Wicked Mystic wrote:Then again six core part is 130W TDP.
Yeah, because the -E variants are for the MARKET SEGMENT of performance/enthusiasts.
Wicked Mystic wrote:Because of better manufacturing process, yes.
No, you are wrong: http://techreport.com/review/11473/a-qu ... ocessors/5
Wicked Mystic wrote:Core 2 was slow in practice because of no IMC.
lolwut? It was faster than the competition, which had
Wicked Mystic wrote:They designed entirely new architechture. That is the reason. Per-core basis improved Phenom would have been much better.
So why didn't they do that, then? Why did they design a new architecture instead?
Oh, right: because they couldn't improve per-core performance. It wasn't a deliberate design choice, it was desperation.
You know, like I said.
Wicked Mystic wrote:Importance of FPU performance has gone down, if that's better.
It isn't. You are just making stuff up.
Wicked Mystic wrote:Exactly, so no more need to do all rendering on CPU so less CPU resources is needed.
Right... Ok. So, by that logic, we should all currently being running FPU-weakened
Pentium-100s with gigantic GPUs attached. Because, after all, less CPU resources will be needed and it's not like we have ANYTHING ELSE to use them on.
Ever heard of the Jevons Paradox?
Wicked Mystic wrote:That is quite well. That's not catastrophic.
You have a completely arbitrary criteria.
Wicked Mystic wrote:DirectX 9 came out 2003. That time we had single core processors.
libc came out in the 1970s. Back then we had core-memory.
Wicked Mystic wrote:But most people do not. Including gamers.
1. Sabotage FPUs
Look, what is the point of getting rid of the FPU? Yes, in a majority of cases it isn't really necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't important when it is necessary. The 80/20 rule
doesn't mean that you don't need
the rest of the features!
Here, read this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ ... 00020.html
Also, why do you keep specially focusing on "Gamers" when you are talking about the ISAs and performance of general-purpose CPUs and software in general? It just reinforces my belief that you are being a raging absolutist because you only care about one use case and can't even conceive
of any differing use cases.
Wicked Mystic wrote:I have made my point clear many times: no need for high power FPU except some very special situations.
No, you've also railed against legacy software, specifically x87, directx9 and 32-bit. Your "point" is all over the place.
Everyone agrees that FP isn't used in most software. Everyone agrees that in most cases computers are now "fast enough."
That doesn't mean, whatsoever, that there is any justification in getting rid of FPUs or making CPUs slower. Because, when people need it, they need it. You are "solving" a problem that doesn't exist.
Wicked Mystic wrote:Ok, that's your definition for it. I consider even some new software legacy. Like that Directx 9. Many games still use it and 2003 we had Single core Pentium 4 or single core Athlon64 processors. Considering processor development, that is very legacy.
Your definition of it is useless and that's why NO ONE cares or agrees.
wicked mystic wrote:Pentium 4 1,7 110,5
Athlon 1.2 67
That is HUGE difference. Even with SSE2 Athlon is still faster. And remember, very few software is recompiled after it's published
Pentium 4. 1.7Ghz (Original): 110.5
Athlon 1.2Ghz DDR (Original): 90.5
Athlon 1.2Ghz DDR (PII)
It is extremely difficult
for me to believe that you made that mistake legitimately, seeing as how you actually made a point about recompilation.
Wicked Mystic wrote:can you explain why Intel now has strong x87 FPU "just for compatibility reasons"? On Pentium 4 that "x87 for compatibility reasons" was very weak. And that was year 2000.
No, Williamette was weak in general. Here, look:http://techreport.com/review/2347/intel ... ocessor/13
Damage wrote:First and foremost, it's clear the Athlon 1.33GHz is still the big dawg of PC processors. It's easily the fastest x86-compatible CPU around. Intel's new entry, the 1.7GHz Pentium 4, performs about like a 1.2GHz Athlon in most situations.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
In other words, it was just generally weaker.
Damage wrote:the Pentium 4's performance balance is pretty darn good. By that I mean it handles a variety of types of math—integer, floating point, SIMD—equally well (more or less).
Res ipsa loquitur
Damage wrote:n my original Pentium 4 review I echoed some sentiments I've heard in a number of places before and since, that the P4's FPU isn't very good. Truth is, the Pentium 4's balance between integer and floating-point performance is very, very similar to the Pentium III's. And it's not far from the Athlon's, either. Sure, the processor executes a relatively low number of instructions per clock, but the P4's floating-point units aren't especially bad in this respect, even without the help of SSE or SSE2.
Res ipsa loquitur x2