Jump to content


Photo

CPU-processor


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#21 arbitriter

arbitriter

    10% Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 28 May 2005 - 10:17 PM

Also, skyline, you said in your country AMD has a 3.8 processor. Are you sure thats right? and if it is do you know where i can go to see specs on it?

#22 Skylineboy

Skylineboy

    68% Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 29 May 2005 - 01:11 PM

Look arbitriter i say what i am reading and i am sure that every each of you do the same thing.Everything that i told you was written to the magazine and i didn't make it up from my mind.As for your question i don't know where can you find specs of this.Maybe can you find for this to the net.Check it out!

#23 Jito463

Jito463

    Forum Support

  • Support Team
  • 5,625 posts

Posted 29 May 2005 - 04:09 PM

@arbitriter
He means the 3800+ (2.4GHz). There is no AMD processor above 2.6GHz (the FX-55).

#24 Charalambos

Charalambos

    Support Team Member

  • Support Team
  • 5,003 posts

Posted 29 May 2005 - 05:55 PM

Intel, however, has released Pentium 4 3.8GHz and has also released Pentium D three days ago( found that by searching the web). In fact pentium D is rather crapy in comparison to Pentium EE( a real 64 bit proccessor) and therefore much cheaper. I don't think that it is the software. The reasons that two 32 bit proccessors can't compete a single 64 bit one are fairly technical: The potential of the dual core proccessor is inevitably divided in two e.g. one-thread proccesses can use only one of the two proccessors.

#25 arbitriter

arbitriter

    10% Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 29 May 2005 - 07:07 PM

@ jito - that mekes more sense, although i gotta say i was nurturing the hop that maybe AMD finally got past 2.6 clock spd and i just hadnt heard about it blush.gif

Anyway, charalambos, that fits with what i have be reading about the new pentiums, and its that kind of screwing around that has made me switch from Intel to AMD

#26 Jito463

Jito463

    Forum Support

  • Support Team
  • 5,625 posts

Posted 30 May 2005 - 03:48 AM

Actually, Intel hasn't made a "true 64-bit" processor, unless you count the Itanic (otherwise known as Itanium), which was a huge flop since it wasn't backwards compatible with 32-bit. Their new EM64T instructions are actually the AMD64 instructions. Gotta love technology sharing agreements, lol. At least AMD doesn't try to rename Intel's tech when they apply it to their CPU's (e.g. SSE, SSE2, SSE3, MMX, etc.). I'm not a big Intel fan as you can tell. Though don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to see them go away. Competition means better performance/prices for all of us.

#27 Skylineboy

Skylineboy

    68% Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 30 May 2005 - 08:51 AM

That's right Jito463 i mean 3800+ that's why i edit my post because i don't want to be misunderstandings here. smile.gif Both of them do processors for us(the people) but somebody will get the first place!I used to know that intel was in the first place but now i see things change..... wink.gif

#28 Charalambos

Charalambos

    Support Team Member

  • Support Team
  • 5,003 posts

Posted 30 May 2005 - 04:59 PM

QUOTE
Pentium EE( a real 64 bit proccessor)


What about this proccessor?

#29 Jito463

Jito463

    Forum Support

  • Support Team
  • 5,625 posts

Posted 30 May 2005 - 09:44 PM

The only difference with the EE version is the extra cache, and even that is becoming a moot point. Intel has yet to release a version that was built from the ground up to support the AMD64 extensions. They've merely tacked them on to their existing line as an interim to releasing one truly built for it. I've no doubt it will come, but it's not here yet. Don't get me wrong, their EM64T capable processors will work with x64 Windows just as the AMD64's will, but because it's an afterthought and wasn't planned in the design process, it will not be quite as fast.

#30 MaLing

MaLing

    Official Birthday Wisher

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 2,120 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 06:12 AM

So, from what I can catch the meaning of these posts here, the ideas are:
Intel currently offers two types of 64 bits processors, one is EM64T, one is EE version (which has extra cache).
Intel will only issue 32 bits dual cores and 64 bits single core later, whilst AMD's ones are 64 bits for both.

Am I right?

Edited by MaLing, 31 May 2005 - 06:20 AM.


#31 Jito463

Jito463

    Forum Support

  • Support Team
  • 5,625 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 01:13 PM

Almost, but not quite. The EM64T is the 64-bit instruction set in all their x64 capable processors. The EE refers to the "Extreme Edition" which is their high-end CPU ($1000+ range) which I believe contains the EM64T instructions. As for the dual-cores, I haven't heard if they're releasing a 64-bit capable version right away or not. I do know that Intel doesn't believe 64-bit is that important to the desktop user which is why they were so late out of the gate with a 64-bit capable desktop CPU. The only reason they finally released this interim CPU is to avoid letting AMD steal all the market share. But yes, the AMD64 dual-cores will be x64 compatible. All of their K8 series CPUs were designed from the ground up to support it. Only the Sempron processors don't support x64, and that may change soon.

#32 Skylineboy

Skylineboy

    68% Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 05:20 PM

Sempron not support x64 Windows but i believe that they will fix this thing in a little time! cool.gif I was surprised when i saw the difference in price of EE processor and from the simple proccesor.EE was at 1320€ and the simple was at 340€. ohmy.gif I couldn't believe that.And this only for extra cache and some other differences. blink.gif

#33 shawn_nee

shawn_nee

    120% Member

  • Alcohol Beta Tester
  • 3,085 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 05:47 PM

Remember the cost of the extra cache on the chip is expensive, I cant remember right now, which is more expensive either L1 or L2 I think it is the L2 cache that increasing is more expensive. (too much work and too little non-alcoholic induced sleep)

#34 Charalambos

Charalambos

    Support Team Member

  • Support Team
  • 5,003 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 05:55 PM

Yes, L2 is the more important( and expensive) one.

@Skylineboy

QUOTE
their EM64T capable processors will work with x64 Windows


I think that is the main difference between the PentiumEE and a Pentium 4 proccessor, if it is what you mean when reffering to "the simple one". PentiumEE is, as the AMD64, a 64bit working and 32 bit combatible single core proccessor( whereas the Itanium one is not 32bit combatible and the dual core Pentium D has it's in-built problems- and no L2 cache also if I remember wright), that's why it is so expensive.

#35 arbitriter

arbitriter

    10% Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 12:49 AM

Charalambos, you nailed it. BTW jito was right when he said these New intels are interim processors, as intel does not want to let AMD steal its marketshare. the stuff intel is looking at would make any P4 user sit down and cry(like me for example). they have been experimenting with things like the Cell proccesors powering the latest generation consoles, as well as fully integrated dual and multicore CPUs. I really just wish somebody would get over the FSB/Clock either/or problem.

#36 MaLing

MaLing

    Official Birthday Wisher

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 2,120 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 08:26 AM

All right, so the full picture I suppose is:

Intel
---------
Pentium 4 (Standard) : 64 bits-EM64T, 32 bits compatible, standard cache, single core
Pentium D : no 64 bits, 32 bits, standard cache, dual cores
Pentium EE : 64 bits-EM64T, 32 bits compatible, extra cache, single core
Pentium Itanic : 64 bits-True, no 32 bits, standard cache, single core

AMD
-------
AMD64 : 64 bits-True, 32 bits compatible, standard cache, single core
AMD Sempron : no 64 bits, 32 bits, standard cache, single core
Coming AMD64 (Dual cores) : 64 bits-True, 32 bits compatible, standard cache, dual cores

So complicated. If a person goes to a shop and looks for a processor without all these ideas in his mind first, what will the story be?

Skylineboy, at first you said you wanted to keep your socket 478 and to only change your Intel processor, but now after instigated by us, you want to change your whole system to AMD. I hope we are not devils to you. rolleyes.gif

#37 Skylineboy

Skylineboy

    68% Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 03:18 PM

Don't worry MaLing you are not devils! smile.gif I like to take several answers to see what finally i will do about this. wink.gif

#38 Charalambos

Charalambos

    Support Team Member

  • Support Team
  • 5,003 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 05:45 PM

QUOTE
Pentium 4 (Standard) : 64 bits-EM64T, 32 bits compatible, standard cache, single core


Correction: 32 bits, no 64 bits, extra cache, single core

#39 shawn_nee

shawn_nee

    120% Member

  • Alcohol Beta Tester
  • 3,085 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 06:54 PM

QUOTE
Don't worry MaLing you are not devils!


I take offense to that. I actually like being called a devil... biggrin.gif

#40 Attila

Attila

    68% Member

  • +Alcohol-Customer
  • 219 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 09:06 PM

Yes, but aren't all Americans devils?? laugh.gif biggrin.gif

JK, I love y'all. Well most of yous anyways. wink.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users