/ Sign-up
Your question

Intel turning into Apple??

  • CPUs
  • Apple
  • Processors
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
June 16, 2001 11:06:58 PM

Can someone please explain WHY intel is releasing, or has released, a handfull of processors that follow no logical naming order? Why are they still releasing PIII's after the PIV? Wouldn't it be smarter to cover thier shame with the williamette by just releasing the new PIII's under the PIV name? What's up with their marketing? Sure they'll release the Northwood, but what if it flops? At what point will the PIV replace the PIII???

<font color=red>We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. - Eisenhower</font color=red>

More about : intel turning apple

June 17, 2001 3:32:51 AM

And if they release a new celeron that will say that they flush P3 and P4. Good logic ironic
high end P4
mid range P3
value celeron.
June 17, 2001 5:06:25 AM

The P3 performs better than the 4 in a ton of benchmarks. I'm not sure you're the guy to comment on any of this considering you run a P100.

<font color=red>We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. - Eisenhower</font color=red>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
June 17, 2001 6:08:09 AM

Sorry i write with a katmai right now and yesterday with a coppermine.Tommorow a P 200 classic.
June 17, 2001 6:10:30 AM

benchmark faster on a P3 maybe 6 month ago.Get real P4 have beat the t-bird just check the last benchmark and if you like the P3.
June 17, 2001 6:16:15 AM

What did you write? I got some kind of gist about benchmarks, so please post a link.

BTW, don't turn this into a AMD vs Intel thing. I'm talking about Intel. I was asking just a basic question. What is the deal with their naming sceme? Apple had this huge problem with having a dozen different systems for sale that was just confusing. Jobs cleaned it up.

The benchmarks I've seen show the P3 as a better processor than the P4. That makes very little sense to me. They replaced the P2 with the P3, but the P3 is supposed to be a midlevel processor now while the P4 is high end? Is that the ultimate plan? How does the Northwood and Tulatin fit into all of that?

<font color=red>We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. - Eisenhower</font color=red>
June 17, 2001 7:58:46 AM

Yeah and going from the Athlon to the Athlon IV is logical??
June 17, 2001 8:17:01 AM

Yes, the Palomino, or Athlon 4 is AMD's fourth version of the Athlon. So yes, it does follow logical order.

<font color=red> To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism, to steal ideas from many is research.</font color=red>
June 17, 2001 8:54:06 AM

I asked a question about intel. Yet AMD has been mentioned twice. What's the deal? No flaming please!

I am asking a very simple question. To make matters more confusing, I find out that they are releasing the Tualatin in only 2 speeds and that it requires a new motherboard. This makes no sense to me. The P3 can only go so far, or are they going to continue squezzing it in there for as long as they can? The fact that it performs better than a P4 is just too weird. Is everything about marketing rather than performance?

I would think that they would either keep the Celeron for the low end, and improve the PIV for mid-end market.

There is of course the Xeon and the Itanium processors as well, but I'm not refering to thier customer base.

<font color=red>We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. - Eisenhower</font color=red><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by dhlucke on 06/17/01 01:57 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2001 10:49:47 AM

The p4 architechture is a big failur for intel, with its 400mhz fsb the p4 1.7ghz(with fast rd ram and sse2) can not eaven beat an athlon 1.4ghz with a 266mhz fsb(with the ddr ram wich is slowest than the rdram and sse), what a shame.
But the p3 1ghz can performe like the athlon 1ghz, so the p3 has a better architechture, and to beat amd with the same frequency speed, they will have to upgrade theire p3 processor.
But the releasing of the new p4's processor is a marketing play, they are trying to attract peaple with theire mhz, the 1.7ghz and the 2.0ghz...
eaven if you run a p4 at the same speed of a p3(ex:a p4 decreased to a 1.13ghz and a p3 at 1.3ghz)you will be surprised that the p3 will beat the p4 with far.
And the low cost celeron is also a failure for intel with the release of the new duron processor that is better, faster and a lot lot cheaper, we are seeing that the duron has replaced the celeron in lots of manyfacturer systems.

So what you think????????????????
June 17, 2001 12:41:57 PM

It all boils down to marketshare. Who is gaining, and who is losing. In the long run, that is all that matters. We can all see the current trend in marketshare.

(I didn't mention ANY company names!)

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
June 17, 2001 1:07:23 PM

well the new p3s being so close in performance to the athlons makes it more interesting matching clock for clock... the p4 is a flop thats all there is to it... a failed processor... why else would they start with the pentium 3 again and making it perform better than the p4? confusion thrives in intel...

you do not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
June 17, 2001 2:49:34 PM

Well here it is:

P5 = Pentium
P6 = Ppro, p2, p3, celeron
P6.8 = Pentium
P7 = Itanium

Nice Intel and AMD users get a Cookie.... :smile: Yummy :smile:
June 17, 2001 3:50:41 PM

why else would they start with the pentium 3 again and making it perform better than the p4? confusion thrives in intel...

Do to the fact the p4 is not well suited for use in a notebook.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
June 17, 2001 5:59:10 PM

Yes, the Palomino, or Athlon 4 is AMD's fourth version of the Athlon. So yes, it does follow logical order

Who cares about the naming scheme. If we went off of the actual #'s of revisions to a CPU we would be here:

1. Pentium
2. Pentium Pro
3. Pentium MMX
4. Pentum II
5. Pentium II Xeon
6. Pentium III Katmai
7. Pentium III E
8. Pentium III EB
9. Pentium IV

I'm sure I've missed a couple but you get the point. The Northwood P4 would be called Pentim X. It's just a marketing scheme, that's all.

Blah, Blah Blahh, Blahh, blahh blah blahh, blah blah.
a b à CPUs
June 20, 2001 7:40:57 AM

There's the Celeron, the Celeron-A, the celery, the electron, and yeah... blah blah blah.

anyone want to try a hand at naming the AMD line?

*insert appropriate mad scientist laughing gone mad over his latest experiment gone horribly right/wrong*
June 20, 2001 7:47:50 AM

Duron and Thunderbird, both being replaced next year.

<font color=red>We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it. - Eisenhower</font color=red>
June 20, 2001 2:33:03 PM

I'll give you the rundown of what I understand is going on. Maybe it'll make more sense. Maybe it won't.

First, Intel released the P4 prematurely because AMD forced them to actually put out something new and innovative, which Intel hadn't been prepared to do. Hence the current P4s being almost a joke.

However, marketting being the strange beast it is, is making it seem like Intel wants the whole world to use the P4. In actuality, Intel just wants the world to use anything but an AMD chip. The P4 happened to be the only real contender though. Yet Intel knows that the P4 wasn't meant to be released yet. Hence the beginning of confusion.

Now, Intel's ultimately product line goal is to make the P4 their performance sector and the P3 their value sector.

Intel though also wants the Northwood to entirely replace their not-quite-ready-for-release first versions of the P4, the Williamette. Intel would be very happy if in the next couple of years, everone completely forgot that the Williamette ever existed.

Intel also wants the Taulutain to completely replace the Coppermine in the P3 market because the Coppermine simply can't run any faster.

And the Celeron will vanish from the picture entirely.

But WHY does Intel want the P4 to run the performance gauntlet and the P3 to fall into the role of the value chip, even though the Coppermine and Tualatin out perform the Williamette in a clock-for-clock basis?

Three reasons:
1) The Northwood should perform noticably better than the Williamette. (The original P4 specs had a lot more potential than the Williamette is showing us. So the Northwood should show this potential, but if not, eventually something based on the P4 core will.) So chips with a P4 core will eventually out-perform the P3 core on a clock-for-clock basis, or at the very least be about equal.

2) The P4 core is a LOT more scalable than the P3 core. It can be made to run at a much higher total frequency. So even if the P4 remains a worse performer than the P3 in a clock-for-clock race, the highest MHz P4 will still kick the pants off of the highest MHz P3. It's making up for a lack of efficiency by adding more brute force. Intel and nVidia have a lot in common in that respect.

3) The P4 can take advantage of memory bandwidth MUCH more effectively than the P3 can. Thus someone who currently owns a P4 system will see a significant performance gain just by putting in higher bandwidth memory without ever replacing the CPU. Where as a current owner of a P3 won't see much, if any, performance improvement just from putting in higher bandwidth memory. And if you look at the plans of Rambus, RDRAM is up for some very major bandwidth improvements over the next few years. So the P4 is going to perform better than the P3 in the future if even for this reason alone. (At least assuming that Rambus survives. Even if not though, SDRAM is also seeing some major bandwidth improvements over the next few years, so a P4 with SDRAM should gain significantly as well.)

Thus, Intel wants the world to embrace the P4 for performance. And, since something needs to be in the value sector, the P3 will take on that role. It's being less scalable only makes it even better for that role because it's assured then that the best P3 won't ever out perform the best P4.

And, as a side note, the Athlon IV naming made no sense. We already had the Athlon A, Athlon B, and Athlon C. Why in the world would AMD suddenly ditch their lettering extension for a number extension? The only logical reasoning is that AMD marketting wanted a product name that people would easily recognize as competition directly with a P4. But because I don't want any sort of debate on which chip company is better, I'll leave my AMD discussion at that.

If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of productivity? Ground first.
June 20, 2001 4:12:10 PM

I always keep it simple. Basically all processors that use the same basic architechure seem to get named in the same generation.

The Tualatin is nothing more than a P3 on a different die proces and a tiny architechure change so why name it any different.
The reason behind Intel releasing such a chip as far as I can see, is to ward off the threat of AMD dominating the power laptop market.

<font color=blue>Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!</font color=blue>
June 20, 2001 5:48:00 PM

That and to offer a P3 + SDRAM system for people who can't afford a P4 + RDRAM system.

Heck, is there even a point to Celerons anymore?

If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of productivity? Ground first.