Intrabyte Posted July 20, 2002 Share Posted July 20, 2002 did anybody found some sources on this upcomming killer cpu (amd ownz!) I keep finding these websites but not in english :ermm: I only found this image which the link was provided by shacknews :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted July 21, 2002 Share Posted July 21, 2002 Originally posted by Intrabyte did anybody found some sources on this upcomming killer cpu (amd ownz!) I keep finding these websites but not in english :ermm: I only found this image which the link was provided by shacknews :p why don't you compare that too an Itanium 2 , let see who ownz, who.. :dead: my point is simple, you cannot compare a 32bit proc, to a hybrid 32/64 bit proc, no duh the hybrid will win, but compare that to a straight up 64bit CPU. such as Itanium 2. i think Intel Ownz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Zollo Posted July 21, 2002 Share Posted July 21, 2002 That chart is very messed up, they're comparing processors with completely different architecture. Example - you can't compare a PowerPC 4 (G4) to an AMD or Intel processor, plain and simple. xStainDx is right, of course the claw hammer will be faster than the Pentium 4, because it's a x86-64bit processor. Weather the Itanium 2 will be faster or not...that remains to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galperi1 Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 xstaindx if you looked at the graph... the Itanium 2 is there Itanium "Mckinley" 1 ghz and from the looks of it... it's getting it's butt wooped. For a 3,000$ CPU I'd expect a little more. Even the P4 @ 3Ghz which is gonna be cheaper is beating it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 that chart is like 2 months old, we will see when it gets here OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatter Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Originally posted by JZolloXP That chart is very messed up, they're comparing processors with completely different architecture. Example - you can't compare a PowerPC 4 (G4) to an AMD or Intel processor, plain and simple. Umm, yes you can. Processors only do one thing: calculations. A calculation on an x86-32 or IA64 is the same as a calculation on a Power4. These tests have been optimized for the processor they are testing, so it is fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Originally posted by galperi1 xstaindx if you looked at the graph... the Itanium 2 is there Itanium "Mckinley" 1 ghz and from the looks of it... it's getting it's butt wooped. For a 3,000$ CPU I'd expect a little more. Even the P4 @ 3Ghz which is gonna be cheaper is beating it out which mckinly is it? the one with 3MB L3 cache? comon i think these tests are flawed.... to me it doesn't matter , cuz IMO 64 is useless for anyone who isn't doing scientific numerical crunching. secondly how many applications are in 64 bit? now? people are screaming all over clawhammer. why? find me one thing that is useful to me for that type of proc. besides XP 64 bit edition. also, a 3 GHz P4 Northwood is faster than a 1GHz 64 Bit? these results are insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 it runs all verson of windows (32bit) just fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts