Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pentium 5

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 23, 2003 12:04:45 PM

Finally, they decided to change the name of the P4 to P5! Quite frankly, I was getting a little tired of "P4" as a name. Not as a CPU, but as a name.

Plus, interestingly enough, even tomshardware cared to <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-02.htm..." target="_new">mention</A> Yamhill. Is it really just a rumor? Thinks will become quite interesting... Intel has done its homework and rigged Prescott...

Plus, Intel seems to have Prescott on a very late stage of development. If engineering samples have been circulating, then it would seem they're <i>not really</i> having troubles with 90nm tech, and that they're not in half the confusion that AMD is regarding x86-64 launches (*cough* delays *cough*).

Still, it would really be good if AMD put their act together and got A64 out the door. That might even activate Yamhill, so competition would be most welcome now.

More about : pentium

June 23, 2003 12:25:44 PM

IMO, they don't have any problem whatsoever with the Prescott.

They simply delayed it because there was nothing to compete against.The P4C is the boss,no doubt.


Long live Intel!

From the darkside...you know!
June 23, 2003 12:48:44 PM

Agreed, Intel is smart. They know without competition there is no need to give us more than we currently have. The AMD rating system is a crock considering how the most recent XP 3000 and 3200 have done against their Intel counterparts.

I've never owned an AMD, no reason for me to unless Intel starts producing garbage. We all know Intel is more expensive but with that comes stability and performance.

Anyway, I hope the Athlon64 does even better than expected. I may be in the intel camp but I'm not anti-AMD. If the A64 does even better than expected (or at the least lives up to the hype) we'll get more from both camps. Plus a more direct competition with Intel would mean lower prices from both companies. Woohoo!

--Xenius
-non computer guru
Related resources
June 23, 2003 1:10:58 PM

So do you like the name P5 better than P4? Would be nice IF AMD gets the A64 out the door on TIME!!!!!!!! We all need the competition. Plus lower prices for all.
June 23, 2003 3:10:38 PM

See, the reason why P5 is being omitted by Intel or hesitated, is because of two things:
-First, there already was a P5 <b>core</b>
-Second, Pentium means 5, it'd be a redundancy expression to use 5 after that. Like saying "I'm climbing UP the stairs."

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 23, 2003 3:38:08 PM

Quote: Eden
-----------------------------------------------------------
See, the reason why P5 is being omitted by Intel or hesitated, is because of two things:
-First, there already was a P5 core
-Second, Pentium means 5, it'd be a redundancy expression to use 5 after that. Like saying "I'm climbing UP the stairs."
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROFL i never thought of that, good stuff man!

XeeN
June 23, 2003 4:36:39 PM

I agree. It's nice that Intel has finally introduce the Pentium 5 name ;) 

I for one wouldn't be surprised if Prescott had disabled 64-bit support.

Btw, just got my new P4 rig today, 2.8 Ghz and 800 FSB on an ASUS P4P800, which so far to me, is a board that's back to ASUS old standards of excellent stability.


My system: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / ASUS P4P800 / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
June 23, 2003 4:56:31 PM

How is the system?
Is it fast, is it reponsive, have you tried HT a bit, and what about noise most of all?

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 23, 2003 5:00:07 PM

So far I guess in Windows, it's pretty much the same as the AXP 3000+. But as the benches tell, this CPU goes on par with the 3200+.

The boxed HSF runs more silent than the fan of the XP3000+ did. However I haven't tried any games yet. Just started up for the first time, one hour ago.

My system: Intel Pentium 4 2.8, 800 FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / ASUS P4P800 / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
June 23, 2003 7:00:52 PM

Hm... really? Why is the processor actually named "5" in latin? Because the original Pentium was a P5 core or what? Interesting...

Pentium 4 would just be "4th revision" or what? Maybe then, core "5", revision "5" or something, in the general sense, isn't redundant. Just as P4. I don't know.

Maybe they could come up with another name, aside from Pentium. Who knows?...
June 23, 2003 7:36:04 PM

Well they certainly cannot use Sexium.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 23, 2003 7:51:33 PM

How about NP5 New Pentium 5
June 23, 2003 8:29:13 PM

Ok, a tidbit of history for you Meph. Intel used to sell processors based on their part numbers 8088, 80286, 80386, 80486. But then came trouble. I don't remember who, but I believe someone else started selling processors and calling them 486's. Intel sued to stop them, but lost. Why? The court decided a part number couldn't be trademarked. Thus the 80<b><font color=blue>5</font color=blue></b>86 became the Pentium®. And they've been Pentium®s ever since. And given the current recognition and brand value of that name, I doubt you'll see a change real soon.
June 23, 2003 8:56:43 PM

So a Pentium 2/3/4 is indeed a revision number or something... So it wouldn't really be redundant if you said Pentium 5, it would just be like saying this is processor number 55, up from the P4's 54, or P3's 53 or something... right? Two numbers, then. Makes sense and isn't really redundant. BTW, thanks for that bit of history, sonoran.
a b à CPUs
June 24, 2003 4:04:13 AM

It would be like naming the Pentium the 5.1, the Pentium 2 the 5.2, etc.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
June 24, 2003 5:46:17 AM

Are they ever going to branch off of the Pentium name?
June 24, 2003 6:08:05 AM

Xenius, you said "We all know Intel is more expensive but with that comes stability and performance."

stability....huh???

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by fo_sho on 06/24/03 02:08 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 24, 2003 7:24:33 AM

I think someone's confusing CPUs with chipsets.

All this name-talk is just marketing really. The new 'P5' or whatever is really just an extended P4, although the P4 really was very different to the P3, which itself was a very extended Pentium Pro (via a P2).
So in terms of architechture, the new chip is really like a P5.3.2. Or something. ;]

<A HREF="http://www.baznet.freeserve.co.uk/Intelhistory.htm" target="_new">Intel CPU History</A>

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=18108" target="_new">My <font color=orange>Editing</font color=orange> & <font color=green>Gaming</font color=green> Machine</A>
June 24, 2003 8:58:10 AM

Intel should just use their core names along with a sub-revision label like AMD use to. K5 meant 5th generation processor. K6 meant 6th generation, K6-2 meant second-revision 6th generation, K6-3 meant 3rd, etc. That is, of course, before they gave in to marketing needs and came up with stupid names like Athlon with letters and numbers and all sorts of stuff after it like XP.
In that sense, the Pentium Pro should've been the P6, the P2, the P6-2, the P3, the P6-3, the P4 should be the P7, Prescott would be the P7-2 and Teja would probably be a P7-3.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
June 24, 2003 8:31:11 PM

Quote:
In that sense, the Pentium Pro should've been the P6, the P2, the P6-2, the P3, the P6-3, the P4 should be the P7, Prescott would be the P7-2 and Teja would probably be a P7-3.

While we're being pedantic (which is certainly no bad thing when done for the purpose of comedy and satire) I'd take it one step further.

Technically the name <b>Pent</b>ium was developed because Intel couldn't trademark the number 80<b>5</b>86. (Which actually is pretty odd since M$ could trademark something as generic as 'Windows', but that's a whole different can of worms.) So technically the core that would have been an 80<b>6</b>86 should have been a <b>Sex</b>ium, the core that would have been an 80<b>7</b>68 a <b>Sept</b>ium, the core that would have been an 80<b>8</b>86 an <b>Oct</b>ium, etc. ad <b>Naus</b>ium. So calling what should have been an 80<b>8</b>86 a <b>Pent</b>ium is in my opinion rather obtuse. ;) 

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 24, 2003 10:42:03 PM

>>>ad <b>Naus</b>ium

ROFLMAO - the new, improved <b>Naus</b>ium processor. Hmmm, I don't think it'll sell as well as the <b>Sex</b>iums.
June 25, 2003 12:36:06 AM

When did they decide to name it the Pentium5? I thought number changes were only for major revisions to the core, and that the P4 would scale to 10ghz with simple size reductions?
June 25, 2003 1:21:31 AM

The Pentium 3 was a P2 with SSE added.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
June 25, 2003 2:18:13 AM

Isn't it true that, although Prescott is still based on the same principles as Northwood, it's a rather big revision they did? I thought that <A HREF="http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_04_20_Looking_a..." target="_new">chip architect's</A> article on that illustrated a number of changes/improvements on Prescott. (BTW, this article has interesting stuff in it...)

That could warrant a new name, depending on the real-world effect of architectural changes (i.e. performance or something).

But then again, Northwood improved over Willamette quite a lot but didn't get a name of its own... Should it? I don't know, but I wouldn't object against anyone who tries to breathe new life into a name/family of processors by adding P5 to the line of Pentium, P2, P3 and P4, if there is a relevant architectural change going on. But hey, how can that be decided?...
June 25, 2003 2:48:17 AM

Northwood added L2 cache and later on, a faster FSB. That was it. There were no core changes architecturally speaking. Prescott has architectural changes.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
June 25, 2003 12:53:02 PM

OK... I actually wasn't following the hardware world when Willamette got replaced by Northwood... I bet they have something on that on that Chip-architect site... I'll take a look.
June 25, 2003 1:20:09 PM

What's in a name? That which we call a [Pentium] by any other name would [perform] as sweet?

Regards,

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
June 25, 2003 6:11:18 PM

Quote:
What's in a name?

...oh... yes, up until now, this thread is (apparently) almost purely aesthetic in nature. (I started it, I guess, but wanted to talk about the processor, not just the name, too... :eek:  )

Not that the name really is the most important feature on prescott <i>at all</i>, mind you! (at least, well, I hope it isn't...)
June 25, 2003 7:21:19 PM

Whatever this thread is, it's entertaining. Some people just have WAAY too much time on their hands, arguing semantics. :lol: 

Wait. . . I'm one of those people. . . . Dammit!

Regards,

Dave

Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.
!