Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

<http://www.pcplus.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=37096&subsectionid=360>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On 24 Aug 2005 05:47:58 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
 
><http://www.pcplus.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=37096&subsectionid=360>
 
It's good to see Intel making changes. I hope they open a big can of
whoop ass on AMD..... 4800+ X2 for under $200 anyone? ;p
 
Ed

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:14:37 -0500, Ed wrote:
 
> On 24 Aug 2005 05:47:58 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>><http://www.pcplus.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=37096&subsectionid=360>
>  
> It's good to see Intel making changes. I hope they open a big can of
> whoop ass on AMD..... 4800+ X2 for under $200 anyone? ;p
>  
> Ed
 
What! you can't pay out $380 bones for a 3800 X2? I think the big question
would be when? Sure I can pick up a  Pentium D 820 for $233 bones, but I
have to have that new board, and memory.  
 
If I have to wait for a year for a dual core on board memory controller
from Intel like AMD has whats the fun in that, when I can get one right
now.
 
What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
 
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/ [...] design.jsp
 
According to that url at idle they are claiming .1w, or 100mW and 20W at
peak power. It looks like Intel is getting the open end of the whoop ass
can right now. Or more like it they are playing catch up, I just wish that
the marketing team at Intel would know just what they are marketing. They
tried to sell us on hyper threading, now they will start selling Watts.
 
Lets just wait and see how long it takes Intel to come to market with
these new products, that is supposed to have all these new features.
 
 
Gnu_Raiz

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:
 
<snip>
> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>  
> http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/ [...] design.jsp
>  
> According to that url at idle they are claiming .1w, or 100mW and 20W at
> peak power. It looks like Intel is getting the open end of the whoop ass
> can right now. Or more like it they are playing catch up, I just wish that
> the marketing team at Intel would know just what they are marketing. They
> tried to sell us on hyper threading, now they will start selling Watts.
>  
> Lets just wait and see how long it takes Intel to come to market with
> these new products, that is supposed to have all these new features.
>  
>  
> Gnu_Raiz
>  
 
A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.
 
--  
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:
 
>
> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>  
 
No.
 
RM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
 
> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>  
>  
>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>
>  
>  
> No.
>  
> RM
>  
Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
 
--  
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Gnu_Raiz" <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> wrote in message
news:1124903368.2908700f5f7273a4127f6aa6904e9a06@teranews...
 
> They tried to sell us on hyper threading, now they will start
selling Watts.
 
Actually, they sell lots and lots of watts right now.  What they plan
to sell is lots less watts.  "Less is more" - didn't a CA governor
once push that?  ;-)
 
 
> Lets just wait and see how long it takes Intel to come to market
with
> these new products, that is supposed to have all these new features.
 
Everybody knows that these products will not appear in the marketplace
in quantity until 2007, which is a long, long way off in CPU years.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

CJT wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > Gnu_Raiz wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> >>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
> >>
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> >
> Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>
That you would think so was apparent from the form of your question
posed, apparently, as a rhetorical.  In terms of *performance* per
watt, Intel Celeron ULV has had Via beat over and over and over again,
and I'm tired of googling it.  It's been discussed over and over, and
over again.
 
RM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:
> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
 
Also, I'm pretty sure I know what a Watt is, but not sure what a
Performance is. Was that recently defined by the metric system? Will we
be seeing kiloPerformances, MegaPerformances, GigaPerformances, or even
centiPerformances anytime soon? :-)
 
  Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 +0000, CJT wrote:
 
<snip>
 
>  
> A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.
 
Not possible.  ;-)
 
--  
  Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:42:53 -0700, YKhan wrote:
 
> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>  
> Also, I'm pretty sure I know what a Watt is,  
 
Let's be sure what we're talking about.  The measure of power is a "watt",
with the SI symbol 'W'.  Units named after people are not capitalized when
written out, in defference to the person. ;-)
 
> but not sure what a Performance is. Was that recently defined by the metric system? Will we
> be seeing kiloPerformances, MegaPerformances, GigaPerformances, or even
> centiPerformances anytime soon? :-)
 
Like Potter Stewart's porn, neither do I but I know it when I see it.  
 
--  
 Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
 
>Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>
>>  
>>  
>> No.
>>  
>> RM
>>  
>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
 
While VIA's chips offer ok performance, low power consumption and VERY
low prices, they definitely can't match Intel in terms of
performance/watt.  The VIA chips are CONSIDERABLY slower than any
current Intel chips.  Even the lowly 900MHz Celeron-M, with a TDP of
only 5.0W should be able to match the 2.0GHz VIA C7-M chips when they
ship.  Certainly the 900MHz Celeron-M is a LOT faster than the current
1.3GHz C3 chips.
 
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
 
>Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>
>>  
>>  
>> No.
>>  
>> RM
>>  
>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
 
Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetai [...] ber=205107
 
--  
Rgds, George Macdonald

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:31:48 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
 
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>  
>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>  
>>>  
>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> No.
>>>  
>>> RM
>>>  
>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>  
> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetai [...] ber=205107
 
Seems to be a dead link, I was unable to download the pdf under Firefox
under Linux. I was more under the impression that now Intel was going to
push low power watts as a means of marketing their chips.  I took this to
mean that the chip with the lowest power usage wins the day. But now this
brings up a good question, how exactly do you measure watt performance? A
watt is a watt is a watt, maybe someone can educate me on this fine point.
 
Gnu_Raiz

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
 
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>  
>  
>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>RM
>>>
>>
>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>  
>  
> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetai [...] ber=205107
>  
Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel.  And that addresses the watts
of power used by each processor.
 
--  
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:35:07 -0500, Gnu_Raiz <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net>
wrote:
 
>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:31:48 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>  
>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> No.
>>>>  
>>>> RM
>>>>  
>>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>>  
>> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetai [...] ber=205107
>
>Seems to be a dead link, I was unable to download the pdf under Firefox
>under Linux.
 
It works fine for me with Mozilla/WinXP.
 
> I was more under the impression that now Intel was going to
>push low power watts as a means of marketing their chips.  I took this to
>mean that the chip with the lowest power usage wins the day. But now this
>brings up a good question, how exactly do you measure watt performance? A
>watt is a watt is a watt, maybe someone can educate me on this fine point.
 
Measuring and expressing results is not easy.  There is an obvious space
for a system with the right amount of performance for low heat and, more
importantly, ultra-low noise.  The Celeron buried both VIA chips for
similar (enough) power consumption.
 
--  
Rgds, George Macdonald

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
 
>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>RM
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>>  
>>  
>> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetai [...] ber=205107
>>  
>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel.  And that addresses the watts
>of power used by each processor.
 
C'mon this was not even a competition - the Celeron was in a different
class and did not fail any tests.
 
--  
Rgds, George Macdonald

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
 
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>  
>  
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>RM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>>>
>>>
>>>Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>>>http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=205107
>>>
>>
>>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel.  And that addresses the watts
>>of power used by each processor.
>  
>  
> C'mon this was not even a competition - the Celeron was in a different
> class and did not fail any tests.
>  
Who's to say whether, if VIA were the sponsor, a test could be found
that the Celeron failed.
 
 
--  
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.