Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel

Pentium 4 2.8GHz 374

Posted by michael from the need-for-speed dept.
DigitaBiscuit writes "The new 2.8GHz Pentium 4 has been officially launched by Intel today. Sporting a 533MHz System Bus, this new P4 looks to put the hurt on AMD's new Athlon XP 2600+. Benchmarks and a full review with performance versus AMD's new chip, can be found here." The NDAs must be expiring today, since we already have another review submitted as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pentium 4 2.8GHz More

Pentium 4 2.8GHz

Comments Filter:

  • I'm shocked. (Score:3, Funny)

    by magicslax ( 532351 ) <frank_salim@ya h o o . c om> on Monday August 26, 2002 @04:47AM (#4139811)
    My next prediction: AMD will release a processor that's even faster! Nobody will expect that one.

    Distant future (more than one week): Intel will release a processor that's faster than that one!


    What if the video chipset industry was the same way? Whoa. ;-)

  • Who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 )
    I'm typing this on a homemade computer that uses an AMD K6-3/350 overclocked to 392 Mhz. For what I do (web browsing, word processing, email, simple games like Tetris and listening to streams and MP3's) it works great! Why would I want to buy one of these? I'd much rather take a trip to Hawaii with my honey then blow a couple of grand on a Pentium 4 computer. Besides, let's get real...in about three months this will be obsolete...replaced by the newest whiz bang 3.0 GHZ processor that works about 7% faster then this one does. I think I'll wait until a real reason comes along to justify my spending a lot of $$ on a processor this powerful. For what I do, I simply don't need this much power. Do you?
    • Install Gentoo Linux on your k6 or better yet wait untill demo's of doom3 and ut2003 hit the net and then tell me how great your k6 is. I do not use alot of processing myself but gentoo is a pain on my old pIII.

      fyi, gentoo packages are actually source based and are compilied automatically when installed to avoid rpm hell. Hmm lets upgrade to gcc31?.. this took litterally 2 days on my pIII. I was even thinking about upgrading to a dual athlonMP system but I had nothing but stability problems with AMD and VIA chipsets. I find it hard to believe a slashdoter nerd would just use his/her computer for web browsing but I could be wrong. By the way even Windows2000 or XP will be leaps and bounds faster by the upgrade. Even a p4 19.8ghz will make your system smooth for only a few hundred. Its worth it.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by tconnors ( 91126 )
        fyi, gentoo packages are actually source based and are compilied automatically when installed to avoid rpm hell. Hmm lets upgrade to gcc31?.. this took litterally 2 days on my pIII.

        Crickeys! You sure you are not running out of memory? I have a 500MHz AMD, (but with 384 megs RAM) and have never complained (I did when I only had 128 megs)! Of course, I used debian, and so don't have to compile from source often, but still, 2 days? Mozilla only took me a couple of hours, last time I tried it.

        Hell, I would get sick of things after a day and kill the compilation -- the kernel didn't even take a day to compile on my 486 with 8 megs RAM.

        I'm sure most peoples speed problems would be neutralised by them installing a decent window manager instead of the KDE or GNOME crap. I don't beleieve it takes ~30 seconds to start KDE on a top of the line workstation these days. FVWM took about 3 seconds on my 486 (and is there instantly on my ~500MHz laptop and desktop)!

        • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by 13Echo ( 209846 )
          I'm sure that the biggest issue isn't with memory, but is due to the fact that with Gentoo, you compile *all* of your software from scratch. It is very time consuming, but is worth it to some people.

          Normal Linux distributions can make due on just about any old Pentium class CPU, as long as they have sufficient RAM... But Gentoo, needs a fast CPU, if you want it to compile before you grow old and die. :)

          • Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

            by checkyoulater ( 246565 )
            But Gentoo, needs a fast CPU, if you want it to compile before you grow old and die. :)

            Actually, the latest Gentoo release has ISO's for 386's right up to Athlon/P4. Still in beta, mind you, but still helpful. The part that takes the longest is the bootstrapping and the system build. These beta ISO's have all that done for you.
        • A gentoo install does take in the neighborhood of two days. It takes about 3-4 hours to bootstrap and merge the base system (something most people leave on overnight) and upwards of 6-7 hours (because of all the C++) to merge the full KDE desktop. If you add in some actual applications here (like KOffice, another hour or so) or OpenOffice (something like 18 hours) then yeah, you can easily blow two days on it.

          BTW> That FVWM comment is crap. FVWM doesn't have 1/4 of 1/8 of 1/16 the power of KDE 3.x. Besides the eye candy (which is nice mind you) FVWM (and the traditional X applications one tends to use with it) have nowhere near the level of integration and polish as KDE desktop apps. Besides, they lack anti-aliasing, which (on my 1600x1200 LCD screen) makes them look horrid beyond comparison. It is true that GNOME and KDE are pretty bloated, but compare them instead to something like Windows 2000, which is comparable in features but lightning fast.
    • "For what I do, I simply don't need this much power. Do you?

      Yes. I do 3D Rendering.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        This is offtopic but may help someone get a job/raise/girlfriend/wife/life

        When I hire nerds for IS/IT, I do not hire the extremely geeky, I know everything and can recode linux to run your washing machine types. I do also not hire the people with the latest greatest technical knowledge or with the longest list of capital acronyms on their resume.

        I would not hire someone if I knew they had the latest greatest hardware at home, simply case and point being that the sound obsessive. Spending hard earned money constantly for maginal improvement does not sound like the kind of employee I would want working for me... and you may make the point, it's my money fuck you, but I make the point #1. obbsesives at home are obsessives at work.
        #2. I have all the money, as your employer.

        It's fine to spend money on technology, but here is a lesson to go along with that attitude. A healthy-systemwide RAM upgrade and the rest of the money spend on user-training would be 10x as effective as the latest greatest anything.

        "If I were an employer, I'd be suspicious of hiring any computer professional (and maybe you are not one, I don't know) who was using antiquated hardware and saw no reason to upgrade. I'd be looking at that and asking myself "if this guy has so little interest in computers that he's running an ancient POS like that, how much enthusiasm can I expect from him in a technical position?""
        That's like saying if my mechanic didn't drive a expensive car, I wouldn't hire him. Many many many people in management see there as a lot more to life than going home to sit in the same position you sat all day, staring at another screen. They value something called balance. Breadth. Experience. I would much rather take someone with who was not as technically savvy, but had hobbies and a diverse lifestyle over the King Overclocker ot the Universe for the simple reason you can teach someone computers, but the King Overclocker will always have an arrogant attitude. Get the point? the specifics can be taught to anyone with a good grasp of the basics, technically, but it's a lot harder to break a geek of his (arrogance/condecision/asociality/pensiveness/etc) . Bad attittudes and latest greatest belong only in programming. IS/IT are service fields where a good personality goes a hell of a lot further and having the latest-greatest attitude. Furthermore, anyone can throw money around and get a great computer system, but it takes true creativity to get the most out of what you have/need.
    • Around 1995, computers got fast enough for my work (software development). I wasn't waiting on the compiler any more, the editor was nice and snappy, even the GUI desktop was decent (CDE in those days).

      On the other hand, my previous employer paid $180,000 in 1995 for an IBM server with dual 75MHz CPUs. We quickly outgrew it, upgraded to 4 CPUs, then were forced to move to Alpha at huge expense.

      In 2002, you can get a dual Athlon or P4 Xeon box that will outrun a 1996 10-way Alpha - for around 1/100th the price. That's real value for money.

      And then there's the games, of course.

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Informative)

      by evilviper ( 135110 )
      Just think of it this way... If I was to UNDER-clock this processor to your speed (400MHz) it would run so cool that it would actually ABSORB HEAT!!! Take THAT, all you physists!

      But seriously though, I'm running a 750MHz Athlon system myself. I had to upgrade from my 233 because I just couldn't watch any videos at that speed. Now, I'm resonably happy with 750MHz, but I would like to upgrade. I'd like to get a fast processor and underclock it so my system doesn't run at 150F degrees (underclock a fast processor enough, and you wouldn't even need a fan). I'd also like a faster processor just so I can do thing like encode DivX at a reasonable speed, and compile Mozilla in under a month.

      Which brings us to the biggest issue. So many people jump on the upgrade bandwagon because many programmers are using up ungodly ammounts of CPU and Memory. It's relatively few causing the problems, but for Unix, programs like Mozilla are practically required. So, even surfing the web brings my 750 to it's knees. Hopefully the Dillo project will add the handful of needed features to their browser soon, and I'll be able to trash Mozilla, and be happy with my 750 again.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Funny)

        by Surak ( 18578 )
        Just think of it this way... If I was to UNDER-clock this processor to your speed (400MHz) it would run so cool that it would actually ABSORB HEAT!!! Take THAT, all you physists!

        Hmmmm...a P4-based air conditioner.... :-P

      • Underclocking a newer, faster CPU is not going to make a substantial difference in the heat that it produces. The odds are, that you won't normally be producing full load on the CPU anyway, so underclocking it, even by lowering it by 1 GHz is probably just silly.

        Basically, you can compile a program, producing full load at 1.4 GHz, or full load at 2.8 GHz. Either way, the CPU will get hot. What is better: a few degrees for a shorter period of time, or a marginally lower temp for a much longer period of time? These CPUs are designed for hight temps. Unless you live in an oven, then they will operate just fine. This reminds me of the silly posts of people that claim that they need to aim fans on their open computer cases. It is just really rediculous.

        It just makes little sense to lower the clock speed of your CPU, unless you have stability problems. No modern CPU gets that hot that you need to drop its clock speed. Even the standard K7 Athlon is fine at 60C-70C.
        • Unless you live in an oven, then they will operate just fine.


          Some people call it an oven... I prefer to use the traditional term: 'desert'. When room temperature is already 130F, then we have the PC in a room with practically no airflow, in addition to the heat the computer generates... Yes I do need a cooler CPU.

          It just makes little sense to lower the clock speed of your CPU, unless you have stability problems.

          Not constant problems, just, on occasion, a lockup will occur. Before you even ask, I have traced it to the point that it can't be anything other than the CPU or MoBo chipset (the latter isn't likely).

          Even the standard K7 Athlon is fine at 60C-70C.

          In the short term, it can handle very high temperatures. That is a risky practice for servers, as well as generally just reducing the lifespan of the processors, and any other devices in the case.
          • Well, there is nothing wrong with living in the desert, I suppose. :) That seems like an incredibly hot environment for a PC, though. 130 F degrees? You must need a liquid cooler for that thing.
            • You must need a liquid cooler for that thing.

              That wouldn't do as much good as you think. Just think, the water wouldn't be much cooler than room temp.

              Actually, I have a 5"x5"x2" fan mounted to my case, aimed at the CPU. That's enough airflow to keep it just a few degrees above room temp.
      • So many people jump on the upgrade bandwagon because many programmers are using up ungodly ammounts of CPU and Memory. It's relatively few causing the problems, but for Unix, programs like Mozilla are practically required.

        Use Galeon instead. Same power, less bloat.
    • Wash your mouth out with soap, and we'll forget you said it this time. Anyway, I heard they're bringing out an even better Hawii next year. It has bigger waves, more sun and taller hotels on the beach. Also it takes your money twice as fast.

    • Note to mods (Score:5, Insightful)

      by p3d0 ( 42270 ) on Monday August 26, 2002 @08:41AM (#4140236)
      IMHO, the parent post is not Insightful. Someone says the same thing every time anyone mentions clock speeds. Here [slashdot.org] is one example, and here [slashdot.org] is another. It's instant karma for whoemever posts it.

      These same guys will say the same thing when it's "why should I care about these 5GHz machines; my 3GHz is plenty fast enough", and probably said the same when it was "why should I care about 100MHz machines when my 33MHz is plenty fast enough". These people don't need CPU speed, and conclude that therefore nobody does, and that's not insightful.

    • I hate to say this, but your machine is a bit on the obselete side, mostly because you don't have much in the way of growth potential to support the latest software out there.

      Given that motherboards + CPU + memory are dirt cheap nowadays, you can get a motherboard that supports the Athlon XP CPU with 512 MB of DDR-SDRAM at reasonable prices. With a new motherboard and a much faster CPU, you'll be surprised how much faster things go by, even with Windows 98; and when you decide to switch to the latest commercial Linux distributions or upgrade to the latest version of Windows, your machine won't be limited by the hardware.
    • This partial-flame is directed at anyone who posts a comment like this to a "new processor" discussion.

      I'm typing this on a homemade computer that uses an AMD K6-3/350 overclocked to 392 Mhz. For what I do (web browsing, word processing, email, simple games like Tetris and listening to streams and MP3's) it works great! Why would I want to buy one of these?

      You wouldn't. So please feel free to stop reading articles about new processors, just like I don't read articles about things I don't need. That will save me from having to read lame comments like these every time a new processor is released.

      THESE PROCESSORS ARE NOT TARGETTED AT CURRENT, AVERAGE PC USERS!

      For what I do, I simply don't need this much power. Do you?

      Yes! I do! Like many slashdotters, I am a power user. I program (faster processor == faster compiler). I run many, many, many programs at once, many of which are working when I'm not using them (faster processor == more programs running). I rip CD's and watch new kinds of media (divx), and play newer games, also. These all benefit from faster processors.

      If you don't want a new processor, don't buy one. But for gawds sake stop pointing out that you don't need one. Some of us do!

  • New Benchmark Test (Score:5, Funny)

    by idiotnot ( 302133 ) <sean@757.org> on Monday August 26, 2002 @04:53AM (#4139824) Homepage Journal
    Increase in room air temperature after one hour of use.......
  • Found the 2.53GHz today for $248...
  • Now I can buy my pentium IV 2.4 even cheaper. :-)

    Keep up the good work intel. Now if only I had linux drivers for the new raedon 9700 pro that I bought for this new rocket.

  • Firing Squad:

    Review [gamers.com]

    HotHardware Summary:

    The clock speed jump up to 2.8GHz from the legacy 2.53GHz speed, for the P4, offers performance gains around 10 - 15%, depending on the application involved. -snip- Is the new 2.8GHz Pentium 4 worth the extra dollars for a 10 - 15% performance gain?

    Pentium 4 2.80 GHz 512K 533MHz $508
    Pentium 4 2.66 GHz 512K 533MHz $401
    Pentium 4 2.60 GHz 512K 400MHz $401
    Pentium 4 2.53GHz 512K 533MHz $243
    Pentium 4 2.50 GHz 512K 400MHz $243

    (note: compare to Athlon XP 2600+ @ $300)

    We know what you are thinking, the sweet spot here is the 2.53GHz CPU and you would be right. -snip- In closing, once again it seems as though Intel has one upped AMD in their clash for the PC processor performance superiority. The edge goes decidedly to Intel's 2.8GHz flagship, in most all areas of performance, with perhaps the rare exception of older legacy code based applications.

    Gamer's Depot Summary:

    Intel has no problems squeezing clock-cycles out of the P4 platform and should easily have a 3Ghz part out before the end of the year. As evident by the 2.8Ghz, AMD still has some work to do before they can hope to make claims of having the fastest Desktop CPU available. On the other hand, the Athlon does make a better value for the budget-minded computer users who still want a viable solution.

    With RDRAM prices dropping on both PC800 and PC1066, the P4 solution can hardly be ignored; you can find some P4's priced well below 200 dollars on the web. This demonstrates Intel's commitment to continually providing top-performing chips at competitive prices.

    Pluses:
    + Fastest Desktop CPU Available
    + Ultra-stable
    + Runs cool
    + Overclocks well
    + 2.8Ghz - Great bragging rights at your next LAN party

    Minuses:
    - Ties to RDRAM may scare away RAMBUS-haters
    - Priced over 500 dollars.

    Final Rating: 5 Drips

  • "Intel ups the anti once again" (Score:4, Funny)

    by khuber ( 5664 ) on Monday August 26, 2002 @04:57AM (#4139836)
    I'm normally not a spelling Nazi, but "anti"? It's ante, dammit.

    Learn your gambling terms, kids, or they'll laugh you out of Vegas.

    -Kevin

  • FSB speed matters! (Score:5, Informative)

    by pesc ( 147035 ) on Monday August 26, 2002 @05:06AM (#4139853)
    You know, system speed is not all about what frequency your CPU is clocked at. The memory system (FSB speed, cache size) matters too!

    This is, IMHO, what all these benchmarks show. It is no surprise that a Pentium FSB running at 533 MHz can beat an Athlon with a FSB at 266 MHz. I'm actually more impressed that the Athlon managed to beat the Pentium on some benchmarks.
  • ...glance at the headline and read "Pentium 42.8GHz?" I wonder what kind of cryogenic storage compartment that box would require... I'll bet it makes the Internet really fast(TM), though.

    OK, I officially need sleep now.

  • PIV 2.8GHz should be about 72.6W (based on the numbers for 2.53GHz @ sandpile.org), AMD 2600+ is 68W, and my 1.2GHz Athlon @ 60W died already.

    1.4GHz+ certified fan, was still running after it died, fan still in place, no airflow blockage, but 30C outside, 40C in my room, then some in the case and running at 100% load. Sigh... back to Duron 700 :(

    Kjella
    • .4GHz+ certified fan, was still running after it died, fan still in place, no airflow blockage, but 30C outside, 40C in my room, then some in the case and running at 100% load. Sigh... back to Duron 700 :(

      Wow! 10 degrees extra in your room from your computer.

      I am perfectly happy with my 650 MHz laptop (I expolicity bought the slowest one I could find at the time - 1.x years ago), and occasionally investigate getting it go slower (by either cpufreq or APM or ACPI. I also used to use a key combination on the dell inspiron laptops which took the speed down to 200MHz or so on the fly, but I have forgotten it now :( ). My desktop is 500MHz, and also is perfectly fine for everything I do. It's processor is room temp to touch! The fan failed once, and it stopped working, but it didn't kill the CPU, despite being and AMD K2 chip.

      If I want speed (for my research), I will come into work, and use our cluster [swin.edu.au], but for a home computer, my two are perfectly happy.

      I still don't understand people's facination with speed (especially the 5% or so we see in these benchmarks reported in the article), outside of the researching domain.

      Games shmames.

      Of course, our cluster is now (as of about 1 week ago) composed mostly of rack mounted dual p4's - 60 of those, and you can hear the whine from the fans outside the bloody server room and up the escalators! I haven't been inside yet - but I am told it was real bad before our sysadmin installed the bios update that had the fan speed control stuff in it!
      • Wow! 10 degrees extra in your room from your computer

        And the sun hitting the roof & (closed) window didn't have aaaaaaanything do to with it. 60W is like a lightbulb, it's hardly a big space heater. I wish AMD could release TB rev. B at lower speeds...

        Kjella
  • Like Disk access, and video, and whatever else keeps me waiting for things to happen.

    I'm sorry (not), but I should NEVER have to wait for anything. Not with a P4 2.x Mirkwood. Or AMD 2xxx+ GTZ. I want instant reaction like Beos had. On my pentium 225. Click, Click. Off I go.

    Hard drives are fast(?) and cheap, but still saddled with the bloat code that gets written for this new stuff.

    OT, but I would like to see an office suite written by John Carmack. That would rule. Misspelled words would have 3d blood dripping out of them, and fast, fast, fast.

    Ok. Time for sleem.p

  • Impromptu Poll (Score:4, Funny)

    by Perdo ( 151843 ) on Monday August 26, 2002 @05:22AM (#4139885) Homepage Journal
    Paper releases of fast processors:

    () bore me to death.
    () make me want to claw my eyes out.
    () bore me to death.
    () makes me wonder why 3% performance gain is worth 100% price.
    () bore me to death.
    () Makes me think of people in cubes typing 180 wpm.
    () bore me to death.
    () CowboyNeal
  • I am not quite sure, where is it - around ~5Ghz? When we reach this, is < 0.13 micron technology ready for production. According to this article [siliconstrategies.com] for example, design of 0.10 micron technology based chips is up to three times more expensive (based on current calcs).

    Anyone with enough data to answer?

    • That's not the design as such; that's the creation of the photomask for chip production. Even at the higher cost for 100nm process masks, it's still a minor part of the overall cost of developing a new processor. Where it will hurt is the smaller companies producing short runs of specialised chips.

      Foundries are working to combat this by combining multiple designs from different customers on a single mask. So a mask might contain 5 of product 1 from company A, 10 of product 2 from company B and so on.

      Also, at 100nm the mask gives about 70% more chips for a given size than 130nm, and 3 times as many as at 180nm. For 90nm the figures are 2 times and 4 times, respectively.
  • I knew that my P200 was getting old when they released this newfangled "AGP" slot. And I realized that it was obsolete when GHz processors started coming out. But approaching 3 GHz?!? That's just rubbing salt in the wound.
    • I knew that my P200 was getting old...

      Yeah, it was a sad day when I turned my dual pentium pro 200 into a print server. I couldn't even give it a new hard drive guz the BIOS wouldn't recognize a 30Gig dive. I had to stick an old 4Gig one in there that was sitting in my dresser from some other antique. (The old 6G had a dozen bad blocks, getting more each time I checked, it's disk is now a small shaving mirror.) That was a cool machine in 97.

  • Good benchmarks (Score:3, Informative)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Monday August 26, 2002 @05:45AM (#4139919) Journal
    Good article with benchmarks over at Aces Hardware [aceshardware.com]

    What I like is how the AMD 2600+ is very close on most games either 1-2FPS behind or ahead, and the 2800+ isnt out yet. Go AMD! P4 2.8 $570 or AMD 2600+ $265

    • P4 2.8 $570 or AMD 2600+ $265. Yup. Your framerate will improve more if you stick the price difference into a better video card, or more ram. There is no good reason to buy an Intel-based system for home use.
    • This scares me, about how closely the benchmarks come in.
      If it was CPU speed alone that was different, I could see why. But geez, the FSB is a lot higher on the P4. If it still doesn't flat out blow away an Athlon XP in every test, something's got to be said about the usefulness of the chip internals.

      I have a long history as an Intel fan, and my Athlon XP 2GHz was a "value" choice to tide me over for a while. But I'm questioning my loyalties...

  • Putting the hurt on AMD? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chicane-UK ( 455253 ) <chicane-uk@@@ntlworld...com> on Monday August 26, 2002 @05:54AM (#4139937) Homepage
    Well if I was going to put together a fast desktop system, I can tell you it wouldn't be built around an Intel Pentium 4 Processor (insert jingle here) - as far as I am concered, Intel price their CPU's so far off the scale it isn't true. Add to that the fact that AMD's processors no longer have issues with stability or floating point speed (like the old K6/K6-2) - I cant see any reason to buy such a top of the line Intel chip unless you were absolutely *desperate* to eek every last drip of performance out of a system. But at 2.6GHz and beyond, people aren't really counting - right?

    The thing that bugs me is still the stigma attached to AMD.. its similar to the old 'No one got fired for buying IBM' - it is the same with Microsoft, and the same with Intel. People still avoid AMD because they consider them to be inferior..
  • How does Slashdot decide which of these hard-working sites gets loads of free traffic?
    • [H]ard|OCP [hardocp.com] Intel Pentium 4 @ 2.80GHz : Intel is breaking out the big guns with their sights set directly on the competition. Will the 2.80GHz Northwood be enough for Intel to hold onto the performance crown?
    • Anandtech [anandtech.com] Intel's Pentium 4 2.80GHz - Moving to the Head of the Class
    • Tom's Hardware [tomshardware.com] Speed Isn't Everything: P4/2800 Meets Athlon XP 2600+
    • Ace's Hardware [aceshardware.com] Faster Still: The 2.8 GHz Pentium 4
    • FiringSquad [gamers.com] Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review
    • Hexus.net [hexus.net] Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review
    • SimHQ.com [simhq.com] Intel "Northwood" 2.80GHz Pentium 4 Processor using .13 Technology
    • Tech Report [tech-report.com] Intel's Pentium 4 2.8GHz processor - Two billion eight-hundred thousand hertz
    • Hot Hardware [hothardware.com] The Pentium 4 2.8GHz Processor - Intel ups the anti once again
    • xbit labs [xbitlabs.com] Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz against Athlon XP 2600+

    • Considering how blindly pro-AMD Tom's Hardware is, I find it amusing that they chose to describe the battle between the Athlon and the P4 as a Ferrari(Athlon) and a Mercedes(P4) racing on the Autobahn. Why?

      The top-end Mercedes are consistently faster than any Ferrari. Whoops? Looks like they should have done their research! Nothing I like more than a zealot screwing up.

  • With this trend, I can resume writing applications in Qbasic.

    But seriously: with processor speeds like these, efficient programming will be even less appreciated. Sadly.

  • Basically we've seen an order of magnitude raw CPU clockspeed increase in 4-5 years. What have we accomplished with that?

    It seems that the faster we make the chips the more we squander their power.

  • Too artisan an audience... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by balloonhead ( 589759 ) <doncuan.yahoo@com> on Monday August 26, 2002 @08:03AM (#4140148)
    This is getting ridiculous. Why so much Intel bashing? I realise that they are associated with 'the enemy' to most /.ers (i.e. Microsoft, big business, probably DMCA, RIAA and Disney...) but they release the fastest processor on the market and all they get is abuse.


    Who cares that their processor is inefficient, poorly designed, and expensive? Not the ones who buy it certainly; there is a market fpor it, and they should not be penalised for serving their market - they are a business after all.


    For all those arguing that these tests ar 'not fair' (memory, RAMBUS, blah, blah, blah) - you are missing the point. Boo hoo, they are using different equipment; I could equallly argue that AMD is shooting itself in the foot for not utilising the fastest memory architecture available. For most people, 700 or 800 MHz is more than necessary to do almost anything - above that only specialised areas will see any real benefit. Is it really any benefit to be able to play games at 32 bit compared to 24? Can you actually tell the difference at speed? Isn't it more to do with the graphics card anyway? Scientific applications, yes - these can be markedly improved with faster processors. But most readers here do not work in a render farm in Hollywood.


    But back to the original point, we shouldn't be so aggressive towards them just because of who they are. They are serving a market, doing if very successfully, and for those people who do have $$$/£££ to spend, they represent the maximum performance. I will continue to buy AMD because I think they give more value, and my XP 1500+, although now slow compared to newer processors, is far faster than I need, even for compiling Mozilla or running KDE3, WinXP or Serious Sam 2. But that doesn't mean I should refuse to talk to people with an Intel chip in their machine.


    And don't mod this down as flame/troll just because you disagree -use your points properly and mod up someone you agree with. And stop being small minded too...

  • Surprise Surprise - P4 Optimizations (Score:3, Interesting)

    by euphline ( 308359 ) on Monday August 26, 2002 @08:31AM (#4140209)
    Surprise, surprise, the reviewer comments that, In closing, once again it seems as though Intel has one upped AMD in their clash for the PC processor performance superiority. The edge goes decidedly to Intel's 2.8GHz flagship, in most all areas of performance, with perhaps the rare exception of older legacy code based applications.

    According to them, "older legacy code based applications" are applications without Pentium 4 optimizations.

    Will we ever get reviewers that aren't incredibly biased... and stupid? Of course P4s do better on software with P4 optimization! And software w/o it isn't "older legacy software"... it's software that isn't written to favor a particular chip in the marketplace...

    Gotta love it.

    -jbn

    • Typical slash(and burn) attitude.

      The p4 SSE2 instructions are an OPPOURTUNITY for software companies to kick ass. A small amount of optimization on a codec can quadruple your performance. Who wouldn't do that? Who wouldn't also do it for both P4 and AMD. It's pretty simple to create CPU specific engine libraries that take advantage of various archetectures.

      Video encoding and reatime editing still suffer from CPUs being AT LEAST 10x too slow. Realtime 3D has also got a LONG way to go to be able to render photorealistic billion poly scenes with 5 mile horizons in real time. 3 Ghz is NOTHING.

      Course if all you do all day is web surf and iChat, then I guess none of that means anything to you...
  • I know this is Offtopic, but just thought this would be interesting to think about. ENIAC, the first general purpose digital computer was used in part to calculate artillary arc tables. ENIAC could do in 30 seconds what it took a human 12 hours to do, so it was approx. 1400 times faster than a human. The amazing thing is that ENIAC ran at 0.1 Mhz.

    Just think now, a 3 Ghz machine is 30,000 times faster than the first computer. Amazing how far we've come in 40 years.
    • Actually - a 3GHz Intel machine is probably more than 30,000 times faster than the ENIAC. Consider how AMD and Intel chips get a different amount of work done with the same clock frequency - it's quite likely that a Pentium 4 gets a lot more done per clock cycle than the ENIAC got per clock cycle.
  • It seems to me that processor speeds have relly shot up in the last 6 months. Before, there was always a nice tie between the advances in processor speed and the extra needs of Windows. This arrangment worked well for both parties in that everyone felt they had to have both to be right with the world. Has Intel (and AMD) now said to heck with MS we're going to put all the speed we can into our machines? Or, are we seeing a MHz race between Intel and AMD? With a viable competitor, Intel can no longer trickle out improvments at their own pace, they have to deal with someone else matching and exceeding their pace. What does this bode for the future of processors?

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close