Thats what I said, Since the K6-III, I,m talking desktop, think the Banias/Dothan are mobiles
Would this fit in my computer room
- Thread starter StrangleHold
- Start date
Thats what I said, Since the K6-III, I,m talking desktop, think the Banias/Dothan are mobiles
fade2green514
Active Member
s479->s478 = lappy proc in a desktop.
Last edited:
They bought ATi and now have no money left to do anything
1. I dont think there was an explicit statement about being desktop chips and besides ... a chip is a chip ... i'm sure you've heard the saying that a win is a win -- doesnt matter by how much. Furthermore, you can still put them into desktop motherboards
2. If you dont accept that, then simply reverse the argument -- no AMD notebook chip has been able to successfully challenge Intel (the Turion did decent but IMO came up short)
Archangel
VIP Member
well.. there has to be something.. the 65nm architecture perhaps? i mean, the Conroe is one hell of a chip, and if i had to buy a new pc now, i would get one. but it certainly musht have techological advances over the "Toledo's " etc.. because i dont believe in Magic
Archangel
VIP Member
just out of curiosity.. any idea why the Core2Duo's perform that well? i mean, they are really good, and if its not just the 65nm architecture,. what else helps it? ( probably the Layout of the 2 cores on the chip? )
This might explain alittle of it.
Much of Core 2 Duo's performance advantage over its Pentium predecessors comes from an additional execution unit on each CPU core. (Core 2 Duo chips have four such units per CPU core versus the Pentium D's three per core.) The additional unit per core, plus some clever coding that lets the chip fuse common groups of instructions into single instructions, allows Core 2 Duo chips to outperform Pentium D chips that run at higher clock speeds
A staggering 4MB of L2 cache keeps the higher-end Core 2 Duo chips supplied with the data they need in order to run at full speed, and Intel has carefully tuned their prefetching algorithms, which preemptively cache the appropriate data before the CPU needs it.
While most dual-core chips, including AMD's Athlon 64 line and Intel's Pentium D CPUs, dedicate a certain amount of cache to each CPU core, the Core 2 Duo provides shared access to its entire 4MB of cache. And the chip can distribute that cache between its cores as needed. If one core is churning away at a particularly complex task, it can use most of the L2 cache, while the other core runs a simple task that demands less cache memory.
Much of Core 2 Duo's performance advantage over its Pentium predecessors comes from an additional execution unit on each CPU core. (Core 2 Duo chips have four such units per CPU core versus the Pentium D's three per core.) The additional unit per core, plus some clever coding that lets the chip fuse common groups of instructions into single instructions, allows Core 2 Duo chips to outperform Pentium D chips that run at higher clock speeds
A staggering 4MB of L2 cache keeps the higher-end Core 2 Duo chips supplied with the data they need in order to run at full speed, and Intel has carefully tuned their prefetching algorithms, which preemptively cache the appropriate data before the CPU needs it.
While most dual-core chips, including AMD's Athlon 64 line and Intel's Pentium D CPUs, dedicate a certain amount of cache to each CPU core, the Core 2 Duo provides shared access to its entire 4MB of cache. And the chip can distribute that cache between its cores as needed. If one core is churning away at a particularly complex task, it can use most of the L2 cache, while the other core runs a simple task that demands less cache memory.
thx for thatYes, yes. Very true. We can't forget that moment of Intel stupidity to get sucked up into that nonsense. I'm curious. If it didn't work for IBM to use proprietary components, whatever made Intel think it would work for them? If you don't learn from history...
Archangel
VIP Member
Iluvpenguins
New Member
Rd-Ram wasn't "that" bad...just very very expensive.And i wish the P3 architecture was still used because my P3 did so well against P4's operating at 2-2.6ghz.Now,i'm particularily a fan of AMD but i don't have anything against Intel,when i pruchased my amd,i loooked at price and performance,and AMD took it.
@ Sir Kenin:Your posts seemed to be beating down on AMD near the beginning of the thread,i'm just wondering if you're a fanboy at all,or you just like beating down on things?
@ Sir Kenin:Your posts seemed to be beating down on AMD near the beginning of the thread,i'm just wondering if you're a fanboy at all,or you just like beating down on things?
I had to take a real bad leak, and pissing on AMD seemed to be the appropriate thing to do at the time... 
j/k
I'm not a fanboy, no. I sell both AMD and Intel. I service both. I don't really care one way or the other. Both companies have done some REALLY stupid things. AMD took the cake early on, but they finally got out of their slump and started releasing some quality products and making money doing it.
I did hate AMD in early years. The only two AMDs that I had that I loved were an AMD 386 DX 40 and a 486 DX 4-120. They were fantastic CPUs. You couldn't kill those things. Then after that they just went downhill IMO.
j/k
I'm not a fanboy, no. I sell both AMD and Intel. I service both. I don't really care one way or the other. Both companies have done some REALLY stupid things. AMD took the cake early on, but they finally got out of their slump and started releasing some quality products and making money doing it.
I did hate AMD in early years. The only two AMDs that I had that I loved were an AMD 386 DX 40 and a 486 DX 4-120. They were fantastic CPUs. You couldn't kill those things. Then after that they just went downhill IMO.