09-30-2007, 04:37 PM
[quote M A V I C][quote Filliam H. Muffman]
Running at a lower speeds is one of the main reasons that they ran cooler.
Yes/no. A C2D at 2.4 runs MUCH cooler than some of the P4's at 2.4 ran. MUCH cooler.
Yes/yes.
The current C2D runs at a lower core voltage and has the benefit of smaller traces and two generations of process refinement. If they were fabbed with the same size traces, process technology, a comparable amount of cache, number of transistors, and run at the same voltage, the P4 would be very close when run at the same frequency. The P4 architecture is less efficient per clock cycle but does allow for much higher clock speeds.
Edit: For a bit of history, the first P4 models that reached 2.4 GHz were made with a 130 nm process. If you know of a review comparing a Cedar Mill P4, the last generation made, running at the same voltage and clock speed as a C2D, I would be very interested
Running at a lower speeds is one of the main reasons that they ran cooler.
Yes/no. A C2D at 2.4 runs MUCH cooler than some of the P4's at 2.4 ran. MUCH cooler.
Yes/yes.
The current C2D runs at a lower core voltage and has the benefit of smaller traces and two generations of process refinement. If they were fabbed with the same size traces, process technology, a comparable amount of cache, number of transistors, and run at the same voltage, the P4 would be very close when run at the same frequency. The P4 architecture is less efficient per clock cycle but does allow for much higher clock speeds.Edit: For a bit of history, the first P4 models that reached 2.4 GHz were made with a 130 nm process. If you know of a review comparing a Cedar Mill P4, the last generation made, running at the same voltage and clock speed as a C2D, I would be very interested