Why was she so perfect, /g/?

I like Core Duo

I hate Pentium 4 so god damn much tho

>>57099187
I'm still rocking a 3.33ghz E8600.

>>57099190
>I hate Pentium 4 so god damn much tho
why though

E6550 overclocked to 2.82Ghz. Comfy, till AMD delivers.

>>57099187
Dual core chips are still the best deal going in every generation of chip.

People always fall for the quad meme so you can get duals for a song, and single core performance is still all the matters in 75% of cases.

>>57099187
Because intel still had competition

Logo looked so much better back then.

>>57099260
They ran super hot and had hilariously low ipc because of the long ass pipeline. The first ones were slower than the p3.

>>57099187
q6600 clocked to 4.03GHz

comfort to the max.

>>57099581
Pentium III was beastly, though.

File: 1476615177540.jpg (265KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1440x1080px

>>57099995
>tfw mine isn't stable past 3.15ghz

Could you post your voltages

>>57099187
She wasn't, mate.

lol (lel of love)

>>57099187
Because it was an okay dual-core processor from the time of the single-threaded performance plateaux. We've gotten faster since then, but the rate of performance increase really dropped off back then. So this processor was capable for longer than any of its predecessors could have managed, because it was getting outdated at a much slower rate.

File: integer-perf.png (72KB, 556x454px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 556x454px

>>57100123
Related

>>57100155
Note how the part where you transition to the lesser performance is around the same time when AMD lost their edge in performance (and have been losing it ever since).

That's what monopoly does to you.

File: th.jpg (10KB, 300x298px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x298px

>>57099187
Yeah it's a slightly newer chip
And say what you will about not understanding the finer things or whateverthefuck
But this chip really happened for me. This day in age it's in a home server.

>>57100123
Eloquently put.

>>57100194
The two are related but not how you think.

AMD's peak was really the era of Intel's netburst architecture. At that point you really had to go to AMD to get the fastest processors.

The reason Intel were struggling so much at the time was because traditionally performance was indicated in the market by the rated clock frequency of the processor. But the technology they had to increase transistors and increase the clock rate at the same time had hit a bottleneck. They arbitrarily aimed to increase the clock frequencies possible with netburst at the expense of good design, to keep the exponential increase of clock rate.

But this play only works once. Eventually, Intel had to admit that clock rate does not determine performance, and that the exponential increase in clock rate was over. They went back and designed the Core's architecture based on the Pentium III's design because netburst was too far gone.

Intel has always been a larger company than AMD, so when they were concentrating on performance over marketing it was only a matter of time before they knocked AMD out of the performance lead. AMD had to refocus on providing more competitive pricing.

>>57100058
1.475V

this beast gets hot though. I get easy mid 80celsius during prime under a h80i

>>57100123
There's a more technical version of this here:
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm

>The Free Lunch Is Over, 2005

>>57099995
<3 Q6600 overclocked at 3.600ghz @1.368 for about 3+ years now

>>57099187
>>57100123
>>57100380
Furthermore, we will see another "Core 2 Duo" when we reach the predicted CPU bottleneck in roughly 2020.

Processors will get faster but once again at a much slower rate. The leading processors of that time will "last" for much longer than previously possible, they will get outdated over a course of maybe 10 years rather than 3-4 years.

Rockin an E7600 @3.3. I like it.

T9300 reporting.

File: 20160323_164310.jpg (3MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x3096px

>>57100251
Same here

>>57099995
>>57100515

q6600 user for 8 years here, going back to stock like 3 years ago from 3.2, mainboard and ddr2 is fucking impossible to find so reason i reset to default stock clock.

>>57100863
ddr2 is plentiful here fampai

>>57099187
I found a e6420 in my closet yesterday. Would use it for something, but I already have 2 q6600s and a q9300 in use, plus an atom 2.

>>57100534
Isn't the next technological leap supposed to happen anywhere from 2022 to 2024?

>>57100863
I have tons of sticks laying on my desk bby

>she

>>57099187
because no NSA hw backdoor a la intel management engine

Have a 9year old XPS M1330 running debian like boss on one of does. One off the best if not THE best pre i7 CPU-s.

File: 1460227821343.png (973KB, 801x1500px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 801x1500px

>>57099581
related

8400 representing.

>>57099581
>and had hilariously low ipc because of the long ass pipeline.
which is why it scaled to such high clocks to compensate, why do people act like this shit matters

>>57099187
Because she was my first.

Processor, that is, still a 20+ kissless virgin.

>>57103426
E8400 Wolfdale team reporting in.

>>57099187
>Why was she so perfect, /g/?

Sandy Bridge is GOAT. My 2600k has been clocked at 4.6 GHz for 5 years now and is still going strong.

>>57099187
'cause of libreboot