Intel price drops!

[NoADSLyet]

You obviously know fall about processors and should maybe keep quiet on the whole subject and listen and gain wisdom. No P4 was anywhere more like a P3 than any other one. They didn't "have it all along" and not realise it

So you know it all?

 

[supersunbird]

So you know it all?

No, but enough to know no P4 or PD was better than a Athlon64 at the same rating EXCEPT at straight file encoding where MHz helped (and even there the AMD wasnt that far behind). SO instead of making things up at least talk of only what you know of, and if you dont know ask... K?

Anyway, you're the one that bought up AMD anyway for some reason when the guy talked about INTEL Core 2 Duo E6600s overclocking compared the INTEL Core 2 Quad Q6600s overclocking...

 

[NoADSLyet]

You obviously know fall about processors and should maybe keep quiet on the whole subject and listen and gain wisdom. No P4 was anywhere more like a P3 than any other one. They didn't "have it all along" and not realise it

Just some Snippets. There is many. Do your own research. The reason for the P4 failure war the heat generating pipelines so on the Pentium M, less the power hungry pipeline structure this was removed and hey presto it was faster than the P4 and used less power. That is the platform that was then further developed to the current Core 2 and then susequent Core2 Duo

YOU GOT IT…
Core Duo, is 2 cores…DUAL core duo is 4 cores or 2 CORE duo..
These are based on the P3, XEON core

And to respond to ECA:
Core duo’s are the third generation of the chips developed by Intel -Israel some years ago that became known by Pentium-M.(sometimes centrino, but this is wrong). Those chips picked up the architecture of the Pentium3 and developed it into a Low power Mobile chip. But they are no P3 by all means.
Then they had a major upgrade, (SSE and stuff).
And then came Yonah. Same architecture (optimised) but with the ability to use two cores on a chip. Those became known as Core Duo. Essentially those are Gen3 Pentium M (Apple changed to intel essentially on a mobile chip.)
Meanwhile, battered by AMD and flogging a dead horse (hot and power hungry P4), Intel worked and worked on the Pentium M family and came up with a new main processor to derive all it´s offerings starting August and lasting years to come:
Core2 Duo - this time Intel made all the right steps, (except the name which is misleading and deceptive)

 

[NoADSLyet]

No, but enough to know no P4 or PD was better than a Athlon64 at the same rating EXCEPT at straight file encoding where MHz helped (and even there the AMD wasnt that far behind). SO instead of making things up at least talk of only what you know of, and if you dont know ask... K?

Anyway, you're the one that bought up AMD anyway for some reason when the guy talked about INTEL Core 2 Duo E6600s overclocking compared the B]INTEL[/B] Core 2 Quad Q6600s overclocking...

So thats the sore spot. Sour Ex AMD supporter. Go for Intel and maybe your Business will work, while you at it standardize on Asus and you could be a made "business" man.

 

[supersunbird]

Man, you are so incoherent in your thoughts and reasoning that even the threadkiller postwhores wont know what you are on about.

What the hell are you talking about my business about? Today I qouted on 6 PCs and I was the cheapest and thats with Intel E2140s and Asus Motherboards. So maybe just STFU about what you clearly dont know about. (I would have gotten the order if it wasnt for some nasty office politics in the organisation )

YOU GOT IT…
Core Duo, is 2 cores…DUAL core duo is 4 cores or 2 CORE duo..
These are based on the P3, XEON core

There is nothing like a dual core duo with 4 cores.

And to respond to ECA:
Core duo’s are the third generation of the chips developed by Intel -Israel some years ago that became known by Pentium-M.(sometimes centrino, but this is wrong). Those chips picked up the architecture of the Pentium3 and developed it into a Low power Mobile chip. But they are no P3 by all means.
Then they had a major upgrade, (SSE and stuff).
And then came Yonah. Same architecture (optimised) but with the ability to use two cores on a chip. Those became known as Core Duo. Essentially those are Gen3 Pentium M (Apple changed to intel essentially on a mobile chip.)
Meanwhile, battered by AMD and flogging a dead horse (hot and power hungry P4), Intel worked and worked on the Pentium M family and came up with a new main processor to derive all it´s offerings starting August and lasting years to come:
Core2 Duo - this time Intel made all the right steps, (except the name which is misleading and deceptive)

Even this nowhere says anything good about the Pentium 4. I have no issue or struggle Core 2 Duo and derivatives, its your wild claims/assertion about P4 were on the right track thats the problem.

 

[feo]

So thats the sore spot. Sour Ex AMD supporter. Go for Intel and maybe your Business will work, while you at it standardize on Asus and you could be a made "business" man.

AMD and Asus have nothing to do with this thread.

 

[supersunbird]

Actually his sig says it all :

Why do everybody hate Telkom so much

 

[feo]

Actually his sig says it all :

Aaaah missed that. So we have a Teklom employee on our hands.

EDIT. ssb, you back into the PC business yet?

 

[supersunbird]

Not really, meeting my potensial business partner in 35 minutes, we'll see how it goes.

 

[NoADSLyet]

Even this nowhere says anything good about the Pentium 4. I have no issue or struggle Core 2 Duo and derivatives, its your wild claims/assertion about P4 were on the right track thats the problem.

Who claimed anything about the P4? Can You read?

You are wrong. They just barked up the wrong tree a few years, Remember the last P4's and subsequent C2D is based on the old P3 or rather improved M version. So they had it all along just did not realize that

So thats the Point. Read it again I stated the P4 was a error in judgement a mess therefore AMD was better. When the P4 was abolished and the P3 revived as the Pentium M based on the P3 architecture and with some further development the new processors arrived to outstrip AMD. So the botom line is that Intel had the P3 Architecture in the Xeon and still chose to continue with the P4 until they took 1 step back and high presto C2D developed. So they always had the real winner and barked up the wrong tree in the P4.

The Core Duo is Intel's first generation dual coreprocessor based upon the Pentium M (a Pentium III-4 hybrid) .

Core and Core 2 variants are not based or derived from the P4 family;rather, they were developped by taking a P3 core and adding lots of features on to it.
Of course, they don't resemble P3s much anymore, but that's where they came from.

 

[NoADSLyet]

Aaaah missed that. So we have a Teklom employee on our hands.
EDIT. ssb, you back into the PC business yet?

Ah, You jokers, Know it all hey! LOL The closest I ever would get to Telkom is to pay bills.

Back to topic, It will be hard for AMD to EVER RECOVER. If they do it will be in our favour. So Yeah Intel keep cuttting those prices!

 

[supersunbird]

Who claimed anything about the P4? Can You read?



So thats the Point. Read it again I stated the P4 was a error in judgement a mess therefore AMD was better. When the P4 was abolished and the P3 revived as the Pentium M based on the P3 architecture and with some further development the new processors arrived to outstrip AMD. So the botom line is that Intel had the P3 Architecture in the Xeon and still chose to continue with the P4 until they took 1 step back and high presto C2D developed. So they always had the real winner and barked up the wrong tree in the P4.

U said:

Remember the last P4's and subsequent C2D is based on the old P3 or rather improved M version.

Go back and look for yourself. Now dont come questioning my literacy...

 

[NoADSLyet]

What the hell are you talking about my business about? .

Nothing I said

I have have/had a business i run/ran from home called Work and Play Computers. I have the website basis, just not time and all the skills to put in proper content and keep it properly updated. I now have a contract job for 6 month at Home Affairs.

 

[supersunbird]

I just answered someone question to the best of my abilty. You came and mocked my business. Now dont try to play innocent!

I'm off for a drink, bye

 

[NoADSLyet]

U said:



Go back and look for yourself. Now dont come questioning my literacy...

Remember the last P4's and subsequent C2D is based on the old P3 or rather improved M version

Just read again, where in that I said the core structure was based on P4 and the P4 was so good, That is what You thought.

The first Core structure was a P3/P4 Hybrid. So whats Your point.

 

[NoADSLyet]

I just answered someone question to the best of my abilty. You came and mocked my business. Now dont try to play innocent!

I'm off for a drink, bye

No you Mocked my comment and insulted me to try and show how much you Know. Well I am sure you succeeded! LOL

You obviously know fall about processors and should maybe keep quiet on the whole subject and listen and gain wisdom. No P4 was anywhere more like a P3 than any other one. They didn't "have it all along" and not realise it

As I said Intel always had a winner, and did not know it! They had the P3 Xeon architecture, which was better than the subsequent P4 development (also) based on the P3, and thus they barked up the wrong tree developing the "P4". AMD took over until Intel revived the old P3 architecture in the form of Pentium M and then core series was born. Killing off AMD as we know. So I state again, Intel had it all along and did not know it!

 

[Gnome]

As I said Intel always had a winner, and did not know it! They had the P3 Xeon architecture, which was better than the subsequent P4 development (also) based on the P3, and thus they barked up the wrong tree developing the "P4". AMD took over until Intel revived the old P3 architecture in the form of Pentium M and then core series was born. Killing off AMD as we know. So I state again, Intel had it all along and did not know it!

Actually they didn't always have a "winner and did not know it". The netburst architecture was designed to scale to 10ghz which the old P3's would not have been able to manage, when they realized that the 10ghz dream would not become a reality because of a variety of reason not pertaining to this thread, they moved to their then improved P3 core still being used for the mobile cores. From the onset they knew that IPC in the old P3 cores were better but that wasn't the point of the exercise, high clock rates were, they only later discovered the physical barriers that they faced near the death of the P4 core. If it wasn't Intel that made the mistake of aiming for high clock rates chances are it would have been AMD, either way eventually.

As for the AMD vs Intel thing, unless you can predict the future, there is simply no way you can say X or Y is better, no offense but it's not like they need to pull a rabbit out of a hat, the C2D architecture isn't that advanced (In fact the AMD Phenom is design wise more advanced). CPU architectures aren't like GPU's that pop up every 6 months, most of them have a cycle of 4-6 years, and are huge investments (why do you think Intel sticked it out with the Netburst architecture for so long?), until the new AMD architecture is actually out and matured and still being creamed by Intel then you can start to worry (well you seem to be pro-intel so you might not care to pay ridicules prices for CPU's like way back)

 

[PearlJam]

Why don't we get back to topic.....who is currently the cheapest on the E6600 and the QC6600?

 

[NoADSLyet]

Actually they didn't always have a "winner and did not know it". The netburst architecture was designed to scale to 10ghz which the old P3's would not have been able to manage, when they realized that the 10ghz dream would not become a reality because of a variety of reason not pertaining to this thread, they moved to their then improved P3 core still being used for the mobile cores. From the onset they knew that IPC in the old P3 cores were better but that wasn't the point of the exercise, high clock rates were, they only later discovered the physical barriers that they faced near the death of the P4 core.

I agree with Your statement above but the current C2D or core architecture outclasses everything as we saw. Its nothing major yet so we can just wait in awe.
At last Someone more knowledgeable on the subject, Thanks for the correct version, but just imagine INTEL have spend the P4 effort on the P3 branch??? C2D just proves what could have been. Anyway thanks for the update. We will see high GHZ sooner than many think IMHO at the cost of power of course.

 

[NoADSLyet]

Why don't we get back to topic.....who is currently the cheapest on the E6600 and the QC6600?

E6600 R1800 cost net excl.
QC6600 not listed Yet.

Check this out http://www.bluesting.co.za/intel/intel_core_2_quad_q6600_1512.htm

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (4MB L2 Cache, 2.40 GHz, 1066MHz FSB) 12 R2,099.00 R2,447.23 R3,399.00

Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (4MB L2 Cache, 2.66 GHz, 1066MHz FSB) 12 R2,914.10 R3,294.36 R5,280.00

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (8MB L2 Cache, 2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB) 4 R4,877.98 R8,764.74 R10,214.00

I would really like to get the QX6700 for less than R5K