Cedar Mill and Presler -- Netburst done right?

frostedflakes · Post by **frostedflakes** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:33 am

While not quite as efficient as K8 90nm, Intel's lastest (and last) revision of the Netburst architecture looks pretty good. I still think overall Athlon64 is the better package, but Pentium 4 does perform very well in certain areas, so for those who want/need a Pentium 4 and a quiet PC, at least it should be a little easier now.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdo ... i=2578&p=4

vertigo · Post by **vertigo** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:12 am

Isn't the only difference that it is at 65nm? I don't see how you can call it 'done right', considering they haven't changed anything. Long pipelines were always a bad idea, and the motivation for it was simply to outclock AMD.

They wanted to outclock AMD, now they want to outcore AMD. AMD did it right, giving us the K7 then the K8 (and 64-bit). I hope AMD sticks to their guns and continues to provide us with valuable processors.

frostedflakes · Post by **frostedflakes** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:47 pm

I think I remember reading that there's more to Netburst 65nm than just the die shrink, but maybe I'm mistaken.

I don't want this to turn into an AMD vs. Intel thing, though. FWIW, I prefer AMD. I was just pointing out that Pentium 4 are now more power friendly, maybe to the point that they are finally practical for a quiet PC.

Despite it's shortcomings, the long-pipe Netburst architecture does have very solid performance in some areas (encoding and multitasking immediately come to mind) that might make it the processor of choice for certain people.

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:09 pm

Idle power still on same level...

vertigo · Post by **vertigo** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:35 pm

Despite it's shortcomings, the long-pipe Netburst architecture does have very solid performance in some areas (encoding and multitasking immediately come to mind) that might make it the processor of choice for certain people.

You're right about that, but at the same time people grossly overrate what performance they need from a processor. Even encoding video, a few minutes more should hardly make a difference for most people.

People seem to have a fascination with getting 'the best', whether they need it or not. Myself, I bought a Winchester 3000+, and at the moment I am running it at 1GHz. If I ever need to, I can use CCID to up the speed for intensive tasks, but I haven't needed to yet.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:34 am

Good to see those power numbers getting lowered. Next years upcoming CPU's are far more interesting though. Just like frostedflakes I prefer AMD, but I still think P4NW, P3 and PM are excellent processors. I had a hard time choosing between K8 and PM.

I wonder what Ralf Hütter thinks about this. He seems like a genuine Intel guy.

Every second P4 manufacturing process is good?

ckolivas · Post by **ckolivas** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:48 pm

Merom all the way for me next year. 65nM pentiumM x 2 cores with 4MB cache - yum!

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:08 pm

ckolivas wrote:Merom all the way for me next year. 65nM pentiumM x 2 cores with 4MB cache - yum!

Even if Intel calls it Pentium M it won't have much in common with todays PM.

ckolivas · Post by **ckolivas** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:12 pm

Mats wrote:
ckolivas wrote:Merom all the way for me next year. 65nM pentiumM x 2 cores with 4MB cache - yum!
Even if Intel calls it Pentium M it won't have much in common with todays PM.

Yeah well you know like whatever...
It's still a much shorter pipeline fat cache low power cpu which is damn fine in my books.