![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
Intel's 65nm
- Thread starter perplex
- Start date
Erasmus354
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,450
enough to power a small country?
It is anyones guess really until the processors are released. 90nm was supposed to bring lower power, but as we all know that was far from the case (for intel at least, AMD managed to do 90nm properly). Hopefully Intel has learned their lesson and can properly engineer a die shrink (and new architecture for that matter) this time around.
It is anyones guess really until the processors are released. 90nm was supposed to bring lower power, but as we all know that was far from the case (for intel at least, AMD managed to do 90nm properly). Hopefully Intel has learned their lesson and can properly engineer a die shrink (and new architecture for that matter) this time around.
Erasmus354 said:
Okay, this from the person that accuses other people of writing anti-AMD or pro-Intel posts?
This seems to be a direct attack on Intel, disguised as an answer to the thread (with lots of misinformation by the way).
The real answer is that afaik Intel hasn't made up the specs for the 65 nm CPUs yet, so we don't know what the maximum power dissipation is going to be.
Erasmus354
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,450
Scali said:
so you think that prescott lowered power consumption and heat dissipation for intel over northwood? Everyone knows that intel messed up the move to 90nm while AMD managed to pull off quite a successful move. Excuse me if the humor of my first line was a little much for you. And as for the rest of my post...hoping that intel does it right and creates a good chip....what did I do wrong there?
Stop trolling please.
Single core 65nm P4s (Cedar Mill) are supposed to be in the 65W range, according to Intel. http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050314A7040.html
Komataguri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 3,355
Scali said:That can't be right. That's nowhere near enough to power a small country
Depends on how small it is.
thecoldanddarkone
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 345
ok, for the person above who was complaining about prescotts, hmm did you forget about dothan?
thecoldanddarkone said:
Indeed, it's been said many times before, but I'll reiterate it one again for the die-hard AMD-kids out there: Prescott is far from just a die-shrink. It added 64-bit extensions and doubled the cache-size.
And even though AMD's first 90 nm CPUs didn't use a lot of power, they didn't perform very well either.. Their top-end CPUs are based on 130 nm to this day.
They are now in their second generation of 90 nm cores, which should finally relieve the old 130 nm CPUs from their position at the top.
At least the Dothan was a total success, being both top-end performance and extremely low power dissipation.
I think that covers most of the misinformation anyway.
any idea how much power consumption on the 65nm celeron would be? i'm trying to build an extremely low power consuming computer, primarily with CPU so i can passively cool it with a xp-120. i'm thinking of amd 64 mobile or turion when its available. i'm hoping to build around October and am hoping Turion will be around by then.
(cf)Eclipse
Freelance Overclocker
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2003
- Messages
- 30,027
robberbaron
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2004
- Messages
- 6,101
(cf)Eclipse said:
Hahaha, to give Scali credit, that was a rather quiet release. But you are right, the top of the line CPU for AMD is a 90nm part, and has been for a couple weeks.
Indeed, this was a rather amazing application of 90nm transistors.
To the parties involved with flames:
The Intel vs AMD bashing/bragging is just as silly as bragging about your high school/major city sports team winning: You probably didn't do a damn thing to contribute to it.
Erasmus354
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 9,450
thecoldanddarkone said:
Where did I say that all of intels 90nm chips were bad? Hell I never even said the prescott was a poor performing chip!
The discussion of the thread is about the power consumption of Intels 65nm chips.
I pointed out that when Intel moved to 90nm with the prescott (dothan is unimportant, it was a second attempt and therefore irrelevant) that Intel had many problems with power consumption and thermal dissipation that were not expected. I was citing this as an example that you shouldn't immediately jump to conclusions that 65nm would bring lower power draw.
As to me saying that AMD got it right, from a thermal/power perspective they DID! Their 90nm (ALL OF THEM SCALI) draw less power than their 130nm chips. And if you haven't looked if you overclock them they go higher as well, so if AMD wanted too I am sure they could have made a 90nm FX much earlier. Anyways I have been through the 90nm vs 130nm AMD discussion with you before scali, and if I remember you were far too stubborn then to realise the truth, and I doubt you have changed.
Please keep my comments in the context they were originally presented in, and that is that Intel essentially failed to provide lower power/thermals when moving to 90nm while AMD succeeded. Nobody knows what 65nm will bring until we get much closer to release, anything now is just speculation in mind.
P.S. - About the small country.... can anyone take a joke nowadays or have you Intel folks lost any sense of humor?! I knew there had to be side effects to all that heat those prescotts are putting out! (coming from someone who has a processor that idles at 50C and hits 80C load
lol)(cf)Eclipse said:
Oh well, who cares (I obviously don't care enough to keep track of every CPU launch).
It's still an FX55, and we've had that on 130 nm for a long time. Not really misinformation, just slightly outdated, and not relevant to the rest of the story (this is still the second-gen 90 nm that I spoke of).
Erasmus354 said:
Well, let's see:
Erasmus354 said:
You claim that Intel cannot properly engineer a die-shrink, so that clearly means all their 90 nm chips are bad.
You didn't mention Prescott or Dothan at all. So it appears that you are talking about all of Intel's chips.
Read what I said about Prescott not just being a die-shrink. You cannot compare them directly to AMD's move to 90 nm, since AMD did a straightforward dieshrink.
'The truth', haha.
You are far too biased to even see the truth.
Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that Prescott is just a die-shrink of Northwood. And I bet you never considered the fact that Intel's CPUs run at about 1 GHz more than AMD's CPUs, which also brings other physical limitations of silicon to the table.
Just to point out, dothan was a second attempt too. Prescott did perform well, but it is hot, theres no denying it. A64s didnt quite live up to expectations, but they were cool. Both comanies got it right second time round, now quit arguing.Scali said:
Herulach said:
I disagree.
Dothan was the first attempt at a 90 nm Pentium-M, and has very little to do with the Prescott.
Besides, Dothan was introduced in May while Prescott was introduced in January. So they were mostly developed around the same time.
It is not at all comparable to AMD, which first made the 90 nm core, and then reworked it for a second generation.
Technically Intel is still on its first generation of both P4 and P-M at 90 nm.
And must I again reiterate that Prescott is NOT just a die-shrink, but an addition of EM64T, SSE3, doubling of L2 cache, extending the pipeline etc?
It has far more transistors than the Northwood, so it is wrong to just directly compare power dissipation between Prescott and Northwood. Obviously Intel used the 90 nm advantage to add new features to the CPU. Far different from a dieshrink.
I'm not going to stop arguing just because people are misinformed and refuse to listen to sense.
Scali said:
I guess that depends on how you define 'generation.'
Yes, AMD changed core names when they made their (certainly non-trivial) changes.
But the latest stepping of the Prescott 2MiB core is not the same thing we saw with intel's first 90nm cores. It took intel quite a bit of tweaking to get down to the temperatures and power dissipation (with speedstep) to the levels we see now. The ealry 3-3.4ghz Prescotts ran atleast as hot as the high end E0 chips today.
Dothan was good from the go - if you don't put stock in the rumors it was originally slated as a 533FSB part and that along with a few of the top speed grades got dropped to meet the ~25W thermal envolope.
FreiDOg said:
It's only natural that CPUs run cooler and/or clock higher as the manufacturing matures. Not something specific to Intel or 90 nm at all.
And yes, the 6xx series could be considered a new core (although afaik nothing changed about the process itself, unlike with AMD, where strained silicon was introduced in the new generation), but they still make the 5xx series aswell, which is still the 'original' Prescott.
Im in an arsey mood, which chipsets exactly are better for Amd? The ATI one? Or maybe you mean VIA? You surely cant mean nforce4?SSE4 said:Oh ok, then the Venice will do excellent anyway, on top of being a 64-bit chip with SSE3 and supported by better chipsets.
InorganicMatter
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 15,461
Heh, so true. The "nForce > Intel chipset" argument no longer holds anymore for AMD vs Intel bashing-fests.Herulach said:
JetUsafMech
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2001
- Messages
- 724
perplex said:
65 W
http://shopper.pcpro.co.uk/news/703...ill-cpu-to-have-power-consumption-of-65w.html
Pretty interesting tech, read down past the fluff...
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040830net.htm
Uhh... It's not about the AMD supporting motherboards being inherently better as it is the Pentium-M boards being "not-so-hot" outside of Sonoma. Unless you like finding yourself PC2700 motherboards with AGP4X (Which really doesn't make a difference for most cards, but nevertheless). Although you can buy an adapter to put it on a more up-to-date board of course. But given what he said, he'll be fine with his choice.Herulach said:
Well I don't have a store near me that will order nor buy those in my defense, and since I haven't been spending a lot of time looking for a Pentium-M alternative motherboard, it makes sense that I didn't know. But instead of lightly informing me of their existence, I understand how cool it is to be asinine these days.
My apoligies, i will admit i came off as a bit of a cock there. I didnt actually realise you were talking about P-Ms to start with.SSE4 said:
Anyway, you are right to an extent, although they are available, those boards are bloody expensive, cheapest ive seen one is 170£ (about the price of an A64 3700) so to all intents and purposes they may as well not exist. Wish i had the cash to cough up for one, would be soo sweet, i bet those ULV P-Ms clock so so high at sensible voltages, shame im not a millionare.
that's below the belt, but still funnyErasmus354 said:P.S. - About the small country.... can anyone take a joke nowadays or have you Intel folks lost any sense of humor?! I knew there had to be side effects to all that heat those prescotts are putting out! (coming from someone who has a processor that idles at 50C and hits 80C load
Herulach said:They are, well, people would argue otherwise, and it depends what you mean by best. We were talking about chipsets for Pentium M systems
But the other guy (Scali) was right. Too many folks do take AMD's and AMD's followers misinformation as fact. AMD didn't get it right, they got it wrong and IBM fixed it. AMD paid them an additional 400Million to fix it. So why not say IBM got it right?
The other guy did say 90nm, not the Prescott core itself. Sorry, that's just flat out WRONG. I know newbies who know the difference in trying to cool 55 million than doing the same to 169 million. Not only that, the whole layout of the Prescott is different than Northwood's. Now if Intel had done what AMD did and produced a 90nm Northwood, then he'd have a point. Dothan proves Intel 90nm process is good. Prescott was the problem. Real World tech, Ace's hardware and others point out tons of Layout problems with Prescott.
GamePC tests.
If we compare how these scale, you'll see that this is right in line, the ratio of MHz to Power Draw. It is the same for Intel and AMD. But the guy I know with the overclocked to 3GHz Athlon64 90nm Venice swears it higher (Draw) and hotter (temp).
Donnie27
perplex said:
It is but even the Turions get pimp slapped by the Mighty Dothans. Some apps show the 1.6GHz Dothan running faster than a 2GHz Turion.
Again, from GamePC here. The only real slip up the Dothan has is stream Video and Audio. These apps depend on MHz or Bandwidth or BOTH! I trust GamePC because they sell what they test.
Donnie27
I dont recall saying he was wrong, i readily admitted that dothan is good, my point was entirely about chipsets, to quote myself:Donnie27 said:
If amd outsourced venice who cares? Who cares also how much they spent, im sure intel spent a comparable amount on the prescott shrink.me said:
I know he said 90nm, he was also commenting on AMDs first attempt at 90nm, which, as i admitted was dissapointing, and comparing it to intels first attempt which was prescott.
As far as transistor count, what the hell difference does that make? I have transistors that need heatsinks as bug as the one on my chipset to function right, and i have ones that dont need any cooling at all, comparing transistor count, as everyone who has gone through the statistics of anything knows, is completly useless.
Venice isnt merly a core shrink, it does add features, SSE3, improved memory controller, admittedly not as many as northwood - prescott, but still enough to not call it a die shrink.
By the same argument Venice proves AMDs 90nm process is good, although id be very surprised if Dothan and Prescott are made at the same fabs.
Whos fault is it prescott has layout problems? Thats no excuse for anything, if intel had designed the thing without said problems in the first place then we wouldnt be having this discussion would we?
maybe Mhz to power draw is the same, ive never seen any reliable info on it (the article you linked compares a P-M to older A64s no doubt on full size mobos as opposed to microatx ones).
And comparing to prescott, well of course its not, look at the kind of temps people with 3 ghz prescotts get, and then look at the people with overvolted Venices running at nearly 3Ghz running the same cooling, guess which is gonna run hotter?
AMD's 90nm is actually licensed from IBM, they do not have thier own version.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3412251
I remember when AMD first tried to go to 90nm, they had to pay IBM ~$50 million or so to come bail them out becuase they could not get it to work, now they are conitinuning to pay $11 million on just licensing to IBM to be able to continue to use that tech, and in addition AMD is paying IBM $250-$280 million to help them with 65nm.
Not that this is a bad idea, IBM has great Tech (arguably better than Intel right now), but to crow about how great AMD's are at 90nm is a little silly when they do not even have their own 90nm process.
==>Lazn
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3412251
I remember when AMD first tried to go to 90nm, they had to pay IBM ~$50 million or so to come bail them out becuase they could not get it to work, now they are conitinuning to pay $11 million on just licensing to IBM to be able to continue to use that tech, and in addition AMD is paying IBM $250-$280 million to help them with 65nm.
Not that this is a bad idea, IBM has great Tech (arguably better than Intel right now), but to crow about how great AMD's are at 90nm is a little silly when they do not even have their own 90nm process.
==>Lazn
Herulach said:
That's a fallacy.
Sure, not all transistors are the same (the ones you're talking about are often found in power amplifiers, and have very little to do with the ones you find in CPUs), but it is obviously safe to assume that the transistors in the Northwood and the Prescott are similar (if not identical), and even the ones in Prescott and Venice are similar. They perform the same kind of tasks, work at the same kinds of voltage and temperatures etc... So transistorcount is obviously not completely useless, considering that the other factors vary very little.
Technically the move from Northwood to Prescott is quite similar to the move from Athlon to Athlon64. In both cases, cache was increased, 64-bit mode was added, and the pipeline was extended by a few stages. The main difference is that the Prescott doesn't have an onboard memory controller.