Intel 45nm Quad Core launch in 2007

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I'm not an AMD fanboy;

Wrong.

Do you really have nothing better to do than to baselessly harass me?

AMD fanboys do not reccomend intel chips. I just said that I would buy a C2D if I needed a computer right now. Nice job conveniently editing it out.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Intel did use elements of NetBurst technology for Core based architecture, the FSB technology was pioneered on NetBurst as well x86-64 instruction set, for Intel mind you. Their first experience with it was on Prescott.

You say your unbiased, but it's typically those who claim they are unbiased that are typically not. Just an observation.

I'm only saying that because I'm being baselessly accused of 'fanboyism'.

You're right on the Core comments. Those are more platform-based stuff, but sure, I'm not going to argue with it.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Intel did use elements of NetBurst technology for Core based architecture, the FSB technology was pioneered on NetBurst as well x86-64 instruction set, for Intel mind you. Their first experience with it was on Prescott.

You say your unbiased, but it's typically those who claim they are unbiased that are typically not. Just an observation.

I'm only saying that because I'm being baselessly accused of 'fanboyism'.

You're right on the Core comments. Those are more platform-based stuff, but sure, I'm not going to argue with it.

The fanboyism comments are far from baseless.

From what I can see, I can tell where some of your comments can be construed as fanboyism, for instance you remembered wrong on the Pentium 3 1.13GHZ comment, your comment on Pentium 4 being a disaster is clearly only opinion not to mention vague, as NetBurst still offered performance and features that were useful throughout it's lifetime. You go off topic when we clearly are only talking about K7 and forward only, you believed that AMD had the lead for 7 years, where it was more like maybe 2 at best, you believed the Pentium 4 C lost to the Athlon XP in games which never even occurs when comparing top end bins, you try to double back on power consumption when it is only in the 60W-80W range etc etc etc.

But at any rate, people will make their judgements as to whether you seem biased or not regardless of what you say, so saying your unbiased usually has no effect, and for the most part does more harm then good.

Not to say it's all you, but some of the things you said will incite fires in some of the individuals here who don't have quite as much patience as I, and I don't blame them as everyones tolerance levels are different, but at any rate it doesn't help the situation when you respond in kind either.

As well as zsderdw mentioned, the improved branch prediction pioneered by Prescott out of necessity has been most likely implemented in Core as well to help it out.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Intel did use elements of NetBurst technology for Core based architecture, the FSB technology was pioneered on NetBurst as well x86-64 instruction set, for Intel mind you. Their first experience with it was on Prescott.

You say your unbiased, but it's typically those who claim they are unbiased that are typically not. Just an observation.

I'm only saying that because I'm being baselessly accused of 'fanboyism'.

You're right on the Core comments. Those are more platform-based stuff, but sure, I'm not going to argue with it.

The fanboyism comments are far from baseless.

From what I can see, I can tell where some of your comments can be construed as fanboyism, for instance you remembered wrong on the Pentium 3 1.13GHZ comment, your comment on Pentium 4 being a disaster is clearly only opinion not to mention vague, as NetBurst still offered performance and features that were useful throughout it's lifetime. You go off topic when we clearly are only talking about K7 and forward only, you believed that AMD had the lead for 7 years, where it was more like maybe 2 at best, you believed the Pentium 4 C lost to the Athlon XP in games which never even occurs when comparing top end bins, you try to double back on power consumption when it is only in the 60W-80W range etc etc etc.

But at any rate, people will make their judgements as to whether you seem biased or not regardless of what you say, so saying your unbiased usually has no effect, and for the most part does more harm then good.

Not to say it's all you, but some of the things you said will incite fires in some of the individuals here who don't have quite as much patience as I, and I don't blame them as everyones tolerance levels are different, but at any rate it doesn't help the situation when you respond in kind either.

As well as zsderdw mentioned, the improved branch prediction pioneered by Prescott out of necessity has been most likely implemented in Core as well to help it out.

Most of the intellects here will admit that the P4 was an engineering failure, just as the NV30 graphics part was. You're correct in stating that it is opinion, but it is not a baseless opinion. I have yet to hear *anyone* call the Athlon or A64 a 'failure', yet several have taken swipes at the P4.

The people who state that it was not an engineering failure simply because it sold well over 5 years and intel kept updating it are ignorant. Most consumers did not realize that Mhz do not equate to performance, so they bought P4s in droves. Add to this the fact that Dell and such did not sell AMD chips, and you have the large 'ignorant' community of consumers purchasing intel. Intel's marketing and brand recognition were so good that the lemon-like P4 was able to be 'viable' for many years. Not from an engineering sense, but from a marketing and profit sense, which I suppose is all that really matters in business.

I'm also not trying to say that the P4 was a total 'lemon' because it wasn't! Dispite its shortcomings, it wasn't far behind in most benchmarks, and it was actually quite good at things like video encoding. I suppose my 'disaster' comments were misleading and misconstrued. I would rather be on the record as stating that the P4 "moderately sucked".

For the record, I think the Pentium, P2, P3, and C2D were all amazing chips in various ways, along with the Celerons in the P2 days.

I've worked professionally doing more CPU-intensive tasks than most people on these boards. I've used P4s, Athlons, and A64s. Every P4 I used felt slow in comparison to the AMD setups, especially compared to the A64. I was doing high-end CAD work and rendering for architectural projects.

Talking about power consumption does not make me biased. It's one of the most important and overlooked factors in CPU performance.

Talking about the K6 was an oversight, and since when do you set the rules and discussion boundaries? Not only that, but I said it "might" have been faster!

The P3 1.13ghz thing...wow...I'm 'biased' for forgetting about a marginal difference in product naming from over 6 years ago!

Congratulations, you guys have successfully pissed me off. I have a feeling that's the only reason half of you post here. :thumbsdown:

 

[SickBeast]

Just as an example of the P4 criticism:

The most virulent anti-Intel faction is led by Darek Mihocka, founder and president of Emulators, Inc., a prominent emulation software company. When it comes to his computers, Mihocka is Old School. A 15-year industry veteran, he has worked continuously through the days of Atari, Macintosh and PCs, and still works with Atari emulation software to this day.

In the not-so-distant past, Mihocka was an Intel advocate. Now he's an Intel advocate in the same way Dr. Laura is a gay rights advocate. On his company's Web site, Emulators.com, he's twice critiqued the new design of the Pentium 4. "Intel's new flagship Pentium 4 processor," he wrote, "[is] an engineering disaster that will hurt both consumers and computer manufacturers for some time to come."

He blames the design flaws not on lack of ability, but on confused priorities. "Just like at Microsoft and just like at Apple," wrote Mihocka, "the marketing scumbags at Intel have prevailed and pushed sound engineering aside." He was so upset by the Pentium 4, he urged his Web visitors to boycott the company until Intel makes a better processor.

That's just *one* example. A quick google search brings up thousands of hits.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: coldpower27
Intel did use elements of NetBurst technology for Core based architecture, the FSB technology was pioneered on NetBurst as well x86-64 instruction set, for Intel mind you. Their first experience with it was on Prescott.

You say your unbiased, but it's typically those who claim they are unbiased that are typically not. Just an observation.

I'm only saying that because I'm being baselessly accused of 'fanboyism'.

You're right on the Core comments. Those are more platform-based stuff, but sure, I'm not going to argue with it.

The fanboyism comments are far from baseless.

From what I can see, I can tell where some of your comments can be construed as fanboyism, for instance you remembered wrong on the Pentium 3 1.13GHZ comment, your comment on Pentium 4 being a disaster is clearly only opinion not to mention vague, as NetBurst still offered performance and features that were useful throughout it's lifetime. You go off topic when we clearly are only talking about K7 and forward only, you believed that AMD had the lead for 7 years, where it was more like maybe 2 at best, you believed the Pentium 4 C lost to the Athlon XP in games which never even occurs when comparing top end bins, you try to double back on power consumption when it is only in the 60W-80W range etc etc etc.

But at any rate, people will make their judgements as to whether you seem biased or not regardless of what you say, so saying your unbiased usually has no effect, and for the most part does more harm then good.

Not to say it's all you, but some of the things you said will incite fires in some of the individuals here who don't have quite as much patience as I, and I don't blame them as everyones tolerance levels are different, but at any rate it doesn't help the situation when you respond in kind either.

As well as zsderdw mentioned, the improved branch prediction pioneered by Prescott out of necessity has been most likely implemented in Core as well to help it out.

Most of the intellects here will admit that the P4 was an engineering failure, just as the NV30 graphics part was. You're correct in stating that it is opinion, but it is not a baseless opinion. I have yet to hear *anyone* call the Athlon or A64 a 'failure', yet several have taken swipes at the P4.

For the record, I think the Pentium, P2, P3, and C2D were all amazing chips in various ways, along with the Celerons in the P2 days.

I've worked professionally doing more CPU-intensive tasks than most people on these boards. I've used P4s, Athlons, and A64s. Every P4 I used felt slow in comparison to the AMD setups, especially compared to the A64. I was doing high-end CAD work and rendering for architectural projects.

Talking about power consumption does not make me biased. It's one of the most important and overlooked factors in CPU performance.

Talking about the K6 was an oversight, and since when do you set the rules and discussion boundaries? Not only that, but I said it "might" have been faster!

The P3 1.13ghz thing...wow...I'm 'biased' for forgetting about a marginal difference in product naming from over 6 years ago!

Congratulations, you guys have successfully pissed me off. I have a feeling that's the only reason half of you post here. :thumbsdown:

As expected, I had hoped you wouldn't respond in this manner, but you don't seem to be able to take criticism well. If someone prods you and that easily evokes a response some people will do it for their enjoyment.

Engineering wise the Netburst architecture was an interesting departure from what we had before, and I want to verify your claims of which intellects around here share your opinion that you believe NetBurst was a failure as the P4 had redeeming qualities.

The NV30 debacle was interesting and I can probably agree that situation had very little if any redeeming qualities, if anyone would care to interject. Alot of people take swipes at the Pentium 4 because they don't understand what it was engineered to do.

Athlon 64's were designed with the philosophy which was more popular to engineering people which was High IPC/Lower Clockspeed. It was also the philosophy which proved the safer bet in the end.

For the tasks you were working on Pentium 4's may not have been the best choice, but like I have said, in the Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 HT comparison it varies, and what you said isn't in violation of that.

Perhaps, but you were talking about power consumption at a point where the overall difference wouldn't be noticed, and I have already explained that it's tolerable when a product is faster and consuming more energy. It only starts to become a critical issue when you see that a product of equivalent performance is consuming more energy or a product of less as was the case with Smithfield Pentium D's is consuming more energy.

I was responding only to K7 comment you said about how you had the opinion it had the lead since then, so hence the K6 is out of bounds. By itself this comment wouldn't have been an issue, it only was when combined with the multitude of others.

If your debating I expect you to have factual information, if I can easily find errors that favor your side of the argument, it would lead me in the direction to believe your biased, I didn't say you were biased one time in my post, I just said how I could see how others may think your biased based on what you have said, and your basically jumping down my throat so...not the best experience here.

It's isn't my intention to piss you off, I can't speak for anyone else.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Just as an example of the P4 criticism:

The most virulent anti-Intel faction is led by Darek Mihocka, founder and president of Emulators, Inc., a prominent emulation software company. When it comes to his computers, Mihocka is Old School. A 15-year industry veteran, he has worked continuously through the days of Atari, Macintosh and PCs, and still works with Atari emulation software to this day.

In the not-so-distant past, Mihocka was an Intel advocate. Now he's an Intel advocate in the same way Dr. Laura is a gay rights advocate. On his company's Web site, Emulators.com, he's twice critiqued the new design of the Pentium 4. "Intel's new flagship Pentium 4 processor," he wrote, "[is] an engineering disaster that will hurt both consumers and computer manufacturers for some time to come."

He blames the design flaws not on lack of ability, but on confused priorities. "Just like at Microsoft and just like at Apple," wrote Mihocka, "the marketing scumbags at Intel have prevailed and pushed sound engineering aside." He was so upset by the Pentium 4, he urged his Web visitors to boycott the company until Intel makes a better processor.

That's just *one* example. A quick google search brings up thousands of hits.

Ah so this proves that this product was engineered with the intention to market clockspeed and performance as a secondary effect of that. It succeeded for a time at doing what it was designed to do, which was market clockspeed and performance was a secondary characteristic. It's impressive it actually had adequate performance overall considering what it was made for.

The Pentium 4 only lost steam because it ran into high leakage issues, forcing Intel to look for alternate solutions.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
It's isn't my intention to piss you off, I can't speak for anyone else.

No worries; I've actually enjoyed the discussion for the most part. I just don't appreciate the 'biased' comments (not that you even made them). I pride myself on my objectivity I suppose.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: dmens
well that's just a load of crap. cpu reviews back then never included power measurements unlike now, but northwood c-step productized as a 65W part, as i recall.

as for the architecture, it had its strengths. that's why it isn't dead yet, heh.

You're a complete fool. PSUs had to be re-engineered to withstand the power draw from the P4. When you snap out of your fervent fanboyism I'll bother with you again.

a sure sign of idiocy is when a person broadly critiques the P4 family as a single entity even though there were three major families.

ok i admit it, my exposure to P4 is slightly more than using it for professional cpu intensive tasks, that is why i hold a certain amount of respect for its strengths and learned lessons from its weaknesses. guess that makes me a fervent fanboy. in any case, when you can explain how the P4 "moderately sucked" other than the fact that it "felt slow", ill drop by to respond.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: dmens
well that's just a load of crap. cpu reviews back then never included power measurements unlike now, but northwood c-step productized as a 65W part, as i recall.

as for the architecture, it had its strengths. that's why it isn't dead yet, heh.

You're a complete fool. PSUs had to be re-engineered to withstand the power draw from the P4. When you snap out of your fervent fanboyism I'll bother with you again.

a sure sign of idiocy is when a person broadly critiques the P4 family as a single entity even though there were three major families.

ok i admit it, my exposure to P4 is slightly more than using it for professional cpu intensive tasks, that is why i hold a certain amount of respect for its strengths and learned lessons from its weaknesses. guess that makes me a fervent fanboy. in any case, when you can explain how the P4 "moderately sucked" other than the fact that it "felt slow", ill drop by to respond.

*All* of the P4 incarnations shared similar traits:

- they ran hot
- they had very low IPC
- they were slow in games compared with the A64
- they needed more power to run effectively compared to the A64

That's why I can paint them all with the same brush.

You're the idiot here.

Why did the P4 moderately suck? Well, I bought an Athlon XP Mobile for just over $100 and it has lasted me 6 years now. It overclocks to 2500mhz, and to get something comparable in a P4 I would have had to have spent over $300 on the CPU alone. The additional power used up by the P4 over those 7 years added up to some $ as well, I'm sure.

As someone who did work for 12+ hours a day on the computer at times, I like to think I had a very good feel for the responsiveness of the systems I worked on. Sometimes in CAD I would perform very CPU-intensive operations. On the A64 they would happen instantaneously, whereas on the P4 there would either be a 'lag' or else I would be waiting, sometimes for up to 10s for it to do what it needed to do.

If I knew how to benchmark CAD properly I would do it for you.

Do you do video production and editing or something?

 

[dmens]

you used meaningless metrics (ipc), falsehoods (all ran hot) and partial benchmarks (games) to make a point. considering how nobody cared about power during either willamette or northwood, the last point is meaningless for real discussion.

and if you don't know the performance differences between the three P4 families in the main benchmarking workloads, then you shouldn't be arguing about P4 from an engineering (failure) pov, because you're not qualified at all. also, don't use performance anecdotes (i.e. it feels slow) to prove a point, it is embarassing.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
AMD fanboys do not reccomend intel chips. I just said that I would buy a C2D if I needed a computer right now. Nice job conveniently editing it out.

On the contrary, many of them do. I've seen it here plenty of times. Self-confessed AMD fanboys have recommended Core 2 Duo numerous times. Recommending Intel chips doesn't shake off the AMD fanboy label.

I edit out material that I'm not responding to.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: SickBeast
AMD fanboys do not reccomend intel chips. I just said that I would buy a C2D if I needed a computer right now. Nice job conveniently editing it out.

On the contrary, many of them do. I've seen it here plenty of times. Self-confessed AMD fanboys have recommended Core 2 Duo numerous times. Recommending Intel chips doesn't shake off the AMD fanboy label.

I edit out material that I'm not responding to.

And this is exactly why, I go by what a person says and how they say as a basis for determining whether they exhibit fanboyism at all. Not by what they own or what they recommend.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Viditor

It's not illegal to be a monopoly...in fact, from a legal perspective, Intel (like Microsoft) actually is already a monopoly. The only difference about being a monopoly is in the way you are allowed to compete.
You are not allowed to use your marketshare as a "weapon" against other contenders...
For instance, with Microsoft, they used their monopoly position to include Internet Explorer...this was found to be anti-competitive against Netscape.
Windows Media was also found to be anti-competitive with the several other Media players out there...

When I used to work for a motherboard manufacturer, it was an open secret that Intel would suddenly run into a "shortage" of chipsets and reallocate them if you made a board that openly supported AMD's chips.

Since nearly all of the boards used Intel chipsets at that time, having your shipment withheld could put your company out of business. Therefore we wrote the BIOS to support the AMD K6 and Cyrix chips, but we wouldn't advertise that fact. Also, they'd withhold engineering samples from you, meaning that you would be at a disadvantage when you were trying to design a new motherboard. The competitor who was a loyal Intel customer would have a lead on you in the development cycle.

This has been going on for a long, long time.