New Speed Record!

[WESTOZ racer]

Woa!!!!! Intel fanboys, you just got booted in the behind pretty hard!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42687

Wonder how much AMD rule over intel now :p

[SuperPede111]

DANG thats awsome

[MetalMan]

Now that's fast!! I bet if someone were able to hook up 2 of those CPU's onto a single motherboard, and overclock them to the maxx, they might be able to put out a combined 7200mhz!! That would be insane.

[pmb6967]

i tought i knew a more than others about computers but i see now that i need to go back and read the internet from the beginning

[Mega_Hurtz]

Thats cool, did you see that program there using called "super pi" as a benchmarking tool?
thats an awsome program, i was telling my pure math teacher about it today and he was fascinated!

[bubba069]

Intel at 6g's

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42655

think they are still working on getting it stable.

[HobbyGuy252]

Unless I read something wrong, Intel's 6ghz machine is only 32 bit processing... the FX53 (first post) is a 64 bit processing unit... 64bit machines (like the Macintosh G5's, and the FX53) are twice as fast as 32bit CPU's! That would mean if the FX53 was a 32 bit CPU, it would be 7,800ghz (in theory, of course!). The FX53 still has the record...:eek:

[WESTOZ racer]

Its not because of the 64 bit programming it would be faster, but because of it's better function rate per clock cycle caused by short data pipelines in the processor and due to an onboard mem. controller. This is the better way to future technological breakthroughs, Intel is still stuck on the "raw Ghz is best" mentality. I cant see why they'd ignore trying to make more efficient cpus, however the public has been influxed by the media hype over speed not performance.

[CooLJoE]

Unless I read something wrong, Intel's 6ghz machine is only 32 bit processing... the FX53 (first post) is a 64 bit processing unit... 64bit machines (like the Macintosh G5's, and the FX53) are twice as fast as 32bit CPU's! That would mean if the FX53 was a 32 bit CPU, it would be 7,800ghz (in theory, of course!). The FX53 still has the record...:eek:

completely wrong, sorry dude.

Infact, the AMD 64-bit CPUs don't perform barely any better in 64-bit windows than in 32-bit windows (which is what everyone has). And the benefit of 64-bit processors doesn't kick in unless you're in a 64-bit OS (which Windows XP 64-bit is not out unless you have an MSDN membership and download the release candidates they keep working on). And so far, tests in WinXP 64 have not shown an incredible gain in performance.....yet. The real gain will come when the applications themselves are written to take advantage of 64-bit processors.

And no, I'm not an Intel fanboy (like how our WESTOZ friend is an AMD fanboy). I actually prefer AMD over Intel. My Intel rig is the only 1 I have out of my 3 main rigs.

[CooLJoE]

Its not because of the 64 bit programming it would be faster, but because of it's better function rate per clock cycle caused by short data pipelines in the processor and due to an onboard mem. controller. This is the better way to future technological breakthroughs, Intel is still stuck on the "raw Ghz is best" mentality. I cant see why they'd ignore trying to make more efficient cpus, however the public has been influxed by the media hype over speed not performance.

True AMD is better per clock cycle.....when compared to P4s.

However, you must not be paying attention to the computer world these days (or for the last year or so). Intel is not stuck on a "raw ghz is best" mentality. Take a look at the Pentium-M processor (whats used in the Centrino notebooks). They have performance that can rival AMDs at same mhz speed, yet they are used in laptops cuz of lower power requirement and lower ghz speeds. These processors have been out for quite some time, but the bigger performance benefit has started to show up in the latest models (Dothans). One review site (Anandtech I think) took a 2ghz model and did benchmarks of it in stock 2ghz and at 2.4ghz. The 2.0 @ 2.4ghz was keeping up with 3.0ghz P4Es, but required significantly less power and produced like half the heat. Even less voltage/heat than AthlonXPs and 64s.

Now take that processor core, apply it as a dual-core chip (meaning you put 2 of them into 1 processor package die) with 1mb L2 cache, and speeds around 2.4ghz and you have what Intel is putting out next year. Those things are going to kick some serious booty. Plus there is suppose to be a 64-bit version as well. I mean the first ones won't be exactly Dothan cores, but will be a future generation of them, meaning even better performance per clock cycle and still low voltage requirements and low heat output. And the Pentium-M designs are only at the beginning of their possible ghz speeds, so Intel can ramp them up over time. AMD has demonstrated the same thing, but no one has seen benches on those or know exactly what core is being used.

Needless to say, it will be interesting to see the development of these processors. We're talking true dual-processing in 1 processor package.

[WESTOZ racer]

The Dothan cores are good, theres no doubt about it, but Intel have apparently canned the dual core idea for desktops in a report recently. Its not that good when you consider the lifespan of it's new LGA775 will be severely short, which means many people will probably be irritated at the consideration of possibly a new lot of hardware as LGA775 chipsets are limited to the P4 range. AMD are on the 90nm process now as well, and it's showing great promise putting out LESS heat than the 130nm tech at the mo', wiith good o/cing headroom. An AMD dual core is in the works for next year which is certain to fly. So its surely an exciting time to be looking for new performance parts in this era.

For now tho, Im still happy knowing my A-XP rig still can beat out 3.4 P4s in most apps I use at 2450mhz. I think AMD will be at the top for however long they can, as they seem to always have things in the works. An interesting battle of the manufacturers it is.

[CooLJoE]

Actually Intel did not can the dual core chips. Far from it ma boy. They showed off a dual core desktop processor and a dual core Itanium processor recently.


BTW, here's some more Intel overclockage for ya. This time its a Pentium-M Dothan thats doing the amazing work:

http://xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=44065