• 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.

P4 6XX

I was just reading up on the new line that intel is offering. Seems as though they have increased the L2 cache for starters. Curious as to what effect these new chips will have on perfomance.

Anybody care to shed some light as to the perfomance hit that these new processors will have?

Would be interesting to hear some speculation from some of the gurus that frequent our outpost.

 
The added cache increased the latencies and therefore in a nutshell may be the reason the performance was lackluster....

Lets be fair...This chip had a highlight...Power comsumption is down!!! That is a plus for the presshot...

Also until we see some 64bit testing we should reserve judgement on whether this chip is worth upgrading to....At the moment with only beta 64bit XP and evidently a slightly different implemented 64 bit code (noticed by the sure numbers of reviewers who couldn't get things to work) it appears if this is a reason you are waiting to upgrade..DONT YET!!!
 
Looks like a step in the right direction for intel... some performance improvements with large caches/less heat (both of which I'm sure were helpful in the design of smithfield). Just another evolutionary step forward. However the price premium is a little prohibitive.

I'll hold off my upgrade until toledo and smithfield are put head to head.
 
Hard sell to anyone with a clue. Costs 25% more than 5xx no almost no gain in performance. And simply gets destoryed by any AMD 64 of similar price point.

That said, I'd buy that before any 5xx just because it's got potential in overclocking if you buy the 3Ghz chip and make it 4Ghz due to a bit cooler runner.

But no matter how you dress her up she's still a power pig and performance dog due to being a prescott.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Hard sell to anyone with a clue. Costs 25% more than 5xx no almost no gain in performance. And simply gets destoryed by any AMD 64 of similar price point.

That said, I'd buy that before any 5xx just because it's got potential in overclocking if you buy the 3Ghz chip and make it 4Ghz due to a bit cooler runner.

But no matter how you dress her up she's still a power pig and performance dog due to being a prescott.
Click to expand...
Yup !!!
 
Originally posted by: cyberknight
I'm sure even the most battle hardened AMD fanboy can agree that the Centrinos kick ass.
Click to expand...

This battle hardened AMD fanboy knows centrinos don't do anything but dothans do.🙂

In all seriousness dothan has some pretty big performance flaws.. watch enough reviews you'll see them. But add some stuff a real chipset..give them some power and Mhz you never know🙂
 
Other the 64-bit extensions and runs a bit cooler, its yet another incarnation of the prescott that does nothing to increase performance over the previous one.
 
Not enough data/benches/real world examples, to make a decision.

The chip only needs to offer something over the 500 series to be successful, which it does. Expect a successful 64bit advertising blitz from Intel.

This will allow Intel to iron out any problems with the core that will be used in the dual core chips.

Comparisons to AMD are okay I guess, but they mean little to the market. Only a couple of computer users that I know are even aware of AMD, and they still think it's not a good choice over Intel.

Since they have barely even heard of AMD, who can blame them? That is AMD's fault, no one else's.
 
First of all. Intel doesn't really compete with sustained performance on applications. They compete with performance on benchmarks. They also to a good deal compete with themselves, previous generations, and kind of ignore AMD. That's how they sell their new products.

To this they have good help from some close friends. Sandra, PCMark, SysMark. I'm sure the new 2005 benchies can be developed to take advantage of the 2GB L2 cache to show an "improvement".

Check out P4, P4B, P4C and P4E relative performance on successive PCMark/SysMark -2001,2002,2003,2004.
 
P4, P4B, & P4C all have increasing memory bandwidth, so there is no doubt that they are successive improvements.

Most computer users have no idea what a benchmark is, or what it means, so benches aren't selling P4's.
 
As I said in another, a good 875 board, a 2.4C@3.6, and good BH-5 or TCCD @ 2-2-2-5 will likely tie or best anything has put out since then. This is nearly two year old technology, and it's really funny to see little AMD keep making strong advances, yet Intel with its basically limitless resources can only move sideways.
 
As I said, the same can be said about the A64. You can overclock a cheap early one to match the latest ones.

Pretty much no one overclocks though, so I'm not sure the argument is valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top