-
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.
Yonah article here on Anandtech Part II
- Thread starter AkumaX
- Start date
Looks like they made some nice improvements. Unfortunately, it's hard to make valid comparisons for or against it at this point as there too many unknowns still. If they bring it to the desktop and work a bit more performance per clock out of it and above all, keep the price reasonable, they might have a very competitive chip.
Shimmishim
Elite Member
hmm...
what is a 2.0 ghz / 1meg L2 per core ... chip?
i know there is the opteron 170.
is it the opteron 170 they were using?
what is a 2.0 ghz / 1meg L2 per core ... chip?
i know there is the opteron 170.
is it the opteron 170 they were using?
Shimmishim
Elite Member
ah, yes that makes sense! 🙂
Zebo
Elite Member
It's all about low power Mark.. I think in that first review system power was 100W loaded vs, 135W for same speed X2.. granted not huge difference like those 300W Plutonium D setups but still signifigant. Another feature we should get is much better mobo's with HD Azila audio from intel and better IDE/active armour driver than NF4.
Main questions are a) overclocks b) price c) and when, to determine if it's really any good or not.. certainly not the performance I expected clock for clock I expected a little bit better than X2's.
What I found most interesting about the review was the talk about conroe - the processor intel is really releasing to compete with AMD on desktop - Evidenty Conroe will have 4 more pipes hurting performance more - but allowing for higher clock speeds too. Next year should be fun.🙂
Main questions are a) overclocks b) price c) and when, to determine if it's really any good or not.. certainly not the performance I expected clock for clock I expected a little bit better than X2's.
What I found most interesting about the review was the talk about conroe - the processor intel is really releasing to compete with AMD on desktop - Evidenty Conroe will have 4 more pipes hurting performance more - but allowing for higher clock speeds too. Next year should be fun.🙂
AMD's new core, the K10, won't be released until some time in 2007. It seems that AMD is going to fight Yonah and briefly Conroe with high clock speeds. If Conroe performs as expected, AMD will indeed need a significant clock speed advantage to compete with it, as Conroe's avergae IPC should easily exceed the K8's.
Late 2006/2007 will be very interesting.
2006.7, Conroe will come.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28475
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28475
RichUK
Lifer
I don?t care much about Yonah other than it being a preview for future Intel products, since it is a purpose built notebook processor, which has been on the most part engineered to supply next gen performance with a lower power requirement. I never expected to see ground breaking performance from this processor as it is constrained for use in a laptop.
However I am interested in Intel?s new soon to be desktop processors, Merom and Conroe. I think this article is good, because as has already been stated in the article it gives you an insight to what direction Conroe will be headed with regards to possible performance. I am still a little disappointed that clock for clock it doesn?t perform much better if at all then the X2, and the fact Conroe is slated to have more pipes (4 more I believe) seems to add further to the disappointment. Yes it will improve the headroom for higher clocks, but I would have thought this time, Intel would have had emphasis on engineering a chip similar to the performance of the Dothan, with respect to lower latency L2 cache, and fewer amount of pipes (which was still able to clock high albeit a single core). Although the number of pipe line stages is debateable, if Intel can squeeze a lot more top end frequency from the design, and if it indeed proves more beneficial for overall performance, then this would be a plus.
I also assume that with 4MB?s total L2 cache on the Conroe (against 2MB total on Yonah), would have yet a further L2 cache latency penalty, would it not?
However I am interested in Intel?s new soon to be desktop processors, Merom and Conroe. I think this article is good, because as has already been stated in the article it gives you an insight to what direction Conroe will be headed with regards to possible performance. I am still a little disappointed that clock for clock it doesn?t perform much better if at all then the X2, and the fact Conroe is slated to have more pipes (4 more I believe) seems to add further to the disappointment. Yes it will improve the headroom for higher clocks, but I would have thought this time, Intel would have had emphasis on engineering a chip similar to the performance of the Dothan, with respect to lower latency L2 cache, and fewer amount of pipes (which was still able to clock high albeit a single core). Although the number of pipe line stages is debateable, if Intel can squeeze a lot more top end frequency from the design, and if it indeed proves more beneficial for overall performance, then this would be a plus.
I also assume that with 4MB?s total L2 cache on the Conroe (against 2MB total on Yonah), would have yet a further L2 cache latency penalty, would it not?
IBM's POWER5 have 16-stage pipeline, but it is much more powerful than K8. No one should think that more pipes will bring the loss.
Conroe has 4-issue, it's IPC may be better than any x86 cpu.
Athlon64X2 has double L2 than Athlon64, but the latency is closely to the Athlon64. Yonah and Dothan has the same size of L2.
For Dual Core, more L2 does not mean the more latency.
Yonah(OC) can reach the more high frequency with the 14-cycle latency.
Conroe has 4-issue, it's IPC may be better than any x86 cpu.
Athlon64X2 has double L2 than Athlon64, but the latency is closely to the Athlon64. Yonah and Dothan has the same size of L2.
For Dual Core, more L2 does not mean the more latency.
Yonah(OC) can reach the more high frequency with the 14-cycle latency.
fbrdphreak
Lifer
They won't keep the price reasonable; are Dothan's priced reasonably? This is a brand new architecture designed for a market where people will pay for it (notebooks).
Now you've done it.
fbrdphreak
Lifer
Mostly right here. More cache != more latency. It is all in how they design/implement the cache. Dothan had 2MB L2, as did the later P4's; but the P4's L2 was much much higher latency.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Now you've done it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the float point test, POWER5@1.9GHz can very easily defeat the Athlon64 FX@2.8GHz.
POWER5 has 16-stage pipeline, but K8 is 12-stage pipeline.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Now you've done it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the float point test, POWER5@1.9GHz can very easily defeat the Athlon64 FX@2.8GHz.
POWER5 has 16-stage pipeline, but K8 is 12-stage pipeline.
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: 25K
-
-
-
