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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Raymond wrote:
"Adam Webb" wrote in message ... Duh, that's not because of comparable pipeline lenghts. They are trying to show off the Conroe at much lower power consumption. You're comparing a present AMD to a future not-yet released Intel using many more transistors, that uses almost half as many watts and calling it a normalized comparison, so it must be because of pipelines??? G Good one! OK then, compare it to the "standard" dothan thats been out about a YEAR..... its overclock limit is about the same as any A64 chip, they BOTH use 90nm proccess, and they BOTH have the same pipeline length, give or take 1....and they ALSO perform about the same... its funny, EVERYONE in the hardware world KNOWS that cpu speed (mhz wise) and pipeline length are almost directly linked yet you dont.... hmm nice one. Yeah let's compare. Dothan uses less power than the Turion, while running tens of millions of more transistors at about the same speed. It has roughly twice the L2. Do you have the slightest idea what the word "compare" means? If you do you don't exhibit the fact. All you've done is rattle of a few features, with no arrempt at a comparison if anything. What everyone knows, or at least should, is that the pipeline length is a major factor in the P4's problems. It's not a factor in clock speed potential. Wrong. Show me one official document anywhere that says otherwise! You can either pick then at random from this search: http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...and+clockspeed Or here's one I randomly clicked for you: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1935051,00.asp I quote from it for you: ****************************** "Pipeline length is an important element for chip performance and power. A longer pipeline allows a chip to hit higher clock speeds-although clock speed brings increases in power consumption-but performance gains don't always ensue." ****************************** Read the article, (It's actually quite interesting) or one of many, many articles about CPU architecture that say the same thing. It seems you have a lot to learn. -- ~Shaun~ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... You can either pick then at random from this search: http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...and+clockspeed Or here's one I randomly clicked for you: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1935051,00.asp I quote from it for you: ****************************** "Pipeline length is an important element for chip performance and power. A longer pipeline allows a chip to hit higher clock speeds-although clock speed brings increases in power consumption-but performance gains don't always ensue." Intel 286 and the P5, both had similar pipeline lengths. What "allowed" them to have such different clock speeds? Obviously there are far more important considerations involved, like feature size, manufacturing processes, materials used, types of gates, types of interconnects, power usage per cycle, and thermal constraints. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... Raymond wrote: "Adam Webb" wrote in message ... funny that now they have compairable pipeline lengths that there CPU speeds are almost the same..... and infact it shows that INTEL are the ones with slower silcon (so far) because they are strugging to run a 65nm CPU at 2.66ghz, when AMD can run a 2.8ghz CPU on 90nm..... Duh, that's not because of comparable pipeline lenghts. They are trying to show off the Conroe at much lower power consumption. Exactly. How much more power consumption do you think was possible with the PrescHOT? It was already putting out more heat per square cm than and electric element on a stove-top. The P4s were and always have been a dead-end marketing exercise. Getting the mugs cough to buy them because they were "faster", even though they were inferior design. Intel went as far as they could down that alley before admiting defeat and now are making CPUs that are remarkably similar to AMDs approach. Do you really think that P4s will still be being manufactured in 12 months? They will go the way of the dinosaurs, they can't evolve, they were a dead-end. No love for Pentium 4's netburst architecture here. It was obvious 4 years ago that something was amiss. Even Intel is in the process of abandoning it. Now that you mention Prescott though: hey, it has deeper pipelines than the Northwoods. And Intel can't release a 4GHz one, still, hardly any improvement in clock speeds there, despite it's deeper pipelines, 31 vs 20. How is that for deeper pipelines "allowing" for much higher clock speeds?!?! So much for that thesis, ahem, "common knowledge"! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
No love for Pentium 4's netburst architecture here. It was obvious 4 years
ago that something was amiss. Even Intel is in the process of abandoning it. Yet you try and defend it? Now that you mention Prescott though: hey, it has deeper pipelines than the Northwoods. And Intel can't release a 4GHz one, still, hardly any improvement in clock speeds there, despite it's deeper pipelines, 31 vs 20. How is that for deeper pipelines "allowing" for much higher clock speeds?!?! Well... the deeper pipeline DOES infact allow higher clocks..... but its MORE than that, its HEAT output, and since Intels proccess was broken/pushed to the limit already it really didnt help increasing that pipeline. A prescott cooled with lets say LN2 will go ALOT further than a Northwood can. So much for that thesis, ahem, "common knowledge"! Yes, but it clearly shows that intel are "a node ahead" if they CANT do ANYTHING right? there P3 stopped working once it past 933mhz, so they need a quick redesign to get more mhz because AMD raced off into the 1.4ghz range... So Intel doubled the pipeline length, and all of a sudden they have a CPU that does 1.8ghz but perform about the same as a 1.2ghz AMD/P3 chip...so NOT efficent, but for marketing loved it. So futher down the line, Northwood starts to hit a limit at 3.2-3.4ghz and they think, lets try that quick fix we used before... that will help out our "node ahead" sucky silicon, and BOOM, the only thing that went up was power comsumption and transister count.... Performance went down (per clock), and the mhz increase was like 400mhz (unless you could supper cool it)... Cant you see this is why Intel have decided to backtrack to the more "simple" pipeline lengths? When silicon starts to hit its limit, you really need to make the cpu more efficent, not LESS efficent like Intel have been doing for the past 10 years. -- From Overlag - Adam Webb www.ajwebb.eclipse.co.uk |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Facts are facts though, Intel IS a node ahead of AMD
in feature size. You don't like that? Tough luck, it's reality. Deal with it! What is "feature size" and how are they a node ahead? I really want to know this one -- From Overlag - Adam Webb www.ajwebb.eclipse.co.uk |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"Adam Webb" wrote in message ... Yet you try and defend it? I'm not the one saying the deeper pipelines allow for higher clock speeds, you are! So futher down the line, Northwood starts to hit a limit at 3.2-3.4ghz and they think, lets try that quick fix we used before... that will help out our "node ahead" sucky silicon, and BOOM, the only thing that went up was power comsumption and transister count.... Performance went down (per clock), and the mhz increase was like 400mhz (unless you could supper cool it)... Prescott's deeper pipelines and it's high power consumption aren't unrelated at all. Instruction sets have an optimal pipeline length. That's the "common knowlege". When you keep deepening the pipelines for the same instructions, at some point you not only don't get any further performance, in fact it goes down, but also you don't get clock speed increases either, partly because of power consumption from the increased complexity of deeper pipelines, besides latch overhead and clocks skew limitations. http://www.microarch.org/micro36/html/pdf/hartstein-OptimumPower.pdf#search='ibm%20pipeline%20length%2 0power%20research%20Hartstein' "A theory has been presented of the optimum pipeline depth for a microprocessor taking into account both power and performance. It was found that only one optimal solution exists for this problem and the nature of that solution has been characterized. For some power/performance metrics one finds that the optimum design contains only a single stage in the processor, whereas for other metrics, including the performance only metric, a pipelined design results. Consideration of power in the optimization problem always leads to shorter pipelines than if power were no consideration." |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
"Adam Webb" wrote in message . uk... Facts are facts though, Intel IS a node ahead of AMD in feature size. You don't like that? Tough luck, it's reality. Deal with it! What is "feature size" and how are they a node ahead? I really want to know this one And you're saying I need educating?! Well I always do, but not at that level. 130, 90, 65nm, etc refer to the feature size, ie the size of each circuit (transistor). The sizes are referred to as nodes. They're a node ahead because they're already mass producing and selling chips at the 65nm node, since the start of this year ( actually have already demonstrated SRAM at 45nm too), while AMD is still on 90nm, hoping to go to 65nm may be near the end of this year at best. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
What is "feature size" and how are they a node ahead? I really want to
know this one And you're saying I need educating?! Well I always do, but not at that level. No i just need educating to your use of words, since ive never heard of THOSE terms. 130, 90, 65nm, etc refer to the feature size, ie the size of each circuit (transistor). The sizes are referred to as nodes. They're a node ahead because they're already mass producing and selling chips at the 65nm node, since the start of this year ( actually have already demonstrated SRAM at 45nm too), while AMD is still on 90nm, hoping to go to 65nm may be near the end of this year at best. Ive never heard of "die proccess size" being called feature size, or node....(ok ok ive heard node...) Intel may be ahead with 65nm, but do you really see any benifits? there CPU's are still burning hot and they are below par on performance (HENCE YOU STARTED THIS THREAD). They have gone backwards on themselfs, back to a design not unlike AMD's to be able to get performance equal to AMD. you also probably think that just because intel has DDR2, they are ahead here too vs amd's DDR1? -- From Overlag - Adam Webb www.ajwebb.eclipse.co.uk |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Adam Webb wrote:
What is "feature size" and how are they a node ahead? I really want to know this one And you're saying I need educating?! Well I always do, but not at that level. No i just need educating to your use of words, since ive never heard of THOSE terms. 130, 90, 65nm, etc refer to the feature size, ie the size of each circuit (transistor). The sizes are referred to as nodes. They're a node ahead because they're already mass producing and selling chips at the 65nm node, since the start of this year ( actually have already demonstrated SRAM at 45nm too), while AMD is still on 90nm, hoping to go to 65nm may be near the end of this year at best. Ive never heard of "die proccess size" being called feature size, In all the processor documents I've read it's called 'fabrication size' or a variation thereof. I've never heard it called "feature size" until this thread. I assumed that Raymond is not a native English-speaker and it's a literal interpretation of the word that he intended to use in his own language. or node....(ok ok ive heard node...) Node. What can I sat about "node" other than it's use in this context is patently and completely incorrect, something I took into account when replying to Ray. Either he's not a native English speaker or he is and wishes to appear more knowledgable than he is by using words he barely understands. http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...search&va=Node Intel may be ahead with 65nm, but do you really see any benifits? there CPU's are still burning hot and they are below par on performance (HENCE YOU STARTED THIS THREAD). They have gone backwards on themselfs, back to a design not unlike AMD's to be able to get performance equal to AMD. Excatly what happened. (Did you read that article I linked to?) Intel have (tacitly) admitted the error of the P4 and have gone back to the design that the Tualatin P3 was based on, or at least a derivative of it. you also probably think that just because intel has DDR2, they are ahead here too vs amd's DDR1? LOL. Or a "Quad-pumped FSB". -- ~Shaun~ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Another Intel vs AMD Comparison
Raymond wrote:
"~misfit~" wrote in message ... You can either pick then at random from this search: http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...and+clockspeed Or here's one I randomly clicked for you: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1935051,00.asp I quote from it for you: ****************************** "Pipeline length is an important element for chip performance and power. A longer pipeline allows a chip to hit higher clock speeds-although clock speed brings increases in power consumption-but performance gains don't always ensue." Intel 286 and the P5, both had similar pipeline lengths. LOL!!! The 286 had a 4-stage pipeline. The Pentium (classic) that I assume you are refering to when you say "P5" had a 5-stage pipeline. That is 25% longer. These CPUs were many years apart and, as you say, there are many other factors to consider, especailly at that time in the evolution of the CPU. You're talking about ancient history in the accelerated evolution of the CPU (Relative to almost everything else). What "allowed" them to have such different clock speeds? Many years of technological development? Ever hear of Moore's law? A Humber Hawk and a 2006 Renualt Formula 1 engine both are about 2.5l capacity but the Humber engine put out 50 horsepower and the Renault puts out 650. What allows them to have such radically different power outputs? One factor of architecture (engine capacity/pipeline length) can make a huge difference to the performance but it isn't the whole picture. However, to discount it and say it has no effect on "output" is ludicrous. Obviously there are far more important considerations involved, like feature size, manufacturing processes, materials used, types of gates, types of interconnects, power usage per cycle, and thermal constraints. Not "far more important" but important none-the-less. -- ~Shaun~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Laptops, wait for Intel Centrino Core Duo? | Kevin K. Fosler | Dell Computers | 35 | February 15th 06 01:48 AM |
Apple Abandons IBM, Will Use Intel Chips | Sparky Spartacus | Dell Computers | 2 | June 9th 05 07:19 PM |
GA-8IDML and Mobile CPU compatibility | Cuzman | Gigabyte Motherboards | 0 | December 8th 04 01:29 PM |
Advice Please on comparison between Intel Xeon MP 1.5GHz and 2.6GHz+ AMD64 | Neil Hodgkinson | Intel | 7 | July 16th 04 10:53 AM |
Intel chip comparison | NMH | Dell Computers | 2 | June 30th 03 10:49 PM |