[RC5] P4 Speed Question

Dennis Lubert plasmahh at gmx.net
Thu Jun 14 19:04:15 EDT 2001


At 07:31 14.06.01 +0200, you wrote:
>I thought dual Athlons weren't available to the general public.

They are. I have just saw a store who sells them in a magazine




>Ray Booysen
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andrzej Hamka³o" <niktu at dcc.pl>
>To: <rc5 at lists.distributed.net>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:59 PM
>Subject: RE: [RC5] P4 Speed Question
>
>
> > > It is, the nForce chipset from nvidia introduces dual DDR sdram banks
>with
> > > a combined bandwidth of more then the dual channel rdram that intel is
> > > pushing for the p4 and with much lower latency.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, dan the person wrote:
> > >
> > > > Peter Cordes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 12:31:49AM +1200, dan the person wrote:
> > > > > > Only thing super about a p4 is it's super high price.
> > > > >
> > > > >  In their defence, they do have more memory bandwidth than
> > > > > any other PC
> > > > > hardware, with dual rambus channels feeding a 400MHz bus.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is this not more a feature of the motherboard chipset than the
> > > CPU design?
> >
> > Well, time to spam out of list subject a bit ....
> >
> > Processor-memory bandwith depends on motherboard (chipset, type of ram)
> > or processor (type of processor bus)
> > - every time you get LOWER value of both, slower componnent chokes other
>...
> > (extra ram bandwith could be used ie. by graphic pocessor, or in propely
> > designed
> > dual system - Intel designs do not apply, there all procs share same bus
> > ...)
> >
> > Latencies (of memory, chipset and proccesor bus are additive - and
> > bigger latency is bad, FYI ;)
> >
> >
> > and now short look back:
> > <SLB>
> > RDRAM (big latency, big bandwith) +
> > first incarnation Pentium III (100Mhz single pumed bus - rather slooow,
> > even newer 133 version don't catch up even close with RDRAM)
> > =
> > what you get?
> > you right!, weak points of both (big latency, low bandwith system)
> > - but you are proud owner of most expensive system in shop :))))))
> > - congrats to INTEL for that ingenious idea
> > </SLB>
> >
> > and now present:
> > best of best list:
> > DDR RAM - highest badwith, lowest latency, sane price
> > nForce chipset - make that bandwith twice :), one but:
> > you can use it up for bulitin geforce MX ...
> >
> > P4 100*4 bus - nice thingie, but besides bus there are other thingie
> > in processor to watch not to screw up ...
> >
> > AMD's fastest Proc bus is 133*2
> > (if only AMD would launch 266*2 procs :)
> >
> > For accuracy: I know, width of bus are important too (took that under
> > consideration, thats why i won't say that RDRAM's  are fastest :)
> >
> >
> > <rant>
> >
> > But Mhz are THE MOST IMPORTANT, right?
> > Then people buy 1,7GHz P4 system and are suprised ...
> >
> > I bet, the same money could buy you dual Athlon DDR system ...
> > (if not 1,4Ghz kind, certainly 1,33, but considering prices of RDRAM,
> > and i850 motherboard i think you could even save on dual 1,4Ghz  :)
> > you would be suprised, this time rather positively ...
> >
> > Most people don't get it that even single 1,4Ghz Athlon performs better
>than
> > 1,7GHz P4 ...
> > especially on code unoptimized for P4 (currently? - about 98%)
> >
> > Then, most programs that ARE optimized for P4, (or for some strange
>reason,
> > run better :) can take advantage of second processor (2 in price of 1,
> > remember?)
> >
> > I will not compare cow speed on these systems ... (quick guess: 4:1 in
>favor
> > AMD,
> > somebodybdy check that and precise it out), because rarely somebody buys
> > system only to run dnetc.
> >
> > I can't think of application that would justify P4 existance in current
>form
> > ...
> >       ... then again you could run Quake III under win ME  :)))  (scratch
> > one Athlon :))))
> >
> > Now you know why Intel launched 1,3GHz cheepo P4. If somebody wants
> > develop and optimize his apps for P4, you can't force poor guy to waste
>too
> > much
> > money :)
> >
> >
> > </rant>
> >
> > Always wanted to write that:
> > Dear Intel, please make good motherboard chipset at last (DDR?, hoping),
>if
> > Via won't have good
> > concurency, they won't improve their chipsets as much... (that nasty
>latency
> > thing ...)
> > BX owner
> >
> >
> >
> > PS. I didn't bored you to death?, did you really read all of this?, wow :)
> >
> > PPS. excuse my keyboard, it sometimes can't spell propely ;) and
> > excuse me for being blunt, just got fed up with today exam, and had to let
> > off steam ...
> >
> > PPPS. Weird, all my essays always came out shorther than this ...
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
> > rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
> >
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
>rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list