what's difference btw Mobile P4 and Desktop P4?

[clarkey01]

"It's not ready for prime time. Only a blind fanboy could'nt see it. "

Making me feel guilty ;-(

 

[Zebo]

Ya when rev E0 A64's come out doing 3.0 on air, and real review sites start comparing dothan on 915 boards things should get very interesting. It's pretty exciting in computers right now.. I've also seen some bullhead (ati) mobos showing signifigant performance gains over nvidia's NF4 due to memory superiority... Wait IMO for three months..all should be in place and settled by then.

 

[LTC8K6]

Zebo, did you know that Anandtech had basically thrown out that chart when you posted it?

If not, fine.

If so, don't you think you should have mentioned it?

 

[clarkey01]

LTC8K6, do you agree, that as good as dothan is, its not as well rounded as the athlon 64 ?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Zebo, did you know that Anandtech had basically thrown out that chart when you posted it?

If not, fine.

If so, don't you think you should have mentioned it?

No I did'nt.. I read when first came out.. still look at shake, same kind of result.


Also similar unconformity on tests like superpi.. outstanding at 1M but sucking wind at 32M.
Dothan running at 2.0GHz on an AOpem 855 desktop board Mushkin PC3200 Level 2 @ 333Mhz, 2-2-2-5. WinXP sp2.
32M = 43:46
1M = 40

Winch 3000 running at 2.0Ghz on Epox 9NDA3J Ballistix@444Mhz 2-2-2-7 WinXP sp2
32M = 35:22
1M = 42


I'm going to hold off further comment until a compete review is done by a mainsteam all inclusive benchmark is done by the likes of ... Aces/techreport etc. Anands gotten sloppy..plus it was linux

 

[LTC8K6]

I know little about A64's, and have made no comment regarding them in this thread.

 

[LTC8K6]

Fair enough, Zebo. :beer:

 

[Zebo]

Here we go.. apples to apples..still limited in scope though. It's in french but we can all read the charts..

http://hardware.fr/art/imprimer/546/

Take a look at 755 2.0 vs. A64 3200 939 or A64 3000 754 (both 2.0)

What do you think?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
LTC8K6, do you agree, that as good as dothan is, its not as well rounded as the athlon 64 ?

that what they say:
Parapharseing...

...it seems to us that Athlon 64 constitutes a more balanced solution compared to Pentium M in terms of performance ratios, thermal dissipation, and price.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
Zebo forgot to mention the athlon overclocks alot better too.
.

Yup and Cost
Pentium M 745 1.8 GHz + DFI mobo = $600
AMD A64 939 3000 1.8 + EPOX mobo = $240


Overclocking
Late 3000's are hitting 2.7 on stock Vcore and stock HSF.. see windwithme@xtreme..add the fact E0 revs will see 3.0 and I think we can kiss dothan GB since I hav'nt seen any get past ~2.6 on air.

 

[TStep]

The Dothan needs a better platform before any real comparisons can be made. If a Dothan would come with 200fsb coupled with PC3200 Dual Channel DDR, the processor would breath a little in a similar fashion to the P4 when it transitioned from 845 to 865/875.

The UT2004 graph in the Frenchy Link shows this fairly well in the attempt to speculate performance without the memory bottleneck. Until the native fsb is boosted and the memory bottleneck is removed and balanced, it will have decent performance, but not be a front runner. But performance is promising given the current platform inadequacies.

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: TStep
The Dothan needs a better platform before any real comparisons can be made. If a Dothan would come with 200fsb coupled with PC3200 Dual Channel DDR, the processor would breath a little in a similar fashion to the P4 when it transitioned from 845 to 865/875.

The UT2004 graph in the Frenchy Link shows this fairly well in the attempt to speculate performance without the memory bottleneck. Until the native fsb is boosted and the memory bottleneck is removed and balanced, it will have decent performance, but not be a front runner. But performance is promising given the current platform inadequacies.

One of the reason I take it that Dothan isnt on a 800 Mhz FSB, using DDR 400/ DDR II is because its cost time and money. If Intel could, why dont they ? I bet theres a sound reason that someone can fill me in on.

Its kind a like what ed said about 90 nm athlon 64's, if they can make fast ones, why dont they ?

You'd think with the performance crown on AMD they wouldnt hold back. But maybe there just being clever, by ever so slighty rasing performance untill it surpasses and then put there foot down ?.

 

[TStep]

Personally I think it's all about cash. Intel is selling a competative product with the years of advertising pounding Intel into the consumers head. Intel advertises and AMD does not. To the average Joe, it's just a computer, Intel is a well known name, and the computers will sell without going into the pro/cons of differing platforms. Also, I think there is too much invested in the P4 platform to retool and switch over to Dothan in high volume.

Other than on an enthusiast forum, most people don't know performance differences nor do truly care. A 200 fsb and PC3200 platform really have nothing to do with the cpu other than the multiplier. 200fsb/PC3200 capable motherboards and memory have been here for a year and 1/2. They just need to put it all together. And that won't happen until they squeeze every Prescott penny out of all the Fabs.