If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Prescott tests
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message able.rogers.com...
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000315 http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956 I posted these and more, more than 11 hours before you, but my ISP is having trouble with its newgroup feed, so noone else can see them. *******s! This posted via Google Groups. Derek |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek Baker" wrote in message
om... "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message able.rogers.com... http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000315 http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956 I posted these and more, more than 11 hours before you, but my ISP is having trouble with its newgroup feed, so noone else can see them. *******s! This posted via Google Groups. I'm sorry, but it's not like as if my ISP is the model of high quality and efficiency either. :-) Anandtech seems to think that the Prescott should only be purchased if you're going to try to overclock to 4Ghz, otherwise go for Northwood. This despite the fact that the Prescott uses up far more power than the Northwood at the same frequency. Ace's hardware seems to think that at 125 million transistors, Prescott is hiding some circuitry inside it, which Intel hasn't told us about yet. They come to this conclusion by adding up the extra circuitry required by the 512K larger L2 cache, and the 8K larger L1 instruction cache, and estimate that altogether this should take Prescott only up 80 million transistors from the Northwood's 52 million. So there's still 45 million transistors unaccounted for inside Prescott. Tom's just seems annoyed by Prescott for some reason. :-) Yousuf Khan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in
ble.rogers.com: Ace's hardware seems to think that at 125 million transistors, Prescott is hiding some circuitry inside it, which Intel hasn't told us about yet. They come to this conclusion by adding up the extra circuitry required by the 512K larger L2 cache, and the 8K larger L1 instruction cache, and estimate that altogether this should take Prescott only up 80 million transistors from the Northwood's 52 million. So there's still 45 million transistors unaccounted for inside Prescott. 64 bit ? naaaa Pozdrawiam. -- RusH // http://kiti.pulse.pdi.net/qv30/ Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery. You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"RusH" wrote in message 22.80... "Yousuf Khan" wrote in ble.rogers.com: Ace's hardware seems to think that at 125 million transistors, Prescott is hiding some circuitry inside it, which Intel hasn't told us about yet. They come to this conclusion by adding up the extra circuitry required by the 512K larger L2 cache, and the 8K larger L1 instruction cache, and estimate that altogether this should take Prescott only up 80 million transistors from the Northwood's 52 million. So there's still 45 million transistors unaccounted for inside Prescott. 64 bit ? naaaa Perhaps Yamhill exists? -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message able.rogers.com...
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000315 http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956 I thought one of the more interseting comments from Anandtech is that going from 2.8gz up to 3.2ghz Prescott narrows the gap (or increases the lead) with Northwood at each successive higher frequency. They extrapolate that Prescott at 3.6ghz and above might be a better indicator of why the internal changes were made from the Northwood core. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000315 http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956 Yikes, what a dog. AMD has got to be pleased with these results... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
(G) wrote in
om: I thought one of the more interseting comments from Anandtech is that going from 2.8gz up to 3.2ghz Prescott narrows the gap (or increases the lead) with Northwood at each successive higher frequency. They extrapolate that Prescott at 3.6ghz and above might be a better indicator of why the internal changes were made from the Northwood core. Am I the only one that sees the FSB impact here ? OCing from 2.8 to 3.2 = 230Hz FSB - thers your speed Pozdrawiam. -- RusH // http://kiti.pulse.pdi.net/qv30/ Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery. You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RusH wrote in
2.80: (G) wrote in om: I thought one of the more interseting comments from Anandtech is that going from 2.8gz up to 3.2ghz Prescott narrows the gap (or increases the lead) with Northwood at each successive higher frequency. They extrapolate that Prescott at 3.6ghz and above might be a better indicator of why the internal changes were made from the Northwood core. Am I the only one that sees the FSB impact here ? OCing from 2.8 to 3.2 = 230Hz FSB - thers your speed Except he wasn't overclocking the FSB, but using a chip with a different multiplier. It seems likely it's the cache that makes the most of the difference. The bigger the difference between main memory speed and cache speed, the more important it is to have a large cache. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Johnno wrote in
.115: RusH wrote in 2.80: Am I the only one that sees the FSB impact here ? OCing from 2.8 to 3.2 = 230Hz FSB - thers your speed Except he wasn't overclocking the FSB, but using a chip with a different multiplier. It seems likely it's the cache that makes the most of the difference. The bigger the difference between main memory speed and cache speed, the more important it is to have a large cache. prove me wrong, dont yust say it http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...prescott/cpuz3 700.gif fixed 14x multiplier. Its normal processor, not an engeenering sample with open multiplier. Pozdrawiam. -- RusH // http://kiti.pulse.pdi.net/qv30/ Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery. You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Prescott problems enumerated | Felger Carbon | General | 8 | March 24th 05 05:20 PM |
Intel Prescott CPU in a Nutshell | LuvrSmel | Overclocking | 1 | January 10th 05 03:23 PM |
Prescott tests | Yousuf Khan | General | 15 | February 4th 04 11:29 PM |
System tests utility in ECDC...what's the usefulness of it if the results are never the same? | KILOWATT | Cdr | 15 | October 4th 03 09:15 PM |
parhelia w/ 3 monitors | tony wong | Matrox Videocards | 16 | September 12th 03 03:59 AM |