Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Shelton processor

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Celeron
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 12, 2004 6:57:16 AM

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

http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040811-4091.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17790

Apparently it's based on a Celeron 90nm running at 1Ghz with no cache
(presumably no L2 cache rather than L1). I assume that this means that it's
a P4-based Celeron rather than some P-M-based Celeron. Designed to take on
AMD Sempron in emerging markets.

This takes us back to the old days of Celeron when it was based on the
Pentium 2 and
*also* had no cache.

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)

More about : intel shelton processor

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 12, 2004 12:31:10 PM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040811-4091.html
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17790
>
> Apparently it's based on a Celeron 90nm running at 1Ghz with no cache
> (presumably no L2 cache rather than L1). I assume that this means that it's
> a P4-based Celeron rather than some P-M-based Celeron. Designed to take on
> AMD Sempron in emerging markets.

How could you possibly assume that? At 1GHZ it would be running at 1/3
of the Celeron speed. This would not compete at all with Sempron, which
is not so crippled. 1GHz Celeron with no cache would under-perform my
PIII/500. Not to mention all the press about end-of-lifing Pentium 4's
Netburst architecture. On the other hand, a 1GHz Celeron-M would run at
2/3 of the Pentium-M frequency, which keeps it almost competitive
(except for the lack of cache). And remember intel keeps saying that
Pentium-M is the wave of the future. My money is on a cacheless Dothan
chip. Imagine all those dead dies revived by cutting the faulty 2M
cache. It's a yield dream!

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 12, 2004 5:55:22 PM

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

Alex Johnson wrote:
>> Apparently it's based on a Celeron 90nm running at 1Ghz with no cache
>> (presumably no L2 cache rather than L1). I assume that this means
>> that it's a P4-based Celeron rather than some P-M-based Celeron.
>> Designed to take on AMD Sempron in emerging markets.
>
> How could you possibly assume that?

Well, because they mentioned that it was based on the "_older_ Celeron core
using 90nm". The older 90nm Celerons are P4-based, I believe.

> At 1GHZ it would be running at
> 1/3 of the Celeron speed. This would not compete at all with
> Sempron, which is not so crippled. 1GHz Celeron with no cache would
> under-perform my PIII/500.

No argument there about the performance, but I assume that Intel really
doesn't care too much about performance since it's meant for "emerging"
markets, and that it's going to rely solely on brand-name here. It seems to
be remarkably similar to the approach Microsoft is taking with its
third-world-busting Windows XP Starter Edition (XP lite); it's taking out a
lot of functionality with it, such as file and printer sharing, multiple
user logins, etc. Features that you or I would assume is just basic to any
computer system, being sacrificed completely for economy. I also think these
sacrificed basic features will also result in no one in the developed world
wanting to touch these products, thus leaving the developed world markets
available only for Intel's higher-margin existing products. I think Intel's
strategy is actually quite clever: when AMD marketed third-world Durons
starting a couple of years ago, they were desirable enough that the
developed world wanted them to a certain extent too -- they simply weren't
crippled enough.

Microsoft will market a crippled Windows XP in the third world to combat
lost revenue due to piracy. Intel will market a crippled Celeron to combat
any possible inroads that AMD and VIA might have in these markets. In both
cases, you get two very well known brand names, i.e. Intel and/or Microsoft.
Branding is often very important in the third-world where incomes are low,
but the desire to have famous western gear for bragging purposes are very
high.

> Not to mention all the press about
> end-of-lifing Pentium 4's Netburst architecture. On the other hand,
> a 1GHz Celeron-M would run at 2/3 of the Pentium-M frequency, which
> keeps it almost competitive (except for the lack of cache). And
> remember intel keeps saying that Pentium-M is the wave of the future.
> My money is on a cacheless Dothan chip. Imagine all those dead dies
> revived by cutting the faulty 2M cache. It's a yield dream!

A Pentium-M-based Celeron would be much more competitive than a Pentium
4-based Celeron, true. But if we assume that the Pentium-M is the latest
evolution of the P6 architecture, which started with the Pentium Pro and
went upto the Pentium 3 previously, then looking back at the first Celerons
which were P6-derived (cacheless Pentium 2's running at around 300Mhz), then
they weren't very competive in that form either. P6 might be less
cache-dependent than P4, but it still needs some cache. I don't think a
cacheless P6 is going to be any more or less competitive than cacheless P4.
Now put a small amount of cache (let's say 64K) on a P6, and it will
immediately come to life, which you can't say about a P4-based system. But
at zero K cache, neither P6 nor P4 will have any life in them.

Yousuf Khan
Related resources
August 12, 2004 5:55:23 PM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Alex Johnson wrote:
> >> Apparently it's based on a Celeron 90nm running at 1Ghz with no cache
> >> (presumably no L2 cache rather than L1). I assume that this means
> >> that it's a P4-based Celeron rather than some P-M-based Celeron.
> >> Designed to take on AMD Sempron in emerging markets.
> >
> > How could you possibly assume that?
>
> Well, because they mentioned that it was based on the "_older_ Celeron core
> using 90nm". The older 90nm Celerons are P4-based, I believe.
>
> > At 1GHZ it would be running at
> > 1/3 of the Celeron speed. This would not compete at all with
> > Sempron, which is not so crippled. 1GHz Celeron with no cache would
> > under-perform my PIII/500.
>
> No argument there about the performance, but I assume that Intel really
> doesn't care too much about performance since it's meant for "emerging"
> markets, and that it's going to rely solely on brand-name here. It seems to
> be remarkably similar to the approach Microsoft is taking with its
> third-world-busting Windows XP Starter Edition (XP lite); it's taking out a
> lot of functionality with it, such as file and printer sharing, multiple
> user logins, etc. Features that you or I would assume is just basic to any
> computer system, being sacrificed completely for economy.

I don't need those features, and would gladly do without them to get the
next version of Windows at half price. Windows is too large anyway, and
a scaled down version would be nice.

> I also think these
> sacrificed basic features will also result in no one in the developed world
> wanting to touch these products,

They will love them if the price is much lower.

> thus leaving the developed world markets
> available only for Intel's higher-margin existing products.

Not quite. AMD will get plenty of market share.

> I think Intel's
> strategy is actually quite clever: when AMD marketed third-world Durons
> starting a couple of years ago, they were desirable enough that the
> developed world wanted them to a certain extent too -- they simply weren't
> crippled enough.
>
> Microsoft will market a crippled Windows XP in the third world to combat
> lost revenue due to piracy. Intel will market a crippled Celeron to combat
> any possible inroads that AMD and VIA might have in these markets. In both
> cases, you get two very well known brand names, i.e. Intel and/or Microsoft.
> Branding is often very important in the third-world where incomes are low,

That is funny.

>
> but the desire to have famous western gear for bragging purposes are very
> high.

It is a computer, not a fashion accessory. Even for notebooks that are
carried around, people see the name on the case, and not the name
on the cpu as some is in public using the notebook.

>
>
> > Not to mention all the press about
> > end-of-lifing Pentium 4's Netburst architecture. On the other hand,
> > a 1GHz Celeron-M would run at 2/3 of the Pentium-M frequency, which
> > keeps it almost competitive (except for the lack of cache). And
> > remember intel keeps saying that Pentium-M is the wave of the future.
> > My money is on a cacheless Dothan chip. Imagine all those dead dies
> > revived by cutting the faulty 2M cache. It's a yield dream!
>
> A Pentium-M-based Celeron would be much more competitive than a Pentium
> 4-based Celeron, true. But if we assume that the Pentium-M is the latest
> evolution of the P6 architecture, which started with the Pentium Pro and
> went upto the Pentium 3 previously, then looking back at the first Celerons
> which were P6-derived (cacheless Pentium 2's running at around 300Mhz), then
> they weren't very competive in that form either. P6 might be less
> cache-dependent than P4, but it still needs some cache. I don't think a
> cacheless P6 is going to be any more or less competitive than cacheless P4.
> Now put a small amount of cache (let's say 64K) on a P6, and it will
> immediately come to life, which you can't say about a P4-based system. But
> at zero K cache, neither P6 nor P4 will have any life in them.

Intel needs to sufficiently cripple the Celerons so they don't cannibalize
Pentium 4 sales too much.

>
>
> Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 12, 2004 9:40:08 PM

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

JK wrote:
> I don't need those features, and would gladly do without them to get
> the next version of Windows at half price. Windows is too large
> anyway, and
> a scaled down version would be nice.

I'd say a good price for Windows would be $10, maybe $15 at the uppermost.
That's Canadian dollars I'm talking about too. Pretty much nothing more than
the cost of the CD and its case. Since Microsoft doesn't provide tech
support anyways, therefore that's all Windows is worth.

It's still a little high for the third world, but I'm sure they can sell it
for $1 to $3 over there (locally packaged). They'll be providing employment
for a local workforce of CD stamping plants.

>> thus leaving the developed world markets
>> available only for Intel's higher-margin existing products.
>
> Not quite. AMD will get plenty of market share.

We were only talking about Intel's own sales alone.

>> but the desire to have famous western gear for bragging purposes are
>> very high.
>
> It is a computer, not a fashion accessory. Even for notebooks that are
> carried around, people see the name on the case, and not the name
> on the cpu as some is in public using the notebook.

No, it is quite definitely a fashion accessory. The need for computers in
the third world are very low.

As for the name on the case, haven't you seen the "Intel Inside" and the
"Designed for Microsoft Windows XP" logos? They are noticeable. In fact,
these days in the third world, you can get away with not having a famous
brand-name box manufacturer, as long as you have at least the famous CPU or
OS manufacturers also prominently displayed. As long as a neighbour sees a
famous brand name of some sort somewhere, you're spared the shame.

> Intel needs to sufficiently cripple the Celerons so they don't
> cannibalize Pentium 4 sales too much.

Which a cacheless Pentium 4/Celeron would achieve. You get a famous
brandname and logo, so what if you barely know how to use the thing and
really have no need for one?

Yousuf Khan
August 12, 2004 9:40:09 PM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> JK wrote:
> > I don't need those features, and would gladly do without them to get
> > the next version of Windows at half price. Windows is too large
> > anyway, and
> > a scaled down version would be nice.
>
> I'd say a good price for Windows would be $10, maybe $15 at the uppermost.
> That's Canadian dollars I'm talking about too. Pretty much nothing more than
> the cost of the CD and its case. Since Microsoft doesn't provide tech
> support anyways, therefore that's all Windows is worth.
>
> It's still a little high for the third world, but I'm sure they can sell it
> for $1 to $3 over there (locally packaged). They'll be providing employment
> for a local workforce of CD stamping plants.
>
> >> thus leaving the developed world markets
> >> available only for Intel's higher-margin existing products.
> >
> > Not quite. AMD will get plenty of market share.
>
> We were only talking about Intel's own sales alone.

AMD's market share gains will be Intel's market share losses.

>
>
> >> but the desire to have famous western gear for bragging purposes are
> >> very high.
> >
> > It is a computer, not a fashion accessory. Even for notebooks that are
> > carried around, people see the name on the case, and not the name
> > on the cpu as some is in public using the notebook.
>
> No, it is quite definitely a fashion accessory. The need for computers in
> the third world are very low.
>
> As for the name on the case, haven't you seen the "Intel Inside" and the
> "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP" logos? They are noticeable.

They are on removable stickers near the keyboard on notebooks, not
etched in the outside case in huge letters in a bold color.

> In fact,
> these days in the third world, you can get away with not having a famous
> brand-name box manufacturer, as long as you have at least the famous CPU or
> OS manufacturers also prominently displayed. As long as a neighbour sees a
> famous brand name of some sort somewhere, you're spared the shame.
>
> > Intel needs to sufficiently cripple the Celerons so they don't
> > cannibalize Pentium 4 sales too much.
>
> Which a cacheless Pentium 4/Celeron would achieve. You get a famous
> brandname and logo, so what if you barely know how to use the thing and
> really have no need for one?
>
> Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 6:15:11 AM

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

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:55:22 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>third-world-busting Windows XP Starter Edition (XP lite); it's taking out a
>lot of functionality with it, such as file and printer sharing, multiple
>user logins, etc. Features that you or I would assume is just basic to any
>computer system, being sacrificed completely for economy. I also think these

The first thing they should get rid of is the stupid pointless,
wasting my time animations... Multiple user login is fine, who really
uses Windows as a multiple login workstation anyway? :p pP

>Branding is often very important in the third-world where incomes are low,
>but the desire to have famous western gear for bragging purposes are very
>high.

About 12~14 years ago, when my country was still in the developing
stage, when I was on a student's payscale which is likely to be as
close to third world pay as I can get, it was a no brainer when
offered the choice between an AMD or Intel 486 (or was it a 386? too
far away to remember) and the prices.

While I agree branding is important, but unless the price parity is
non-existent, for 3rd world income levels, the price should win most
of the time. People would rather be able to brag about quantity they
already are familiar with, i.e. "my cpu (Sempron) runs at 1.8Ghz and
has 80GB of ram! Yours only 1Ghz and 256MB! hahaha loser!"

Bragging about having an Intel vs a AMD might not work well,
especially if the Shelton develops the same reputation as the Celeron.
Till this day, I still meet plenty of people who will insist on
getting a Intel despite a tight budget BUT refuse adamantly to even
consider a Celeron.

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) 
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 7:22:44 AM

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

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:YXNSc.380969$rCA1.154145@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> JK wrote:
>> I don't need those features, and would gladly do without them to get
>> the next version of Windows at half price. Windows is too large
>> anyway, and
>> a scaled down version would be nice.
>
> I'd say a good price for Windows would be $10, maybe $15 at the uppermost.
> That's Canadian dollars I'm talking about too. Pretty much nothing more
> than
> the cost of the CD and its case. Since Microsoft doesn't provide tech
> support anyways, therefore that's all Windows is worth.


Interesting to hear you think it is worth more than Linux.

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 8:05:48 AM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> No argument there about the performance, but I assume that Intel really
> doesn't care too much about performance since it's meant for "emerging"
> markets, and that it's going to rely solely on brand-name here. It seems to
> be remarkably similar to the approach Microsoft is taking with its
> third-world-busting Windows XP Starter Edition (XP lite); it's taking out a
> lot of functionality with it, such as file and printer sharing, multiple
> user logins, etc. Features that you or I would assume is just basic to any
> computer system, being sacrificed completely for economy. I also think these
> sacrificed basic features will also result in no one in the developed world
> wanting to touch these products, thus leaving the developed world markets
> available only for Intel's higher-margin existing products.

At that point will people opt for price plus features and run Linux
instead? It now has some brand name recognition as the #2 desktop o/s in
the world.

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 8:52:39 AM

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

JK wrote:
>> As for the name on the case, haven't you seen the "Intel Inside" and
>> the "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP" logos? They are noticeable.
>
> They are on removable stickers near the keyboard on notebooks, not
> etched in the outside case in huge letters in a bold color.

Makes very little difference, I've seen most of the original stickers remain
glued on for years in places like these. Many people keep their computers,
monitors and keyboards covered beneath cloth doilies for most of the time
they aren't used, and they only remove them while guests are around to view
them.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 9:07:51 AM

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

Hank Oredson wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
>> I'd say a good price for Windows would be $10, maybe $15 at the
>> uppermost. That's Canadian dollars I'm talking about too. Pretty
>> much nothing more than
>> the cost of the CD and its case. Since Microsoft doesn't provide tech
>> support anyways, therefore that's all Windows is worth.
>
>
> Interesting to hear you think it is worth more than Linux.

Well, you have to pay for those Microsoft programmers somehow.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 9:07:51 AM

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

The little lost angel wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:55:22 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> wrote:
>
>> third-world-busting Windows XP Starter Edition (XP lite); it's
>> taking out a lot of functionality with it, such as file and printer
>> sharing, multiple user logins, etc. Features that you or I would
>> assume is just basic to any computer system, being sacrificed
>> completely for economy. I also think these
>
> The first thing they should get rid of is the stupid pointless,
> wasting my time animations... Multiple user login is fine, who really
> uses Windows as a multiple login workstation anyway? :p pP

Well, I would assume that anyone who has more than one person in the family
sharing the computer would need multi-logins. I'm not talking about just
multiple simultaneous user logins, I'm talking about multiple user accounts
of any kind are going to be prevented in this version of XP.

>> Branding is often very important in the third-world where incomes
>> are low, but the desire to have famous western gear for bragging
>> purposes are very high.
>
> About 12~14 years ago, when my country was still in the developing
> stage, when I was on a student's payscale which is likely to be as
> close to third world pay as I can get, it was a no brainer when
> offered the choice between an AMD or Intel 486 (or was it a 386? too
> far away to remember) and the prices.

I recall having some debates with some of my friends and relatives in
Bangladesh recently about why software piracy is so prevalent over there.
They gave the usual reasons about it being a poor country which really can't
afford the high prices charged by Microsoft and others. Then I asked if the
price of that software is too high, then why the hell don't they migrate to
Linux and Open Source? The only answer they could come up with is they want
to have all of the things that the rest of the world also has. Basically,
beggars trying to be choosers.

I told them, they'll never get past third world status if they keep
following western trends verbatim. They have to develop their own solutions
inhouse, for their own problems. What the Western world does is appropriate
only for the Western world.

Similar reasons for why so many of them want to have Intel processors rather
than AMD ones over there. They believe that the rest of the world prefers
Intels, therefore they want to be like them too.

I would assume that kind of sentiment is quite similar whether it's
Bangladesh or Sierra Leone or wherever.

> While I agree branding is important, but unless the price parity is
> non-existent, for 3rd world income levels, the price should win most
> of the time. People would rather be able to brag about quantity they
> already are familiar with, i.e. "my cpu (Sempron) runs at 1.8Ghz and
> has 80GB of ram! Yours only 1Ghz and 256MB! hahaha loser!"
>
> Bragging about having an Intel vs a AMD might not work well,
> especially if the Shelton develops the same reputation as the Celeron.
> Till this day, I still meet plenty of people who will insist on
> getting a Intel despite a tight budget BUT refuse adamantly to even
> consider a Celeron.

Well, it's likely that the Celeron developed a bad reputation in the western
world, and people in the developing world heard about all of the bad press
that Celeron got in the west and then they automatically amplified that
sentiment and adopted it for their own. "If it's not good enough for the
West, then it's not good enough for me."

I think if Intel keeps the Shelton out of the Western store shelves, there
will be no direct comparison possible to the West, and most of the
third-worlders will remain happy with a Shelton due to ignorance.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 9:16:25 AM

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

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:57:16 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>
>http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040811-4091.html
>
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17790
>
>Apparently it's based on a Celeron 90nm running at 1Ghz with no cache
>(presumably no L2 cache rather than L1). I assume that this means that it's
>a P4-based Celeron rather than some P-M-based Celeron. Designed to take on
>AMD Sempron in emerging markets.

How about neither of the above cores? Maybe it's based off the old
PIII core? Intel is still pumping out PIII core chips (essentially
Celerons) for Microsoft's XBox, maybe these are some sort of failed
update for the XBox?

It certainly doesn't sound like this is going to be a big volume
product, probably designed to compete with VIA's C3 chips as much as
anything else.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 9:23:04 AM

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

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> At that point will people opt for price plus features and run Linux
> instead? It now has some brand name recognition as the #2 desktop o/s
> in the world.

Yes, the name Linux has now been heard by quite a few people in the world.
But it's still considered to be a Pepsi, and Windows is a Coke. Similarly,
quite a few people have now heard of AMD, but it's still a Pepsi. Namely,
what that means is that people have heard of Pepsi, but if there is Coke
also available at the same place, then most people will go for Coke.

In another posting, I was mentioning how people would prefer to pirate
Windows than go for a legitimate free copy of Linux.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 12:39:57 PM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Alex Johnson wrote:
>>How could you possibly assume that?
>
>
> Well, because they mentioned that it was based on the "_older_ Celeron core
> using 90nm". The older 90nm Celerons are P4-based, I believe.
> <cut intervening text>
> But if we assume that the Pentium-M is the latest
> evolution of the P6 architecture, which started with the Pentium Pro and
> went upto the Pentium 3 previously, then looking back at the first Celerons
> which were P6-derived (cacheless Pentium 2's running at around 300Mhz)

There you go. You just told me you believe it is P4-based because P4 is
the _older_ Celeron, but right away turned around and told me the
_oldest_ Celeron is from the P6-line, as is Pentium-M. By deduction,
the _older_ Celeron is the one from the P6-line, and thus the crippled
Pentium-M.

> I don't think a
> cacheless P6 is going to be any more or less competitive than cacheless P4.
> Now put a small amount of cache (let's say 64K) on a P6, and it will
> immediately come to life, which you can't say about a P4-based system. But
> at zero K cache, neither P6 nor P4 will have any life in them.

It's not 0k cache, it is without the L2 cache. The P-M still has
Harvard L1 caches: 32k I, 32k D if I remember correctly. So it already
has your 64k it needs to come to life.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 3:12:51 PM

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> I'd say a good price for Windows would be $10, maybe $15 at the
> uppermost. That's Canadian dollars I'm talking about too. Pretty much
> nothing more than the cost of the CD and its case. Since Microsoft
> doesn't provide tech support anyways, therefore that's all Windows is
> worth.

Let's say Microsoft sold Windows XP Light for $15 in Asia. How could
they prevent an opportunistic entrepreneur from re-selling the software
in Europe and North America?

Is it illegal to re-sell legitimately purchased software?

--
Regards, Grumble
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 3:12:52 PM

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

FALSE prophecies from the archives, Grumble <a@b.c> on Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:12:51 +0200 spoke:

>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> I'd say a good price for Windows would be $10, maybe $15 at the
>> uppermost. That's Canadian dollars I'm talking about too. Pretty much
>> nothing more than the cost of the CD and its case. Since Microsoft
>> doesn't provide tech support anyways, therefore that's all Windows is
>> worth.
>
>Let's say Microsoft sold Windows XP Light for $15 in Asia. How could
>they prevent an opportunistic entrepreneur from re-selling the software
>in Europe and North America?

They'll probably find a way to clone the cheap CPUs now.

:) 






--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 3:12:52 PM

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

Grumble <a@b.c> wrote:

>Let's say Microsoft sold Windows XP Light for $15 in Asia. How could
>they prevent an opportunistic entrepreneur from re-selling the software
>in Europe and North America?
>
>Is it illegal to re-sell legitimately purchased software?

Don't think for a moment that they are not prevented from doing so by
the M$ license.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 8:03:29 PM

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

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Grumble <a@b.c> wrote:
>>Let's say Microsoft sold Windows XP Light for $15 in Asia. How could
>>they prevent an opportunistic entrepreneur from re-selling the software
>>in Europe and North America?
>>
>>Is it illegal to re-sell legitimately purchased software?
>
> Don't think for a moment that they are not prevented from
> doing so by the M$ license.


M$ would _like_ to prevent resale. Whether they can is not
determined. When I powered up a factory-fresh HP box recently,
it didn't even ask me to click "I agree" to anything.

Nor is it by any means certain that any such click creates
an enforceable licence. I got the sw (and paid ~$90) when
I bought the box. That's the contract. Anything afterwards
may simply be judged as "over-reaching".

Or it might be upheld. Do you side with M$?

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 8:39:22 PM

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

Grumble wrote:
> Let's say Microsoft sold Windows XP Light for $15 in Asia. How could
> they prevent an opportunistic entrepreneur from re-selling the
> software in Europe and North America?
>
> Is it illegal to re-sell legitimately purchased software?

If Microsoft tried to sell XP Lite for $15 in Asia, then it would have no
choice but to sell that in North America. Nobody in Asia would buy it, it's
still way too expensive. North Americans and Europeans would find it an
incredible bargain.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 8:39:22 PM

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

Tony Hill wrote:
>> Apparently it's based on a Celeron 90nm running at 1Ghz with no cache
>> (presumably no L2 cache rather than L1). I assume that this means
>> that it's a P4-based Celeron rather than some P-M-based Celeron.
>> Designed to take on AMD Sempron in emerging markets.
>
> How about neither of the above cores? Maybe it's based off the old
> PIII core? Intel is still pumping out PIII core chips (essentially
> Celerons) for Microsoft's XBox, maybe these are some sort of failed
> update for the XBox?
>
> It certainly doesn't sound like this is going to be a big volume
> product, probably designed to compete with VIA's C3 chips as much as
> anything else.

I've never heard of the P3 core being migrated to 90nm, which this articles
says the Shelton is. The Xbox chips are still being produced on 130nm
(possibly 180nm) production lines. Since Intel has so many fabs, this is no
big deal for it to be running multiple process nodes.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 9:35:36 PM

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

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:39:22 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>If Microsoft tried to sell XP Lite for $15 in Asia, then it would have no
>choice but to sell that in North America. Nobody in Asia would buy it, it's
>still way too expensive.

For $15, I would say there would be people who will buy it. But it
would also depend heavily on the degree of crippleness, home
networking is relatively common nowadays. Now if they are willing to
sell the full version for $15 or even $25, they will definitely drive
the pirates out of the market :p pPPp

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :) 
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 10:19:18 PM

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

Alex Johnson wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Alex Johnson wrote:
>>> How could you possibly assume that?
>>
>>
>> Well, because they mentioned that it was based on the "_older_
>> Celeron core using 90nm". The older 90nm Celerons are P4-based, I
>> believe. <cut intervening text>
>> But if we assume that the Pentium-M is the latest
>> evolution of the P6 architecture, which started with the Pentium Pro
>> and went upto the Pentium 3 previously, then looking back at the
>> first Celerons which were P6-derived (cacheless Pentium 2's running
>> at around 300Mhz)
>
> There you go. You just told me you believe it is P4-based because P4
> is the _older_ Celeron, but right away turned around and told me the
> _oldest_ Celeron is from the P6-line, as is Pentium-M. By deduction,
> the _older_ Celeron is the one from the P6-line, and thus the crippled
> Pentium-M.

No, you didn't read it carefully enough. I said "the older _90nm_ Celerons
are P4-based". The emphasis on "90nm" there. Of course, the oldest Celerons
are P6-based (Pentium II generation specifically) and probably from the
250nm process, but that's irrelevant.

>> I don't think a
>> cacheless P6 is going to be any more or less competitive than
>> cacheless P4. Now put a small amount of cache (let's say 64K) on a
>> P6, and it will immediately come to life, which you can't say about
>> a P4-based system. But at zero K cache, neither P6 nor P4 will have
>> any life in them.
>
> It's not 0k cache, it is without the L2 cache. The P-M still has
> Harvard L1 caches: 32k I, 32k D if I remember correctly. So it
> already has your 64k it needs to come to life.

Well, it is only L2 caches we were talking about here, I assumed. The
distinction between L1 and L2 was already drawn in the first message in this
thread. For several generations now, since after the 486, it's been mostly
the size of the L2 that's driven most of the performance in chips. It was
especially extreme in the Pentium 4 generation, but the P6 generations also
required a certain minimal amount of L2 to work fast. So the 64K I was
talking about was L2 cache, of course.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 10:46:51 PM

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

The little lost angel wrote:
>

>
> While I agree branding is important, but unless the price parity is
> non-existent, for 3rd world income levels, the price should win most
> of the time. People would rather be able to brag about quantity they
> already are familiar with, i.e. "my cpu (Sempron) runs at 1.8Ghz and
> has 80GB of ram! Yours only 1Ghz and 256MB! hahaha loser!"

That kind of cut down system will be good enough for the internet. I'll tell
you that many people are interested in a cheap way of getting on the internet,
also here in the 'west'. Secondhand old computers might not be reliable,
depending on what life they've had and the documentation might be missing.
A new 40GB drive costs only £30, so why struggle with an old duff.

This post is written on my oldie 233 MHz P1 that is in fine shape. Yes,
I've just build a P4 system, but why power it up for an email?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2004 10:46:52 PM

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

Johannes H Andersen wrote:

>
> That kind of cut down system will be good enough for the internet. I'll tell
> you that many people are interested in a cheap way of getting on the internet,
> also here in the 'west'.

The bottom-line requirement, I suspect, is the ability to handle some
quality of streaming media over a "modem" that itself eats cycles. I
think that's why we're seeing these relatively muscular cache-starved
puzzlers: Nehemiah, Netburst Celeron, now this. Not a good deal for
recompiling the linux kernel, but just fine if all you need to do is
stream processing and the cache is needed only to cope with hiccups in
the stream.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2004 8:43:00 AM

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

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:15:11 GMT,
a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:55:22 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>wrote:
>
>>third-world-busting Windows XP Starter Edition (XP lite); it's taking out a
>>lot of functionality with it, such as file and printer sharing, multiple
>>user logins, etc. Features that you or I would assume is just basic to any
>>computer system, being sacrificed completely for economy. I also think these
>
>The first thing they should get rid of is the stupid pointless,
>wasting my time animations...

Not a bad idea, though I doubt that they'll go. XP Lite will probably
strip out things like Media Player, the firewall, networking
capabilities (XP Home already strips some of those out), etc. In
other words, they'll remove the things that people might actually
want.

> Multiple user login is fine, who really
>uses Windows as a multiple login workstation anyway? :p pP

<looks around and raises hand> Uhh.. I do! Quite a useful feature,
lets me log in as a non-admin and run everything like that and just
jump over to my admin account if/when I need to install something or
do something that requires admin privileges.

I think I'm in the minority though!

>While I agree branding is important, but unless the price parity is
>non-existent, for 3rd world income levels, the price should win most
>of the time. People would rather be able to brag about quantity they
>already are familiar with, i.e. "my cpu (Sempron) runs at 1.8Ghz and
>has 80GB of ram! Yours only 1Ghz and 256MB! hahaha loser!"
>
>Bragging about having an Intel vs a AMD might not work well,
>especially if the Shelton develops the same reputation as the Celeron.
>Till this day, I still meet plenty of people who will insist on
>getting a Intel despite a tight budget BUT refuse adamantly to even
>consider a Celeron.

Yup, I've met many myself as well, though with the quality of current
Celerons it's definitely not a bad idea to avoid them.

Brand loyalty is pretty strong in some areas of computing, though much
more so for the Dell vs. HPaq factor (hence the reason why HP sells
both "HP Pavilion" and "Compaq Presario" systems that are essentially
identical). Even at the component level though you'll still see
pretty strong brand loyalty though, just ask some techs about what
kind of hard drives they use (or refuse to use), almost all techs have
at least one of the major brands that they simply will NOT use.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2004 8:43:00 AM

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

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:39:22 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>Tony Hill wrote:
>> How about neither of the above cores? Maybe it's based off the old
>> PIII core? Intel is still pumping out PIII core chips (essentially
>> Celerons) for Microsoft's XBox, maybe these are some sort of failed
>> update for the XBox?
>>
>> It certainly doesn't sound like this is going to be a big volume
>> product, probably designed to compete with VIA's C3 chips as much as
>> anything else.
>
>I've never heard of the P3 core being migrated to 90nm, which this articles
>says the Shelton is. The Xbox chips are still being produced on 130nm
>(possibly 180nm) production lines. Since Intel has so many fabs, this is no
>big deal for it to be running multiple process nodes.

Intel usually keeps two process nodes going for most of their fabs and
does a bit of leapfrogging, ie those old 180nm fabs would probably get
upgraded to the 90nm fabs while they keep the 130nm ones kicking
around until the next upgrade.

The XBox chips were being produced on the 180nm production line
initially, but producing them on a 90nm line would be more economical.
They are probably selling enough chips just in the XBox to make the
switch-over worthwhile, and if they could additionally get a
dirt-cheap processor for developing markets out of the deal it might
just seem worthwhile.

Just a though, I don't haven't even heard any rumors to back this up
or anything, just sort of makes sense in my mind, MUCH more so than
trying to put out a P4 or Pentium-M based Celeron with no cache. The
P4-based chip with no cache would be an absolutely abysmal performer
(probably about on-par with a PII-233) and would still be a pretty
darn big die (probably 60M+ transistors). A Pentium-M based Celeron
with no cache would perform better but it would probably require a
fair bit of tweaking to manufacture the thing cheaply. A 90nm version
of the XBox chip, on the other hand, would be DIRT-CHEAP (less than
10M transistors and a die size probably down in the 20mm^2 range) and
could straddle two markets, giving it enough production to be
meaningful. They could probably also sell some of these chips as part
of their line of embedded Celeron processors as well.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2004 8:43:01 AM

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

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:46:51 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
<johs@oiuencesxwsizefitterxruoanmzxwer.com> wrote:
>The little lost angel wrote:
>>
>> While I agree branding is important, but unless the price parity is
>> non-existent, for 3rd world income levels, the price should win most
>> of the time. People would rather be able to brag about quantity they
>> already are familiar with, i.e. "my cpu (Sempron) runs at 1.8Ghz and
>> has 80GB of ram! Yours only 1Ghz and 256MB! hahaha loser!"
>
>That kind of cut down system will be good enough for the internet. I'll tell
>you that many people are interested in a cheap way of getting on the internet,
>also here in the 'west'. Secondhand old computers might not be reliable,
>depending on what life they've had and the documentation might be missing.
>A new 40GB drive costs only £30, so why struggle with an old duff.


There is a HUGE market for secondhand computers in the US, that is for
sure. And you are quite right, people are buying them so that they
can get on the internet (or, more to the point, so that they can get
on to AOL).

The big downside to these systems, that most people don't realize, is
that they come with ZERO support. For most of us this may seem like a
non-issue, but for a new computer user this usually results in them
getting screwed over and having to pay WAY more than the cost of a new
computer just to get Windows and AOL installed and working on their
computer.


Essentially the hardware of a new computer is free these days, it's
software and support that people are paying for. You can buy a new
HPaq or Dell system for $400. Figure that $100 of that goes towards
software (WinXP Home + some cheap office type application) and almost
all of the rest goes towards paying for support and the people who put
these systems together and sell them. The actual amount that the big
OEMs pay for the hardware in these systems is VERY low, probably no
more than $200 for the hole system. That leaves VERY little that you
can shave off from any one component.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2004 12:19:04 AM

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

Tony Hill wrote:
> Just a though, I don't haven't even heard any rumors to back this up
> or anything, just sort of makes sense in my mind, MUCH more so than
> trying to put out a P4 or Pentium-M based Celeron with no cache. The
> P4-based chip with no cache would be an absolutely abysmal performer
> (probably about on-par with a PII-233) and would still be a pretty
> darn big die (probably 60M+ transistors). A Pentium-M based Celeron
> with no cache would perform better but it would probably require a
> fair bit of tweaking to manufacture the thing cheaply. A 90nm version
> of the XBox chip, on the other hand, would be DIRT-CHEAP (less than
> 10M transistors and a die size probably down in the 20mm^2 range) and
> could straddle two markets, giving it enough production to be
> meaningful. They could probably also sell some of these chips as part
> of their line of embedded Celeron processors as well.

I don't think Intel wants to spend money updating the manufacturing design
on a processor that is now two generations out of date. They took the P6
core from 250nm all of the way down to 130nm, I don't think they will take
it to 90nm.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2004 2:02:09 AM

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

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 20:19:04 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:
>
>Tony Hill wrote:
>> Just a though, I don't haven't even heard any rumors to back this up
>> or anything, just sort of makes sense in my mind, MUCH more so than
>> trying to put out a P4 or Pentium-M based Celeron with no cache. The
>> P4-based chip with no cache would be an absolutely abysmal performer
>> (probably about on-par with a PII-233) and would still be a pretty
>> darn big die (probably 60M+ transistors). A Pentium-M based Celeron
>> with no cache would perform better but it would probably require a
>> fair bit of tweaking to manufacture the thing cheaply. A 90nm version
>> of the XBox chip, on the other hand, would be DIRT-CHEAP (less than
>> 10M transistors and a die size probably down in the 20mm^2 range) and
>> could straddle two markets, giving it enough production to be
>> meaningful. They could probably also sell some of these chips as part
>> of their line of embedded Celeron processors as well.
>
>I don't think Intel wants to spend money updating the manufacturing design
>on a processor that is now two generations out of date. They took the P6
>core from 250nm all of the way down to 130nm, I don't think they will take
>it to 90nm.

Actually they started it way back on a 350nm core (or was it even
before that?). Normally I would guess that they wouldn't want to
spend the money on such an old core, but the XBox means that they are
selling enough of these chips that the cost savings of moving to 90nm
could easily be sufficient to offset the fixed cost of updating the
manufacturing. They are selling something like 10 million of the
things a year and will probably continue to do so next year as well.
It only takes a fairly small per-unit cost savings to cover the
expenses of moving to a new process, especially since they don't need
to worry about really tweaking it for maximum speed or anything (just
high yields).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2004 8:41:53 AM

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

Tony Hill wrote:
>> I don't think Intel wants to spend money updating the manufacturing
>> design on a processor that is now two generations out of date. They
>> took the P6 core from 250nm all of the way down to 130nm, I don't
>> think they will take it to 90nm.
>
> Actually they started it way back on a 350nm core (or was it even
> before that?). Normally I would guess that they wouldn't want to
> spend the money on such an old core, but the XBox means that they are
> selling enough of these chips that the cost savings of moving to 90nm
> could easily be sufficient to offset the fixed cost of updating the
> manufacturing. They are selling something like 10 million of the
> things a year and will probably continue to do so next year as well.
> It only takes a fairly small per-unit cost savings to cover the
> expenses of moving to a new process, especially since they don't need
> to worry about really tweaking it for maximum speed or anything (just
> high yields).

But remember, the Xbox business goes away within a couple of years, when it
becomes PowerPC based.

It makes much more sense that they would take one of their existing 90nm
chips (Prescott, or Dothan, etc.) and cut the L2 cache off of them. They
could initially start off selling full-sized Prescotts or Dothans rejects
and turn off their cache, and then later, they could actually manufacture
these chips without the caches in the first place.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2004 1:32:15 PM

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

>>>Well, because they mentioned that it was based on the "_older_
>>>Celeron core using 90nm". The older 90nm Celerons are P4-based, I
>>>believe. <cut intervening text>
>>>But if we assume that the Pentium-M is the latest
>>>evolution of the P6 architecture, which started with the Pentium Pro
>>>and went upto the Pentium 3 previously, then looking back at the
>>>first Celerons which were P6-derived (cacheless Pentium 2's running
>>>at around 300Mhz)
>>
>>There you go. You just told me you believe it is P4-based because P4
>>is the _older_ Celeron, but right away turned around and told me the
>>_oldest_ Celeron is from the P6-line, as is Pentium-M. By deduction,
>>the _older_ Celeron is the one from the P6-line, and thus the crippled
>>Pentium-M.
>
>
> No, you didn't read it carefully enough. I said "the older _90nm_ Celerons
> are P4-based". The emphasis on "90nm" there. Of course, the oldest Celerons
> are P6-based (Pentium II generation specifically) and probably from the
> 250nm process, but that's irrelevant.

I see. You just weren't reading the original article correctly. I
forgive you. :) 

Original quote: "older Celeron core using 90nm"
Your reading: "older (90nm Celeron core)"
Proper reading: "(older Celeron core) (using 90nm)"

Notice how you changed something old put on 90nm to something on 90nm
being called old? Nothing on 90nm can be considered old at this stage.
It's still so brand spanking new that it doesn't work right. If you
have to rearrage the words in the article to get your meaning, you are
forcing a meaning on them they don't have.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2004 7:15:44 PM

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

In comp.sys.intel Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >on a processor that is now two generations out of date. They took the P6
> >core from 250nm all of the way down to 130nm, I don't think they will take
> >it to 90nm.
>
> Actually they started it way back on a 350nm core (or was it even
> before that?).

Wow, you're right about the 350nm. They started (release-wise) on 250nm.
According to the Processor Spec Finder, all Pentium Pros were on 250nm.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/list.asp?ProcF...

....but the first generation Pentium IIs were on 350nm, even though in terms
of when they reached market, they were later.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/list.asp?ProcF...

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

"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2004 9:39:57 PM

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

Alex Johnson <compuwiz@acm.org> wrote:
> Notice how you changed something old put on 90nm to something on 90nm
> being called old? Nothing on 90nm can be considered old at this
> stage. It's still so brand spanking new that it doesn't work right.
> If you have to rearrage the words in the article to get your meaning,
> you are forcing a meaning on them they don't have.

Well, the meaning I always got was "older 90nm" not "old and in 90nm". Wierd
semantics this English language can have. Anyways, "older 90nm" probably
means the first family of processors ported to 90nm which would be Prescott,
whereas Dothan was the second family ported to 90nm. Granted they only
followed each other by a couple of months, but still one is older and the
other is newer.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 1:40:32 AM

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

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:15:44 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
wrote:
>
>In comp.sys.intel Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >on a processor that is now two generations out of date. They took the P6
>> >core from 250nm all of the way down to 130nm, I don't think they will take
>> >it to 90nm.
>>
>> Actually they started it way back on a 350nm core (or was it even
>> before that?).
>
>Wow, you're right about the 350nm. They started (release-wise) on 250nm.
>According to the Processor Spec Finder, all Pentium Pros were on 250nm.
>
>http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/list.asp?ProcF...

Huh? That ain't right. The Pentium Pros predate Intel's move to
250nm by some 3 or 4 years! According to Sandpile.org the first PPros
were actually produced on a 500nm fab process:

http://www.sandpile.org/impl/p6.htm

I think those were just the first handful of released chips (only
running at 150MHz) and the pre-release samples. Most PPros were built
on a 350nm fab process.

I can't find much info about them on Intel's site, I guess they're too
old to continue documenting.

>...but the first generation Pentium IIs were on 350nm, even though in terms
>of when they reached market, they were later.
>
>http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/list.asp?ProcF...


The first PIIs definitely shipped on a 350nm process (though some
referred to it as a '280nm' process, I guess it was a sort of
in-between stage). They didn't start shipping desktop chips made on a
250nm process until '98 as I recall.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 1:54:44 AM

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

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:Nj6Uc.404872$rCA1.43419@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Alex Johnson <compuwiz@acm.org> wrote:
> > Notice how you changed something old put on 90nm to something on
90nm
> > being called old? Nothing on 90nm can be considered old at this
> > stage. It's still so brand spanking new that it doesn't work
right.
> > If you have to rearrage the words in the article to get your
meaning,
> > you are forcing a meaning on them they don't have.
>
> Well, the meaning I always got was "older 90nm" not "old and in
90nm". Wierd
> semantics this English language can have.

Yep. I read a coupla days ago about a "giant ant colony" in Oz. I
interpreted that as a colony of giant ants. Shades of 1950's Sci-Fi
films! Alas, what was meant was a giant colony of insects, where the
insects happened to be ants.

Do you Canuckistanians really speak English, eh? ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 2:00:54 AM

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

In comp.sys.intel Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
> thread. For several generations now, since after the 486, it's been mostly
> the size of the L2 that's driven most of the performance in chips.

No, since after the P6 and integrated caches, and to an extent only since
full-speed on-die L2 caches came in with the C/300A and the coppermine P3.

With the Pentium classic/MMX, the big difference for non-MMX code was that
the MMX had a 2x sized L1 cache (32kb vs 16kb IIRC), and it made a much more
significant difference than going from 256k to 512k or even 1mb of cache on
the motherboard or a COAST module.

The Celeron 300A outperformed the Pentium II 300mhz on some benchmarks,
though hardly all of them, despite a significantly smaller cache because of
the full core speed cache; the 256k cache at full core speed on the
coppermine P3s made them generally preferable to the 512k half core speed
cache on the first-generation P3s and 100mhz FSB P2s.

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

"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2004 7:40:21 AM

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

Felger Carbon wrote:
> Do you Canuckistanians really speak English, eh? ;-)

I think we speak a form of Joyal, or something like that.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2004 2:57:39 AM

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

In article <E2aUc.1655$3O3.534@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
>
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> news:Nj6Uc.404872$rCA1.43419@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Alex Johnson <compuwiz@acm.org> wrote:
> > > Notice how you changed something old put on 90nm to something on
> 90nm
> > > being called old? Nothing on 90nm can be considered old at this
> > > stage. It's still so brand spanking new that it doesn't work
> right.
> > > If you have to rearrage the words in the article to get your
> meaning,
> > > you are forcing a meaning on them they don't have.
> >
> > Well, the meaning I always got was "older 90nm" not "old and in
> 90nm". Wierd
> > semantics this English language can have.
>
> Yep. I read a coupla days ago about a "giant ant colony" in Oz. I
> interpreted that as a colony of giant ants. Shades of 1950's Sci-Fi
> films! Alas, what was meant was a giant colony of insects, where the
> insects happened to be ants.
>
> Do you Canuckistanians really speak English, eh? ;-)

Come on Felg, that would be Canuckistani's. At least you got the
'eh, right.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2004 8:06:12 AM

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

"KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b8de131b96d0c04989963@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> In article <E2aUc.1655$3O3.534@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
>>
>> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
>> news:Nj6Uc.404872$rCA1.43419@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> > Alex Johnson <compuwiz@acm.org> wrote:
>> > > Notice how you changed something old put on 90nm to something on
>> 90nm
>> > > being called old? Nothing on 90nm can be considered old at this
>> > > stage. It's still so brand spanking new that it doesn't work
>> right.
>> > > If you have to rearrage the words in the article to get your
>> meaning,
>> > > you are forcing a meaning on them they don't have.
>> >
>> > Well, the meaning I always got was "older 90nm" not "old and in
>> 90nm". Wierd
>> > semantics this English language can have.
>>
>> Yep. I read a coupla days ago about a "giant ant colony" in Oz. I
>> interpreted that as a colony of giant ants. Shades of 1950's Sci-Fi
>> films! Alas, what was meant was a giant colony of insects, where the
>> insects happened to be ants.
>>
>> Do you Canuckistanians really speak English, eh? ;-)
>
> Come on Felg, that would be Canuckistani's. At least you got the
> 'eh, right.


Pretty sure the correct and proper usage is just "Canuks".

Maybe this is just a Minnesota term (where I first heard it)
for our friendly and hospitable neighbors to the north.

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2004 6:01:52 PM

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

On 19 Aug 2004 09:47:06 -0700, gaf1234567890@hotmail.com (G) wrote:

>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:<H0YSc.6$34G.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>>
>> Well, I would assume that anyone who has more than one person in the family
>> sharing the computer would need multi-logins. I'm not talking about just
>> multiple simultaneous user logins, I'm talking about multiple user accounts
>> of any kind are going to be prevented in this version of XP.
>
>I don't think there's hard data on this (other than maybe collected
>from MS focus groups). But anacdotally, I've seen families where it's
>both ways. I think it depends alot on how much value any one person in
>the family places on some of the astetic features... like having their
>own wallpaper and such.

We have it set up where everyone uses a single login on all PCs on
XPPro. Each kid (12 and 16) has their own PC, so they go directly in,
bypassing the login screen, and when someone else uses one of theirs,
we just use their desktop.

The main PC, mostly used by the grownups but shared by everyone (and
having the network archive and backup drives), has a login for
everyone, but we all use the same one, because having multiple logins
caused a lot of confusion. Different start menus, different desktop
layouts, different bookmarks, and having to switch logins all cost a
good bit of time over the course of the week, and nobody liked it.

Nobody changes anybody else's wallpaper or such (yes, this would cause
problems!), and the kids don't install software on the grownup's PC.
It works fine for us, but we're a pretty disciplined family on PC
control and privacy/security issues.


--
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
August 19, 2004 7:09:04 PM

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

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:<gJ6Vc.1126$NRf.178@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> G wrote:
> > In my house the kids use my PC for games and homework. My wife has her
> > own PC (the hand-me-down), which is older and can't run games anyway...
>
> I understand, your philosophy is that computers should be more like bomb
> shelters or military boot camps. :-)

Ha !! That's a good one :-)

Actually I think the correct metaphore is more: My philosophy is that
computers are more like automobiles... Powerful, somewhat costly yet
indispensible parts of modern life that require a) Proper training to
use, b) Regular maintenace. Plus they reward you with a much better
experience the more you take A and B seriously.

Plus, the upside to my style is that the PC can do things it otherwise
wouldn't be able to. It's not easy to run current games (City of
Heroes, Madden 2K5) on a P3-850 with a geForce4-MX. The alternative,
which I think carries over to the the 3rd world debate, is not to buy
a better PC, but rather just not play the games at all.

> And your sis-in-law's philosophy is that computers should be more like cozy
> living rooms.

That's pretty accurate.

I'll also add something... They (Brother and Sis-in-law) don't keep
anything important on the PC. While I have real data (Taxes, banking,
work stuff). They aren't worried that anything they do (or don't do)
on the PC is going to cause the roof to leak, the car to stall, or the
cheese in the fridge to go moldy. We (Wife and I) have already gone
through this enough times that we actually Norton Ghost'd the machine
to make the next "Reset" easier. Basically it's a mild inconvenience
at worst for them.

That doesn't fit the cozy living room metaphore, but I can't think of
a better one at the moment. But what I'm saying isn't strictly about
personalizing the machine.

> I find that in some households which don't have multiple computers (or at
> least enough multiple computers), that they eventually start needing
> individual logins, because it's like kids having their own personal rooms.
> They start decorating their own rooms according to their own tastes
> eventually. It's the only way to keep things sane sometimes.

Perhaps. They're not Teens yet so I'll have to see when we get there.
But I really like the idea that they *don't* think of it as the
"family" PC. It's "Dads". If/When they want their own PC they can get
a job and buy it with whatever they save; Same as a car; Same as
designer jeans; etc. So I see using my PC just like borrowing the car.
The rules for that will be: Don't leave it on empty, Don't change my
radio pre-sets; and You pay for your own insurance.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2004 5:59:42 AM

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

G wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
>> I understand, your philosophy is that computers should be more like
>> bomb shelters or military boot camps. :-)
>
> Ha !! That's a good one :-)
>
> Actually I think the correct metaphore is more: My philosophy is that
> computers are more like automobiles... Powerful, somewhat costly yet
> indispensible parts of modern life that require a) Proper training to
> use, b) Regular maintenace. Plus they reward you with a much better
> experience the more you take A and B seriously.

Well then, your philosophy about automobiles would be a little different
than some other people's too. To them, a car is something to snaz up, put
those big pimpin' floating rims on, some neon lights under the carriage,
low-flow exhausts, a big wompin' subwoofer, flames for a paintjob,
hoodscoops, rear wings, with the suspension lowered about 2 inches.

>> And your sis-in-law's philosophy is that computers should be more
>> like cozy living rooms.
>
> That's pretty accurate.

Different strokes for different folks.

> I'll also add something... They (Brother and Sis-in-law) don't keep
> anything important on the PC. While I have real data (Taxes, banking,
> work stuff). They aren't worried that anything they do (or don't do)
> on the PC is going to cause the roof to leak, the car to stall, or the
> cheese in the fridge to go moldy. We (Wife and I) have already gone
> through this enough times that we actually Norton Ghost'd the machine
> to make the next "Reset" easier. Basically it's a mild inconvenience
> at worst for them.

Well, I got some friends who use their main computer for games, taxes,
finances, etc. They just suffered a hard drive crash and it was
unrecoverable. I had told them a long time back to at least start putting
their stuff on their laptop too, so that they have backups for everything on
a couple of different machines. They didn't bother. Oh well.

Yousuf Khan
August 20, 2004 10:05:07 AM

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

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:<iWcVc.1823388$Ar.65496@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> G wrote:
> > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> >> I understand, your philosophy is that computers should be more like
> >> bomb shelters or military boot camps. :-)
> >
> > Ha !! That's a good one :-)
> >
> > Actually I think the correct metaphore is more: My philosophy is that
> > computers are more like automobiles... Powerful, somewhat costly yet
> > indispensible parts of modern life that require a) Proper training to
> > use, b) Regular maintenace. Plus they reward you with a much better
> > experience the more you take A and B seriously.
>
> Well then, your philosophy about automobiles would be a little different
> than some other people's too. To them, a car is something to snaz up, put
> those big pimpin' floating rims on, some neon lights under the carriage,
> low-flow exhausts, a big wompin' subwoofer, flames for a paintjob,
> hoodscoops, rear wings, with the suspension lowered about 2 inches.
>
> Yousuf Khan


Yup. That's correct. I'm more concerned with how good my gas mileage
is, and how long I can go without a car payment before I'm forced to
buy a new one. I consider 200K miles a very reasonable goal.

And when I see a car drive down the street that looks like you
describe, I cringe. Double cringe if it's blasting Rap or Hip-Hop.
Triple cringe if it's a spoiled suburban white kid trying to look like
Eminnem.

But somehow I don't think people in the third world "pimp their ride"
as much. From what I've seen of some of the 2nd world (Mexico, Russia,
Portugal), people are alot more frugal. Kind of like it was in the US
before the 1950's. And kids definitely don't get away with being punks
as much.

I don't think brand name recognition will play into computer buying
decissions.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2004 10:40:14 AM

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

>
> Pretty sure the correct and proper usage is just "Canuks".
>
> Maybe this is just a Minnesota term (where I first heard it)
> for our friendly and hospitable neighbors to the north.
>
> --

Get it right. It is spelt "Canuck".

>
> ... Hank
>
> http://horedson.home.att.net
> http://w0rli.home.att.net
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2004 9:58:15 PM

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

G wrote:
> But somehow I don't think people in the third world "pimp their ride"
> as much. From what I've seen of some of the 2nd world (Mexico, Russia,
> Portugal), people are alot more frugal. Kind of like it was in the US
> before the 1950's. And kids definitely don't get away with being punks
> as much.
>
> I don't think brand name recognition will play into computer buying
> decissions.

Well, among the computer owning public in various third-world countries I
know about, brand name does definitely play a major role in decisions. But
usually these people are already well-off well beyond the average person in
their countries.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2004 12:56:12 AM

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

In article <UGVUc.223561$OB3.94702@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, horedson@att.net says...
> "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b8de131b96d0c04989963@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> > In article <E2aUc.1655$3O3.534@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
> >>
> >> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Nj6Uc.404872$rCA1.43419@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> >> > Alex Johnson <compuwiz@acm.org> wrote:
> >> > > Notice how you changed something old put on 90nm to something on
> >> 90nm
> >> > > being called old? Nothing on 90nm can be considered old at this
> >> > > stage. It's still so brand spanking new that it doesn't work
> >> right.
> >> > > If you have to rearrage the words in the article to get your
> >> meaning,
> >> > > you are forcing a meaning on them they don't have.
> >> >
> >> > Well, the meaning I always got was "older 90nm" not "old and in
> >> 90nm". Wierd
> >> > semantics this English language can have.
> >>
> >> Yep. I read a coupla days ago about a "giant ant colony" in Oz. I
> >> interpreted that as a colony of giant ants. Shades of 1950's Sci-Fi
> >> films! Alas, what was meant was a giant colony of insects, where the
> >> insects happened to be ants.
> >>
> >> Do you Canuckistanians really speak English, eh? ;-)
> >
> > Come on Felg, that would be Canuckistani's. At least you got the
> > 'eh, right.
>
>
> Pretty sure the correct and proper usage is just "Canuks".

I was corrected by a true Canuckistani last week. There is a
'ck' in there.

>
> Maybe this is just a Minnesota term (where I first heard it)
> for our friendly and hospitable neighbors to the north.

Perhaps in the backwards parts of Minesooooota, you may be
correct (other than the missing 'c') that the terms for
country/native are Canada/Canuck, but here in .chips it's
Canuckistan/Canuckistani. ...and so shall it forever be! ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2004 1:02:38 AM

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

In article <b7eb1fbe.0408200505.68a5be14@posting.google.com>,
gaf1234567890@hotmail.com says...
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:<iWcVc.1823388$Ar.65496@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> > G wrote:
> > > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> > >> I understand, your philosophy is that computers should be more like
> > >> bomb shelters or military boot camps. :-)
> > >
> > > Ha !! That's a good one :-)
> > >
> > > Actually I think the correct metaphore is more: My philosophy is that
> > > computers are more like automobiles... Powerful, somewhat costly yet
> > > indispensible parts of modern life that require a) Proper training to
> > > use, b) Regular maintenace. Plus they reward you with a much better
> > > experience the more you take A and B seriously.
> >
> > Well then, your philosophy about automobiles would be a little different
> > than some other people's too. To them, a car is something to snaz up, put
> > those big pimpin' floating rims on, some neon lights under the carriage,
> > low-flow exhausts, a big wompin' subwoofer, flames for a paintjob,
> > hoodscoops, rear wings, with the suspension lowered about 2 inches.
> >
> > Yousuf Khan
>
>
> Yup. That's correct. I'm more concerned with how good my gas mileage
> is, and how long I can go without a car payment before I'm forced to
> buy a new one. I consider 200K miles a very reasonable goal.

A nice goal, but I've never come close before the daylight came
from below. Computers are a different kettle, though. Sure my
last one lasted (with minor upgrades: disk/memory) for five
years. When I upgrade I spend more to keep the obsolescence
monster at bay a while longer.

> And when I see a car drive down the street that looks like you
> describe, I cringe. Double cringe if it's blasting Rap or Hip-Hop.
> Triple cringe if it's a spoiled suburban white kid trying to look like
> Eminnem.

You're a racist too?

> But somehow I don't think people in the third world "pimp their ride"
> as much. From what I've seen of some of the 2nd world (Mexico, Russia,
> Portugal), people are alot more frugal. Kind of like it was in the US
> before the 1950's. And kids definitely don't get away with being punks
> as much.

It's nice to give children a chance to be children. OTOH, they
cannot be children forever. Children can learn and have fun.
Unfortunately...

> I don't think brand name recognition will play into computer buying
> decissions.

You completely underestimate marketeering. Why does Coke have
the market share it does?

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 23, 2004 5:09:23 AM

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

"KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b930a9ca722f3f7989965@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> In article <UGVUc.223561$OB3.94702@bgtnsc05-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, horedson@att.net says...
>> "KR Williams" <krw@att.biz> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1b8de131b96d0c04989963@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> > In article <E2aUc.1655$3O3.534@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> > fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
>> >>
>> >> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:Nj6Uc.404872$rCA1.43419@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> >> > Alex Johnson <compuwiz@acm.org> wrote:
>> >> > > Notice how you changed something old put on 90nm to something on
>> >> 90nm
>> >> > > being called old? Nothing on 90nm can be considered old at this
>> >> > > stage. It's still so brand spanking new that it doesn't work
>> >> right.
>> >> > > If you have to rearrage the words in the article to get your
>> >> meaning,
>> >> > > you are forcing a meaning on them they don't have.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, the meaning I always got was "older 90nm" not "old and in
>> >> 90nm". Wierd
>> >> > semantics this English language can have.
>> >>
>> >> Yep. I read a coupla days ago about a "giant ant colony" in Oz. I
>> >> interpreted that as a colony of giant ants. Shades of 1950's Sci-Fi
>> >> films! Alas, what was meant was a giant colony of insects, where the
>> >> insects happened to be ants.
>> >>
>> >> Do you Canuckistanians really speak English, eh? ;-)
>> >
>> > Come on Felg, that would be Canuckistani's. At least you got the
>> > 'eh, right.
>>
>>
>> Pretty sure the correct and proper usage is just "Canuks".
>
> I was corrected by a true Canuckistani last week. There is a
> 'ck' in there.
>
>>
>> Maybe this is just a Minnesota term (where I first heard it)
>> for our friendly and hospitable neighbors to the north.
>
> Perhaps in the backwards parts of Minesooooota, you may be
> correct (other than the missing 'c') that the terms for
> country/native are Canada/Canuck, but here in .chips it's
> Canuckistan/Canuckistani. ...and so shall it forever be! ;-)


Hmmm ... thought this was comp.sys.intel, but ...

Sounds good to me.
I first heard the term some ... um ... nearly 60 years ago.
Perhaps the spelling has changed.
Certainly the use has changed. It used to be a very bad
word to use, but now seems more playful / friendly.

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net
!