Printable View
wth? almost mid january and still no prescotts? yeaaaah there are no manufacturing probs eh intel? :rolleyes:
still no single review... where did all those samples go intel said it send out in november and december already?
did anybody find a review? anything?
The official Prescott is out in 2nd feb, so before have real result have to wait until that date
NDA?
what is NDA?????
no disclosure agreement, cant so anything or sued.
FUGGER has one but yes, there is an NDA...he says he is waiting for a BIOS update to make it work properly (don't know which board this is).
Official date is Feb. 02 for release.
i think some compagnies are lauching there Prescott support BIOS the 15th.
heard that from xbitlabs
here is a good review on prescott. It's the only one i could find.
http://www.ocheaven.com/article/0310...icle.asp?id=26
some important performance highlights...
http://www.oc.com.tw/article/0309/im...tsuperpi1M.gif
http://www.oc.com.tw/article/0309/im...taquamark3.gif
http://www.oc.com.tw/article/0309/im...mark2001se.gif
http://www.oc.com.tw/article/0309/im...ubench2003.gif
things look promising for prescott, which is expected to ramp to 4ghz by the end of the year.
that article is really really old;). But its the more concluant ive seen.
I think by those we can see its an minor improvement for cheap, i think its a better buy then the nothy(at start). theyre looking good;)
i'm very optimisitic about the potential of prescott, like you said, it's the same price as current northwoods, but have bigger L1, L2. This prescott benchmark is old, so i'm sure newer ones will be even better! the prescott was using old package stepping and the mobos bios was not updated so, the performance was hindered.Quote:
Originally posted by skate2snow
that article is really really old;). But its the more concluant ive seen.
I think by those we can see its an minor improvement for cheap, i think its a better buy then the nothy(at start). theyre looking good;)
You are "optimistic" even though Intel says they are slower than a P4EE clock for clock and reports indicate that they run way too hot for a 90nm CPU? Hmmmmmmmmm...Quote:
Originally posted by Kanavit
i'm very optimisitic about the potential of prescott, like you said, it's the same price as current northwoods, but have bigger L1, L2. This prescott benchmark is old, so i'm sure newer ones will be even better! the prescott was using old package stepping and the mobos bios was not updated so, the performance was hindered.
So you think Asia is excluded from the NDA?
Can you say s p e c u l a t i o n ?????:D
its slower then a P4EE, but for 600$ less i go for Prescott, and i think everybody whould do the same thing.
And for the hot, we have nothing that proove it.
Yeah...just like the "reports" of 9800XTs not OCing very well because they were "at their limit already." :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by StormPC
You are "optimistic" even though Intel says they are slower than a P4EE clock for clock and reports indicate that they run way too hot for a 90nm CPU? Hmmmmmmmmm...
So you think Asia is excluded from the NDA?
Can you say s p e c u l a t i o n ?????:D
They are here in retail from the 14.01.2004 onwards, depending on the speed of the chip
3,0 ghz prescott 14.01
3,2 ghz prescott 24.01 and so on
2 weeks ago I asked my Intel contact to share prescott sample :) No :( He gave us instead P4EE-3.4, but no Prescott still. Will try next week:)
they cant send Prescott right now. Is your 3.4EE work well
I cant wait for the prescott release. Not because I want one but because I want my A64 3400+ cooled by Mach2 thrash the he|| out of it.
I am an intel fanboy actually but I think the future is with AMD (unless intel can make the EE's 64bit and cheaper)
Prescott or Tejas are supposed to have a new feature in there HT that is... It will have an combined 32Bit in there HT that will do 64Bit logical at the end(not hardware), but it supposed to work almost better then ahardware coze of a kind translation, i dont really catch what it is, but its a 64Bit CPU. Sorry to not have a link, search somewhere in Xbitlabs and you will see.
logical 64 bit is useless i think i cpu that hasnt got 64 lines of address bus and data bus is not 64 bit and if they cant run 64 bit os then if they want they can make 256 bit logical cpu who cares
it supposed to be 2x32bit, coze of its 2x32bit theyre not alowed to say its a 64bit or something like that, so theyre saying its logical and its logical in part coze it goes trugh the two lines and in the logical it merges to a 64bit. Its something like that.
sorry i CANT find the link:(. I whould love to find it to show you what i meen
thanks i really be happy if you find that link :)
here is a link providing more info on clues to yamhill.Quote:
Originally posted by kromosto
thanks i really be happy if you find that link :)
http://www.chip-architect.net/news/2...r_Yamhill.html
Prescott has 2x 32-bit integer execution cores. 1 with 256bit register + 6 flags. Other with 256bit register and 32-bit data.
These instructions are disabled for the time being , but could be enabled as early as 2004.
Clues to 64-bit Prescott
1. The second Integer Unit has no AGU's (Fast double clocked Address Generator Units). A virtual address size of 40 or 48 bits would be sufficient for the time being. (It's 48 bits in the first implementation of the Hammer family)
2.The second Integer Unit register file has a smaller size, 1.30 x 0.64 mm versus 1.30 x 0.71 mm. A 64 bit processor needs only one set of status flags per 64 bit word. This clue also implies that the second core can not be used to run an independent 32 bit thread.
3.The data caches have been shifted in order to balance a critical path in 64 bit processing. The first core has to provide the address bits for the data caches of both cores. Going from one core to another introduces a long path for this critical signal. However, it turns out that the path to both caches are equal in length. They managed to do this by shifting both caches upwards
thanks for the link if i understand correctly what i read ( i havent got a sleep for 29 hours so ......zzzzzZZZZZ :D LOL ) then prescotts will going to have a very very nice architecture for HT and intel is prepairing for 64bit
500 marks for the prescott 2.8 over a 2.8 northwood is pretty good. the northwoods got 1/2 meg cache, the prescotts a meg and the EE editions of the northwoods 2 megs? guess its the cache making most of the difference
i really dont trust those scores... ive read another review on a taiwaneese site wich showed very mixed scores, sometimes the prescott was faster, in mos benches it was slower than the nw.
i mean even intel says that the prescott is not really faster than the nw!