If you understood how processors work, you'll see that's not the whole idea at all. The point is to make a faster processor, whether by higher IPC or higher yield.
If you understood my post I said that I was old fashioned and liked the idea that a newer better processor should be more efficient or faster clock for clock. This was a preference and has nothing to do with my comprehension on how processors work.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? I don't recall insulting you by saying you didn't understand how something works. I was trying to add my opinion to the thread in a positive way without being a jerk.
Could have, should have, would have doesn't mean jack.
The P4 has a 20-stage pipeline and the Athlon a 10-stage.
P4 has 12µ-Ops of Trace Cache, 8K of L1 cache and Athlon has 128k of L1 cache.
P4 has 512K of 8-way associative L2 cache and Athlon has 256K of 16-way associative L2 cache.
Plain and simple the Athlon is faster clock for clock. AMD costs less money for the same level of computing power, at stock speed or overclocked. I won't pretend to understand the rest of the details of the micro architecture of these cpu's and sure won't be rude enough to imply that you don't. I am not trying to say that a P4 overclocked at 3GHz isn't one of the fastest desktop solutions available.
Well, they do run cooler but the overclocking results weren't exactly impressive. Cooling is not the only factor in processor yield.
Go back a few weeks and look how everybody predicted the thoroughbred was going to run hotter than the XP, and even the original Thunderbird. I can't predict the future better than anyone else, but right now it is just my opinion that in a short time improved yields will allow the thorougbred to consistently reach 2GHz air-cooled. I could be wrong, but no one can say that for sure until the t-breds have been out for a couple of months and failed to perform as I predicted.
If you understood my post I said that I was old fashioned and liked the idea that a newer better processor should be more efficient or faster clock for clock. This was a preference and has nothing to do with my comprehension on how processors work.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? I don't recall insulting you by saying you didn't understand how something works. I was trying to add my opinion to the thread in a positive way without being a jerk.
Could have, should have, would have doesn't mean jack.
The P4 has a 20-stage pipeline and the Athlon a 10-stage.
P4 has 12µ-Ops of Trace Cache, 8K of L1 cache and Athlon has 128k of L1 cache.
P4 has 512K of 8-way associative L2 cache and Athlon has 256K of 16-way associative L2 cache.
Plain and simple the Athlon is faster clock for clock. AMD costs less money for the same level of computing power, at stock speed or overclocked. I won't pretend to understand the rest of the details of the micro architecture of these cpu's and sure won't be rude enough to imply that you don't. I am not trying to say that a P4 overclocked at 3GHz isn't one of the fastest desktop solutions available.
Well, they do run cooler but the overclocking results weren't exactly impressive. Cooling is not the only factor in processor yield.
Go back a few weeks and look how everybody predicted the thoroughbred was going to run hotter than the XP, and even the original Thunderbird. I can't predict the future better than anyone else, but right now it is just my opinion that in a short time improved yields will allow the thorougbred to consistently reach 2GHz air-cooled. I could be wrong, but no one can say that for sure until the t-breds have been out for a couple of months and failed to perform as I predicted.