Intel P4 64bit skt-775 chips on newegg!! - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2005, 04:53 PM   #11 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 39
Default

Oh okay, I was confused by the quote.


Anyways, personally, every time I've gamed on an AMD it wasn't a great experience (I had one computer for 2 years with an Athlon). On the other hand, my past Pentiums worked great, and my current P4 is really good.

Apparently, gaming on Pentiums is good for me. AMD always screws me. :-/

I've seen the numbers, they're not THAT significant. Besides, all the games they benchmark aren't ones I play anyways. :-/
__________________

flexx is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 04:57 PM   #12 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 162
Default

Regardless, they benchmark a large assortment of the most popular games, and AMD always comes out on top, sometimes by double the performance... so it is indeed significant.

The fact that you've had poor experiences with AMD is unfortunate, but currently AMD is the leader for gaming PCs and they've come out with a lot of innovative technologies that Intel is trynig to catch up to in order to keep their lead over the market, but it's really not working.
__________________

__________________
http://www.eraserinc.com/ims/pic.php?u=5VNS3T&i=103
Advanced Geeks - Advanced Technology Forums.
Have a technical question that no one here has an answer to? Ask certified professionals! Try us out!
We need your help!
AdvancedGeeks.com requires knowledgable mods and users to help handle a variety of tasks. PM me for more info.
caseyc is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 04:59 PM   #13 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
CntdwnToExtn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Parents Basement...Still
Posts: 1,746
Send a message via MSN to CntdwnToExtn
Default

i've already got my amd64 chip...so i'm happeir than a pig in **** cause i've had it for a little bit and it's still "top of the line"

tho intel's are probably going to sell better due to advertisement and the common computer user....oh well.....
__________________
[110.7896] Getting up from chair
[112.8798] Walking to fridge
[118.5234] Opening Fridge
[119.1439] CntdwnToExtn panic - no beer: Fridge empty!


CntdwnToExtn is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:02 PM   #14 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

Quote:
Unfortunately, AMD copied Intel in that respect with their "Hyper Transport". However, either way you look at it, that idea was never original.
Hyperthreading is an Intel technology which allows multi-threaded software to access execute threads in parallel. Basically, it simulates dual core processing with a single core.

Hyper Transport is an AMD technology which greatly boasts bus speeds. Since the memory controller on Athlon 64s is built into the processor, the term FSB no longer applies, and AMD can greatly boast bus speeds between the memory and chipset at up to 2000mhz by utilizing Hyper Transport.

For some reason, people read the hyper in both names and come to the conclusion that they are the same thing, however, they are quite different and are both each companies seperate technologies.
__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:08 PM   #15 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
CntdwnToExtn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Parents Basement...Still
Posts: 1,746
Send a message via MSN to CntdwnToExtn
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by gaara
Hyperthreading is an Intel technology which allows multi-threaded software to access execute threads in parallel. Basically, it simulates dual core processing with a single core.

Hyper Transport is an AMD technology which greatly boasts bus speeds. Since the memory controller on Athlon 64s is built into the processor, the term FSB no longer applies, and AMD can greatly boast bus speeds between the memory and chipset at up to 2000mhz by utilizing Hyper Transport.

For some reason, people read the hyper in both names and come to the conclusion that they are the same thing, however, they are quite different and are both each companies seperate technologies.
yeapper....hyper is just a adjective for fast and it just so happends to be infront of threading and transport....oh well. i've never thought amd copied...but....people will say i dont' think that cause i have an amd....*shrugs*
__________________
[110.7896] Getting up from chair
[112.8798] Walking to fridge
[118.5234] Opening Fridge
[119.1439] CntdwnToExtn panic - no beer: Fridge empty!


CntdwnToExtn is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:15 PM   #16 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by gaara
Hyperthreading is an Intel technology which allows multi-threaded software to access execute threads in parallel. Basically, it simulates dual core processing with a single core.

Hyper Transport is an AMD technology which greatly boasts bus speeds. Since the memory controller on Athlon 64s is built into the processor, the term FSB no longer applies, and AMD can greatly boast bus speeds between the memory and chipset at up to 2000mhz by utilizing Hyper Transport.

For some reason, people read the hyper in both names and come to the conclusion that they are the same thing, however, they are quite different and are both each companies seperate technologies.
I realize that they are different technologies, however what i meant was that AMD needed some way to battle the hype that was Hyper Threading, so they came up with a new idea to logically place the CPU closer to the necessary buses, and make data flow much faster.

Basically, HyperThreading was a huge marketing design second to performance boost (however a smart one), and Hyper Transport was designed as to not only increase performance, however battle Intel's hype and eventually beat them in terms of performance. "Steal the idea," or in this case, the market.

The HyperThreading concept made the public think "Wow, Intel added something to this chip to make it go even faster than it originally was!" What do you think AMD released Hyper Transport for? Why didn't they just include it with their CPU's without advertising it? Heh... Smart smart AMD.
caseyc is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:24 PM   #17 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 204
Default

So basically intel just put out a 32bit chip that pretends to be a 64bit one? That Stinks!

I've got a friend who is a Beta-tester and he's got a 4.0GHz 64bit Pentium 4 and uses the Longhorn operating system.

- Maybe i'll get him to run some benchmarks and we can compare with fx-55?
__________________
ACE’s System
Athlon 64 3000+ Venice @ 2.25GHz
EpoX 9NPA+ Ultra
2x512mb Patriot XBLK
256mb BFG 7600GT
Samsung 200GB 8mb
500W Apevia (Aspire) PSU
Samsung CD-RW
Logitech Z-3 2.1
IBM 17”
Windows 2000 PRO

3DMARK05 - 6***
Ace No-Money is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 05:42 PM   #18 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
idiotec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,748
Default

Man, EM64T stands for Extended Memory 64 Technology. It has nothing to due with emulation. The technology is almost identical to AMD64. Microsoft actually was the one that pushed them to copy the technology so there would be a "standard" for the new OS.

I know most people hate Intel in here but don't let it blind you to stupidity.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20443
__________________

BE HEARD - Techonvent
DS3 | E6400 - 3.2GHz 24/7 | 2GB OCZ PLat. PC6400 | 6800GT | Zippy 460W
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.
idiotec is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 06:02 PM   #19 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

I wouldn't go so far to say that I hate Intel, I prefer AMD over Intel for a number of reasons I can easily justify, but I don't really want to turn this into another company standoff thread,

Basically, the only point I'm making is regardless of what Intel has released now, AMD has had this near exact same technology out for well over a year now, so you can't really compare the two.

Furthermore, apparently the high end 500 Intel's still outperform the new 600 series. It seems Intel has had to lower clock speeds on their 64 bit processors for some reason, and attempted to make up for it by doubling the cache. Cache size cannot simply make up for clock speed, it just can't.

It's also a bit of a downer to see that Intel still hasn't tried to correct any of their problems with the Socket T, it seems that they simply scrambled to put out a 64 bit processor to compete with AMD without putting much thought into it.

I honestly was looking forward to see a fair competetor for the Athlon 64, but the Intel alternative appears to be a pretty big let down so far.
__________________
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 02-22-2005, 06:30 PM   #20 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
idiotec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,748
Default

Quote:
The Prescott chip is the same as used in 5XX series, which is a 32-bit processor using the EM64T (emulated 64 bit technology) to pretend to be a 64-bit processor... Basically, just a bunch of extra instructions to mock 64-bit processing.
^This is what I was refering too, not what you had posted.

Quote:
AMD has had this near exact same technology out for well over a year now, so you can't really compare the two.
I don't see why that would mean you couldn't compare the two Since, they are near the same, which I was pointing out above, it seem perfectly reasonable to compare the two. I am not saying the Intel will out perform the AMD by any means also. AMD might have had 64-bit out for a long time, but since we haven't, and still don't have a mainstream OS or programs running 64-bit, it has really been an issue.

Quote:
Furthermore, apparently the high end 500 Intel's still outperform the new 600 series. It seems Intel has had to lower clock speeds on their 64 bit processors for some reason, and attempted to make up for it by doubling the cache. Cache size cannot simply make up for clock speed, it just can't.
I still ahven't seen any benchmarks, so if you have a link I would love to check it out. Are you comparing for example a 3.6Ghz 5xx to a 3.0GHz 6xx? Because if so that would make sense to me that the 5xx would still out perform it.
__________________

__________________

BE HEARD - Techonvent
DS3 | E6400 - 3.2GHz 24/7 | 2GB OCZ PLat. PC6400 | 6800GT | Zippy 460W
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.
idiotec is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.