I wanted to spawn a discussion of next year's low end champ. Is it going to be AMD's Duron, the Intel Celeron, or VIA's Samuel II chip. Those seem to be the three choices, unless you want to include the mobile arena (Transmetta, in other words).
Intel's Celeron will supposedly increase its front side bus to 100MHz, which we know from overclocking to be a significant improvement. AMD will release Morgan, but this won't be until February at the least. VIA has been pushing the Cyrix III, which some say underperforms the Celeron, but VIA's new chip, the Samuel II, will supposedly give Celeron and Duron a run for their money.
I want anyone to provide any info on these upcoming products. Keep your info technical, though. "Processor X will kick a$$" is not acceptible by itself. Rumors are OK, as long as you can back them up. Let's get a technical speculative discussion going. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by Arcadian (edited October 04, 2000).]
Ymaster
10-04-2000, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Arcadian:
I wanted to spawn a discussion of next year's low end champ. Is it going to be AMD's Duron, the Intel Celeron, or VIA's Samuel II chip. Those seem to be the three choices, unless you want to include the mobile arena (Transmetta, in other words).
Intel's Celeron will supposedly increase its front side bus to 100MHz, which we know from overclocking to be a significant improvement. AMD will release Morgan, but this won't be until February at the least. VIA has been pushing the Cyrix III, which some say underperforms the Celeron, but VIA's new chip, the Samuel II, will supposedly give Celeron and Duron a run for their money.
I want anyone to provide any info on these upcoming products. Keep your info technical, though. "Processor X will kick a$$" is not acceptible by itself. Rumors are OK, as long as you can back them up. Let's get a technical speculative discussion going. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by Arcadian (edited October 04, 2000).]
Duron 100%
The locked multipyers of the newist Celerons kind of messed them up. You can't push the fsb without going to far to fast.
The Via chip with cyrix is not going any place. I spit on cyrix! Curesed to play games on one a long time ago.
Arcadian
10-04-2000, 05:05 PM
So Ymaster, do you think AMD's attempt to lock the multiplier on its processors would weigh your decision differently?
While it's true that Celerons have had locked multipliers for some time, the jump to 100MHz front side bus should make a large improvement to performance. Do you think that a 700/100MHz Celeron will overclock easier than a 700/100MHz Pentium III? With a smaller cache, it may be possible....
Also, keep in mind that VIA's Samuel II is not using the Cyrix core. VIA figured that there was some name recognition with the Cyrix name, so chances are they will call their new chip that. However, they are using a completely different core from a company called Centaur. If anybody has any information on the performance of this new chip, can they please repond?
If the Samuel II is that much better, Ymaster, what would your opinion be then?
Ymaster
10-04-2000, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Arcadian:
So Ymaster, do you think AMD's attempt to lock the multiplier on its processors would weigh your decision differently?
While it's true that Celerons have had locked multipliers for some time, the jump to 100MHz front side bus should make a large improvement to performance. Do you think that a 700/100MHz Celeron will overclock easier than a 700/100MHz Pentium III? With a smaller cache, it may be possible....
Also, keep in mind that VIA's Samuel II is not using the Cyrix core. VIA figured that there was some name recognition with the Cyrix name, so chances are they will call their new chip that. However, they are using a completely different core from a company called Centaur. If anybody has any information on the performance of this new chip, can they please repond?
If the Samuel II is that much better, Ymaster, what would your opinion be then?
Yes it would...
But Durons are normally set to 100 fsb from the start.
It would also make me think twice if the Celeron had a 100 fbs normally..like a 900 celeron at 100x9=900 would be sweet. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif
But knowing Intel it would be 13.5x66=900 rounded.. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/frown.gif It also forces you to buy a new motherboard that has a 13.5 Multiplyer
. So this does not save money in my eyes...
nkeezer
10-04-2000, 06:35 PM
I'd have to say that Duron will probably be the low-end champ. While overclocking the Celeron to 100 FSB does make for a pretty significant performance boost, most benchmarks I've seen show that it still lags behind the Duron clock for clock. Furthermore, it also seems that the discrepancy between the two chips gets bigger as speeds increase. Possibly the result of the reduced L2 cache associativity of the Celerons? If that's the case, then things could start to look even worse for Celeron once it starts getting up into 850+ territory.
Another thing that may make a difference would be motherboard support. IF Intel bumps up the performance of the Celeron (by either going to 100/133 FSB and/or increasing the L@ associativity), then they might run the risk of cannibalizing PIII/4 sales (I'm sure they remember what happened with the PII). So I'd guess that they might take steps to ensure that the Celeron remains a low-end solution. I could definitely see Intel something along the lines of preventing a Celeron from working with DDR or Rambus. Especially considering the fact that the PIII is slated for a die shrink in the near future. We know the .18 Coppermine die is only good to about 1.1GHz. So the PIIIs have topped out, but Celeron still has a ways to go. Whole lotta stuff that could be going on over on Intel's side...it'll be interesting to see what happens.
As for the Samuel II: I don't know. Cyrix chips have been historically bad performers. It's tough to say if they'll manage to pull a complete about-face and pump out a good chip. My gut feeling is that it won't happen. The fact that Via is making it, though, could make it a contender. I'm sure that they've been developing the chip and it's accompanying chipsets hand in hand. So maybe Via will have some tricks up it's sleeve that wrings a little extra juice out of Sammy?
------------------
www.nweb-design.com (http://www.nweb-design.com) <-- Send me a client, I'll send you a 5% finder's fee
"You have just destroyed one model XQJ-37 nuclear powered pansexual roto-plooker....and you're gonna have to pay for it." -- Frank Zappa
LiquidGoop
10-04-2000, 07:57 PM
Seems like thos forum has a population of 3, nkeezer, ymaster, and arcadian. Seems like people want to stay away from the "Highly Technical" PC forum, but to return to the topic at hand, I agree with nkeezer, celeron even at 100FSB is slower clock for clock than durons. And VIA chip isn't even out yet, and you can't completely judge a product on the companys history. However, I feel that it will not be enough to compete with the duron.
What socket is the Samuel 2 using anyways?
Arcadian
10-04-2000, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by LiquidGoop:
Seems like thos forum has a population of 3, nkeezer, ymaster, and arcadian. Seems like people want to stay away from the "Highly Technical" PC forum, but to return to the topic at hand, I agree with nkeezer, celeron even at 100FSB is slower clock for clock than durons. And VIA chip isn't even out yet, and you can't completely judge a product on the companys history. However, I feel that it will not be enough to compete with the duron.
What socket is the Samuel 2 using anyways?
Well, this topic was just created today, so I hope more people decide to start technical discussions here as they find out it exists. I mean, you just posted here http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif.
BTW, Samuel II will use socket370. Cyrix has always used the same socket as Intel CPUs, and I think VIA plans to continue that.
Rick_James9
10-04-2000, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by LiquidGoop:
Seems like thos forum has a population of 3, nkeezer, ymaster, and arcadian. Seems like people want to stay away from the "Highly Technical" PC forum, but to return to the topic at hand, I agree with nkeezer, celeron even at 100FSB is slower clock for clock than durons. And VIA chip isn't even out yet, and you can't completely judge a product on the companys history. However, I feel that it will not be enough to compete with the duron.
What socket is the Samuel 2 using anyways?
I was going to stay out of this one. But what the hell! The low end champ will be the Duron. Why?
1. The FPU is the key. AMD finally got the "uppperhand". And this IS the key to CPU power(RISC anyone?). This why years ago you had to buy a math co-processor.
2. The motherboards will have faster a FSB. I'm sorry its a little late for 100mhz for the Celeron.
3. VIA? Well, they may own Cyrix but I don't think they're up to making CPUs even close to AMD or Intel standards. They are still trying bring some respect to their chipsets BTW, IBM you did very well getting rid of Cyrix; Smart move.
4. Finally, AMD has proven the Duron is a excellent cpu and can sell it very cheap.
------------------
Tech GOD
Arcadian
10-04-2000, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Rick_James9:
I was going to stay out of this one. But what the hell! The low end champ will be the Duron. Why?
1. The FPU is the key. AMD finally got the "uppperhand". And this IS the key to CPU power(RISC anyone?). This why years ago you had to buy a math co-processor.
2. The motherboards will have faster a FSB. I'm sorry its a little late for 100mhz for the Celeron.
3. VIA? Well, they may own Cyrix but I don't think they're up to making CPUs even close to AMD or Intel standards. They are still trying bring some respect to their chipsets BTW, IBM you did very well getting rid of Cyrix; Smart move.
4. Finally, AMD has proven the Duron is a excellent cpu and can sell it very cheap.
1. I totally agree. FPU is very important in a lot of apps. Intel definately needs to catch up in this department. I have a feeling, though, that AMD won't hold the FPU crown forever, though http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/wink.gif
2. I'll buy that argument, too. Upgrading the Celeron to 100MHz seems a little quaint when you compare it to a Morgan on 266MHz front side bus. I wonder if Intel will do a Celeron version of the Pentium 4. With a 400MHz FSB, the Celeron would be much more competative. Intel could even clock it at 1GHz, which would be slow for a Pentium 4, but not for a Celeron. Of course, Intel won't have the resources to consider this option until at least March (coinciding with Morgan, perhaps???)
3. Well, VIA may not have much to compete with Intel or AMD, but whatever they sell means that either of the two current champs will lose market share. How much? Even 5% would hurt, and I shutter to think of 10% being within the realm of possibility.
4. Yes, I imagine AMD will sell as many as they can produce, but how much is that? Intel can probably produce at LEAST 5 times the amount of Celerons as AMD's Texas plant can spit out Durons. Remember Dresden is ramping up for faster Athlons, and I don't believe AMD will take up space for Durons up there.
Thanks for replying! http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif
LiquidGoop
10-05-2000, 08:26 AM
We keep talking about duron being "low-end", but in reality it is a relatively fast processor that can hold its own against the likes of P3 and the TBird. It's admirable that the duron is even compared to those chips, bein "low-end".
When I was building my new box, there was no contest between celeron and duron. The celeron only seems like a good choice if you have an existing BX board and decide to upgrade, not buying a whole new box.
Arcadian
10-05-2000, 10:23 AM
I agree that Durons are not low end processors, but the fact remains that AMD is making them low cost, and thus positioning them as "low end". One of AMD's mistakes is that the Duron performs too well in comparison to the Athlon. I'm sure this will affect their Athlon sales, when people start wisening up to the performance delta between the two.
nova
10-05-2000, 01:39 PM
I think it is possible that the duron could be made to perform even better than now. With the news about qdr sram and later on qdr sdram I think I have read it is possible to move the EV6 bus up to qdr from ddr. This could provide fairly large jump in performance.
------------------
Remember, its only a dream!
slick
10-05-2000, 02:18 PM
I don't know LiquidGoop this forum is for the "Highly Technical" maybe that alone scares ppl off but hey i happen to like this forum.
Not getting into the numbers so much i would have to say the Duron will be the king of the lowend just because people like more bang for there $$$.
Adisharr
10-05-2000, 05:06 PM
I am thinking that the Samuel will be a dog. VIA makes a good chipset (better when they take care of these graphics card incompatibilities) but I don't believe they have a lot a cpu experience.
If the P3 loses to a Duron in some tests, that leads me to believe the the Celeron is still going to lag behind. I doubt Intel will improve that chip beyond the increased bus speed.
Regarding the centaur core, if that's the same company they made low cost 486 upgrades - they are doomed IMHO http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif
$ .02
------------------
- Mouse not found - click to continue..
Arcadian
10-05-2000, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Adisharr:
I am thinking that the Samuel will be a dog. VIA makes a good chipset (better when they take care of these graphics card incompatibilities) but I don't believe they have a lot a cpu experience.
Regarding the centaur core, if that's the same company they made low cost 486 upgrades - they are doomed IMHO http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif
Well something that interested me concerning VIA's new chip is a proposed system that will cause in total $199. Even if it performs like crap, I think a lot of people will be interested in buying something that dirt cheap. What do you think?
nkeezer
10-05-2000, 11:55 PM
I dunno...I get the feeling that the low-cost PC arena has kind of reached critical mass. There are a whole lot of $400 machines out there right now, and with the MSN internet rebate, they're basically free. Would cutting the cost from $400 to $200 make that much of a difference?
Another point: I have a hard time seeing how costs could realistically be cut down to $200. The only way I could see it happening would be on a very very stripped down computer (running an alternative OS with no floppy, integrated everything and a small hard drive). And that, to me, sounds an awful lot like one of these "Internet Appliances" that companies keep releasing but no one is buying. That said, I think that market is where you'll be seeing Sammy the most.
Originally posted by Arcadian:
Well something that interested me concerning VIA's new chip is a proposed system that will cause in total $199. Even if it performs like crap, I think a lot of people will be interested in buying something that dirt cheap. What do you think?
------------------
www.nweb-design.com (http://www.nweb-design.com) <-- Send me a client, I'll send you a 5% finder's fee
"You have just destroyed one model XQJ-37 nuclear powered pansexual roto-plooker....and you're gonna have to pay for it." -- Frank Zappa
Duo
10-06-2000, 12:44 AM
Before we look at specs lets look at the three companies first. Intel has made a few blunders as of recent and has shown that even giants can easily mess up. Their chip the Celeron, was a big marketing tool and for awhile it worked. But it has been left alone for the most part, while Intel looks at bigger things. For that reason the Celeron will not be king of value cpus. Via a big mobo maker is using its reputation as a good chipset maker to gain support for their chip. But Via to me at least is not making a good move, why alienate AMD and Intel just to make a value cpu. Also Via is not a cash cow like AMD and Intel so they wont be able to sustain a successful aggressive campaign against AMD and Intel. Now this brings us to AMD, who has been given some advantages through Intel's blunders. AMD was able to use this to further their consumer base and to jockey themselves into a neck and neck tie with Intel. This is why AMD will be the champ of the value cpu market. Again these are just my views.
Duo
Adisharr
10-06-2000, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Arcadian:
Well something that interested me concerning VIA's new chip is a proposed system that will cause in total $199. Even if it performs like crap, I think a lot of people will be interested in buying something that dirt cheap. What do you think?
WOW! That's quite a pricepoint http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif It would be nice to have internet access in a few other areas in my home - bathroom, kitchen, etc.. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/wink.gif
I was at Best Buy the other day and saw that Compaq iPac(?) - they want $ 600.00 for that tiny thing with limited functionality - probably mostly for the LCD cost..
------------------
- Mouse not found - click to continue..
Galen_of_Edgewood
10-06-2000, 12:38 PM
If all of the information that Tom Pasbt (sp?) has had on his website on the Samuel I and II is correct, it is below the Celeron performance in practically every single benchmark. It's FPU, in the tradition of Cyrix, is pitiful. It's integer is okay, but not impressive. In the extremely cheap pc (sub $500) realm, it might not be bad, but I sure wouldn't buy a system built around it.
The Celeron II could be saved from some of the wrath that it has be receiving from all of the online reviews if it receives a boost to it's FSB. This will give it a significant boost to its performance, but it has not been able to consitently defeat the Duron at similar clock speeds. Sometimes, it will lose to a lower clocked Duron, especially in the FPU benchmarks. This does not bode well for those of us who actually read and look at benchmarks. It's price is also considerably higher than the Duron. Not good....
The Duron, as has been shown and cheered about all over the web, is currently the low-cost performance champ. This is not in dispute. Performance-wise, I don't think that the Duron will lose to the Celeron anytime soon, especially on a clock-to-clock basis. Now, the Duron has two primary problems that is being held against it.
1) The lack of an inexpensive integrated motherboard with very good stability. This is what OEM's are looking for. If this condition was met, we'd see the Duron name splashed on a great number of non-Dell boxes. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
2) Name recognition, or the lack thereof. People know the name Intel, and apparently think that automatically means a really good and great performing chip. While this was true, the Celeron is now showing its slacking performance to anyone who is willing to look and listen. The general public does not want or simply will not do this research, otherwise the T-Bird would be backordered in the order of months.
Now that is out of the way, my personal feelings is that the Celeron will be the low-cost champ in the next year, or at least part of it. The Duron will be the performance low-cost champ, but I believe that the Celeron will be much more prevalent (sp?) in the low-cost sector. It makes me sad to say this, but I believe that this is the way that it will be. I do not think that the Samuel II has even a snowball's chance in hell or even a snowball's chance on the hot side of a 2000W peltier.
I will still sit back and cheer on the Duron though. Go AMD!
------------------
"I don't think so", said Rene Descart. Just then, he disappeared.
zombor
10-06-2000, 12:53 PM
is that 200 bucks with the monitor? thats a deal that i would take in a second, even if it is a via/cyrix chip inside.
------------------
Compaq Armada E500
650MHz PIII 128MB RAM
8MB ATI rage mobility
11GB hard drive/DVD
dual booting win98/2k
who said you cant game on a notebook????
Galen_of_Edgewood
10-06-2000, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by zombor:
is that 200 bucks with the monitor? thats a deal that i would take in a second, even if it is a via/cyrix chip inside.
Man, $200 for an entire computer. Jeeze, I just blew $300 for a video card....
------------------
"I don't think so", said Rene Descart. Just then, he disappeared.
Arcadian
10-06-2000, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by zombor:
is that 200 bucks with the monitor? thats a deal that i would take in a second, even if it is a via/cyrix chip inside.
I don't think so. But I have seen 15" monitors at Best Buy for $100 after rebate. So it's possible that total system cost for the VIA system would be on the order of $300-$350. Not bad if you already own a computer and just want a second online station like Adisharr was saying. Also, there are tons of people that are simply looking for a dirt cheap internet terminal (they are not interested in lots of programs or games... they just want the cheapest online possible). These are the people that will be buying the VIA system.
scub4st3v3
10-08-2000, 02:13 AM
It depends. The Duron easily beats the Celeron clock for clock, and if you have an unlocked Duron with a mobo that is able to adjust the multiplier clock, you can get 300-350 more mhz out of it. I haven't heard much about VIA's Samuel II (does the "II" indicate there has been another Samuel?) but if its only $199 there will be a few ways to look at it.
1) This is a piece of crap computer that I have to stay away from - a techie or gamer will mostly follow this rule.
2) "Let's get this computer for Billy's 7th birthday!"
3)We can't afford a $1,000+ computer, lets go with this because its within our budget.
In other words, I'm saying that it will appeal to some people, but definitely not all.
dumdedumdumm
10-08-2000, 12:22 PM
Keep talking: I don't have much money
or a fast computer . I don't have the brains
or education you guys have but I am learning
a lot about computers from you. My next
computer (mine is about 5 years old)will be
bought from information found here.Just wanted to say Im here watching the few people posting to this forum and have been for some time now . Bet a lot of other people are too.
Keep talking and Thanks for the info
------------------
NEC Ready 9618
150MHzPentium o/c166MHz wow
96mb EDO
1 mb V/G
Never follow in another mans footsteps.
Make your own path and let him follow you.
CaTaLyST
10-08-2000, 12:52 PM
i honestly think most of you are cuttting the VIA chip no slack.. i mean do you have any clue how a processor would perform with a chipset made to meet its exact needs. i mean, right now VIA is making chipsets for intel boards, and most the board manufacturers are just making generic chipsets that take both celerons and p2/p3's or some boards are for athlon/duron, etc... now what about the next VIA CPU... it will be closely coupled with a motherboard chipset made for it... Granted, intel makes most the chipsets for their boards, but they have so many CPU's it has to be backward compatible with.
I still wont look down on the VIA CPU till i see how it actually performs...
Arcadian
10-08-2000, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by CaTaLyST:
i honestly think most of you are cuttting the VIA chip no slack.. i mean do you have any clue how a processor would perform with a chipset made to meet its exact needs. i mean, right now VIA is making chipsets for intel boards, and most the board manufacturers are just making generic chipsets that take both celerons and p2/p3's or some boards are for athlon/duron, etc... now what about the next VIA CPU... it will be closely coupled with a motherboard chipset made for it... Granted, intel makes most the chipsets for their boards, but they have so many CPU's it has to be backward compatible with.
I still wont look down on the VIA CPU till i see how it actually performs...
I just wanted to say thanks, CaTaLyST, for being the first administrator to respond in this forum http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif. You guys should have the most current opinions to technology discussed here, and as a result I would like to hear your opinions. You should reply to more of the posts here, too, and encourage the other administrators to respond as well.
TekkieJosh
10-09-2000, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Galen_of_Edgewood:
If all of the information that Tom Pasbt (sp?) has had on his website on the Samuel I and II is correct, it is below the Celeron performance in practically every single benchmark. It's FPU, in the tradition of Cyrix, is pitiful. It's integer is okay, but not impressive. In the extremely cheap pc (sub $500) realm, it might not be bad, but I sure wouldn't buy a system built around it.
The Celeron II could be saved from some of the wrath that it has be receiving from all of the online reviews if it receives a boost to it's FSB. This will give it a significant boost to its performance, but it has not been able to consitently defeat the Duron at similar clock speeds. Sometimes, it will lose to a lower clocked Duron, especially in the FPU benchmarks. This does not bode well for those of us who actually read and look at benchmarks. It's price is also considerably higher than the Duron. Not good....
The Duron, as has been shown and cheered about all over the web, is currently the low-cost performance champ. This is not in dispute. Performance-wise, I don't think that the Duron will lose to the Celeron anytime soon, especially on a clock-to-clock basis. Now, the Duron has two primary problems that is being held against it.
1) The lack of an inexpensive integrated motherboard with very good stability. This is what OEM's are looking for. If this condition was met, we'd see the Duron name splashed on a great number of non-Dell boxes. http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
2) Name recognition, or the lack thereof. People know the name Intel, and apparently think that automatically means a really good and great performing chip. While this was true, the Celeron is now showing its slacking performance to anyone who is willing to look and listen. The general public does not want or simply will not do this research, otherwise the T-Bird would be backordered in the order of months.
Now that is out of the way, my personal feelings is that the Celeron will be the low-cost champ in the next year, or at least part of it. The Duron will be the performance low-cost champ, but I believe that the Celeron will be much more prevalent (sp?) in the low-cost sector. It makes me sad to say this, but I believe that this is the way that it will be. I do not think that the Samuel II has even a snowball's chance in hell or even a snowball's chance on the hot side of a 2000W peltier.
I will still sit back and cheer on the Duron though. Go AMD!
I'm new in the 'Highly Technical' forum, so bear with me http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif
I'd agree with most everything Galen_of_Edgewood said here... but, there are a couple things wrong or that i just disagree with in what he said. Everything he said about the Samuel II is fine. Its between the Celeron and Duron where i think there needs to be some adjustments http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif
First, he said that if the Celeron II got a boost in FSB, the performance still wouldnt quite match that of a Duron. And, the price for the Duron is still less than a Celeron (or any Intel for that matter). So far, so good.
When he talked about the Duron, he said that the two problems with the Duron. He said that the Duron doesnt have a low-cost, stable, integrated board. Well, Amptron and Alton (Daughter companies of PC-Chips) both make an inexpensive, integrated, and stable board called the 805L. I sell many of these boards and i havent had any calls back about them, meaning that they are working. Second, you said that the Duron wont be the low-cost performance champ because it isnt recognized. Well, i agree and disagree with you. People (usually ones that dont know much about performance and computers in general) just naturally go towards Intel just because of their recognizable name. But, i think the Duron is where AMD gets its name up there. In the next year, AMD's name will rise up to Intel's because of their newer processors that are out and still coming out. Especially in the low-cost performance area, i think that AMD will rise above the rest... once people open their eyes http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif
.02 http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/wink.gif
TJ
------------------
AMD Duron 700@1082
AMD TBird 700@1100
Abit KT7 with 1.88v
9" Radius Case/Window Fan
GlobalWin FOP-38 & Arctic Silver
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go visit my web page!
Click here (http://www.1stclasstech.com)
Satyr
10-10-2000, 07:49 PM
If anyone knows where this Sam2 is coming from it might be you, Catalyst. If it's the same as that Centaur garbage, then I'll be sceptical until I see otherwise. good point with the chipset though... that will be interesting.
Depending on advertising and general awareness the Duron will be the king of the cheapies. It has superior architecture all around. If the masses continue to assume intel is the best because they see the intel name the most then the Celery will have a chance.
------------------
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings...they did it by
killing all those who opposed them.
KR02
10-10-2000, 09:22 PM
i got a question:
what advanced features (mmx, SSE, 3dNow, ect) will the samuel have, and how much of an affect will this have on benchmarks.
also, if q3a works better on Intel machines because of the fact that the compiler prefers them, shouln't ID release seperate versions for AMD and Intel chips (they could go in the same box)?
------------------
Why Drink and Drive when you can Smoke and Fly?
TitanV
10-11-2000, 12:19 AM
Hey now guys...aren’t we being a little tough on the new kid? He hasn't even arrived on the block and he's got a bloody nose that his cousin (Cyrix) gave him.
In all seriousness it wasn't that long ago that this discussion couldn't have existed because there was only one contender. I was skeptical that AMD could catch Intel and they proved me, and a whole lot of others, wrong. Sure maybe sammy II won't beat the Durons or the Celerons, but who knows what time will bring.
It'll be interesting to see another chipmaker in this. More competition is good for everyone (except maybe Bill Gates).
With that said, I really don't see how it could be possible for via to play with the big boys this year. If they hit it big with the Internet appliances then maybe they'll be more inclined to up R&D and go after AMD and Intel. Of course all that takes years, but in this business a lot can happen in a few years.
Just my thoughts...
Humus
10-11-2000, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by KR02:
i got a question:
what advanced features (mmx, SSE, 3dNow, ect) will the samuel have, and how much of an affect will this have on benchmarks.
At least MMX and 3dnow will be supported AFAIK, don't know about SSE but probably not.
Originally posted by KR02:
also, if q3a works better on Intel machines because of the fact that the compiler prefers them, shouln't ID release seperate versions for AMD and Intel chips (they could go in the same box)?
It's mainly not a compiler issue, it's the hand writed assembler parts that makes it. Carmack probably worked on a P3 and thus he made a lot of SSE optimizations, while the 3dnow stuff wasn't used too much.
Galen_of_Edgewood
10-11-2000, 01:47 PM
I hope that you're right about the Duron. I'd prefer to see it ahead oh the Celeron in more than just performance.
------------------
"I don't think so", said Rene Descart. Just then, he disappeared.
Arcadian
10-11-2000, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Humus:
It's mainly not a compiler issue, it's the hand writed assembler parts that makes it. Carmack probably worked on a P3 and thus he made a lot of SSE optimizations, while the 3dnow stuff wasn't used too much.
I'm pretty sure Carmack uses Intel's compiler, which is quite geared towards SSE optimizations. I don't think there is any assembly coding necessary.
CaTaLyST
10-14-2000, 10:01 AM
hehe, i dont deal with site content... i work for internet.com and deal with the "Online Communities" (forums).
But i personally am a big PC hardware buff so u'd catch me right there overclocking my computer and rigging my Air conditioner to it or something...
With my post though, im merely saying if VIA makes a processor, dont cut it down till we see how it performs. If anything, any processor would do fairly well coupled with a chipset designed for just that processor.
Just ignore the fact that the processor has anything to do with <cough> Cyrix...
Humus
10-14-2000, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Arcadian:
I'm pretty sure Carmack uses Intel's compiler, which is quite geared towards SSE optimizations. I don't think there is any assembly coding necessary.
For best performance handwritten assembler is preferable, to some extent at least. You're probably right about Carmack, but I would do handwritten assembler, but I'm a nerd http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/smile.gif