Overclock.net banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
DFI just released it's Pentium M MB and it unbelievable. The board was able to OC a 2Ghz Pen M to 2.53Ghz. Which in return was to beat the P4EE and FX55 in some gaming benchmarks.

I'd get the chip if they would just get a better chipset and em64 instuctions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
817 Posts
I have a little beef with everyone saying that the Pentium M is an amazing CPU. I will almighty it is a great CPU but it is not faster then the P4EE. There are reviews out there that will say it is, they will even give a few graphs of the Pentium M winning a benchmark. However, who plays DOOM 3 at 640X480 on low graphics quality? (maybe you didn't read that under the graph) The Pentium M is able to win these benchmarks because it is more efficient then the P4EE not because it is faster.

It's like this, the Pentium M can handle the small load of data at 640X480 faster then the P4EE can. However, if you cranking it up to 1600X1200 the Pentium M would not be able to keep up. It just can't handle the quantity of data high resolution gaming demands.

If some one can show me a review with a AMD FX-55 vs. a Pentium M, with high resolution games on high quality settings using the same graphics card, then I will believe the Pentium M is an amazing CPU.

Until then, the Pentium M is just a victim of skewed numbers by reviews.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Quote:


Originally Posted by BSman

I have a little beef with everyone saying that the Pentium M is an amazing CPU. I will almighty it is a great CPU but it is not faster then the P4EE. There are reviews out there that will say it is, they will even give a few graphs of the Pentium M winning a benchmark. However, who plays DOOM 3 at 640X480 on low graphics quality? (maybe you didn't read that under the graph) The Pentium M is able to win these benchmarks because it is more efficient then the P4EE not because it is faster.

Here is a review at 1024x768 which is probably the most common resolution used be people.
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...=dfipm&page=10

The reason for all the excitment around the Pen M is that it is an efficant processor and with great performance. It is the same reason that people love the Athlon XP and 64. It seems to me that the Pen M core is way future for Intel not the Prescott and netbuster arcitature. These chips are signs that Intel still might do something right in the future.

Can you imagine what the OC would if you where to use a good heatshink fan combo or watercooled.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,953 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by zother

DFI just released it's Pentium M MB and it unbelievable. The board was able to OC a 2Ghz Pen M to 2.53Ghz. Which in return was to beat the P4EE and FX55 in some gaming benchmarks.

I'd get the chip if they would just get a better chipset and em64 instuctions.

Ummmm, linkage???


Edit: Nvmd, doh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Hmm, nice...Very nice!
Intel's taking back the leader position(IMFO)
2005 are going to be interesting year in cpus and mobos arenas....
Let the war begin!!
(but i don't care)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,953 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by hexogenn

Hmm, nice...Very nice!
Intel's taking back the leader position(IMFO)
2005 are going to be interesting year in cpus and mobos arenas....
Let the war begin!!
(but i don't care)


I agree. I think things are going to be very interesting next year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I agree the year should be intresting, but Intel has a way of making a mess of a good thing. On second thought so does AMD lol. Definitly intresting year to come.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
Frankly, I'm not all that impressed with Dothan. Sure it's a good chip, and it does put up some nice numbers, but it still costs too much. $400-450 and only about as fast as a Athlon 64 3500 that costs $260, still not worth it, but I guess if you love Intel you'll pay the money
You also have to account for the fact that overclocking is a relative process dependant on many things and of course should never expect the same result as someone else. Factor in again that when reviewers overclock CPUs, they often have "special" chips from the manufactures like engineering samples which are tested to run higher than normal speeds.

Well AMDs got dual core chips coming the second half of the year, and Intel is still almost a year behind on that... so I don't see anything spectacular to look forward to on the Intel side of things...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
I'd like to see this baby with an 800fsb & Dual Channel DDR clocked at 3ghz - now that would probably whoop serious butt!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Quote:


Originally Posted by YiffyGriffy

Frankly, I'm not all that impressed with Dothan. Sure it's a good chip, and it does put up some nice numbers, but it still costs too much. $400-450 and only about as fast as a Athlon 64 3500 that costs $260, still not worth it, but I guess if you love Intel you'll pay the money
You also have to account for the fact that overclocking is a relative process dependant on many things and of course should never expect the same result as someone else. Factor in again that when reviewers overclock CPUs, they often have "special" chips from the manufactures like engineering samples which are tested to run higher than normal speeds.

Well AMDs got dual core chips coming the second half of the year, and Intel is still almost a year behind on that... so I don't see anything spectacular to look forward to on the Intel side of things...

There are lots of intel guys out there and it is intresting to see intel going in the right diredtion for ones. I agree that the chips and boards are overpriced now but the tech is the important part. Hopefully intel will actually pay attention to it customers (lol) and do something.

On the dual core front the Pen M would be great for that job. They are low power consumers and as a result give produce little heat. If Intel would just get of it's netbuster high horse and use the Dothan in dual core they could have a chip that would rival AMD at the same clock speed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
Well you have to understand there's more to making a dual core processor than just dumping two cores on one die and packaging it up. That's why Intel is so behind on it, they've had to completely redesign their architecture for multi-core processing whereas the K8 architecture has had the interconnects for multi-core processing from day one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I'm with you on that AMD has a native advantage over Intel in dual core with hypertransport but intel isn't that far behind. They are already producing dual core itianiums and are learning lots from that. They just don't wint to ruin one source of income (very high margin at that) for another. So they are laying low. Intel has already anouced that xeons will get muliple FSB for dual cores and that tech is bound to trickel down.

On the same note I do think that AMD is doing things much better for consumers and they are going to have the better dual core proc. But if intel descides to use Dothan core instead of netbuster it will lead to a better product for all.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
955 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by zother

I'm with you on that AMD has a native advantage over Intel in dual core with hypertransport but intel isn't that far behind. They are already producing dual core itianiums and are learning lots from that. They just don't wint to ruin one source of income (very high margin at that) for another. So they are laying low. Intel has already anouced that xeons will get muliple FSB for dual cores and that tech is bound to trickel down.

On the same note I do think that AMD is doing things much better for consumers and they are going to have the better dual core proc. But if intel descides to use Dothan core instead of netbuster it will lead to a better product for all.


we certainly shall see in due time, shant we
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,896 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by YiffyGriffy

Frankly, I'm not all that impressed with Dothan. Sure it's a good chip, and it does put up some nice numbers, but it still costs too much. $400-450 and only about as fast as a Athlon 64 3500 that costs $260, still not worth it, but I guess if you love Intel you'll pay the money
You also have to account for the fact that overclocking is a relative process dependant on many things and of course should never expect the same result as someone else. Factor in again that when reviewers overclock CPUs, they often have "special" chips from the manufactures like engineering samples which are tested to run higher than normal speeds.

Let's clarify one thing in this argument. At stock speeds, compared to AMD's (since this seems to be the comparison of choice....imagin that....), The 2.0 P-M beats out the 3500+ on all gaming benches, and loses to the 4000+. And, oh, what's this? The 4000+ is $750.....so at the price point of $400-$450, the P-M 2.0 falls right between the price points of the 3500+ and the 4000+, and *gasp* this is reflected in performance.


Furthermore, BSMan, your line of reasoning about the processor not being able to handle the data influx from higher resolutions....I am just plain befuddled at the ignorance of that statement. How much L2 cache does the 3500+ have? (Let me help you out: 512k) How much L2 cache does the 4000+ have? (Here's another nudge in the right direction: 1mb) Now, what about the dothans? Hmmm....would that be 2mb?

And lastly, the primary reason for better gaming performance (drumroll please): a shorter pipeline.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...ngaming&page=1

Oh yeah....and the P-M's have astounding floating point operations capabilities...so oops, there goes AMD's hold on that facet of benchmarking fascination, as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Quote:


Originally Posted by YiffyGriffy

Well you have to understand there's more to making a dual core processor than just dumping two cores on one die and packaging it up. That's why Intel is so behind on it, they've had to completely redesign their architecture for multi-core processing whereas the K8 architecture has had the interconnects for multi-core processing from day one.

I don't know if you say but intel says it will introduce dual core P4s in 3rd Quater of 05. They will be at least somewhat based on the upcoming 600 series of P4s.

I still think Intel should look into implementing dual core with the Dothan core. It will be better for them in the long run. They wont have to hit that heat wall as quickly.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top