Sneak peak at 65nm Intel

that dont look bad, but tbh you'd b better off with a prescot, sure it makes more heat, but on most things they are the same...the only major difference is that the prescot produces more heat, and consumes more power, and the ceadermill does less of both...and no-doubt the ceadermill wil be more expensive...
 
Why would you be better off with a Prescott if they score the same but Cedar Mill is cooler?

Cooler = more overclocking

More overclocking = More performance
 
Cooler = a lot better :) Intels biggest drawback was heat issues, so this is a welcome enhancement!
 
name='ionicle' said:
that dont look bad, but tbh you'd b better off with a prescot, sure it makes more heat, but on most things they are the same...the only major difference is that the prescot produces more heat, and consumes more power, and the ceadermill does less of both...and no-doubt the ceadermill wil be more expensive...

tbh ionicle this is severly incorrect, as envias pointed the cooler cores will result in more headroom for overclocking ;) the ceader mill cores will soon replace the presscot.
 
Still doesn't look very good really:

Tom's Hardware said:
These unexpected results at high loads also make it clear that the Pentium 4 is getting closer to the Athlon 64 since the TDP specification is high, but it is usually far from being reached.

Well we'll have to see when they're out shan't we? :)
 
Back
Top