the Black Monarch wrote:I guess it's pretty sad that in a few benches, a 3.4 GHz Prescott on a 200mhz system bus with DDR-400 whipped a 3.46 GHz Extreme Edition on a 266mhz system bus with DDRII-533.
...just how the hell did that happen, anyway?
I'd like to switch to a 64-bit processor eventually
RootHubController wrote:I'd like to switch to a 64-bit processor eventually
I'll be more inclined to do it when there's software that supports and exploits the full advantages fo the 64-bit architecture. Yes, it's backwards compatible, but you're not recieving any benefits.
Scintilla wrote:RootHubController wrote:I'd like to switch to a 64-bit processor eventually
I'll be more inclined to do it when there's software that supports and exploits the full advantages fo the 64-bit architecture. Yes, it's backwards compatible, but you're not recieving any benefits.
Well, they <i>are</i> also better at doing the same old 32-bit operations, aren't they?
Kalium wrote:Scintilla wrote:RootHubController wrote:I'd like to switch to a 64-bit processor eventually
I'll be more inclined to do it when there's software that supports and exploits the full advantages fo the 64-bit architecture. Yes, it's backwards compatible, but you're not recieving any benefits.
Well, they <i>are</i> also better at doing the same old 32-bit operations, aren't they?
From what I understand, this is often the case.
Besides, RootHubController seems unaware that there are already quite stable 64-bit OSs. They just aren't Microsoft OSs.
trythil wrote:Kalium wrote:Scintilla wrote:RootHubController wrote:I'd like to switch to a 64-bit processor eventually
I'll be more inclined to do it when there's software that supports and exploits the full advantages fo the 64-bit architecture. Yes, it's backwards compatible, but you're not recieving any benefits.
Well, they <i>are</i> also better at doing the same old 32-bit operations, aren't they?
From what I understand, this is often the case.
Besides, RootHubController seems unaware that there are already quite stable 64-bit OSs. They just aren't Microsoft OSs.
There's one point he still has: even OSes that work in 64-bit mode on x86-64 processors haven't yet taken full advantage of the system. Oh, sure, you get nice things like the ability to easily address >= 1GB of RAM without hacks or slowdown
RootHubController wrote:
Easy. The EE has too long a pipeline. The pipeline would be optimal for a 5GHz proc, but instead, it's on a 3.4, and requires redundant instruction sets to accomplish work that could have been handled already.
the Black Monarch wrote:RootHubController wrote:
Easy. The EE has too long a pipeline. The pipeline would be optimal for a 5GHz proc, but instead, it's on a 3.4, and requires redundant instruction sets to accomplish work that could have been handled already.
Last time I checked, the EEs had bigger caches, not bigger pipelines...

NicholasDWolfwood wrote:the Black Monarch wrote:RootHubController wrote:
Easy. The EE has too long a pipeline. The pipeline would be optimal for a 5GHz proc, but instead, it's on a 3.4, and requires redundant instruction sets to accomplish work that could have been handled already.
Last time I checked, the EEs had bigger caches, not bigger pipelines...
Last time I checked, all Pentium 4s had longer pipelines, even the EE.
Scintilla wrote:NicholasDWolfwood wrote:the Black Monarch wrote:RootHubController wrote:
Easy. The EE has too long a pipeline. The pipeline would be optimal for a 5GHz proc, but instead, it's on a 3.4, and requires redundant instruction sets to accomplish work that could have been handled already.
Last time I checked, the EEs had bigger caches, not bigger pipelines...
Last time I checked, all Pentium 4s had longer pipelines, even the EE.
Last time I checked, Prescott's pipeline was at least 10 stages longer than Northwood's, so basically some P4s (including the EEs) are more equal than others.
Return to Video Hardware Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest