- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Dothan/Pentium-M on the desktop courtesy of GamePC
- Thread starter NFS4
- Start date
Bah. Humbug. Nothing to see here. IMHO, this isn't a very attractive chip for the desktop..
Now, if Intel would up the FSB, memory bandwidth, and add HT/SSE3/other features... then we'd be talking.
Now, if Intel would up the FSB, memory bandwidth, and add HT/SSE3/other features... then we'd be talking.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 30,811
- 28,362
- 146
That is probably the default timings of the Samsung they used and underclocking it to 333DDR let them tighten the CAS to 2.5. The small difference between CAS 2.5 and 3 means virtually nothing in terms of performance improvement anyways.
Originally posted by: NFS4
Wow, say that again 5 times REALLY fast
I had enough trouble not typing "porn" in the last word. I won't tempt fate.
- M4H
"Only two companies are producing Pentium-M desktop motherboards at this time. AOpen, which we're reporting on today, and DFI, whose board we will have in the labs soon after for a comparative article. Both boards will hover around the $250-$275+ range for retail pricing."
:|
:|
Nothing to see here? Are you kidding?
Dothan is keeping up in Doom 3 with an Athlon FX and Pentium 4 EE... and Dothan is doing this while saddled with slow single channel memory and a plodding 400 MHz FSB.
I emailed Anand awhile ago, and he says that the dual core Dothan (Yonah) will have SSE3, XD bit, and faster FSB. With dual core, HT isn't all that necessary. All that's missing is EM64T...
Dothan is keeping up in Doom 3 with an Athlon FX and Pentium 4 EE... and Dothan is doing this while saddled with slow single channel memory and a plodding 400 MHz FSB.
I emailed Anand awhile ago, and he says that the dual core Dothan (Yonah) will have SSE3, XD bit, and faster FSB. With dual core, HT isn't all that necessary. All that's missing is EM64T...
Not to mention this article doesn't really get into how well these chips seem to overclock. The article in the CPU forums shows their 1.7ghz dothan hitting 2.5ghz and 2.8ghz with voltage mod. The price of these motherboards is a big letdown though.
The Inquirer reported that it taped out in mid-September, so I am guessing that it'll be a Q4 2005 launch. Q1 2006 if the 65nm process doesn't develop well enough for mass manufacturing.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
IS gamepc a reputable site? I mean they sell systems, hardware, monitors etc.
I don't trust car reviews from GM why should I trust this place?
Meh. either way thier benchs are lacking, 2 game marks?, lots of sythetics an only one FPU... and the author is a misinformed eluding to putting HT on short pipe like M's it will do nothing.
I don't trust car reviews from GM why should I trust this place?
Meh. either way thier benchs are lacking, 2 game marks?, lots of sythetics an only one FPU... and the author is a misinformed eluding to putting HT on short pipe like M's it will do nothing.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
This chip will rock the house if those numbers hold. I hear it's FPU performance is weak but really all I buy faster and faster for is gaming. Couple that with it's super low TDP and it's just awesome.
Obviously some variation of this chip is slated for intels desktop line (with canceling presshot and this outstanding performance). By then we should see a full 800Mhz+ chipset which would truly rock.
Obviously some variation of this chip is slated for intels desktop line (with canceling presshot and this outstanding performance). By then we should see a full 800Mhz+ chipset which would truly rock.
Im guessing the jump to 200fsb wont be that huge, as some of you seem to be speculating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that AMD 64 chips with very high efficiency dont really need fsb bandwidth to perform well, and I think if bumping to 200fsb will give a large performance increase, Intel would have done it with the chips already. However, I am very impressed with this chip. Its about time the general public started to realize that GHZ isnt everything. Howeverrr, I dont think this takes anything away from Athlon 64, as it has been out for a while, has much higher clocks already, could be more efficient at higher clocks(we will have to wait and see), and is more available and affordable. Nonetheless, a step in the right direction for Intel, and I like that because Competition is good, it will force AMD to come out with their higher clocked 90nm chips sooner, which will be prettttty I believe.
I really hope Intel decides to use the Pentium-M architecture in it's future desktop chips. Hell, the TDP is just 21 watts, and the fact that you can run it with passive cooling is just awesome. No noise, no heat.
I don't know why Intel doesn't at least use the Celeron M for low end or SFF desktops like the Dell Optiplex 2x0.
People who buy such machines use them for basic tasks and don't need 64-bit, Hyperthreading, or 3.60 GHz worth of computing power. If I wanted to outfit an office with small, quiet, and efficient machines I'd want a PM derivative, not Prescott.
The Optiplex GX270 (small chasis w' notebook optical drive) runs pretty hot with a 2.80 GHz Northwood and no HT. I've heard the GX280 w' Prescott is a barn burner.
Intel are you listening???
People who buy such machines use them for basic tasks and don't need 64-bit, Hyperthreading, or 3.60 GHz worth of computing power. If I wanted to outfit an office with small, quiet, and efficient machines I'd want a PM derivative, not Prescott.
The Optiplex GX270 (small chasis w' notebook optical drive) runs pretty hot with a 2.80 GHz Northwood and no HT. I've heard the GX280 w' Prescott is a barn burner.
Intel are you listening???
Yes and No.
The Pentium M's execution resources, the functional units that actually do computation, are similar to those of the Pentium III. However, the Pentium M's frontend, which handles branch prediction, instruction decoding, and figuring out how best to organize the order of instruction execution, are completely different.
You could say that both cores have similar strength, but the Pentium M uses its strength more efficiently and can thus complete more tasks in the same time.
The Pentium M's execution resources, the functional units that actually do computation, are similar to those of the Pentium III. However, the Pentium M's frontend, which handles branch prediction, instruction decoding, and figuring out how best to organize the order of instruction execution, are completely different.
You could say that both cores have similar strength, but the Pentium M uses its strength more efficiently and can thus complete more tasks in the same time.
I have noticed that there is socket 478 and socket 479 P-M.
What is the difference between these two sockets?
What is the difference between these two sockets?
n7
Elite Member
- Jan 4, 2004
- 21,281
- 4
- 81
While the non-gaming performance seems lacking, i am very impressed with how in games the 2.0 Pentium M was always just behind the A64 3200+.
Granted, they needed to test games at higher resolutions than they did though.
1024x764 doesn't do an accurate job imo.
For gaming OCers, this CPU looks rather awesome thus far anyway.
Granted, they needed to test games at higher resolutions than they did though.
1024x764 doesn't do an accurate job imo.
For gaming OCers, this CPU looks rather awesome thus far anyway.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter