Why are Conroes faster??

noxidjkram@hotm · 1 Aug 2006 at 09:16

Is it just the 4MB level 2 cache on the faster models? Or is there something else thats making the real difference?

I'll admit I'm lazy and haven't looked around to see if theres a new process technology or other benefit...

M

easyrider · 1 Aug 2006 at 09:18

noxidjkram@hotm said:
Is it just the 4MB level 2 cache on the faster models? Or is there something else thats making the real difference?

I'll admit I'm lazy and haven't looked around to see if theres a new process technology or other benefit...

M

You have just answered your own question!

New process technology !

hp7909 · 1 Aug 2006 at 09:21

http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture/coremicro/index.htm

james.miller · 1 Aug 2006 at 09:24

the easiest way to explain it, without the intel BS on that site, is that fundimentally it just has more of everything. More execution units + better, more advanced logic + more cache = faster cpu. it's like a mentalist version of a pentium 3. Or imagine a bmw m5 with 4 extra cylinders.

tonyyeb · 1 Aug 2006 at 09:32

james.miller said:
the easiest way to explain it, without the intel BS on that site, is that fundimentally it just has more of everything. More execution units + better, more advanced logic + more cache = faster cpu. it's like a mentalist version of a pentium 3. Or imagine a bmw m5 with 4 extra cylinders.

Hmmm! Odd analogy... how about a 6.1lt Dodge Challenger with under 500hp but a BMW M5 has a 5lt v10 but has over 500hp!? Add extra capacity to an engine does not make it more effecient. This is why the conroe is better. It is more efficient.

james.miller · 1 Aug 2006 at 09:43

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/313/1

explains why its an advancement of a the pentium M, and not the p4's netburst which is now defunct. You should also be able work out why i used that analogy. Its a p3/m with bells on. an m5 with a bigger engine ect

Execution Units

Pentium M has five dispatch ports located on its Reservation Station, but only two ports are used to dispatch micro-ops to execution units. The other three are used by memory-related units (Load, Store Address and Store Data). Core microarchitecture has also five dispatch ports, however three of them are used to send micro-ops to execution units. This means that CPUs using Core microarchitecture will be able to send three micro-ops to be executed per clock cycle, contrasted to only two on Pentium M.

Core microarchitecture provides one extra FPU and one extra IEU (a.k.a. ALU) compared to Pentium M’s architecture. This means Core microarchitecture can process three integer instructions per clock cycle, contrasted to only two on Pentium M.

But not all math instructions can be executed on all FPUs. As you can see on Figure 2, floating-point multiplication operations can only be executed on the third FPU and floating-point adds can only be executed on the second FPU. FPmov instructions can be executed on the first FPU or on the other two FPUs if there is no other more complex instruction (FPadd or FPmul) ready to be dispatched to them. MMX/SSE instructions are dealt by the FPU.

On Figure 2 you see a preliminary block diagram of Core microarchitecture execution units.

Core Microarchitecture
click to enlarge
Figure 2: Core microarchitecture execution units.

Another big difference between Pentium M and Pentium 4 architectures to Core architecture is that on Core architecture the Load and Store units have their own address generation units embedded. Pentium 4 and Pentium M have a separated address generation unit, and on Pentium 4 the first ALU is used to store data on memory.

Here is a small explanation of each execution unit found on this CPU:

* IEU: Instruction Execution Unit is where regular instructions are executed. Also known as ALU (Arithmetic and Logic Unit). “Regular” instructions are also known as “integer” instructions.
* JEU: Jump Execution Unit processes branches and is also known as Branch Unit.
* FPU: Floating-Point Unit. Is responsible for executing floating-point math operation and also MMX and SSE instructions. In this CPU the FPUs aren’t “complete”, as some instruction types (FPmov, FPadd and FPmul) can only be executed on certain FPUs:
o FPadd: Only this FPU can process floating-point addition instructions, like ADDPS (which, by the way, is a SSE instruction).
o FPmul: Only this FPU can process floating-point multiplication instructions, like MULPS (which, by the way, is a SSE instruction).
o FPmov: Instructions for loading or copying a FPU register, like MOVAPS (which transfers data to a SSE 128-bit XMM register). This kind of instruction can be executed on any FPU, but on the second and on the third FPUs only if FPadd- or FPmul-like instructions aren’t available in the Reservation Station to be dispatched.
* Load: Unit to process instructions that ask a data to be read from the RAM memory.
* Store Data: Unit to process instructions that ask a data to be written at the RAM memory.

Keep in mind that complex instructions may take several clock cycles to be processed. Let’s take an example of port 2, where the FPmul unit is located. While this unit is processing a very complex instruction that takes several clock ticks to be executed, port 2 won’t stall: it will keep sending simple instructions to the IEU while the FPU is busy.

its not just about efficiancy is it? its about having more units to process information.

tonyyeb · 1 Aug 2006 at 09:49

james.miller said:
Its a p3/m with bells on. an m5 with a bigger engine ect

But my point, James, is that your analogy is too simple. You can't just put a bigger engine in an M5 and expect it to be quicker. Other adjustments have to made, gearbox, uprated suspension, stronger diff, exhaust system, bigger brakes etc... There is more too it than more umph!

james.miller · 1 Aug 2006 at 09:51

e60 m5 is faster than a 335i/d is it not? dont over-complicate analogies. its easy enough to understand.

There is more too it than more umph!

which is what i said. More execution units + better, more advanced logic + more cache = faster cpu
Obviously i missed the minor detail of there being two cores, but meh. That link is a good place to start if you want to know about the fundimental differences, you should read it

Rizz · 1 Aug 2006 at 10:14

Stronger diff, better suspension , exhaust, and brakes do not stop the engine having more power they just stop you killing yourself.

tonyyeb · 1 Aug 2006 at 10:23

Rizz said:
Stronger diff, better suspension , exhaust, and brakes do not stop the engine having more power they just stop you killing yourself.

Well to add to that - stop the car blowing itself up as it fails to deliver the power to the wheels safley! It is a well known fact that you cant just shove 'another more powerful' engine into a car. Morons that do that do end up killing themselves!

rayb74 · 1 Aug 2006 at 10:28

Lol !

6.1 litre dodge........ nice humm and pulls like a train up to 100 mph.

M5 ........ screams up to about 9,000 rpm and gets to 100 mph slightly faster.

Both overkill on our roads and town driving and crap for the environment.

easyrider · 1 Aug 2006 at 10:34

He He,

I have a Pile of coal and a conroe shovel.

The conroes have a shorter pipeline and can process more data per cycle than a pentium 4,an athlon x2 etc,,

its like having a pile of coal ,the conroe is the bigger shovel so can move the pile in less shovels in less time.

The P4,Athlon is the smaller shovel so to move the same ammount of coal it has to move more shovels at a faster pace to move the same ammount.

Thats why the conroe is faster than an FX 62@ 2.8ghz when its running at 2.6ghz

tonyyeb · 1 Aug 2006 at 10:37

easyrider said:
He He,

I have a Pile of coal and a conroe shovel.

The conroes have a shorter pipeline and can process more data per cycle than a pentium 4,an athlon x2 etc,,

its like having a pile of coal ,the conroe is the bigger shovel so can move the pile in less shovels in less time.

The P4,Athlon is the smaller shovel so to move the same ammount of coal it has to move more shovels at a faster pace to move the same ammount.

Thats why the conroe is faster than an FX 62@ 2.8ghz when its running at 2.6ghz

Thats my kind of analogy! Much more logical and accurate

noxidjkram@hotm · 1 Aug 2006 at 10:48

Right....

So if i buy an M5, add extra cylinders, and put some coal and a shovel in the boot i'll understand how the Conroe is faster!

Cheers Guys!

M

tonyyeb · 1 Aug 2006 at 10:50

noxidjkram@hotm said:
Right....

So if i buy an M5, add extra cylinders, and put some coal and a shovel in the boot i'll understand how the Conroe is faster!

Cheers Guys!

M

Lol! Don't forget to upgrade the Diff!

james.miller · 1 Aug 2006 at 11:02

tonyyeb said:
Thats my kind of analogy! Much more logical and accurate

and how does it do that? by doing more per clock cycle, right? how does it do more? by having more execution units. get it?

noxidjkram@hotm · 1 Aug 2006 at 11:15

james.miller said:
and how does it do that? by doing more per clock cycle, right? how does it do more? by having more execution units. get it?

No, no, no - its cos it has a bigger shovel... :rolleyes:

M

nVIDIA_Master · 1 Aug 2006 at 11:43

Lol, waiting for the 2.4ghz 4mb cache ones atm, do you think its worth the extra or jsut go for the lower one?

Gashman · 1 Aug 2006 at 12:07

rayb74 said:
Lol !

6.1 litre dodge........ nice humm and pulls like a train up to 100 mph.

M5 ........ screams up to about 9,000 rpm and gets to 100 mph slightly faster.

Both overkill on our roads and town driving and crap for the environment.

first the M5 absolutely annihilates a crappy dodge at just about everything, plus the M5 is also highly practical car, four doors, big boot and second to non-safety, plus the M5 sounds better when you push the 'M' button and the V10 roars into life, sounds like a dodge on steroids. tony is right as well since transmission is one of the most important parts of how fast a car can do, you need a tranny that gets the power to the road with the least drama.

the car analogy is good stuff, example: 2.0 litre mitubishi lancer evo 8 with huge turbo and 400 brake can keep up with a lamborghini murcielago that has enormous 6 litre V-12 thumping out almost 600 brake, thats how conroe is faster, it has a smaller engine but delivers more power cause it has a huge supercharger

rayb74 · 1 Aug 2006 at 12:32

Gashman said:
first the M5 absolutely annihilates a crappy dodge at just about everything, plus the M5 is also highly practical car, four doors, big boot and second to non-safety, plus the M5 sounds better when you push the 'M' button and the V10 roars into life, sounds like a dodge on steroids. tony is right as well since transmission is one of the most important parts of how fast a car can do, you need a tranny that gets the power to the road with the least drama.

the car analogy is good stuff, example: 2.9 litre mitubishi lancer evo 8 with huge turbo and 400 brake can keep up with a lamborghini murcielago that has enormous 6 litre V-12 thumping out almost 600 brake, thats how conroe is faster, it has a smaller engine but delivers more power cause it has a huge supercharger

Hold on there buddy ! that was just a light hearted generalisation.
Big displacement low compression = 100 mph low revs
smaller displacement high compression = 100 mph higher revs.

If I wanted to go into detail I would and could ( I used to build race engines)

Was just using the two cars already mentioned as an example.

And my friend until you have driven both you cannot make a decision about which is "better" !

Most peeps would like the M5
Some would like the Dodge.

Hell some peeps go crazy over Beetles and 2CV`s !!