Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Prescott OK on current mobos.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 12, 2003 10:46:34 PM

Intel specced all voltage requirements for Prescott over two months ago - back in April.

So what is going on here? None of the Specs changed. The <A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboards/display/2003071..." target="_new">Xbitlabs</A> news bit that mentioned incompatibility even mentioned that mobo manufacturers were not adhering to VRD 10 specs.

So in what way is this Intel's fault? This is not another MTH case, is it?

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

More about : prescott current mobos

a b à CPUs
July 13, 2003 12:35:13 AM

Hehe, Tom's mentioned this a couple months when the first boards came out, saying that Intel's recommendations for the new spec were simply that, recommendations, as far as the 865/875 chipset itself goes. It was up to the manufacturer weather they wanted to comply, which would ensure Prescott compatability, or not. Look up the earliest article Tom's published on these chipsets, you'll probably find the info there.

So we know that at least 1 company, Asus, claims they DID follow Intel's recomendations. Which means X-Bit Labs published BOGUS INFORMATION when they made the following statement:

Quote:
In fact, mainboard makers have known that their current products do not support Prescott chips for weeks now, so, it is a mystery why, for example, ASUS still claims that their i865PE-based mainboard supports Prescott processor.


That's right, they are deceiving people. Why, I don't know. It sounds like someone is serious set out to sabatoge this part of the industry.



<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
July 13, 2003 12:53:02 AM

Mine's an ASUS, so let's hope they are compatible.
Related resources
July 13, 2003 1:22:54 AM

It most probably is. Intel has released the eletrical specs for prescott a long time ago.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 1:25:24 AM

Quote:
That's right, they are deceiving people. Why, I don't know. It sounds like someone is serious set out to sabatoge this part of the industry.

Well, the only thing we can do is try to spread the news around...

And I also hope that THG doesn't do the same kind of mischief. It would be a disappointment. :frown:

And as an update: <A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com" target="_new">HardOCP</A> is being much more accurate: they said that Prescott support is entirely up to the manufacturer. This is correct. Intel didn't make any last minute changes: the electrical specs for prescott are common knowledge since April (this actually means WE can check out Intel's developer site personally).

Intel did everything right there. The mobo makers just have to follow. But, of course, lots of people were just looking for this opportunity to flame Intel.

<b>Maybe... Just maybe the mobo manufacturers wanted to sell much more mobos?... Now from where did I get that <i>crazy</i> idea?</b> If they don't follow the specs now, they can always release yet another mobo revision...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
a b à CPUs
July 13, 2003 2:04:00 AM

If it isn't, Asus will have to repair the board for free under warranty. Yes I said repair. You see, I've seen Asus repair older boards to meet specifications for newer versions of the same board. The most famous was the P2B-DS, which Asus actually published the repair info on their website for.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
a b à CPUs
July 13, 2003 2:06:32 AM

I remember the last time such a rumor hit, Tom's waited...days, I think it was about a week before mentioning it. And then they wrote a brief editorial that said (roughly) "this is why our site can be considered a more reliable source of information".

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
July 13, 2003 2:08:50 AM

Quote:
"this is why our site can be considered a more reliable source of information".

Impressive. I hope they do that now too. Actually... I didn't know anandtech and xbitlabs would both spread this kind of rumor without checking. I'd have thought better of them. Good thing I rely mostly on THG. :smile:

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 3:06:56 AM

<<lots of people were just looking for this opportunity to flame Intel. >>

with the way people INTEL ELITIST flame AMD... would u expect any less in return?
July 13, 2003 3:09:40 AM

<<Good thing I rely mostly on THG>>

what article did u read that showed prescotts in current motherboards and they worked? please post a link. ALl i read here is counter conjecture. We have no clue if INTEL had to change anything since april. I mean you think going to .90 um was going to be flawless and easy just becuase its INTEL.

sheeshh
a b à CPUs
July 13, 2003 3:26:16 AM

Well, that was a paraphrase, not a direct quote. Anyway, it's possible that Anandtech got what they though was reliable information from what they thought was a reliable source, and then X-Bit labs simply assumed that the info Anandtech got was right...this is the type of thing that caused the Korean stock market to crash a few months ago!

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
July 13, 2003 4:13:13 AM

They got their info from some turkey that is a big fan of AMD. Why would the top Mobo builders state two plus months ago that their motherboards would support Scotty. IF indeed they did not!!!! That too me is bad business. Which would make no sense. Talk about false advertisement.
July 13, 2003 4:27:04 AM

So, unnamed manufactuerers are a better source, than a named one?

Prescott CPUs in current (ie. 865/875) mobos are the proof you need that it will work? Here's an easy answer...keep the box and any paperwork that came with a current 865/875 mobo that states that it will accept a Prescott CPU...and if it doesn't, the manufactuer HAS to give you one that does...or you can sue them for false advertising.

Also, 90nm processes was never a flawless endeavour, for anyone, but I bet intel is much closer to finalizing it's 90nm than AMD, only because they have the capacity to tweak it, than AMD does.

But, since none of this will really matter...Show me a manufactuer link that claims that the current 865/875 motherboards WON'T support Prescott. Not just there's, but the whole chipset line.

:) 

How many watts does it take to get the center of CPU core?
a b à CPUs
July 13, 2003 4:27:18 AM

Who knows though, maybe the A64 will be a great processor after all, and those who bought the current P4 platforms will feel stupid, not because they didn't support newer CPU's, but rather because they wished they had waited for the A64? This would be a good way of getting people to wait.

AHA! Isn't the time when those "revision 2.0" boards "required" for Prescotts...the same time when AMD was supposed to release the A64? Coincidence?

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
July 13, 2003 4:52:15 AM

You make a great point there. So IBM did not buy AMD Intel did. So start a rumor that Prescott will not work on 865,875 Mobos. Buy A64 when that comes out. Now do the Mobos that are on the market for AMD do they support A64?
July 13, 2003 5:02:30 AM

No,
It is very clear that the current Amd mobo's dont support A64.Youre talking about a big architecture and socket change.
a b à CPUs
July 13, 2003 5:19:58 AM

FLAME BAIT! Wow! You really set yourself up for that one, you need a fire extinguisher, or will Preparation H do?

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
July 13, 2003 8:47:07 AM

My guess is that the Prescott will be slightly better performing than the Athlon 64 at 32-bit. Most probably will the "low-end" 1.3 Ghz Itanium 2 perform better than the Athlon 64, while Opteron would probably cut things close even with the 1.5 Ghz Itanium 2. Thus I believe the Intel CPU's will perform a better overall than the competing AMD processors, but AMD on the other hand, has the compatibility with both 32 and 64-bit programs to fall back on.

My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
July 13, 2003 8:54:13 AM

I think that's the big reason that AMD is getting the deal with IBM. Full 64 and 32 bit functionality. Now all they have to do is convince the business community that they need it. :cool:

<font color=blue>Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
-Einstein</font color=blue>
July 13, 2003 1:18:36 PM

Quote:
while Opteron would probably cut things close even with the 1.5 Ghz Itanium 2.

There seems to be no indication of that. A 1.5Ghz Itanium scores 1300/2100 int/fp SPEC CPU, and a 1.8Ghz Opteron scores 1150/1200. That is very different. And, because of its design, I can't imagine Opteron will easily approach the 1.5Ghz Itanium.

One more thing, though: by the end of the year, we'll have the 1.67Ghz Itanium, according to roadmaps. That's more than a 10% increase. <i><speculation>Note that 1667Mhz is not a multiple of 100Mhz. Itanium uses a QDR bus. Maybe they'll raise it to a 4x133=533 FSB?... Which means 8.5GB/s bandwidth, more than HT.</speculation></i> This will be out this year. Opteron will not compete well with that at all, unless the 2.2Ghz or maybe the 2.4Ghz gets out the door.

Then again, Opteron would run 32-bit code considerably better than Itanium. I don't know exactly by how much, but it would. *reviews, please, THG...* *workstation reviews* *please*...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 1:36:45 PM

I'm very sorry, but I did not flame AMD at all. I didn't even say anything about AMD fanboys. Take it easy, popegoldx. Take it easy.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 2:18:25 PM

AMD and IBM have formed somewhat of a strategic partenership. Benefits AMD via source for R&D $$$, which AMD lacks-- especially compared to Intel. Also, IBM is the major player in SOI technology (really cool thing). I'm not sure what the benefit to IBM is except a cut of the sales or benefit from AMD's marketing collosus.

__________________________________________________
<b><font color=red>Three great virtues of a programmer are: laziness, impatience, and hubris.</font color=red><b>
July 13, 2003 2:21:26 PM

Aren't the new Opteron 800 series a lot faster than the 200 series? I think I saw a few benchmark somewhere where the Opteron 244 came quite close to the current high-end Itanium 1.0, but maybe those benches were some of the few that Opteron would conquer in. Anyways, based on those benches I *assumed* that the 800 series would be somewhat competitive with the Itanium 2. However I had no doubt about the Itanium 2 being faster.

Well, no doubt, the Opteron performs better than the Itanium 2 in most if not all 32-bit programs, currently. Since all the Itanium 2 CPU can do is to emulate the support for 32-bit programs, it doesn't stand much of a chance either. But it doesn't need to be, since the Xeon processors would do that instead.

Then, if the buyers prefers best performance while having to pay for two machines, one P4 or Xeon, and the other with Itanium 2 (no longer have to be that extraordinary expensive anymore), or if they prefer best compatibility at a lower price and with a little to a lot worse performance, then that would be in my mind, the deciding factors to which of the Itanium 2 or the Opteron that would fare best in the mainstream and high-end server business.


My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI *argh* / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW
July 13, 2003 2:32:25 PM

Quote:
current high-end Itanium 1.0

No, the current <b>high-end Itanium 2</b> is the <b>1.5Ghz</b>, 6MB cache Madison. The low-end is the 1.3Ghz, 3MB cache Madison @ $1200. They are excellent performers.

Also, if I undersand it correctly, there is no difference between the 800 series and the 200 series. They merely support a different number of processors on one system - but they're the same core. Therefore, performance levels can't quite change. One great advantage that AMD has is that the end user can choose which CPU price he pays, depending on how many cpus he wants in his systems... it's a more custom-tailored purchase... Deerfield might change that.

Also, Itanium is a considerable departure from usual design. It can, in its own playing field, perform admirably - and at pathetically low clock speeds for our days.
Quote:
Well, no doubt, the Opteron performs better than the Itanium 2 in most if not all 32-bit programs, currently. Since all the Itanium 2 CPU can do is to emulate the support for 32-bit programs, it doesn't stand much of a chance either. But it doesn't need to be, since the Xeon processors would do that instead.

No doubt about that. Intel says they streamlined 32-bit emulation a bit in this new Win2003 service pack, but that remains to be seen. (and anyway, because of Itanium's low clock, it'll have a bit of a hard time in 32-bit)

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 2:48:19 PM

Quote:
No, the current high-end Itanium 2 is the 1.5Ghz, 6MB cache Madison. The low-end is the 1.3Ghz, 3MB cache Madison @ $1200. They are excellent performers.


Sorry, I meant the 1.0 GHz Itanium 2 with 3 mb L3 cache that just recently got replaced by these two new CPU's; the ones you mentioned. But since they were just released, I call them the "new" Itanium 2's.
$1200 is not too extreme for being an Itanium 2 CPU. That's just a few hundred dollars more than a high-end P4. Hence to why I think it's getting quite affordable. Hey, if more 64-bit programs would come out, I'd personally probably start saving up for an Itanium 2.

Any word on Deerfield pricing? (Or whatever the slowest new Itanium 2 is called.)

Quote:
Also, if I undersand it correctly, there is no difference between the 800 series and the 200 series. They merely support a different number of processors on one system - but they're the same core. Therefore, performance levels can't quite change. One great advantage that AMD has is that the end user can choose which CPU price he pays, depending on how many cpus he wants in his systems... it's a more custom-tailored purchase... Deerfield might change that.


Oh I didn't know that, thanks for the info. You're right then, the 800 series should not, at least not with the same number of CPU's, perform better than how the 200 series does.

Unrelatedly, because of the integrated mem controller, a 4-way Opteron should have something like twice the bandwidth than what a 2-way Opteron would have.

But...Itanium 2 is the CPU God. ;) 


My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI *argh* / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW
July 13, 2003 2:59:59 PM

Yah, and it also depends on whether Intel can convince the market if the strongly expected performance lead is worth the expense of having two systems: 1) Itanium 2 / 2) P4/Xeon, over having one cheaper but slower processor (Opteron/Athlon 64), that's compatible of handling both 32 and 64-bit code.

My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI *argh* / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW
July 13, 2003 3:01:10 PM

Quote:
$1200 is not too extreme for being an Itanium 2 CPU. That's just a few hundred dollars more than a high-end P4. Hence to why I think it's getting quite affordable. Hey, if more 64-bit programs would come out, I'd personally probably start saving up for an Itanium 2.

My feelings exactly.

Anyhow, I've got some news here: I sent an e-mail to Evan Lieb - the guy who posted the news at anandtech regarding prescott's incompatibility - yesterday asking about VIN voltages in current Intel public electrical SPECS, on the odd chance that he might answer.

And guess what? He did. There you go:
Quote:
I don’t see it mentioned in that particular PDF. I’m not sure how up-to-date that PDF is though.

By the way, just so you know, motherboard/chipset/GPU/etc. manufacturers in general that work close with Intel in supporting their desktop processors usually receive Intel white papers that are not available online for the public to read. Therefore, some details (such as Prescott-specific VIN) will not be disclosed. However, I have not read every Intel PDF on their web site mentioning Prescott, so the VIN issue may already have been addressed by Intel online or somewhere else (publicly available).

Well, thanks a lot for answering, Evan Lieb. Very "lieb" of you. :smile:

Anyway, I'm sorry to say that that doesn't really shed any new light on the subject... But tomorrow is monday, and someone ought to do something to clear this mess up.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 3:04:50 PM

Quote:
Yah, and it also depends on whether Intel can convince the market if the strongly expected performance lead is worth the expense of having two systems: 1) Itanium 2 / 2) P4/Xeon, over having one cheaper but slower processor (Opteron/Athlon 64), that's compatible of handling both 32 and 64-bit code.

That is an interesting notion. I guess the guys at Intel could exploit Itanium's strengths as a workstation a bit more - but they probably know that by now. A typical workstation is not required to run lots of programs - heck, I use a SGI workstation that runs mainly one very heavy program, maybe two! And maybe an occasional web browser here or there.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 3:18:24 PM

Quote:
My feelings exactly.


Ah, onto beautiful dreams of Intel-ligent 64-bit gaming :smile:
...Or AMD 64-bit gaming for that matter.

Quote:
Well, thanks a lot for answering, Evan Lieb. Very "lieb" of you.

Anyway, I'm sorry to say that that doesn't really shed any new light on the subject... But tomorrow is monday, and someone out to do something to clear this mess up.


Yeah, hopefully. I'm in for a bad rush now, as I'm getting rid of my MSI board, and I for one, must have this issue solved so that I may get a Prescott-compatible mainboard, preferably right away, as I'm upgrading in October if I have the money.


My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI *argh* / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW
July 13, 2003 3:25:39 PM

i have monitored your posts for a while... your an Intel fanboy no doubt... but your tolerable because your not an [-peep-] and you dont flame AMD. U like INTEL and thats fine with me. You dont have a need to put down anything or anyone who isnt in love INTEL. You are a rare INTEL
fanboy.

come over to the lab forum http://www.webvelosix.com and see some hardcore INTELLIOTS at work flaming AMD.
July 13, 2003 3:26:42 PM

Whatever works best for putting out fires. Or should I get the best Fireman from MLB.
July 13, 2003 3:38:09 PM

Well, popegoldx, I had the impression you were going to say that. I do not have fanboyish attitudes. I admire Opteron's architecture, I understand its strengths (32-bit backwards compatibility is one of the most important ones) and I appreciate competition amongst Intel and AMD very much. I also understand Itanium's advantages and P4's strengths, as well as Athlon XP's strong FPU with all code, for instance.

And I do not appreciate anyone calling me a fanboy. I have a perception of things, and if my perception is deluded, please clarify. But coming here and calling me "fanboy" is a bit insulting (I'm not offended, but I don't like it) because it's almost as if you're judging people, giving your final verdict on them, without any explaining... I, for instance, always disagree with what I find to be disagreeable (duh) but never call anyone "fanboy".

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 13, 2003 7:10:47 PM

nothing wrong with being a fanboy... so i didnt mean to insult or put u down if thats how u took it.

we all are fans of something....or someone.... we all LIKES some things over something else

if you believe your 100% unbiased and like intel and AMD equally.. i will take u at your word

but i have seen hardcore intelliots and AMDroids hide under the mantle of being UNBIASED... so forgive my unfair judgement

i just depise hypocrisy... and i am sure you have seen it.. where company A does something and its horrible...but when company b does the exact some things its "a good thing"
July 13, 2003 7:16:55 PM

Quote:
i just depise hypocrisy... and i am sure you have seen it.. where company A does something and its horrible...but when company b does the exact some things its "a good thing"

Yes, I've seen that. I try to avoid this kind of behaviour... Things like that always start in a subtle way, and that's why we have to pay attention to ourselves in that regard!

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 14, 2003 2:08:01 PM

popegoldx, no offense, but you <i>obviously</i> don't know the working definition of 'fanboy'.

A 'fanboy' is someone who blindly follows their beloved company with a faith worthy of the Pope. No one or thing, benchmarks included, could possibly ever convince them of any failing whatsoever in their beloved company and that company's product.

A 'fanboy' is an extremist without logic or reason.

This is <b>completely</b> different from just a 'fan'. A 'fan' just likes a company for one reason or another, and most times that reason is completely justifiable and supportable with real facts and sensible reasoning.

So calling someone a 'fanboy' when they are clearly just a 'fan' is very disrespectful. Just so you know.

"<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>
July 14, 2003 2:37:42 PM

For an example of fan, I could say I am a fan of the Mario Bros. series from Nintendo. And that is completely respectable, nothing wrong at all. A great serie, and I like it. Doesn't mean in ANY way that I would despise the competition's Crash Bandikoot or Sonic (well, not anymore competition)!
A Nintendo fanboy is the idiot who refuses to know ANYTHING about Sony or Microsoft's console and games.

People should remember from now what fanboys are, and not start generalizing it to be like a "fan" is.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>
July 14, 2003 3:01:21 PM

Thanks about that, slvr... always there to clear things up that extra bit! :smile:

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 14, 2003 7:03:16 PM

AnandTech is sticking by the report/rumor today - <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/index.html#20040" target="_new">link</A>.

Personally, I'm going to wait this one out. (Maybe that's what the rumor mongers - if there are ones - hoped for).


<b><font color=red>It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. - Bill Clinton<b><font color=red>
July 14, 2003 7:37:09 PM

Yes, I saw that. Anandtech quoted a news bit from Xbitlabs. And I'm going to quote again here:
Quote:
Beginning from the second half of August, at least one mainboard maker indicates appearance of its mainboards revision 2.x that are compliant to FMB 1.5 of Voltage Regulator-Down (VRD) 10.0 Design Guide.

The VRD 10.0 Design Guide has been published in April! The only thing mobo manufacturers had to do is follow specs. So I'm guessing that all mobo manufacturers like ASUS that are saying their mobos support Prescott just followed the specs. As easy as that. Nothing more complicated.

If you want to be on the safe side and wait, that's fine... Actually, that's what I'd be doing, I guess... Please note, however, that this is still nothing but an air-thin rumor at best; not even THG has posted this news... (what would be the point, if there is absolutely no confirmation on this?)

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 15, 2003 2:49:29 AM

I'm going to buy IS7 or P4P800 with 2.4c Hyperx PC3500 512. Than late next year or early 2005 Buy Grantsdale Mobo with Tejas. That should keep me going for awhile. Unless i decide to buy Scotty an OC the heck out of it. But maybe Tejas will be better to OC. Plus you have to like 65nm. So that brings me back to Tejas again. Darn Intel for releasing Tejas so early.
July 15, 2003 2:52:49 AM

Quote:
Darn Intel for releasing Tejas so early.

Oh yes, those mean people at Intel keep making our lives difficult. :smile:

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 15, 2003 2:55:09 AM

One thing thou they have not told us yet what comes after Grantsdale and Tejas.
July 15, 2003 2:57:18 AM

I think it's Nehalem.

One interesting bit, though... I get the strong impression that at the very least one of them - Nehalem, Tejas or Prescott - might have 64-bit hardware. Intel wouldn't be so naive.

Nehalem will be the one to break the 10Ghz barrier, if I got this straight... wow.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 15, 2003 3:02:12 AM

Ya I forgot about Nehalem. We need a good nick name for Ne. I read somewhere that Tejas was to have 64 bit but disabled. Unless later Scotty do. Ne may be released in late 2005 or early 2006 they way things are going. 45nm.
July 15, 2003 3:12:26 AM

Yes, well, if not Prescott, then at least one of these three new cores will have 64 bit support. Nehalem might be easier to nickname than Tejas, though... Halley? Lemmy? Nelly? aahh, well, not that easier... :frown:

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 25, 2003 7:07:05 PM

Do you know if there are games that takes advantage of the Xeon CPU?

My system: Intel Pentium 4 3.0, 800FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / MSI 875P Neo / Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro / Antec TruePower 550W / 2x Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
SamsungDVD / Lite-On CDRW
!