chrisv wrote:
> willbill wrote:
>
>
>>chrisv wrote:
>>
>>>willbill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>correct me if i'm wrong; IIRC each of Intel's past
>>>>major CPU transitions weren't without problems
>>>>
>>>>nothing like being a guinea pig with
>>>>new technology (whether it's h/w or s/w)
>>>
>>>Well, Intel clearly went down a technological dead-end with their
>>>"Netburst" architecture, with it's design goal of "performance via
>>>high clock rate". I think that everyone agrees that their more-recent
>>>designs, from the Pentium M up to the Core 2 Duo, are designed much
>>>more intelligently. I think there's a couple points to be made beyond
>>>the obvious "they were getting their butts kicked and needed to do
>>>something".
>>
>>i'm not all that sure what Netburst includes
>
>
> http://www.sandpile.org/impl/p4.htm
wow, nice summary of the entire P-4 line,
including Celeron and Xeon.
so Intel's Pentium 4 is what you are
calling "Netburst"?
btw, near the top is: Family/Generation
80786, 7th Generation, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3 (0.09 µm)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
it is these "generation" changes that have
a greater chance of having changeover problems;
but i don't know which of them (i.e. Intel's)
have had more problems than the others
i'd certainly call the move from P-III
to P-4 a major CPU change. meaning one
that has a bigger chance of problems for
early adapters
Prescott was a minor change. they run ok.
hot, but otherwise ok. i also note
(from the list) that Prescott was 90nm
and the current 65nm CPUs are Presler
what i've never seen is an after the
fact summary of just how rough the
change over actually was, for the
various generation changes
i'd also call the move (from 486)
to Pentium a major CPU change
i'm less certain about which of the
other changes might qualify as
major CPU changes, nor which of
them was initially more problematic
(for early users)
AMD has had it's own list of
major CPU changes.
>>were the Northwood CPUs Netburst?
>
>
> Yes, the second-gen. The only good one, IMO.
i also liked the Northwoods.
fwiw, i bought a Northwood.
i built two machines at that time:
a DFI mobo with the Northwood (and
Intel's high end desktop chipset that
permitted ECC), and my old Tyan S2875
(which i'm using to type this) with an
AMD Opty 142 and AMD chipset. my sister
expressed an interest in a computer
and i gave here the choice of either
of them. of course, she went with
the "Intel" name.
btw, DFI makes nice boards!
anyhow, i got what i want: a server
mobo where i've got high confidence
that the ECC memory on it really works
(i.e. corrects/reports any memory errors)
i don't have that confidence with
desktop machines. something that
slowly dawned on me after i got done
building the two machines
the only other option of that time
was an even more expensive Intel Xeon
of that time, which i did NOT like
the looks of
>
>>and do you really think that Intel's Prescott (both
>>early and late, both of which i presume are Netburst)
>>is a major CPU transition?
>>
>>i could be wrong but i don't see Prescott as
>>a major CPU transition
>
>
> Major or minor, my point remains the same.
my vote goes for minor.
just for the record, kindly state
what you think the problem(s) are
with Prescott/Presler
afaik, the main problem with
Prescott/Presler is the excessive
heat generated, which caused Intel to
fall behind in the performance race
afaik, Prescott/Presler did *not* cause
any significant changeover problems
>
>>>2) In the past, a new Intel CPU architecture was expected to last
>>>three process generations, and, because of that, it seemed that their
>>>new architectures didn't really "hit their stride" until the second,
>>>die-shrunk generation. This resulted in first-gen products that were
>>>hot running and mediocre in performance. With the Netburst CPU's the
>>>third generation proved to be a bust as well (which was their wake-up
>>>call).
>>>
>>>It seems that Intel has now accepted that, in order to be competitive,
>>>they need to redesign more often,
>>
>>that's been true for every industry
>>this past two or three decades
>>
>>what makes you think that Intel
>>hasn't seen that?
>
>
> I don't understand the question. My point was that they do see it
> now, but didn't before.
for sure Intel sees it *now*
here's to real competition coz
we all come out ahead from it.
fwiw, i hope you don't run into any
problems with your new dual core
Intel Conroe CPU
but you don't know that yet
and if you do run into problems down
the line, you also don't know how much
of a nosebleed it will be
otoh, looks like you are off to a good start.
bill
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
)))))))))))))))