Anandtech Previews 65nm

[coz]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2578&p=1

The new 65nm parts are looking pretty good so far......

Cedar Mill (single core, stock HSF) overclock......

Presler (dual core, stock HSF) overclock......

Not too shabby eh?

 

[perplex]

not too impressive apart from the overclockability.

i'm waiting for yonah and the merom, conroe stuff!

 

[Josh_B]

not too impressive apart from the overclockability.

i'm waiting for yonah and the merom, conroe stuff!

Merom is what I want to see.

 

[Donnie27]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2578&p=1

The new 65nm parts are looking pretty good so far......

Do those guys ever get tired of being AMD cheerleaders?

Donnie27

 

[FrgMstr]

I am not sure there is a lot to cheer about there on the Intel side of things in terms of power consumption....

 

[coz]

not too impressive apart from the overclockability.

Those power consumption figures don't impress you? At 3.6GHz under load, Cedar Mill is consuming 37 watts less than Prescott and it's still consuming less power when running at 4.5GHz!! Presler consumes about the same power as Smithfield even when running 600MHz faster on two cores.

Considering the massive increase in power leakage when Intel shifted from 130nm to 90nm I think Intel have done a pretty good job with 65nm judging by the power consumption of Presler and Cedar Mill.

 

[Jonsey]

An overclocking review with only stock HSF? Who uses that when overclocking a P4 these days? I would like to have seen results with a good aircooling solution, or water. My 3.4 would do a maximum of 3.8 with the stock HSF. With chilled water, it can do 4.35. The same level of overclocking with better cooling would get the cedar mill to 5 GHz. That might not be too bad for a gaming rig...

 

[NarcotizeLeo]

Was that 4500 core speed i see? Thats dam gd. Definately looks like the 65nm are more efficent, but not the sort of drop that would knock my socks off.

 

[Josh_B]

Do those guys ever get tired of being AMD cheerleaders?

Donnie27

Anand is one of the few people I trust to write reviews.

Besides, not to thread crap, but the new P4's just don't really have many improvements. They will perform roughly equal to the current P4s, and thus aren't anything terribly new or exciting. The power consumption even on the new CPUs is not that great - I am actually dissapointed in both Intel and AMD for not reducing power consumption enough!

 

[Eva_Unit_0]

They will perform roughly equal to the current P4s, and thus aren't anything terribly new or exciting

Yes, and that's exactly why I'm not impressed. Architecturally nothing has changed...it's still the same old netburst. You guys are right, power consumption is considerably lower and overclockability is looking very nice. But it's still going to perform a like a prescott, and even at 4.5ghz a little A64 at 2.5ghz will destroy it in gaming. As long as intel is still using that architecture nothing they do will excite me...I want pentium M on the desktop! THEN you guys will have something to be excited about.

EDIT: out of curiosity, does anyone know why cpu-z is reporting them as socket 478 chips? Just a misnomer?

 

[coz]

As long as intel is still using that architecture nothing they do will excite me...

Yup, that's exactly how I feel. Netburst is so hopeless you've got to clock it a couple of Ghz faster than everthing else just to get some performance out of it. I always thought progress in microprocessors meant doing more per clock-cycle instead of less. Intel have tried to make-up for the poor performance with more cache, more GHz and faster FSB speeds but that left us with huge power consumption and lots of heat. I'm glad to see that low-IPC high-watt CPUs are going in the dustbin to be replaced by high-IPC low-watt ones.

The fact that Netburst is a dead-end is probably why we've seen no new developments with Cedar Mill and Presler. The new Netburst chips are probably nothing more than a stop-gap solution until Conroe arrives and also a test-bed for 65nm tech.

 

[NulloModo]

dp, whoops

 

[NulloModo]

Nutburst had(has) potential... Intel just ran into manufacturing problems that stopped them before they got the Ghz they needed out of it to really make it work, well, that and they didn't think forward enough to plan a new FSB system similar to the AMD HT. Really, that is the only thing giving AMD CPUs such crazy leads right now, the HT Bus. If Intel had a similar integrated memory controller that 4.5 Ghz Cedar Mill would be able to easily smoke a 4000+ A64.

Plus, Netburst _should_ be running in the 5Ghz+ range by now. Even with the memory bottlenecks a 5 or 6Ghz would be able to outperform most of the AMD line, even if not being incredibly efficient at it...

 

[Bona Fide]

IMO, Intel needs to move towards an onboard memory controller and/or northbridge. No need to play the "Gigahertz Game" anymore. Raw speed, as AMD has proven, can easily be beaten by an efficient memory controller.

 

[Jonsey]

IMO, Intel needs to move towards an onboard memory controller and/or northbridge. No need to play the "Gigahertz Game" anymore. Raw speed, as AMD has proven, can easily be beaten by an efficient memory controller.

It's more a matter of Intel beating themselves. When was the last time Intel released a higher clocked processor? Clock speed increases are still the fastest way to better performance. Intel can't turn up the speed anymore, so they look bad compared to AMD.

Intel doesn't need to copy AMD's memory controller. That would be playing catch up. They need to leap frog AMD with some technologies that make us sit up and take notice.

 

[kirbyrj]

IMO, Intel needs to move towards an onboard memory controller and/or northbridge.

Integrated memory controller is not the end all you're trying to make it out to be. Just reference all the memory problems A64 parts have (4 sticks at 1T?, 4 sticks at DDR333?, compatibility issues?, etc.). It is faster, but it brings along a new set of challenges.

Raw speed, as AMD has proven, can easily be beaten by an efficient memory controller.

It's not the efficient memory controller beating Intel. It's the whole architecture of the P4 beating itself with heat and the lack of clockspeed to make the architecture work. For examples look at the P-M overclocking articles and how they do against similarly clocked A64's. They tend to get a similar/better performance even with their northbridge memory controller.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

Integrated memory controller is not the end all you're trying to make it out to be. Just reference all the memory problems A64 parts have (4 sticks at 1T?, 4 sticks at DDR333?, compatibility issues?, etc.). It is faster, but it brings along a new set of challenges.

but you have to remember, even at 2T, the integrated memory controller has better performance than one integrated to the northbridge, off the cpu

 

[Jonsey]

but you have to remember, even at 2T, the integrated memory controller has better performance than one integrated to the northbridge, off the cpu

The point is that the 20% increase AMD realized with the integrated memory controller wouldn't have made much difference if Intel could still double their clock speed every 12-18 months.

 

[osirus35]

all these core names i get confused. Which one is supposed to be the desktop chip to not use netburst technology and is based off of the pentium M?

 

[perplex]

i'm not impressed but that doesnt mean i think its a bad thing. its a very good thing, a step in the right direction. atleast theyre trying to bring down power consumption. and next architecture will do it well lets hope.

 

[robberbaron]

all these core names i get confused. Which one is supposed to be the desktop chip to not use netburst technology and is based off of the pentium M?

The graphs tell you, but if you want it spelled out in text...

Cedar Mill is Prescott in 65nm form (Netburst)
Presler is Smithfield in 65nm form (Netburst)
Yonah is a new dual core in 65nm form (Pentium M)

Really, that is the only thing giving AMD CPUs such crazy leads right now, the HT Bus. If Intel had a similar integrated memory controller that 4.5 Ghz Cedar Mill would be able to easily smoke a 4000+ A64.

HyperTransport has little to do with the memory controller, but ok.
That aside, the AMD architecture is amazingly elegant, especially their dual core. The SRI would be a bus that you Intel guys should be more in envy of than HTT.

Plus, Netburst _should_ be running in the 5Ghz+ range by now. Even with the memory bottlenecks a 5 or 6Ghz would be able to outperform most of the AMD line, even if not being incredibly efficient at it...

If Intel were to get that speed out of their chips, AMD would be able to get more speed out of their's too, since they're working with the same elements. The temps required to take a P4 to 6GHz take an AMD to 4GHz. The AMD at 4GHz will just about whip the P4 in everything, since the P4 doesn't get a whole lot faster after around 4GHz. Look at benches at XS to see depressing diminishing returns for clockspeed on the P4's.

 

[Grazehell]

Do those guys ever get tired of being AMD cheerleaders?

Donnie27

well its true the 65nm P4's still suck and Anand is not the only one that say its so go bitch to intel!

 

[coz]

Which one is supposed to be the desktop chip to not use netburst technology and is based off of the pentium M?

Conroe. Expect it sometime in the 2nd half of '06.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

The point is that the 20% increase AMD realized with the integrated memory controller wouldn't have made much difference if Intel could still double their clock speed every 12-18 months.

true, but more mhz = more heat.. which is fine if you like leaving your heater off in the late fall and early spring

If Intel were to get that speed out of their chips, AMD would be able to get more speed out of their's too, since they're working with the same elements. The temps required to take a P4 to 6GHz take an AMD to 4GHz. The AMD at 4GHz will just about whip the P4 in everything, since the P4 doesn't get a whole lot faster after around 4GHz. Look at benches at XS to see depressing diminishing returns for clockspeed on the P4's.

and with 65nm, good single core a64's should be able to do pretty close to 4ghz without phase change

 

[Donnie27]

well its true the 65nm P4's still suck and Anand is not the only one that say its so go bitch to intel!

Not me LOL! I'm building an AMD Rig myself. I just don't see the trouble Intel is in while they continue to rake in record profits on record sales. The whole 1.7% of the computer market that makes up the DIY sector lives in an alternate reality where they don't know what suck means.

AMD's market share moved up when they launched something better than their old POS AthlonXP notebooks and Semprons for the desktop. Intel's number one seller is the Celeron followed by Pentium M (both M and Celeron M), we all know how much Desktop Celeron sucks So keep that in mind as Intel is still bringing in money hand over fist. This even while many AMD followers see Intel being crushed by the Mighty Hammer of Thor, erum AMD.

It's not WHAT Anandtech says, it's HOW they say it. While Anand and the gang Cheerleads, AMD can only wish they Sucked like Intel.

Donnie27

 

[Donnie27]

The graphs tell you, but if you want it spelled out in text...

Cedar Mill is Prescott in 65nm form (Netburst)
Presler is Smithfield in 65nm form (Netburst)
Yonah is a new dual core in 65nm form (Pentium M)


HyperTransport has little to do with the memory controller, but ok.
That aside, the AMD architecture is amazingly elegant, especially their dual core. The SRI would be a bus that you Intel guys should be more in envy of than HTT.


If Intel were to get that speed out of their chips, AMD would be able to get more speed out of their's too, since they're working with the same elements. The temps required to take a P4 to 6GHz take an AMD to 4GHz. The AMD at 4GHz will just about whip the P4 in everything, since the P4 doesn't get a whole lot faster after around 4GHz. Look at benches at XS to see depressing diminishing returns for clockspeed on the P4's.

Almost, first of all Pentium M in Games proves the Memory Controller is not all that. The main problem Netburst had was and is Prescott=p Intel can get more MHz but you're right, it does get to a point of diminishin returns. AMD short pipes or fewer stages holds it back from getting more MHz, they are not equal and AMD can't get more MHz just because Intel is. AMD will lenghten and or add more pipes to get more MHz, just as Conroe will have only 14 or so they say. Core latency is Prescott's problem as well as the 31 pipes, sound like Baskin Robbins or something.

Then, Intel has a Processor that runs on a stationary BUS. AMD doesn't and has to speed up everything. Once AMD starts adding more MHz, they also start to draw as much lower and put off as much heat as Intel.

Donnie27

 

[robberbaron]

I know the fewer stages holds it back, but temperatures are the reasons neither are getting ahead. Yes, the K8 scales up to 4GHz with adequate cooling, which is about twice the speed as most Athlon64's. Same goes for the P4 (about double the stock speed), the best hit around 6-6.5.

Pentium M is a pretty impessive chip, though. With a 6600 Go, my notebook is able to play newer games just fine on the 740. What sucks about the Pentium M is that any chip over 1.7GHz costs an arm and a leg, whereas I can get an easy-to-reach 3GHz AMD chip (and did) for $160. I've yet to find a suitable Pentium M-board combo that would be worthwhile (cost-wise) to get over my DFI and Opteron/X2.

Also, my Opteron at 3GHz loaded at about 50C on air cooling. That's quite a bit lower than a Pentium 4 overclocked by 1.2GHz.

 

[osirus35]

but the conroe seems to be the answer to this. more efficiency, less heat, and better performance yields. (in theory anyways)

 

[sabrewolf732]

Not me LOL! I'm building an AMD Rig myself. I just don't see the trouble Intel is in while they continue to rake in record profits on record sales. The whole 1.7% of the computer market that makes up the DIY sector lives in an alternate reality where they don't know what suck means.

AMD's market share moved up when they launched something better than their old POS AthlonXP notebooks and Semprons for the desktop. Intel's number one seller is the Celeron followed by Pentium M (both M and Celeron M), we all know how much Desktop Celeron sucks So keep that in mind as Intel is still bringing in money hand over fist. This even while many AMD followers see Intel being crushed by the Mighty Hammer of Thor, erum AMD.

It's not WHAT Anandtech says, it's HOW they say it. While Anand and the gang Cheerleads, AMD can only wish they Sucked like Intel.

Donnie27

so why are you posting here? what is the point of your posts? This is a hardware forum where superior performance wins, not which company makes more $$$$

 

[sabrewolf732]

I know the fewer stages holds it back, but temperatures are the reasons neither are getting ahead. Yes, the K8 scales up to 4GHz with adequate cooling, which is about twice the speed as most Athlon64's. Same goes for the P4 (about double the stock speed), the best hit around 6-6.5.

Pentium M is a pretty impessive chip, though. With a 6600 Go, my notebook is able to play newer games just fine on the 740. What sucks about the Pentium M is that any chip over 1.7GHz costs an arm and a leg, whereas I can get an easy-to-reach 3GHz AMD chip (and did) for $160. I've yet to find a suitable Pentium M-board combo that would be worthwhile (cost-wise) to get over my DFI and Opteron/X2.

Also, my Opteron at 3GHz loaded at about 50C on air cooling. That's quite a bit lower than a Pentium 4 overclocked by 1.2GHz.

yeah and a pentium 4 1.2 GHz != a64 1.2GHz gain, each amd mhz is more performance.

 

[Donnie27]

This is a hardware forum where superior performance wins, not which company makes more $$$$

Oh no, not you again. If you really believe that, you're lost and clueless! People buy winners and they're still buying Intel no matter how much or what AMD followers say.

I'll ask you, why are you posting here? This side of the Forum is not meant for AMD Zealots. What's the point of your posts? Since it adds nothing to the topic.

Donnie27

 

[robberbaron]

Oh no, not you again. If you really believe that, you're lost and clueless! People buy winners and they're still buying Intel no matter how much or what AMD followers say.

I'll ask you, why are you posting here? This side of the Forum is not meant for AMD Zealots. What's the point of your posts? Since it adds nothing to the topic.

Donnie27

He's just saying that there are different ways of gauging how "good" a company's product is. From a business standpoint, Intel has the edge. In the eyes of enthusiasts, who care more about performance than the average user so that they can win at their precious benchmarks, the AMD's are "better than intel."

Saying that because Intel makes more money than AMD necessarily translates to the P4 being a superior product in itself to the AMD64 is a clueless statement. It's like saying that a Ford Taurus is better than a ferrari because Ford sells more tauruses.

 

[Donnie27]

I know the fewer stages holds it back, but temperatures are the reasons neither are getting ahead. Yes, the K8 scales up to 4GHz with adequate cooling, which is about twice the speed as most Athlon64's. Same goes for the P4 (about double the stock speed), the best hit around 6-6.5.

Pentium M is a pretty impessive chip, though. With a 6600 Go, my notebook is able to play newer games just fine on the 740. What sucks about the Pentium M is that any chip over 1.7GHz costs an arm and a leg, whereas I can get an easy-to-reach 3GHz AMD chip (and did) for $160. I've yet to find a suitable Pentium M-board combo that would be worthwhile (cost-wise) to get over my DFI and Opteron/X2.

Also, my Opteron at 3GHz loaded at about 50C on air cooling. That's quite a bit lower than a Pentium 4 overclocked by 1.2GHz.

Most air overclocks of A64 and Opteron have been more like 2.6 to 2.8 even with water. There have been a few hit 3GHz but not that easy. Even between Anandtech's jumpping and dumpping Presler and Cedar Mill, it still shows a 3.4 running cooler than their 2.8. This is a good thing, not bad. Tons of overclockers will also say Anandtech is FOS with that 3.9 crack. 4 to at least 4.25GHz is commonplace with just water cooling. Results seen at overclockers.com and xtremesytem.org.

With that said, I'm not really interested in overclocking as much as I'm interested in the stock temps and how much they dropped going from 90 to 65nm. Intel's main aim was to make these cheap and even said as much LOL! There's no hiding the fact that Conroe is the real upgrade and NO ONE has been as tight lipped as AMD. There are also procs like the 6x2 series that with VT as well. Give Intel some credit just like they told folks about 800 FSB Northwoods. Hell, I think they suck more for all of the Chipsets lately.

Even as I buy AMD processors, all I'm saying is that I don't have to be a DieHard fanatic to do so like that other person who posted to me.

Donnie27

 

[Donnie27]

He's just saying that there are different ways of gauging how "good" a company's product is. From a business standpoint, Intel has the edge. In the eyes of enthusiasts, who care more about performance than the average user so that they can win at their precious benchmarks, the AMD's are "better than intel."

Saying that because Intel makes more money than AMD necessarily translates to the P4 being a superior product in itself to the AMD64 is a clueless statement. It's like saying that a Ford Taurus is better than a ferrari because Ford sells more tauruses.

It is NOT CLUELESS LOL! Just as the A64 is not Ferrari, hehehehe! If it weren't for the AthlonXP, A64 would have driven AMD out of business by now. Farrari doesn't make a low cost model. They only sold high end models. If AMD did the same, Seimens or etc would own them by now. The other point is I didn't say the P4 was superior where the hell did you get that?

Please, you don't know him like I do. Hell, he thought the AthlonXP was great.

I said what I said because just winning a benchmark is almost useless. AMD won some benchmarks when they had crappy plarforms. These are business and the aim of any business is to make money. That's where INTEL wins, slower benchmarks and all. AMD lost money because they couldn't get processors out the door. Low yields mean higher prices and that slows sales. That's not phucking winning anything.

This market is small and means almost nothing. I game and I also do Photo, Video and Audio work. I'm not the only one who thinks only games and old assed unoptimized apps are the norm or that common. My computers are more than overpriced XBOX's.

Donnie27

 

[sabrewolf732]

Oh no, not you again. If you really believe that, you're lost and clueless! People buy winners and they're still buying Intel no matter how much or what AMD followers say.

I'll ask you, why are you posting here? This side of the Forum is not meant for AMD Zealots. What's the point of your posts? Since it adds nothing to the topic.

Donnie27

I'm calling you retard, there I put it in laymans terms. Btw, I have 3 P-M systems. It's just netburst that blows. So why are you posting? if you buy because intel is the larger company and has better advertising, but not better performance you shouldn't be on this forum

 

[sabrewolf732]

Most air overclocks of A64 and Opteron have been more like 2.6 to 2.8 even with water. There have been a few hit 3GHz but not that easy.

Many venices hit 2.7-2.8 on the stock aluminum cooler. Obviously, you do not know what you're talking about.

With that said, I'm not really interested in overclocking as much as I'm interested in the stock temps and how much they dropped going from 90 to 65nm. Intel's main aim was to make these cheap and even said as much LOL! There's no hiding the fact that Conroe is the real upgrade and NO ONE has been as tight lipped as AMD. There are also procs like the 6x2 series that with VT as well. Give Intel some credit just like they told folks about 800 FSB Northwoods. Hell, I think they suck more for all of the Chipsets lately.

the "c" series was the only good p4 in netburst's history, it destroyed it's competition (barton)

Even as I buy AMD processors, all I'm saying is that I don't have to be a DieHard fanatic to do so like that other person who posted to me.

you're the only fanatic here. you stated that whether or not amd performs better does not really matter as intel makes more $$$. You posted this on an enthusiest forum. These people care about performance, now how much $ a company makes. You see many of us with dells? You're a real genius.

 

[Chris_Morley]

Donnie27, you mention performance outside of gaming as if Intel is wining in that area...in my experience they are not...and I've experienced the latest P4's, PD's, A64's, and A64 X2's...

 

[sabrewolf732]

I'll ask you, why are you posting here? This side of the Forum is not meant for AMD Zealots. What's the point of your posts? Since it adds nothing to the topic.

Donnie27

Oh yeah, I can post wherever I damn well please and I will post whenver there are fallacies in someone's post.

 

[Chris_Morley]

Ya know, the most underrated Intel products right now are their BTX stuff. Seriously, I put together a couple of systems, the latest with Evercase's mBTX offering...the final result was just sublime...it was so quiet, there was SOOO much functionality in such a little chassis, and damn if for once I was able to get the right riser cards to add a full size graphics solution. Oh and it kept everything pretty cool....

 

[sabrewolf732]

yeah I wonder why btx isn't more popular. Pretty good idea imho