• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Struggling to Let go of Netburst

JGBR

JGBR

JGBR

Associate
Joined
18 Mar 2007
Posts
1,838
Hello

In a previous post i mentioned the AMD v Intel war in my house. Im running the last batch of Intel P5D dual cores (930's etc)

Im seeing the big and now proven hype with Core 2, dual and quads -i know price cuts are inbound): im powered with an Asus P5b deluxe wifi yet i feel extremely guilty for only putting the good old Pentium in it!?

I guess i feel somewhat obliged to stick with proven technology - Netburst is what - 30 odd years old now - but i still feel that this dual/quad core buisness is a gimmick that will still be beaten by a faster clocked primary core? (along with still software that is not multi thread adapted).

Or is that a stupid attitude as a basic core 2 cpu will kick the pants of a 945 P5DC?
 
Also need advice if i was to move to core 2 duo:

I have a 3.5ghz PD5DC (955 model): what model would i have to replace it with to ensure i have speed gain? or equal power -if you could say that?

IE : is a Intel Core 2 DUO E6600 "LGA775 Conroe" 2.40GHz (1066FSB) equal power or more power then a 3.5ghz Pentium?
 
JGBR said:
- Netburst is what - 30 odd years old now - but i still feel that this dual/quad core buisness is a gimmick that will still be beaten by a faster clocked primary core? (along with still software that is not multi thread adapted).

Or is that a stupid attitude as a basic core 2 cpu will kick the pants of a 945 P5DC?
Click to expand...

Netburst on the whole is probably newer thant core 2 architecture, since a lot of core 2 is P6 based. Netburst was a trial at a newer architecture that did'nt quite pan out. A basic core 2 will give the 945 a good run and once overclocked it'll rape it.
 
An E6300 overclocked to 3.2 (should be easy on your mobo so long as you have decent RAM) would absolutely destroy anything other then a C2D.
 
lol netburst wasn't as god awful as people make it out to be, its perfectly capable of running any program you want to run really, period, the pentium D 9 series was pretty good overall too, plus the overclocks were great, just cause they were a little slower than the K8 don't mean there crap processors, there cheap as hell anyways now
 
Gashman said:
lol netburst wasn't as god awful as people make it out to be, its perfectly capable of running any program you want to run really, period, the pentium D 9 series was pretty good overall too, plus the overclocks were great, just cause they were a little slower than the K8 don't mean there crap processors, there cheap as hell anyways now
Click to expand...



They were more expensive than AMD, slower, used more power....

C2D >> AMD64 >>> P4.

a E6300/E6400 will beat a 3.6ghz P4, and once overclocked to 3.2+ghz it will trounce anything!
 
Gashman said:
lol netburst wasn't as god awful as people make it out to be, its perfectly capable of running any program you want to run really, period, the pentium D 9 series was pretty good overall too, plus the overclocks were great, just cause they were a little slower than the K8 don't mean there crap processors, there cheap as hell anyways now
Click to expand...

They're not bad, enjoyed my Northwoods, Smithfields and Cedarmills but towards the end even a lot of Intel fanboys i know stopped harping about the PIVs superior power. It was never the 'revolution' that Intel tried to make it out to be. Overall it did do well, apart from some travesties like the Williamette and Prescott :D At the end of the day though, the power requirements and cooling plus the fact that AMD cpus were cheaper and faster did'nt work for them.
 
oh for the love of christ, thats not what i meant, jesus! i didn't for a second say it was faster than K8, and you can't seriously compare K8 and netburst clock for clock, its stupid, like comparing a cat and a shark, there two totally different things, and who gives a damn if C2D will beat a P4, overclock an X2 to 3.2Ghz and it'll stamp all over an E6300s face, but who cares? thats again not the point, the point was NETBURST IS STILL FINE BY TODAYS STANDARDS, THERE NOT AS SLOW AS THERE MADE OUT TO BE, THERE IS PENTIUM D IN OTHER COMPUTER AND IT RUNS EVERYTHING JUST FINE! :mad:
 
Gashman said:
oh for the love of christ, thats not what i meant, jesus! i didn't for a second say it was faster than K8, and you can't seriously compare K8 and netburst clock for clock, its stupid, like comparing a cat and a shark, there two totally different things, and who gives a damn if C2D will beat a P4, overclock an X2 to 3.2Ghz and it'll stamp all over an E6300s face, but who cares? thats again not the point, the point was NETBURST IS STILL FINE BY TODAYS STANDARDS, THERE NOT AS SLOW AS THERE MADE OUT TO BE, THERE IS PENTIUM D IN OTHER COMPUTER AND IT RUNS EVERYTHING JUST FINE! :mad:
Click to expand...

Geez no need to bust a vein over it, its a cpu dude :D
 
Justintime said:
Geez no need to bust a vein over it, its a cpu dude :D
Click to expand...

i think its too late.

if he doesn't post again I guess we'll know what killed him.






oh btw.....p4 is crap :p
 
Gashman said:
you can't seriously compare K8 and netburst clock for clock, its stupid, like , there two totally different things,
Click to expand...


odd, they both look like processors to me.

and a cat and a shark? how you gonna bring them into this comparrison? one is in water and the other is on land? they are totally different.

but both k8 and p4 are processors, both work in a pc and both do the same thing, process data.
not sure what your getting at saying that they are different when they are not,
 
Netburst's work, they arnt the greatest, but if you have enough processing power, then there is no reason to change.

However, assuming a comparison between a dual core P4, and a Core 2 Duo, in a balanced mix of various tests, a Core 2 Duo, will perform almost the same as a P4D running at twice its clock rate.

IE a 2Ghz C2D can keep up with 'most' benchmarks made by a 4Ghz P4D.

I went from a 3.2Ghz Northwood system to a 2.67Ghz C2D, and it was a seriously big upgrade performance wise. I've not even bothered clocking the C2D its running stock (Although I've tested 3.2Ghz and its stable). But just dont see the need at the moment. Its so fast anyway.

So yes, the C2D will kick the pants of a P4D 945... but if you dont need the extra speed right now, then you can still wait for faster and cheaper models.

For me, the switch from a single core Northood 3.2Ghz to a Core 2 Duo 2.67 was a no brainer, simply because of the magnitude of difference in performance between the two processors.
 
Intel just run out of time to keep NetBurst going. Despite what many people think, it's not dead. NetBurst is very likely to return in a much bigger and much better way. NetBurst is quite a parallel architecture (the most that x86 has ever seen) and given that parallelism is the way things are headed these days it is almost a given that Intel will resurrect it in some form.

Core 2 is nowhere near as parallel'able as NetBurst and is very much an interim solution to the "K8 problem" that Intel were having. Yes it performs very quickly today, but it just isn't going scale very well past 4 cores. Neither will K8 or K8L.

With the right manufacturing breakthroughs (and they are in the pipeline) NetBurst will easily exceed their original MHz targets. Probably be a decade late and at a time when people are more concerned with boasting about the amount of cores they've got rather than MHz, mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom