Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: 90nm question...




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    870

    Default 90nm question...

    Both AMD and Intel are now using 90nm cores, eg. winchester and prescott, why is it that the intel chips heated up when the new core was introduced and the AMD version runs cooler than the older newcastle 130nm cores?
    My Current Rigs:
    Antec P180, OCZ Powerstream 520W, DFI nF4 SLI-DR Expert, AMD X2 4400 w/XP120(2.6GHz@1.45v), 2x1GB OCZ Platnium PC3200, BFG 7900GT@592/800(1.6), WD 250GB SATA, Maxtor 120GB IDE, LG DVD/CD Combo(black), Sony DRU-810 DL DVD Burner(black)
    3DMark01:25379, 3DMark03:19746
    3DMark05:9294, 3DMark06:5340

    Raidmax Cobra, Fortron PN-400W, ASUS A8N-E(nF4 Ultra), X2 3800 w/AMD heatpipe cooler, 2x 512MB Crucial Balistix, ATI X300, WD 250GB IDE, Samsung 16x DVD/RW

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    _
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: 90nm question...

    1) Prescott is running almost double the clockspeed of the winchester, in some cases
    2) Prescott has 1MB L2 cache
    3) Intel has had difficulties with its 90nm process
    4) Because P4's produce more heat due to the higher clockspeed and more L2 cache, the shrink to 90nm had a big effect, concentrating the P4's already high heat dissipation into a smaller area

    AMD has done much better with its 90nm process, along with some modifications (more efficent memory controller?), a clockspeed reduction and the smaller core, the winchester produces somewhat less heat than the newcastle
    Last edited by sr4470; 12-25-2004 at 07:52 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default Re: 90nm question...

    And don't forget those extra pipeline stages that were added. ;)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    870

    Default Re: 90nm question...

    Ok thanks for clearing that up, I was sort of on the right track but... still off.

    Does any one know what intel is doing to fix this, or are they going to bring out a new line of CPU's with a new core, that runs bit cooler?
    My Current Rigs:
    Antec P180, OCZ Powerstream 520W, DFI nF4 SLI-DR Expert, AMD X2 4400 w/XP120(2.6GHz@1.45v), 2x1GB OCZ Platnium PC3200, BFG 7900GT@592/800(1.6), WD 250GB SATA, Maxtor 120GB IDE, LG DVD/CD Combo(black), Sony DRU-810 DL DVD Burner(black)
    3DMark01:25379, 3DMark03:19746
    3DMark05:9294, 3DMark06:5340

    Raidmax Cobra, Fortron PN-400W, ASUS A8N-E(nF4 Ultra), X2 3800 w/AMD heatpipe cooler, 2x 512MB Crucial Balistix, ATI X300, WD 250GB IDE, Samsung 16x DVD/RW

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default Re: 90nm question...

    Quote Originally Posted by Amd_Lover2004
    Does any one know what intel is doing to fix this, or are they going to bring out a new line of CPU's with a new core, that runs bit cooler?
    Well they cancelled the 4GHz version for starters and rumour has it that the next desktop CPU could be based on the Pentium M core.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Placitas, New Mexico
    Posts
    193

    Default Re: 90nm question...

    Pentium M's are looking very nice. I saw some CPU benchmarks that placed a Pentium M @ 2.0ghz tied with an AMD Athlon 64 3200+, and actaully exceeded it in some of the gaming benchs. When they overclocked that Pentium M to 2.3ghz it was in AMD 64 FX territory. Problem is that the desktop motherboards that support the Pentium M are extremely costly, not to mention the pricey CPU itself.
    Intel Pentium 4 2.53GHZ 533FSB
    1024MB PC-3200 DDR-SDRAM
    Sapphire Radeon 9800PRO 128MB
    Foxconn 865-PE6LS Motherboard
    Western Digital WD400BB 40GB, Western Digital WD600BB 60GB Hard Drives
    POWTEC Demon 480W PSU
    Dell UltraSharp 18001FP 18" LCD Monitor
    Windows XP Professional SP2

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    _
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: 90nm question...

    The P4 would be better if it wasnt forever starved of bandwidth, which is a problem the athlon 64s dont have (with a HT bus, and integrated memory controller)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: 90nm question...

    If cheaper or faster Pentium Ms are made Intel may actually have something to compete against AMD with in the enthusiast world, but for now Pentium Ms simply aren't worth the cost. You can overclock a socket 939 3000-3500 to 2.6Ghz and beat out all but the most expensive and overclocked Pentium M system (which an overclock 3700/3800/4000/FX system would beat anyway), and there's no need to even get into stock performance, because the bang-for-buck isn't even close there...

    IMO, Intel probably won't use the Pentium M for the desktop because it would ruin their marketing. Even though they moved from clock speed to model numbers, people will still see a Pentium M and say "but it's only 2GHz," or something to that extent. It also will compete against Prescott and essentially kill it, which ends up meaning a lot of wasted R&D money (though Intel is good at that anyway). It also ruins the dual-core marketing that we're going to start to see in 2005 when dual-core CPUs start hitting desktops and servers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    _
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: 90nm question...

    Strange that intel has such high prices because they dominate the market and make large profits AFAIK...i guess its something that people are willing to pay for a pentium

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    5

    Lightbulb Re: 90nm question...

    Quote Originally Posted by Yawgm0th
    If cheaper or faster Pentium Ms are made Intel may actually have something to compete against AMD with in the enthusiast world, but for now Pentium Ms simply aren't worth the cost. You can overclock a socket 939 3000-3500 to 2.6Ghz and beat out all but the most expensive and overclocked Pentium M system (which an overclock 3700/3800/4000/FX system would beat anyway), and there's no need to even get into stock performance, because the bang-for-buck isn't even close there...

    IMO, Intel probably won't use the Pentium M for the desktop because it would ruin their marketing. Even though they moved from clock speed to model numbers, people will still see a Pentium M and say "but it's only 2GHz," or something to that extent. It also will compete against Prescott and essentially kill it, which ends up meaning a lot of wasted R&D money (though Intel is good at that anyway). It also ruins the dual-core marketing that we're going to start to see in 2005 when dual-core CPUs start hitting desktops and servers.
    Does this mean my dell laptop 3.2m intel chip will run faster than the intel 3.2 chip in my desktop

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •