| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Comments:
<0> shadow yes it is
<1> they're talking about merom and corone
<1> err conroe
<1> not what's shipping now
<1> as I already told you
<0> meron or whatever is gonna be the 45nm chips
<1> it'll get interesting this fall when they actually release that
<0> which isint out till 07
<0> http://www.allstarshop.com/shop/product.asp?dept%5Fid=471&pid=13543&sid=PJSP9H2FXKXX8GNS0SX5WGU1QCKFCRA6
<0> ill find the article
<2> http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/04/24/dual_core_intel_processors_for_low_uk/
<2> its there, and read it.
<2> Clearly, the Athlon 64 X2 offers superior performance and efficiency, but we are looking for high efficiency solutions, which draws our attention to Intel's latest mobile dual core processor: the Core Duo.
<2> The Core Duo uses the same processor socket as the Pentium M, but requires some electrical modifications, which means that you cannot use existing Socket 479 motherboards. Suitable products are not yet available, but several motherboard makers are working on them.
<2> take note of the last sentence.
<0> your talking about the new mobile chips
<2> no im not
<2> clearly you didnt listen to
<2> [20:45] <@nidO> its there, and read it.
<2> hell all you have to manage is the title of the article
<2> Dual Core Intel Processors For Low-Power, High-Performance Desktops
<0> that article is about the core duo
<0> which is the new mobile chips out right now
<1> see
<1> toodles is clueless
<0> http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/
<2> and is also intel's low-power desktop offering on the way.
<2> wow, 404
<2> great article
<0> uhm its not 404
<2> Our conclusion for the Core Duo processor is particularly interesting, because in theory it is capable of enabling the ***embly of a dual core desktop system that requires only 45 W. This, however, requires a motherboard that uses the 945GM chipset, which is not yet available.
<2> there is tomshardware's conclusion on low-power desktop solutions.
<2> per both what Shadowc4t and i said, the article agrees that they are not yet available.
<1> what's available from Intel is the same crap they've been offering for the past two years
<1> PURE crap
<1> and that article has it's dates wrong
<1> Intel moved up the release schedule
<3> any new on when intel going to stop the production of P4?
<3> to early i guess
<1> they better stop soon
<0> well according to this page the merom is only gonna be mobile
<0> http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/page5.html
<0> i believe intel is dropping the pentium name in the fall
<0> not positive though
<1> toodles: your point being
<4> nidO is awake!
<1> the point now is that you're not gonna be able to buy Intel's "silver bullet"
<2> rawr
<1> and it doesn't matter how much you try to convince us that the current intel offerings are adequate
<3> toodles it sways netbusrt only for 2006? so no P4 after 2006?
<1> because they aren't
<0> no
<1> when merom and conroe come out, we'll see what AMD comes out with
<0> they are dropping the pentium name
<1> and we'll take it from there
<3> toodles it will be called what
<0> i believe the mobile is going to just be called core
<0> and thats the only name
<3> these are code names
<0> it was on msnbc's website a week or 2 ago
<3> core code names
<1> toodles: what it boils down to is that currently Intel's selling crap
<0> nothing is official
<0> but they are expected to drop the pentium name
<2> hell toodles look at it like this, as you seem to believe toms no matter what
<2> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=75&model2=329
<2> fx-60 toledo is around 15% faster than the ee965 on that benchmark
<2> and lets check prices..
<1> and we'll see what the AM2+Turion vs Conroe+Merom benchmarks tell us in October
<2> AMD Athlon 64 Dual Core FX-60 Socket 939 , Toledo Core, 2x 2.6GHz , 2MB Cache, Retail .26 .63
<1> and maybe nidO and I will recommend a few Intel chips for the first time in recent memory
<2> Intel Pentium D 965 Extreme Socket775 , Presler Core, 2x3.73 GHz , 4MB Cache, Retail .60 .78
<0> the turion is the mobile for amd right?
<2> so yep, thats less for a chip that performs 15% better.
<1> To conclude, there's no sane reason to buy an Intel processor right now.
<5> helo ?
<2> also note the better performing chip is 1.13Ghz and 2MB of cache *les* per core.
<1> plus the fact that it runs cooler, supports speedstep
<2> cool'n'quiet > stepping anyway
<2> :p
<1> same thing
<5> is pentium 4 dead ? i have a pentium 4 3 ghz hyper threading laptop pc was thinking of selling it .
<1> it's basically the same technology in both intel and amd chips
<2> its not really worth selling
<0> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=58&model2=329
<1> I call it speedstep because I got introduced to it on a centrino laptop
<0> but see there is another test
<0> it depends on what test u choose
<2> yes, pcmark. thats application processing, read what i said - thats the only way intel chips currently outperform amd
<1> toodles: do you even know what PCMark is?
<0> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=73&model2=329 there is another test
<5> it is wery fast , i have another pentium m 1,7 ghz is wery slow
<2> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=71&model2=329
<1> Pentium-M 1.7 > Pentium 4 3ghz
<2> thats more what most people use their chips for
<2> wheres the intel there?
<2> lets count...
<2> in fact **** that its like a whole page of amd's before the first intel
<0> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=60&model2=329
<1> toodles: just accept it, currently Intel ****s
<0> look
<0> these are all benchmarks
<0> showing pentium better
<6> intel ftw!
<5> hmmmm
<0> like i said they both have there advantages and disadvantages
<2> again, 3dmark is application processing.
<4> intel@work
<4> amd@home
<0> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=61&model2=329
<2> hell, people encode mp3's on desktops, right?
<0> theres another
<5> nice sites i will look a little thanks
<2> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=65&model2=329
<2> oh look.
<0> my point is amd is better then intel at some things and intel is better then amd at others
<2> still application processing toodles.
<0> they equal out
<2> no they dont
<2> intel > amd at application processing
<1> 3dmark is also a synthetic benchmark
<2> amd > intel at everything else.
<1> amd beats the crap out of intel in anything real life
<1> so no they don't equal out
<1> plus what I've already said
<2> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=68&model2=329
<0> well
<1> Intel chips are just bad electric heaters
<0> it just showed a video game where intel beat the amd
<2> again, no sign of an intel chip in the first 20-30 results
<0> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=63&model2=329 divx they are the same
<1> toodles: if it's DOOM3 you mean
<1> that's one game out of oh, 1000
<1> <insert modern game here> and amd 0wns intel
<0> quake4
<0> :)
<2> and um no, thats an amd chip first on the divx sheet
<2> beat the ee965 by 20 seconds, in fact.
<0> so amd is gonna unrar my stuff faster and encode an mp3 faster
<0> great
<1> and play most of your games faster
<2> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=51&model2=329
<2> and play games faster
<0> what games
<0> nothing worth playing
<2> http://tomshardware.co.uk/cpu/charts.html?modelx=33&model1=233&chart=75&model2=329
<1> actually don't listen to tomshardware
<2> and multitask faster
<0> quake 4 > *
<1> go to anandtech
Return to
#hardware
or
Go to some related
logs:
#freebsd
#online
#winvista
#computers
#hardware
#linuxhelp
#beginner
nospywaresoft
#sex
bmx.fla
|
|