Compare the upcoming Intel 6xx and 8xx series of Pentiums

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

Any thoughts on which series (6xx or 8xx) of the upcoming Intel Pentiums
will be the "better" cpu's?

From what I have read it seems that the 6xx series will have a 2MB L2 cache
vs 1MB and will support EM64T and HT technology, while the 8xx series of
dual core Smithfields will only have 1MB L2 cache (per core), support EM64T,
be dual core, but not support HT on either core and will initially be
released at lower frequencies. I am not sure what the front side bus speed
will be on either the 6xx or the 8xx series. Anyone know?

Also, any ideas if the 8xx will run on current mobos with or without a bios
change, or will they require a new chipset, not just a new bios?
6 answers Last reply
More about compare upcoming intel series pentiums
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:32:47 GMT, "Richard Williams"
    <rwilliams27@nyc.rr.com> wrote:

    >newbie here.
    >
    >i'm trying to decide as well when and what to buy.
    >
    >very helpful info. Can you give an example(s) of software that is
    >multithreaded?

    Uhh.. that's a kind of broad question. Damn near any software CAN be
    multithreaded if it's written as such. In fact, I should probably
    specify my original statement a bit more in that I'm only referring to
    software that makes use of multithreaded code in an effective manner
    to increase performance. Pretty much all software has multiple
    threads, but mostly all of the threads but one sit idle 99.9% of the
    time. FWIW if you check in Task Manager under the process tab you can
    add a column to see how many threads are being used.


    As for some common examples of multithreaded software, well first off
    pretty much ALL server software. You're standard server application
    opens each new connection to it as a separate thread. Other common
    examples of heavily multithreaded software are high performance
    computing applications, which often get split up into groups of
    calculations to be distributed among many processors.

    More down-to-earth software that is multithreaded included many
    (most?) Photoshop filters, some audio and video encoders, most ray
    tracing programs, and many, many workstation applications of various
    types. Basically any task that can be effectively split up into
    multiple chunks can be multithreaded, though whether it was programmed
    as such or not is up to the developers.


    The following is a article that compares some dual-processor systems.
    If you read through the benchmarks at the end you'll see that there
    are some applications in which the dual-processors systems do VERY
    well; those applications are multithreaded. In other tests the single
    processor systems are as fast or faster because the applications are
    not multithreaded:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/


    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Richard Williams wrote:
    > newbie here.
    >
    > i'm trying to decide as well when and what to buy.

    When: when you can get some actual data instead of discussion of these
    types of architecture in general (which help your understanding).
    What: what you like after "when."
    >
    > very helpful info. Can you give an example(s) of software that is
    > multithreaded?

    Mozilla, Pan newsreader, many games. Serial communication programs (if
    you dialup). Most modern browsers and window managers. The guts of the
    operating system. And the printer driver runs in a thread, as does the
    audio. Help me, Windows users!

    --
    bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
    SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
    Project Leader, USENET news
    http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Bill Davidsen wrote:
    > Richard Williams wrote:
    >
    >> newbie here.
    >>
    >> i'm trying to decide as well when and what to buy.
    >
    >
    > When: when you can get some actual data instead of discussion of these
    > types of architecture in general (which help your understanding).
    > What: what you like after "when."
    >
    >>
    >> very helpful info. Can you give an example(s) of software that is
    >> multithreaded?
    >
    >
    > Mozilla, Pan newsreader, many games. Serial communication programs (if
    > you dialup). Most modern browsers and window managers. The guts of the
    > operating system. And the printer driver runs in a thread, as does the
    > audio. Help me, Windows users!
    >

    Is Mozilla really multithreaded?? I would have thought not. I run it on
    a 2P Xeon under Linux 2.4 and whenever something is blocking one tab or
    window, all tabs and windows stop doing anything. Including redrawing!
    I use Mozilla 1.7.3. If they went to the trouble to make it
    multithreaded, they really should have made it non-blocking. One stuck
    thread seems to totally kill the entire process tree.

    I wouldn't say many games are multithreaded. That's the problem
    everyone is having with this shift to multithread and multicore
    processors at lower speeds. Since games don't use multiple threads,
    gaming performance goes down.

    Photoshop is multithreaded. Oracle and almost every major database is
    multithreaded. I would bet AutoCAD is multithreaded these days, but I
    haven't used it for years. Probably, high-end commercial applications
    are, while games and low-end business applications are not.

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

    Alex Johnson wrote:
    > Bill Davidsen wrote:
    >
    >>Richard Williams wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>newbie here.
    >>>
    >>>i'm trying to decide as well when and what to buy.
    >>
    >>
    >>When: when you can get some actual data instead of discussion of these
    >>types of architecture in general (which help your understanding).
    >>What: what you like after "when."
    >>
    >>
    >>>very helpful info. Can you give an example(s) of software that is
    >>>multithreaded?
    >>
    >>
    >>Mozilla, Pan newsreader, many games. Serial communication programs (if
    >>you dialup). Most modern browsers and window managers. The guts of the
    >>operating system. And the printer driver runs in a thread, as does the
    >>audio. Help me, Windows users!
    >>
    >
    >
    > Is Mozilla really multithreaded?? I would have thought not.

    I took a long look at the source code a couple of years ago and
    at least back then it was multithreaded.

    > I run it on
    > a 2P Xeon under Linux 2.4 and whenever something is blocking one tab or
    > window, all tabs and windows stop doing anything. Including redrawing!

    I switched to FireFox a long time ago. OS = W2K. I very
    frequently have one tab "blocked" but all of the others working
    just fine. The only thing I run into anymore than seems to
    "block" the whole app is loading/unloading of the AcroRead plugin.

    > I use Mozilla 1.7.3. If they went to the trouble to make it
    > multithreaded, they really should have made it non-blocking. One stuck
    > thread seems to totally kill the entire process tree.
    > I wouldn't say many games are multithreaded. That's the problem
    > everyone is having with this shift to multithread and multicore
    > processors at lower speeds. Since games don't use multiple threads,
    > gaming performance goes down.

    Not sure how you can check thread counts in Linux, but it is
    quite easy in W2K and XP. Most 3D games use quite a few threads.

    Merely being multithreaded does not mean an app can take
    advantage of multiple processors. Even then the specific
    architecture can come into play. I have, for example, read a
    Delphi programming article that showed several examples of code
    that takes a performance hit when running on 2 Xeons instead of
    one - yet the same code runs faster on 2 Opterons than it does on
    one.

    >
    > Photoshop is multithreaded. Oracle and almost every major database is
    > multithreaded. I would bet AutoCAD is multithreaded these days, but I
    > haven't used it for years. Probably, high-end commercial applications
    > are, while games and low-end business applications are not.
    >

    Windows users can easily see how many threads an app has open.
    In Task Manager, use View|Select Columns then put a check mark
    beside "Thread count". Some examples from the apps I currently
    have open:

    Firefox = 11
    Explorer = 13
    Thunderbird = 8
    OpenOffice 1.1 = 17
    WordPerfect 2000 = 7


    --
    Every cloud has a silver lining, even if you sometimes
    have to drop a little acid before you can see it.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:01:01 -0500, Alex Johnson <compuwiz@jhu.edu>
    wrote:

    >Bill Davidsen wrote:
    >> Mozilla, Pan newsreader, many games. Serial communication programs (if
    >> you dialup). Most modern browsers and window managers. The guts of the
    >> operating system. And the printer driver runs in a thread, as does the
    >> audio. Help me, Windows users!
    >>
    >
    >Is Mozilla really multithreaded?? I would have thought not. I run it on
    >a 2P Xeon under Linux 2.4 and whenever something is blocking one tab or
    >window, all tabs and windows stop doing anything. Including redrawing!
    > I use Mozilla 1.7.3. If they went to the trouble to make it
    >multithreaded, they really should have made it non-blocking. One stuck
    >thread seems to totally kill the entire process tree.

    I just fired up Firefox under WinXP and task manager claims that it's
    using 9 threads with only a single blank tab open. I don't know how
    effectively it is at multithreading, that's another matter altogether.

    >I wouldn't say many games are multithreaded. That's the problem
    >everyone is having with this shift to multithread and multicore
    >processors at lower speeds. Since games don't use multiple threads,
    >gaming performance goes down.

    Almost all programs are multithreaded to a certain degree, the
    question is how effectively they make use of the multiple threads
    operating independently. Generally speaking, games do much make
    effective use of multiple threads at all. The best situation seems to
    be where games have one thread doing AI, one thread doing sound and
    another doing video, but I don't think we see that too much.

    Generally speaking I would expect dual-core processors to add very
    performance to games when compared to an equivalently clocked
    single-core processor. Maybe a few percent here or there, but not
    much.

    Of course, that could well change in the future.

    >Photoshop is multithreaded. Oracle and almost every major database is
    >multithreaded. I would bet AutoCAD is multithreaded these days, but I
    >haven't used it for years. Probably, high-end commercial applications
    >are, while games and low-end business applications are not.

    AS mentioned above, basically all applications are multithreaded, it's
    really just a question of how effectively they make use of those
    multiple threads. For most apps they'll have easily a dozen or so
    threads that are totally idle 99% of the time while all the actual
    work is handled in a single thread.

    The real advantage to dual-core, like with dual-processor systems
    before them, is the ability to run multiple tasks at once without
    bogging down your system.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Hi All,

    Introduction of 6xx series will be at end of Febr.2005..8xx will not be
    introduced before summer (but prob.much later)...current i915/925 will
    support 6xx series but 8xx will not (need 945/955 chipset...) all are
    LGA-775 (!):

    Some feature's of 6xx series will be:
    - 2MB L2 Cache (like first series of "extreme Editions")
    - HT Support
    - 800Mhz FSB (latest "extreme's" will have 1066Mhz)
    - Execute Disable Bit (J-step) to minimize buffer-overflow / flooding w.
    some virus-attacks
    - EIST64 (64Bit OS Support)
    - Enhanced Speedstep (same as on Mobile..CPU will power down to lower
    consumption if not full load is required)

    Pricing of 6xx series will be at level of 5xx + next step (so 630
    (3.0Ghz) will be @ level of 540 (3.2Ghz). For 8xx prices will be much
    higher (don't forget new MB/Memory(DDR2-667))/PSU(?)) and availability....

    I think that both 2MB Cache & Speedstep will do a lot of good !! (why
    should CPU run @ full speed (& generate lot of heat..) if you're typing
    a letter, browsing the internet of even watch a movie (w.latest
    video-cards...)

    Cheers,
    D.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Support Intel Product