More Prescott performance numbers

xonik

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Messages
10,318
Higher clock frequency, supposedly. And, to Intel's credit, the article might be dead wrong. I guess we'll all know next week.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
898
Intel has not given us a Prescott Pentium 4 to test.

Maybe someone shoud inform the MORONS over at Inq that to properly review an item one must first have it in their possesion. I for one don't buy their 'assurances' that they actually have one. They didn't post any screenshots of the cpu or CPU-Z or anything that might actually lend them some credibilty [overclockers.at posted screenshots galore and those in CPU-Z showed the Prescott to be marginally better than the Northwood].

The machine we tested was stable, but it will be hard, probably impossible to clock these chips at 3.8GHz.

Again, the screenies at overclockers.al clearly show a P4P 3.2 OCed to 4ghz [CPU-Z].

Inq is more of a source for paltry entertainment than anything else these days and for reasons beyond me they've had it out for the new P4 for a while now [heat dissipation problems anyone?]. Maybe they don't like british names?
 

AirBornX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
261
Don't trust Inquirer. They're the worst website, plus they're really biased to AMD.
 

pakotlar

Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
895
Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Intel has not given us a Prescott Pentium 4 to test.

Maybe someone shoud inform the MORONS over at Inq that to properly review an item one must first have it in their possesion. I for one don't buy their 'assurances' that they actually have one. They didn't post any screenshots of the cpu or CPU-Z or anything that might actually lend them some credibilty [overclockers.at posted screenshots galore and those in CPU-Z showed the Prescott to be marginally better than the Northwood].

The machine we tested was stable, but it will be hard, probably impossible to clock these chips at 3.8GHz.

Again, the screenies at overclockers.al clearly show a P4P 3.2 OCed to 4ghz [CPU-Z].

Inq is more of a source for paltry entertainment than anything else these days and for reasons beyond me they've had it out for the new P4 for a while now [heat dissipation problems anyone?]. Maybe they don't like british names?

the 4ghz figure is on a mach II. not too impressive.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
898
Granted, but that still doesn't explain how Inq actually reviewed the damned thing without actually...having it. Personally, I think the P4P will perform marginally better than the Northwoods at launch, the 2-4 extra pipelines be damned. I won't conjecture about OCing abilities though, we'll just have to wait and see with those.
 

MTB2Live Live4Comps

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
1,968
Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Granted, but that still doesn't explain how Inq actually reviewed the damned thing without actually...having it.
is it so hard to believe that somebody can have a friend? like, one review site is friends with another review site. one site has signed an NDA and benched a prescott they were given by intel. over a casual talk the numbers were shared. and inq just published them. now that's only one possibility, but we need to open our eyes a bit here. and as for the extra pipelines, the way intel is using them is to allow for a performance hit in order to allow for higher clock speeds. a doubled L2 should easily increase performance atleast 5 to 7%, especially in gaming benchmarks. i mean, look at the standard p4 verse emergency edition. those extra 1.5MBs do wonders. why isn't the prescotts extra .5MB helping? it has to be, just making up for the lost performance by the extra pipelines. until devs can rewrite all their code with SSE3 extensions in it, prescott imo offers zero advantage over northwoods.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
898
is it so hard to believe that somebody can have a friend? like, one review site is friends with another review site.

Is it so hard to post screenshots of the CPU or even better yet, screenshots of CPU-Z or ANYTHING actually spitting out those pretty graphs?

CHIP Newsroom and OCers.at did it. Why can't Inq? Are Digital Cameras/the Print Screen Key really THAT expensive? To top it off they didn't even make the slightest mention of this friend, throw us a bloody bone man, is it taiwanese? :p
 

pakotlar

Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
895
Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
is it so hard to believe that somebody can have a friend? like, one review site is friends with another review site.

Is it so hard to post screenshots of the CPU or even better yet, screenshots of CPU-Z or ANYTHING actually spitting out those pretty graphs?

CHIP Newsroom and OCers.at did it. Why can't Inq? Are Digital Cameras/the Print Screen Key really THAT expensive? To top it off they didn't even make the slightest mention of this friend, throw us a bloody bone man, is it taiwanese? :p

do you really the think the INQ would just throw up comlete BS numbers days before the NDA's are lifted? do you know how much that would discredit their site (no matter what their reputation is)? please.
 

Tedinde

Bad Trader
Joined
Jan 2, 1999
Messages
2,560
Originally posted by mtbaird
why upgrade to that then?

Intel doesnt care if it's slower. Their money Is OEM's not us. They dont care what it overclocks or if it even does,

What they do care about is it's cheaper to make than current northwoods, and the speed will ramp higher for less.

People love Intel for their computers when purchasing that emachine or dell. Even if AMD is faster or the old northwoods are faster,

They just see MHZ!!!!
 

xonik

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Messages
10,318
Originally posted by pakotlar
do you really the think the INQ would just throw up comlete BS numbers days before the NDA's are lifted? do you know how much that would discredit their site (no matter what their reputation is)? please.
Don't you think that reviewers (not necessarily The Inquirer) have NDA samples of the Prescott yet? Okay, that gives probable cause for the benchmarks to actually be run, and some cause for them to be accurate. What would The Inquirer gain by giving incorrect numbers? Nothing; either they would lose traffic by always spouting BS (which they don't), or they would be wasting their own bandwidth, time, etc. Now there's the possibility that the benchmarks were improperly done, unfairly done, etc. but the chances of them being accurate are fairly good too.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
898
Since when do people do things in their best intrests? MS nearly shot itself in the foot with that MikeRoweSoft debacle. You'll have to forgive me if I don't place faith in the Inq under the guise of 'people do only good things to themselves' reasoning. I just think they're off their bloody rockers. But we'll know in a few days, so it's rather pointless at this point in time.
 

xonik

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Messages
10,318
That's the thing with The Inquirer; they don't care about your faith in them or whatever. Someone in the technological press has to have fun and maybe spread some rumors. Forgive me if you interpreted my post as a serious defense of The Inq, for it was rather weak from that perspective. It was only a reasoning based on what I observe about people in general.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
898
Ah, my bad then. The internet is nitoriously bad when it comes to conveying irony and sarcasm. I agree though with you. :)
 

chrisf6969

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
9,013
Intel is looking for big numbers (Mhz) so everyone can have a 3Ghz+ with HT. That will be the selling point. Noob walks in to Bestbuy / CompUSA and says I want a 3Ghz with that HT stuff.

Prescott should allow for everyone to have a minimum 3Ghz... even if its a Sloweron (celeron) at 533FSB.

Intel learned from their Williamette mistake...
longer pipes need a larger cache (and smaller process)

So this time they introduced the larger cache and longer pipes at the same time.

Northwood with 512Kb made up for the longer pipes....
Just like Prescott with 1Mb will.
 

pakotlar

Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
895
Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Since when do people do things in their best intrests? MS nearly shot itself in the foot with that MikeRoweSoft debacle. You'll have to forgive me if I don't place faith in the Inq under the guise of 'people do only good things to themselves' reasoning. I just think they're off their bloody rockers. But we'll know in a few days, so it's rather pointless at this point in time.

The conclusion that the inquirer did something that was not in their own best interest does not logically follow from the premise that microsoft did something that was not in their own interest (whether or not this premise is true doesn't matter).

The kind of argument you outline is an invalid inductive argument. It is called a hasty generalization.

A VALID inductive argument can be structured like this:
Vagrant Zero is human. (premise)
Most humans make invalid arguments. (premise)
Therefore:
Vagrant Zero probably made an invalid argument. (conclusion)


Your argument on the other hand can be broken down this way:

A. People sometimes do things that aren't in their best interest.
B. The INQ is an orginization run by people.
Therefore
C. The INQ did something that wasn't in their own best interest.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises A & B. You could say that: C. The INQ may have done something that wasn't in their own best interest. Then you would be 100% correct, and I would agree. If you said this then I would have to reply: WE WILL SEE IN A FEW DAYS. STOP MAKING LOGICAL FALLACIES, BECAUSE THEY REALLY BOTHER ME.

yeah I've spent way too much time explaining this. point is: could be, we will see.

edit: forgot to add: OWNED
 

Bar81

Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2001
Messages
641
I've found that it is usually a waste of time to try to use logic on these boards :(
 

specter554

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
188
Originally posted by pakotlar
The conclusion that the inquirer did something that was not in their own best interest does not logically follow from the premise that microsoft did something that was not in their own interest (whether or not this premise is true doesn't matter).

The kind of argument you outline is an invalid inductive argument. It is called a hasty generalization.

A VALID inductive argument can be structured like this:
Vagrant Zero is human. (premise)
Most humans make invalid arguments. (premise)
Therefore:
Vagrant Zero probably made an invalid argument. (conclusion)


Your argument on the other hand can be broken down this way:

A. People sometimes do things that aren't in their best interest.
B. The INQ is an orginization run by people.
Therefore
C. The INQ did something that wasn't in their own best interest.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises A & B. You could say that: C. The INQ may have done something that wasn't in their own best interest. Then you would be 100% correct, and I would agree. If you said this then I would have to reply: WE WILL SEE IN A FEW DAYS. STOP MAKING LOGICAL FALLACIES, BECAUSE THEY REALLY BOTHER ME.

yeah I've spent way too much time explaining this. point is: could be, we will see.

edit: forgot to add: OWNED

Wow, congratulations on your philosophical analysis of someone’s argument over the internet. You sure are hard. Vagrant was just saying that sometimes companies do make mistakes, cut him some slack.
 

laja

Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
968
If you put aside fanboyism and come out of denial, you'll see that the information provided by the Inq is likely to be correct. Prescott is introduced for cheap 3 Ghz for the masses, as well as for future higher clock speeds. It is NOT introduced to be immediately faster than the Northwood.

For me, the only reason to get a Prescott would be to o/c it to 4.2 Ghz on air. However, that seems unlikely now.
 

Bar81

Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2001
Messages
641
Originally posted by laja
If you put aside fanboyism and come out of denial, you'll see that the information provided by the Inq is likely to be correct. Prescott is introduced for cheap 3 Ghz for the masses, as well as for future higher clock speeds. It is NOT introduced to be immediately faster than the Northwood.

For me, the only reason to get a Prescott would be to o/c it to 4.2 Ghz on air. However, that seems unlikely now.

Actually, neither you, nor anyone not under NDA knows how the Prescott performs. The big question remains that even if people have the Prescotts in hand do they have the mobo BIOSes to properly recognize and utilize the increased L1 cache? Without knowing that, these "benchmarks" are useless.
 

NowhereMan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
459
From the Inquirer: "AS WE WON'T SIGN NDAs (non disclosure agreements) and therefore Intel has not given us a Prescott Pentium 4 to test, we've found a way to get some scores before everyone else's NDAs expire on the 2nd of February next."

That just says it all. Talk about journalism going down hill (if you can even call what they do journalism). They should really shut their site down and go home.
 

PSYKOMANTIS

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
1,128
I might as well just gather up the cash for the 3.4EE now.

That seems more exciting to me then the Prescott is now that new numbers are coming out.

I'll put cash that the 3.4EE blows the shit out of the 3.4 Prescott.

Bets anyone?

Psyko M.
 

Koslov

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Messages
1,889
is the P4EE Prescott 3.4ghz supposed to be released on 2nd february?
 

xonik

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Messages
10,318
No, the Northwood/Gallatin based 3.4 GHz Extreme Edition will be released, not a Prescott or derivative.
 

chrisf6969

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
9,013
More and more places are putting their 3.4's for sale.... some with 1Mb, some with 512Kb of L2

http://www.partspc.com/store/product2286.html

Intel has really been slacking on upping the CPU speed. It seems like we've been at 3.06-3.2Ghz forever. Now they are FINALLY going up with only one speed grade and my processor already does 3.45 at default so I dont even think this is going to be a new stepping. (just cherry picked D1's)
 

old skool

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2000
Messages
1,694
Originally posted by Bar81
Actually, neither you, nor anyone not under NDA knows how the Prescott performs. The big question remains that even if people have the Prescotts in hand do they have the mobo BIOSes to properly recognize and utilize the increased L1 cache? Without knowing that, these "benchmarks" are useless.

Oh god the denial is getting out of control.

Time and time again we've seen valid benchmarks appear on the web days before the NDA's expires. Why everyone tries so hard not to be let down is a mystery.
 

Bar81

Gawd
Joined
Jul 4, 2001
Messages
641
Originally posted by old skool
Oh god the denial is getting out of control.

Time and time again we've seen valid benchmarks appear on the web days before the NDA's expires. Why everyone tries so hard not to be let down is a mystery.

Well, there you have it; an airtight logical argument... :rolleyes:
 

old skool

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2000
Messages
1,694
Originally posted by Bar81
Well, there you have it; an airtight logical argument... :rolleyes:

The point is when is the last time leaked benchmarks were flat out wrong?
 

old skool

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2000
Messages
1,694
Originally posted by Bar81
The big question remains that even if people have the Prescotts in hand do they have the mobo BIOSes to properly recognize and utilize the increased L1 cache? Without knowing that, these "benchmarks" are useless.

Okay maybe I'm missing some information here but since when does the motherboard BIOS have anything to do with the amount of cache the CPU is allowed to use?
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
898
The conclusion that the inquirer did something that was not in their own best interest does not logically follow from the premise that microsoft did something that was not in their own interest (whether or not this premise is true doesn't matter).

Read what I said a bit closer, I was refuting the argument posted above my own inductively. I wasn't making a deductive one of my own, hence the ‘I THINK’ in my 'conclusion'. Again, decent reading comprehension is a plus when dealing with Symbolic Logic. Actually, knowing Symbolic Logic is plus when dealing with Symbolic Logic.

The kind of argument you outline is an invalid inductive argument. It is called a hasty generalization.

It is called a non-argumentative refutation [though we’ll presume to be an argument structured inductively for the sake of…argumentation]. Its primary purpose is to more or less poke holes in another argument without actually strutting the refutation in a premise/conclusion format and thus leaving it open to the same tactics. Secondly, would it have been in an actual premise/conclusion format, it would have been an ANALOGICAL ARGUMENT, and thus a fallacy by definition [Appeal to Analogy]. There is no such fallacy as a 'hasty generalization'. Genius.

A VALID inductive argument can be structured like this:
Vagrant Zero is human. (premise)
Most humans make invalid arguments. (premise)
Therefore:
Vagrant Zero probably made an invalid argument. (conclusion)

I suppose I should bring it to your minuscule attention that there is no such thing as inductive validity and therefore an inductive argument cannot be valid or invalid. Let us see what THE LOGIC BOOK [Bergmann, Moor, and Nelson] Third Edition has to say about inductive arguments.

An argument that is not deductively valid can still be a useful argument. The premises can make the conclusion likely even though not certain. Such arguments are said to have inductive strength, the strength being proportional to the degree of probability the premises lend to the conclusion. An argument has inductive strength to the extent that the conclusion is probable given the premises.

But since that aforementioned tiny mind of yours would probably balk at having to decipher Predicate Logic, I’m going to do you a favor and limit it to Sentential Logic which is ill-equipped for inductive arguments, but again, I don’t want to confuse you, you do that to yourself adequately enough.

We will use the following as our UD [Universe of Discourse]
A = Adam [Vagrant Zero is a net handle you dunce]
H = Human
B = Invalid argument [the inclusion of the word most would nullify any inductive strength the argument would have had as an inductive argument by depiction is not required to consider all possible premise to conclusion scenarios as it does not have to adhere to the validity standards of deductive arguments, in other words you were being redundant and I chose not to make your mistake]
C = Adam made an invalid argument [you made the same mistake here as you did in the second premise, namely the inclusion of the tertiary variable probably]

We will also use the following as our computer SD counterparts.
& = Conjunction
|v| = Disjunction [Inclusive]
Horseshoe = Conditional
Tripple-Bar = Bi-Conditional

The argument you tried to make but failed miserably at:
H [Horseshoe] B
A [&] H {note that AND is being used in place of IS as SD does not support the syntax}
--
(A [&] H) [Horseshoe] B

That is what the argument would look like if it was in SD format. Of course the argument is invalid since the proper substitution from premise 2 to conclusion is the Conditional and not the Bi-Conditional. The Bi-Conditional however would make the argument unsound (not invalid), and when we’re dealing with inductive forms soundness is far more important considering validity does not exist for such forms.

Your argument on the other hand can be broken down this way:
A. People sometimes do things that aren't in their best interest.
B. The INQ is an orginization run by people.
Therefore
C. The INQ did something that wasn't in their own best interest.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises A & B. You could say that: C. The INQ may have done something that wasn't in their own best interest. Then you would be 100% correct, and I would agree. If you said this then I would have to reply: WE WILL SEE IN A FEW DAYS. STOP MAKING LOGICAL FALLACIES, BECAUSE THEY REALLY BOTHER ME.

Firstly, as I’ve mentioned before [as have Bergmann, Moor, and Nelson] inductive arguments do NOT have a measure of validity. Thus pointing out that C does not follow from A is like telling Bill Gates that he’s rich, it’s unnecessary and adds nothing to the conversation short of promoting your inadequacies [which would take you all day]. Secondly, to put it mildly, I would be affronted if someone of your caliber were to agree with me on anything. It would also likely make me reconsider my stance on the matter. Lastly, fallacious argumentation is a by-product of the constitution of deductive validity, but as you have so plainly pointed out, we’re not dealing with a deductive argument. Thus, I suggest that you not use philosophical terms that are beyond you [which would be all of them]. I also do find it funny how you bemoan my use of fallacies [of which I made none] while ‘correcting’ me with a few of your own, most notably Argumentum ad logicam or:

The "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions. Example:

"Take the fraction 16/64. Now, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six!"
"Oh, so you're telling us 16/64 is not equal to 1/4, are you?"

yeah I've spent way too much time explaining this. point is: could be, we will see.

Instead of spending time 'owning' people on the net, you should maybe consider actually TAKING the course, that way you won’t come off sounding like a complete ignoramus to someone who has.

pwned.JPG


Edit: No Vagrant Zeros, Adams, Humans, or Invalid arguments were harmed in the making of this pwnage. Well, ok maybe just the humans that told me majoring in Philosophy would not benefit me in any way.
 

PSYKOMANTIS

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
1,128
homerhead.jpg


"Because sometimes the only way you can feel good about yourself is by making someone else look bad. And I'm tired of making other people feel good about themselves!"


Psyko M.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
898
Originally posted by pakotlar
the 4ghz figure is on a mach II. not too impressive.

You are wrong again. I'm assuming you got the mach II idea from the guys pc specs right?

AMD XP3200+@ 2930 225x13 @2,03V Mach II chilled. ABIT NF7-S Ver. 2.0 ,2x512MB XMS 2-2-2-3@ 225Mhz, Asus GF4 4400Ti, 2x80GB IBM Raid 0 + 2x40GB Seagate, DVD, Burner LG 48/16/48, True Power 550W, Win XP Prof.

That's the guys system specs right? Except he wasn't putting the Pressy on it. Notice his ram on? See how it's 2x512 chips? Now instead of yapping that mouth of yours why don't you actually check out the screenshots posted?

urwrong.JPG


As even you can clearly see, that's a 256mb DIMM right there on that's being used in the Pressy computer. The timings don't even match and neither does the speed.

Would you like to add anything else?
 
Top