Intel to start putting on the heat! "A MUST READ FOR INTEL FANS!"

You heard it right, as of January of next year, Intel starts going insane and begins pooring on there new products.
Releases will include,

;the 2.4GHz Pentium4, 1.0GHz Itanium, 2.0GHz XEON and 1.4GHz Tualatin processor.

On the Pentium4 side of things, after 2.4GHz, all hell will break loose because Intel will begin releasing much faster chips at a time, not this 100MHz jump but now a 200MHz jump! So 2.6GHz and 2.8GHz arnt out of the question for April next year. Expect a little halt thou at 3GHz cause Intel will want to market and make some more hype.

they will poor on and on till the Pentium4 hits 4GHz. At this time, we can welcome a 533MHz bus.

there u have it, Intel will put on the heat SOON!

p.s, did I mention the huge price slashes and move to DDR 266/333? This is all in here somewhere too!



END

I really do wish they would slow down, they really are devaluing the mhz

Well 80 FPS in Max Payne is pretty fast, but at those rates Kyro cards are looking sweeter... or even software rendering?

Hey ya, at 2.8Ghz software rendering probably wouldn't be a problem at all. But then again it wouldn't look pretty.

Phil said:

I really do wish they would slow down, they really are devaluing the mhz

Click to expand...

Phil this is total and utter crap. Intel is not devaluing the Mhz now.

Intel did this when the released the Celeron.

What's faster, a 400 Celeron or a 400 PIII? But they're the same Mhz......

See what I mean.

I can see it from the AMD fans, they'll still be swearing up and down that their 1.4Ghz is faster than that 5Ghz Intel.

well a celeron 450(overclocked 300A) is faster than a P2 450.....
gota love on die full speed L2 cache....

sorry about that... just had to slip it in.... but i get your point Kingslayer

Kingslayer said:

Phil this is total and utter crap. Intel is not devaluing the Mhz now.

Intel did this when the released the Celeron.

What's faster, a 400 Celeron or a 400 PIII? But they're the same Mhz......

See what I mean.

I can see it from the AMD fans, they'll still be swearing up and down that their 1.4Ghz is faster than that 5Ghz Intel.

Click to expand...

That wasn't what I meant by devaluing the mhz, I meant that they are bringing out chips with silly mhz levels that don't perform like they shoudl, obviously noone is going to argue a 1.4ghz tbird is faster than a 5ghz p4, but I would quite confidently argue that it was faster than the fastest willy in most things, northwood may be a differant story.
They designed the core of the p4 to process less ops per clock, this lets them run at higher clock speeds, so basically the mhz counts for nothing anymore, it's like people that buy a set of speakers purely on the rated wattage, not taking into account their frequency range and db range etc..

actually once you get past 1.7 the piv starts winning in the speed department compared to a 1.4 but my question is....why would someone need it.....i can see a point in the near future when software just cannot keep up with hardware....i mean having a p3 5ghz and a radeon 8800 and getting 180fps in max payne is all good....but all you really need is 60......i mean most monitors at 1024 give out like 70hz theres no point in having 200fps if you have a 70hz monitor.....the fps will be vsynced like it is in unreal.....or any dx game.....

By the time that 5Ghz comes out you wont be playing max payne. Andif you have a cheap montor you woulnt be able to afford a 5Ghz cpu anyway

Why not turn off vsync then?

As for software, if your into hardcore 3d, graphics, video editing, or even M$ Windows RG2010, then youll need a fast processor. So you say you dont need more speed so if a PIV 5Ghz and 50Ghz same price you get the 5Ghz? I know I would ha.

60fps in games is suited for beginners or the general users.

150fps - 600fps is for the Hardcore gamers junky. ( I am one of them and proud of it!) and yes DOH!! you can tell the difference between 150fps and 60fps. Don't forget the importance of internal clock cycles in generating 3D graphics and performing the task in shorter time. hahahaaa

ƒ~ƒ‹ƒN•² said:

60fps in games is suited for beginners or the general users.

150fps - 600fps is for the Hardcore gamers junky. ( I am one of them and proud of it!) and yes DOH!! you can tell the difference between 150fps and 60fps. Don't forget the importance of internal clock cycles in generating 3D graphics and performing the task in shorter time. hahahaaa

Click to expand...

Sorry, my sight's poor, I usually can't tell after about 40 fps .

funnyperson1 said:

actually once you get past 1.7 the piv starts winning in the speed department compared to a 1.4 but my question is why would someone need it....

Click to expand...

How about crunching Seti units in 2 hours or less?????
Now THAT would be sweet!

sorry, i didnt think of other people's needs towards a cpu....for me a 1ghz chip would be fine........maybe when i go to college ill get a p4 or an athlon just so i can say i have the fastest comp at a lan party....but for now...im happy....

Sohryu Asuka Langley said:

By the time that 5Ghz comes out you wont be playing max payne. Andif you have a cheap montor you woulnt be able to afford a 5Ghz cpu anyway

Why not turn off vsync then?

As for software, if your into hardcore 3d, graphics, video editing, or even M$ Windows RG2010, then youll need a fast processor. So you say you dont need more speed so if a PIV 5Ghz and 50Ghz same price you get the 5Ghz? I know I would ha.

Click to expand...

thats the weird thing, i dont have a cheap monitor, i have a trinitron multiscan100sx that my dad payed some 400dollars for a few years ago.....i get 72hz at 1024x768, maybe newer monitor go to a 100 or so?

If MHZ are your thing, so be it. Performance is everything, I'm suggesting that a reliable indicator of performance would be to run 4 or 5 of the major benchmarks, and get an average result based on all aspects of your PC's performance. Intel may be at 2
gig, but you still can't unlock the multiplier.........

yeh, but soon speed will not be improtant, it will be what other thing the cpu can do. abit like graphics cards

I'm waiting for Bitboys to actaully release a card..hmm 12mb of eDRAM@1024bits, plus any other external ram...yummy

Phil said:

That wasn't what I meant by devaluing the mhz, I meant that they are bringing out chips with silly mhz levels that don't perform like they shoudl, obviously noone is going to argue a 1.4ghz tbird is faster than a 5ghz p4, but I would quite confidently argue that it was faster than the fastest willy in most things, northwood may be a differant story.
They designed the core of the p4 to process less ops per clock, this lets them run at higher clock speeds, so basically the mhz counts for nothing anymore, it's like people that buy a set of speakers purely on the rated wattage, not taking into account their frequency range and db range etc..

Click to expand...

You are so right I wish more people realized this! the 2.0ghz P4 is a monster adn kills the 1.4tbird but an overclocked [email protected] can still hang with it! I think a 2.4 will put Intel on top again especially now since there is an upgrade path to the northwood.

go check out ED's article on the front page if you don't believe me and Phil. also I here the palminos kill the 1.4tbirds and they are 200mhz "slower".

Just wanted to chime in here on the MHz issue. First of all there's no doubt that MHz has been, and is still used to judge a computer's overall power by the average buyer. Intel and AMD are fully aware of this of course. Now as far as Intel "devaluing Mhz" this is a bit more complicated. Did Intel engineers sit down from the beginning and say "we're going to design our next cpu to reach higher clock speeds solely to impress consumers with numbers, while paying no attention to performance?" I would say yes and no. Clearly there are different ways of getting things done. Is "Work done per Mhz" a fixed value which should be adhered to always? There are different ways to get a cpu to process data. Should a cpu that gets more done at slower clock speeds be praised over one that does the same at higher clocks speeds? Should processor engineers be stuck designing processors that do the same amount per MHz as processors have in the past? My personal opinion is that the end result is what matters. If a 2GHz P4 does the same or more than a 1.6GHz Athlon - should the P4 be criticized because it has to run at 2GHz to do this? I think Intel has designed a chip to ramp to very high clock speeds partly to sell people on numbers, and partly because the engineers have a design which will get the job done - just at higher clock rates. It is unfortunate that the average person knows no better, but should cpu manufacturers be forced to pump out chips that always perform the same clock for clock just to prevent confusion for average buyers? Sure the P4 is probably the biggest break from the past, but it's hard to say that the P3 or Athlon does as much per MHz as the first cpu's. Devaluing MHz is not a simple debate, and while I'm certain Intel is banking on sheer numbers, I don't think that was their sole intent.

I think we can all agree that the bottom line is the fact that Intel already has a chip that will advance higher while the competition is trying to design one. If you've got to overclock to kick my butt then you're playing catchup.