19 Comments(s). 1 Pages(s). Showing page 1. [ 1 ]

   #13. Posted at 11:58 AM on Oct 18th 2007 Edit   Reply
Thorburn
The E4700 sounds like a Allendale based part to me, the cache redundant Wolfdale chips are 3MiB L2, not 2MiB.

Not impossible, I'd just expect 3MiB chips.
collapse
#13, By "MiB" you refer to Men in Black?  :  B166ER  (#19)  «

   #8. Posted at 11:25 AM on Oct 18th 2007, Edited at 11:26 AM on Oct 18th 2007 Edit   Reply
insulin_junkie72
One of the two chips will bear an E4700 model number, 2.6GHz clock speed, 800MHz FSB, 2MB of cache, and a $133 price tag.

Considering how OCable the cheapy 800MHz chips have been (my E2140 did the 1.6->2.66 jump without blinking or temp increase - I'm sure it could have gone higher, but I went for the simple & quick OC), I'm looking forward to this one, I think :)
collapse
#8, it should hit 3GHz easily, at a 375MHz bus. That's what mine...  :  derFunkenstein  (#18)  «

   #7. Posted at 10:55 AM on Oct 18th 2007, Edited at 10:56 AM on Oct 18th 2007 Edit   Reply
Jeffery
With only 512kb L2 cache this guy is going to preform very poorly. The core 2 duo needs cache.

As of now, you can get a 2.0Ghz Athlon 64 for about $40. I think the AMD part would demolish the competing Conroe-L, Celeron 420, but I have yet to see benchmarks comparing the two. In Intel's favor, you can get one of those bad boys up past 3.0Ghz

With Athlon X2s for $65, Intel needs a good bargain-bin dual core chip.
collapse
#7, Celerons != performance. OEMs don't care about the performan...  :  StashTheVampede  (#9)  «
#7, This is one of the side effects of this move, to continue re...  :  Flying Fox  (#11)  «
#7, Since when has the Core 2 Duo had an unquenchable thirst for...  :  IntelMole  (#14)  «
#14, Since when has the Core 2 Duo had an unquenchable thirst ...  :  Jeffery  (#16)  «
#16, Once you get below 2MB, performance drops fairly quick...  :  insulin_junkie72  (#17)  «

   #15. Posted at 05:58 PM on Oct 18th 2007 Edit   Reply
albundy
even two servings of celery still gives you a cr@ppy vegetable.
collapse

   #12. Posted at 11:44 AM on Oct 18th 2007 Edit   Reply
Flying Fox
Can we move to a proper thread in the forum to discuss this?

Oh wait:
http://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=54209

:D
collapse

   #10. Posted at 11:36 AM on Oct 18th 2007, Edited at 11:37 AM on Oct 18th 2007 Edit   Reply
Bomber
I'm thinking one of these may find a home in my HTPC whever I get around to putting it back up. Won't be gaming with it so for the money this can't really be beat.
collapse

   #2. Posted at 10:26 AM on Oct 18th 2007 Edit   Reply
mongoosesRawesome
I'm sure they'll continue single core cpu's for extreme low power usage scenarios.
collapse
#2, Yea, Cell Phones and Ultra Mobile PC's.  :  Master Kenobi  (#6)  «

   #1. Posted at 10:20 AM on Oct 18th 2007 Edit   Reply
MadManOriginal
Yea! Death of single core. I really hope all programs that can will be taking advantage of multi-core because of this.
collapse
#1, This is a widespread misrepresentation IMO. Single core CPUs ...  :  poulpy  (#4)  «
#4, That is definitely true. But there are some exceptions. S...  :  d2brothe  (#5)  «

   #3. Posted at 10:32 AM on Oct 18th 2007, Edited at 10:32 AM on Oct 18th 2007 Edit   Reply
poulpy
Edit: missed the reply button.. (again)
collapse
19 Comments(s). 1 Pages(s). Showing page 1. [ 1 ]
 
Name/Password: / Remember
Reply to:
[click to clear]

[RED] [GREEN]
[BOLD]
[ITALIC] [STRIKE]
[UNDERLINE]

Notice: All posts should abide by the rules, please.
Note: Ctrl-Enter submits the post. (In IE)
DThread keys: Click on a reply to position the blue bar. 'A'/'Z' move it up/down.
Jazztags: (they MUST be closed)
    r{ red }r     g{ green }g     /[ italic ]/     *[ bold ]*
    _[ underline ]_     -[ strike ]-     s[ sample ]s     o[ spoiler ]o  q[ (QUOTE) ]q