Originally posted by: SickBeast
It's not really a crap shoot. All signs are pointing to the Dothan as being the future for intel's CPUs. The P4 has been discontinued AFAIK. They recently cancelled the 4ghz model. This means that S775 is already a dead platform.Originally posted by: Markfw900
socket 939 indeed has many more times a chance of being compatable in the future vs socket 775. It's a crap shoot ! Where are you putting your money ? On Intel ? ( well you work for them, but...)
History tends to repeat itself, and intel has a history of changing its socket design at least once per year. They make gallons of money on chipset sales and this type of corporate behaviour helps fuel the fire.
I danced around nothing. You quoted me completely out of context and I clarified EXACTLY what I said and meant.Originally posted by: Markfw900
Wingznut, You are still dancing around the topic that I speak about.
Are you really saying that if AMD engineered the memory controller of their dual core cpu to utilize 1066mhz memory, or possibly even 1333mhz by late 2005, there would be no benefit? You are sorely mistaken.Originally posted by: SickBeast
I'm guessing you know very little about the A64 architecture. Running dual-channel memory on an A64 has at best a 5% performance increase. A dual-cored CPU will not require faster memory than DDR1 for quite some time. Anand wrote an article on this exact subject not long ago.
But here's the problem with that methodology. If Frank says his A64 runs at 55C, Bob says his Northwood runs at 55C, and Joe says his Prescott runs at 60C, then Joe's Prescott runs 5C hotter. Since they are all using the cpu/motherboard utilities, and (for this discussion) presuming you are correct, then they are all off by several degrees... And the end result is that the Prescott is STILL just 5C higher.Originally posted by: Lithan
Wingznutz, I've owned about 20 motherboards in the past two years. About 18 of them read low. About ten of them read REALLY low. Without overclocking (and on some, such as p4p800, with overclocking) I could easily get subambient readings on silent air or water. 2 or three read low in an amount that varied from bios to bios, but was always low. Two of them tops were even close to accurate. And reading about them in forums, everyone said things like "Just subtract 15*C from whatever (motherboard X) reads because it reads high." What were these people basing this on? That's right, their "hands-on experience" with their other board telling them their processor was 15*C cooler than this board.
C'mon guys... Let's stay on topic. With the exception of a few minor shots taken at my integrity (nothing that I haven't gotten used to over the years )... This has actually been a good discussion.Originally posted by: Mik3y
Felix, were you dropped as a baby? i really think your mom PURPOSELY threw you down the stairs because you're first words were, "intel owns googoo gaagaa". perhaps that has caused you some brain damaged and now you cant decipher the difference between logic and stupidity.
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Even if their motherboard of choice can be used with the latest processor next year, chances are there will be significantly superior motherboards or memory options by then.
Take a look at the motherboards out at this time last year. None of them would be desirable for a high end system built around today's best line of cpu's.
Yes, you are talking about last year's motherboards... But you are also talking about last year's cpu's. (We aren't talking about the same thing.)Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Even if their motherboard of choice can be used with the latest processor next year, chances are there will be significantly superior motherboards or memory options by then.
Take a look at the motherboards out at this time last year. None of them would be desirable for a high end system built around today's best line of cpu's.
I disagree I would buy a two year old mobo right now if building an Intel system like IS7. Not only is it $90 Clock can go just as high as newest 915/925 and would perform the same. Then take a one year old IC7, well, its debatable if that's not still fastest chipset intel ever had. Also, I would have a "old" northwood instead of presscott. And a Skt 754 instead of 939 since dual channel's only adding 1-5% at a signifigant price premium and all the 939 boards SUCK... So many exceptions when price, performance, and maturity is factored in.
Ok, then what method are you using to draw the conclusion that Prescotts are up to 20C hotter???Originally posted by: Lithan
The inaccuracies are heinous enough that board readings are completely useless for measuring processor heat output. You can't simple say that if two boards are both inaccurate then you can compair their readings. That's just stupid.
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I suppose it would demoralize the intel engineers if they were told to dissect the A64 in an attempt to bring the P4 design up to snuff. They've known about the onboard memory controller for years now but have done nothing about it. It's obvious to me that they view themselves as the market leader and pay little attention to what AMD does.
What (specifically) is so "rather badly" about Intel's implementation of x86-64?Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
They did copy x86-64, rather badly I might add, hastily slap it onto P4s, and name it EMT64.
Originally posted by: Wingznut
What (specifically) is so "rather badly" about Intel's implementation of x86-64?
- Aah! The refreshing breeze of intelligence.Originally posted by: Wingznut
But let me clarify my stance on "upgrade path"... I have never recommended anyone wait for the next thing "right around the corner", nor have I ever recommended to base their cpu purchase on what might be next year. (Feel free to search my posts... You won't find anything. )
Even if their motherboard of choice can be used with the latest processor next year, chances are there will be significantly superior motherboards or memory options by then.
Take a look at the motherboards out at this time last year. None of them would be desirable for a high end system built around today's best line of cpu's.
Originally posted by: Lithan
Hmm... Gururu. I said The difference between A64 and and P4E would be 10-12*C @ load with a very good heatsink and 15-20*C with a very poor heatsink. Their testing found the difference to be 14*C with a heatsink that falls somewhere between the two, and you think that disputes me? Also, do I need to point out that their A64 was reading under 40*C
23w*.30c/w = 6.9*C when compairing a slightly faster clocked p4e to a p4c... so my numbers fall almost perfectly in line with their testing. Didn't you notice that?
.
Originally posted by: Lithan
...you might be perfectly happy keeping your 3000+ 939 while you upgrade to PCI-e and ddr-2 and whatever else is useless now but will be standard 1-2years from now. With 754 it is questionable whether that is possible...
Originally posted by: Wingznut
Ok, then what method are you using to draw the conclusion that Prescotts are up to 20C hotter???Originally posted by: Lithan
The inaccuracies are heinous enough that board readings are completely useless for measuring processor heat output. You can't simple say that if two boards are both inaccurate then you can compair their readings. That's just stupid.