Doesn't it seem like we have hit a wall? P4 3ghz

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
You guys are right about AMD not providing any stiff competition for Intel, except in that picture =) You expect to see a 3.2 Ghz P4 soon? I dunno about that...

Well since every roadmap and every rumor mill has placed the 3.2 GHz P4 as coming out this month, why do you feel it won't come out? Intel's top chip now sells for $413 (street prices on Pricewatch). If Intel stays at 3.0 GHz they only earn ~$400 for a top of the line computer. If they can come out with a 3.2 GHz now, then Intel will earn $600. It makes no sense to argue that Intel should get $400 instead of $600 just because AMD doesn't have stiff competition. More money is more money - Intel will take it if they can.

AMD created the PR rating saying "This XP1700 would perform like a 1700 Mhz Athlon if it existed." ... So the XP3000 and XP3200 ratings are most likely right on target based on the system they're using to rate them.

The problem with AMDs rating system is that the base isn't constant and they aren't rating just the processor. AMD themselves says the PR rating is a system rating: meaning better motherboards or better memory mean the processor gets a higher PR rating. Many people make the assumption that a 3200+ would be twice the speed of a 1600+. That isn't true if you put both in the same motherboard with the same memory, in fact the difference would be far less than double. It is only true if you put the 1600+ in a 2 year old motherboard with 2 year old memory and the 3200+ in the fastest available motherboard with the fastest available memory. That is the problem to me. The processor rating should only reflect processor improvements. Then I know as a consumer if I put it in a better motherboard of course I will get a reasonable boost in speed.

Anyway... I wouldn't be surprised if Intel could stretch the P4C's to 4 Ghz if AMD made a surprise announcement today that next week they'll be releasing the Athlon-64 at speeds starting at 2.0 Ghz and going up to 2.8 Ghz. ... or somethin like that. It would probably only take Intel a month or two of work to get clock speeds up to a reliable 4 Ghz.

If you honestly knew how processors were made you'd retract that statement. I'll let others explain why.

 

[Regs]

Can you imagine a 3.0 Ghz Barton core? It would annihilate a P4 at 3.0 Ghz. Look at the benchmarks for even P4 2.4 C and compare them to an XP3000 that's only at 2.167 Ghz...

I can agree with you there, however AMD likes to create their CPUs with-in a target die and wafer size. If they increased the sizes then the price would of sky rocketed. Not to mention the damn cores run hotter then hell as of right now running at 2 Ghz.

 

[DurocShark]

But if they increased the die size, they could reduce the "waste" silicon, and increase the dissipation surface for heat. 😉

It's obvious Intel is kickin' it waiting for AMD to do something. The real question is what exactly AMD is doing. Barton has so far been a joke. Kinda like the P4 when it first rolled. AMD *really* needs to do a 4000 chip (3.0 or 3.2 ghz). They need to do this and do it cheaper than the top P4. As it is, AMD has been giving up their fabs and reducing their focus on other aspects of the business.

 

[Jeff7181]

If you honestly knew how processors were made you'd retract that statement. I'll let others explain why.

Translation: I'll let someone else tell you cause I don't know the answer. =) Just messin with you... why is it so hard to believe Intel could make some simple core improvments and achieve a higher clock speed? People are overclocking their's as high as 3.5 and 3.6... granted they're going to extremes with voltage and cooling setups. I didn't say the core as it is now is capable of 4 Ghz... I said within a couple months Intel could most likely have a 4 Ghz processor without a completely new core.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

If you honestly knew how processors were made you'd retract that statement. I'll let others explain why.

Translation: I'll let someone else tell you cause I don't know the answer. =) Just messin with you... why is it so hard to believe Intel could make some simple core improvments and achieve a higher clock speed? People are overclocking their's as high as 3.5 and 3.6... granted they're going to extremes with voltage and cooling setups. I didn't say the core as it is now is capable of 4 Ghz... I said within a couple months Intel could most likely have a 4 Ghz processor without a completely new core.

They'd have to reduce power consumption quite a bit.

The current 3 GHz P4 is at something like 85W typical consumption and IIRC over 100W max.
Assuming no voltage bumps to get to 4 GHz, it would likely consume quite a bit more power, and I kinda doubt the big OEM's would be very fond of a CPU that draws 125W(or whatever).

 

[piasabird]

I was reading the other day that Intel has a plan for chipsets in 2004 to use a PCI-Xpress Graphics Port.

Link

 

[Gage8]

lock this thread already

 

[Johnbear007]

Thats stupid. I have always liked AMD, but its stupid to compare the performance of your chip to a FICTIONAL chip.


Look at your logic. PR= PR rated athlons F = fictional athlon

PR= F, if F existed.

F does not exist. (not even theoretocally)

therefore PR does not equal F

The only that you can say is PR=PR

And what does that say? NOTHING. It's retarded. You need a comparison to the competition.

On that note. I'm sad that AMD is a turd right now. I like to buy AMD because ussually they are cheaper. However since the AMD performance sux I have to spend big money on intel

thanks alot you AMD losers. Time to hire some new help. Design some realy processors so I dont have to pay premium intel prices.

 

[axemanxt40]

Well maybe I'm just an idiot but I was under the impression that the main reason that AMD has been slowing it down is because they were focusing on their 64 bit platform. I mean seriously the Athlon chip has been around for a very long time, right now I'm typing this on a AMD Athlon 500mhz PC that I bought when I was in 8th grade...which was 5 years ago.

And yes AMD has made some significant changes to the Athlon core, but how much more can they tweak this 5 year old core? I would imagine they are saving cash, putting out some stuff to give them a bit of cash flow for R&D on their new 64 bit platform. Then when the new 64 bit platform comes out I feel AMD will be giving Intel that run for their money.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: paperfist
I read awhile back that the reason we are at this 'standstill' is because Intel and AMD shot themselves in the foot. From all the competition of the increasing MHz race they have supplied the mass consumer (not the enthusiast) with more GHz then they will need for a while. So this mass consumer market has no need to upgrade their computers when their 2.0GHz machine is opening Word and running AOL just fine. So for Intel and AMD to keep increasing the chip speed they will keep hurting their wallets and this is why we are stuck at the current speeds.

I thought you only need a 500MHz PII system to run AOL and MS Word 🙂. Perhaps the latest AOL and MS Office are so bloated that you need a 2 GHz PC.

 

[Lonyo]

AMD is waiting for 64-bit to be fully ready and up in speeds, Intel is waiting for AMD's 64-bit to release Prescott. Simple really 😛

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

You're assuming the rating is based on the performance of Intel processors, and they're not. The PR rating was developed back when the origional P4's were out and sucked donkey nuts. AMD created the PR rating saying "This XP1700 would perform like a 1700 Mhz Athlon if it existed." And you guys keep wanting to compare it to Intel processors...

Give us a break, even AMD themselves stopped seriously trying to push that b.s. ages ago:

AMD 3200+ faq "what does 3200+ model # mean?"

"the AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ operates at a frequency of 2.2GHz yet can outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 3.0GHz"

 

[Ketchup]

Give us a break, even AMD themselves stopped seriously trying to push that b.s. ages ago:

AMD 3200+ faq "what does 3200+ model # mean?"

and speaking of b.s...

"the AMD Athlon XP processor 3200+ operates at a frequency of 2.2GHz yet can outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 3.0GHz"

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
I don't think anyone was starting a flamewar. Intels only competition is AMD. When AMD isn't putting anything out that Intel feels is a threat to their market, they have time to R&D and not have to throw out new products immediately. It's supply and demand. There is no demand based on what their competition is doing or what the users need.

I wonder what's going to happen once PPC 970 is actually out. They are going into Mac desktops, although for low-end servers in truth the major competition is going to be with the Xeon, since unlike the P4s, the PPC 970 chips are multiprocessor aware.

A 1.8 GHz PPC 970 is going to be comparable to an HT 800 MHz bus Xeon in the mid 2 GHz range. The reason I wonder is because up until now IBM has competed in the higher end with the Power4. Now all of a sudden there is a Xeon/P4 competitor. 1.8 GHz is the supposed debut speed, with IBM ramping it up to 2.5 GHz before they go 90 nm. The 2.5 GHz PPC 970 would compete against the fastest non-Prescott P4/Xeon, but would probably appear later.