Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

To Those Who Critised Pentium 4

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 6:49:25 AM

you all wanna jump to the conclusion to say that P4 suck.

P4 benchmarks doesnt really look impressive due to the fact that games and software are not SSE2 optimised. No program in the present has the capability to flex the P4's muscles including all those benchmarking software.

P4 has a technology that is setting a standard for the future platform. this new architecture has great potential, we just have to wait and see.

More about : critised pentium

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 6:56:59 AM

I'm wanting to know how long Intel plans on pushing the Pentium 4 until their 64bit CPU is released? I can just imagine in a few months we'll hear Apple touting their next system being twice as fast as a Pentium 4.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 7:51:01 AM

Yeah, doesn't do me much good now, by the time SSE2 is widly used you'll be able to get a 2GHz+ P4 for less, and put it in a socket that isn't going away in a few months.

Not to mention the Hammer family is going to have SSE2 by the time it matters anyway, plus 64-bit and tons of speed.

I AM Canadian.
Related resources
November 22, 2000 7:57:14 AM

who wants to wait? Why don't we all design around Intel's flaky new sse2 instruction set?!!!
I wish Intel would quit flooring me with the stellar 8 kb L1 cache and deep pipe dreams, the fancy hybridized risc proc is near dead on the vine ('til they get ddr right, anyhow).
cheers

<b><font color=blue>Brainy Sturgeon</b></font color=blue>
November 22, 2000 8:01:13 AM

their current system is faster...

<b><font color=blue>Brainy Sturgeon</b></font color=blue>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 12:52:03 PM

Hello again troops.

I've been an avid fan of AMD for YEARS. Ever since the AMD 486 133MHz "drop chip." It was great to get more power out of my system without having to do a full upgrade. Since then AMD has been my partener. :) 

But that isn't to say that I have hated Intel or been repelled by them. Oh far on the contrary. I work with computer components from all walks of life and, as such, have a good sense of what would be good where. (Stay away from the Cyrix 486. Troubles there. BIG troubles. But then that's probably well known anyway.)

Thing is, I LIKE the pentium 4. Now, I'm not going to go buy one since it's price is WAT outside my range. But I think Tom has got it right that it really depends on where you want to go and want you want your processor to do. For along time now we've had to ask the question for those buying a new computer "what do you want it to do?" and "what exactly is it that you're looking to be doing most of the time on it?" ALl in an attempt to help get an idea for what the buyer really needs. The same can be said about video cards. IF all you care about it 60fps in QUake 2, why get a Geforce2 GTS? Go with a TNT2 or Mx, something like that. Is it so unreasonable to ask the same of a processor? Afterall, there's more to a CPU than clock rating, the G3 and G4s proved that beyond a doubt.

So I guess what all this babbling is trying to say is that, though I'm an AVID AMD fan (Go T-BIRD!!) I'm still smitten by the new INtel chip. It's a good piece of hardware, somewhat confused in the current market because nothing is designed for it, SSE2 or 64-bit oriented. But times will change. I believe that the true performance of this chip has yet to be rated. Afterall, all CPUs currently running are using optimized code. No such code exists for the Pentium 4.

Perhaps the real question will be, how well will it stand when there is the code for it and AMD has it's counterpart on the market?

Points to ponder.

Thanks fir listening!

The Jolly Wizened Oaf!
November 22, 2000 2:48:38 PM

Personally, I don't like AMD or Intel much from just about any standpoint.

I used to like Intel. Then they started messing up. Right now they have so much potential that is being wasted.

And AMD struck a massive blow to Intel when it was least expected. But now it looks like AMD is running out of steam. Unless their current road maps are a ploy to try and sneak in another jab at Intel, it looks like AMD isn't going to keep the little hold it has taken on the world and will fall back into the role of just another second or third rate chip producer.

A agree about being impressed by the P4. Once we see SSE2 optimized software, it'll probably kick much hiney. And I honestly don't see any problems with it not being optimized for use with office software since office software doesn't need a P4's speed anyway. So the P4 has got my attention.

I think one of the biggest points that everyone is missing though is RAMBUS. We've all believed that RDRAM sucked big time and Intel was being really stupid to try and keep on good graces with them. Then we see the P4 and how well it integrates with RDRAM. I can finally understand Intel's reluctance to drop Rambus and I even think they did the right thing.

Sure, RDRAM is expensive and not worth it in a P3. But production techniques of RDRAM are improving, prices are dropping. And in a P4 RDRAM seems to be a really good choice. Maybe this will be proven wrong when (if) Intel supports DDR SDRAM for it's P4. More than likely though, until we see QDR SDRAM support in a P4, RDRAM will be the memory of choice for P4s.

I still don't agree with what Rambus is trying to pull on SDRAM producers. I think they should rot in silicon hell for that. But for once since RDRAM has come out, we're actually seeing proof that it does indeed have a use in the PC. And it makes you wonder if maybe the marketting hype wasn't so much of a bald-faced lie after all.

- Anything can be fixed with duct tape, a swiss army knife, and WD-40. :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 4:21:28 PM

The main reason why I think the P4 really sucks is because its going to marketted for the home user that probably hasn't heard of SSE2 optimised software. They will be paying out a huge amount of money to have the most expensive system with the most MHz possible and will be told by the salesman that its the fastest thing around.

You're never going to hear Intel representitives and salesman say to a potential customer that the P4 is actually slower than their own P3 processors but don't worry its going to be better in the future with SSE2 software.

SSE2 is all very well and good but I just don't see how Intel thought it a good thing to release a new processor slower than its older cheaper ones. Intel can't rely on SSE2 because AMD can support it too..

The P4 hasn't hit the shops yet and its far too early to call it a disaster, I will be watching what happens to it whether it be a shining sucess or fall into the shadow of a big sledge hammer with AMD stamped on it.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 5:33:21 PM

For those of you who were not around at the time, if the remember the last time Intel released an entirely new architecture (P6), it really did not perform well at all versus the AMD and Intel offerings of the time. However, that same architecture eventually became the Pentium 2 and 3 all but dominated performance computing until just last year. The benchmarks of course can't show a performance increase, as the ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF THE CHIP is different from what those benchmarks have been tweaked to work on. I just read toms's new benchmarks for MPEG-4, and that changes nothing. P4 costs too damn much right now, and really is ahead of it's time. However, I think many of you are mistaken if you think even a lukewarm reception of p4 would cause the downfall of Intel since, as I have said in many of ther post, AMD could never take Intel's place with OEM's, as they can't supply enough chips. Second, I will be watching in the coming weeks to see benchmarks from OEM systems, since Dell typically (With Intel's help) manages to, regardless of whose AMD bases system (with the exception of Alienware and Falcon) is provided, clean up in most of the benchmarks. To summarize, a great many of us Do-it-yourselfers look at the Enitire Intel vs. AMD issue through our geek-tinted lenses, while not seeing the big-picture. I predict AMD will max out in the PC market at around 30 percent share, as they have said that's about where they want to be. Intel's P4 is the architecture of the future, not right now. Thankfully, as some of you seem to forget, Intel will for another year squeeze more out of the P6 architecture with the Tuluatin core, which should, from what we've seen with Coppermine, be able to keep up wiht Athlon Performance-wise, and come close price wise. That's what I'll be building for myself when it comes out to wait on the DDR P4 platforms to come out, and get reasonable with price. So, when I look at the P4 now, I look at it the same as the Pentium Pro, I take anything negative said about it with a grain of salt and an eye on the future...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 22, 2000 5:38:39 PM

The P4 is obviously a good processor. Like most modern processor designs, however, it's still a compromise.

Anyone who believes that SSE2 optimized software is going to make the P4 into a world-class wonder is ignoring the fact that the P4 has only one pipeline out of 7 (or 11, depending on whether you count the 2x pipelines as 1 or 2) devoted to processing SSE. I don't care how wonderful the intructions are, when they only increase the usefulness of 1/7 of the processor, they aren't going to make a whole lot of difference in the grand scheme of things.

The advantage of the P4 architecture appears to be centered around the fact that it's designed to send the clock speed to the moon. Other than that, the tradeoffs seem a little risky.

It's interesting that, back in the days of the 486, K5, and K6 the AMD chips were better at a few things and much worse at others than equivalent Intel processors, making Intel generally the clear preference as generalist processor. Now the roles appear to be completely reversed where the AMD Athlon seems to be much better suited as a generalist and the P4 is heavily customized, in this case for applications that like huge memory bandwidth.

For now, the obvious choice remains Athlon in price/performance. If the P4 is a success in the market over the next few months, that will be more proof that great marketing beats good product.

The P4 has hope, but not much else right now. That said, only a fool would count out Intel. I still find it amazing what Intel was able to achieve with the PIII in that the Coppermine, clock for clock, was pretty much able to hold its own, in most respects, with the Athlon. When the Athlon came out I thought the PIII was done like dinner. Let's see how Intel can evolve the P4.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 2, 2000 1:12:04 PM

power vr has released their new tile based video card.
when games are written to suport it it will be 2 times as fast as current. video cards.
should i buy one and wait or get an nvidea card because i can play games fast now.
December 2, 2000 3:03:56 PM

Another whiney Intel lover. "Just because it isn't optimized"

When the Athlon with 3DNow! came out and fell short of the Pentium3, all us AMD followers didnt run to mommy complaining that it wasn't fair cause nothing was "optimized" for us. Give me a break. Face the fact.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2000 10:58:38 AM

it seems to me that you are only repeating some weak and vague points that have been repeated over and over again.

the fact is P4 sucks big time for the time being for bad software sopport; it will still suck for the next 8 months for its bad upgradability; even after that, it will suck even more when gets "Hammered" by AMD engineerers.

P4 sucks. it is actually not because software optimization is not fully implemented nowadays, but because it does not have enough hardware raw power as a base.

software optimization is a good thing. but why not give us a good piece of hardware at the same time?



-----------------------------
Some are ignorantly happy,
While some, happily ignorant.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2000 2:05:11 PM

Well, I posted this almost 2 weeks ago, surprise to see this thread still alive. AMD vs. Intel will always spur some discussion. Some AMD fans are just too touchy. They take it as if their processor is an extension of themselves. Or maybe they think it reflects upon their ability to make choices. Thus when one criticizes the product, they take it as a personal insult.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2000 2:30:50 PM

The Pentium 4 sucks, why do you think that Intel is still advertising their Pentium 3 on TV.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but oh crap he's got a gun"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2000 8:55:30 PM

Haha, did you just say that AMD fans were a little touchy? We treat processors like an extension of our own being? And who is on here yelling and screaming about everyone being biased and not giving the P4 a fair shake? When Tom said that the K6-IIs were good for a low-budget machine, did you see AMDers hollering that it was because the software wasn't optimised for it? The Intelers are the ones who seem quite touchy to me. They seem to be taking this rather personal. In all actuallity, very few 'AMDers' are sheep. I currently use AMD because they are the best performace for the money. My only other choice was the Celeron, and that wasn't much of a choice compared to a Duron (I am not an overclocker). I like the P3 and would consider buying one if I felt I needed that much performance. I have met very few of the Intel fans who will even consider an AMD. And they rarely have any kind of rational explaination for it. I will go with the best choice for the least money always. If that happens to be Intel, so be it.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2000 12:01:01 AM

Remember, 3DNow! came with the K6-2, not the athlon, and 3DNow!, as useful as it might be, isn't the necessary component of the athlon like SSE2 is the the P4, because the athlon's FPU is incredible, and the P4 needs SSE2 to survive.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2000 12:58:45 AM

3DNow did come with the Athlon. It also come with the K6-III, the K6-3+ and the K6-2+. Other than that, you are correct. Athlon doesn't rely on it. I don't think it's very smart to rely on optimizations to make a processor competative.
December 4, 2000 1:00:23 AM

100% agreeable
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2000 10:18:47 AM

That's true, but you might want to bear in mind that the optimisation is needed for the code to actually make use of the SSE2 hardware. The whole architecture of the P4 relies on the SSE2 system, the intel engineers didn't bother doing mush with the x87 or MMX hardware and just made the P4 a SSE2 beast. If you look at code disigned for the P4, it does perform very well indeed. New instructions will always need new code, it's just the way things work.

It will be interesting to see what AMD do with SSE2 in the Hammer line, but I suspect they will have some teething problems with the new x86-64 ISA. I do hope they do well because the current Intel vs. AMD war is still looking busy.

Fat Chucky
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2000 10:29:44 AM

I suspect this is in the wrong group, but...

I think the new tile based technology shows a hell of a lot of promise; it looks to me that it really is the way to go for the future. I would hold back for the moment to see how it progresses. The PowerVR chip in the new card is substantially less powerful calculation wise compared to, say the Geforce. If you really want performance and you've got big pockets, go for the NVidia. Otherwise? I'd hold out for a wee while longer, my (now ancient) Voodoo3 2000 is still giving me plenty of performance in the games I play (Unreal tournament, Heroes 3, Worms etc)

Fat Chucky
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2000 10:53:49 AM

The removal of backward compatability seems to be a growing trend in intel , I wonder if this is to try and cut cost and R&D time in a effort to out pace AMD???

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2000 11:10:54 AM

sorry,i should have explained,this is the same position the p4 is in right now. the p4 fpu was cut down in such a way that it has to have sse2 software to run faster. somehow this was needed to fit with the other archetectural changes in then p4. a couple of iterations of the cpu down the road it might become the future. right now,it just isn't ready yet. driver support for the latest pvr will be a lot easier to come buy than the general revamping of all software that it would take to make the p4 viable now.
of course like the p4 the pvr woukld also be a lot hotter if all software were writen for it.
that just ain't the case now.
your reply while aimed towards the pvr video card was perfect for the situation of the p4 which i was making a anology to with the pvr situation. it was the exact point i was trying to make.
ps i have a voodoo2 which still plays the games i am playing, tombraider,unreal etc. wish i had waited a couple of months when i bought the v2 and got a v3,when they came out. with the turn around time in generations of video vards,i maybe just oughta wait a few months and get a geforce2 for same price as mx.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by vic201 on 12/04/00 08:25 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
!