Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Prescott Questions

  1. #1
    bigdawgfoxx's Avatar Big Dawg
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    29
    Posts
    3,833
    Ok, Intel has released Prescott, but why?

    Read Here

    Those are some customer reviews off of newegg talking about how even though it has double the cache, the pipeline is much longer so it doesnt run ANY faster.

    They also say it runs ALOT hotter.

    The CPU is NOT 64bit, so why did they release it when the 32bit P4 C is doing great? Why did they not save money on research and make their 64bit cpu INCREADIBLE. Just a few questions im having...
    [SIZE=1]AMD 4200 X2 @ 2.65Ghz, ASRock 939-VSTA
    1.75GB PC3200, 2 X 160GB Seagate w/ 8MB Buffer
    HIS Radeon X800 Pro, Antec Super Lanboy Aluminum

  2. Software & Hardware   -   #2
    Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    fucking smurfland y'idjit
    Posts
    760
    Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@15 February 2004 - 18:39
    Why did they not save money on research and make their 64bit cpu INCREADIBLE.
    Perhaps they don't know how to make anything INCREADIBLE.
    if your font size is this small i'll add you to my ignore list because you're wasting my time, OK?

  3. Software & Hardware   -   #3
    bigdawgfoxx's Avatar Big Dawg
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    29
    Posts
    3,833
    lol maybe...but still

    they just realeased this chip that is hotter and slower...whats the freaking point?
    [SIZE=1]AMD 4200 X2 @ 2.65Ghz, ASRock 939-VSTA
    1.75GB PC3200, 2 X 160GB Seagate w/ 8MB Buffer
    HIS Radeon X800 Pro, Antec Super Lanboy Aluminum

  4. Software & Hardware   -   #4
    Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Age
    36
    Posts
    3,357
    Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@15 February 2004 - 17:39
    Those are some customer reviews off of newegg talking about how even though it has double the cache, the pipeline is much longer so it doesnt run ANY faster.
    Have you read any other reviews? I wouldn't base my opinion of something on a couple of customer reviews.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956

  5. Software & Hardware   -   #5
    Lick My Lovepump
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Age
    15
    Posts
    2,698
    The Prescott has a 90nm process compared to the 120nm of current Northwoods.

    Look here.

    The ones with a single E are Prescotts, double E (EE) are Extreme Edition Northwoods, no Es are Northwoods. You'll see that in some places they do beat Northwoods.

    This slowdown on lower chips is also needed for higher clockspeeds later. Sounds like they've released a flawed product, doesn't it.

    EDIT: I also heard something about Prescott being a cheaper alternative and Intel trying to reclaim the budget market, although I can't remember the source and whether there was any truth behind the comment.

    Originally posted by Tom&#39;s Hardware+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tom&#39;s Hardware)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    In our opinion, the debut of a processor based on a cutting-edge process technology and architecture that only offers the same performance level as the predecessor is unanticipated. Despite 1 MB L2 cache and some optimizations, Prescott is slower than Northwood in roughly a third of our benchmarks. Software, like many 3D shooters and more serious applications like Lame, MS Movie Maker 2, Mathematica, Cinema 4D or even 3DStudio perform worse than before.
    On the other hand, there are a similar amount of applications that run faster on a Prescott CPU. These are DivX encoding with Xmpeg, file archiving with WinRAR, video authoring using Pinnacle Studio 9 and the remolded SYSmark 2004. [/b]


    Faster or similar on majority (2/3 of the benchmarks) doesn&#39;t sound bad to me.

    Now I understand:
    <!--QuoteBegin-Anandtech

    Intel wants to shift all Pentium 4s over to Prescott as soon as possible, mostly because once production ramps up it will be cheaper for Intel to make a 112 mm^2 Prescott than it is for them to make a 131 mm^2 Northwood. Therefore Prescott launches at clock speeds that are equivalent to currently available Northwoods. [/quote]

  6. Software & Hardware   -   #6
    atiVidia's Avatar ^would've been cool.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,551
    i play games. i like intel

    Originally posted by Tom&#39;s Hardware
    Despite 1 MB L2 cache and some optimizations, Prescott is slower than Northwood in roughly a third of our benchmarks. Software, like many 3D shooters and more serious applications like Lame, MS Movie Maker 2, Mathematica, Cinema 4D or even 3DStudio perform worse than before.
    i dont like them anymore

    amd, you got urself another loyal customer




    im sure alot of ppl will agree with me on this front

  7. Software & Hardware   -   #7
    Well bigdawg, you should do a little bit of reading and research to find out a little bit about the Prescott processor. I have done a little bit every day, and now I have a pretty good understanding exactly what makes it tick...

    For one thing, Intel extended the pipeline from 21 stages to 31 stages.

    Imagine a CPU processing data. The fewer stages, the more "work" each stage has to make, thus the hotter the CPU gets. Keep in mind that the CPU&#39;s operating frequency is, to a certain extent, limited by the heat it generates. Therefore, theoretically, extending the pipeline by 10 stages should cool down the CPU, because each stage peforms less "work." However, modern CPU&#39;s are not that "simple," so there are several other elements that come into play when measuring effectiveness of a CPU in processing data.

    When Intel first introduced the Pentium 4 CPU, it was slower than the Pentium 3 at equal clockspeeds, and the entire world cried "fowl." The P3 had only 11 stages in its pipeline and the P4 had 21. One thing that you need to understand about extending the pipeline of the CPU is that it enables, ultimately, the CPU to operate at higher frequencies. However, if one of those stages is unable to complete its "work," then the data that was being processed at that level must return all the way to the beginning and start over, thus wasting precious clock cycles and effectively hindering the processor&#39;s ability to process data efficiently.

    This is a quick and incomplete summary; you should really do some reading at Anandtech or HardOCP to gain a full understanding.


  8. Software & Hardware   -   #8
    atiVidia's Avatar ^would've been cool.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,551
    Originally posted by adamp2p@15 February 2004 - 15:36
    For one thing, Intel extended the pipeline from 21 stages to 31 stages.
    HOLY FUCK&#33;&#33;&#33;

    31 stages??? that could mean that an aXP would only need to run at 2400 to achieve 3400+

    god damn...

  9. Software & Hardware   -   #9
    bigdawgfoxx's Avatar Big Dawg
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    29
    Posts
    3,833
    Originally posted by atiVidia+15 February 2004 - 15:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (atiVidia @ 15 February 2004 - 15:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-adamp2p@15 February 2004 - 15:36
    For one thing, Intel extended the pipeline from 21 stages to 31 stages.
    HOLY FUCK&#33;&#33;&#33;

    31 stages??? that could mean that an aXP would only need to run at 2400 to achieve 3400+

    god damn... [/b][/quote]
    what are you talking bout ati? dont understand that lol

    Thanks adam that helped me understand it. But those people said it ran hotter, not cooler as more stages should. also arent the pipelines longer so it takes longer to get data from point a to point b? I guess its kinda like you said that the P4 was slower then the P3. I guess it will get alot faster as they develop it..but why release it if its not ready? And is this actually pentium 5? or just a diff core P4 like the barton of amd?
    [SIZE=1]AMD 4200 X2 @ 2.65Ghz, ASRock 939-VSTA
    1.75GB PC3200, 2 X 160GB Seagate w/ 8MB Buffer
    HIS Radeon X800 Pro, Antec Super Lanboy Aluminum

  10. Software & Hardware   -   #10
    atiVidia's Avatar ^would've been cool.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,551
    Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx+15 February 2004 - 17:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigdawgfoxx @ 15 February 2004 - 17:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by atiVidia@15 February 2004 - 15:36
    <!--QuoteBegin-adamp2p
    @15 February 2004 - 15:36
    For one thing, Intel extended the pipeline from 21 stages to 31 stages.

    HOLY FUCK&#33;&#33;&#33;

    31 stages??? that could mean that an aXP would only need to run at 2400 to achieve 3400+

    god damn...
    what are you talking bout ati? dont understand that lol

    Thanks adam that helped me understand it. But those people said it ran hotter, not cooler as more stages should. also arent the pipelines longer so it takes longer to get data from point a to point b? I guess its kinda like you said that the P4 was slower then the P3. I guess it will get alot faster as they develop it..but why release it if its not ready? And is this actually pentium 5? or just a diff core P4 like the barton of amd? [/b][/quote]
    the reason AMD&#39;s slower chips run as fast as some of intels faster chips is bcuz AMD has less stages per clock cycle. the clock is slower, but less time is spent on clock anyway so...

    also, since the intel pipes are now LONGER, it means that if there is a data transfer error, there could be a bigger penalty:

    what i mean by that is that a processor guesses what comes next. if a pipe is longer, the guesses are harder, and thus, if the chip screws a guess, it has to make it up with a speed penalization. the longer the pipe, the bigger the penalty

    therefore: AMD, with less stages per clock, has 2 advantages:
    1) slower clocks get very decent performance
    2) shorter pipe means less penalization on an error


    now that intel has added 10 stages, AMD chips are likely to need even less speed and STILL tie up with intel, unless AMD raises the number of stages as well

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •