Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pentium M desktops ???

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 22, 2004 8:42:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

WTF ? The word was that Intel dont want that to happen. So what is this
? :

http://www.hitachi.co.jp/New/cnews/040316.html

in short :

HJ-2010-5EWJA
???? ????(R)Pentium(R)M?????(1.6GHz)?
??????—(???????)??2GB(ECC?)?
IDE??HDD80GB???FDD?CD-ROM?
PCI(??—?)×2?RGB×1?DVI-D×1?RS-232C×1?????×1?
USB×3(??1ch/??2ch)?LAN×2?RAS-LSI?RAS?????

Yes, its in Japanese :) 

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

More about : pentium desktops

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2004 10:09:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <Xns94D3BE95F64DERusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.80>, from the
wonderful person RusH <rush@pulse.pdi.net> said
>WTF ? The word was that Intel dont want that to happen
<snip>

So why would Intel care (apart from some of the marketing types). They
sell a chip for $x, what does it matter to them whether it comes out as
a desktop, a laptop, or popcorn maker??

OK, if were eating into the market for more expensive chips, I would
expect them to bitch and moan and drag feet (c.f. P4 vs. Xeon), but in
this case I thought the P4-M sold at a premium?

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2004 10:09:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

> Bitstring <Xns94D3BE95F64DERusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.80>, from the
> wonderful person RusH <rush@pulse.pdi.net> said
>
>> WTF ? The word was that Intel dont want that to happen
>
> <snip>
>
> So why would Intel care (apart from some of the marketing types). They
> sell a chip for $x, what does it matter to them whether it comes out as
> a desktop, a laptop, or popcorn maker??
>
> OK, if were eating into the market for more expensive chips, I would
> expect them to bitch and moan and drag feet (c.f. P4 vs. Xeon), but in
> this case I thought the P4-M sold at a premium?
>

The P4-M is Intel's el-cheapo brand "mobile" processor.
It is the Pentium M that you pay through the nose for.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2004 2:20:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:42:58 +0000 (UTC), RusH <rush@pulse.pdi.net>
wrote:
>WTF ? The word was that Intel dont want that to happen. So what is this
>? :
>
>http://www.hitachi.co.jp/New/cnews/040316.html

I don't know what's going on there, but I did notice just yesterday
that my regular on-line vendor is now selling Retail boxed Pentium M
processors. It still says that these are designed for i855 based
notebooks though, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it... Here's a
link:

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=10633&vpn=BX...


-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2004 3:06:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I don't know what's going on there, but I did notice just yesterday
> that my regular on-line vendor is now selling Retail boxed Pentium M
> processors. It still says that these are designed for i855 based
> notebooks though, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it... Here's a
> link:
>
> http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=10633&vpn=BX...

Ex-post-facto upgrade for 1.3ghz and 1.4ghz notebooks? White-box notebooks
sans processor?

And the small number of embedded-market Pentium M based boards that Intel
conveniently ignores.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2004 3:13:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:52:52 -0600, Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net>
wrote:
>GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
>> Bitstring <Xns94D3BE95F64DERusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.80>, from the
>> wonderful person RusH <rush@pulse.pdi.net> said
>>
>>> WTF ? The word was that Intel dont want that to happen
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> So why would Intel care (apart from some of the marketing types). They
>> sell a chip for $x, what does it matter to them whether it comes out as
>> a desktop, a laptop, or popcorn maker??

That, of course, is the question a lot of people have been asking for
some time now. For whatever reason though Intel seems to have been
rather strongly opposed to selling Pentium-M desktop chips. There
definitely seems to be a market for them, but until very recently
there haven't been any products.

>> OK, if were eating into the market for more expensive chips, I would
>> expect them to bitch and moan and drag feet (c.f. P4 vs. Xeon), but in
>> this case I thought the P4-M sold at a premium?
>>
>
>The P4-M is Intel's el-cheapo brand "mobile" processor.
>It is the Pentium M that you pay through the nose for.

The "Mobile Pentium4-M" is actually a fairly expensive processor, it's
the "Mobile Pentium4" that is Intel's el-cheapo brand "mobile"
processor (using the term loosely).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2004 3:33:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <108gf4krbd6oi60@corp.supernews.com>, from the wonderful
person Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> said
>GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
>> Bitstring <Xns94D3BE95F64DERusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.80>, from
>>the wonderful person RusH <rush@pulse.pdi.net> said
>>
>>> WTF ? The word was that Intel dont want that to happen
>> <snip>
>> So why would Intel care (apart from some of the marketing types).
>>They sell a chip for $x, what does it matter to them whether it comes
>>out as a desktop, a laptop, or popcorn maker??
>> OK, if were eating into the market for more expensive chips, I would
>>expect them to bitch and moan and drag feet (c.f. P4 vs. Xeon), but in
>>this case I thought the P4-M sold at a premium?
>>
>
>The P4-M is Intel's el-cheapo brand "mobile" processor.
>It is the Pentium M that you pay through the nose for.

Cheaper than a 'real' P4?
Cheaper than a Celeron? (spit!)

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2004 3:33:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

> Bitstring <108gf4krbd6oi60@corp.supernews.com>, from the wonderful
> person Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> said
>
>> GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>>
>>> Bitstring <Xns94D3BE95F64DERusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.80>, from
>>> the wonderful person RusH <rush@pulse.pdi.net> said
>>>
>>>> WTF ? The word was that Intel dont want that to happen
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> So why would Intel care (apart from some of the marketing types).
>>> They sell a chip for $x, what does it matter to them whether it
>>> comes out as a desktop, a laptop, or popcorn maker??
>>> OK, if were eating into the market for more expensive chips, I would
>>> expect them to bitch and moan and drag feet (c.f. P4 vs. Xeon), but
>>> in this case I thought the P4-M sold at a premium?
>>>
>>
>> The P4-M is Intel's el-cheapo brand "mobile" processor.
>> It is the Pentium M that you pay through the nose for.
>
>
> Cheaper than a 'real' P4?

A 2.4 GHz P4-M is more expensive than 2.4 GHz P4,
but *much* less expensive than a 1.6 GHz Pentium M.

And a 1.6 GHz Pentium M will run circles around
either of those 2.4 GHz processors.

> Cheaper than a Celeron? (spit!)

Attach a Celery to a stick and you should have a
great brush for dogs/cats with woolly coats.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2004 11:39:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote:

>A 2.4 GHz P4-M is more expensive than 2.4 GHz P4,
>but *much* less expensive than a 1.6 GHz Pentium M.
>
>And a 1.6 GHz Pentium M will run circles around
>either of those 2.4 GHz processors.

"Circles" around a 2.4C? I think not.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2004 11:45:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>>> So why would Intel care (apart from some of the marketing types). They
>>> sell a chip for $x, what does it matter to them whether it comes out as
>>> a desktop, a laptop, or popcorn maker??
>
>That, of course, is the question a lot of people have been asking for
>some time now. For whatever reason though Intel seems to have been
>rather strongly opposed to selling Pentium-M desktop chips. There
>definitely seems to be a market for them, but until very recently
>there haven't been any products.

There's many reasons, from a marketing standpoint, not the least of
which is the resulting confusion of which chip is faster/higher-end.
It's confusing enough as it is, with Celerons, Northwoods, and
Prescotts of various FSB speed, without throwing this "slower but
faster" set of chips into the mix...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2004 12:40:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <108h1gbsdp3uv2b@corp.supernews.com>, from the wonderful
person Rob Stow <rob.stow@sasktel.net> said
<snip>
>>>> So why would Intel care (apart from some of the marketing types).
>>>>They sell a chip for $x, what does it matter to them whether it
>>>>comes out as a desktop, a laptop, or popcorn maker??
>>>> OK, if were eating into the market for more expensive chips, I
>>>>would expect them to bitch and moan and drag feet (c.f. P4 vs.
>>>>Xeon), but in this case I thought the P4-M sold at a premium?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The P4-M is Intel's el-cheapo brand "mobile" processor.
>>> It is the Pentium M that you pay through the nose for.
>> Cheaper than a 'real' P4?
>
>A 2.4 GHz P4-M is more expensive than 2.4 GHz P4,
>but *much* less expensive than a 1.6 GHz Pentium M.

Right, so why would Intel care if someone chose to build desktops with a
P4-M, or Pentium-M, instead of a P4 (which was the original comment).
Basically whatever mobile processor you use in the desktop, Intel gets
=more= $$ than if you used the 'approved' vanilla P4.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 23, 2004 9:43:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:45:07 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>That, of course, is the question a lot of people have been asking for
>>some time now. For whatever reason though Intel seems to have been
>>rather strongly opposed to selling Pentium-M desktop chips. There
>>definitely seems to be a market for them, but until very recently
>>there haven't been any products.
>
>There's many reasons, from a marketing standpoint, not the least of
>which is the resulting confusion of which chip is faster/higher-end.
>It's confusing enough as it is, with Celerons, Northwoods, and
>Prescotts of various FSB speed, without throwing this "slower but
>faster" set of chips into the mix...

I'm not sure that this is 100% accurate for the market in question, ie
non-OEM parts. Presumably people buying retail boxed chips know at
least something about the processors (or they are buying based on the
recommendations of someone who knows something).

In any case though, perhaps the new processor model numbers will
change this? Intel is planning on switching all their model specs in
a couple of weeks.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 28, 2004 8:08:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:13:02 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>That, of course, is the question a lot of people have been asking for
>some time now. For whatever reason though Intel seems to have been
>rather strongly opposed to selling Pentium-M desktop chips. There
>definitely seems to be a market for them, but until very recently
>there haven't been any products.

If you spend umpteen million in R&D to design the P4, and the P-M
comes along with less R&D and runs slightly faster in some scenarios,
what do you do? Chuck all your P4 R&D out the window?

- PT
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2004 12:53:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Paul Tiseo <tiseo123.paul456@mayo.edu> wrote:
> If you spend umpteen million in R&D to design the P4, and the P-M
> comes along with less R&D and runs slightly faster in some scenarios,
> what do you do? Chuck all your P4 R&D out the window?

Actually, I believe the Pentium4 was done as a rush job,
on the cheap after it became apparant that ia64 (aka
Itanium) would not take over. IMHO it's an original
Pentium plus SSE2, deeply pipelined for inflated clocks.

The Pentium-M is little more than the venerable P6 core,
tweaked and clocked higher on smaller processes.

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2004 3:07:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:08:27 -0400, Paul Tiseo
<tiseo123.paul456@mayo.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:13:02 -0400, Tony Hill
><hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>That, of course, is the question a lot of people have been asking for
>>some time now. For whatever reason though Intel seems to have been
>>rather strongly opposed to selling Pentium-M desktop chips. There
>>definitely seems to be a market for them, but until very recently
>>there haven't been any products.
>
>If you spend umpteen million in R&D to design the P4, and the P-M
>comes along with less R&D and runs slightly faster in some scenarios,
>what do you do? Chuck all your P4 R&D out the window?

I'd suggest that you listen to what your customers want and sell
whatever that is. My guess is that the majority of people will prefer
the P4, but there is certainly a market for the Pentium-M. No need to
chuck any R&D out the window, just fill market demand. However, for
whatever reason, Intel has thus far refused to do that.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2004 4:14:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <4n3090d9p7lbghgg4vtrrcp9so0cr7o4d4@4ax.com>,
tiseo123.paul456@mayo.edu says...
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:13:02 -0400, Tony Hill
> <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >That, of course, is the question a lot of people have been asking for
> >some time now. For whatever reason though Intel seems to have been
> >rather strongly opposed to selling Pentium-M desktop chips. There
> >definitely seems to be a market for them, but until very recently
> >there haven't been any products.
>
> If you spend umpteen million in R&D to design the P4, and the P-M
> comes along with less R&D and runs slightly faster in some scenarios,
> what do you do? Chuck all your P4 R&D out the window?

At that point it's sunk cost. It doesn't matter what you do with
it. You optimize your profit/revenue (whatever is important
today) based on what you have. What you've spent and where is
totally irrelevant (to everyone but the product manager getting
axed ;-).

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2004 3:25:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:6RUjc.3959$0j3.1020@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> Paul Tiseo <tiseo123.paul456@mayo.edu> wrote:
> > If you spend umpteen million in R&D to design the P4, and the P-M
> > comes along with less R&D and runs slightly faster in some scenarios,
> > what do you do? Chuck all your P4 R&D out the window?
>
> Actually, I believe the Pentium4 was done as a rush job,
> on the cheap after it became apparant that ia64 (aka
> Itanium) would not take over. IMHO it's an original
> Pentium plus SSE2, deeply pipelined for inflated clocks.
>
> The Pentium-M is little more than the venerable P6 core,
> tweaked and clocked higher on smaller processes.
>
> -- Robert

It does seem as though the P4 is just that. A P3 with SSE2, with very long
pipelines (extended further thanks to Prescott) for a hyper-inflated clock
speed that eventually is pretty decent, but only when you get to a
ridiculous level of clock speed, and some of that is due to the quadrupled
bandwidth bus speed combined with the memory speeds (dual channel anyways).
As the P4 increases in clock speed, so does the L1/L2 cache, which can only
help but improve performance further.

What strikes me is that a P4 @ 3GHz is generally on par with an Athlon
3000+, which depending on the bus speed chosen is either 2.16GHz (333Mhz
bus) or 2.1GHz (400Mhz bus). I forget off-hand how deep the P4 pipeline is,
but is something like 24, isnt it? The Athlon is something like 12, or 15.
Either way, the numbers are off, but it still is rather close. The P4 has
L1 & L2 cache running at 3GHz, while the Athlon's is about 66% of that, but
more plentiful. The bus bandwidth of the P4 is going to be either
4.27GB/sec or 6.4GB/sec (533 or 800MHz bus [yet it is really 133 or
166MHz]). Yet the Athlon is using a 3.2GB/sec bus. As for memory, the most
you can get out of the Athlon is the 3.2GB/sec (whether you use P3200 RAM,
any speed dual channel RAM, even PC3200), but with P4 you have a shot at
getting a theoretical of 6.4GB/sec (dual channel PC3200).

All this combined, things sure look favorable for P4. It has so much more
bandwidth in every area, cache, bus, and RAM. Yet, how come with a 900MHz
core clock lead, it is only able to tie the Athlon? It seems like it is
using all the bandwidth and wasting it. If AMD could get the sort of
bandwidth that Intel has, I would imagine that the P4 would need about a
1200MHz or more head start to start being comparable.

For anybody who cares, I do use AMD, so if you want to say I'm promoting AMD
unfairly or whatever, that's wrong, I'm simply showing that Intel isn't
efficient.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2004 3:25:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <TlWkc.7010$Ia6.809665@attbi_s03>,
anonymousjoe@net.net says...
> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:6RUjc.3959$0j3.1020@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> > Paul Tiseo <tiseo123.paul456@mayo.edu> wrote:
> > > If you spend umpteen million in R&D to design the P4, and the P-M
> > > comes along with less R&D and runs slightly faster in some scenarios,
> > > what do you do? Chuck all your P4 R&D out the window?
> >
> > Actually, I believe the Pentium4 was done as a rush job,
> > on the cheap after it became apparant that ia64 (aka
> > Itanium) would not take over. IMHO it's an original
> > Pentium plus SSE2, deeply pipelined for inflated clocks.
> >
> > The Pentium-M is little more than the venerable P6 core,
> > tweaked and clocked higher on smaller processes.
> >
> > -- Robert
>
> It does seem as though the P4 is just that. A P3 with SSE2, with very long
> pipelines (extended further thanks to Prescott) for a hyper-inflated clock
> speed that eventually is pretty decent, but only when you get to a
> ridiculous level of clock speed, and some of that is due to the quadrupled
> bandwidth bus speed combined with the memory speeds (dual channel anyways).
> As the P4 increases in clock speed, so does the L1/L2 cache, which can only
> help but improve performance further.

Yikes! The architectures are *vastly* different. THe P4 has no
integer multiply (has to send the data to the FPU, across chip)
and has no barrel-shifter. The architectures of the
PPro/PII/PIII and P4 are *vastly* different!
>
> What strikes me is that a P4 @ 3GHz is generally on par with an Athlon
> 3000+, which depending on the bus speed chosen is either 2.16GHz (333Mhz
> bus) or 2.1GHz (400Mhz bus).

Sure, because the micro-architecture is *vastly* different.
IFAIC the P4 is a failure in micro-architecture. Maybe they'll
improve it by shoring up it's weaknesses, but so far it is a dud.

> I forget off-hand how deep the P4 pipeline is,
> but is something like 24, isnt it? The Athlon is something like 12, or 15.
> Either way, the numbers are off, but it still is rather close. The P4 has
> L1 & L2 cache running at 3GHz, while the Athlon's is about 66% of that, but
> more plentiful. The bus bandwidth of the P4 is going to be either

You're missing a lot of other details here.

> 4.27GB/sec or 6.4GB/sec (533 or 800MHz bus [yet it is really 133 or
> 166MHz]). Yet the Athlon is using a 3.2GB/sec bus. As for memory, the most
> you can get out of the Athlon is the 3.2GB/sec (whether you use P3200 RAM,
> any speed dual channel RAM, even PC3200), but with P4 you have a shot at
> getting a theoretical of 6.4GB/sec (dual channel PC3200).

Now, consider latency. Bandwidth isn't everything. Bandwith
only takes money, latency takes physics.

> All this combined, things sure look favorable for P4.

Only because you're not looking at the right problem.

> It has so much more
> bandwidth in every area, cache, bus, and RAM. Yet, how come with a 900MHz
> core clock lead, it is only able to tie the Athlon?

See above.

> It seems like it is
> using all the bandwidth and wasting it. If AMD could get the sort of
> bandwidth that Intel has, I would imagine that the P4 would need about a
> 1200MHz or more head start to start being comparable.

Bandwidth isn't a useful measure, unless you don't have enough.
Latency is *always* a useful measure.
>
> For anybody who cares, I do use AMD, so if you want to say I'm promoting AMD
> unfairly or whatever, that's wrong, I'm simply showing that Intel isn't
> efficient.

If I were to buy a system for encoding video and *only* that
function, I'd likely buy a P4. For anything else, forget it. As
you've noted Intel has gone down the wrong path.

<rdh> ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2004 3:30:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <MPG.1afe1e99ebe19a769897ce@news1.news.adelphia.net>, from the
wonderful person KR Williams <krw@att.biz> said
<huge snip>
>If I were to buy a system for encoding video and *only* that
>function, I'd likely buy a P4. For anything else, forget it.

Actually it does rather well (2x as good as an Opteron or Athlon64)
running Prime95 LL tests, but only because AMDs SSE2 has some sort of
implementation glitch that means you can't process at the speed you
ought be able to.

see:
http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2004 4:32:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <AHTXDoDM3MlAFAC+@from.is.invalid>,
GSV@quik.clara.co.uk says...
> Bitstring <MPG.1afe1e99ebe19a769897ce@news1.news.adelphia.net>, from the
> wonderful person KR Williams <krw@att.biz> said
> <huge snip>
> >If I were to buy a system for encoding video and *only* that
> >function, I'd likely buy a P4. For anything else, forget it.
>
> Actually it does rather well (2x as good as an Opteron or Athlon64)
> running Prime95 LL tests, but only because AMDs SSE2 has some sort of
> implementation glitch that means you can't process at the speed you
> ought be able to.

Ok, let me modify my statement a little: If I were doing only
video encoding or esoteric bench marking, I'd buy a P4. For
anything else, forget it. ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2004 6:02:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
> anonymousjoe@net.net says...
>> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> > Actually, I believe the Pentium4 was done as a rush job,
>> > on the cheap after it became apparant that ia64 (aka
>> > Itanium) would not take over. IMHO it's an original
>> > Pentium plus SSE2, deeply pipelined for inflated clocks.
>>
>> It does seem as though the P4 is just that. A P3 with SSE2, with very long
>> pipelines (extended further thanks to Prescott) for a hyper-inflated clock
>> speed that eventually is pretty decent, but only when you get to a
>> ridiculous level of clock speed, and some of that is due to the quadrupled
>> bandwidth bus speed combined with the memory speeds (dual channel anyways).
>> As the P4 increases in clock speed, so does the L1/L2 cache, which can only
>> help but improve performance further.
>
> Yikes! The architectures are *vastly* different. THe P4 has no
> integer multiply (has to send the data to the FPU, across chip)
> and has no barrel-shifter. The architectures of the
> PPro/PII/PIII and P4 are *vastly* different!

Exactly what I was trying to say. I see the Pentium4 mostly
as a throwback to the original Pentium (P5 core).

Odlly, the Pentium4 may not perform too badly because compiler
technology lags horribly and alot of apps (MS-Office?) are
still compiled on older compilers that optimize only for two
exec pipelines.

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2004 6:46:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <bc7lc.6083$vS4.1949@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>,
redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
> KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
> > anonymousjoe@net.net says...
> >> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> >> > Actually, I believe the Pentium4 was done as a rush job,
> >> > on the cheap after it became apparant that ia64 (aka
> >> > Itanium) would not take over. IMHO it's an original
> >> > Pentium plus SSE2, deeply pipelined for inflated clocks.
> >>
> >> It does seem as though the P4 is just that. A P3 with SSE2, with very long
> >> pipelines (extended further thanks to Prescott) for a hyper-inflated clock
> >> speed that eventually is pretty decent, but only when you get to a
> >> ridiculous level of clock speed, and some of that is due to the quadrupled
> >> bandwidth bus speed combined with the memory speeds (dual channel anyways).
> >> As the P4 increases in clock speed, so does the L1/L2 cache, which can only
> >> help but improve performance further.
> >
> > Yikes! The architectures are *vastly* different. THe P4 has no
> > integer multiply (has to send the data to the FPU, across chip)
> > and has no barrel-shifter. The architectures of the
> > PPro/PII/PIII and P4 are *vastly* different!
>
> Exactly what I was trying to say. I see the Pentium4 mostly
> as a throwback to the original Pentium (P5 core).

I don't see how the P4 is anywhere close to either the P5 or P6.
The P5 was more CISCy than either the P6 or P4 (interesting
numbers ;-).
>
> Odlly, the Pentium4 may not perform too badly because compiler
> technology lags horribly and alot of apps (MS-Office?) are
> still compiled on older compilers that optimize only for two
> exec pipelines.

Sheer MHz showing through the ugliness. ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2004 1:10:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <MPG.1afee7979de2891d9897de@news1.news.adelphia.net>, from the
wonderful person KR Williams <krw@att.biz> said
>In article <AHTXDoDM3MlAFAC+@from.is.invalid>,
>GSV@quik.clara.co.uk says...
>> Bitstring <MPG.1afe1e99ebe19a769897ce@news1.news.adelphia.net>, from the
>> wonderful person KR Williams <krw@att.biz> said
>> <huge snip>
>> >If I were to buy a system for encoding video and *only* that
>> >function, I'd likely buy a P4. For anything else, forget it.
>>
>> Actually it does rather well (2x as good as an Opteron or Athlon64)
>> running Prime95 LL tests, but only because AMDs SSE2 has some sort of
>> implementation glitch that means you can't process at the speed you
>> ought be able to.
>
>Ok, let me modify my statement a little: If I were doing only
>video encoding or esoteric bench marking, I'd buy a P4. For
>anything else, forget it. ;-)

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

Actually the P4 isn't all that =bad compared to an AMD processor (pick
any one), until you plug 'price' into the equation. It's just that with
the memory bandwidth, and the core clock rates, it really ought be
better, and it isn't.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2004 1:43:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <I6eFcPR6WVlAFAwe@from.is.invalid>,
GSV@quik.clara.co.uk says...
> Bitstring <MPG.1afee7979de2891d9897de@news1.news.adelphia.net>, from the
> wonderful person KR Williams <krw@att.biz> said
> >In article <AHTXDoDM3MlAFAC+@from.is.invalid>,
> >GSV@quik.clara.co.uk says...
> >> Bitstring <MPG.1afe1e99ebe19a769897ce@news1.news.adelphia.net>, from the
> >> wonderful person KR Williams <krw@att.biz> said
> >> <huge snip>
> >> >If I were to buy a system for encoding video and *only* that
> >> >function, I'd likely buy a P4. For anything else, forget it.
> >>
> >> Actually it does rather well (2x as good as an Opteron or Athlon64)
> >> running Prime95 LL tests, but only because AMDs SSE2 has some sort of
> >> implementation glitch that means you can't process at the speed you
> >> ought be able to.
> >
> >Ok, let me modify my statement a little: If I were doing only
> >video encoding or esoteric bench marking, I'd buy a P4. For
> >anything else, forget it. ;-)
>
> Yeah, I'd agree with that.
>
> Actually the P4 isn't all that =bad compared to an AMD processor (pick
> any one), until you plug 'price' into the equation. It's just that with
> the memory bandwidth, and the core clock rates, it really ought be
> better, and it isn't.

People keep talking "bandwidth" as if "latency" didn't matter.
AMD's integration of the memory controller is so obvious I could
spit. Yet people still just don't get it. The North-Bridge is
dead, why are we still doing the stupid?

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2004 12:50:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:6RUjc.3959$0j3.1020@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> Paul Tiseo <tiseo123.paul456@mayo.edu> wrote:
> > If you spend umpteen million in R&D to design the P4, and the P-M
> > comes along with less R&D and runs slightly faster in some scenarios,
> > what do you do? Chuck all your P4 R&D out the window?
>
> Actually, I believe the Pentium4 was done as a rush job,
> on the cheap after it became apparant that ia64 (aka
> Itanium) would not take over. IMHO it's an original
> Pentium plus SSE2, deeply pipelined for inflated clocks.

Everybody's using this theory of more pipelines = more Hz, but can someone
please shed some physical light on this topic.
What i know about pipelines is from AoA book and web(instruction stages =
fetch, decode, ip++ ...), but i really can not realate that to any kind of
speed increase, plus where do they come up with 20+ stages in Prescott, i
mean there's only so much stuff one instruction needs/can do.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2004 1:06:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Anonymous Joe" <anonymousjoe@net.net> wrote in message
news:TlWkc.7010$Ia6.809665@attbi_s03...
> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:6RUjc.3959$0j3.1020@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> > Paul Tiseo <tiseo123.paul456@mayo.edu> wrote:
> > > If you spend umpteen million in R&D to design the P4, and the P-M
> > > comes along with less R&D and runs slightly faster in some scenarios,
> > > what do you do? Chuck all your P4 R&D out the window?
> >
> > Actually, I believe the Pentium4 was done as a rush job,
> > on the cheap after it became apparant that ia64 (aka
> > Itanium) would not take over. IMHO it's an original
> > Pentium plus SSE2, deeply pipelined for inflated clocks.
> >
> > The Pentium-M is little more than the venerable P6 core,
> > tweaked and clocked higher on smaller processes.
> >
> > -- Robert
>
> It does seem as though the P4 is just that. A P3 with SSE2, with very
long
> pipelines (extended further thanks to Prescott) for a hyper-inflated clock
> speed that eventually is pretty decent, but only when you get to a
> ridiculous level of clock speed, and some of that is due to the quadrupled
> bandwidth bus speed combined with the memory speeds (dual channel
anyways).
> As the P4 increases in clock speed, so does the L1/L2 cache, which can
only
> help but improve performance further.
>
> What strikes me is that a P4 @ 3GHz is generally on par with an Athlon
> 3000+, which depending on the bus speed chosen is either 2.16GHz (333Mhz
> bus) or 2.1GHz (400Mhz bus). I forget off-hand how deep the P4 pipeline
is,
> but is something like 24, isnt it? The Athlon is something like 12, or
15.
> Either way, the numbers are off, but it still is rather close. The P4 has
> L1 & L2 cache running at 3GHz, while the Athlon's is about 66% of that,
but
> more plentiful. The bus bandwidth of the P4 is going to be either
> 4.27GB/sec or 6.4GB/sec (533 or 800MHz bus [yet it is really 133 or
> 166MHz]). Yet the Athlon is using a 3.2GB/sec bus. As for memory, the
most
> you can get out of the Athlon is the 3.2GB/sec (whether you use P3200 RAM,
> any speed dual channel RAM, even PC3200), but with P4 you have a shot at
> getting a theoretical of 6.4GB/sec (dual channel PC3200).
>
> All this combined, things sure look favorable for P4. It has so much more
> bandwidth in every area, cache, bus, and RAM. Yet, how come with a 900MHz
> core clock lead, it is only able to tie the Athlon? It seems like it is
> using all the bandwidth and wasting it. If AMD could get the sort of
> bandwidth that Intel has, I would imagine that the P4 would need about a
> 1200MHz or more head start to start being comparable.
>
> For anybody who cares, I do use AMD, so if you want to say I'm promoting
AMD
> unfairly or whatever, that's wrong, I'm simply showing that Intel isn't
> efficient.
>
>

In my opionion(2 ?cents worth) that's exactly the opposite of bragging
rights, those numbers. When we consider the problems they constantly bring
out related to Moore's law and heat dissipation and all that stuff related
to miniaturization reaching it's final barrier, every FLOP/Hz, B/s and
transistor saved should mean more than ever and P4 design looks right in the
eye of the problem and smugs: yes, but my pipe is longer...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2004 3:07:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <c7glnp$mkm$1@ls219.htnet.hr>, taurus@email.hinet.hr
says...
> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:6RUjc.3959$0j3.1020@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> > Paul Tiseo <tiseo123.paul456@mayo.edu> wrote:
> > > If you spend umpteen million in R&D to design the P4, and the P-M
> > > comes along with less R&D and runs slightly faster in some scenarios,
> > > what do you do? Chuck all your P4 R&D out the window?
> >
> > Actually, I believe the Pentium4 was done as a rush job,
> > on the cheap after it became apparant that ia64 (aka
> > Itanium) would not take over. IMHO it's an original
> > Pentium plus SSE2, deeply pipelined for inflated clocks.
>
> Everybody's using this theory of more pipelines = more Hz, but can someone
> please shed some physical light on this topic.
> What i know about pipelines is from AoA book and web(instruction stages =
> fetch, decode, ip++ ...), but i really can not realate that to any kind of
> speed increase, plus where do they come up with 20+ stages in Prescott, i
> mean there's only so much stuff one instruction needs/can do.

It's really rather simple; the less work done in each clock
cycle, the faster that clock can be run. The Intel developer
site has the descriptions and clock counts (length) of each pipe.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2004 11:55:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <MPG.1b06c196a1014f85989821@news1.news.adelphia.net>, from the
wonderful person KR Williams <krw@att.biz> said
<snip>
>It's really rather simple; the less work done in each clock
>cycle, the faster that clock can be run. The Intel developer
>site has the descriptions and clock counts (length) of each pipe.

A real simple (too simple, but WTF) analogy .. it takes what, 30 seconds
maybe, to run round a baseball diamond. However just getting from base
to base you can do in ~10 seconds. If you had 16 or 32 bases instead of
the 4 (including home plate) you could get from base to base in maybe a
second or two.

You wouldn't get runs completed any faster (if you decided to =stop= at
each base, it'd actually take way longer), but you sure could brag about
an amazing clock speed, getting from one base to the next. 8>.

Which just demonstrates the stupidity of trying to measure MPH or BHP
using the rev counter.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2004 11:55:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <V4GicxGS0SnAFATA@from.is.invalid>,
GSV@quik.clara.co.uk says...
> Bitstring <MPG.1b06c196a1014f85989821@news1.news.adelphia.net>, from the
> wonderful person KR Williams <krw@att.biz> said
> <snip>
> >It's really rather simple; the less work done in each clock
> >cycle, the faster that clock can be run. The Intel developer
> >site has the descriptions and clock counts (length) of each pipe.
>
> A real simple (too simple, but WTF) analogy .. it takes what, 30 seconds
> maybe, to run round a baseball diamond. However just getting from base
> to base you can do in ~10 seconds. If you had 16 or 32 bases instead of
> the 4 (including home plate) you could get from base to base in maybe a
> second or two.
>
> You wouldn't get runs completed any faster (if you decided to =stop= at
> each base, it'd actually take way longer), but you sure could brag about
> an amazing clock speed, getting from one base to the next. 8>.
>
> Which just demonstrates the stupidity of trying to measure MPH or BHP
> using the rev counter.

Or nine women can have nine babies in nine months, but each one
still takes nine months. ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 8, 2004 11:55:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b06ff339fdcb0fe989833@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> Or nine women can have nine babies in nine months, but each one
> still takes nine months. ;-)

That's the difference between throughput (bandwidth) and latency,
Keith. ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2004 3:32:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <fWanc.12535$V97.2894
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
> "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b06ff339fdcb0fe989833@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> >
> > Or nine women can have nine babies in nine months, but each one
> > still takes nine months. ;-)
>
> That's the difference between throughput (bandwidth) and latency,
> Keith. ;-)

Sorta like base-runners, eh? ...though I know you don't care a
wit about stick-ball (nor do I, actually). When's New England
going to kick SF's sorry butt again, eh? ...gotta be soon now.
;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2004 6:49:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 08 May 2004 19:54:51 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote:

>"KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1b06ff339fdcb0fe989833@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>>
>> Or nine women can have nine babies in nine months, but each one
>> still takes nine months. ;-)
>
>That's the difference between throughput (bandwidth) and latency,
>Keith. ;-)

lol!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2004 7:38:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 8 May 2004 23:32:33 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

>In article <fWanc.12535$V97.2894
>@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
>> "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1b06ff339fdcb0fe989833@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> >
>> > Or nine women can have nine babies in nine months, but each one
>> > still takes nine months. ;-)
>>
>> That's the difference between throughput (bandwidth) and latency,
>> Keith. ;-)
>
>Sorta like base-runners, eh? ...though I know you don't care a
>wit about stick-ball (nor do I, actually). When's New England
>going to kick SF's sorry butt again, eh? ...gotta be soon now.
>;-)

The Pats STILL haven't lost a game since last October ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 9, 2004 7:38:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <op9r909h6bkjj2oqutndg5n49nm86jt63j@4ax.com>,
day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com says...
> On Sat, 8 May 2004 23:32:33 -0400, KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:
>
> >In article <fWanc.12535$V97.2894
> >@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
> >> "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1b06ff339fdcb0fe989833@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> >> >
> >> > Or nine women can have nine babies in nine months, but each one
> >> > still takes nine months. ;-)
> >>
> >> That's the difference between throughput (bandwidth) and latency,
> >> Keith. ;-)
> >
> >Sorta like base-runners, eh? ...though I know you don't care a
> >wit about stick-ball (nor do I, actually). When's New England
> >going to kick SF's sorry butt again, eh? ...gotta be soon now.
> >;-)
>
> The Pats STILL haven't lost a game since last October ;-)
>
....and won't again for three more months, maybe they can make it
a complete year! ...or two. ;-)

--
Keith
May 10, 2004 3:08:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote in message news:<V4GicxGS0SnAFATA@from.is.invalid>...
> Bitstring <MPG.1b06c196a1014f85989821@news1.news.adelphia.net>, from the
> wonderful person KR Williams <krw@att.biz> said
> <snip>
> >It's really rather simple; the less work done in each clock
> >cycle, the faster that clock can be run. The Intel developer
> >site has the descriptions and clock counts (length) of each pipe.
>
> A real simple (too simple, but WTF) analogy .. it takes what, 30 seconds
> maybe, to run round a baseball diamond. However just getting from base
> to base you can do in ~10 seconds. If you had 16 or 32 bases instead of
> the 4 (including home plate) you could get from base to base in maybe a
> second or two.
>
> You wouldn't get runs completed any faster (if you decided to =stop= at
> each base, it'd actually take way longer), but you sure could brag about
> an amazing clock speed, getting from one base to the next. 8>.
>
> Which just demonstrates the stupidity of trying to measure MPH or BHP
> using the rev counter.


I think that's a very good analogy. It also points out the theoretical
*BENEFIT* to long pipelines. If you can keep a runner on every base
all the time, you've got a person crossing the plate more frequently,
which represents more work getting done.

I don't think the higher frequency, or even the higher heat generated
is the real problem. As long as you can cool it reasonablty well, why
not design right up to the thermal threshhold? As long as you're not
talking blades, notebooks, or making the room shake with excess fan
noise, I'd rather have the PC doing more work when it's running. I
don't even consider high IPC a strict definition of "efficiency". IMO,
the real problems is are:

1) The P4 *DOESN'T* keep a runner on every base continually. Maybe
this is just Intel's implementation. Maybe they just didn't do as good
of a job as they could have. Or, maybe it's truely an intractable
problem with long pipelines. My guess is that it's probably both. But
I don't think it was WRONG to go that route when they decided to. I
also think Hyperthreading didn't help as much as they had initially
hoped it would.

2) If it takes more transistors to implement, you have to question
whether those transistors could be spent other ways that would
increase performance without the heat penalty. But I also firmly
beleive that you don't get something for nothing. Short of a temporary
performance advantage from a good idea until it gets copied by
everyone (like the on-board memory controller), the chip designers are
all working with the same transistor budget.

Put another way, I think if a Prescott successor had:

- An on-board memory controller
- Used the Pentium M's micro-op fussion
- Was optimized to run just a little bit cooler
- Had the 64-bit extension enabled

It would be a great desktop CPU. This isn't to say that the Athlon64
isn't a BETTER cpu right now (it is). But I'd rather have a Prescott
like THAT available in late 2004 than have to wait for the dual-core
64-bit desktop 2ghz Pentuim-M in late 2005 (or even later) to get the
same performance.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2004 4:37:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

G <gaf1234567890@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It would be a great desktop CPU. This isn't to say that the Athlon64
> isn't a BETTER cpu right now (it is). But I'd rather have a Prescott
> like THAT available in late 2004 than have to wait for the dual-core
> 64-bit desktop 2ghz Pentuim-M in late 2005 (or even later) to get the
> same performance.

Heck, how about just a 2.2ghz or so single Pentium M; given the numbers I've
seen for the 1.7, a 2.2ghz Banias would be a very competitive CPU with
anything Intel or AMD is selling now.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Elder Party 2004: Cthulhu for President -- this time WE'RE the lesser
evil."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2004 9:26:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

G wrote:
> GSV Three Minds in a Can <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote in message news:<V4GicxGS0SnAFATA@from.is.invalid>...
>
>>Bitstring <MPG.1b06c196a1014f85989821@news1.news.adelphia.net>, from the
>>wonderful person KR Williams <krw@att.biz> said
>><snip>
>>
>>>It's really rather simple; the less work done in each clock
>>>cycle, the faster that clock can be run. The Intel developer
>>>site has the descriptions and clock counts (length) of each pipe.
>>
>>A real simple (too simple, but WTF) analogy .. it takes what, 30 seconds
>>maybe, to run round a baseball diamond. However just getting from base
>>to base you can do in ~10 seconds. If you had 16 or 32 bases instead of
>>the 4 (including home plate) you could get from base to base in maybe a
>>second or two.
>>
>>You wouldn't get runs completed any faster (if you decided to =stop= at
>>each base, it'd actually take way longer), but you sure could brag about
>>an amazing clock speed, getting from one base to the next. 8>.
>>
>>Which just demonstrates the stupidity of trying to measure MPH or BHP
>>using the rev counter.
>
>
>
> I think that's a very good analogy. It also points out the theoretical
> *BENEFIT* to long pipelines. If you can keep a runner on every base
> all the time, you've got a person crossing the plate more frequently,
> which represents more work getting done.

It is a good analogy in the sense that the P4 puts lots of runner
on base - and actually provides extra bases for those base runners
to stand on. However, the analogy falls apart in other ways - you
could say that the AthlonXP and AMD64 processors put fewer men on
base but do a *much* better when it comes to actually driving in some
of those baserunners. In the Intel vs AMD baseball game, Intel
loses because their batting average with men on base is pretty shitty.
It is the number of runs scored that counts at the end of the game,
not the number of men you had on base. A stranded base runner
counts for nothing.

>
> I don't think the higher frequency, or even the higher heat generated
> is the real problem. As long as you can cool it reasonablty well, why
> not design right up to the thermal threshhold? As long as you're not
> talking blades, notebooks, or making the room shake with excess fan
> noise, I'd rather have the PC doing more work when it's running. I
> don't even consider high IPC a strict definition of "efficiency". IMO,
> the real problems is are:
>
> 1) The P4 *DOESN'T* keep a runner on every base continually. Maybe
> this is just Intel's implementation. Maybe they just didn't do as good
> of a job as they could have. Or, maybe it's truely an intractable
> problem with long pipelines. My guess is that it's probably both. But
> I don't think it was WRONG to go that route when they decided to. I
> also think Hyperthreading didn't help as much as they had initially
> hoped it would.
>
> 2) If it takes more transistors to implement, you have to question
> whether those transistors could be spent other ways that would
> increase performance without the heat penalty. But I also firmly
> beleive that you don't get something for nothing. Short of a temporary
> performance advantage from a good idea until it gets copied by
> everyone (like the on-board memory controller), the chip designers are
> all working with the same transistor budget.
>
> Put another way, I think if a Prescott successor had:
>
> - An on-board memory controller
> - Used the Pentium M's micro-op fussion
> - Was optimized to run just a little bit cooler
> - Had the 64-bit extension enabled
>
> It would be a great desktop CPU. This isn't to say that the Athlon64
> isn't a BETTER cpu right now (it is). But I'd rather have a Prescott
> like THAT available in late 2004 than have to wait for the dual-core
> 64-bit desktop 2ghz Pentuim-M in late 2005 (or even later) to get the
> same performance.
!