Slashdot Mirror
Intel 800 MHz FSB Processor Family Review
David writes "Techware Labs recently had the opportunity to spend some time with Intel's new 800 MHz front-side bus (FSB) processor family. The review includes a overview of the features in this processor family, Intel's new Springdale and Canterwood chipsets, and an analysis of processor scaling within this family. The article focuses on how the relationship between CPU and video card affect various aspects of performance."
Who the hell are Lilu and Niles?
oh well give it a few mounths and it will be cheap enough for us poor students to afford.
Anti gravity, but don't positives and negatives attract, humm a flaw me thinks.
AMD is only running at, what, 400?
You've got a long way to go
I already feel bad enough having bought 5 486's at $2000 each. Now, my ebay auction to sell one for $10 got 0 bids. I mean, a 99.5% decerase in value is bad enough - you don't have to rub it in by telling me about the latest in computing!
I have used Mother boards of 100 Mhz and 133 Mhz,suddenly seeing 800Mhz blown me away,anyway nice to see that its 4 x 200 Mhz in the article.
Spending time is nice but This is the page I think they should have linked to .
Basically in the review they compare different chips (2.4Ghz, 2.8Ghz) etc. against each other all with 800Mhz FSB
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
In 1980 I had a 1.023 MHz Apple ][+ and I could type ~70 WPM. Intel is pushing 3+ GHz chips and I can still only type ~70 WPM.
Read all about it here
___________________________________
The spiders are coming
LOL @ Intel Ad saying Targeting This: Pentium 4, Xeon, Itanium when it's clear we should be targeting this new processor instead.
She was named after Leeloo, but I liked how Lilu looked better.
Tank-u!! She was so cute!
The more powerful the chips intel pushes the less effcient the coder becomes, i remember when i used to tweak my programs so they would run optimally on a slower machines, now a days its like you need 192mb and 500mhz for word processing. People need to get back to the old school days when a 486/66mhz and 4mb RAM was minumum. I can understand how games evolve and more power is needed, but it's not just games that have this high requirement these days.
Conclusion:
The Intel 800 MHz FSB Family of processors truly lives up to its name. After looking at the results which tests are CPU limited and which are video card limited, the data concludes that there is a certain balance between the dependency of the video card and the processor. As the graphics get more intense, the performance becomes more dependent on the video card. The Intel 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB is definitely cutting edge and the CPU really shines during programs that require the most calculations and complexity. For example, the Unreal Tournament Botmatch is CPU dependent because the program requires many calculations and factors of each bot or player. On the other hand, there are other programs where the CPU is not needed as much, such as programs that require complex lighting and transform calculations by the video card or other video card specific features. The power of the CPU allows it to shine in conjuncture with older APIs or engines, such as DirectX8 or the Quake3 Engine, which are not as dependent on the video card. These programs allow the CPU to have more of an influence on the performance, creating greater improvements. With brand new programs or software based on DirectX9, the graphics are so intensive that a stronger video card is needed, with the CPU playing a lesser role (at least the high end CPUs, this may be different with lower end CPUs). This causes a less noticeable effect on improvement with greater CPU speeds, but that will only improve over time when the development of video cards are increased. In the future, the software based on DirectX9 won't be so dependent on the video cards due to new technology and the CPU will be able to shine in these regions as well. This comes to show that the potential of the Intel 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB is still uncharted and performance with the CPU should dramatically increase when coupled with future video cards. After seeing the capabilities and performance during strenuous tests, the Intel's family of 800MHz FSB processors have earned our Editor's Choice Award.
It'd be nice if they normalized all their charts with some current non 800FSB proc+board so I can see how much of an improvement there actually is.
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
Q. How many Pentium designers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. 1.99999289345, but that's close enough for non-technical people.
Q. The Pentium conforms to IEEE standards for floating point math. If you fly in an airplane designed using a Pentium, what's the correct pronounciation of IEEE?
A. Aiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Q. What's another name for the Intel Inside sticker they put on PCs?
A. The warning label.
Well, with the recent slashdot article [http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/20/14222 43&mode=nested&tid=137] explaining how useless CAS Latencies are in concerts to memory bandwidth, increasing the FSB and CPU to Memory Latency is not a good thing, its a great thing. Intel has my money!
and then sell them as nostalgia jewelry.
Just so long as you didn't buy them for $2k in this century, you should be fine.
___________________________________
The Spiders are coming
Anyone know why the dual xeon motherboards aren't flipping to 800mhz? I would think that a faster bus would make more of a difference on dual processor boxes. Currently the memory bus is at 2*266 = 533 and I think it will move to 667 either late this year or early next year. On the other hand, i've noticed iwill is now selling a dual xeon motherboard for $300 and the chips are not much more expensive than their "normal" equivalents. (Note I am talking about the dual processor xeon chips not the "made of pure gold" 4 processor xeon mp chips)
-bloo
Hey buddy, people in the Congo want to know when they get their US intervention. What's that? No, they don't have oil...hey! Where are you going?
When the new processor's FSB is higher than your rig's CPU clock =(
The 2.4c will be finding a home in my box soon because of it's amazing overclocking.
At this forum (click on Intel cpus) almost everyone has successfully overclocked theirs over 3Ghz on air, with most hitting 3.2 or 3.4 (and don't forget a 1 Ghz fsb).
A popular motherboard to go with it is Abit's IC-7 with the i875 chipset. The processor and motherboard are just $180 and $145 respectively over at Newegg, so don't waste your money on 3.0s.
What good is benchmarking the new P4-C processors without comparing them to Athlon XPs, or even older P4s? Really, you can just multiply the performance of a P4-C 3.0Ghz by 0.8 to get a guesstimate of the performance differences within the family; what really matters is how they perform in comparison with the competition.
wow look at the heat sink and fan...
http://techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/inte
I bet ya need brick in the case to stop the thing taking off..
The article states that the 800MHz bus gives 6.4GB/s bandwidth. A quick calculation shows that it is therefore only 8 data bits wide. Is this normal for a modern microprocessor? Or is it just Intel perpetuating the MHz myth into a new area?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
http://techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/intel_8 00mhz_fsb/pictures/setup1.jpg
The P4-C 3.0Ghz can be expected to consume about 100Watts at full load, which is far more than most processors. Only the P4-HT 3.06Ghz and the original P4 2Ghz came close, also coming in at about 100W. AMD's hottest running processor, the Athlon XP 3200+, consumes 76.8W.
I've been planning to upgrade my computer at the end of this month, and have been keeping a pretty close eye on the 865/875 motherboard and chip performance reviews. This article didn't really enlighten me as much as the following Tom's Hardware reviews:
here
and
here
They are full of SH!T. I would love 10 GHz CPU right about now. Why? I game yeah. But I also encode DivX which is highly processor intensive. I do some graphics rendering. And most of all I am a coder. Yeah... and when I do full compiles on my projects I hate sitting around. Even if I'm just recompiling my kernel, the faster I can get that the happier I am.
Right now I want an Athlon XP 2500+ just because its soo affordable (under $100 US), but this is a good thing--this faster FSB.
The FSB on a P4-C is actually clocked at 200Mhz, but data is transferred four times per clock cycle, boosting the effective bandwidth to equal that of an 800Mhz FSB. Latencies are, however, still equal to that of a 200Mhz FSB.
I believe the problem with your calculation is that you calculated that the bus is 8 bytes wide. 8 bytes is 64 bits, the standard bus width on modern systems.
This was new news about 4 months ago.
the FSB is only 200mhz, quad pumped out to 800mhz (that means it shifts 4 times the data per clock cycle)
Of course if your rig is running at less than 200mhz, who cares? so long as it plays the games you like.
___________________________________
The Spiders are coming
In all my rantings I hardly mentioned the FSB issue when did buss speed become more important than processor speed? but maybe thats just intels way of taking the light off of the idea that they are having a little trouble pushing thier chips faster, and thats to be expected when you cant make it faster make it better. too bad all FSB gets you is 5 FPS in your precious GAMES (yea I play em too!).
oh well I guess I am just too demanding . . .
thought of something quite funny of the top of my head :) :)
They should replace the 'Intel Inside' logo with 'Warning! May contain Intel!'.
--
this review really missed the mark and left unanswered what we really wanted to know, which is how does the 2.4C, 2.6C, 2.8C compare against the plain 2.4, 2.6, 2.8?
That's a popular but ridiculous idea. The less time the programmer needs to spend tweaking and writing incredibly painful assembly language, the more time he has to meet the actual user's needs for new software and new features.
And by the way, you're calling a 486/66 "old school" made me laugh! To me, old school is a 1 mhz 6502, or maybe a 2 mhz z80.
I really tried to get interested, I figured this article would give me some good weekend reading, and I clicked the link.
But when I get to the second page and I still haven't gotten anything out of it but a little history, and the content on that page is a glorified paragraph, I'm not sticking around for more. If you want me to read something, keep it succinct, don't put a paragraph per page, and dammit, don't make me look at 15 ads just to get some benchmarks.
Seriously, this looks like a decent processor, with a reasonable chipset to go with it. I'm a bit concerned with Intel opting (again!) for overclocking hardware, rather than improving it. Especially when they keep insisting that overclocking is hazardous to the hardware, and make every effort to stop other people doing the very same thing.
The 800 MHz FSB is just an overclocked 200 MHz FSB. Given that AMD just has to build a real 400 MHz, overclocked only once, or a real 800 MHz FSB to flatten Intel's offering, this is a chancy way to go. It was a reasonable gamble with the 486DX range, because there wasn't much competition on the chipsets. Anyone remember the 486DX-50? That was a raw 50MHz chip, no overclocking, that outperformed the 486DX-66 with ease. The supporting hardware was too expensive, and Intel never bothered working on making it cheaper. It was much more cost-effective to just keep overclocking the DX-33 further and further.
Today, it's a different story. AMD isn't dependent on Intel, the way Cyrix and the other Intel-clones were in the 486 days. This is a tougher fight, and it's one Intel is losing, every time someone produces a faster processor or chipset. (Or even just a more reliable one.)
Having said that, this looks a great system, and one that may well contribute to Linux being in more of the top 500 supercomputers.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What is really missing in the article is the comparision betwoon other cpu's running at 533 and/or 400 MHz. How can one interprete the benchmark results if there is no comparison to another product ? It's like saying that something is 600.1 gigaquats without defining a gigaquat.
This review is pretty weak. The tech info is not much more than you could get reading Intel press releases.
They don't compare the results to any known quantity, but that's fine, since they don't really get any useful results. The tests are mostly irrelevant to actually testing the processors. The conclusion is "we don't really know how fast it is". And then they give it an award of some kind.
The only really interesting thing about it is that it hits a new low in obnoxious presentation.
Not only do they not have a reader-friendly (or "printer-friendly" as it's often called) version, they also fail to provide an index page or even an indication of how many pages it has been pointlessly split into. They seem to have taken great care to hit the page division exactly wrong, with each page just a little too long to fit in a browser window.
The little menu-bar animation adds the finishing touch to the overall aesthetic of rancid cheese.
Conclusion: After seeing the capabilities and performance during strenuous tests, this Techware Labs review has earned my Coward's Choice Award.
Read the article at anadtech. It's the roadmap for Intel. And discusion of all the processor currently in the market. They Discuss why the Xeon isn't getting the nice FSB upgrade even though they need it the most.
from the article as a pro listing in the conclusion: "Revealed that the limiting factor is more of the video card and less on the CPU" WHAT A SURPRISE!!! all this time i was playing DOOM3 on my dual xeon 2.8 server wondering why i was only get 1fps with my ATI XPERT@Work 8meg!!! Thank's for revealing the mystery guys ;)
i guess they don't play games much..
-judging another only defines yourself
.. Obviously the 8048 CPU in your keyboard can't keep up with the newer CPU's. They're only running about 4MHz or so. :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
" I've been planning to upgrade my computer at the end of this month, and have been keeping a pretty close eye on the 865/875 motherboard and chip performance reviews. This article didn't really enlighten me as much as the following Tom's Hardware reviews:"
Well I'm in the same boat.
I'm looking at an Aopen for $159.00 retail. In this soft economy it looks like a reasonable solution. Anyone know how well it works with Linux?
I just read that line in the article, got very excited, and then it hit me like a ton of bricks just how much of a fucking geek I am. :)
That said, I love Intel improvements. Why? I wait three months, and buy an AMD ship that gives between 90% and 110% performance and costs a thrid less.
That is a pain. Can't they put two controllers and double the bus to each stick? Or something?
If, for whatever reason, you were limiting yourself to only 800mhz FSB Pentium 4 processors, I can see how this article MIGHT be of some value. But what if you want to compare against Athlon? What if you want to compare 800mhz FSB against 533mhz FSB? I mean, I would like to know how a 3ghz with 533 compares to a 2.4ghz with 800. If you really have some shopping to do, this article is useless.
DDR and QDR techniques are not overclocking; a 4x200MHz bus produces virtually the same bandwidth as an 800MHz bus would. (Notice how these systems have over 5GB/s of memory bandwidth.)
AMD is already ahead of Intel with on-chip dual channel memory controllers and HyperTransport.
Or the 20,000 killed after we didn't back them in '91, or the 10,000 civilians killed this time around or the UNKNOWN numbers of soliders blown to bits. What about them? No one cares, we went to war and won YAY! Wave your flags YAY!
I doubt it. At that price, I'd probably buy one if it were in good condition - it is difficult to run a lot of old software on modern computers. Plus, in this 31C heat, any computer that doesn't double as a blast furnace is appealing.
it seems like most people around here don't know yet another reason to boycott Intel ....
http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-intel.html
Someone's lost touch with the date.
:)
How about that wacky Gomer Pyle? And whoa, what about that Ollie North, eh, eh, hehe
Max bandwidth =
= (64 * 800.0e6) / (8 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024)
= 5.97 GB/s
Here 64 is number of data bits (8 bytes) on the bus.
On the other hand, if you consider 1 GB = 1.0e9,
Max bandwidth =
= (64 * 800.0e6) / (8 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000)
= 6.4 GB/s
The second value is incorrect, (kinda like hard disk manufacturers definition of GBytes)
It takes SQL Server a Quad Xeon Machine to stuff slightly less than 10,000 inserts a second into a table. Yet, writing raw records into a file can happen hundreds of times faster than that.
This is my sig.
Man, I'd buy a 486 for $10... don't sell it on eBay though, because to find it, someone would have to specifically be looking for a 486, and the chances of that are slim... Just find a computer geek, almost any one of them will give you at least $10 for it, probably more if youask.
Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.