Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Pentium 5 - Stackable, 5-7Ghz, up to 4Ghz FSB?

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
September 26, 2003 3:34:07 PM

We've all been waiting for Scotty from Intel and A64 from AMD, but maybe scotty isn't actually the big one... Maybe it's Tejas. <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11785" target="_new">The inquirer</A> has recently posted an article (quoted by THG) saying that Tejas may come as early as May/June/July 2004, or mid 2004, and will come in a stackable physical layout. This new processor might run at speeds around 5-6Ghz, and support huge FSBs (maybe 1333Mhz to run synchronously with DDR667?)... As well as a full-blown 2MB L2 cache...

The inquirer reports that they actually saw physical samples of such a stackable core... And they called it the Pentium V... if this has indeed 64-bit extensions, then it will certainly be an interesting deal! 3d-stacking with copper layers in between might also prove to be an efficient way to deal with heat, who knows...

Interesting stuff, anyway. What do you guys think?

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

More about : pentium stackable 7ghz 4ghz fsb

September 26, 2003 3:43:36 PM

Cool!!! BTW when did Intel change their road map for the Tejas release to 2004 I swear it was still slated for 2005 but 0.09 could be a mid ground for Intel just to move over their IO controllers and [-peep-]. 0.65 with SOI could prove to be more important. Have to wait and see I guess.

-Jeremy

:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7013108" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1311896" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by spud on 09/26/03 11:45 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 26, 2003 3:55:10 PM

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11781" target="_new">The Inquirer</A> also states that Prescott is going to use AMD64 extensions. Simply because Microsoft doesn't want to make another OS for a different 64-bit platform. So if Intel wants 64-bit with Windows, they need to use AMD64 extensions.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=24106" target="_new">My System Rig</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=535386" target="_new">3DMark03</A>
Related resources
September 26, 2003 4:28:02 PM

The WinXP 64-bit is not only AMD 64. Inq stated, as well as Microsoft for sure, that it will have among the 64-bit support, SUPPORT for AMD64. Doesn't mean at all it is based on AMD64.

But if Intel will use AMD64, great for them, they got the right to, it's free.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 26, 2003 4:28:51 PM

I though x86-64 was 100% open source. It’s not AMD anything; it’s just a collaborated effort from the US's Universities. Since I remember there was a few Doctors that were bla bla'n about the development of the extensions to extend ye old x86.

Could be wrong but either or MS already supports IA64 so it’s not even worth considering at that point.

-Jeremy


:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7013108" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1311896" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
September 26, 2003 4:29:53 PM

I found that pretty interesting, although a bit vague. Are they going back to the days of the co-processor add-on chip? They seemed to indicate it when they said you COULD THEN add a 64-bit CPU. I don't think it's a good thing at all, that means it may add costs. In fact, does that mean the CPU below will be disabled during 64-bit calculations? Wouldn't that be a waste of a second processor?

I'd like more info on it.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 26, 2003 11:02:57 PM

If AMD and Intel both use a simular arcitecture to support 64 bit it will be good for the rest of us, since that means it will go mainstream soon. More devs will jump on the bandwagon with both cpu makers behind it.

While intel CPUs will be higher priced, and probably faster (7ghz OMG), i predict amd playing the low cost cpu role once the PV comes out.
September 27, 2003 12:42:35 AM

P4 was a gutted P3. P5 better not be a gutted P4 to acheive those speeds, cause in that case all it'd be is a wire.

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"
September 27, 2003 12:46:23 AM

About two montha ago. Tejas relase 2nd half of 2004.
September 27, 2003 1:21:23 AM

Yes, well, longer pipelines do have their consequences. However, who can deny that, even with a longer pipeline, a 6Ghz P5 with 2MB L2 cache and 1+Ghz FSB <i>and 64 bit support</i> will probably obliterate anything short of a very high-clocked A64?

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 27, 2003 1:44:00 AM

I'll look down on the processor even more. Already feel the P4 is weak, now this.....
I make the analogy again that P4 is like car w/ horsepower and little torque...now we won't be able to climb hills
Athlon has less horsepower but tons of torque (it's the Humvee:) )

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"
September 27, 2003 2:25:08 AM

Quote:
Already feel the P4 is weak, now this.....

You know, it is a misconception to think that low IPC automatically equals low performance, and it is exactly as inaccurate as saying that low clock speeds equal low performance. This "feeling" that everyone has about the P4 being weak is just exactly that, a feeling... And while I do understand what you mean, you have to be careful not to decide based on intuition rather than thought.

What do you "feel" when you think of itanium? Surely a gargantuan performer, but at what clock speeds? (and at what price...)...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 27, 2003 2:32:35 AM

When I think of Itanium, I think of price and 64 bit perf, but poor 32 bit emulation. Sure low IPC will get you lower performance, but given enough mhz and support, it can simply pull ahead by sheer force. Coming up soon though, it would seem that the most interesting designs will be the eventual transition to .90 and .65 processes, as well as the possibility of dual core Hammers and Tejas (2x core?). Haven't heard much about the Tanglewood, no real details, but something like 16 cores on one chip!

:cool: I run my AthlonXfx at 7.65 Exahertz :cool:
September 27, 2003 2:55:51 AM

Flame, technically speaking you DO NOT NEED to lower IPC because you extended a pipeline and achieved higher clock speeds!
That's arguably the most common misconception of the P4.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 27, 2003 3:01:37 AM

It's a good thing you're right, otherwise we could be looking at Willies running at 4 some Ghz now if the extra cache and mem perf didn't help the p4 :eek: 

:cool: I run my AthlonXfx at 7.65 Exahertz :cool:
September 27, 2003 3:12:03 AM

Quote:
P4 was a gutted P3. P5 better not be a gutted P4 to acheive those speeds, cause in that case all it'd be is a wire.


Dude you cant be serious the P7 was a complete redesign, a 5 year redesign at that. The only thing that chip shares with the P3 is registers, fabs, engineers and maybe some L2. Its a very fair statement to say that the Willy was a gutted Northwood.

:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7013108" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1311896" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
September 27, 2003 3:25:36 AM

Quote:
I'll look down on the processor even more. Already feel the P4 is weak, now this.....
I make the analogy again that P4 is like car w/ horsepower and little torque...now we won't be able to climb hills
Athlon has less horsepower but tons of torque (it's the Humvee:) )


Actually the MM extensions for the P4 are what give it the "special wheels" to tackle big hills.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 27, 2003 4:33:23 AM

But they only work under certain conditions.

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"
September 27, 2003 5:21:13 AM

Logically.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 27, 2003 1:36:08 PM

Quote:
The Inquirer also states that Prescott is going to use AMD64 extensions. Simply because Microsoft doesn't want to make another OS for a different 64-bit platform. So if Intel wants 64-bit with Windows, they need to use AMD64 extensions.

I find that a bit hard to believe, but that is possible... However, those guys at MS certainly have enough resources (!) to support another extension. They could build two separate kernels inside Win64 and the installation program would tell Intel-based computers from AMD-based ones and do all the tricks... But I wouldn't have a clue as to if MS "wants" to do this...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 27, 2003 3:41:21 PM

Yes, exactly. So I don't really understand why the Inquirer feels that Intel cannot convince MS to go another way - even more so if it's a more efficient way (SSE vs 3dnow or something)... Only time will tell, I guess...

A little off topic here, but... this is a bad scenario! Now A64 is out, it is a great innovation, but it is EXPENSIVE as hell! I wanted to upgrade this year, but now I don't have a clue... I might wait a little longer, but I don't know which processor to buy! If Scotty has 64 bit-support activated, then that's what I'll do, but if not, what should I do? With my not-unlimited budget??

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 27, 2003 3:42:06 PM

Those chips will be sadly overpriced..

F-DISK-Format-Reinstal DO DA!! DO DA!!
September 27, 2003 3:45:18 PM

Exactly!... But I want my next cpu to be future-proof, and 64 bit extensions would certainly go a long way... I was thinking about buying a new computer by december, maybe january... So... :frown:

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 27, 2003 4:10:09 PM

Why do people on this board insist on compairing what Intel MIGHT/WILL do with what Amd HAS done. People here need to take some classes in logic.
September 27, 2003 4:43:06 PM

You're saying that my logic is flawed?

My main point is that 64-bit-extended CPUs are too expensive.

Besides, I'll upgrade within the next 6 months, not NOW. Thus it <b>IS</b> logical for me to try to make the best choice within that time period. If I were to buy my new computer NOW, then I'd almost certainly try to get an A64 3200+ or something... I can clearly distinguish between what Intel WILL do and what AMD HAS done! :wink:

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 27, 2003 4:58:07 PM

Can you wait until next July or Sept? Time frame? To see what Tejas has to offer.
September 27, 2003 5:27:15 PM

Quote:
The WinXP 64-bit is not only AMD 64. Inq stated, as well as Microsoft for sure, that it will have among the 64-bit support, SUPPORT for AMD64. Doesn't mean at all it is based on AMD64.

You're right, that doesn't mean it is based on AMD64. Actually, AMD64 was more based on the guidelines set by Microsoft, and thus Universities developing the standard, than the other way around.

However, Microsoft had to have a 64bit platform to do testing and developement on. They certainly didn't do it on the IA64 platform, so they had to have been using AMD64 emulators and AMD64 processors (unless Intel already had their 64bit architecture finished and in Microsoft's hands). While Microsoft may have a wider 64bit guideline than AMD64, any 64bit processor coming out must be x86 compliant. I doubt you could be compatible with MS guidelines using a non-x86 architecture.

Intel could try to bully Microsoft into making a separate code path for their processors. Then we would run into many problems with compatibility. From a developers standpoint, it is much easier for a gamer maker to make separate code paths than for an OS maker to do so. They game maker doesn't have to worry about programs running on top of it. Microsoft would sooner market two separate OS's than try to support two code paths and resolve all of the issues that come up with other software companies.

Assuming Microsoft was as weak as AMD, Intel could bully them into making that separate version of windows and letting the other die out. However, we must not forget that Microsoft owns more of the desktop market than Intel does. The average consumer cares more about Microsoft than Intel and thus puts Microsoft in the position of power in the desktop arena. Therefore, Intels desktop CPUs will comply with Microsoft's specifications (x86) or they will find another OS to champion.

Because of this, I can only see Intel making an AMD64 compliant design, with further extensions to make their processor "supperior". Kinda like the 3DNow and SSE.

It'll be easier fr everyone, including Intel, to make their processor compliant with AMD64. In the future, when all software is running 64bit, they could introduce a new pure 64bit design with ease, in comparison to doing it now. By then, processors will be so fast that 32bit emulation will preform about the same as real 32bit does now.

53 69 67 6E 61 74 75 72 65 20 69 6E 20 48 65 78 21
September 27, 2003 5:53:47 PM

My comment was more of a general observation, not directly targeted at you. (I just happened to click the reply button on your post :) )

But you get my meaning. It's very odd for people to be saying; yeah the athlon 64 is pretty good, BUT Prescott or (this purely theoretical) pentium 5 will blow it away. That's just plain silly. It's like looking at a ford in fifties and saying; yeah but the mclaren f1 will make it eat dust.
September 27, 2003 5:59:58 PM

Is it illogical to beleive that future processors will blow current oens away? i dont think so... Technology is snowballing.
September 27, 2003 6:01:12 PM

That happens all the time, though. Before A64 arrived, people were speculating on how great it was, and how it would totally destroy intel in benches. They even O/Cd an Operton CPU to "emulate" the A64-FX results.

A64 is a good product, but at the cost for a total upgrade, it's better to wait it out for the next socket version than to buy now. Also, with WinXP-64 due out in Q4 2003(?) or Q1 2004, it's easier to have a wait and see attitude.

As for the next intel products...it's the same thing that happened with A64. More engineering samples being "tested" as a release sample. Same old, same old.

If people want to buy these puppies, have at it. I'm with the pack that will wait and see what happens, and maybe, just maybe upgrade in Q2-Q3 2004.

:) 

How many watts does it take to get the center of CPU core?
September 27, 2003 6:09:06 PM

I am in a very similar position to you, Mephistopheles.I too am looking to build again soon.I am impressed by the performance of the FX but it's way too expensive and the whole registered memory thing sucks and smacks of an unfinished product.Waiting for the socket 939 FX might be an idea but that will still be too expensive.So...then there's the A64 and Prescott.I have been impressed with A64 and the prospect of a new Windows is attractive, plus it seems that socket 754 should be around for a while...but it still aint cheap, and I can't help but feel that it will take the 0.9 process for that one to really mature.Plus there are the issues with the chipsets...well, nforce 3 anyway, which would have been my automatic chipset of choice.
As for Prescott, I am not expecting it to be that much of a record breaker, since it is not to be called Pentium 5 (IIRC) and the release of the P4 EE, which is intended to scale over time, suggests that Intel are not so sure that it will be such a dynamite performer.(Disclaimer!)Obviously this is all conjecture though as we know nothing about Prescott's performance!The massive thermal output of Prescott is also offputting.I am of the belief that Tejas is the one to watch from Intel and I expect great things from it.It seems like more of the revolution from the Intel front, as opposed to the evolution of Prescott.
So...I'm kinda stuck.I want to upgrade soon but it's difficult to know where to go.Ideally I should wait for 0.9 A64 or Tejas but I just can't wait that long.So I suppose December is the next port of call.By then we will know what Prescott can do and if I choose to go A64 at that point, the chipsets should have had most of their problems ironed out and the prices may have dropped.All the same though, I do feel my mouse finger itching slightly when I see that some of the online stores I use actually have A64 3200+s in stock :smile: .

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ad_rach on 09/27/03 02:12 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 27, 2003 7:30:52 PM

Yes, I know that itching too... but then I remember that I don't really need an upgrade for now, at least not until Doom 3 tags along!...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 27, 2003 9:10:57 PM

It's illogical to compare a possibility with a fact :) 
September 27, 2003 9:17:56 PM

Yes... it is indeed...

I was merely comparing my two purchasing possibilities within the next six months: Scotty or A64... so at least I'm clean... :smile:

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 27, 2003 10:16:57 PM

the thing is that intel will folow what amd did, they will try to imitate, for exemple the 64 bit thing, amd lunched thr idea to put a 64 bit extention on their processors, so the processors can serve for longer times and u don't need to update.
the p4EE is impressive, but all they did is put 2mb L3 cache, what if amd put 2mb L3 cache to the A64??????
About the tejas, intel is puting all of its effort in it, don't now why the prescot was the one, i believe the high heat dissipation ....... was a problem with intel.
i don't like that mhz thing, increasing mhz all the time isn't that smart for gaining performance, while increasing mhz more problems can occure, and the price will raise.
amd supercharged theire already athlonXP processor with some new instructions, with integrating memory controler, etc the frequency of the cpu is still the same 2.2ghz, thats impressive what a 2.2ghz processor can do, it hasn't to be a mhz monster to be fast.
Im not against what intels do, but they have money far more than amd, so why they invest it to a blocked road (7ghz 10 ghz so what????? ), they can do a lot better than amd, but they seem to took another road, if u compare a porche that has a V6 engin to another of V12 engin, and u find the porche better is cos they do researche to improve performance not to make the engin biger to get performance.

If tejas will be like they tell, it will be indeed a performer monster, but a 5ghz processor, with huge fsb, and bla bla bla, its toooooooooo expensive to buy, so where is the good here?????
September 28, 2003 1:25:05 AM

Quote:
If tejas will be like they tell, it will be indeed a performer monster, but a 5ghz processor, with huge fsb, and bla bla bla, its toooooooooo expensive to buy, so where is the good here?????

I don't exactly know how you can associate price with performance. If that was the case, then 4 years ago we would have been right in thinking that a 3.2Ghz processor on a 800Mhz FSB and dual-channel DDR400 and dual logical processors would cost $25000. But that just wasn't the case, was it?

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 28, 2003 2:54:53 AM

Quote:
what if amd put 2mb L3 cache to the A64??????

You may as well say "well what if Intel put an on die memory controller on the P4?" You can say "what if" all you like, but the A64 simply does not have 2M L3.

Quote:
with huge fsb, and bla bla bla, its toooooooooo expensive to buy, so where is the good here?????

This is a very stupid comment. Are you aware that a 3.0 P4 is cheaper than a 2.0 GHz A64? Price is not going to necessarily increase with clockspeed.
September 28, 2003 3:10:17 AM

Quote:
You may as well say "well what if Intel put an on die memory controller on the P4?" You can say "what if" all you like, but the A64 simply does not have 2M L3.

It does, however, have the capability to handle off-die L3. L3 could be provided through the motherboard, or both CPU and L3 could be contained in a cartridge module much like API did with Slot B EV6's.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
September 28, 2003 4:07:07 AM

Six months looks right now to be a coin toss. But in six months who knows whats on tap.
September 28, 2003 6:30:13 AM

U Love to talke about 2 year away processors

can u keep the windows 6 months and lower...

tejas is not coming out until 2005 its not even 2004 yet
September 28, 2003 6:48:02 AM

Quote:
You may as well say "well what if Intel put an on die memory controller on the P4?" You can say "what if" all you like, but the A64 simply does not have 2M L3.


2MB of L3 cache is not an "economic" decision, it was a decision made on Intel's part to have a product that maintains competitiveness with AMD's latest processor. The transistor count due to the 2MB cache is ridiculous: this chip will never be cheap.

Everyone knows that adding cache to a chip easiest trick in the book to gain performance. AMD did it with K6 and Barton, Intel did it with P4 and Xeon. Conversely, decreasing the cache is the easiest way to make a chip cheaper (duron and celeron) but "appear" just as fast.

So in reply, an Athlon 64 with 2MB cache isn't too far fetched.

AMD however does not have to resort to cache increases yet. They just released this chip and it has more room for clockspeed increases and design refinements (non ECC RAM). When the chip hits the ceiling of it's clockspeed is the time when AMD will use the cache trick.
September 28, 2003 10:07:47 AM

You have a point there. Amd like a 350Z with 300Hp and very Light 3000lb. racing to a V8 Mustang 7000lb car. 400HP. The HP says alot but not everything. But how light the car is means everything.
September 28, 2003 10:24:38 AM

Ad Rach a idea on this. Wait untel Presscott came out and then do your reviews. I m waiting untel chips drop down to .09 Microns. And then to 4 ghz Mark. And start building. Now Here the fact. The scale down verson of the Mirons will help drop prices of Intel and Amd. And it will help on Temp. So that Price Intel and Amd Selling at $700 or so will be lower. Everyone we all seen this before with New chips. Bigger the chip More Transisters. Higher Price. So Please get your fact in order. Once Amd Meets Demands the price will drop.

Question How many have you seen Athlon in Bestbuy or a computer store. I have Not seen none. I only seen like 6 Places. Where you could buy it that bring up the price of rthe chip. Once they Meet that demand That Price will Drop.
September 28, 2003 1:19:45 PM

i know having the best processor is always great, but you might also want to consider price... (strange I say that right before mentioning intel...) the prescott can supposidly be had dec 3 for $417 (3.2ghz) considerably cheaper then any contender from amd. and non-ecc ram.
...just depends on how it preforms... but a $300 price difference is something to think about
September 28, 2003 1:33:18 PM

Quote:
the prescott can supposidly be had dec 3 for $417 (3.2ghz)

No sir, that's the price for a 3.<b>4</b>Ghz Prescott. A 3.2Ghz Prescott will be cheaper ( :smile: !)... And the 2.8/3.0Ghz that will come by 2004 will be even cheaper (think 2.4C...)

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 28, 2003 4:08:17 PM

Tejas will be out in 2004.
September 28, 2003 4:37:18 PM

Why do you think it's called AMD64 and not USUniversity64? It's all AMD!

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
<A HREF="http://www.faceintel.com" target="_new"> CLICK ME </A>
September 28, 2003 4:58:13 PM

Quote:
tejas is not coming out until 2005 its not even 2004 yet

Did you bother to actually read the article that the inquirer posted? Did you actually read this thread or are you just saying the first things that come to your mind?

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 28, 2003 10:04:11 PM

What mustang weighs 7000, are you on crack. Just to let you know the 350z and the mustang weigh about the same give or take a few lbs. Can't compare a mustang to a 350z, if you want to compare something that would make more sense, then compare a s2000 to a mustang. Then you compare the hp/rpm to tq/rpm, you have a car that has great low end power(amd) and you have a car with high end power(intel) they both perform about the same but the cost is different. much better then your 350z and mustang, which was wrong to begin with.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest