• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Good bye Pentium 4 - Hello Pentium D!

ThomasE66 said:
Very true. Say what you want about Intel, but other than the original 1ghz PIII fiasco they've been pretty much on the money with regards to announcements and shipping products.!
Click to expand...
In recent years, the first two Extreme Editions took months to be available. Also, the 3.6E was very slow to market, and it took over 6 months to see the 3.8 GHz Prescott (announced in Q3 2004).
 
starting this week im gonna start saving for a Pentium EE, those 4 threads sound awesome for multitasking.
 
Have you tried a true dual processor first? Might want to see what that's all about before you save up.
 
Redefined said:
yeah but the intel dual cores will be out before AMD's. then lets see who owns then? easy answer....hmmm intel perhaps?
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. I think Intel will continue to 0wn in multitasking, but not improve much in games. As others have mentioned, games don't take advantage of multiple threads right now. With any luck, that will change soon.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
To this day, the coppermine core is still my favorite :)
Click to expand...

I prefer the PIII 1.13GHz Coppermine, myself ;)

Actually, I did own two 1.2GHz PIII-S CPUs... they were great. 37C, full load!
 
xonik said:
In recent years, the first two Extreme Editions took months to be available. Also, the 3.6E was very slow to market, and it took over 6 months to see the 3.8 GHz Prescott (announced in Q3 2004).
Click to expand...


I'm sorry I don't remember the EE's taking a while to come out...from what I remember Intel announced it in September 2k3 and came out in the following months...they never had a set ETA for it, but it did go to OEMs first

The 3.6E was slow, i'll admit, but the rest of the line that was introduced at the time got there pretty quick.

As for 3.8E, well, I do remember seeing it at newegg last summer (end of june), but I think it was for LGA775 or something

getting higher end chips to the market has been hard not only for Intel but for AMD, whereas since all processors are speed-binned, the ones that can run faster are hard to come by...
 
Seriously, I am not drooling! i so suspect that the performance would live up to the hype and price combo and worse yet, the gain could be just marginal (please prove i am wrong!).
And all said and done, I'll not start saving until Intel sheds some light on a better solution to control that stupid heat!!
 
I wonder how much of a premium dual core CPUs are going to carry over their single core counterparts. If a single FX or EE is going to set you back $600+... how much is a dual core chip going to cost?

I'd love to see some games optimized for dual core, but for my needs, single has been more than sufficient. (Probably because I use multiple machines lol). I don't see the need to play MP3s on my game rig as I have a second PC dedicated for other stuff right beside me. In my bedroom is a dual P3 800 machine and back in the day when it was a decent machine, it wasn't any faster playing games than my 800mhz Athlon. Now the lil guy is a file server and space heater :) .

I'd love to see what the thermal solutions are going to look like. The G4 has a giant machined alluminum block that's just massive...
 
xonik said:
G5?

According to the thermal specs, the amount of heatsinking on the G5 is bordering on excessive. Considering that the 1.8 GHz PowerPC 970 dissipates 42 watts (and these are based on early yields in 2002), the heatsinking was designed for a healthy margin of cooling for the processor(s).

Source:
http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techli...2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf (p. 14)
Click to expand...

G4, I think. Dunno, there are 5 broken grey and silver G series Macs behind me and they have this massive sink. Removing it shows the CPU card and it looks like it has dual cores. None of these turn on, and being a not-Mac person, I can't tell much more about em cept when these get hot, those fans inside spin fast and loud heh.
 
xonik said:
Have you tried a true dual processor first? Might want to see what that's all about before you save up.
Click to expand...

I understand i'm not going to see "double" the performance, but I do alot of multitasking, and the chip will be alot cheaper than a 2 or 4 Xeon setup, and when I want to game, i'll still have the raw power that the Intel chips have.
 
xonik said:
Have you tried a true dual processor first? Might want to see what that's all about before you save up.
Click to expand...


Yeah, plain shitty motherboards, no overclocking, registered ram, the cost of 2 cpus and weak features. I THINK I might give dual core a shot this time around.
 
Is the Pentium D and/or Extreme Edition Dual Core 64-bit or not. If not, when and will it come out?
 
iownyou14 said:
Is the Pentium D and/or Extreme Edition Dual Core 64-bit or not. If not, when and will it come out?
Click to expand...
Yes it will be 64 bit... and 64 bit is already out for intel. Its available in the 6xx series of CPUs just released.
 
rayman2k2 said:
it seems no one remembers that Intel released the pricing for the Smithfield procs...


its toward the end of the page, second to last sentence: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2329&p=3


its 261 for the 3ghz variety, which is only an 80 dollar premium on a single core. 80 bucks well worth it IMHO
Click to expand...
I agree. That is not alot at all for a whole second core.
Agreed, most apps wont be that much faster because they are single threaded. However, Threads will be disbursed among both cores for better multi tasking.... which is always good.

Im hoping AMD does the same with pricing to help out the community and the competion.
 
Bah why is it every time I get around to buying parts for a new computer all the new stuff has to hit right after. Not sure if I want to get one of the P D's or just go ahead and get my a64 3500+.

Also do the nonEE chips have HT?? I didn't see it mentioned in that article. Just said that the EE's would have it.
 
It's generally agreed upon that the non-EE Pentium Ds will not have HyperThreading in either or both cores. It won't make much of a difference, and I think that its omission was merely intended to provide product separation between the Pentium D EE and its otherwise identical non-EE brothers.
 
xonik said:
It's generally agreed upon that the non-EE Pentium Ds will not have HyperThreading in either or both cores. It won't make much of a difference, and I think that its omission was merely intended to provide product separation between the Pentium D EE and its otherwise identical non-EE brothers.
Click to expand...


for once i think we agree...
bigeek.gif





However, the dual core presslers (next gen dual core) will have HT on all product lines
 
On dual cores i have a thought im sure y'all already brought it up somewhere. Do you guys think the an 800mhz fsb will have enough bandwith for 2 processors? because im starting to wonder, i also wonder if amd's verison will have the right memory bandwith.. i just havn't had the time to find out if they are using 1 memory controllor for both cores or not
 
Peach said:
starting this week im gonna start saving for a Pentium EE, those 4 threads sound awesome for multitasking.
Click to expand...

lol nice, im already saving up for this chip. hopefully it will kick amd's ass. :p
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Yes it will be 64 bit... and 64 bit is already out for intel. Its available in the 6xx series of CPUs just released.
Click to expand...

64bit is also available for the 3.73EE Extreme Edition.
 
Redefined said:
64bit is also available for the 3.73EE Extreme Edition.
Click to expand...

Yes. Intel has done a great job at playing catchup this time around. I hope they can actually innovate again in the near future. That's coming from someone who's main machines have been P4's since the 1.5 debuted, not an AMD fan. I'm agnostic when it comes to my hardware, but Intel has done nothing recently to make me want to invest in their higher end processors.

I'm getting ready to build yet another Intel system. I'll probably hold off for the dual cores before I do it, but I might also just go with one of the 6xx line. I'm just hoping that they stop with the brute force approach and begin to innovate again.
 
so...all this dual core talk...does that mean this chip will be the same as having a dual CPU computer? Like are they 2 standalone processors in one chip? And will they be 64 bit? and one last question: how much $$?! more than $500?

Sorry if these questions are common knowledge. :rolleyes:
 
HighwayAssassins said:
so...all this dual core talk...does that mean this chip will be the same as having a dual CPU computer? Like are they 2 standalone processors in one chip? And will they be 64 bit? and one last question: how much $$?! more than $500?

Sorry if these questions are common knowledge. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes, and real prices will be announced soon. It looks like they will be very affordable.
 
ThomasE66 said:
Yes, yes, yes, and real prices will be announced soon. It looks like they will be very affordable.
Click to expand...

wow...my mouth is watering. Im an intel guy but i was concidering switching to AMD for the 64 bit when 64 bit windows dropps...now i have a choice! Can't wait for the benchmarks and overclocking results!
 
Heh its funny they named it D. Its like the equivalent of 4 except in terms for the alphabet. D is the 4th letter and all in the alphabet :p
 
Peach said:
Think about how awesome a R520 and a Pentium Extreme would run, omf
Click to expand...

Seeing as how nobody on the planet (who is free to talk about it that is) knows how the R520 performs, it is exactly what you said, 'imagination' ;)
 
DaRkF0g said:
Heh its funny they named it D. Its like the equivalent of 4 except in terms for the alphabet. D is the 4th letter and all in the alphabet :p
Click to expand...
i think theyre shooting for "Desktop"

theyve got the Pentium-Mobile, why not the Pentium-Desktop?
 
I usually am an hardcore Intel guy... however I dont know this time around. I may just have to go with AMDs dual core solution. I really want to go intel but their are a few things that have been bothering me.

Dual Core CPUs are based off Prescott processors.... Added pipeline, less IPC

Limited bandwidth via the FSB... AMD has a low latency on die memory controller... Intel still has all that latency with an north bridge and southbridge etc....

Intels move with the 6xx series of CPUs was discusting. They added another 1MB of L2 cache.. awesome.... but... the latency went up 17% (per anandtechs tests)

Is it me? or is intel just a extremly high latency choice right now....

What matters to me in computing is repsonsivness.... I dont care how the appilications I use run... I know its going to be fast enough where I cant tell the diff (espically with a high end vid card)....

I had an Intel Northwood 2.8@ 3.2 w/ Hyperthreading. Anyone who has used a Northwood or P4C knows it was very responsive. I dont know if this was due to hyperthreading... or the High speed combined with the 20 stage pipeline. I never had a pressy... never wanted one. I didnt like intels choice with less IPC. So that is my biggest thing. I want my computer to be responsive. I feel if I go with Intel now, it wont be.

To sum it up (sorry for the long post and rant) but...
If I Go Intel... I will get dual pressys... high in latency low in IPC.... Dual Threads (not counting the EE here is alot of $)

If i Go AMD... I will get dual Hammer cores.... low in latency, high in IPC... since Hyperthreading made multi tasking smooth on intel before, well now I will have just that on AMD, just a logial core instaed of a virtual one.

so why not go AMD? Im asking you to help me restore my faith in Intel (since I am an Intel guy) but do you see where im comming from.
 
Cache latency won't affect responsiveness, LOL. You realize that the cache latency has been increased from

23 cycles = 23 * (1 / (3.6 x 10^9)) = 6.4 ns @ 3.6 GHz

to

27 cycles = 27 * (1 / (3.6 x 10^9)) = 7.5 ns @ 3.6 GHz

?

Human vision certainly can't perceive a difference of 1.1 nanoseconds. Application performance might suffer, mind you, but not system responsiveness as a direct correlation.

And you should brush up on your terminology a little ;)

The dual-core Pentium D EE will have 2 physical processors and 2 logical processors, for a total of 4 simultaneous threads.
The dual-core Pentium D and dual-core Athlon 64 will have 2 physical processors and no logical processors, for a total of 2 simultaneous threads.
 
Its hard to get that in depth knowledge here because i do not have alot of time on the computer right now since i am deployed.

However, I understand...

You understand what I mean about responsiveness though. Intel Processers and AMDs were the same until Hyperthreading. You know that moved intel up in the Multitasking / Responsiveness in Windows area...

well now Intel and AMD will be the same in that boat... (like i said im not counting the EE cuz I cant afford it)...
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Its hard to get that in depth knowledge here because i do not have alot of time on the computer right now since i am deployed.

However, I understand...

You understand what I mean about responsiveness though. Intel Processers and AMDs were the same until Hyperthreading. You know that moved intel up in the Multitasking / Responsiveness in Windows area...

well now Intel and AMD will be the same in that boat... (like i said im not counting the EE cuz I cant afford it)...
Click to expand...


We understand what you meant, but latency has nothing to do with that.
 
ThomasE66 said:
We understand what you meant, but latency has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...
ok well that makes me understand things alittle bit better.

So what is the reason to stick with intel.... I would like someone to convince me because I have owned both Intel and AMD before, and in the past I ddidnt like AMD. It was along time ago however with a 1Ghz Thunderbird and Via Chipset....
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
ok well that makes me understand things alittle bit better.

So what is the reason to stick with intel.... I would like someone to convince me because I have owned both Intel and AMD before, and in the past I ddidnt like AMD. It was along time ago however with a 1Ghz Thunderbird and Via Chipset....
Click to expand...

I don't know if I can answer that. I own both and will continue to own both. Right now I think AMD has the upper hand in features and performance, but that is just my opinion. Both companies produce some kickass processors.

Right now, AMD is still probably the best choice for gaming. For video editing and other types of media related tasts, the current P4's reign supreme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top