Bigjakkstaffa
03-03-2004, 08:49 AM
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040302comp.htm
--Jakk:t
--Jakk:t
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Xenon performance to be boosted 25%
causticVapor
03-03-2004, 11:07 AM
UP TO makes things sound a lot different than what's in the title right now...
BTW Asus, Tyan et al are coming out with motherboards designed for the prescott sibling Nocona. I feel sorry for the poor common xeon board that ends up getting upgraded to a few of those guys. And the PSU. :eek: :x
BTW Asus, Tyan et al are coming out with motherboards designed for the prescott sibling Nocona. I feel sorry for the poor common xeon board that ends up getting upgraded to a few of those guys. And the PSU. :eek: :x
sm8000
03-03-2004, 02:39 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982
zybch
03-03-2004, 07:13 PM
Before reading Intel's press release (and we all know how reliable they are) I thought they might be fitting the chips with special aerodynamic fins so they can be thrown 25% faster than the non-fin versions when the poor people who bought them find out how much money they could have saved by using opterons.
Adding a ridiculous ammoun of cache probably won't help all that much though. It might decrease the performance disparity between the xeons and opterons, but it looks like Intel are once again (P4-EE) clutching at straws to try to maintain their market monopoly.
But $3692 (in 1000 lots) is absolutley insane. Especially when you could get 2 opterons for less.
Adding a ridiculous ammoun of cache probably won't help all that much though. It might decrease the performance disparity between the xeons and opterons, but it looks like Intel are once again (P4-EE) clutching at straws to try to maintain their market monopoly.
But $3692 (in 1000 lots) is absolutley insane. Especially when you could get 2 opterons for less.
sm8000
03-03-2004, 08:02 PM
Heck, you might be able to get 4 Opterons for that price, depending on which Opterons you get. That cache sounds nice, but on a 400MHz FSB???
causticVapor
03-04-2004, 07:30 PM
Intel's horribly outdated blockhead strategy of more, more, more is REALLY beginning to rear its ugly head. :rolleyes:
Opteron = far better scaler
Opteron = far better price
Opteron = far better choice :t
Opteron = far better scaler
Opteron = far better price
Opteron = far better choice :t
stix_kua
03-06-2004, 01:01 AM
Who wants Xenon?....
Xenon is an element with an atomic symbol of "Xe", an atomic number of 54, an atomic weight of 131.293. it is a member of the noble gases and is not commonly sold by Intel.
Xeon however is a totally different thing. If i recall correctly, it is a processor manufacturered by Intel Corporation.
Which one did you mean Jakk? Xenon or Xeon?;) :p :cool:
Just having fun Jakk...
Xenon is an element with an atomic symbol of "Xe", an atomic number of 54, an atomic weight of 131.293. it is a member of the noble gases and is not commonly sold by Intel.
Xeon however is a totally different thing. If i recall correctly, it is a processor manufacturered by Intel Corporation.
Which one did you mean Jakk? Xenon or Xeon?;) :p :cool:
Just having fun Jakk...
causticVapor
03-08-2004, 10:53 AM
Just being :rolleyes:
stix_kua
03-09-2004, 01:13 AM
:t
Vampiel
03-09-2004, 02:42 AM
They said that about HyperThreading to which turned out to be totally wrong, exept in very rare instances.
zybch
03-09-2004, 03:48 AM
Hyperthreading is good!
At least if you've gone overboard on the stages to your pipeline to get your MHz up rather than making the chip go faster by making it smarter.
A well designed CPU shouldn't need HT to get it running at its optimim speed, it also shouldn't need 4Mb of cache to make up for its hopelessly inadequate FSB speed of 400Mhz when the competition (using HyperTransport) can run at 1600Mhz.
At least if you've gone overboard on the stages to your pipeline to get your MHz up rather than making the chip go faster by making it smarter.
A well designed CPU shouldn't need HT to get it running at its optimim speed, it also shouldn't need 4Mb of cache to make up for its hopelessly inadequate FSB speed of 400Mhz when the competition (using HyperTransport) can run at 1600Mhz.
bob05
03-09-2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Vampiel
They said that about HyperThreading to which turned out to be totally wrong, exept in very rare instances.
I think Hyper-Threading will be more useful (it is somewhat now) when CPU's like Prescott come out. I truly think that's what they are designed for, and in Intel's effort to have motherboards Prescott ready, they added it to current P4's and P4 motherboards. You wouldn't want people here at Sysopt complaining that there brand new Prescott performs exactly like their P4, do you? ;)
They said that about HyperThreading to which turned out to be totally wrong, exept in very rare instances.
I think Hyper-Threading will be more useful (it is somewhat now) when CPU's like Prescott come out. I truly think that's what they are designed for, and in Intel's effort to have motherboards Prescott ready, they added it to current P4's and P4 motherboards. You wouldn't want people here at Sysopt complaining that there brand new Prescott performs exactly like their P4, do you? ;)
causticVapor
03-10-2004, 10:55 AM
yeah, imagine how expensive 4MB of l2 cache sram is?
Intel's strategy of more, more, more to fix problems shows right through here. Instead of addressing the baseline problem and at least validating the chips for 800MHz operation, they decide to wollop on the cache, wow the seduced, and hope all is well.
Intel's strategy of more, more, more to fix problems shows right through here. Instead of addressing the baseline problem and at least validating the chips for 800MHz operation, they decide to wollop on the cache, wow the seduced, and hope all is well.
causticVapor
03-10-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by bob05
I think Hyper-Threading will be more useful (it is somewhat now) when CPU's like Prescott come out. I truly think that's what they are designed for, and in Intel's effort to have motherboards Prescott ready, they added it to current P4's and P4 motherboards. You wouldn't want people here at Sysopt complaining that there brand new Prescott performs exactly like their P4, do you? ;)
hehe... the complaints will roll in :eek:
I think Hyper-Threading will be more useful (it is somewhat now) when CPU's like Prescott come out. I truly think that's what they are designed for, and in Intel's effort to have motherboards Prescott ready, they added it to current P4's and P4 motherboards. You wouldn't want people here at Sysopt complaining that there brand new Prescott performs exactly like their P4, do you? ;)
hehe... the complaints will roll in :eek:
bob05
03-10-2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by causticVapor
hehe... the complaints will roll in :eek:
True, but keep in mind the top of the line CPU of the previous generation is often better than it's newer generation counterpart (i.e. P3 Tualatin 1.4 ghz vs. P4 Willamette 1.4 ghz). :t
hehe... the complaints will roll in :eek:
True, but keep in mind the top of the line CPU of the previous generation is often better than it's newer generation counterpart (i.e. P3 Tualatin 1.4 ghz vs. P4 Willamette 1.4 ghz). :t
zybch
03-10-2004, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by bob05
True, but keep in mind the top of the line CPU of the previous generation is often better than it's newer generation counterpart (i.e. P3 Tualatin 1.4 ghz vs. P4 Willamette 1.4 ghz). :t
Often?
I think the word you are trying to use here is Always :)
True, but keep in mind the top of the line CPU of the previous generation is often better than it's newer generation counterpart (i.e. P3 Tualatin 1.4 ghz vs. P4 Willamette 1.4 ghz). :t
Often?
I think the word you are trying to use here is Always :)
SysOpt.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.