"Pentium 4" brandname ready to be dropped

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187

Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
(Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)

AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?

--
Regards, Grumble
 
G

Guest

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

Grumble wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
>
>
> Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
> article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
> (Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)
>
> AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
> looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?
>

the dual core clocked at 3.2GHz that Inq lists would be the one they've
been talking about for months--two prescotts stitched together at the
pins. Intel has announced Prescott based, Prescott's successor-based,
Pentium-M-based, and Itanium 2-based dual cores for 2005. That's just
the one most people will care about--the first desktop model.

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.)
 
G

Guest

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

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:07:55 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
wrote:
>
>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
>
>Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
>article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
>(Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)
>
>AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
>looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?

Err, 3.2GHz is their planned top speed for this dual-core chip when it
arrives in early 2006. Given that they are already at 3.6GHz now and
plan on getting to 3.8GHz before the end of the year, I would say that
they are indeed downclocking their dual-core chips relative to the
single core ones!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

Newsflash: The Inquirer floats down out of geek hyperspace and
acknowledges some everyday reality:

"Intel's aggressive marketing of the kitemark and the Centrino brand has
paid dividends for it. To many folk, wi-fi notebooks and Centrino means
the same."

Staff probably needs a hit of something or other to regain altitude.

RM
 
G

Guest

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

Tony Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:07:55 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
>>
>>Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
>>article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
>>(Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)
>>
>>AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
>>looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?
>
>
> Err, 3.2GHz is their planned top speed for this dual-core chip when it
> arrives in early 2006. Given that they are already at 3.6GHz now and
> plan on getting to 3.8GHz before the end of the year, I would say that
> they are indeed downclocking their dual-core chips relative to the
> single core ones!
>

Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?


--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no>,
Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

>Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
>for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
>to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
>rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?

Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds. Multiple cpus
on a die is one of many things they're trying. The reason people are
wondering about how low the clock will be is that they hate
sacrificing too much single-thread performance to get better total
performance. Also, they want to know how much improvement in total
performance that they're going to get.

-- greg
 
G

Guest

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

Greg Lindahl wrote:
> In article <rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no>,
> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
>>for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
>>to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
>>rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?
>
>
> Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
> cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.

Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example.
Multi-core would be the first significant change to
the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were
released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime
is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is
nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months.

The situation has been much the same for the P4 since
it first came out. Many small changes have been made
to allow Intel to keep jacking up clock speeds, but
the basic chip design has stayed the same.

You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.

> Multiple cpus
> on a die is one of many things they're trying. The reason people are
> wondering about how low the clock will be is that they hate
> sacrificing too much single-thread performance to get better total
> performance. Also, they want to know how much improvement in total
> performance that they're going to get.
>


--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.
 
G

Guest

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

>> Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
>> cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.
> Such as ?

pipelining, OOO execution, bigger caches, faster caches, higher
associativity in caches, fewer cycles for some operations, on-board memory
controller, wider busses, better compilers, SMT, more registers, new
instructions, more reservation stations, more ALUs, better branch
predictors, ...

> Take the AMD64 processors, for example. Multi-core would be the first
> significant change to the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240
> were released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime is a steady
> jacking up of clock speeds and there is nothing else on the horizon for
> the next 6 to 9 months.

Only Ghz can be changed without some significant redesign, so it's no wonder
that within a short time span nothing else than Ghz will change.


Stefan
 
R

rush

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
214
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote :

> You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
> Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
> without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
> since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
> motherboard for Pentium M

yes You can, in Japan :eek:)

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
 
G

Guest

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

Grumble wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
>
> Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
> article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
> (Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)

The initial ones are going to be based on Prescott, should be here by 2006.
Then probably a year later, they'll probably have ones based off of
Pentium-M.

> AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
> looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?

It's likely that all of the dual cores whether from AMD or Intel will be a
couple frequency steps behind their single-core cousins. I think the only
question is how many frequency steps behind they will be, and whether one
mfg or the other will be able to keep the percentage of the drop lower than
the other (eg. one might only be one step behind their own single-core,
while the other one might be two steps behind).

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

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

Rob Stow wrote:
> Greg Lindahl wrote:
>> Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
>> cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.
>
> Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example.
> Multi-core would be the first significant change to
> the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were
> released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime
> is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is
> nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months.

Well, I think Greg was referring to the overall evolution of the
microprocessors over the last several years. You could say the increase in
cache sizes, better branch-prediction, prefetch tweaking, etc. that's been
done over the last several years has been done to improve instruction
efficiency without needing to jack up clockrates. Of course another one of
the performance tweaks that's been done over the years is the jacking up of
the number of instruction pipeline stages, which was done mainly to
facilitate jacking up the clockrates. But both mfgs have tried a number of
techniques to increase performance in several areas.

Of course it looks like AMD has done much more in the last little while to
increase performance, with the integrated RAM controllers, and
Hypertransport I/O links.

> You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
> Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
> without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
> since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
> motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.

You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may
be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them. :)

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

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

RusH wrote:
> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote :
>
>
>>You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
>>Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
>>without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
>>since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
>>motherboard for Pentium M
>
>
> yes You can, in Japan :eek:)
>
> Pozdrawiam.

Can you get me anything more detailed ?
Brand/Model ? URL ?

Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
and could perhaps ship something to me.

--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.
 
G

Guest

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

Rob Stow wrote:

> RusH wrote:
>
>> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote :
>>
>>
>>> You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
>>> Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
>>> without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
>>> since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
>>> motherboard for Pentium M
>>
>>
>>
>> yes You can, in Japan :eek:)
>>
>> Pozdrawiam.
>
>
> Can you get me anything more detailed ?
> Brand/Model ? URL ?
>
> Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
> and could perhaps ship something to me.

Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.

--
Mike Smith
 
G

Guest

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

Rob Stow wrote:

> You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
> Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
> without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
> since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
> motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.

Given that the M/B vendors have done other things Intel didn't like,
such as dual Celeron boards and BIOS support for overclock for examples,
I have to think that this is because the M/B vendors don't see the
demand, rather than because there's some conspiracy.

I'm open to another explanation, I just have faith in greed providing me
with toys ;-)

--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
 
G

Guest

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

lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) writes:

>In article <rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no>,
>Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

>>Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
>>for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
>>to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
>>rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?

>Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
>cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds. Multiple cpus
>on a die is one of many things they're trying. The reason people are
>wondering about how low the clock will be is that they hate
>sacrificing too much single-thread performance to get better total
>performance. Also, they want to know how much improvement in total
>performance that they're going to get.


Its possible they wouldn't have to. If AMD's highest clocked dual core
in 90nm by A4 2004 is 2.5 GHz, and their highest clocked single core in
90nm reaches 3.5 GHz, it may be possible to overclock your 2.5 GHz dual
core to 3.5 GHz. That's assuming the circuits are the same on the dual
core part -- they might use more lower performance lower power
transistors on the dual core parts so this is not possible. If you
could do it might require more power than some motherboards and power
supplies could handle, and produce enough heat to require a really top
notch heatsink and fan. But if the transistors were the same on the dual
core part I could see this being a favorite activity among overclockers.

Another route would be to support cool'n'quiet on a per core basis, to
allow the OS or BIOS to dynamically manage the power draw and heat on
each core. Each would be capable of 3.5 GHz, but when one went up to
that speed, the other might drop to low power mode of only 1 GHz. It'd
take OS support for this regardless of how its managed since the OS
would need to know if one CPU is 3-4x faster than the other.

Better yet, for the long term, might be to have one high performance
core and a bunch of little ones for less important tasks. A K8 type
core along with four cores that were more on the order of VIA's new C7
in terms of size, power usage and performance.

--
Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Thomas Jefferson
 
R

rush

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
214
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote :

> Rob Stow wrote:

>> Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
>> and could perhaps ship something to me.
>
> Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.

http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22pentium+m+motherboard
first hit - doh

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
 
G

Guest

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

RusH wrote:
> Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote :
>
>
>>Rob Stow wrote:
>
>
>>>Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
>>>and could perhaps ship something to me.
>>
>>Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.
>
>
> http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22pentium+m+motherboard
> first hit - doh
>

In the section you snipped you missed the part about
wanting an ATX motherboard.

The AOpen one is just another one of those
less-than-full-featured micros. Only 2 DIMM
slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it -
particularly when it costs twice as much as a
full-featured ATX board. A lot of people - but
not me - would also be disappointed by no AGP 3.0.


--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.
 
G

Guest

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>>Greg Lindahl wrote:
>>
>>>Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
>>>cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.
>>
>>Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example.
>>Multi-core would be the first significant change to
>>the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were
>>released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime
>>is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is
>>nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months.
>
>
> Well, I think Greg was referring to the overall evolution of the
> microprocessors over the last several years. You could say the increase in
> cache sizes, better branch-prediction, prefetch tweaking, etc. that's been
> done over the last several years has been done to improve instruction
> efficiency without needing to jack up clockrates. Of course another one of
> the performance tweaks that's been done over the years is the jacking up of
> the number of instruction pipeline stages, which was done mainly to
> facilitate jacking up the clockrates. But both mfgs have tried a number of
> techniques to increase performance in several areas.
>
> Of course it looks like AMD has done much more in the last little while to
> increase performance, with the integrated RAM controllers, and
> Hypertransport I/O links.
>
>
>>You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
>>Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
>>without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
>>since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
>>motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.
>
>
> You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may
> be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them. :)
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
>

Reet petite and awesome neat :)

What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.


--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.
 
G

Guest

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

Rob Stow wrote:
>> You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon
>> you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to
>> power them. :) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
>>
>
> Reet petite and awesome neat :)
>
> What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
> tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.

And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
they use their cellphones. :)

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

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

Rob Stow wrote:

> RusH wrote:
>
>> Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote :
>>
>>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>
>>>> Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
>>>> and could perhaps ship something to me.
>>>
>>> Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.
>>
>> http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22pentium+m+motherboard
>> first hit - doh
>
> In the section you snipped you missed the part about
> wanting an ATX motherboard.
>
> The AOpen one is just another one of those
> less-than-full-featured micros. Only 2 DIMM
> slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it -
> particularly when it costs twice as much as a
> full-featured ATX board.

Indeed. If I were really desperate, I could buy one of those mini-ITX
jobs from Commell or Lippert, but damn are they expensive.

> A lot of people - but
> not me - would also be disappointed by no AGP 3.0.

I could go either way. I would love to build a Pentium M gaming system,
but what I'm really looking for is to be able to build low-power,
low-noise (preferably silent) servers to experiment with. (I live in a
small apartment and don't have the luxury of a spare room where I can
put all the computers and then keep the door closed.)

--
Mike Smith
 
G

Guest

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

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>>>You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon
>>>you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to
>>>power them. :) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
>>>
>>
>>Reet petite and awesome neat :)
>>
>>What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
>>tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.
>
>
> And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
> they use their cellphones. :)
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>

Sales of Chanel #5 are about to take a huge boost ?

--
Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
Do not remove anything.
 
G

Guest

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

In article <tB8ed.181563$a41.62910@pd7tw2no>,
Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> writes:
|> Yousuf Khan wrote:
|> > Rob Stow wrote:
|> >
|> >>>You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon
|> >>>you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to
|> >>>power them. :) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
|> >>
|> >>Reet petite and awesome neat :)
|> >>
|> >>What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
|> >>tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.
|> >
|> > And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
|> > they use their cellphones. :)
|>
|> Sales of Chanel #5 are about to take a huge boost ?

You have forgotten the need to water-cool them - it's really
Channel number five.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
G

Guest

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

"Rob Stow" <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:eek:l_dd.1976$kN2.1018@pd7tw3no...

snip

> What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
> tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.

For those, you might not want to have the jet engine run a generator to
create electricity. It might make more sense to gear down the turbine to
turn the shaft on the tool directly (i.e. like a prop jet) But I think
these are a long way off. :)

--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom