http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000315

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html

http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<0enTb.130940$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000315
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html
>
> http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956

I posted these and more, more than 11 hours before you, but my ISP is
having trouble with its newgroup feed, so noone else can see them.
Bastards!

This posted via Google Groups.


Derek

"Derek Baker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:<0enTb.130940$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> > http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000315
> >
> > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html
> >
> > http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956
>
> I posted these and more, more than 11 hours before you, but my ISP is
> having trouble with its newgroup feed, so noone else can see them.
> Bastards!
>
> This posted via Google Groups.

I'm sorry, but it's not like as if my ISP is the model of high quality and
efficiency either. :-)

Anandtech seems to think that the Prescott should only be purchased if
you're going to try to overclock to 4Ghz, otherwise go for Northwood. This
despite the fact that the Prescott uses up far more power than the Northwood
at the same frequency.

Ace's hardware seems to think that at 125 million transistors, Prescott is
hiding some circuitry inside it, which Intel hasn't told us about yet. They
come to this conclusion by adding up the extra circuitry required by the
512K larger L2 cache, and the 8K larger L1 instruction cache, and estimate
that altogether this should take Prescott only up 80 million transistors
from the Northwood's 52 million. So there's still 45 million transistors
unaccounted for inside Prescott.

Tom's just seems annoyed by Prescott for some reason. :-)

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:cgvTb.93919$(E-Mail Removed):

> Ace's hardware seems to think that at 125 million transistors,
> Prescott is hiding some circuitry inside it, which Intel hasn't
> told us about yet. They come to this conclusion by adding up the
> extra circuitry required by the 512K larger L2 cache, and the 8K
> larger L1 instruction cache, and estimate that altogether this
> should take Prescott only up 80 million transistors from the
> Northwood's 52 million. So there's still 45 million transistors
> unaccounted for inside Prescott.

64 bit ? naaaa



Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://kiti.pulse.pdi.net/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

"RusH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9483C3F7A4E58RusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.80...
> "Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:cgvTb.93919$(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > Ace's hardware seems to think that at 125 million transistors,
> > Prescott is hiding some circuitry inside it, which Intel hasn't
> > told us about yet. They come to this conclusion by adding up the
> > extra circuitry required by the 512K larger L2 cache, and the 8K
> > larger L1 instruction cache, and estimate that altogether this
> > should take Prescott only up 80 million transistors from the
> > Northwood's 52 million. So there's still 45 million transistors
> > unaccounted for inside Prescott.
>
> 64 bit ? naaaa


Perhaps Yamhill exists?

--

... Hank

Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net
W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<0enTb.130940$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000315
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html
>
> http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956


I thought one of the more interseting comments from Anandtech is that
going from 2.8gz up to 3.2ghz Prescott narrows the gap (or increases
the lead) with Northwood at each successive higher frequency. They
extrapolate that Prescott at 3.6ghz and above might be a better
indicator of why the internal changes were made from the Northwood
core.

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000315
>
>http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/index.html
>
>http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956

Yikes, what a dog. AMD has got to be pleased with these results...

(E-Mail Removed) (G) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I thought one of the more interseting comments from Anandtech is
> that going from 2.8gz up to 3.2ghz Prescott narrows the gap (or
> increases the lead) with Northwood at each successive higher
> frequency. They extrapolate that Prescott at 3.6ghz and above
> might be a better indicator of why the internal changes were
> made from the Northwood core.

Am I the only one that sees the FSB impact here ? OCing from 2.8 to
3.2 = 230Hz FSB - thers your speed


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://kiti.pulse.pdi.net/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

RusH <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns948469E6AF50RusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.80:

> (E-Mail Removed) (G) wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> I thought one of the more interseting comments from Anandtech is
>> that going from 2.8gz up to 3.2ghz Prescott narrows the gap (or
>> increases the lead) with Northwood at each successive higher
>> frequency. They extrapolate that Prescott at 3.6ghz and above
>> might be a better indicator of why the internal changes were
>> made from the Northwood core.
>
> Am I the only one that sees the FSB impact here ? OCing from 2.8 to
> 3.2 = 230Hz FSB - thers your speed
>

Except he wasn't overclocking the FSB, but using a chip with a different
multiplier. It seems likely it's the cache that makes the most of the
difference. The bigger the difference between main memory speed and cache
speed, the more important it is to have a large cache.

Johnno <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns9483F265D2D90johnnoihatespamcom@62.253.162.115:

> RusH <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:Xns948469E6AF50RusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.80:

>> Am I the only one that sees the FSB impact here ? OCing from
>> 2.8 to 3.2 = 230Hz FSB - thers your speed
>>
>
> Except he wasn't overclocking the FSB, but using a chip with a
> different multiplier. It seems likely it's the cache that makes
> the most of the difference. The bigger the difference between
> main memory speed and cache speed, the more important it is to
> have a large cache.

prove me wrong, dont yust say it
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...prescott/cpuz3
700.gif

fixed 14x multiplier. Its normal processor, not an engeenering sample
with open multiplier.


Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://kiti.pulse.pdi.net/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.