P-Ms hold Super-Pi 1M world records

I could not get that site to display any of the information. I did see an experiment at www.tomshardware.com a while back involving a Pentium M that was overclocked with super cooling in a modified desktop motherboard.

Holy..4Ghz P-M, damn, If only a 3Ghz P-M was available, hooora.

There's a thread about this at XS. A japanese team took the P-M and ran it on LN2 I believe and got that record. This was a few weeks back..

That's an overclocked pentium m running at 4ghz with water cooling and modified motherboard. Against that the fx-55 is stock. Secondly fx-57 is out which is even faster. Hell Intel needs 4ghz and water cooling to achieve what Fx-57 does at just 2.6ghz.

It's not compared to a stock FX-55, did you actually bother to go to the link? The FX-55 closest is at number 13 and it's clocked at 3.7Ghz(1.1Ghz over stock), and its time is the same as a Pentium-m clocked at 3.2Ghz, so not only is the FX-55 slower clock for clock, it can't high the higher speeds either.

John

There aint a P-M that will run 4ghz with water cooling bro. I visit XS forums everyday and I can guarentee you, no one is getting a Dothan to 4ghz on WATER

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I love this thread!

Tom's hardware has an article on stock Centrino 2.13's installed on asus mainboards (865PE or 845 I dont remember the chipset) with and adapter Asus makes and it smoked the AMD 64's and P4 EE with no problems. This was against the flagship AMD and P4 CPUs.

check it out ==> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...ntium4-01.html

-D

Hmmmm... Tomshardware...

The same site that said that the Pentium D was a better chip than the AMD X2... Even though the X2 beat the Pentium D in nearly every test. During their tests the AMD never crapped out. The Pentium D killed multiple motherboards... It ran so hot it was thermal throttling itself.... It was drawing so much power that it couldn't run video cards in SLI... The Pentium D beat the X2 in less than 10% of the test but yet Tomshardware claimed that the Pentium D was the better chip.


Yeah, Tomshardware is defintely an honest and unbiased website... NOT



Oh yeah, that review of the 2.13 overclocked... Yes, lets go ahead and put a mild overclock on the Dothan and run the other chips at stock speeds... yeah right. Level the playing field. The Venice and San Diego chips OC on stock voltage to 2.6ghz+ and can run a wicked high HTT. Run tests of an OCed A64 against the P-M and then the review wouldn't be biased towards the P-M.

Tom's Hardware has always been a gaggle of Intel and nVidia fanboys, been that way for at least 6 years now. It's long been common knowledge that if you want TH to give your product the best review, just make sure to send them more free toys than anyone else does.

Big yawn to Intel for displaying big numbers on Super-pi. I can tell you just how excited I am to buy a computer so I can show all my friends just how fast it does useless things.

Some of us buy AMD because it's cheaper and because AMD is just a better company. To be totally honest, I buy AMD simply because it isn't Intel. I really couldn't care less how many benchmarks Intel comes out on top on. I've had to deal directly with both and I can tell you I'd rather get all my teeth pulled without novocaine than ever talk to anyone at Intel again. Besides, my AMD64 notebook can still hang with most of the current model Xeon's, and those chips cost more than my whole notebook did.

Jeez, the last time I looked at pricing of FX series chips they were not much cheaper than Intel P4EE's, both VERY expensive. Based on ALL of the benchmarks I've seen, unless I buy the most expensive, top speed P4EE or FX series chips, the Pentium M is faster. The Pentium M 2Ghz is half the price of an FX55 or P4EE.

Second, although the AMD64 line is a very good chip, the company is not a "better" company. Otherwise it would have marketshare and revenue approaching Intel's. Its a marginal to OK company based on the numbers. Voting objectively with my retirement funds, I'd rather have Intel than AMD stock.

Third, the Pentium M is a very good design. It rivals the performance of the very best Athlon's and P4's and does so on a fraction of the power. The fact that it works well in mainstream notebooks probably spells the beginning of the end for consumer desktops for the majority of users. At the same time, Intel is too prideful to capitalize on this and won't drop the P4 architecture in favor of updating the P-M to 64bit SSE3 giving AMD a slight edge over the P-M for a little while longer.

Finally, low power is king. For data centers the limiting factor is how many CPU's per square foot of raised floor and this is limited by server power consumption. Basically P-M or Turions (and multicore, if they increase cores while keeping power needs static) mean I can get roughly 4-8x the number of CPU's on the floor. That is a huge increase in processing capability. For consumers, the desktop is dying. Mobile computers are more in demand, have higher profit margins and make users upgrade faster. Expect notebook sales to eclipse desktops over the next 5 years.

People support AMD because most AMD chips are faster then their Intel Counterparts, and cheaper.

Its like ATI and Nvidia, Nvidia is the "big dog" but that doesnt stop ATI from releasing better and faster cards.

I would seriously love to have this convo with someone like you in person because lets face it, in all honesty you wouldnt dare come off at someone like that in a face to face convo.

Internet Anonymity at its best. Jackass's are born.

Fine, but I'm not in that market. Those aren't even marketed toward people like me. The chips I'm likely to buy are considerably lower cost per performance mark on the AMD side than on the Intel side. My largest customer is a 50-user organization with three servers, and even they aren't in that market.

I've worked for an Intel reseller. I've dealt with their BS directly. The lawsuit is true. Intel beats up on its resellers as much as possible to prevent them from carrying AMD products. Intel spends more money bullying people than it does trying to beat AMD in the lab. When I was talking about being a better company, I wasn't talking about market share and profit generation, I was talking about AMD being a group of people I would actually have over for dinner. Besides, if you want to get down to brass tacks, compare how much wealth Intel has at its disposal vs. what AMD has at its disposal, and ask yourself why a company so small does so well against a company so large. It's like a few shadetree mechanics deciding to take on Ford, and actually pulling something off. If Intel put their money back into R&D where it belongs, there probably wouldn't even be a debate over which company produced the better chip. Intel is screwing you the customer when they screw their resellers, and you're defending them for it.

It is a good design. I'd never argue that. In fact, I'll say that all Intel CPUs are pretty good. My problem with Intel has never had anything to do with the quality of their CPUs. I do think AMD forced them to stop vaulting up-and-coming technology like they were, and instead get it on the shelf ASAP. Anyone else wonder why they managed to get the cache on-die and running full speed in the Celery's LONG before they did it in the standard Pentium line? It was because people were still buying the regular Pentiums at full price and they saw no need to change fab. With AMD always breathing down their throats nowadays, they can't do that anymore. The rest of their products are garbage, but they do make good CPUs. I just hate Intel.

AMD has been steadily reducing their power usage while Intel has been all over the spectrum. An AMD64 dissipates about 95W while the server-class Xeons are (or were, I haven't looked in a few months) dissipating about 135W. If you have to put a mobile chip in your server, there's a problem. AMD is aware of the issue and is working on it, as is Intel. No matter which way you go, you're going to get good product. The difference is that Intel a huge squad of scum and I'm not going to do business with them as long as I have a valid alternative.

Now wait a second.... Nvidia and ATI have about half the market each. Now Nvidia has had the best Graphics solution this year both in laptops and desktops (SLI) - and I personally don't hugely like ATI simply because of they're crap linux drivers.

Beyond this the ATI vs Nvidia argument is completely academic. Regardless of the maker if you spend $300 on a Graphics card the performance will be pretty much the same.

And to be honest this argument is pathetic, all these arguments are. Whenever a site comes out on the side of intel they're Intel fanboys, if its AMD they're speaking the gospel truth - get a better religion because worshipping a chip maker won't get you to the pearly gates... (might get you to the logic gates tho... - enough of the shitty jokes)

Twist it however you like. I support AMD by virtue of not being Intel. The fact that they're an underdog is just situational. If they got bigger than Intel and kept the same attitude they have now, I'd continue to support them. If they get bigger than Intel and pull an nVidia by adopting the jackass attitude of the company they surpassed, then I'll switch back.
Nice rose-colored glasses there on the price war factor. Try looking at ALL currently available products from both suppliers and then try to tell me that again. Not all of us are ready to crack open the wallets far enough to jump into multi-core from anybody just yet.