• 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.

Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz

We knew it would come,the P4 can scale like no other.

I have no doubt that it will be a good chip,I knew that the higher the P4 chip would go the better it would get.


BTW: my 2.26 can do 2.8ghz with a small volts increase. 🙂


 
Hmmm, is AMD going to lose the price/performance crown too (they already lost the speed crown)? The 2.53GHz P4 is being priced at $243, and the AMD 2600+ is set for $300! Hmmm, Intel looks like they are kicking ass at both ends! AMD better get into the game again, SOON!
 
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Dumb question, but why are the wafer thingys round? It seems like it'd be more efficient just to make it square no?
Click to expand...


The silicone is grown in a cylinder and sliced like baloney.
 
Lmao, THG messed up the prices on the P4 in addition to calling the SiS 648 chipset a Rambus-based solution. Otherwise, not too bad of a review at all. Although....Anand's will be here in no time. 🙂
 
Well, even an Athlon XP 3000+ in its present T-bred B incarnation won't top a P4 2.8GHz in most apps it seems...AMD had better come out with its Barton 2700+/2800+ with 333MHz FSB and 512KB L2 cache really really soon. 🙁

My next system upgrade will still be an Athlon though, because I already have a PAL8045 here waiting...
 
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Hmmm, is AMD going to lose the price/performance crown too (they already lost the speed crown)? The 2.53GHz P4 is being priced at $243, and the AMD 2600+ is set for $300! Hmmm, Intel looks like they are kicking ass at both ends! AMD better get into the game again, SOON!
Click to expand...

Of course once you reach the mid-range of CPU performance, AMD still wins (even after the price cuts). Intel has the crown, no doubt about that. But winning price/performance, I doubt even the most diehard fanboy would agree with that.
 
I agree....nothing can touch price performance of the 1600-2400 range...It is only at the 2600+ level it is close and the priceof the 2600+ should be closer to 240 when it is actually released (paper launch was pathetic by the way!!!) and therefore that is a tie at best....

AMD still is best bang for the buck....2.8 is outrageous but it will be down to 240 likely by december with 2.933ghz and 3.066ghz p4s to take the spots of the 2.66 and 2.8ghz chips...

 
well i just looked over THG's article and didn't see any statement saying that the SiS 648 is an RDRAM solution. in fact, i looked over his table including the specs for all 12 P4 chipset solutions, and the memory type for the SiS 648, as indicated by the table, is indeed DDR SDRAM. maybe the table has been corrected since you read it. or maybe it was in the text and i missed it. anyways, it was a good review. his reviews seem to be some of the better ones out there...
 
Whats weird is that some of the overclocked 2666MHz results. Some of them had a 166/166 and some of them and a 133/166 FSB/RAM ratio. I wonder what is right and if it is just a typo on the graphs...
 
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Dumb question, but why are the wafer thingys round? It seems like it'd be more efficient just to make it square no?
Click to expand...
Picture a HUGE vat of molten silicon. A "seed" is attached to a cable and dipped into the center of the rotating vat. The silicon cools around the seed and when it gets big enough (200mm or 300mm, depending on the wafer size needed), the seed is raised up with a silicon ingot attached. It pretty much looks like a big sausage.

Being as though the vat needs to rotate (to maintain the integrity of the silicon's properties), you can't make a square wafer.

Not to mention that in many steps in the manufacturing of the semiconductor, it is necessary to spin the wafer (i.e. adding photoresist during lithography.) Spinning a square wafer wouldn't give the same consistancy, which is critical.


Link with some good pics.
 
Great link Wingznut. I start to imagine the whole process in the imperfect world we live in have a hard time imagining even one processor on a wafer being perfect enough to run let alone nearly all of them.
 
It is pretty amazing. There are well over 400 steps in creating a cpu. One imperfection and the die is inop. Considering that we print circuits so small that we could fit over 1000 of them in the width of a human hair... Well, that's borders on mind boggling.

Yet another interesting tidbit... Did you know that the wafers are manufactured in a Class 1 cleanroom? "Class 1" = 1 particle (less than .5µ in size) per cubic foot of air. Compare that to 100,000 particles in a hospital, or millions in your average office.

What is a cleanroom?

 
Hey you ought to run the cleanroom protocol classes!!!!😉


I remember all that stuff!!! How about spittle!!!
 
Originally posted by: Wingznut PEZ
It is pretty amazing. There are well over 400 steps in creating a cpu. One imperfection and the die is inop. Considering that we print circuits so small that we could fit over 1000 of them in the width of a human hair... Well, that's borders on mind boggling.

Yet another interesting tidbit... Did you know that the wafers are manufactured in a Class 1 cleanroom? "Class 1" = 1 particle (less than .5µ in size) per cubic foot of air. Compare that to 100,000 particles in a hospital, or millions in your average office.

What is a cleanroom?
Click to expand...

1000 in the width of a human hair? Seems impossible. 😕
 
Originally posted by: bdog231
1000 in the width of a human hair? Seems impossible. 😕
Click to expand...
In the .09µ process, you can fit about 2000 of the most critical circuits in that hair.

Crazy... Isn't it?
 
Guys, go back to the price page of THG's article Here. Take a very close look at the top picture. The heading under it says "Retail packaging of an AMD Athlon XP 2200+ with an old Thoroughbred "A" core.", but if you look at the CPU in the picture, it is clearly a Palomino XP. The Die is more square than Rectangular, and plus, where's the Power delivery thingies if its a T-Bred? Plus, there aren't any Retail 2200+'s yet, only OEM's. I'm gonna email Frank Voelkel and Tom himself about this. That has got to be just an out right lie, although I pray it was just a mistake
 
Originally posted by: Athlon4all
Guys, go back to the price page of THG's article Here. Take a very close look at the top picture. The heading under it says "Retail packaging of an AMD Athlon XP 2200+ with an old Thoroughbred "A" core.", but if you look at the CPU in the picture, it is clearly a Palomino XP. The Die is more square than Rectangular, and plus, where's the Power delivery thingies if its a T-Bred? Plus, there aren't any Retail 2200+'s yet, only OEM's. I'm gonna email Frank Voelkel and Tom himself about this. That has got to be just an out right lie, although I pray it was just a mistake
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to agree with you on this...............I HOPE it's just some kind of mistake......but not to sure either.......🙁

Another thing that gets me...........why does everyone have to boast "World's Best" or World's Fastest" in their release????? It's not, none are, and to be honest, it kind of gives the immpression most consumers are idiots when you consider every damned thing that comes out these days seem to be labeled in this manner.............why can't they simply do like companies used to...................."We are releasing OUR fastest chip (or whatever) to date or so far..............nothing wins EVERY B/M so is not the "Worlds best/fastest". It may be fastest in certain aspects, but not across the board............I know this is rather a minor detail...........I just find it condesending............

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top