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."
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
That article showed that lower latency doesn't mean higher bandwidth (and this is only true if your original latency is low enough, mind you!), but it didn't consider overall performance. Latency has indeed an impact on the performance -- look at Tom's Hardware article on performance improvements when Intel's PAT is enabled. All PAT does is lower latency by 2 cycles.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Bus Speed IS more important than processor speed. The bus is what keeps the CPU supplied with data from the memory. If you have a very slow bus it doesn't matter how fast your CPU is, it will have to wait on memory accesses.
Smart caching can keep values in the cache that will be accessed frequently and smart compiling can execute the code in an efficient sequence (so that a lot of memory accesses can be done at once), but even still the gap between bus/memory performance and CPU performance 200/400/800 MHz vs 1/2/3 GHz is so great that this still slows down execution quite a bit.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
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.
AMD has Opteron and Athlon 64 with Ultra Low Latancy controllers. Previews say that performance often is not a matter of maximum bandwith (3,2GB/s Athlon 64 and 6,4GB/s Opteron) and the Athlon 64 performs just like a P4 xxxxC with FSB 800 in memory dependent benchmarks like q3a. Have fun :-)
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.
No modern CPU will continue to operate through a catastrophic cooling failure. The P4 will crash when it throttles below 25% (errata), and will completely shutdown if the heatsink is removed. The P3 will burn up without a heatsink, unless the motherboard shuts it down (I don't know of any motherboards that do this). An Athlon XP will be shut down by the motherboard before damage occurs (ideally). Regardless, what possible set of circumstances could occur that would cause your heatsink to come off your processor without destroying it or the motherboard in the process?
THG's infamous video was clearly faked, or at least misleadingly edited. The P3 was shown running at 38C after it crashed, which is lower than it would run WITH A PROPERLY OPERATING COOLER. The P4 was also shown clocking back up to full speed immediately after the heatsink was merely SET on top of the processor, this is completely impossible. The processor would have shutdown due to the temperature it was running at, and regardless it would have taken at least a few seconds for the processor to be cooled enough by the heatsink before it clocked back up, and it wouldn't be cooled at all if the heatsink was merely SITTING ON TOP, unmounted!
This word, "overclocking", I do no believe it means what you think it means.
That was a raw 50MHz chip, no overclocking, that outperformed the 486DX-66 with ease.
Hate to break the news to you, but pretty much every CPU in use today uses exactly the same asymmetrical bus/CPU that the 486 DX2s did, that you are calling "overclocking".
Oh, and a DX/50 would only outperform a DX2/66 in tasks that were bus-bound. If the bus wasn't a limiting factor, the higher clocked CPU would be faster.
The supporting hardware was too expensive, and Intel never bothered working on making it cheaper.
Yes, they did - it's just that by that time (ca. second generation Pentium CPU - P90, P100, P100 and P133) the 486 was obselete.
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.)
I've yet to see any manufacturer produce a more reliable chipset than Intel. Even the ones that are faster only tend to be so because they lobbed into the middle of an Intel release cycle and aren't outperformed until the next model (in general).