It's All About the Pentium (4) 129
Submissions about the P4 flow in like the tides, so here's a batch
of them.
Rooster sent us
the Hot Hardware take.
TBM sent us Ace's extensive comparison of the P4 and K7.
Piete submitted a
fairly negative review of the chip (between the RDRAM thing, the motherboard thing, and the fact that the chip just isn't much faster for normal use, that's not surprising).
Slashdot Minion sent in
Hard OCP and
Sharky Extreme's respective reviews (including 200fps Quake).
Re:how retarted would this be??? (Score:1)
Re:Home PC sales will be a dissapointment (Score:1)
Karma Police, arrest this man, he talks in maths
Re:Too early to tell (Score:1)
There is a good one. From what I remember and can gather they were released in nov 1995. Alphas were at 300Mhz and even 2-3 year old alphas can match a tbird 800-900 athlon running at 533 Mhz. The 300MHz alpha I am working on will cream ANY single processor PPro in existance.
Why a dual P3 ? Dual athlon boards exist and according to a friend who will be getting one a dual-athlon ddr ide-raid boards will be out this month or next month for $189, and considering that I could have gotten 1 GHz tbirds for $295 last week at a monthly computer sale, I wonder where the advantage is in ANY intel in either price, performance, or price/performance
why i won't buy a PIV now.... (Score:1)
first, we have the price, this baby won't be cheap!
second, the performance!
third, the first m/b's won't be forward compatible, so when the next gen PIV shows up, you can't even upgrade!
and last, we all want AMD to win this rat-race, don't we?
AMD gets a lot of press (Score:2)
Kudos to the AMD team.
--
Re:Home PC sales will be a dissapointment (Score:1)
Huh... 140 fps is the diference.
Is this a catch question or something?
Re:Here is why I like AMD... (Score:1)
Does this mean (Score:2)
Re:The real advantage.... (Score:2)
So, over the long haul, how did their past core compete with AMD?
AMD is beating them on the ground, today. AMD will continue to evolve as well. This release gives us no reason at all to believe that Intel has made a technicological comeback.
In order to do that, they need to quit releasing overpriced, overclocked crap and actually, well, actually make a technological comeback. Then they can brag all they want about how the big company with a huge bank account and unbounded name recognition beat the little guy after a mere year's effort. Or two years' effort. Or three...
Re:randomness for encryption (Score:1)
Ever since the coppermine revision, the P3 has had a nondeterministic random number generator, based on a thermistor. The P4 probably has one as well.
200FPS Quake III!!! (Score:1)
Re:Little Willy (Score:1)
M$ should delay the release of .NET until P4 improves its speed a lot more, let me say, until it reaches 4.8 GHz.
real benchmarks! (Score:2)
I want to know how fast it compiles a kernel (with everything enabled/modulized.
-----
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
Deja Vu (Score:1)
I used Commodore products until they went away, so my first experience with a PC was with the original Pentium. At the time of it's introduction (P60) it was slower and hotter than the offerings from AMD (I think their 486 was hitting 80MHz and was about to climb to 120 or so) and I think even the Intel 486 offerings at the time. Eventually (really starting as early as the P90/100) the architecture difference was put to good use and the Pentiums were faster than 486s.
I can only vaguely remember the Pentium Pro launch, but I think it was faster than an standard Pentium from the beginning.
Then I remember the P2 being considered a huge flop. No advantage over a Pentium. A cost reduced Pentium Pro. MMX was all hype and no software. The standard Pentiums and the P2s were about the same speed for a while, but eventually the P2 pulled away.
I really don't remember the launch of the P3 much at all. Neither does anyone else I've talked to. WTF is the difference between a P2 and a P3 anyways?
So now the P4 is out. It's being benched and guess what? It's slow and expensive. Just like the last several generations of chips from Intel, for the first six months anyway. Give them time, it will be faster.
Until then, I will still use my Thunderbird based systems.
Remember the Pentium Pro (Score:3)
I think it's similar to the situation with the Pentium 3 and Pentium 4. The Pentium 3 is designed to take advantage of today's memory systems and bus technology, and the Pentium 4 is designed to work best with technology that really isn't in popular use yet (and may well never get there). So right now, pund for pund, the Pentium 4 looks like a bowser. Given code that's designed and optimized for the Pentium 4/Rambus combo, I'm sure it'll look much nicer than it looks running current apps. Nobody's bothered optimizing for that sort of environment yet.
What'll be interesting is what happens in the competition while Intel strives for Pentium 4 market acceptance. When the Pentium Pro came out, there was no competition in the high-end chip category, so Intel could afford to bide their time and wait for the marketplace to catch up. With the pressure AMD is applying in the high-end with Athlon, Intel can't afford to just sit and wait. They're going to have to be a lot more aggressive with Pentium 4 pricing, and push to get Rambus RDRAM pricing down in order to build any sort of demand.
Remember how 2000 was supposed to be the year of 64-bit computing? Looks like the priorities have shifted in the market.
- -Josh Turiel
High sales anyway (Score:2)
Those who comparison shop may see the lack of benefits and not purchase it, but I'm sure plenty of others will.
52 watts? (Score:1)
52 watts? That's not so much, I got a hotplate in my dorm room that uses all of 75 watts.
Not to nitpick... (Score:1)
Re:Home PC sales will be a dissapointment (Score:2)
Yeah, the difference is about $1200....
k7... (Score:1)
Re:Where is the 'Beowulf' post? (Score:1)
However, maybe somebody really IS that crazy.
Re:Home PC sales will be a dissapointment (Score:2)
Re:Remember the Pentium Pro (Score:2)
My computer at home runs a PPro 200 MHz and by running all WIN32 apps in Windows 98, performance is quite good and reasonably "snappy."
I think this is the situation with the Pentium 4. Don't expect any real advantages to the P4 until operating systems catch up (e.g., Windows "Whistler" and future kernel improvements to Linux that support the instruction set of the P4).
AMD still ooks better (Score:2)
High frame-rates (Score:3)
I'm becoming a tad irritated with people who keep bringing up that moot point.
First off, in complex scenes filled with gibs, smoke, and the like, framerates drop drastically.
Second of all, when things such as FSAA are enabled, visual quality increases and framerates drop accordingly.
Third of all, 60 fps now will mean about 15fps in new games in 2 years. I remember these exact same comments when the Voodoo 2 debuted. Are people inherently this nearsighted?
Please, people, think ahead.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Missing the point (Score:1)
However, AMD does not need to produce chips running at the same Ghz to pose a significant problem to Intel. They already do so with chips running with 20% fewer Mhz.
The question is... can they? Intel is apparently betting, with the P4, that AMD will fall behind, will not be able to run their chips anywhere near as fast as Intel can.
Kernel compilation benchmark (Score:1)
Good use for a P4 (Score:2)
Tom's Hardware Guide? (Score:3)
Time to short Intel stock? (Score:2)
Re:Its all about the GHZ (Score:3)
"Watch in awe as MP3s download more quickly and graphics flow more smoothly."
What a load of crap! it's no wonder Joe Consumer keeps buying Intel's overpriced junk. As long as Intel's marketing Juggernaut keeps tossing around flashy words like "NetBurst Architecture" and "HyperPipeline", Intel will continue to sell chips. I fully believe that they could package shit on a stick, give it a nice marketing spin, and show some weird abstract commercials during prime time, and people would continue to buy it.
Re:Deja Vu (Score:1)
If you were running 32-bit apps. In a mixed 32-and-16 environment (like Windows 95 and the apps available when it was released), the PPro was slower.
Re:Home PC sales will be a dissapointment (Score:1)
Re:About "the RDRAM thing" (Score:1)
___
Re:The real advantage.... (Score:1)
Wrong. This is the first new core since Pentium Pro, which is how many years old? hmmm....
The P2 first shipped at 120Mhz
Wrong again. P2 first shipped at 266MHz.
Meanwhile, I'm still hoping for my 1024-way UltraSparc 3 box...
I'm pretty sure SGI will sell you a 1024-way box. Not UltraSparc though. MIPS.
___
Re:Deja Vu (Score:1)
P3 has SSE instructions (yet another MMX-type hype). Oh yeah, and the infamous identification number.
___
Re:how retarted would this be??? (Score:1)
and inane chatter... such is the way, I suppose... beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though I'm not sure I really want you staring at me.
Re:No black holes, but... (Score:1)
Re:real benchmarks! (Score:2)
Re:P4 will not work well with Linux (Score:1)
So, l33t j03 shitpacker, what other bullshit are you planning on spewing?
You think your big time?
Overlooked (Score:2)
Re:Home PC sales will be a dissapointment (Score:1)
That's *not* something an average home computer user would do.
As for Quake, most computers can't run Quake at 1600x1200 at the highest quality settings over 60fps
And this has *nothing* to do with the CPU. At anything above 800x600 the performance is limited by the video card, so your 1.5GHz CPU will not help you at all.
___
Re:Too early to tell (Score:1)
Hate to disappoint you, but in 6 months the current P4 will be obsolete and replaced with a completely different board and core. Just go check out Intel road map. This P4 is a dead end. On the other hand, dual AMD boards will be available in 2 months... with DDR memory too.
___
Re:Home PC sales will be a dissapointment (Score:1)
Re:Home PC sales will be a dissapointment (Score:2)
Re:No black holes, but... (Score:1)
We can't see the wood for the trees (Score:1)
All this clock rate for a measly 210 MFlops? Give us a break. HP's PA-8200 did over 700 MFlops sustained LINPACK in 1997, and at 200MHz.
Re:Missing the point (Score:1)
Gary
Re:High frame-rates (Score:1)
No doubt. But my point was that with my chip that is aready 2+ years old (and wasn't exactly top-of-the-line then), I can play any available game at 800x600 with all textures, sound fx, etc. turned up to max, and I get frame rates that are at least movie quality. (At higher resolutions it is still playable with only a little jerkiness.) And I expect to get at least another year out of it.
Three or four years ago, you needed to buy the newest, fastest, most expensive chip out there once a year (at least) if you wanted to play the latest games at a decent resolution with all the fx enabled. That is no longer the case. Right now, games simply aren't pushing the limits of the newest processors, so even the bleeding-edge gamers won't see it as a worthwhile investment. And certainly the casual gamer/web surfer won't benefit greatly from the P4's (not yet, anyway).
Someday we may all need that kind of muscle, but for most of today's consumer-level uses, its overkill. And that's why I think the sales will be sluggish...It's simply more than people need at a price higher than they're willing to pay.
Of course, this thread is practically dead by now so you'll probably never see this post anyway :)
-
Re: You're Missing the point (Score:2)
The point is that the Pentium IV 1.5Ghz is hardly competetive with what's on the market. Let me rephrase: you'd be an idiot to actually purchase a PIV 1.5GHz.
Maybe the Piv will scale to faster clock speeds, but what we have right now sucks. Buying a Piv right now is like buying an early 80s BMW 320 because it's the predecessor to a really nice car. It's irrational. You're better off with the Athlon. Intel better have set aside a heafty chunk of change for advertising, because it's going to take a lot to get people to buy these.
The real advantage.... (Score:3)
This is the first *really* new core from Intel since the P2. The P2 first shipped at 120Mhz. This puppy is going to clock and clock. Expect to see 2Ghz by Q2 2001, 3Ghz before Q2 2002.
I agree that this release is strictly for the lunatic fringe, but this is the core that Intel are relying on to regain them bragging rights. Don't underestimate it.
Meanwhile, I'm still hoping for my 1024-way UltraSparc 3 box...
Gotta get in those pro-AMD mentions, don't we? (Score:5)
I would love for another company to walk in and set things straight. Too bad Motorola seems to have trouble figuring out where to go with the PowerPC.
This is a bad kind of message to post, I think, considering the preponderance of crazed AMD supporters. But let's not let fanaticism for a corporation get in the way of real progress, okay?
Re:real benchmarks! (Score:1)
It preforms slower than the Giga P3 for kernel compiles.
Re:real benchmarks! (Score:2)
Tom has been using this benchmark since a little before the PIII 1.13 GHz I believe. Check out his site for CPU comparisons if you really care about kernel compile times.
It should Pentium 5 (Score:1)
Re:The real advantage.... (Score:1)
ALG
Re:Gotta get in those pro-AMD mentions, don't we? (Score:1)
Re:The real advantage.... (Score:1)
FWIW, the Pentium Pro started at 60 Mhz
Hmmm...that was the original Pentium, the Pentium Pro started at 180MHz and 200MHz. I've got one right here.
Re:Good use for a P4 (Score:1)
But then again, given the performance (or lack, thereof), perhaps we should be comparing them to durons... and yes, the P4 does give off more heat
Re:how retarted would this be??? (Score:1)
Re:The real advantage.... (Score:2)
Well, they tried. Remember PIII at 1.13Ghz which was recalled due to a failure to compile Linux kernel? There are limits to what can be done on a P-III
Re:High sales anyway (Score:2)
-B
Re:No black holes, but... (Score:1)
+===========================+
|http://mere.2y.net/scoop/ |
|Tome=SCOOP+COOL_CONTENT; |
Re:The real advantage.... (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:Not quite.. (Score:2)
ROFL!
No one noticed it, but you got bang today as well.
The original PPro was, for about a month, and only barely, the fastest chip in the world in SPECint95. The P4/1500 is...the fastest chip in the world in SPECint2000. Its SPECint2k scores are 522/535 base/peak; the fastest previously available processor in the world is an Alpha EV67/833 which scores 511/533. Considering Intel will almost certainly release a P4/1600 before Compaq finally releases a faster clocked Alpha, this gap will almost certainly become even larger for the P4. (And then Alpha will *finally* move from a
Even more spectacularly, the PPro shocked the MPU world by being somewhat competitive with the fastest RISC chips in SPECfp95--about 75% the top Alpha scores. Meanwhile, the P4/1500 put up SPECfp2000 scores of...549/558 base/peak, or roughly 90% those of the fastest Alpha.
And yet, just as when the PPro was launched, all we hear about is how the P4 is a failure because it performs poorly on legacy apps. The P6 launched to universal derision from the mainstream computer press because it wasn't any faster than an ordinary P5 at 16-bit apps (yeah, maybe eventually there might be *some* 32-bit apps, but who's going to rewrite their code just to optimize for some new-fangled processor?); it was perhaps the most successful MPU design in history, as predicted by its astonishingly good SPEC95 scores.
The P4 is launching to universal derision from the mainstream computer press because it isn't any faster than an ordinary PIII or Athlon at x87 apps and apps which use instructions which the P4 explicitly deemphasizes in favor of faster replacements (yeah maybe eventually there might be *some* SSE2 and P4 optimized apps, but who's going to recompile or even rewrite some of their code just to optimize for some new-fangled processor?); its SPEC2000 scores are just as astonishing as the PPro's were, if not more so.
We'll see how it plays out this time.
Re:Missing the point (Score:1)
Well it is. But that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't perform *TODAY*. And without real sales, even Intel doesn't have enough money to cash out forever.
Now I'd really like to hear what you base that opinion on. Neither PIV, Thunderbird, Palomino or any other brand I've heard about is supposed to scale to that clock speed (Not counting PIV's integer clock, at 2x rest of processor.. 10GHz integer clock in PIV 5GHz? not any day close, on computer timescale anyway). Maybe AMD will make a hyper-hyper-pipelined one to turn the tables again, who knows *that* far ahead?
The real point is that Intel is losing market shares in all markeds, and losing them as fast as AMD can ramp up production. Right now NO intel processor is price/performance winner. Celeron? In extremely low-price integrated mobo solutions maybe, but only because of the integration on the mobo. P3? on par with Thunderbird in performance, way lost in price/performance. PIV? Most tests prove it on par with 1.2GHz Athlon with DDR, wins a few, loses a few, but add price into the equation and Intel is at another dead loss.
Intel may, if they can get PIV speeds up, take the really high-end marked. But right now it reminds me of 3dfx Voodoo 6000, big, power hungry, high production costs (4 chips/big die), rumored to be the fastest whenever it comes out... and we all know how that turned out.
Kjella
Re:Its all about the pentiums (Score:1)
There are more details here [zaq.ne.jp] and there are links to patches available from Microsoft's Secutiry Alert page. [microsoft.com]
Look we... (Score:2)
So what are its mips? (Score:1)
Processors At The End Of The Universe (Score:1)
Along similar lines, I found myself looking at the estimates of $1000+ for a case, motherboard, P4 and 128mb of rambus piracy. It occured to me that if I put maybe $10 a month aside, with processor power doubling every 18mths-2yrs or so, I should have enough saved to happily go out and be the first on my block to buy the first 1 TerraHz PC.
$10 a month really isn't all that much to put aside, so I won't mind being ripped off by the memory exploitation of the time, or the new motherboard I'll need, or any of the rest of it. For once, rather than buying a "good PC" that's all I can afford, I'll really have the money to buy the best 1 Thz (is that the right unit symbol?) PC my little heart can spec. I'll also have the smug, self satisfied grin of the first guy I know to have a 1Thz PC.
Maybe I'll have enough left over to ignore the crowds and pay the inflated price of a PlayStation10 on Ebay. *grin*
P4 - Good Database Chip? (Score:1)
Re:200FPS Quake III!!! (Score:1)
Weird Al's new song? (Score:1)
(sorry =P)
Home PC sales will be a dissapointment (Score:3)
Back in the dark ages (say, 4 years ago) you needed a high-end PC if you just wanted to surf the Web and print a document at the same time. But these 1 gHz+ machines have are overkill for general-purpose users. Combine that in with mediocre reviews and recent evidence that PC market growth is finally leveling off, and it can only translate to sluggish sales.
The best part of all of this is that people who have been chugging along with older P2s will be able find moderately-clocked P3 chips cheap.
Is there anyone out there that is planning on getting a P4 for non-corporate use? Or even corporate use, for that matter?
-
Re:200FPS Quake III!!! (Score:1)
Re:The real advantage.... (Score:2)
The thing that would help the P4 most would be getting lots and lots of SSE2 optimizations in all the compilers, and having the apps vendors USE them.
Similarly, what would help AMD is having 3DNOW! optimizations in compilers, and having apps vendors use that - supposedly 3DNOW! is better than SSE2, but few use them at all.
As for 3gHz by 2Q2002, it won't matter - by then the Hammer family from AMD will be out, also with full SSE2 support, and will probably cream any 32-bit CPU from Intel. The real competition from Intel by then will be whatever 64-bit offering they can cook up for the desktop. 2002 will be a very interesting year for processors.
Re:Time to short Intel stock? (Score:2)
And people will keep buying P4's from Intel, simply because Intel is the standard. Intel has capacity. And Intel's chips are standard inside of most business PC's... Athlons generally only ship in hobbyist, game, and soho machines.
Until AMD can crank up their capacity even more and sign on gateway, IBM, and compaq to ship their chips in their mainstream business machines, Intel is sitting pretty.
Need a "No Rambus Inside" sticker (Score:3)
Re:AMD still ooks better (Score:2)
Re:The real advantage.... (Score:2)
Re:Home PC sales will be a dissapointment (Score:2)
Its all about the GHZ (Score:2)
Little Willy (Score:3)
Intel's new Pentium 4 "Willamette" processor (Willy for short) will become public news: it's really not worth buying. At a clock speed of 1.5 GHz -- Guy Kewney says it's barely faster than a Pentium 3 at 1 GHz Intel, in short, has a little Willy. Go to AnchorDesk UK for the news comment.
--K
---
Same Conclusions (Score:2)
1) A 1.5 GHz AMD product probably would do it better.
2) The Pentium 4 is too damn expensive
3) It isn't going to be in YOUR hands anytime soon
I find it funny that the one article was comparing an overclocked 750 MHz AMD (clocked up to 1.1 GHz) to a 1.5 GHz P4 and not seeing that big of difference.
Anywho, good to see AMD is going to stay competitive and push Intel to work a little harder...can't but help you and I.
Info on plasma (Score:2)
Specifically, plasma is a "collection of free electrons and ionized atoms." They remain in a homogeneous mixture, so the electrical charges are balanced, but the particles have *way* too much energy for the electrons to "reattach" themselves to the atoms. Check it out, this stuff is pretty interesting.
Re:wow.. (Score:2)
Don't worry; the SPEC scores have been very poorly reported, while the P4's rather poor performance on non-optimized code has gotten all the press. You are by far not the only one to have missed the SPEC scores and assume that the P4 is a dud. Of course, in some ways this is valid, since SPEC scores are more indicative of the potential of the P4 core than of how well a P4 will perform on today's code. Still, as it turns out, the Alpha scores I was comparing the P4 against in my original post are for chips that won't be released until January; so technically, the P4 has not just the SPECint2000 crown (base and peak) but the SPECfp2000 crown as well (base only)!
Okay, I'm not heavy into hardware, I just wanted to point out the numerous problems with the P4 - it seems that the processor itself is not one of them!
I certainly wouldn't go out and buy a P4 today--a DDR Athlon is a much better deal for today's software. But the SPEC scores show that once we get some P4-optimized software, it's gonna kick butt. So, mediocre as a current product, great as a debut for a new core.
Tolu, you always have something insightful to say about chip design, but you have to repeat yourself fairly often across articles - have you thought about bugging the
Thanks!
Eh, I do get carried away too easily I suppose. It's always a problem when you feel like you have all this relevant information that many people reading may not know, and you don't know how much of it to repeat. (I generally tend to go for "all of it".) As for submitting an essay to
Missing the point (Score:4)
That is not the point.
Intel is not trying to beat the competition immediately, despite appearances to the contrary. They are, instead, looking on the Pentium IV as a long-term solution.
Take a look at the chip. The whole thing is designed to run at faster and faster clock speeds. Now, I am not taking a stand on whether AMD will be able to out-clock Intel (though personally, I hope so) but their CPUs do not sacrifice as much to clock speed at the moment. That is, AMD prefers to produce more complex, slightly less highly-clockable CPUs.
Of course, these chips could be clocked higher than Intel's Pentium III chips, and they were more stable as well. But now Intel has redesigned.
Really, the question comes down to how well AMD can scale to faster clock speeds. If AMD can hit even only 3.5 gigahertz by the time Intel hits 5 gigahertz, AMD will have won. But it is quite possible that AMD will not be able to do this, at least not without a redesign. Of course, if AMD can match Intel Ghz-for-Ghz, Intel is in serious trouble.
And that, my friends, is the point.
Not quite.. (Score:3)
And to reiterate - killing it more than direct comparison to the Athlon is that the associated parts are just out-and-out defunct.
The RDRAM system is hideously expensive; when implemented (correctly) by Intel it didn't meet Rambus's projected specs; anyone who gets in bed with Rambus gets a nasty case of lawsuits.
Entirely new boards, no compatibility, either backwards or forwards.
Chip itself is massively more expensive, perhaps to produce as well.
No SMP - goodbye server market. Remember how long it took to get 4-way Xeons? SMP will not be kludged in easily.
VIA, Intel, Rambus, and others are in a really screwed up relationship ATM.
Intel has some large problems here, more than can be overcome by one chip, even the most important chip, scaling to infinity. But hey, I hope they do - what would AMD do without competition?
Re:Time to short Intel stock? (Score:2)
Not quite true. Look at Intel's last quarter. They didn't meet expectations, saying that the European market was softening. Yet AMD did OK. Intel has been faltering lately, and this looks like they are going to continue to do so. And AMD is there ready to take up the slack.
Re:Little Willy (Score:2)
--
Re:Time to short Intel stock? (Score:2)
_____________
Too early to tell (Score:2)
Of course, in many cases the Pentium4 still doesn't look all that good compared to even the released Athlon and PentiumIII solutions, but there is another explanation. Remember that is is an entirely new architecture -- they always look bad when they first come out. Remember the PentiumPro? On one hand, it was faster than all the RISC CPUs of the time. On the other hand, it was getting beat by the vanilla Pentium in Windows 16-bit benchmarks.
The same thing applies, here. Take the RC5 benchmark where the Pentium4 is a lot slower than the PentiumIII. RC5 has been hand optimized for every single popular CPU architecture. Of course it looks bad on the Pentium4, because hand optimizations aren't available for it. Give it a few months for optimizations appear then see how well it runs. The same story goes for the SSE2 optimizations.
Also noticed what happened with RAMBUS. The i850 chipset isn't all that different from the i840 (the PentiumIII's dual-RAMBUS chipset), yet the i850 has dramatically higher memory scores. Intel decided to go with RAMBUS for the Pentium4, and designed the the new CPU around RAMBUS. In particular, the CPU is designed to have multiple outstanding requests to the memory subsystem, a feature supported by RAMBUS but not by SDRAM. This means that the PentiumIII can never take advantage of RAMBUS. It is even possible that these multiple outstanding transactions will allow the Pentium4 to show LOWER latency than a PentiumIII/SDRAM solution. (Oh, and the 400MHz bus improve absolute bandwidth as well :-).
In short: if I were buying a computer today, I'd go for an Athlon (or dual-PentiumIII). However, I bet 6 months from now, I'd probably be looking at the Pentium4.
(PS: ...and of course, I think Intel DID make tradeoffs for meaningless MHz increases for marketing reasons.)
About the P4 (Score:5)
Well, anyways, just thought I'd throw out my opinion, based on the real world use I would have put on the comp anyways. This just reinforces my thought that the P4 is gonna flop, and take a large chunk of Intel's marketshare with it. The only thing that's gonna save it is if Intel gets the speed up to 2gHz+ very soon, and even then I still have my doubts. My advice is that noone buy this version of the chip, since once the chip moves to the .13 micron process, the existing chips and MB's are gonna be completely worthless, since they are not gonna be forwards compatible.
Well, anyways, feel free to disagree with me. I don't claim to be some computer genious, I'm just someone with enough knowledge to use a computer and do some basic testing.
-C
Clever title, but... (Score:2)
Re:Remember Rambus (Score:2)
That said, the machines which will be sold by Dell, et al. will already be evolutionary dead ends.
--
Re:Its all about the pentiums (Score:2)
About "the RDRAM thing" (Score:2)
"You can see that the memory speed does indeed have a major impact on all the benchmark results except of the 3D Studio Max scores. In some cases the difference between the slowest and the fastest score is more than 10%! This proves clearly that Pentium 4 lives from the high memory bandwidth that RDRAM is finally able to deliver. Keep that in mind in case someone wants to sell you PC600 RDRAM!
The technology works as advertised, maybe we can stop all the mindless bashing now.
P4 'advantages' (Score:5)
Also note, performance-wise to compare to the Athlon - in 1Q2001 AMD releases the Palomino version of the Athlon, which should perform even better than the current Thunderbird Athlon, plus be at higher clock rates. At the same time, SMP systems will start coming online for the Athlon, which you can use Durons, Thunderbird Athlons, or Palomino Athlons with, so you can grow your system slowly if money is tight. Take two 900mHz Durons and start SMP slowly. Most people probably won't need to go to the Athlon at all! Sweet.
Also note: DDR will get better - current comparisons are being done with systems using, I think CAS 2.5-3-3 memory. Faster DDR is coming soon (though, of course, that'll obviously cost more). I don't mind paying for performance, but I _do_ mind paying for uneven performance (better in some ways than old, worse in others, like Rambus DRDRAM and the Pentium 4).
This all adds up to some pain for Intel in 2001.
No black holes, but... (Score:4)