IMO with starting a cache race....

I would for one like to see quad cores or better implemented 2 cores....
Click to expand...

Intel seems to be flapping at the moment until it can get to 65nm.

Perhaps they decided "Ghz doesnt mean everything, AMD proved that to us. Lets start a cache race!!! AMD will never be able to cache us up"
 
I think maybe just a guess Intel is going to through everything they can at AMD now that they filled this law suite. I never heard of this 2x4 MB cache till yesterday . If before the lawsuite goes to court Intel can show that AMD really can't compete with them it well have an effect on amds case . Intel will probably pull out all the stops.
 
Originally posted by: Intelia
I think maybe just a guess Intel is going to through everything they can at AMD now that they filled this law suite. I never heard of this 2x4 MB cache till yesterday . If before the lawsuite goes to court Intel can show that AMD really can't compete with them it well have an effect on amds case . Intel will probably pull out all the stops.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, can't compete? They are competing (and winning, to some) right now, and have been for going on 5 years at least. You talk about what Intel is doing in the future, but you neglect to mention the fact that AMD is not standing still with their processor devolpment.
 
Ah, nevermind. You're not worth responding too, anyway.

Have a good day, Intelia, Zinn2b, Dothan, porkster and fatty4ksu.
 
With all this cache Intel is adding, I'm wondering when AMD will start to add some to compete. Sure the cache isn't a large improvement, but it's the equvilant of like 200mhz everytime you double it, and that adds up fast.

Of course, if due to the integrated memory controller and hypertransport bus(a memory bus actually designed for multicpu operation, unlike what intel is currently using) AMD has vastly superior performance in multithreaded applications, then perhaps AMD doesn't need to do anything.

The boosted FP capablities of Yonah may do more for performance than this extra cache will though.

BTW, both P4 and Pentium M have fast caches, and I believe both get about a 200mhz boost per doubling of cache, just that the P4 performs so much worse per mhz that the extra cache matters much less.(the athlons are similar in the cache doubling too, perhaps a bit less of a performance boost, but they also have slow caches)

Cache is really the one thing Intel can do that AMD can't though, as it depends on manufacturing capability and Intel has a heck of a lot more.
 
Originally posted by: Fox5
With all this cache Intel is adding, I'm wondering when AMD will start to add some to compete.
Click to expand...

They don't need to add cache to compete. AMD can, and probably will, beat Yonah with their existing desktop lines at stock speeds when Yonah is released. Remember that Yonah is a mobile part, and it will likely clock at 1.6-2.3 ghz at stock. It probably won't clock much faster at stock than current Dothan parts.

Intel is adding more cache because they either can't or won't do anything better to improve their cores. Slapping on extra cache is a bit of a cop-out. It is also questionable how much additional performance will come from all that extra cache.

The Dothan(and Banias) derived high cache-related performance from having FAST l2 cache. If you compare a normal Dothan-based Pentium M(2MB cache) to a Dothan-based Celeron-M/(1 MB cache), you will frequently see very little performance difference between the two at the same clock speeds. Putting 4 MB of cache per core on Yonah won't do much, or so I'd guess. Only time will tell.

In the end, Yonah will not threaten AMD products much due to its relatively low stock clock speeds and its IPC. It probably won't be able to beat a 4800+ if it laucnhes at 2.3 ghz or lower, even with a massive l2 cache.

Conroe is the part to watch.
 
Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Originally posted by: Fox5
With all this cache Intel is adding, I'm wondering when AMD will start to add some to compete.
Click to expand...

They don't need to add cache to compete. AMD can, and probably will, beat Yonah with their existing desktop lines at stock speeds when Yonah is released. Remember that Yonah is a mobile part, and it will likely clock at 1.6-2.3 ghz at stock. It probably won't clock much faster at stock than current Dothan parts.

Intel is adding more cache because they either can't or won't do anything better to improve their cores. Slapping on extra cache is a bit of a cop-out. It is also questionable how much additional performance will come from all that extra cache.

The Dothan(and Banias) derived high cache-related performance from having FAST l2 cache. If you compare a normal Dothan-based Pentium M(2MB cache) to a Dothan-based Celeron-M/(1 MB cache), you will frequently see very little performance difference between the two at the same clock speeds. Putting 4 MB of cache per core on Yonah won't do much, or so I'd guess. Only time will tell.

In the end, Yonah will not threaten AMD products much due to its relatively low stock clock speeds and its IPC. It probably won't be able to beat a 4800+ if it laucnhes at 2.3 ghz or lower, even with a massive l2 cache.

Conroe is the part to watch.
Click to expand...

If you compare a Tualatin(512KB P3), you'll often see little performance difference compared to a Dothan, but there are other cases where there is an extreme difference, I believe games for instance.

And Dothans are currently overclocking rather well on air it appears, so who knows what speed the desktop cpus will release at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top