Does anyone have an idea of when Intel will come out with a P4 over 3.06
Ghz? I am really interested in a 3.06 (due to hyperthreading) , but the
price is way out of line for me. I figure if they come out with something
faster the price of the 3.06 will fall accordingly. I know you can wait
forever for "the next best thing", but hyperthreading sounds very
interesting since NASCAR 2003 can use it.
Thanks,
Russell
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6676
Basically - it may pop up to 3.2ghz later this year (you can push that
roadmap back 6 months because of difficulties with the 90nm process) - but
that'll be it.
Doug
Take a look at this comparison of the AMD 3000+ vs. 3.06 with and without
HT. It appears the 512k L2 cache on the Barton is a more significant
improvement for *** than HT. The 3000+ Barton outperforms the faster
clocked 2800+ and Intel 3.06 in many *** benches due to the cache. HT
makes no difference in any of the *** tests.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
--
Joe M.
> "Joe M."
> HT makes no difference in any of the ***
> > tests.
> > http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > --
> > Joe M.
> Did they use N2k3? I was saying pretty much everything you did, but
> Eric said the HT works very well with the Papyrus sims.
> dave henrie
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
"The Pits" http://www.racesimcentral.net/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
No they didn't but there was another review (can't remember where) that did
show some HT advantages over non-HT in more cpu intensive games like
simulations. It's reasonable to conclude that this would apply to N2003
which is certainly cpu intensive.
I do think any advantage of HT in sims is easily exceeded with a Barton chip
and ESPECIALLY an nForce2 board with dual channel ram. I've seen benches
where the dual channel ram is solely responsible for 10-20% performance
gains over any comparable AMD or Intel configuration.
--
Joe M.
