processor - Page 2 - Electronic Circuits Projects Diagrams Free

Marks256 · 23rd July 2006, 04:08 AM

Quote:

<sarcasim>I think no matter what proc your using, windows will always be slow

I agree with you 100%!

The thing i hate most about intel processers, is they have so much speed, but such a small cache, that the speed isn't shown! I got a 2.6ghz Intel Celeron for free(from the trash, seriously), and it only had a 128l2 cache! I would expect something like; 256, or 512 would be nice. Or 1mb. But no; 128! That sucks! Amd is all speed and chache(along with alot of style!)

Overclocked · 23rd July 2006, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marks256

I agree with you 100%!

The thing i hate most about intel processers, is they have so much speed, but such a small cache, that the speed isn't shown! I got a 2.6ghz Intel Celeron for free(from the trash, seriously), and it only had a 128l2 cache! I would expect something like; 256, or 512 would be nice. Or 1mb. But no; 128! That sucks! Amd is all speed and chache(along with alot of style!)

The actual Mani difference between the 2 is Pipelines. AMD has A hell of a lot more pipelines than intel does.

Exo · 23rd July 2006, 01:07 PM

I'd say conroe for the moment!

I have a E6300 (eng. sample) and it hits 4Ghz on air ! with my 975 intel badaxe board (with some mods to the board as it isnt really overclocking friendly out of the box)

At this speed it's puts a 5 times more expensive FX62 to shame

AMD will probably strike back tho, they have to, it keeps prices low

Exo · 23rd July 2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marks256

I agree with you 100%!

The thing i hate most about intel processers, is they have so much speed, but such a small cache, that the speed isn't shown! I got a 2.6ghz Intel Celeron for free(from the trash, seriously), and it only had a 128l2 cache! I would expect something like; 256, or 512 would be nice. Or 1mb. But no; 128! That sucks! Amd is all speed and chache(along with alot of style!)

that's why it is a celeron !
celeron's are meant to be cheap, and what takes op the most die space on a cpu ? exactly ! cache !

so, how do you make cheap cpu's ? you cut the cache and reduce transistor count from 150 million to 80 million in a flash.

if there's one make that uses large caches to overcome the flaws in its frontside bus architecture then its intel. Conroe will even have a massive 4MB of cache !

AMD, on the other hand uses relatively small caches because their IMC (integrated memory controller) offers low latency access directly to system memory.

Exo · 23rd July 2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ParkingLotLust

If youre looking for top-notch video and image editing, and the like, go with an Intel. If youre looking for gaming, then go with an AMD. Also, if you have a bigger budget, go with an Intel. Ive owned some older AMD chips and had nothing but problems. Just personal opinion tho.

Must be very old then, modern AMD's are fully compatible..
Better still, AMD64 is the standard setter now, intel is playing catchup (EM64T beeing a copy of AMD64, even the spelling errors are duplicated from AMD's documents into Intel's documents).

If you're talking about K6/K7, most of the problems came from bad chipsets.
Both VIA and SiS, the only 2 companies making chipsets for K6/K7 in the beginning were relatively new to creating chipsets without intel holding their hands.

Overclocked · 23rd July 2006, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exo

that's why it is a celeron !
celeron's are meant to be cheap, and what takes op the most die space on a cpu ? exactly ! cache !

so, how do you make cheap cpu's ? you cut the cache and reduce transistor count from 150 million to 80 million in a flash.

if there's one make that uses large caches to overcome the flaws in its frontside bus architecture then its intel. Conroe will even have a massive 4MB of cache !

AMD, on the other hand uses relatively small caches because their IMC (integrated memory controller) offers low latency access directly to system memory.

You can also make cheap CPUs by making more of them. Look at AMD, The new chips have a pretty hefty cache, and the prices just droped.

Theres also News That AMD and ATI are joining forces.

Exo · 23rd July 2006, 07:15 PM

You don't make cheap cpu's by making more of them, you can make them cheaper by getting good yields...
AMD dropped their prices to remain competitive with conroe, I'm betting those pricedrops are hurting AMD, but they have too.

In the celeron pricerange you got to compare it to AMD semprons...

All sempron models have 128 or 256Kb L2 cache
Just like the celerons.

ParkingLotLust · 23rd July 2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marks256

The thing i hate most about intel processers, is they have so much speed, but such a small cache, that the speed isn't shown! I got a 2.6ghz Intel Celeron for free(from the trash, seriously), and it only had a 128l2 cache! I would expect something like; 256, or 512 would be nice. Or 1mb. But no; 128! That sucks! Amd is all speed and chache(along with alot of style!)

Problem = Celeron. I can find you lots of AMDs that have 128kb caches, so dont find the lowest end Intel you can and bash all Intels based on it. The new Core Duo 2 chips come with a whopping 4mb of cache (2x2mb) and wont exceed 45°C under FULL LOAD. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Overclocked · 24th July 2006, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ParkingLotLust

Problem = Celeron. I can find you lots of AMDs that have 128kb caches, so dont find the lowest end Intel you can and bash all Intels based on it. The new Core Duo 2 chips come with a whopping 4mb of cache (2x2mb) and wont exceed 45°C under FULL LOAD. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

ANY Cpu wont get ever Near that Temp is you have a good enough cooler. If thats with a stock Cooler, then thats pretty impressive. Although Ive seen one of AMD's stock coolers (it has heatpipes) and it compares pretty good with a Zalman.

ParkingLotLust · 24th July 2006, 02:17 AM

And if you think thats impressive, the average idle temperature with SpeedStep enabled is 25°C. Im assuming this is with the stock cooler since WikiPedia doesnt specify.

Marks256 · 27th July 2006, 08:13 PM

No, intel is just too cheap. I am fairly sure that Intel will become obsolete in the near future, unless they shape up. Intel just can't seem to understand that there are ways to make CPUs cheaper, yet faster. Heck, just like IBM did with that other company; added germanium to the silicon! I would pay $500+ for a CPU that runs at 100ghz, let-alone 1thz!
I think the real problem lies with the motherboards. Screw old technology, bring on the faster mobos!

ParkingLotLust · 28th July 2006, 04:01 AM

Thats what BTX was designed for. Then they scrapped it. Ohwell.

Overclocked · 28th July 2006, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ParkingLotLust

Thats what BTX was designed for. Then they scrapped it. Ohwell.

Intel was actually going to make All Future Mobos BTX and Get rid of ATX. It was a bad move, but I think they dropped it

Oh heres some intresting news I found:
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/002475.html
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/26/amd_demos_4x4/

4 Cores!!! You can now get 4 Cores for less than 1k!

Marks256 · 28th July 2006, 03:51 PM

Yes, 4 cores will be nice, but AMD is gonna kick ass if they can pull of a 8 core processer! I have a bad fealing the cases will need really advanced cooling systems. What is a safe tempurature for operation on a CPU. I have my AMD Sempron 2800+(32bit

), it reaches temps of about 100-103. Is that safe? Or am i tempting fate? It isn't overclocked, but i did once, temps went really high. I am also using a stock heatsink and fan.

ParkingLotLust · 28th July 2006, 04:36 PM

Intels arent supposed to go over 65 degrees celsuis, I dont know what that is in farenheit, but AMDs are supposed to run cooler than that.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

23rd July 2006, 01:07 PM	(permalink)
Exo	I'd say conroe for the moment! I have a E6300 (eng. sample) and it hits 4Ghz on air ! with my 975 intel badaxe board (with some mods to the board as it isnt really overclocking friendly out of the box) At this speed it's puts a 5 times more expensive FX62 to shame AMD will probably strike back tho, they have to, it keeps prices low

23rd July 2006, 07:15 PM	(permalink)
Exo	You don't make cheap cpu's by making more of them, you can make them cheaper by getting good yields... AMD dropped their prices to remain competitive with conroe, I'm betting those pricedrops are hurting AMD, but they have too. In the celeron pricerange you got to compare it to AMD semprons... All sempron models have 128 or 256Kb L2 cache Just like the celerons. Last edited by Exo; 23rd July 2006 at 07:18 PM.

24th July 2006, 02:17 AM	(permalink)
ParkingLotLust	And if you think thats impressive, the average idle temperature with SpeedStep enabled is 25°C. Im assuming this is with the stock cooler since WikiPedia doesnt specify.

27th July 2006, 08:13 PM	(permalink)
Marks256	No, intel is just too cheap. I am fairly sure that Intel will become obsolete in the near future, unless they shape up. Intel just can't seem to understand that there are ways to make CPUs cheaper, yet faster. Heck, just like IBM did with that other company; added germanium to the silicon! I would pay $500+ for a CPU that runs at 100ghz, let-alone 1thz! I think the real problem lies with the motherboards. Screw old technology, bring on the faster mobos!

28th July 2006, 04:01 AM	(permalink)
ParkingLotLust	Thats what BTX was designed for. Then they scrapped it. Ohwell.

28th July 2006, 03:51 PM	(permalink)
Marks256	Yes, 4 cores will be nice, but AMD is gonna kick ass if they can pull of a 8 core processer! I have a bad fealing the cases will need really advanced cooling systems. What is a safe tempurature for operation on a CPU. I have my AMD Sempron 2800+(32bit ), it reaches temps of about 100-103. Is that safe? Or am i tempting fate? It isn't overclocked, but i did once, temps went really high. I am also using a stock heatsink and fan.

28th July 2006, 04:36 PM	(permalink)
ParkingLotLust	Intels arent supposed to go over 65 degrees celsuis, I dont know what that is in farenheit, but AMDs are supposed to run cooler than that.