Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Intel

Pentium 4 Requires New Case And Power Supply 320

An unnamed correspondent writes: "It turns out that, for the Pentium 4, we're all going to need to buy a new case and power supply. The standard heatsink will weigh 450g (about 1 pound) and will therefore need four supports below the CPU, supports that require a new motherboard tray. Also, the Pentium 4 will need a new power supply with a new four-connector plug. This means that, if you want a Pentium 4, your old case and power supply will have to go. :( SE has more on it in their IDF Report." A little like AT / ATX and all the cousins; it's not that surprising that something has to give, but a shame that some of today's very nice cases will have to be tossed or modified to fit the P4.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pentium 4 Requires New Case And Power Supply

Comments Filter:
  • Actually, *I'm* just thinking down the road to what the first P4 laptops are going to be like... :-)

    - Spryguy
  • 450g heat sink! What'll they do for the laptop crowd, a built-in R134 refrigeration unit or a liquid nitrogen sprayer?
    Both will add a manageable 20 pounds; however one will suck the battery dry in 4 minutes, the other could spill and crack your legs off like toothpics.

  • Whatever happened to all that hype about Star? and reducing power consumption or something. This sounds like a really inefficient use of electricity. Cause:
    1. They're making more processor power by just adding more electricity
    2. All that extra electricity needed to run fans and such.

    Still I guess that's what ya gotta do when AMD is beating you out.
    Penis bird industries (Nasdaq sympol PNIS)


    <O
    ( \
    X
  • Do you know anybody making "AMD-compatible" chips?

    Don't get me wrong, I like the company, but there's a reason we talk about I86.

    Leaders lead. Others follow.

  • I've got an Alpha box where the CPU runs "pretty hot," and it didn't need any "one point heat sink."

    This situation sounds rather like a blast back into the past when a VAX 11/780 produced enough heat to keep your house warm.

    And there are other perspectives from which it doesn't make sense, particularly the "IA-64" perspective. I thought that Intel was trying to start off a migration process to the New And Improved 64 bit IA-64 platform. Releasing Still More Pentiums doesn't seem terribly sensible.

    On the other hand, people may react to this properly, thus:

    A
    one pound heatsink?!? What kind of crack are they smoking???
    and conclude that they should look to the "kinder, gentler, lighter-heat-sinked" IA-64 systems.
  • The thing runs hotter, what's the big deal? I remember fixing an old IBM XT that was sitting in my buddy's auto shop for almost 15 years. All of the circuitry was covered in oily grime and the 8088 was barely warm to the touch. The Sun Enterprise 3000's at work have massive fans surrounding the processors, does that mean that the Sparc is a lousy technology??? Technology changes, as time goes on Intel's engineers will run similar chips at lower temps. If heat is that important to you for whatever reason, wait until then to buy the thing.
  • actually, what the article said was "This bad-boy feels more than twice as heavy as any socket heat sink we've seen other than what ships with Apple's G4s." (emphasis mine)

    this may mean that the g4 heatsink is merely half as heavy as the pentium's instead of less than half as heavy like the other heatsinks they've seen...
  • Socklet[0] A was necessary for technical reasons
    new bus and all). Intel's socklet wasn't.

    [0] Convenient general term for slot and socket, since they are often pin-for-pin compatable.
  • Throw-out my SuperMicro case, yeah right.
  • processor from a different company, or switch to a mac ;)

    According to the article, the G4 heatsink is bigger.

    Unless you meant iMac, or the fanless cubicmac. Mmmm. Fanless....
    ---
    Unto the land of the dead shalt thou be sent at last.
    Surely thou shalt repent of thy cunning.
  • by Azog ( 20907 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @01:25PM (#812686) Homepage
    A Pentium IV is not the same as a Pentium III.

    It has a 20 stage pipeline instead of 10 stage, a 400 MHz system bus instead of 133 Mhz, SSE2 with 144 new instructions, an "advanced transfer cache", and other changes.

    There's an article describing some of the differences here. [theregister.co.uk]

    On the other hand the PIII 1.13 GHz really is just an overclocked PIII 1 Ghz. That's probably the source of your confusion.


    Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
  • by uebernewby ( 149493 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @01:26PM (#812687) Homepage
    Yeah, but the trouble is that this time around it's because Intel has gone knockers over trying to outdo AMD as far as clock speed is concerned. Yes, you can run an "ordinary" P3 750 at 1,3 GHz, but only if you stress it to the point of being able to cook your dinner on it. It's not exactly breakthrough engineering, though, so why bother requiring different cases because you've just thought up the corporate answer to millions of people overclocking their CPU's "just for the hell of it"?

    What this new move shows is that Intel is growing increasingly desperate because they apparently can't seem to get the Itanium (or what's it called today) out fast enough and there's this little company called AMD whipping their ass by releasing overclocked versions of their *slightly* surperior design (Athlon). It also shows that Intel is afraid AMD will eat up their marketshare if they don't come up with some kludge to make it seem at least as if they're keeping up. A company more secure about its prospects would simply shrug and continue to work on their superior (maybe) next generation design. Witness how Microsoft has, for years, simply ignored the threat of Linux because they didn't *perceive* it as a threat. In the same way Intel used to ignore AMD back in the K6 days. Now that there's an Athlon, they start to resort to idiocy such as enforcing the special brew heatsinks made by OverClockers Inc. as a new *standard*.

  • hrm, now that i think about it, i can't remember it it was the BX or LX chipset. anybody else know/remember?

    eudas
  • I mean, that extra weight has got to be good for something, in fact I think I can see the ads now...

    Announcer: "Here at Intel we realize that laptop lefts are increasing, which is why we're doing our best to help reduce the thieves or make them easier to catch. How so? The answer is simple, weight. That's right weight. Take your normal laptop, easy to pick up, easy to run away with, why? Because it's too light. Now take this new laptop with Intel's new Pentium 4 Processor, it's heat sink alone weighs 1 pound, the processor itself is larger, as is the case (ok, I'm guessing at this one) all this extra weight means that to the average thief, your laptop is not as appealing as one with a processor by the 'other guys'. Not only that, any thief who does try to take your laptop will be burdened down with extra weight and will be less likely to run as fast as if you had another laptop. Intel, isn't your laptops safety worth a little more?"
    *That Intel Sound*
    Legal Sounding Announcer: "Intel makes no guarantees, implied or otherwise as to your laptop's safety."

    -GreenHell
  • Intel (and AMD) change to slot designs to allow off-chip caches that ran at high speeds. Then, Intel and AMD switched back to sockets to lower packaging costs when the cache sizes could be fit on a reasonably sized chip again.
  • Actually AMD went to Digital's Slot A because Intel patented their Slot 1 and was charging obscene licensing fees for it. And since people are *already* buying a different mobo built specifically for Athlons, I don't buy the argument that this form factor switch is meant to tip the scales against AMD. The mobo/processor is so much more expensive than a $40 power supply that it really doesn't make a damn bit of difference WHAT case you use. The vast majority of people purchase their computers prebuilt anyway, and don't care whether the case will fit their old motherboard.
  • You forgot, the heatsink has to be attatched to the case, you'll just have to beat him with the whole case. And you just said why intel is doing this, because "normal" users are ignorant dumbasses that think mhz means all. Hell go up to some random guy/girl on the street and ask them if a p3 933 is better than an athlon 900, if they don't ask what an athlon is then their answer will most likely be the p3.
    Devalis
  • Sounds like is has 4 "goal posts" (Like slot B boards do)that go through the board and bolt into the other side of the case. Guys you don't "have" to buy a new case. just drill out the holes. That saves you a case though now it seems you're going to need a new PS and oh it's gotta to be one of the Intel certified PS's or it may not work right.

    I find it ironic that Intel's are consuming more
    power and more space as they increase in speed.
    While Alphas on the otherhand are consuming less
    power and getting smaller as they increse in speed. Anyone seeing a trend here?

    I'd like to see one of these thing fit in a 1U rack and stay cool. Nevermind a merced.

    Peter

    --
    www.alphalinux.org
  • As for the sparcs, their high temperature is justified, and, since they run on custom hardware anyway, it can be designed for this.

    At the other end of the spectrum, we have Apple with its nice, cool, but still extremely powerful G4s. They may not be as powerful as the fastest x86 cpus, but mhz per mhz they are far superior, and are also cooler than the processors they approximately equal.
  • No that was willie...
  • Is the P4 the same as the Itanium/Willamette? I thought P4 was an *inbetween* stage, waiting for Intel to finally ship their next generation CPU. This is what all publications (both online and offline) I read had me believe.

    P4 is the same thing as Willamette. Itanium (aka Merced, aka ia64) is a totally different CPU.

    How come they require such an enormous heatsink if they've revamped the engineering?

    I think it's because it will be in the 1.5-2 GHz range. Note that power increases almost as the cube of the clock speed because at the same time, you increase the switching rate, the voltage (so you can switch faster) and the current. (that's also why Transmeta's CPU was so low-power when it ran at lower clock)

  • As far as I'm aware, P4 is Willamette and is their next generation CPU. It's an IA-32 x86 chip with a completely new core. Intel had not shipped a brand new x86 core since the Pentium Pro.

    Itanium will be the first processor to use the IA-64 architecture.

    As for the heat issue, I don't know. I'm not a thermal engineer, nor do I want to be after that class I had to take.
  • With all of Intel's problems these days, I'm wondering a few things - like how much of this is caused by Intel rushing the P4 because AMD is kicking their ass.

    Doesn't it seem even a little suspisious to anyone that the form factor "has to" change again just as AMD starts making inroads into Intel's market?

    And pardon me for raising my uneducated head, but why is Intel dictating what the form factor should be? Seems to me that should be done by something like the IEEE or somesuch. Please, correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't allowing ONE company the ability to arbitrarily (but its necessary for innovation... yeah, sure it is) change "industry standards" give it a slight competitive edge?

    Who controls the ATX form factor specs anyways? Intel?

    Sorry, I know its not the same, but this sort of smacks of the fiasco with Socket 7. Change to a slot design to break compatibility, then change back to a socket for performance... only now they're trying to do it with case form factors.

    I know AMD can and will change/keep up, but this means that they have to do work which they wouldn't of had to do before - all because Intel decides to be sloppy with power consumption (I assume that the huge heat is generated by using huge power - makes sense anyways)

    Just my $0.035

    Neil.................
  • Who does this surprise? I seem to remember some plan earlier for Intel to make the Pentium II require all new cards, cables, hard drives, everything.
    Of course, it never happened....
  • What's really inadequate about AT form factor? The power connectors can take it and they can fit power supplies with the watts you need. Fans can be designed to blow air through them. There can be plenty of room for hard drives. Let's see, power, cooling space, what more does a mobo need?

    What has ATX delivered? The connectors are turned 90 degrees. It's got some wake on LAN stuff that I'd rather do without, but that surely can be put into AT. It's got a new power connector, and I'm not sure what it does different. That X in the name is cool.

    This is just going to make some more boxes into junk. I'll be happy to walk down to the computer store and buy your used ATX cases later, if people stop making AT mobos. Waste sucks.

    I don't get it.

  • AMD list on their web site what power supplies are approved for Athlon. If you're building your own system then go with one of these and you can't go wrong. If you want to cheap out with a 250W supply, then good luck to you!

    By the end of the year AMD will have moved to their new Mustang "corvette" core which massively cuts power requirements and enables mobile athlons. This is what I'm waiting for to upgrade (Mustang/DDR) - not Intel's space heater P4!
  • How did that story turn out, anyway? Is it that GM will have net sales approaching $200,000,000,000 this year? [yahoo.com] Or that Ford will have net sales of over $150,000,000,000 in 2000? [yahoo.com]

    Don't hold back, I'm dying to know how it turned out.

  • by Rumble ( 6258 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @01:35PM (#812712)
    If any processor needs the kind of power that only this new type of motherboard can accomidate, and then needs to radiate it away with a one pound(!) heatsink, the processor has problems, not the case/motherboard/power supply technology.

    Who are you to say that the processor has problems simply because it has a large heat sink? Do people question putting in side impact beams in cars? "There must be something wrong with the car if it needs side impact beams, the doors must be flimsy". Do people question the fact that in order to drive your old Pinto with it's brand new Ferarri engine installed, you will probably have to upgrade the tires to drive at full speed?

    You and me may not agree with Intel's design philosophy, but that doesn't mean that they are manufacturing a faulty processor... it just means that their design goals do not include cheaper, more efficient, cooler, lower power consumption for their main stream processors. They want to make the fastest x86 chip possible and because of many reasons, the solutions they come up with to create newer and "better" chips are not exactly going to be elegant.
  • from the IBM 5636 midrange server operators guide

    The case unit with 1 Hard disk drive installed weighs ~139 pounds. IBM does not recomend moving this unit without assitance to prevent injuries

    That is theft deterence!

  • [NEWS, Nov. 1, 2002] The recent and intense global warming of the planet, over 7 C in just 14 months, is finally explained. International research centers using 12 observation satellites discovered the heat increase came from a new breed of microprocessors from Intel Corporation, the "Pentium IV". The heat generated by thousands of Pentium IV processors since its introduction in 2001 is being held responsible for the rise of sea-levels which caused the death of over 500 million people throughout the world and the flooding of 23% of all emerged lands of the planet.

    In a net interview with Andy Grove, chairman of Intel Corp. who is now living on a giant floating base above what was Los Angeles, he declared "We are pleased our new Pentium IV processor had the effect our PR staff predicted: DEVASTATING!". He also announced Intel was actively working on a new "hot" processor, but complained their research was "limited by the available energy available in our solar system". The interview was interrupted by a sudden power failure.
  • Ok. I feel like an ass, now. Yup, I mixed up the two. Then bitched about it on account of the Slashdot Troll virus. Thank you for pointing that out.

    Two questions, though:
    • Is the P4 the same as the Itanium/Willamette? I thought P4 was an *inbetween* stage, waiting for Intel to finally ship their next generation CPU. This is what all publications (both online and offline) I read had me believe.
    • How come they require such an enormous heatsink if they've revamped the engineering?

    I'm really wondering now, ignorant shit that I turned out to be.

  • Just a few points...

    Find me a SCSI harddrive that can match my Maxtor DiamondMax 20 at the same price

    Well, if Intel had pushed for onboard SCSI instead of going with IDE, maybe we could be using Ultra160 drives at the price of current IDE drives.

    USB was a decent technology that freed up those IRQs.

    The technology is OK, but the implementation sucks. Try distinguishing between two mice, two keyboards, or two of anything without unique IDs connected to USB.

    USB 2.0 might not be as good as firewire, but do you really want to pay Apple licensing fees?

    Stop repeating that bit of misinformation, OK? Licensing fees for Firewire (which are a puny $1 per machine) go to a non-profit consortium formed by companies using Firewire, of which Apple is only one. As for USB 2.0, come back when there's actually hardware available.

    As for AGP, I'd really like to see a performance benchmark of PCI vs. AGP.

    I've seen such benchmarks; the difference is minimal until you get up to AGPx4. In fact, for most people there is no detectable difference.

    for those people with 4MBers, AGP is a godsend.

    I'm really not sure what you meant to say here.

    They wanted backside cache, and a slot was the only way to do it at the time.

    Not true. Apple was able to do it with G3's without moving to a slot architecture.

    Slot1 isn't as closed as you think. AMD's license with Intel would have allowed them to use it as well.

    Untrue. It was precisely because Intel had the Slot1 specifications locked up with patents that AMD had to select a different bus architecture for the Athlon.

  • And there are other perspectives from which it doesn't make sense, particularly the "IA-64" perspective. I thought that Intel was trying to start off a migration process to the New And Improved 64 bit IA-64 platform. Releasing Still More Pentiums doesn't seem terribly sensible.

    The Merced/Itanium architecture doesn't seem to help performance much. And it's incompatible. So it may just fade away, like Intel's last two tries at a new, incompatible instruction set, the i860 and i960. Even though UNIX workstations were built for those chips (by Data General, of all people), they never went anywhere. Even the Intel people I know don't think much of the Merced/Itanium architecture. It needs a compiler smarter than any compiler yet built to get halfway decent performance.

    Actually, one of the neater CPU part ideas in a while was the 8 Alpha CPUs on a chip Compaq did experimentally. Single-chip multiprocessors are a good way to use all those transistors. I'd like to see that idea come back.

  • Computers are getting to be the geek equivalent of giant SUVs driven by soccer moms. Seriously. All these people who don't do anything except surf the web and play MP3s and download pr0n and twiddle with their kernels...and they have monstrous machines with four fans and two pound heatsinks. It's starting to get to be very annoying in the same way.
  • Actually, ATX has done a lot to help cool off the CPU. (It turns the thing so that the CPU is closer to the power supply fan.) Also, due to the reorganization, ATX boards usually can fit more PCI slots than baby-AT boards.
  • by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @03:10PM (#812745)
    You have to take your chances on SlashDot, not to mention the sources people use in their postings. I recall the recent Mac Cube episode. Someone leaked what turned out to be accurate photos of the the thing, yet one guy did an elaborate analysis of how it had to be a hoax faked in Photoshop. You never know until you know.

    On the bright side, where else can you see such a collection of flamers and trolls every single day of the week, every hour of the day? :)

    news:alt.revenge [alt.revenge]
    For stupidity, histrionics, flames, trolls, and studied viciousness even SlashDot can't hold a candle to it.
  • Face it, procs are going to use more heat. Why NOT run your proc at 1.3 GHz. A fan costs maybe $10-$15, and I'd pay that for the extra 350MHz. As long as there are no stability concerns (and there don't seem to be any) what's the problem? Also, as far as I can tell, the Athlon uses significantly more power and makes a lot more heat than a PIII. The increased heat and power usage of CPUs are a unilateral trend. Witness those Alphas that take nearly 90 watts of power! I doubt a UltraSparc takes less current than a PIII. In fact, in power/heat department Intel isn't the worst.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Apple designs their computers as complete units, including the cooling system.

    Note that the heat sink on the G4 is about the same size as the one on my Alpha 433 (which sucks down more juice than even the most power hungry Athlon)

    Neither the alpha nor the G4 have an on heat-sink fan, but they both have carefully designed cases that channel the air that's blowing out the fan on the case right over the heatsink.

    Not really defending Intel (if this rumor is true), but this pro G4 bullshit is getting pretty extreme. Its a pretty good chip, but its still too hungry for laptops. There is a very good reason the laptop I'm typing these words on has a 500Mhz G3 rather than a G4.
  • You are in a minority. Most people, especially businesses, buy a box from a vendor and use it as is. It is usually not cost effective to upgrade the system. Replacing a motherboard is a major waste of time and money. It is cheaper to replace it with a new box.
  • Most LX boards are ATX. In fact, I can remember ATX boards being common for the later socket 7 boards.
  • by norton_I ( 64015 ) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Thursday August 31, 2000 @01:57PM (#812757)
    Don't discount the value of a nice case. Especially for people who *do* do a lot of upgrading, having a case that makes such things easy is a Good Thing. Cheap cases may have poor circulation, causing overheating, or be too flimsy, causing high-RPM drives to vibrate and eventually damage themselves. Stamped edges that haven't been finsished can cut you, and inadequite motherboard support can cause PCI cards to not seat well. Inferior power supplies may drop out under load or heat, and damage peripherals (I have had this happen 3 times with cheap cases--that is a major reason I get high quality stuff, too).

    Like my monitor, I consider a high quality case to be an investment that will last through several CPU generations. Having to go buy a new one (If I weren't going to switch to AMD) would not kill me, but it is rather annoying.
  • Why oh why is this such a big fucking deal? In 2001 the Itanium is going to be spit out of the giant Fabrige egg that is Intel why are you letting the stopgap measure known at the P4 cloud your vision? My old Katmai P3 500 works pretty damn well at most everything I use it for. The so-called P4 is nothing more than a testbed for die techniques and code morphing to be included into later generations of Intel chips. For you and I running Quake 3 we're not going to see terrible improvement in anything. We need to move past this 32-bit kludge we've been stuck in for the past decade. What awaits us is 64-bit gigahertz goodness. Fuck the P4, I want some soma.
  • by MWoody ( 222806 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @12:33PM (#812768)
    Now, are we _sure_ that this report is real? I've not been on Slashdot too long, but I've seen more retracted/inaccurate stories listed here than I feel comfortable to admit. Don't get me wrong, love the site, but I'm afraid I need to take it with a whole grain of salt - make that a whole shaker.

    I'm going to have nightmares of a midget being torn from a cylindrical, beeping robot, screaming about one pound heatsinks and producing robot offspring...
    ---
  • That's because Intel keeps FUCKING with us. They lie, they release crappy products, they make absurd FUD-filled product roadmaps they have
    no intention of fulfilling, they release products that do not ship in sufficient quantities,
    >>>>>>>
    Exactly what "crappy" products has Intel released? As far as I can remember, the fastest chip on the block is still the PIII 1.13 GHz. At least according to SysMark2000 (a script of 8 common applications) and Quake. Check out the reviews of the 1.1GHz Athlon at www.sharkyextreme.com. What FUD filled road-maps? Sure Itanium has been delayed several times, but hell, all chip-makers have these problems. For example, AMD and it's long delayed K5.

    they perpetuate old out-dated worthless technology
    (x86, ISA, IDE, etc.),
    >>>>>>
    x86 chips are the price/performance leaders for most things. They tried to kill ISA two or three years ago, but consumers wouldn't let it die. Intel in no way pushes IDE that hard, I think the PC market in general does that. Show me an alternative! Find me a SCSI harddrive that can match my Maxtor DiamondMax 20 at the same price (20GB for $150). Didn't think so.

    and the new technology they do promote is almost always totally bass-ackwards, and designed primarily to either grab
    more marketshare, or defend marketshare they have to the death, by any means other than what you'd logically think would be the BEST way to
    get marketshare: make faster, more stable, more affordable chips than the competition. (USB, Slot1, AGP, etc.)
    >>>>>>>>
    As for pushing technologies to gain market share, that's what companies do, live with it. However, in recent memory, all of Intel's desicions have been pretty good. USB was a decent technology that freed up those IRQs. PCI was a whole lot better than VLB. USB 2.0 might not be as good as firewire, but do you really want to pay Apple licensing fees? As for AGP, I'd really like to see a performance benchmark of PCI vs. AGP. Not all of us can afford 32MB cards, and for those people with 4MBers, AGP is a godsend. Slot1 was a mistake. However, what was their alternative? They wanted backside cache, and a slot was the only way to do it at the time. AMD had to do it too. (BTW> Slot1 isn't as closed as you think. AMD's license with Intel would have allowed them to use it as well.)

    And most infuriatingly, the main reason Intel seems to succeed is because stupid people buy into their "Intel Inside" campaign, that a PIII makes
    surfing the internet faster.
    >>>>>>>
    You can't judge a company on marketing speak. Let's see, the recent Suse Slashdot banner touts Suse 6.4 as the best OS ever. That's why Linux sucks! However, you can judge them by the fact that right now, the PIII is the fastest Quake chip.
  • You think Intel screwed you over?

    9 months ago, I bought an AMD Athlon 650 for $500. Turns out it was faulty and the problem showed up worse as the weather got warmer. Past couple of months, the system wouldn't run for 15 minutes without serious instability. Processor guarantee was only 30 days so I decided to bite the bullet and get a new one. Well, I was going to upgrade to 700 or 750MHz while I was about it but AMD has discontinued *all* slot A processors. Bear in mind that I bought the 650 shortly after the 700Mhz was announced (I wanted to get a 700 but couldn't get my hands on one). I was facing having to splash out for a new motherboard as well as the processor less than a year after I'd bought the originals. In the end, the best I could get was another 650 and that was the only slot A processor the place had left.

    Rich

  • I couldn't agree more, especially with multiple drives... I had problems with this, not lessened by the fact i belted the case out a bit..., I usually always buy a separate 300W powersupply, ignoring salespeople who say the 220 or 250 supplied will be "more than you could ever use"... Hmmm, 4 10,000 rpm drives, P-III, several USB devices, Viper card, SCSI adapter, DVD decoder, SCSI CDR and IDE DVD and several bay fans... Sorry, I prefer not to risk it...
  • by Chris Johnson ( 580 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @03:28PM (#812775) Homepage Journal
    Tell it to my G3 ;)

    I went from a 200mhz 604e with a HUGE HONKIN' HEATSINK (but it didn't need a fan on the heatsink) to a 300mhz G3 that gets easily twice as much done (easily verifiable on, say, renders in POV) and has a tiny purple heatsink the size of an ornate postage stamp. And still no CPU fan. :)

    You are most breathtakingly wrong :)

  • by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @03:34PM (#812785)
    I'm still using my 486 with VISA buss mobo and it works quite well, thank you.

    Six years ago I invested in that 486 because Intel promised backward compatibility for future Pentium processors. They dropped the ball. The only upgrade then was a new motherboard, and my integrity in Intel was destroyed. That's 1/2 the reason I am leaving the Wintel platform.

    I refuse to keep up with the Joneses by replacing my PC every 1.5 years; I got my own retirement to fund, not theirs. I can get at least ten years out of an automobile, and I expect to get that much out of my PC.

    CPU replacements should be as simple as swapping a chip or subboard, but *don't* make me buy a complete new system. We've already got more than enough disposable non-bidegradable junk sitting in our landfills.
  • by grumling ( 94709 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @03:37PM (#812787) Homepage
    Actually, I've noticed that the even numbered Intel chips are not the greatest (starting with the '286). Sure, the 486 was an OK chip compared to the 386, but it didn't last very long (and took forever to get into the marketplace). The Pentium was just fantastic, P-II just OK, P-III really cool (broke the 1GHz barrier - even if AMD did it first), and now the P-IV. Big, hot, painful to own.

    Star Trek movies worked the same way, the odd numbered ones sucked.

  • Okay, so we got this new P4 thing that weighs tons, draws more power than it takes to wake up Godzilla, and could replace your home furnace, but then we got this G4 thing that doesn't even need a fan and yet still seems to be twice as efficient for the megahurts. Now guess which one I want...

    Only two itsy complaints: (1) why didn't Apple put more expansion bays in the PMac G4?, and (2) Why is it still 500 MHz? How do you go about overclocking the dang thing?

    Anyone ever tried to get a G4 mobo in an ATX case? I'd take a drill and hacksaw to mine (even though it's a really nice case) if I could get a G4 to fit in, just for those extra bays. Anyway, wouldn't a beige ATX tower with a Mac inside look cool? How about funny?

  • and circulates air from the fans

    I used to believe this but my CPU runs about 4C hotter with the case closed than open. And yes, I have installed an extra case fan. Rich

  • Actually, *I'm* just thinking down the road to what the first P4 laptops are going to be like... :-)

    Intel and the laptop designers had better watch out on this one...
    After all, didn't that little old lady get millions when the McDonalds coffee scorched her lap?
    Personal injury lawyers take heed!


    Would this mean that the Intel Inside sticker would qualify as a warning?

    MAB
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @06:23PM (#812795)
    Bad news: It won't fit in an old case.

    Worse news: Here's [dailyradar.com] the new case design!
  • Intel seems to be doing this a lot lately. They're trying to control the whole computer by leveraging their market share in CPUs. If you want to use Intel's CPU, you have to use the case that Intel dictates. I suspect that they'll have a lot of influence over this case design.
    ---
  • Oh, well.

    My old case is busting at the seams to hold all that pron, anyway.

  • Needing a new case is kind of a pain, but it had to happen eventually. We all knew the P4 would have heat problems (we've known since the P2's came out), so at least Intel isn't leaving the motherboard bowing under the weight.

    As for the new power supplies, I actually prefer this arrangement to AMD's schtick with Athlons. Sure, it will take any old power supply, but it won't behave right for most of them.

    New board, new cases, new RAM, new peripherals. It happens. It's expensive. Get over it. Do you really want old technology sticking around just because we're stubborn? (ISA, coff coff).


    My mom is not a Karma whore!

  • In the Macintosh world, a number of machines
    are easily upgradeable by installing a processor
    card. This with even old machines (like PowerMac
    6100's, can be found for under $50) to G3's -- despite some fairly serious motherboard differences.

    I can't imagine that somebody wouldn't want to try this for PC processor upgrades. Could make a bundle (unless it cost more to do than buying a new motherboard and power supply).
  • Try and picture what a Z80 at 200mzh to 1gzh..
    The Z80 is great and is still used for simple appliences (Remote controls use the Z8 but I'm not talking that simple.. the larg sat dish boxes use the Z80..I don't know what direct TV uses but I suspect something more powerful is used)

    But the z80 wouldn't hold up well against a Pentium...
    The pentium dosn't hold up well against the G4, AMD chips or the Sparc...

    We allready went past RISC and entering Code morphing... More over X86 isn't even 1980s tech.. it's still very burnned in the 8 bit procesor design. The 680X and 6800X represent the 1980s technology and RISC 1990s...
    Thankfully Intel has chips that do not have procesor structure dating back to the 4004...
    But the Pentium 4 isn't it...

    I'd expect a one pound heat sink on a 500 mzh Z80...

    Try building a game console as powerful as the playstation with the same tech used to build the Channel F... Could it be done? Hack yeah...
    And you'd have the worlds larggest building while you were art it...
  • It looks like you messed up your trivial proof. Here's a better one:

    4 = 3.999...
    multiply by 10
    40 = 39.999...
    subtract previous
    40-4 = 39.999... - 3.999...
    36 = 36
    Tadaa!

    Ryan
  • Intel could care less about the people who are worried about having to replace their cases. People who are upgrading processors, almost by definition, are buying in very small quantities. Nearly always, one and sometimes two at a time. Corporation have been turned off to component upgrades. It's cheaper for them to buy a whole new system than to pay someone to upgrade systems individually, and then incur all the other compatability problems that won't be covered by a warranty.

    Since their big customers are buying whole new systems anyway, it's no problem to specify a new case and PS design. Dell and Gateway will make a few changes that will be amortized to nothing over the 100,000 units they will build.

  • It takes a lot to keep those radio tubes cool. I have a vision of one day being able to fit a whole processor on a silicon wafer no larger than the tip of my pinky finger. You laugh, but just wait...

  • Is it me, or is Intel really trying to make things awkward with the Pentium IV? I can understand IA64 chips requiring a new case - they are meant for high end server applications anyway - but for a processor which is consumer/workstation level to require new cases and power supplies...

    Of course it isn't that hard a requirement, it is just that these new cases will cost a lot initially because they will be an unusual shape. It might also take a while for the non-beige cases to appear as well.

    Standards are good. AT, ATX, MicroATX etc. I am sure that this will be ATX+, or ATX2, or something.

    It is also a bad reflection on the Pentium 4's power consumption - and Intel want to put this baby in laptops by the end of next year!

  • " ...when will they find a clue?"

    Perhaps when they no longer make revenues of more than $30 Billion [yahoo.com] a year...

    We often tend to doubt these 'captains of industry' from the safety of our armchairs, here on slashdot, but few of us can ever hope to approach this kind of success. How can we possibly know what is savvy or correct at that scale? I think I'll side with the expert considerations of the people that run such a monstrous company than the consummer-centric bashing this mob has to offer. Intel is perfectly aware of their competition.

    :)Fudboy
  • If you don't know enough to take all of the Microsoft and AOL stuff that's built right into the system out, how could you possibly be clever enough to operate linux?

    *reread*

    Oh- 'W2K'. My condolences. If you ever do actually get an iMac, rather than just making stuff up on slashdot, hope you figure out how to throw away 90% of the crud and cruft it ships with :)

    *g* anecdotal evidence != 'open mind'. I hammer on my ol' upgraded 9500 day in day out for years on end and never need to take it anywhere to get it fixed. It's the most user-maintainable thing you could want, doesn't exhibit 'OS rot' like windows installations. Given initiative I could go find software to crash it and freeze it (hell, I use netscape every day, and that is the _king_ of non-deterministic crashability- months go by without a hitch and then WHAM WHAM WHAM *g*) but why should I, when I have tons of apps, including ones I can write myself, that don't crash?

    *hee* some open mind there, fellow slashdot user #210999 ;) next you'll be saying that linux can't be used on the desktop ;)

  • by Money__ ( 87045 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @12:41PM (#812855)
    Here's the full spec [teleport.com] in PDF format.
  • by Mtgman ( 195502 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @12:42PM (#812859)
    Just think about it for a second. Intel is designing computers with built-in theft deterrent systems. Who want's to steal a desktop when they're guaranteed a hernia just for picking the damn thing up?

    I'm certainly deterred by the P4, and I guess that's the real proof this is a Theft-Deterrent because according to the RIAA I'm a thief. :p

    Steven
    --
  • Well, if Intel had pushed for onboard SCSI instead of going with IDE, maybe we could be using Ultra160 drives at the price of current IDE drives.
    >>>
    Intel wasn't the first company in the core logic chipset game. Nearly all of the early PC chipsets used IDE. It wasn't until much later that Intel started making chipsets, and at that point, IDE was already entrenched. You can't fault Intel for just doing like everybody else when they made their first chipsets.

    I've seen such benchmarks; the difference is minimal until you get up to AGPx4. In fact, for most people there is no detectable difference.
    >>>
    Those benchmarks are for cards like the Voodoo series (up to V5) that don't use AGP effectivly. I'm talking about REAL AGP cards.

    for those people with 4MBers, AGP is a godsend.
    >>>>>>>
    If you've only got 4MB of local graphics RAM, you're sure as hell going to see the difference between AGP and PCI. And that's not that uncommon. A lot of cheap comps come with only 4MB of memory but AGP 4x.

    Not true. Apple was able to do it with G3's without moving to a slot architecture.

    Untrue. It was precisely because Intel had the Slot1 specifications locked up with patents that AMD had to select a different bus architecture for the Athlon.
    >>>>>>>>
    Read MaximumPC (or maybe boot's) interview with AMD's President. He specifically says that they have a cross-license agreement with Intel that would allow them to use Slot1, but used SlotA for the higher performance.
  • by QuoteMstr ( 55051 ) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Thursday August 31, 2000 @12:42PM (#812869)
    New board, new cases, new RAM, new peripherals. It happens. It's expensive. Get over it. Do you really want old technology sticking around just because we're stubborn? (ISA, coff coff).

    Unlike ISA, current case designs, power supplies, etc. are adequate. Unlike ISA, better alternatives do not exist (e.g., PCI). If any processor needs the kind of power that only this new type of motherboard can accomidate, and then needs to radiate it away with a one pound(!) heatsink, the processor has problems, not the case/motherboard/power supply technology.

  • These are the same people who had 2+2=3.999999... I think I'll side with whoever can do the math and come up with a sensible answer. If that is Intel, then cheers to them. If, on the other hand, Intel is desperately kluging a dying architecture and trying to create enough mindless publicity to avoid people's learning that they are on a downward spiral, riding on legacy dominance and suffering horribly from the most ruinous internal politics in the business... then why do they deserve an iota of respect simply because they haven't fallen over yet?

    In the final analysis we can know what is savvy or correct at that scale much the same way we know what is savvy or correct at any scale- by looking at it and listening to people who know something about it. There are an awful lot of slashdotters with special knowledge on one thing or another, and many of them post. There are also a lot of slashdotters who say nonsensical things (like "All CPUs consume lots more power as they get more capable", which is not only contradicted by reality but obliterated by the nanotech concept for computations), and there's no label on them reading 'total fool, disregard'. You have to figure that out for yourself.

    Personally, when I am confronted with a syllogism like "We often tend to doubt these 'captains of industry' from the safety of our armchairs, here on slashdot, but few of us can ever hope to approach this kind of success.", I find it much easier to stick on the 'total fool, disregard' label. But it can be fun to explain _why_ such a judgement gets made. Someone might even learn something :)

  • I wonder how many wats the power supply will be, I thought I remember hearing it was gonna be some insane number like 800W, but dont take my word on that one.

    But seriously, why does Intel keep doing this. Obviously you cant just keep making the processor larger and larger, and give it more and more power, why dont they try and innovate a little, or a least if they do, tell us about it sometime. I haven't seem much of anything about the 'new' core they have on this thing.

    All they are right now are professional overclockers, and they suck at it too.
  • So sue me, don't you think I've spent enough on my machine already? :)
  • [...] meanwhile, back in sunnyvale, amd offers smaller, faster, better cpus which actually provide an upgrade path for existing customers.

    Heh... so all I have to do is buy an Athlon, eh?

    Last I checked, I had to throw out my AMD K6II and my 256MB of RAM and my mobo to upgrade. So what if I have to toss my $65 case and power supply, too? As long as there's enough competition, the new ones shouldn't cost much more.

  • Quoting from an article [theregister.co.uk] on The Register [theregister.co.uk] back on August 22:

    Albert Yu was asked if he could give a rough idea of when a 2GHz Pentium might ship. Although his response was "I have no idea", Barrett intervened to say that he wasn't at liberty to divulge it. However, Barrett added that the demo used no special cooling. The part was air-cooled.

    A 450g heatsink requiring a new case isn't special???? What next?

    SANTA CLARA (AFU-NEWS) Today silicon circuit behemoth Intel demoed the Pentium 4 CPU clocked at 2.5GHz The presence of an anchor from the Queen Mary bolted to the top of the CPU was described by Albert Yu, Senior Intel VP, as "normal cooling." Versions of the CPU running at lower clock speeds could be cooled by bolting them to anvils, manhole covers and recycled steel plates from the heads of Intel marketing folks. "A special cabinet may be required," he added.

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
  • Besides the technological advance, as Sid Meier's would have called it, this might have a huge impact on the market as it will definitely slow down the sales because of people's looking forward to increase the price/perfomance of their next purchase.
    We saw the same phenomenon when Microsoft announced Windows95 without delivering it, hence slowing down the sales of people like Norton or whoever else having the 95 version of their products ready but without the possibility of selling neither W95 nor W3x versions as the market was congested by a constipated giant.
    Now, you didn't tell us about the RAM but I also think the standard will, once again change here and only big OEMs (Dell, Compaq, etc.) will win while small OEMs might have much more problems with their existing stock which price they have to cut even shorter.
    --
  • by Phexro ( 9814 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @12:47PM (#812912)
    what the living hell are those freaky guys over at intel thinking anyways? this leaves no upgrade path for existing intel customers, unless they can make more "overdrive" processors for slot-1 and -2 mobos. which means that anyone who wants a p4 is going to need a new case & power supply, mobo, and cpu. oh, and probably some rambus rdram.

    meanwhile, back in sunnyvale, amd offers smaller, faster, better cpus which actually provide an upgrade path for existing customers.

    it seems like intel just keeps getting more and more introverted. when will they find a clue?

    perhaps once the low-end celeron-style p4s come out, they will have some sort of upgrade path...
    --
  • One thing I just thought about: If this is indeed factual, and you will *require* a new case, will Intel patent the design of said case? If you want to run a P-IV are you going to have to buy an OFFICIAL Pentium-IV(or at least Intel sanctioned) case?

    Another thing-- Unless they change where the IO block is (where the keyboard, serial, and mouse connectors are), perhaps you could drop it in an ATX case and build your own heat sink? Or will Intel indeed change the very form factor to keep us from doing this?
  • If you aren't lying here, you are stupid.

    Or more acurately, you are ignorant. Check out the AMD website. You'll see that the 3 year warranty is for boxed processors from them, the 1 year warranty is for unboxed processors from them and that they don't warranty chips provdided by vendors (OEM). From the website:
    All warranty requests on microprocessors NOT purchased directly from AMD should not be directed to AMD, but should instead be presented to your point of purchase.

    My receipt for it says a 30 day warranty. I should have checked but in the UK, most stuff is guaranteed a one year warranty by our consumer protecion laws. In defence, I'd just done a 8 hour drive from Florida leaving at 4am

    In any case, the new CPU was 140UKP, not $500 and the inconvenience of not having a computer to use while it was shipped back to AMD would have outweighed that. But my original complaint was about the premature obsolescence of the slot-A processors, *not* AMD's return policy.

    Now where I was stupid was buying a CPU from a stall at a computer fair that was in an open anti-static bag with a fan already attached (I didn't know that Athlons didn't come with them already). I suspect now (but have no proof) that it had already been returned as faulty. In case anyone's interested, that company was ATD Inc, now trading as Ameritech.

    Darwin in action I guess. I can't think of any other explanation.

    Well, I have one offspring already. I guess it just remains to be seen whether buying a CPU for 140UKP has made me infertile in some weird way. Or perhaps it's about time you asked your mummy how babies are made.

    Rich

  • Power Power Power! Everything is needing more frikken power! My damned room is gonna sound like a jet airplace by the time I start upgrading to new equipement. POwer plants around the country are going to have to increased thier output because a few thousand people need to power up thier machines. And my damned hyrdo bill is gonna cost me a fortune.
    By any chance does this new case generate its own power aswell? Do I just have to replace a rat and or a wheel every six months to run my system?
  • Back in the 40's - 50's people did have to upgrade their home wiring and fuse box to accomodate new-fangled electrical appliances at the time, that were using way more current than what previous appliances did. These appliances were:

    Clothes Dryers
    Hot Water Heaters
    Dish Washers
    Air Conditioners

    As well as the plethora of other small appliances coming out. Houses simply weren't wired to take the load.

    However, I am sure before we see the need for such drastic measures for a computer, we will have a public outcry for better, more efficient software...

    I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
  • by rcw-work ( 30090 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @12:48PM (#812927)
    Newer Alpha CPU's take almost 100 watts each [compaq.com], and require no modifications to ATX.

    Intel is releasing a chip that will require modifications to ATX.

    Therefore, it would be worthwhile to assume this chip will consume over 100 watts.

  • I've also seen notes about moving with 2 and 3 persons in IBM documentation.

    BTW, S300 (Russian SA missile launcher system) control center contains built-in crane for moving one of the blocks. (Hope I would not be sued for this... Well, karma is more important.)
    ---
    Every secretary using MSWord wastes enough resources

  • I don't need no stinking case!

    Merriam-Webster defines a case as:
    1 a : a box or receptacle for holding something b : a box together with its contents
    2 a : an outer covering or housing

    My "case" covers nothing and only serves as a receptacle for dust! It sits wide open with various parts hanging out of it at any given time. Why is this P4 going to change anything?

    If my new heatsink needs support, I'll buy it a bra with underwire......

  • Hey, what happened to minaturization in the computer industry? At this rate, in 18 months, computers will weigh as much as a Ford Pinto and use more power than the ENIAC!

    Well.. I guess that's progress...

  • by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @12:51PM (#812939)
    Slashdot seems to have anti-Intel mania! Let's see, how may chips HAVEN'T required new cases? Upgrading from socket7 -> Slot 1 usually took a new power supply, 486-> Pentium did too (AT -> ATX) and for my Dell 300MHz, upgrading to an Athlon is going to require a new case and power supply as well. (Dell makes very small power supplies.) Seriously, though, it's not Intel's fault. You're complaining that a 1.5GHz chip takes more power. Well, duh! Most Athlon upgrades take more power too. As for the extra power connecters, at 1.5+GHz, there are probably too many electrical concerns to not put them in. The screws probably can't be helped either. This sucker is going to make a lot of heat, and I don't think Intel wants another Slot1 fiasco (chips flopping out of the slot.) AMD's new Athlons aren't going to be any better, in fact, at .15micron (compared to .13 micron) they're going to make even more heat (Athlon's do anyway) and use more current than the P4.
  • Looks like Intel decided that we're out of shape and need to get a workout in. Could you imagine if you got a dual P4 -- or God forbid, a quad? Shit, you're talking over 4 pounds in heat sink alone! Let alone the power supply, sheet metal for the case, and the air conditioner to cool your room down (the heat has to go somewhere doesn't it?). Move all this stuff around a couple times and you'll be ripped!

    On the other hand, I guess you could toss out the fireplace and just roast marshmallows by the warmth of your computer.

    (singing) Chestnuts roasting on an open case...
  • by himi ( 29186 )
    Assuming this is true, it makes you wonder what the hell they think they're doing with their chips. A heatsink that's too big to fit in current standard cases? Sounds like a standard overclocker's nightmare . . . and kinda suggests that's what Intel's doing . . .

    The scariest thing is that these P4 chips aren't going to be any faster, clock for clock, than Athlons (again, assuming that articles I've seen around are reasonably reliable). Why can't Intel manage to come up with something like that? Why do they have to keep on using a brute force solution (More clock speed! And damn the torpedoes(sp?)) to something that AMD seems to have found a relatively elegant solution to?

    Argh . . . Just one more reason to lose respect for those suckas . . .

    himi
    --
  • I can't imagine that somebody wouldn't want to try this for PC processor upgrades.

    Someone already has.

    Evergreen Technologies has the Accelera PCI [evertech.com] which takes a Celeron CPU and a PC100 SODIMM on a PCI card. However, this doesn't yield as much gain as the apple upgrades, since PCI wasn't built with the bandwidth necessary to support an extra CPU.

  • A one pound heatsink? I don't think we'll be seeing the P4-powered laptop anytime soon. Then again, what are you doing with your laptop that you need more than 800MHz or so?
  • New board, new cases, new RAM, new peripherals. It happens. It's expensive. Get over it. Do you really want old technology sticking around just because we're stubborn? (ISA, coff coff).

    Not quite: the only reason P4's need that enormous heatsink is because it's a P3 overclocked to kingdom come, and therefore running much hotter than it should.

    I heard Intel has been putting the following ads out prior to the release of the P4:

    Are you an avid overclocker? Did you manage to make your Celeron 333 run at 750 by suspending it in a barrel of liquid nitrogen? Then come work for Intel and turn your hobby into a living!

    Intel: show us how it's done.


  • This is going to kill my karma but there's no way I can keep quite ....

    Ok, if you're unhappy about Intel why sit there and whine about it? Do something that will make Intel think twice about pulling dumb shit like this. BUY A COMPETING CHIP! I know it's crazy but ... I hear there's this company called AMD and they make decent CPUs that cost less and give comparable if not better performance to the Intel chips, but for hundreds less! I'm sick of this attitude that for stability and reliability you buy Intel. It's single minded purchasing like this that keeps innovation out of the marketplace.

    Disclaimer: I run and AMD Athalon 800 / Soyo SY-K7VIA / Geforce256 / SB Live rock solid under both SuSE 6.3 and Win98SE. So I may be a bit biased :)
  • I'd like to know where you read that the PIV's won't be faster than Athlons. From the vibe I get, AMD better get their collective ass in gear or the PIV will totally rape the Athlon.

    I would honestly love to read something that will counter this, because I don't much trust Intel anymore. But if they can make a faster processor than AMD that is cost effective, go Intel. So where did you read this?
  • Here is a list of parts/equipment for jerry-rigging you ATX case to accept a P4 chip/board:

    1. 1 Dremmel Mototool
    2. 1 Can Premium Lager (For after)
    3. 1xHot Glue Gun
    4. 2xWine Cork (cut in half)


    Instructions:

    Preparation
    Using the Dremmel, remove any pieces of steel from your existing ATX case that may be blocking your shiny new P4 mainboard. Loosly mount the board in your ATXcase, and mark the screw holes. Using the Dremmel again, drill out the neccessary holes. Roughly mark the area BELOW the processor. Using the Hot Glue Gun, mount the cork halves on the marked area under the processor. (some shaving may be required)

    Installation
    Re-mount the main board, processor and RAM in the ATX case, and secure with screws (Be sure the cork is not too high, hairline fractures are a bad thing)
    Drink the can of Lager while booting up your new P4 in an ATX Case!

    Note: You will still need to buy a new power supply (More on how to rig the old one in my next post)
  • Since my last upgrade was from 300MHZ to 500, both AMD and i just spent more cash on my case than the chip including shipping and that took about two years. I figure I'll be getting one of these new fangled 1GHZ machines sometime around 2004 or so. By then I'm hoping for implants directly to my cortex so I'm not that miffed, just unimpressed.

    on a side note the P4 is going to be aircooled just like all chips are (as manufactured) Why don't AMD or Intel just do what we'll do to the chips when we get them from the git go. Water cool them or super air cool them or use some kind of advanced peltier system? Anything to show that they are thinking ahead. I'd be more willing to accept water in my PC than a 1 pound heatsink.
  • Coo2 can exist in a liquid state. It's a very small range.

    I know this because in 1980 I was tutoring a EE and Chem double major, who told me that she had a friend using it to remove caffeine from coffee.

    Here is some links:

    CO2 Decaf Sin! [frontiercoop.com] Do you drink too much coffee? [sorehands.com]

    Co2 in paintball [docsmachine.com]

  • How come they require such an enormous heatsink if they've revamped the engineering?

    They may have revamped the engineering, but they haven't revamped the engineers.

    The physics of higher clock speeds aside, this is a team that has inhereted design methodologies from the 8086. If you are using a team of engineers who worked on the earlier Intel and/or were trained by them, chances are that they'll be used to the same power-hungry tactics employed in previous chips. It looks to me like many of the improvements are 'more-bigger'. The obvious implication is that power supplies and heatsinks are going to be more-bigger too.

    Compared to Intel, Transmetta brought in a relatively young team and re-designed from scratch. This cleaner design allowed them to build for the low-power market more easily because they didn't have the old baggage that Intel's teams do.

    Intel -- Just short of Intelligent.

  • Just because AMD also FUDs, doesn't make it okay for Intel to FUD. AMD *has* to
    FUD to survive against competitor Intel's FUD. That doesn't make it alright either. I
    know it interferes with the magical "free market", and the invisible hand-job and all,
    but it would be nice if *someone* would take these companies to task for false
    advertising when they FUD.
    >>>>>>>>
    There is FUD and market speak. FUD is outright lies. Market speak is streching of the truth. Intel saying the PIII makes the Internet faster is market speak. It DOES make your browser run impreceptibly faster and it helps a little on media rich and 3D rich websites (of which there are about 2.) The only people for whom market speak should matter are those too stupid to see through it. Believe it or not, the US economy thrives on taking advantage of those too stupid to do their own research. It happens with american cars, iMacs, graphics cards (wonder why ATI is on so many computers?) insurance, houses, sneakers, socks, abso-fucking-lutely everything.

    Intel pushes IDE because IDE relies on CPU horsepower to initiate transfers. SCSI
    relies on the controller. Therefore, if HD access takes CPU cycles, this increases the
    demand (in a bogus way) for faster CPUs. Bottom line for Intel; slower and ultimately
    costlier machines for consumers. Same principle works with Winmodems, and USB
    too, if I'm not mistaken.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    That's absoultely untrue. Under UltraDMA, one or two drives have no more CPU usage than on SCSI. Your comment was true back in the days of PIO, but not anymore. The only place SCSI helps these days is if you need the raw I/O rate, need absolute reliability, need access the the generally faster SCSI drives, or have more than two drives in you computer. Winmodems don't only exist because of Intel. In an age of $300 computers and low double digit profit margins, the $15 or so a winmodem saves means a lot more money for the manufacturer. Also, Winmodems were created when the cheapest "real" modems you could get were nearly $100. The whole point, though is moot. Intel doesn't really do anything to push Winmodems. As far as I can tell, 3Com (USRobotics) was the one the entrenched Winmodems.

    I do agree that PCI was a good spec. So why did they abandon it for AGP?
    >>>>>>
    They didn't abandon it for AGP. As far as I can see, AGP is only a graphics standard.

    If you read
    Intel's press releases (and it sounds like you do, on Sunday morning, in front of an
    altar, accompanied by organ music), it's to reduce the need for VRAM on the card,
    but the REAL reason was so they could corner the market on graphics chips.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    The VRAM issue was quite big. Hindsight is 20/20, but as I remember it, when AGP came out, the best 3D cards had 4MB of RAM (Riva128 and ATI Rage Pro). It was before the big memory price bust, and it seemed that cards could continue to use expensive SGRAM. Who the hell would have thought that in two years graphics cards would come standard with 32MB of 150MHz DDR-SDRAM? Back then (actually 6 months after AGP was introduced and years after they thought to make it) the state of the art was the V2 and it's massive 8MB (out of 12) of 100MHz texture memory. If the pace of 3D was the same from V2->Present as it was from V1->V2, then my RivaTNT 16MB would be the state of the art. However, NVIDIA totally blew apart the 3D market with it's 6month cycle. Nobody expected 3D to come this far this fast. No me, not you, not Intel.

    Why
    did they fail? Because their chips SUCK. They had decent competition.
    >>>>>>
    Actually, the i740 was pretty good. Short-lived, but pretty good. However, you're probably mistaken on Intel's intentions to corner the 3D market. If that's what they were after, they wouldn't have quite so quickly. (Do you really think Intel couldn't design a better graphics chip? Especially with Real3D's help?) My guess is that Intel was trying to make inroads into the sub-$1000 PC market with a cheap, system-memory based graphics card. At that time, AMD and Cyrix were making big strides there and it was really exploding.

    And
    nowadays, I challenge you to even FIND an AGP card with 4mb of VRAM. Or less than 16.
    >>>>
    Take a look at the advertisements for Microcenter (or CompUSA, or whatever. (A major retailer in Virginia.) All the cheap sub-$700 PCs have i740-based card with "4MB display cache."

    And finally, about the AMD statement about using Slot A for higher performance,
    that may be the public statement, but in Private, you can bet your loose and hairy
    sphincter that the reason was so they didn't have to pay their main competitor
    MORE license fees, and take it up the ass when Intel decided to change the spec
    again (Slot 2, Socket 370, etc. ad infinutum, ad nauseum, ad analintrusiun), but they
    took it up the ass anyway when Intel told the mobo manufacturers; "nice license you
    got there, it'd be a *shame* if something were to happen to it!"
    >>>>>>>>
    According to AMD, they had a "blanket-cross license with Intel for all it's patents." (AMD's Presidents quote) Methinks they used SlotA more to cuddle up with Digital.
  • Wow. P4 laptops are gonna be a bitch. ;)

    \//
  • Then let the best company win. My point is there is that I have never seen so much crap about the "ethics and morals and conduct" of a company than I do on Slashdot. I use whatever is the fastest, and for a lot of things (particularly anything SSE like Photoshop) Intel is the fastest.
  • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Thursday August 31, 2000 @01:17PM (#812992)
    so this is yet another reason NOT to go intel.

    sure, the k7 generates lots of heat; but its on socket-A (no special motherboard support needed) and while the power supply is MORE crucial for the k7 than the p3, you can easily find a compatible/recommended PS for your athlon.

    intel seems to intiquate things WAY too soon for my liking. just another nail on the coffin for them...

    --

  • You are so ready for Crusoe.

    (get those chips out here dammit)

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page

Working...