Going faster.

[HAL9000]

Intel is releasing the 1.13Ghz processor at the end of July. Anybody hear what/if AMD is releasing?

------------------
If it ain't broke, you're not pushing hard enough!

[figarowa]

from what i've heard thru the grapevine the t-bird is supposed to get up to 1.1 ghz...but i wonder why intel is bothering with the Pent 3 1.13 ghz based on that architecture instead of just using the wilimatte cpu or "pentium 4"..sheesh ya'd think after so many years intel would pick another name..lol

[HAL9000]

Well, when I get customers coming in telling me they have a 486 DX2 66 Pentium, it shows the name sticks. If the name sticks to people who don't know any better, they walk in and ask for a Pentium. With that one word, you have good marketing even if it has been beaten to death. I haven't heard anything about the PIII being pushed any higher, but Willamette (or however you spell it) is supposed to start at 1.4Ghz.

------------------
If it ain't broke, you're not pushing hard enough!

[Byte 2.0]

will anyone have the new intell processor in stock...

I think more ppl will agree that you can buy an AMD pretty easy at a good price while you have to hunt down high end intell products..

I like intell, however I can't see spending the money on a high end intell when AMD has processors that will do very close to the same. AMD and intell run neck and neck...AMD wins one test...Intell wins another one....

I really didn't like intell's celeron processor, I know alot of ppl here like them, however I prefer tons of cache...that is why I have a K6-3/450 for me it runs like a dream I have had it since last summer on a crash free system....


Stepping down from my soap box....

------------------
byte@pcmech.com

MY icq number is 1356209
Some people hate computers.
Computer Bash 2000
or maybe they took my advice

[HAL9000]

AMD or Intel... who the heck buys the top one right away. They guy with more bucks than brains. Wait a while and get them when the price bottoms out.

------------------
If it ain't broke, you're not pushing hard enough!

[Toaster]

Well Byte, if you think you need oodles of L2 cache then you might be using a poorly designed cache. Cache is greatly mis-understood. Most think: "More is better" and "less is bad". To some degree, this thinking is correct but after this point it`s as far from the truth as one could get.
It all boils down to *HOW* the cache is designed and used by the host CPU. Intel is notorious for using small L1/L2 cache but equally notorious for having the highest cache efficiency. One exception is the Xenon processor. This puppy boasts upto 2GB of L2 cache running at full system clock in a 4way set associative mannor with a 128bit address width. Until the release of the Duron and other CPU`s from AMD, the cache was running at 1/2 system clock and a latency exceeding a factor of 16. Even the cache bus width hasn`t changed with AMD and still remains at 64bit or less. 128/256kb of full speed cache outperforms caches many times in size because of efficiency.
A better designed cache reduces the number of CPU "do nothing loops" and keeps the CPU buzy with incomming data. For each cache "miss", the CPU runs idlely until the cache resupplies the CPU with new data. With a cache thats too small, the cache is "thrashed" (dumped and refilled needlessly) and performance suffers. With a cache thats too large and slow, the CPU outruns the cache and system performance suffers. This is where the Xenon excells with it`s huge cache running at full system clock.
The "Alpha" CPU is a totally unique design in that it`s a "RISC" based CPU and it`s cache I/O registers are 256bytes wide and are superpipelind as well as being 8way set associative in design. This makes the Alpha far more efficient then ANY CISC based (Intel, AMD, Cyrix) CPU.
RISC= Reduced Intruction Set Computing
CISC= Complex Intruction Set Computing

Also, the Alpha does the same amount of "work" in fewer CPU cycles resulting in very substantial speed gaines.
If a given CPU uses 100 cycles to perform a task and a RISC based CPU does the same work in 50 cycles, the speed increase is 2 fold.
This equates to the following:
A 1GHZ Alpha runs well over twice as fast as a 1GHZ X86 class CPU because it can do the same work in fewer cycles. The same principle applies to cache and cache speed/efficiency.
If you want to go REALLY fast, tell Intel and other CPU makers to make the break away from the X86 compatability and go RISC.
(both companies make RISC based CPU`s but not in any numbers for home use)

[fredwest]

Hi Toaster,
Fascinating post...

Just, as an aside, what is the price differential between P3's and Zeon's??

I was thinking of getting a dual CPU system sometime in the future....but what is the price difference and would this be prsctical on a home server ie: twin Zoens Vs a single P3?


Yours

Declan (aka fredwest)

[HAL9000]

I don't have Xeon pricing right now, but I do know that they are big bucks.

------------------
If it ain't broke, you're not pushing hard enough!

[Toaster]

The Xenon CPU`s can be pricey if you focus on the 1MB cache CPU`s and higher. The Xenon 400/450 with 512KB of cache is fairly cheap at about 150/250 respectively.
The Xenon was designed much like the PIII and offers very little above the PIII with the exception of "SCALABILITY" when used in an SMP set-up (duals and higher). Under Linux and other SMP 1.1/1.4 compliant O/S`s, the Xenon shines in scalded dog performance. It however shares the same efficiency as the "legendary" Pentium-Pro. This particular CPU was the first CPU to utilize a full speed L2 cache that was "on package" or built into the same CPU "assembly". This closely coupled the L2 and the cache and greatly increased efficiency. The drawback of the P-Pro was that it wasn`t very efficient with 16bit code. It was designed for 32bit code/applications. I obviously runs 16bit applications/OS`s but lost efficiency.
The Xenon is basicly the same as the P-PRO in design but with changes to be more optimized in 16bit applications. Also, the Xenon was designed to be run in SMP and thus the CPU`s become "coupled" and throughput increases markedly.
I`m waiting for Xenons and system boards to become cheaper as more recent CPU`s replace them. The Xenon is *NOT* a slot1 CPU but rather a slot "A" CPU.
SMP spec. 1.1/1.4 allow UPTO 16 CPU`s to function together under the correct O/S.
Linux follows this spec and fully supports it. For someone wanting to try Linux under dual (or better) CPU`s I suggest the PII-266-333 because of reduced cost for the system board and CPU`s.
Dual Xenon boards are still expensive and cost on average about 200-300 bucks.
There is a QUAD Xenon board available that i`m aware of but still costs 400-500 bucks *LESS* CPU`s.
So what does the Xenon have over the PIII ?
Very little anymore especially with the PIII-E with its full speed cache and SIMD insruction sets. I don`t remember if the Xenon has MMX support...anyone remember?

[glc]

Xeons have MMX support. The new Xeons have SIMD if I am not mistaken. They are slot 2, not slot A.....slot A is Athlon.

Xeons are Intel's answer for servers and high end workstations.

[LawyerRon]

Fred,
picewatch.com has pricing on the Xeon processor if you're interested. I checked it out and Toaster was right, THEY'RE EXPENSIVE!

------------------
"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves"

[Toaster]

Oops, thx glc for the correction. The Xenon is slot2. I also found a source for 4MB cache Xenon 400-550 CPU`s but they are *very*very* expensive, on the order of 2500 bucks and more. While the Xenon is aimed solely at high end workstations and servers, I would expect the "low end" Xenon`s pricing to bottom out before long. Iv`e looked some into the "overclockability" of the Xenon CPU and havn`t found much. It might be like the P-Pro whoose top end was limited by it`s L2 cache speed.
Like the P-Pro, very few system boards support the Xenon with L2 cache exceeding 1MB and you are advized to make certain that the particular CPU you plan to utilize *is* supported fully by the system board you choose.
Also, dual (and more) Xenon based boards use "VRM" modules for EACH add`l CPU and one MUST use "CPU bus terminators" for EACH un-installed CPU. This adds to the expense to a great degree. Also out there in limited quantity are dual P-Pro based boards. These are fairly cheap at about 100 bucks and the CPUs are about 50 bucks for the 256KB L2 units. Like the Xenon, the P-Pro is available with L2 cache sizes exceeding 2MB and like the Xenon, above 256KB and the cost rockets skyward.
A word of note on "dual" CPU based systems, under Linux, dual based systems perform about 65% faster then those of single CPU based systems. Linux is fully supportive of the P-Pro and utilizes it`s advanced features/registers.