yea, it crashed, as expected. P3s had built in thermal diodes that cut the power when it over heats, they later went a step further with P4 and had it throttle the CPU.
this thing is running, under full load,perfectly stable.
Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
i never thought of that.
i would think these reviewers are competent enough, but whos to say?
The slowest they can run is 600Mhz so no going below that.
Honestly, who cares??
So what if they can run without a heatsink at 600/800mhz?? That doesn't mean that they can run with a heatsink at 3ghz+ ~40degrees.
So what if they can run without a heatsink at 600/800mhz?? That doesn't mean that they can run with a heatsink at 3ghz+ ~40degrees.
because for one, mhz doesn't mean a damn thing. also, because this means room to grow, in a big way.
i'd much rather have a silent computer than listen to and clean fans.
I'm not sure it's Intel still believing in the MHz myth, rather, I believe Intel has to, at some point, basically say what they've been doing these last 3-4 years has been going in the wrong direction.
I mean, try telling a customer that their 2.2 GHz chip is really faster than that 3.8 GHz they see, when all you've told them before is that the 3.8 is the fastest thing out there.
Intel has backed themselves into a wall they can't get out of - hopefully Intel will bust through their own MHz myth sooner rather than later, and AMD should have a FIELD DAY when Intel does it.
I mean, try telling a customer that their 2.2 GHz chip is really faster than that 3.8 GHz they see, when all you've told them before is that the 3.8 is the fastest thing out there.
Intel has backed themselves into a wall they can't get out of - hopefully Intel will bust through their own MHz myth sooner rather than later, and AMD should have a FIELD DAY when Intel does it.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
OK so no HS, Pretty impressive. What would be more impressive if they launched this chip on the DT so we could have another fast, cool, low power chip to compare A64 to. Why don't they? What are they afraid of? Are they still banking on the Mhz myth which is still very profitable to intel?
Have you seen battery life tests between the new mobile 64's and the centrino...not much difference about the same diff as AMD wins performance, leading me to conclude while the pentium 3 may have a better temperature signature and run at lower power, it's not signifigant enough to make it a viable competitor to the A64's on the desktop with it's performance and price hit..
Have you seen battery life tests between the new mobile 64's and the centrino...not much difference about the same diff as AMD wins performance, leading me to conclude while the pentium 3 may have a better temperature signature and run at lower power, it's not signifigant enough to make it a viable competitor to the A64's on the desktop with it's performance and price hit..
You missed my point entirely. The fact that it can run without a HS at 800mhz doesn't mean that it can run without one at 2ghz+ or that it can even reach those speeds.
Until it gets there, don't get excited.
Until it gets there, don't get excited.
"Have you seen battery life tests between the new mobile 64's and the centrino"
are you talking about the 90nm AMDs? because the 130nm AMD64 laptops are absolutely TERRIBLE on battery life.
are you talking about the 90nm AMDs? because the 130nm AMD64 laptops are absolutely TERRIBLE on battery life.
i think YOU missed the point.
it runs 1.7ghz without a fan, just a passive heatsink.
people have run it at 2.4ghz with mild modifications since it runs so cool. at those speeds its more powerful than a 3.4 P4EE or FX51(and probably less than 1/6th the heat and power). they have been selling 2ghz versions since it came out which hasn't been very long at all.
this core seems to be superior to Intels desktop offerings in every respect and i can't understand why they don't bump the prescott from their road map.
again, MHZ doesn't mean jack, now stop thread sh*tting.
Finally someone gets it!
As for releasing this to the desktop, I think Intel is afraid to rebuff their own DT department's past 5 years of work to replace it with this little dynamo.
The Banias/Dothan team have the right idea though: design smarter, not faster.
The P4 was a calculated gamble and it has been, for the most part, sucessful. Originally a flop, the Northwood-equipped P4 was a powerful comeback for Intel. Prescott is probably the worst die shrink for intel so far, though.
If you think back to the P3, it didn't hit a roadblock nearly as bad as Prescott. The P3 went from .25um to .18um (coppermine) very smoothly, and then much later (and after it's prime) to the .13 tualatin, which was itself a solid chip (and allowed for the last generation of worthwhile Celerons, the 256K Tualerons
).lets also not forget this CPU only uses 400mhz FSB, and it due to be released VERY soon with a 533mhz FSB.
I'd love to see what this does for its performance.
I'd love to see what this does for its performance.
back in my day, the hubbub was over the pentium running so hot that it actually required at a heatsink and fan. now we're shocked when a cpu doesn't need a any active cooling. what's this world coming too?
At least HS+Fan is easy to implement. imagine in 6 years time, when we are amazed at needing watercooling, or 12 years, when we are amazed that a CPU can run without watercooling at 6 GHz.
This is nicely impressive. If only the P4 had been Banias. Now that Intel has moved away from Mhz, the thing that is stopping it frmo going Dothan all over the place is presumably retoolnig costs. How much does it cost to convert a Prescott fab to a Dothan fab? How much invetory do they have around etc, rather that not wanting to give upon Mhz.
This is nicely impressive. If only the P4 had been Banias. Now that Intel has moved away from Mhz, the thing that is stopping it frmo going Dothan all over the place is presumably retoolnig costs. How much does it cost to convert a Prescott fab to a Dothan fab? How much invetory do they have around etc, rather that not wanting to give upon Mhz.
The P-M is a very nice chip, no doubt about that, and while it is faster than an equivalent A64 in many cases it is also slower in others and slower than a P4 in still others.
The biggest problem with the P-M is that it is outrageously expensive. Probably because AMD doesn't offer any significant competition in the notebook market, but hopefully that will change with the 90nm A64's.
So, while I agree that it is "neat" that the chip can run without a heatsink, it still isn't very useful for most of us, and I certainly wouldn't want to spend $600 or even $300 on a processor only to run it @ such a slow speed.
It certainly does bode well for the future of the P-M though.
-D'oh!
The biggest problem with the P-M is that it is outrageously expensive. Probably because AMD doesn't offer any significant competition in the notebook market, but hopefully that will change with the 90nm A64's.
So, while I agree that it is "neat" that the chip can run without a heatsink, it still isn't very useful for most of us, and I certainly wouldn't want to spend $600 or even $300 on a processor only to run it @ such a slow speed.
It certainly does bode well for the future of the P-M though.
-D'oh!
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
- Oct 14, 2003
- 8,686
- 3,787
- 136
RE: Zebo
Okay, I am SURE going from 62W(130nm) TDP to 31W(90nm) average is really a big enhancement since TDP would be higher than the 31W figure. And considering Low-voltage AthlonXPs with 25W TDP still had lower battery life than Centrinos, man a LV AthlonXP 2000+ mobile laptop with 43Wh battery gets(link: http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20040610/averatec-04.html#battery_test_mobilemark_2002) 131 min while Centrino 1.7GHz with 23.6Wh gets 123 min, plus the Centrino setup uses 60GB hard drive with 8MB cache while AthlonXP setup uses 40GB hard drive with 2MB cache. So with equivalent battery Centrino setup will get 224 min or 71% more battery life or 1 hours and 33 minutes more. So even the 90nm MOBILE Athlon64 is no competition against Centrino-based laptops, at least for battery life, and I think 5% extra frames per second in games will not give A64 more than bragging rights. And now there is Dothan with 5W TDP on the ULV at 1.2GHz compared to Banias which had 7W TDP at 1.0GHz.
From Dothan Review: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2129&p=7
Intel Pentium M(Dothan) 2.0GHz vs. Athlon64 3000+
Business Winstone 2004: 2.8% advantage for Pentium M
Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004: 0.7% advantage for Athlon64
Internet Content Creation SYSMark 2004: 7.05% advantage for Pentium M, and sure 3.2GHz P4 is the highest but the P4 also beats A64
Office Productivity SYSMark 2004: 13.6% advantage for Pentium M
SYSMark 2004: 10.3% advantage for Pentium M
DivX Encoding(AutoGK+DivX 5.1.1): 5.2% advantage for Athlon64
XviD Encoding(AutoGK+XvID 5.1.1): 4.98% advantage for Athlon64
Unreal Tournament 2004-UT Bench: 6.9% advantage for Pentium M
Halo Timedemo: 3.5% advantage for Athlon64
Final Fantasy XI Bench: 4.0% advantage for Athlon64
Wolfenstein Enemy Territory Radar Demo: 1.0% advantage for Athlon64
Warcraft III The Frozen Throne: 0.7% advantage for Athlon64
Visual Studio 6.0 Compiling Quake 3 Source: Both perform identically
3dsmax R5 - Singlepipe2.max: 9.5% less time for Athlon64
Lightwave 7.5 - Radiosity_Reflective_Things: 19.5% less time for Athlon64
Overall win: Athlon64, but I don't think most of us would notice less than 4%(and the fact that Athlon64s are made for gaming, even more amazing the performance of Pentium M) performance increase and for general apps Pentium M is faster anyway, but Pentium M or any Centrino based probably has 40-50% better battery life, or around 1-1.5 hours more, which may not be useful to you since you may be a gamer but for other people that DO carry around their laptops other than inside their OWN house its very good.
RE: AnnoyedGrunt
It IS useful for people who has laptops and don't want to burn their lap, or want to have a quiet system, or a smaller form factor. Imagine what the ULV versions do. Probably they would be able to run heatsink and fan less at 1.2GHz.
Okay, I am SURE going from 62W(130nm) TDP to 31W(90nm) average is really a big enhancement since TDP would be higher than the 31W figure. And considering Low-voltage AthlonXPs with 25W TDP still had lower battery life than Centrinos, man a LV AthlonXP 2000+ mobile laptop with 43Wh battery gets(link: http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20040610/averatec-04.html#battery_test_mobilemark_2002) 131 min while Centrino 1.7GHz with 23.6Wh gets 123 min, plus the Centrino setup uses 60GB hard drive with 8MB cache while AthlonXP setup uses 40GB hard drive with 2MB cache. So with equivalent battery Centrino setup will get 224 min or 71% more battery life or 1 hours and 33 minutes more. So even the 90nm MOBILE Athlon64 is no competition against Centrino-based laptops, at least for battery life, and I think 5% extra frames per second in games will not give A64 more than bragging rights. And now there is Dothan with 5W TDP on the ULV at 1.2GHz compared to Banias which had 7W TDP at 1.0GHz.
From Dothan Review: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2129&p=7
Intel Pentium M(Dothan) 2.0GHz vs. Athlon64 3000+
Business Winstone 2004: 2.8% advantage for Pentium M
Multimedia Content Creation Winstone 2004: 0.7% advantage for Athlon64
Internet Content Creation SYSMark 2004: 7.05% advantage for Pentium M, and sure 3.2GHz P4 is the highest but the P4 also beats A64
Office Productivity SYSMark 2004: 13.6% advantage for Pentium M
SYSMark 2004: 10.3% advantage for Pentium M
DivX Encoding(AutoGK+DivX 5.1.1): 5.2% advantage for Athlon64
XviD Encoding(AutoGK+XvID 5.1.1): 4.98% advantage for Athlon64
Unreal Tournament 2004-UT Bench: 6.9% advantage for Pentium M
Halo Timedemo: 3.5% advantage for Athlon64
Final Fantasy XI Bench: 4.0% advantage for Athlon64
Wolfenstein Enemy Territory Radar Demo: 1.0% advantage for Athlon64
Warcraft III The Frozen Throne: 0.7% advantage for Athlon64
Visual Studio 6.0 Compiling Quake 3 Source: Both perform identically
3dsmax R5 - Singlepipe2.max: 9.5% less time for Athlon64
Lightwave 7.5 - Radiosity_Reflective_Things: 19.5% less time for Athlon64
Overall win: Athlon64, but I don't think most of us would notice less than 4%(and the fact that Athlon64s are made for gaming, even more amazing the performance of Pentium M) performance increase and for general apps Pentium M is faster anyway, but Pentium M or any Centrino based probably has 40-50% better battery life, or around 1-1.5 hours more, which may not be useful to you since you may be a gamer but for other people that DO carry around their laptops other than inside their OWN house its very good.
RE: AnnoyedGrunt
It IS useful for people who has laptops and don't want to burn their lap, or want to have a quiet system, or a smaller form factor. Imagine what the ULV versions do. Probably they would be able to run heatsink and fan less at 1.2GHz.
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
- Oct 14, 2003
- 8,686
- 3,787
- 136
Well, I don't know many new laptops that run with a bare core @ 800 MHz (which would be pretty slow for a modern computer). My point is merely that running @ 800 without a heatsink is an interesting observation, but is of no practical use in and of itself. It certainly shows how little power the P-M is drawing, but running without a heatsink is not what matters to me. What excites me about the P-M is NOT that is can run @ 800 without a heatsink, but that it can run @ 2 GHz and perform on par with an A64 and still have tons of battery life. In other words, if the 90nm A64's do a similar feat (high performance with good battery life) but needed a passive heatsink to run @ 800 MHz, I wouldn't consider it any worse than a P-M in laptop use. For the record however, I doubt the 90nm A64 will reach the same low power levels as the P-M (they will be much close than the current A64's, but not quite to the same level I'm guessing). I agree that P-M's are currently the best chips out there for laptop use, and really, for me the sweet spot would be 2+ GHz with a passive heatsink in a laptop (if they can do that already, then hey, that's great).
Yeah, that's what I was trying to imply with my statement about AMD not having a competing chip in the mobile market. At least they are doing a good job @ keeping Intel honest in the desktop arena.
-D'oh!
nitromullet
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2004
- 9,031
- 36
- 91
I like how this has become the new bandwagon to jump on. MHz still means quite a lot actually, and will always mean a lot. Building more efficient CPU's appears to be the new way of doing things as opposed to brute force, and is certainly a good idea. However, no matter how efficient the CPU gets and how many operations it can perform per clock cycle, it will always do more at a faster clock cycle. This, of course, is obvious.
Personally, I think that the focus on effiency vs. clockspeed will most likely go in cycles. A new tech will make procs more efficient, then they will do all they can to ramp the speeds up until they hit a roadblock, then back to the drawing board for more efficiency...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: carlosd
Intel won't put those processors on the desktop. They still believe in that stupid MHz marketing myth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm... So that's why they release marketing guides showing how the 1.3Ghz Pentium-M is faster than a 2.53Ghz P4-M? Oh, and that's why they have started processor numbers which take into account more that Ghz? Oh, and that's why Intel are basing the future of their processors around the Pentium-M architechure?
Typical AMD fanboy.. Can't see the forest for the trees.
Nice system though... Shame about the processor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: carlosd
Intel won't put those processors on the desktop. They still believe in that stupid MHz marketing myth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm... So that's why they release marketing guides showing how the 1.3Ghz Pentium-M is faster than a 2.53Ghz P4-M? Oh, and that's why they have started processor numbers which take into account more that Ghz? Oh, and that's why Intel are basing the future of their processors around the Pentium-M architechure?
Typical AMD fanboy.. Can't see the forest for the trees.
Nice system though... Shame about the processor.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter