Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel's not as dumb as I first thought...

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2000 2:40:31 PM

Initially I was thinking, "Man, that's stupid of Intel to make a processor that performs well on Internet apps but pretty bad on standard Workstation apps!" , in reference to the P4. However, at that time I was only thinking of my own computing needs: strong FPU performance (graphics creation). While Intel's P4 looks like my last choice for 3d Max and thus I would never likely buy one, it IS a good move for Intel. Currently the majority of computer consumers spend about 80% of their computing time on the internet. Additionally, they generally only run Office apps (like Word and Excel) and the Internet. All of today's processors seem more than good enough for standard office apps, so they've become a moot point. Intel is trying for the major market share which lies in the Internet now. The Internet itself is still in its infancy as far as what potential it has. Most likely, we'll see the Internet continue to grow and grow in terms of what services it offers. For example, streaming movies aren't too far off (just a bandwidth issue now). Eventually home-owners will be using a computer linked up to the internet to likely run most of their household. So, Intel is trying to establish it's dominance in this portion of the market. While AMD may very well forever-on be the FPU Graphics workstation King, Intel will probably manage to sell more processors in the future and keep that lead.

This is just a guess. :)  For my part, I'll keep buying AMD so long as they deliver so much raw computing power for their price!

Charles

More about : intel dumb thought

December 12, 2000 2:59:27 PM

They don't get to be #1 in the semiconductor indstry for nothing (well mainly marketing to computer illiterates). I'm not saying that the P4 was a good move on Intel's part, but in general, they have to do something right every once and a while, don't they? :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2000 3:05:47 PM

Here is another interesting benefit that you got me to realize: the next version of Microsoft Office (v.10) will be able to be used as a subscription service and then run as a java app over the internet. Another way that being "net" optimized may help Intel.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2000 3:45:08 PM

From what I hear, Windows 2001 is the last Windows. After that, Microsoft is turning everything toward some sort of "Net" utility. Overall, this should be very interesting. But I'm not sure how they'll make the graphics workstations work very well if the whole OS is web-based...

Charles
December 12, 2000 3:45:21 PM

Nice try guys!!! I don't believe you could tell the diff between a 700 running net progs and a 1.5. Yeah if you run them for an hour on a dedicated server the time may add up to see a diff. Watch what they sell you.

Now on the other hand i have respect for Intel lookingot the future also. I mean with screaming sindy II. They chip may not be optimized for todays opps but it's also not held back for the execution of future apps either. I bet you wouldn't buy a pc without mmx for a few years now right? Well when MMX came out there but a couple of apps or games that took advantage of that. So for the future SSE2 is a nice touch. No short term goal there. And you know AMD is going that way too some year soon.

<b> Fragg at will!!! </b>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2000 3:53:13 PM

Yeah, AMD will be implementing SSE2 (thank god!), but I think you're overlooking the long-term implications of the Internet. Like you just said, today's applications vs. the future applications. Today's Internet apps don't, IMO, really stress the processors' computing power. However, as Microsoft (Microfluffy) plans to make their new OS's totally net based, I believe that we'll find the internet becomes somewhat demanding. Again, I can't really see how at this point, as most things transmitted over the internet are small and so bandwidth of connections is the bottle-neck. In the future, though, I think we'll see some important and demanding applications that are "web-based."

Like I said, it's just a hunch. But Microsoft and Intel are both showing signs of this.

Charles
December 12, 2000 4:41:42 PM

a wee bit off topic, but gawd, am I the only one who's sick of internet integration?
I love internet... I'm a 'net addict. I spend hours a day (at work and at home) connected, and I constantly check my e-mail and favourite boards. I have broadband at home, and generally, I think internet is just peachy.

BUT, I want to go online on my own terms. I like having a dialer, and ability to disconnect when I want to. I like using a specialized application (Browser, chat program, etc) when I want to use internet. I like having CONTROL over when I'm sending data to strangers.
I don't want to *have* to connect to internet to write my document, draw a picture, play a game, or even worse, to boot up my computer (if MS OSs go online). I want to have ability to yank the line out of my computer and have it work perfectly as long as I wish withough being connected/dependant on the internet. I want to take my laptop on a desert island and only worry about my battery life. And I DON'T WANT my FRIDGE to become an internet appliance -- I just want it to cool stuff down. Who comes up with these market reads anyhoo?
I want developers to stabilize & optimize the software they push out, rather then force jam useless features in them just so they can jump on the 'net wagon...
I am still on Office 97 because there's NOTHING office 2000 offers to me beside requiring me to go through silly internet registration procedure, and dear god in heaven, I don't want to go through online subscription in next versions... I want Windows 2001 to not crash when it pleases and not worry about adding yet another way to do the same darn thing (in how many ways can you browse your computer files these days???)
And marketing a CPU for internet usage? Pllleassee... 99% of my internet work leaves my CPU idle... with broadband, adequate memory and supporting system, my Cyrix 586 performs the SAME (on internet apps) as my k6-233 or Tbird 900... if I bought a new system today JUST so I can surf, well, I'd question my own ignorance...

ugh... just makes me angry:( 
Anyhoo, that's my rant... feel free to join in or bash me as an old-thinking geezer (and I'm 21:) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2000 6:03:25 PM

I agree with you to some extent. I do not want to see the PC/TV/Phone/Dishwasher, however......
Anything that can make our time online more productive and more entertaining is a GOOD thing.

Multimedia is wonderful on the net, shockwave etc... I might even enjoy watching a tv program once in awhile on the old 'puter.

I think Intel(while in bed with Microsoft) has pretty much driven the industry standards, in respect to home PCs. What we are getting a glimpse of is a much richer internet experience. Take away the online java versions of your operating system, and there are some good things that could come of this.

Moreover, I think the entry of things such as the Playstation 2 and X box may show the beginning of the end for the home PC.
December 12, 2000 6:07:11 PM

>> the beginning of the end for the home PC.

brrr... don't even want to think about that:( 

Anyhoo, agreed that flash etc are fun on Internet. Actually, presonally I already DO watch TV on my computer -- as I said, I really AM an internet Enthusiast... which is why I wonder why are they pushing products that even I don't want:) 
I'm still not buying the mystical "net initiatve" from Microsoft... I like my home computing and online computing separate right now:) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2000 6:22:51 PM

you may not want them now...
but when hardware is introduced software generally catches up pretty darn quick. ie the GeForce 2 texture and lighting.

Unfortunately because Intel has made this great "leap" you will need their product to experience 100% of the web in 6 months TOPS. There are already sites up and running that are made for the P4. Of course these are viewable by all processors, however it may be very soon they will not be.
I can forsee websites detecting processors and redirecting you to the appropriate page(very similar to how flash works).

Will you want to go to those sites? Maybe not. But the fact is they will be there, and you won't be able to get to them, or at least experience them as the designer intends you to. That leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

I guess the bottom line is while the explosion in technolgy is great for the consumer, it also sucks your wallet DRY!
December 12, 2000 6:49:45 PM

gawd, I hope we don't get processor specific webpages... in the age when standardization is viewed a good thing, but so rarely practicaly obtainable, do we need more division?
there are already websites that won't work with all the browsers; all the plugins; all OSs; etc.
I keep all browsers, all plugins and most OSs (multi-boot) on my computer just to keep up; but I won't have the will to do so much longer. I am just NOT building two machines in one case (although I've built such a contraption at one point in time:)  just to view somebody's webpage!
A website can be written perfectly with pure standards, so its viewable by anybody and anything...these are the sites I support from the bottom of my heart:) 
If a website doesn't work with my computer, and I've made a reasonable effort to bring myself up to speed... tough... their laziness, use of pre-made non-standard solutions, and lack of vision will make them loose business/audience/interest...:( 

I'm not at all convinced that I will need P4 (or Hammer for that matter, which will offer SSE2 anyhoo) for 100% web experience in 6 monhts... not a wee bit.. as I said, even the 5 year old Cyrix 586-100 machine that's chugging in the other room can view all the web perfectly... I still think it's ridiculous to state that you'll need a top-of-the-line processor for internet - that's why web-PCs are currently under $1000 Canadian, and web-appliances are under $400...
Besides, Internet is meant to be open and universally accessible -- that's what made it popular. The more individual web-sites are leaning away from it, the less traffic and more frustrated customers they'll have. Its not profitable (in general) to cater to only one, currently minuscule, segment of the market...

PS please give me an example of P4-only site that couldn't have been made as good without P4-only code... Yes, there are sites right now that will only work with P3, just as there are sites that only work with AOL customers etc -- these are targeted, usually part of some kind of promotion, generally unsuccesful, and not representative of Internet as a whole.
Besides, its easy for us in North america -- when do you think people in Eastern Europe or other parts of the world will be able to buy a P4?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2000 8:07:16 PM

I don't want to see that kind of standardization either. Not to mention that I don't see the P4 being relevant in the next 6 months (maybe in the next year...?).

Charles
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2000 8:12:14 PM

What is the fastest practical network connection out there? I know fast ethernet will do 100 million BITS per second. I think ISDN will supposedly go up to 600 million BITS per second. I am sorry but this is still very slow compared to Pentium 4 memory bus speed of 3.2 giga BYTES per second. Even DDR2100 will do 2.1 giga BYTES per second. Remember there are 8 BITS in a BYTE. I would think all network systems using network cards would be bottlenecked by the speed of the PCI bus anyway. At work even our high speed line stalls out when there is a lot of traffic on the internet. Your computer will always be waiting for packets to come over the line. I don't see how Pentium 4 or 3 for that matter will help solve this problem. With my 56k modem the internet runs fine on my pentium 100 as well as my Athlon. Having computers always need OS info over the internet sounds like a wonderful way to spread bugs.

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends...
December 12, 2000 8:30:18 PM

Thank you!!!

How can the internet deplete my resources even with fast aonnection. Umm it's only conneted to a 33 MHz bus. I already have DSL and listen to streaming audio @ Incata. Qualilty [-peep-] and that runs in the backround while I do everything else, hell even gamed online eith it playing.

We have a long way for a processor to be a bottleneck for the web. HELL RIGHT NOW EVEN THE GEFORCE 2 ULTRA IS THE BOTTLENECK AT REAL RESOLUTIONS.

***GET A CLUE!!!***

<b> Fragg at will!!! </b>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2000 8:39:59 PM

I breifly read the test so shoot me if i'm wrong here but...

I think they were looking at internet applications from the server point of view. I build web sites and e-commerce solutions for a living and can definitly see how you could optimize a processor to handle server load better since serving up webpages to multiple clients can be processor intensive.

However, from the client point of view, I doubt broadband will ever be so good that a 1ghz+ processor of any kind would be the bottleneck (keeping in mind that processors will continue to get faster and faster). I could be wrong though, if you asked me 10 years ago I probably would have laughed at the idea of 1gb hardrives.

I do think that kodiak is right about intel being smart. There is a high-end market for internet servers and they want to keep in good graces with dell. Plus, people will hear "internet optimized" and assume it will help them surf the web faster. Oh wait! I must be wrong! Intel would never rely on consumer ignorance to sell a product :) .
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 12, 2000 9:55:14 PM

There allready is processor specific webpages.
Intel made deals with a number of webpages that are
P3 only.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2000 1:22:23 AM

You know what this means? Standardisation of the bugs!!! Every one will be vulnerable at the same time since we won't be able to patch and tweak our OS's!

MS dream finally coming true.

One OS. One bug. One general protection fault.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2000 5:02:55 AM

heh reminds me of my days studying population genetics. If the gene pool gets to small then the population has a better chance of being wiped out by a single disease. Increased variation = better ability to adapt = increased evolution.
December 13, 2000 1:00:22 PM

hmm... two of three titles on front page are running on my AMD right now... what are we proving here?
December 13, 2000 1:03:58 PM

(and on my PII, just to show that I avoid bias when I can:) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2000 1:09:53 PM

I went to the Microsoft .NET conference at the end of november, the whole concept is backed and made by several big companies one of them being Intel, although the MS people hinted heavily at this being mainly for the Itanium (Itanic) not the P4 I am sure the P4 was built with this in mind....

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
December 13, 2000 1:14:40 PM

>>I went to the Microsoft .NET conference [...]

Kewl -- can you pls explain in a couple sentences what the whole whoopla is about? Thanx:) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2000 1:27:45 PM

Well as I understand it(which may not be perfect) is that the .NET hype is about putting a standard means of communicating across apps(ie XML oh did I mention XML).
The instead of you writing a postcode res for your app you just buy into a service that does it for you and you don't have to embedd it you just reference it ....an online version of a com object...the comms are no probs cos you just use XML in a SOAP Message(standards yet to be set) there is more to it but that is the basic idea(I think).

Hope this helps (probably more confused than before)

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
December 13, 2000 2:56:44 PM

as i understand it, the RAMBUS/P4 combination is ideal for graphics, quake3 benchmarks an example of this, although i dont know if 3d apps & 3d games have differing requirements
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2000 4:40:29 PM

Tell me then, do you all really think that businesses (who's goal is to make $$ and grow)--will purposely tweak their web site so that P IV have exclusive access. Why would any IT/IS department in their right mind shell out the bucks and time to make seperate pages pandered to the new P IV code? Did someone say that having a P IV will become more critical in six months for access to web sites? (Someone else mentioned a year). IF it happens it will take MUCH longer than that. The web sites (for businesses--not the ones that extol the virtues of your grandma's dog) want ALL the hits they can get; not waste $ on setting up some semi-exclusive club that only few can attend.



The extreme bottom line is money, not tech.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2000 4:59:15 PM

Here is an example from tom...
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001206/p4-07.html

I think it is good to note that the P4 did not score that much higher than a overclocked AMD. But it did score higher.

That in mind, some webpages REQUIRE you to have certain system specifications to display their information correctly. If web applications/pages are written specifically for the P4s "net burst", which I am sure some will be, is it not fair to say my "old" PII 400 will not be able to use these apps/pages as they were intended.

And streching the envelope even further, is it not concievable that an AMD running at the same clock speed will not view the app/page as the P4 does?

I know this difference will be hardly noticeable, but as tom points out, the difference exists. How many AMD users had problems with games, apps, hardware in the beginnning?
Why? These were written for, and created on Intel chipsets.

Knowing that the P4 allows one to write specifically for the processor on the net, it is a safe bet someone will.

I am in no way touting the P4. I am quite pissed that today's P4 will not be "upgradable" by next year's end. Even though I think the P4 has MUCH better success in 3d gaming and most NON-office related apps, I will most likely buy an AMD once the 760 chipset issue has been resolved.

Intel is smart because AMD is a competitor, and this is a good way to push them aside.
If Intel's "net burst" continues to show improvement, and web apps become more of the norm, they will hold a patent on a technology that handles these apps in a better, faster way. That is a BIG selling point.

And I know "if, if, if".
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2000 5:12:02 PM

Maxxamillian:
I stated that you will need a Pentium 4 processor to view 100% of the net as it was intended within 6 months. 100% of the net.
There are already websites that are tailored to the P4.

These sites may not stop you from viewing their content, but the content may not appear as it does on a P4.
Thus you are not "allowed" to see something as the owners' of P4s do.

This occurs everyday when I play a game on my Voodoo 2 Card. I am not seeing the game as the designers intended. To see it in it's full glory I need to go out and pick up a new video card with a different chipset(many manufacturers use the same chipset).
The difference is NOBODY will have rights to produce a chip that uses the Intel processor/chipset , except for Intel.
December 13, 2000 5:14:14 PM

damn it, it makes me mad that Intel's marketing works so well... even people on the board are succumbing to it...
NETBURST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERNET!!!
ITS A MARKETING GIMICK!!!
whew, sorry, had to get that out of me, didn't mean to yell, sorry, scussi, pardonez moi:) 
read
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001120/p4-03.html
Quoting good ol' tom:
"Intel calls the new architecture of Pentium 4 'NetBurst'. The idea behind this name is for me just as unfathomable as the 'Internet SIMD Streaming Extension', as Intel liked to call Pentium 3's 'SSE' or 'ISSE'. Believe me, your web pages won't pop up any faster, downloads will take just as long and the Internet won't 'burst' either. However, Intel is trying its hardest to be trendy and since the Internet is still hip, it is a perfect vehicle to market Pentium 4. "

So this whole story of "web pages written specifically for netburst" etc is, well, not relevant (although I want to use stronger words here, like pile of... :) .
Yes it is a new architecture, yes it may be next best thing, all hail to mighty Intel, I'm not even arguing that point, but will people stop telling me what a difference it will make to my web browsing, because -get this -
*it won't* ?
Thanx in advance...

Yes you can make a webpage run only on P4... you can make webpage run only on AOL... you can make webpage run with any restrictions that short-minded creator wants to -- that's beside the point though. I won't be cut from the Internet with my PII or AMD Tbird just because P4 happens to have different architecture...
Kodiak
PS I don't plan to run a massive server in my bedroom anytime soon either, so that doesn't concern me in particular either:) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2000 5:22:08 PM

lol Yes Net Burst is a gimmick. Yes Intel is the MARKETING MASTER!

However something makes their web based test run faster...maybe it's the little blue guys in the chip....
Or maybe as stated in the article AMD doesn't belong (pay $$$$$$$$$) to the testing company's organization.

On a lighter note. Does anyone know when the 760 chip issue is going to be resolved? Any clues? I spoke to a gentleman at Alienware who said they were expecting their systems to have the 760 chipset in by sometime in January.

kodiak - sometimes it is fun to be a pain in the ass.
December 13, 2000 5:41:40 PM

>> kodiak - sometimes it is fun to be a pain in the ass.

I know, don't worry... I play the devil's advocate more often than not:) 

As for 760, I'm not sure I would get it as soon as the current issues are resolved... too often in hardware one fix causes another problem. I'd wait until they get nice and stable:) 
(or not wait at all... which is why I'm buying a Abit KT7 RAID now - place I buy it at will upgrade it without hassle to DDR RAM / mobo when it becomes stable and available:) 
December 13, 2000 6:14:28 PM

intel is friends with microsoft the next windows will be more ready for the p4. im waiting for the p4 overdrive i got a ddr-sdram board coming for the p3 and ill put the overdrive on it when it ever comes out. always looking ahead

-- takes one to now one --
December 13, 2000 7:54:41 PM

Yeah, AMD isn't ponying up to the testing company. But who's fault is that, really? They could join if they wanted to. No one is stopping them. It's AMD's CHOICE not to be a part of that. So who's looking dumb for making that decision?

Frankly, I'd rather go with a company ruthless enough to grease palms and get things done than go with a company that doesn't have the initiative to use all of it's available resources to be the best of the best.

- Sanity is purely based on point-of-view.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2000 9:22:39 PM

Intel will have to demonstrate why the average joe would need a 1.4 Ghz computer. They will need to start pushing digital video capturing and some other processor intensive apps to home users.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2000 1:36:55 AM

Since I don't foresee the internet connections catching up to the memory bandwidth of most systems, I believe the most practical way to get high speed transmissions is to use relays and encoding/decoding of information. By using fractal algorithms (and such stuff <relegating to the scientific term>) you can compress data so that you are really sending more data than is apparent. Then, the receiving computer, will need processing power to be able to decode/encode information for receipt/transmission. Just my guess though, I really don't quite understand fractals! :) 

Charles
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2000 1:41:44 AM

Being short-sited as I'm feeling today, I failed to pick up on the pain in the ... task of administering web-pages. Somehow, it always seems that Windows Server needs more RAM than is in the system. Even if you go up to 500+ MB it says, "using xxxMB RAM and yyyVirtual RAM." So yeah, I can see how an optimized processor would be good in this area too.

Charles
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2000 5:43:37 AM

My prediction:

There will be a follow up article that reveals the misleading nature of the software used. Tom said he was not sure what the package was actually testing. (I don't think the makers of the software are biased. I just think it is being marketed in a misleading way)

The first thing I noticed was that the test emulating a person surfing the web had basically even scores. The higher scores at the bottom for intel represent higher clock speeds attainable by the p4.

The test that showed a real difference was the b to b apps. Now business to business transactions typically occur on servers. So, it would be fair for the test software to emulate the load that a server would have onto the machine that is acting as a client in the b 2 b scenario.

My mental picture of what the b2b test scenario might look like:
b2b Server --(data)---> b2bclient(with a client load on the processor).

If the b2b client is optimized to handle server load it will also be able to better handle the extra load of incoming data. Poof! an explaination of the magic processor that supposedly makes your internet connection better. I think the unfortunate reality will be no benifit to the average consumer.

Feel free to call me full of crap. I fully admit I am just guessing.
December 14, 2000 1:09:45 PM

In time PC's will not be the main clients accessing the web, it will be TV's, palm devices, web pads, PS2s, Dreamcasts. None of these will have P4s but will have ARM/Transmeta/Duron/Piiis etc as processors, so optimizing for the P4 will be a very bad idea.
In UK I can access the Web via my cable digibox, which has its own credit card port and do virtually anything I want other than downloads stuff and run things locally (the only reason I have a PC)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2001 5:11:30 AM

yeah hahaha turns out you ae the dumb one ...hahahahahahahaah AMD RULES
!