LGA775 delay

<A HREF="http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?datePublish=2004/03/29&pages=A7&seq=44" target="_new">Intel likely to delay 90nm LGA775 processors to June</A>

--
Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
12 answers Last reply
More about lga775 delay
  1. a others screw from intel.

    Fell refreshing
  2. Intel are in a whole heap of shite atm, they are having problems with the 90nm process, people have started using the prescott to heat thier houses and there is some serious competition from the Athlon64.

    P4 2.6@3.38
    512Mb PC4000
    2x120Gb 7200.7 in RAID0
    Waterchill KT12-L30
    Abit AI7
    Ge-Force4 Ti4200
  3. Maybe Intel will start selling 2.0GHz Prescott as "Celeron" to recycle their containers of defective 3.2/3.4GHz Prescott. :smile:

    And maybe AMD will face the same problems with their 90nm tech. too! Will see!

    --
    Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
  4. i think in one of the few moments for intel, they have bitten off more then they could chew. Its not everyday they are trying to push so many things at once and a new socket and a new process, im suprised they havent had more problems. ive oftne thought intel tends to overextend itself, like they get so excited pushing new tech, while little old amd chugs along wiht its cpu and seem to be making some advancement. Im sure intel can recover, but i wish they would slow down with trying to reinvent the wheel a little.
  5. Intel nor AMD can't afford to slow down. Any slowdown in high-tech cna kill a company. Do you remember the once great 3dFX that made a couple of mistake and could never recover from them.

    Intel will never die from errors because they have too much market share and because CPU life cycle is long enough to let them recover from the Prescott mess. They still have the Northwood core that performs well and have some "future". And AMD haven't yet to made the "killer" P4 CPU. The AMD64 processors are great, but the diffence in performance is still marginal between Intel counterpart.

    I personnaly think that AMD and Intel have a lot of pressure from the market. AMD needs to increase their market share and Intel needs to keep DELL (and other PC makers) happy. Because, right now, I don't think DELL's ingeniering like the idea of putting "PressHOT" in DELL's box. Because they don't want to sell systems that fails because they are running too hot!

    --
    Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
  6. i odnt htink btx or pci-e will make or break intel. in the end its thier chips, they loose sight of that and well maybe they dont care as much about cpus as i thought. of course, they are so succesful, evne if they slowly los tout on the cpu market, they wouldnt go bankrupt, they have plenty of other ventures. Its just the two differnt business models i see from amd and intel. Intel is pushing towards the home entertainment filed, they have talked about it before. Not to mention pushing for btx, ddr2, pcie and the like. Ill grant that ddr2 will be good later on, just not right now. But it just seems to me that intel is trying its hardest to get into antoher market so they have other sources of income. I cant say amd owuldnt do the same hting, I mean whne oyu have allt aht money, you need to put it to work somehow, but It just seems intel is just not as excited about pushing cpu chips more then 'solutions'. Not to say they are giving up, but tis obvious they are trying to move focus away form the cpu and the mhz race.
  7. Just to remind you to read your post before posting... There was so much typo in your past, it lloks like a SPAM... :smile:

    If Intel is going the "entertainment", they are wrong...

    - First, they are not as good as AMD in gaming (game is entertainment).

    - Second, the BTX form factor is there to enable more HEAT dissipation. And it's obvious that Prescott processors are running TOO HOT to sit in your living room. Would you want an entertainment system that have loud fans and requires lot of space to breathe and stay cool?

    - Third, PCI-X and DDR2 are not Intel exclusive, AMD will support it at right moment, when they will become affordable. Of course, we will see PCI-X cards and DDR2 ram on the market soon, but they will be overpriced.

    - Fourth, don't tell me that Intel rulez Audio/Video benchmarks. Yes, it's true, but in entertainment appliances, most of the Audio/Video job is decoding, not encoding. And decoding requires a lot less CPU than encoding. And in fact, a Pentium 3 500MHz can encode MPEG2 video in real time at average wuality (VHS like). So, even if Intel is faster at encoding, all this power is not needed in entertainment appliances.

    So please, if you say Intel is going the entertainment way, explain me how they will achieve this?

    --
    Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
  8. sorry about the typos lol, im too lazy to care :P. when i ment they were heading in that entertainment direction, i didnt mean they ahd achived best performance or anything that made them perfect for that type of solution. But they have marketed solutions that they have or will have to provide for the consumer electronic front. I cant belive you havent seen these 'solutions' that they have talked about at several of the conventions in the last year or so. When I mean solutions i mean the chipsets and whatnot they will be implimenting, such as the new audio chipset.

    I also know that pci-e and ddr2 are available for either platform, but im saying tis only becuase of intel's incesant pushing that its being adopted this fast. I dont think these are bad things, but tis true intel has seem to thrown its wait into it along with btx to be adopted. Im just saying it wont gain intel a whole lot whne by the time amd adopts ddr2, if they decide to at all, it will hopefully be at resonable prices and speeds. As far as pci-e goes, im happy to see it come, just dont see it as essential this year. IMO, I dont think btx is the answer to intel's problems if they have to invent another form factor everytime they produce a chip that may be too hot.

    I do agree that both companies are under pressure to innovate and produce pieces to gain an edge, but I just dont think cpus are intel's main focus right now, maybe its just a temporary thing, who knows.
  9. Quote:
    but I just dont think cpus are intel's main focus right now, maybe its just a temporary thing, who knows.

    I really think Intel is focusing on CPU... They can't sell empty case with great chipset if they can't fit a processor in it! It's obvious, Intel is not marketing chipset, they market CPU with Chipsets.

    Of course, they want to promote entertainment, because today's CPU market is kind of saturated, Intel wants you to have their CPU's in other boxes in your HOME, let's say "Entertaiment Center", small PC, like tablet PC. And, like I said in my last post, I don't think is going n the right direction with overheating CPU's and the BTX form factor. They mark some pointxwith Centrino technology!

    But I admit that the race to home entertainment has just begun!

    --
    Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
  10. two cave ats:

    1) its PCI-E (PCI Express), not PCI-X which has been shipping for years in servers and workstations (64 bit and or 133 MHz PCI slots).

    2) "Fourth, don't tell me that Intel rulez Audio/Video benchmarks. Yes, it's true,".

    Not necessarely; it pretty much depends what apps and codecs you use. P4 is better on DivX, but is considerably slower than A64 on XviD encoding. It happens to be that Xvid is the obvious codec of choice these days (free, and better than DivX).

    P4 is also pretty good on the apps THG uses all the time, but when you benchmark more often used programs like TMGenc or DVD2AVI, the picture can change rather dramatically. I saw a long list of benchmarks on this topic that showed exactly that, but I can't find the link.. can anyone help me out ?

    MP3 encoding and audio processing is maybe the one thing where there is no real discussion: P4 is faster. Frankly, who cares ? THG's latest test showed a 260 minute (!) long WAV file was processed in ~2 minutes using Cooledit. Nearly twice as fast on P4 as on A64. Great, but unless you do this for a living, you're not likely to ever do this at all, or maybe once a year ? So who cares if takes 1:30 or 2:10 ? A more typical 4 min song would complete in a <b>single second</b>.

    And MP3 encoding is usually done by ripping an audio cd where the ripping speed is more a bottleneck than the enconding anyway. WHo is crazy enough to rip a CD to WAV first, and then batch encode it to MP3 if you can do it on the fly ?

    Bof, long rant, but this "P4 shines for audio/video processing" is for a large part a myth and or irrelevant. P4 shines in some 3D rendering apps, that is true. And it shines in multitasking scenario's, or at least, I'm willing to believe that.

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  11. Quote:
    ts PCI-E (PCI Express), not PCI-X which has been shipping for years in servers and workstations (64 bit and or 133 MHz PCI slots).

    You are right on that, scuze me! I just didn't want to go in the long explanation of the difference between PCI-X and PCI-EXPRESS. And, you must admit that the naming is little bit confusing when you don't know about these 2 technologies.

    Quote:
    2) "Fourth, don't tell me that Intel rulez Audio/Video benchmarks. Yes, it's true,".

    Not necessarely...

    I totally agree with you, I recently debated the usefulness of video encoding benchmarks, since most of the time average users will do long encoding by night or when they don't use their PC. Video Encoding benchmarks would be better if reviewer's would do realtime effects processing and editing. These are the Video task the average user do the most.

    Usually, I can spend a minimum of 1 to 2 hours to edit a 10-15 minutes home movie. I do this with my little Athlon XP 1800+ (oc to 2400+) without any problem or lag. So, why should I care if my final rendering take 20 minutes instead of 15 minutes. I'm not a PRO, I don't need to save that 5 minutes.

    --
    Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
  12. yeah most hold on to that idea pretty fiercly, taht p4's are the only choice for encoding, but it just isnt true, while in gaming, it is basically amd that rules, the exception being quake.

    back to the intel focus. now im not sayign they arent working on cpus, i know they are, but i just dont think they are trying to PUSH just the chip anymore. look at centrino, or the granstdale or alderwood type motherbaord solutions. centrino doesnt push any certain cpu, since both celeron m and pentium m work in that. most ppl think centrino is the processor. Im sure they still want ppl to go for the pentium name, but i dont think they are wweighing as heavily on pure speed or pure highest performance available for the cpu, they are looking to market an all in one solution. They pretty much ignore amd's exsitance sometimes whne ti comes to bringing out new solutions. i mean you never hear them mention amd in any marketing they might do, specifically commercials or the like, for instance comparing the 'other brand'. Intel just assume its no count and decided to instead make everyone think amd didnt exist or were in no way even useful to them. to a pooint this has worked for years, there are still alot of ppl that have heard little or nothing about amd. Ive evne noticed some new pc commercials that dont mention mhz once, the simply saying 'using the high performance p4 processor' or soemthing similar. Im sure it wont be long before that makes its way into every place p4's are sold. I could see intel trying thier hands at an all in one solution, all from intel , in the form of a CE device or a sff pc something like a shuttle pc. Intel has the capitol, so they could pull that off. Amd on the other hand, relies on 3rd parties for platforms and innovation, which isnt such a bad thing, whether it is only because they couldnt afford it or dont see it as a good choice, is up for debate.

    Im not trying to say intel made a bad move, it oculd really work out for them, i dont think they really care if they have the fastest processor in overall performance, as long as they can either market their systems in a way that muddies the water and cuts out the competition, or make enough money that it doesnt matter in the long term. I think intel couldnt care less about the online community, they may cater to it, but if they are making plenty of money without them, and without having to actually put out performance, they will do it.

    Now im talking about the desktop mainstream area, none of this applies to servers and more high end areas. but in thier main money making area, as long as they have places like dell, they couldnt care less if they drop 20 fps on games.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Chipsets Processors Intel Product