Pentium IV study 251
InQuest has published a study of the Pentium IV. It
found that because of the P4's cache design, it uses 4 times the memory
bandwith a PIII does on random access data benchmarks. Even on benchmarks which
benefit from the larger cache-line size, the P4 shows no benefit due to its
higher clock rate. Furthermore, the 1.5GHz P4's thermal diode throttles the
part to effectively 750Mhz as soon as power consumption exceeds 54.7W. Without
this limitation, a P4's maximum consumption would be 72.9 watts, similar to a
1.33 GHz Athlon's 73 watts.
Now WHAT IN THE HELL?!?! (Score:1)
ouch (Score:1)
so that's why the p4 performs so badly.
it's surprising it took this long to realize, that it's so cache hungry for no gain. no wonder intel has gotten itself in the unfortunate position of needing rambus.
those sdram scores will be rather embarrassing.
on another note, it's odd to be reading the article, then come here to slashdot and find it's just been posted.
so, how is intel going to do this quarter? they report april 17.
Re:Some followup notes (Score:1)
"Oh."
"It has 1024 mb of RAM!!
"So .. what are you doing with it then?"
"Umm, surfing the Internet. And playing games."
Ha ha.
BFD. (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
Re:Take this with a grain of salt. (Score:2)
The more things change... (Score:2)
...phil
Come on... (Score:2)
You guys seem to like throwing out numbers. Could you do us all a favor and give us some links or at least explain where you managed to come by these numbers?
Re:What a stupid benchmark! (Score:1)
Intel needs to do some severe retooling of the P4 before it's really ready for the market. Until then, I have a feeling AMD's market will be doing nothing but growing. I know if I were buying a new box right now, I'd be going AMD.
_____
Re:So, basically what you're saying is (Score:1)
Re:I've been steering people clear of the IV (Score:1)
Re:Throttling may be a feature (Score:1)
And what do you mean you need a good heat sink? Doesn't the P4 already come with a 1 pound hunk of copper? What more do you need?
Re:So? (Score:3)
Not nearly as much as far as I can tell. Then again it doesn't need as much.
To run IA64 code you need a IA64 OS. To run 64 bit AMD code you need a minor change to the context switching code (you need to save 64 bits of data per GPR, and twice as many GPRs). Of corse you need more OS support for a 64 bit address space.
To produce good code for the IA64 you need some extremely advanced compiler technology. Unrolling loops isn't enough, you have to modulo schedule them. Good AMD64 code is hardly different from normal x86 code.
Now there are IA64 OSes, and at least a compiler or two. Intel did get something for their hype machine efforts, and for having some machines around for people to test on. I don't think the AMD 64 bit stuff is as far along, but it won't take long to catch up.
Besides a lot of the IA64 mind share is folks calling it the "iTanic", AMD may not want that kind of mind share :-)
I don't think anything in the IA64 is as useful as SMT (as seen in the next gen Alpha, and rumored to be in the next IBM Power CPU). Pretty much everything in the IA64 has been seen before BTW. I do admit it is more innovative then the 64 bit AMD CPU though, but not all innovations are worth the price of buy in...
Of corse two years ago I felt differently about the IA64 (and I have a stack of IA64 docs to show for it), and in two years I may change my mind again...
Everyone knows... (Score:2)
Of course, I'm really rooting for AMD here, they're pushing Intel to its limits and the consumer is benefitting.
reality check (Score:1)
___
Re:amds marketing department. (Score:1)
Especially since Dell is the only large vendor that still refuses to sell AMD....
___
Re:What a stupid benchmark! (Score:1)
Did anyone else claim otherwise? All the article said was that random access is 4 times as bad on P4.
Nice troll though.
___
Re:Bandwith and SMP and of course .... (Score:1)
I can answer this question: it won't. Because P4 does not support SMP, and the future incarnations will not add SMP support any time soon. But yeah, if they ever do, the performance would be abyssmal. Especially compared to AMD where each CPU has a *dedicated* 266MHz bus, instead of sharing it with all other CPUs like Intel. Intel will definitely have to fix this. Come SMP boards for Athlons and I doubt that even extreme marketing will be able to save Intel.
___
Re:Let me be a karma whoring p4 lover... (Score:2)
Oh, btw, redo your benchmark taking price/performance into account...
___
Re:Let me be a karma whoring p4 lover... (Score:2)
___
Re:Say NO to SCAMBUS..uh, RAMBUS (Score:2)
It's too bad these benchmarks are useless, as 99% of applications don't require anywhere near as much bandwidth, and are in fact hurt by Rambus's high latency. The one exception, as you pointed out in your other comment, is scientific computing. Other, more realistic benchmarks showed a different picture. I especially liked the ones where 1GHz P3 beat 1.5GHz P4 :-)
BTW, do you work for Intel?
___
Hey, karma's back! (Score:2)
You know it's bad enough that you can't use AMD or Intel in the same motherboard anymore, and I wonder if the hardware companies are happy about that or not, but now it's getting to where upgrading your motherboard with a better CPU is going to be an exercise in futility. I wonder how soon we're going to see motherboard, power supply and case form factors only compatible with certain CPUs from certain companies, not to mention all the overtime work they're going to do to make your current RAM useless.
Anybody want to buy some 5volt DIMMs?
You think that's bad.... (Score:4)
Intel to cut up to 60 per cent off P4 prices [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Ahem (Score:1)
That isn't clear, actually. According to the Intel thermal design guide, all the applications they tested fell below 75% of maximum power dissipation, which is the suggested thermal design point. However, from the list, it isn't clear to me that there aren't common CPU-intensive apps that would rise above that mark and possibly trigger the sensor. Maybe if it was set to trigger just shy of the maximum power setting.
Obviously having a better cooling solution would make it even less likely, but the point of the previous post was not needed it.
Re:Ahem (Score:2)
Yes, and you also need to factor in the 50% drop in clock speed the P4 makes to avoid needing that fan when you do price/performance comparisons.
Though what I really wanted to see was benchmarks demonstrating this effect. As in -- run UT for a while, watch temperature rise, watch framerate drop when temp hits 55 degrees.
LAST TIME (Score:2)
Okay, I've said this before, I'll say it again, but no more.
x86 was supposed to 'run out of steam' 10 years ago when the RISC revolution started then died. It didn't. RISC lost, CISC won.
But then again, RISC won, because CISC only won by keeping its external form but becoming RISC on the inside. Every x86 chip since the PPro has had a RISC core with an x86 decoder front-end. Thus the limitations of x86 as an ISA have been decoupled from the performance of the chip.
There is no reason for x86 to 'run out of steam'. There is no inherent limitation in the ISA that prevents faster processing. Yes, the decoders are large and complicated, but Intel and AMD have a handle on that. The P4's trace cache is a beautiful example of getting x86 entirely out of the critical path.
Given that, why are both AMD and Intel making 64-bit ISA's instead of sticking with ol' IA-32? Because servers need bigger address spaces for things like terrabyte databases. That's all. The only motivating reason.
AMD won't ever be making IA-64 machines. Why? They don't have a license, and intel sure as hell isn't going to give them one. I suspect this is a major reason why Intel isn't making their own 64-bit extension to x86.
Lastly, while IA-64 is both VLIW and RISC, it does involve new technology not encompased by either term, so the new phrase 'EPIC' is suitable. Not that I think it is a good idea in the first place.
Re:Oh? (Score:2)
The floating point architecture is the same as the rest of the ISA - an illusion provided to the external world, re-arranged into something sane by the decoders. This is why the Athlon's FP performance rocks so much.
Sure, having this baggage isn't _good_, but it isn't bad either, outside of the extra die area it takes up. But what having that baggage does let you do is take advantage of the dearth of x86 software out there. That's the whole reason it's still around.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Re:Abridged Slashdot Version (Score:1)
(snip)
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
It's a pretty factual examination of things. Worth the read -- it might save you from pissing your money away on something that's not any good.
--
Re:So? (Score:2)
But because Intel has more shares outstanding than there are greenbacks in North America, it has essentially devalued its share value:
AMD: basic income of $3.25 per share.
INTC: basic income of $1.57 per share.
Put quite simply, AMD's share is providing a better bang for your buck. AMD's share should, if one were to use Intel as the benchmark, be priced at $150...
Guess I should buy some.
--
Re:So? (Score:5)
Fact: AMD now holds twenty- to thirty-percent marketshare.
Fact: AMD Duron and Athlon processors are now spec'd by all but one mainstream, brand name supplier.
Fact: The latest AMD processors outperform -- and are widely reported as such -- the latest Intel processors.
Fact: AMD K6-2 mobile processors have a 20% marketshare, and AMD K7-family processors are gaining marketshare.
Fact: Intel keeps fucking things up. And I mean *seriously* fucking up. From backing Rambus to failing chipsets to bolloxing up its relationship with their customers... oh, gahd, the list is endless.
So, how do you foresee Intel dominating the platform war? What I foresee is a an ungainly beast of a has-been chip design and manufacturing company, shooting itself in the foot and chopping its own legs off, while an upstart executes cleanly and quickly, soon to overtake it...
--
Re:why? (Score:2)
Amazing! (Score:3)
Re:I've been steering people clear of the IV (Score:2)
Pentium III and Athlon systems can still get by with standard ATX cases, provided you have a 300 watt power supply and decent system case cooling.
It'll be a while before Pentium 4 systems become common.
Re:I've been steering people clear of the IV (Score:2)
If you're using an Intel-brand motheboard for the Pentium 4, sticking it in a regular ATX case ain't going to work.
The problem is that the Intel P4 boards require a special motherboard mount, and the Intel boards also use a new-style power supply connector, too. That's why they're not cheap.
Re:Still too early to judge Pentium 4 (Score:2)
I do agree that for current operating systems and applications, they are not written to take advantage of the architecture of the Pentium 4 CPU.
Yet, remember what I said about the Pentium Pro from six years ago: refinements to the CPU core pioneered by the Pentium Pro led to much better improvements in 16-bit app speeds, starting with the Pentium II, then Celeron, then Pentium III. Remember when the Pentium II first came out operating systems such as Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 recognized it as a Pentium Pro CPU.
I expect the second-generation Pentium 4's due this fall to be a bit faster as they will "tweak" the Pentium 4 CPU core for faster performance.
Re:Still too early to judge Pentium 4 (Score:2)
However, unless it's a high-end game, I don't see any real apps coming soon that will truly take advantage of SSE2 (well, maybe Adobe Illustrator and PhotoShop, but who knows when will fully SSE2-supported versions will be available).
Besides, remember that AMD plans to have the third-generation Athlon based on the Palomino core coming this fall. I'm sure AMD will make many improvements in order to keep up with the Pentium 4 in regards to integer and FPU speed.
Still too early to judge Pentium 4 (Score:3)
The reason is simple: we are repeating history in terms of Intel CPU architecture development.
I think many of you remember the Pentium Pro CPU, which came out in 1995. While it was very fast for its day in terms of 32-bit applications, it was a bit poor for 16-bit applications. Yet, the P6 CPU core that the Pentium Pro pioneered became the basis after numerous refinements for the Pentium II/III and Celeron CPU's, which run very quickly with both 16-bit and 32-bit applications and was not matched until the AMD Athlon came out in 1999.
As it stands, the Pentium 4 CPU core design--which is brand new in many aspects--has only begun its development curve. I expect dramatic improvements in performance as this new core design is improved over the next few years.
Re:the point is.. (Score:3)
1) Intel has better OEM vendors lined up for their market (Dell/Compaq/IBM). This channel is the key. AMD primarily gets what's left (home/soho/BYOB).
2) Intel has a much better reputation. Little things like that "What chipset bugs?" scene when the K7 was launched don't help. The key here is that if Intel tries to force RAMBUST or buggy shit like the i820 down Mr. MIS's throat they are dead in the water, so they are dancing on pinheads.
3) The corporate market could give a shit which processor can do 10fps better in Quake or if some CPU is slightly suboptimal at running legacy code (which after all was designed to run much slower computers to begin with). They are simply looking for a price/performance/supportability sweet spot that they can standardize on.
--
Northwood (Score:3)
- they pointed out the fact that P4 performance is no greater than lower-clocked Athlon. This is true. However, with Northwood P4 should be scaling to 2G and above where it will eventually beat Athlon. (Of course, AMD is not sitting still, but P4 is supposed to have more headroom than Athlon due to its superlong pipes.)
- They criticize the power throttling; this would be a moot issue after the processor is shrunk, at least for the lower end P4s.
- They point out that nobody wants to buy the current P4 due to its dead-end packaging. This is also true, but presumably the new socket for Northwood will be around for a while. (I have no idea why Intel thought to introduce the 850 while admitting that it would be dropped in less than a year, but that's what they did.)
They even acknowledge the price drop. AMD competed for years with inferior processors priced low. Intel can certainly compete with Northwood.Throttling may be a feature (Score:5)
Anyone care to comment on this seeming discrepancy?
Assuming that it really is thermal throttling, I would love to see what a good tech site like Tom's might be able to determine about the throttled down CPU when using various heatsinks. If that feature is really there then you should expect more powerful heatsinks give the same temperature as lesser heatsinks, but higher performance.
In other words, it is possible to see this as a feature, not a bug. You get 1.5G when the processor is capable of it. You get half that when you are running hot; but with good enough cooling you should always get the highest performance possible.
"Overclocking" may go away, replaced by "overcooling".
Overestimation of Consumer pricing preferences? (Score:3)
Otherwise, why would the sub $400 USD computers be so popular? Show a consumer a 1.2 GHz AMD based computer and a 1.5 GHz computer, at a even $200 price difference and expect to see the AMD win.
the point is.. (Score:2)
Pentium IV problems (Score:2)
JoeLinux
The world is coming to an end. Please log off.
Re:So, basically what you're saying is ... (Score:2)
I played with an ASUS P5A (Super 7, Ali chipset) at work recently when I put a 233MMX in. What a dog. Slower than the 166MMX next to it on a XP55-T2P4. (A bunch of data entry terminals, speed not terribly important.)
You need special IDE drivers, AGP Drivers, etc. It's like a Via chipset, except that Via actually makes decent drivers. Maybe Ali and ATI are the same company? They both make hardware that should be good, yet prevent anyone from ever using it properly by withholding stable drivers.
But I've also seen a K6-2 do very well on some real-world things... I think it's largely the mobo.
Re:So? (Score:2)
The OEMs always charge $100 - $250 more for a system than it could be built for, with quality parts, if you did it yourself.
And maybe I'm just really fast, but I've rarely had a new PC take more than an hour to assemble from parts.
You could be talking about how they come with the OS pre-installed or something, but I've rarely seen a business that's used the pre-installed OS. Everyone I've worked for has wiped it and reinstalled something else. They've also usually had something like Norton's Ghost to automate this procedure. (Not like installing takes very long, base Win2k is a 30 minute install, Win98 takes 15, and *nobody* uses WinME...)
But, you go ahead and pay those companies an extra couple hundred dollars, and accept the low quality parts you're likely to get. (Dell and Compaq both have custom mobos that are trash, and tend to ship with the slowest HD and Video you can buy, just to save a buck.)
I'd rather spend a few hours on research (not too much, because I keep caught up for my own purchases) and then specify, to the specific parts, the exact computer I want. And then get a local store to send me exactly that. Hell, assembly is free on a full system, so there's that much less to do.
It's nice, knowing you've got quality parts that you'll be able to find a BIOS upgrade for, or replace with off-the-shelf components in the future. Nicer yet when you realize it was much cheaper.
Re:Northwood (Score:2)
They know it'll never reach 100% of its power, that it can't be upgraded to the next gen, that it underperforms the lower-priced chips from both companies, and it costs more, requires a new botherboard, power supply, and case.
And all you do is say "It'll be better next year."
Well, screw that. I didn't buy a K6-2 because it didn't perform well, I won't buy a P4 because it's crap. If they change that, I may change my mind in the future.
I'm not buying a technology, or a product line. I'm buy a CPU, one that I expect to perform well for the things that I do. If the P4 doesn't, I don't care if it's got super long pipes, or pixie dust, it's still crap.
Yes, the early Pentiums sucked, and then the line got better. And the PPro was overpriced and underperforming, and then became the P2 and P3. But if you bought that first gen chip you were screwed. You had a crap product, for four times the price and no boost in performance, that required a brand new motherboard and ram, which were all pricey and would be obsolete by the time anything worth upgrading to came along.
Call me when the P4 doesn't get demolished by the P3 and the Athlon. Call me when it costs less and performs better.
Let me be a karma whoring p4 lover... (Score:2)
The short of the story is this...the p4 plastered the p3, the athlon, and everything else, save for an alpha, which it gave a run for the money.
The first test we did was a large matrix inversion in octave. Same version, same kernels, etc. Same disks (scsi/160). The p4 ran it in 1/3 the time of the p3, with only 1/2 again as many ghz. Same speed ram. That memory bus mooooves things. Boy does it move.
We ran Gaussian on it. We saw a linear increase in relation to processor speed. This may seem "normal" but it is not. You almost never see that in this particular application.
We ran lmbench on it vs a ultrasparcIII. It embarassed the US3 so badly that we felt that it just wasn't a fair benchmark (gotta find something better for the suns).
I like the p4. It'll be a win for scientific ocmputing, regardless of what the consumer market thinks.
Re:the point is.. (Score:2)
Huh? Dell is the only AMD holdout. In fact IBM and Compaq are some of the more aggressive AMD OEMs.
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
I don't put much faith in that article.
--
Patrick Doyle
P4 was released a year early (Score:2)
So Intel released a beta processor, a prerelease effort. The P4's architecture has many good points, but only above 2GHz. I am ignoring the CPU-protect feature (halving the speed when the CPU gets too hot - this is a cooler issue, not a CPU issue, I would like my CPU to protect itself! However Intel should have written that their CPU dumps 73W max at 1.5GHz).
What I would hope for is an optimised P4 later this year, i.e., the real release version. At 0.13u, with more L2 cache, etc, the P4 will actually start to be a better platform. Shame that they are going to couple it will PC100 SDRAM with the first SDRAM chipset, but then again, maybe they have fixed that bandwidth hogging problem...
Still, the extra problems are not doing anything for Intels reputation. IT managers are starting to notice that there is more beyond Intel, Athlons are starting to ship to corporates instead of PIIIs. Integrated motherboards for AMD processors are starting to appear by the bucket load (KM133, SiS730, etc).
So, AMD for me this year. Can't wait for summer and beyond - Dual AMD processor action! Now, what do I need one of those for?
Ahem (Score:2)
Yep, but I'd rather have a chip slow down a bit when overheating than melt like Athlons do. AMD managed to make use power hungry/heat generator chips, yet didn't even think about emebedding a thermal diode and protection like all P3 and P4 have. Results ? Lots of burned Athlon at 1 Ghz and more.
Re:Let me be a karma whoring p4 lover... (Score:2)
This is real no matter what anyone tells you about their apps. But you can't tell them anything either!
Dense matrix inversion, gaussian elimination and many chemistry codes will do well on the P7. They're all about ripping arrays lengthwise. The P7 was designed for multimedia which does exactly the same thing.
The problem comes when your problem isn't so neat. If you have to process arrays crosswise or hopping elts, then the advantage is lost and worse. Let alone if you have data-dependant (ie random) jumps.
I've been steering people clear of the IV (Score:2)
But the sheer percentage of these people who were going to buy a P IV if I hadn't said something is a testament to Intel's strategy. People are going to buy it just because of the name.
InQuest=Mindcraft (Score:2)
http://www.aceshardware.com/board/general/read.
Marketting Makes Money (Score:3)
Look at the success of Microsoft Dos and Windows. There were certainly better alternatives out at the time for everything DOS and Windows did (PC-DOS, DR-DOS, even Macs). Microsoft primarily won the OS and Apps market because of its hugely successful marketting push. The only thing the average person heard in conjunction with "Computers" became "Microsoft".
Or consider America Online. There were many ISPs before them (remember netcom?), but the veritable hailstorm of "Free" floppies and CDs bought AOL the lion's share of Internet Service Provision.
The fact is that unless the Pentium has a serious flaw in it (fdiv, F00F), it will do reasonably well just because it has "1.5ghz". And as we all know, that more gigahertz must mean better technology!
In future news... Watch as Intel attaches a Ring Oscillator to their P5 chip running at 10ghz, unused by the rest of the chip.
-Ted
Even worse.... (Score:2)
Actually... (Score:2)
Things are moving so fast, becoming so cheap...that by the time you want a new computer,, you might aswell just replace the whole damned thing!
Its only the true hardware junkies who spend the money to get the latest and greatest hardware every week.
I'm a PC Enthusiast myself.... (Score:2)
Abridged Slashdot Version (Score:3)
Intel... lure the mainstream... just plain bad... lost market share and customer respect... unwise... poor... many new alternatives... not...thrilled.
Intel...predicted...fastest... shipments...below expectations... bad omen.
The market...will not pay a premium... Intel is hoping... frustration.
Intel...criticizing AMD...Athlon. P3...well supported.
But now...instability of the P4 platform...P4 lacks...market...confidence.
P4...will undergo...five major changes...
Users...aware...weaknesses... Intel's...problem is the platform... band-aid.
Brookdale...difficult...DDR...competition.
Intel...frustrated...cripple... wide open for all...competitors.
P4 needs...strategy... DDR... escapes...Intel's marketing folks... familiar territory.
Intel...deny...problem... vigorous defense of Rambus.
elaborate thermal and power regulation requirements... toaster oven.
Intel... publicizing... amazement... only 54.7 Watts... below the fastest Athlon.
Pentium 4... unbalanced... weakest.
Intel's... elevated costs... horrific... price slashing.
--
Re:So? (Score:2)
Well, AMD has already thought of this. In case you haven't noticed, AMD is no longer in the business of catching up with Intel. They are poised to take a bite out of Intel's ass.
Need evidence? Okay. The reasons Intel became so wildly successful in the processor market is due to a number of factors. But I think the most obvious one should be that they did what no one else had done at the time; they made their next-gen processors backward-compatible. This, of course, elated consumers because it meant that they didn't have to throw away all of their familiar software (and sometimes hardware) to get the performance boost that a new CPU would offer.
Now, fast forward to the late 90's. Intel dominates the market, but sees a threat, so it does what nearly every company does when in fear of seeing their previously solid sales figures start to dwindle due to competition. They change their product to make it incompatible with their old product line, but most importantly their competitor's product line. Then then sit and pray that brand recognition will propel them through the transition.
In the current case of AMD and Intel, this may or may not work. But AMD has a distinct advantage. They didn't wait for Intel to make their move first, but set to work on their next major cashcow product. We know it as Sledgehammer: AMD's 64-bit chip to compete directly with Intel's. The advantage lies in that AMD's chip will be backwards compatible with the 32-bit x86 architecture, while Intel's will not. To see why this is an advantage, I direct you towards the first paragraph of this post.
(In Intel's defense, they claim that they will have an x86 emulator ready at the time their IA64 chip ships. How well this will work in comparison to backwards-compatible 32-bit hardware instructions remains to be seen...)
What a stupid benchmark! (Score:2)
Why don't they mention something like bandwidth scores or something similar? Take a look at the PIV's scores in Sisoft Sandra (a widely used metric in the overclocking community). It absolutely crushes both the Pentium III and the Athlon in memory bandwidth.
Yes the PIV is slow. Yes it has an overly long pipeline. Yes the cachelines are big. And yes, random accesses are bad on caches. ALL CACHES.
Say NO to SCAMBUS..uh, RAMBUS (Score:2)
--
Wasted memory bandwidth and SMP (Score:2)
However, suppose you've got a SMP machine with four CPUs, I guess you'll get into big trouble. The Intel architectures are not really known for impressive I/O bandwidth, and if the memory subsystem has to deal with 1.6 GB/sec instead of 400 MB/sec, performance is probably affected.
So Intel should fix this rather quickly. May be this is thust an optimization issue, the 32 byte cache line is rather old and many programmers have adjusted their data structures accordingly because you can gain a few percents just by looking closely at the data access patterns. More recently, Intel has added explicit cache line prefetch instructions, and if these are used improperly (assuming 32 byte cache lines), the effect can be pretty devastating on the P4, I guess.
Re:Throttling may be a feature (Score:2)
1.7GHz/2=850MHz...
---
Re:So? (Score:2)
Intel's main strength is its manufacturing capacity. Intel has 7 or 8 fabs, and AMD has 2 (which is not enough to feed more than 20% of the market at current demand, which puts an upper limit on their market share). It would be in AMD's interest to continue to trend toward higher-end and leave the low end (but high volume) to Intel.
Interestingly, despite the fact that the Celeron is more than double the price of the equivalent Duron, Intel has a virtual monopoly on the sub-$1000 market, which makes me very seriously question AMD's marketing abilities. The Celeron is smaller (i.e. cheaper to manufacture), while the Duron has a relatively high opportunity cost (manufacturing Athlon's). Intel has been quietly cleaning up on this market (low margin, but very high volume), while AMD has almost complete lost it.
Intel's biggest weapon is its 0.13um process on 300mm wafers, which is coming early next year. This technology literally quadruples the capacity of a fab (AMD won't have 300mm until FAB35 is completed, which is projected to be in 2005). This means that one single Intel fab has the double the capacity of all of AMD, _and_ it lowers prices. Basically, Intel will be manufacturing tiny 2.5GHz Northwood's in tremendous quantity at a lower price than AMD's 1.5 GHz Athlon's (or whatever they will have in early 2002). I'd be pretty surprised if AMD didn't go back into negative earnings by Q3'01, and shocked if not by the Q1'02.
Re:I've been steering people clear of the IV (Score:2)
Re:Throttling may be a feature (Score:2)
Re:Intel Cutting prices soon (Score:2)
So that's why AMD almost always cuts prices first?
Re:Intel Cutting prices soon (Score:2)
Well, for starters, according to almost all industry rumor sites (the register, amdzone, etc.), dual P4 is going to be launched within a matter of weeks.
Re:Amazing! (Score:2)
Re:Say NO to SCAMBUS..uh, RAMBUS (Score:2)
Dude, have you seen any P4 memory benchmark? They outperform SDR and DDR based Athlon and P3 systems by a factor of three or four - all thanks to the memory subsystem.
Re:I've been steering people clear of the IV (Score:2)
Re:Let me be a karma whoring p4 lover... (Score:2)
Your statement about Athlon/P3 outperforming P4 on FP is just plain FUD. P4 is the second fastest CPU in the world in FP (and the fastest in INT, by the way); the only thing faster is the very fastest speed grade Alpha. Let's have a look at SPEFfp2000:
833 MHz Alpha 21264 - 571
1.5 GHz Pentium 4 - 549
1.33 GHz Athlon - 414
1 GHz Pentium III - 304
Exactly how many shares of AMD do you own which causes you to spread lies about competitor's performance?
Re:I've been steering people clear of the IV (Score:2)
Re:Let me be a karma whoring p4 lover... (Score:3)
Oh, btw, redo your benchmark taking price/performance into account...
For starters: he said the P4 slaughtered the UltraSparc III. Have you priced one of THOSE recently? Hint: they're much more expensive (and rare!) than P4 systems.
Second: One of the departments in my company bought a bunch of $40,000 HP workstations. They also bought one $1,500 P4 system. They did benchmarks and found for THEIR APPLICATION, the $1,500 P4 was 3.5 times faster than the $40,000 HP. I'll leave the price/performance for this one as an exercise for the reader.
Third: For price/performance on SPECfp, the P4 does VERY well. It is about 10% slower than an 833MHz Alpha, and about 1/5th the price (it is faster - and cheaper - than all other speed grades of Alpha). Additionally, it is cheaper and faster than any other RISC machine.
Fourth: people who need the highest performance (i.e. P4 level memory and FP performance) usually pay a huge premium. In this sense, the P4 is a bargain (especially after the price cuts).
Re:why? (Score:2)
I just hope there's some way of alerting the OS (or BIOS, or something) that you've had a heat related speed change. Otherwise, you might not realize that things are screwed.
Anyone else notice this? (Score:4)
Take this with a grain of salt. (Score:5)
I'll give you an example: He says that the chip will slow down when you try to extract useful performance from it. He bases this on his misunderstanding of the THERMTRIP circuitry. Yes, it is true that the P4 will dissapate more energy when you make it run a heavier load. Yes, it is true that if the die on the chip gets too hot, the chip will slow down to protect itself. But that completely ignores the fact that it is up to the system vendor to insure that the chip never gets too hot. Right now, I'm looking at a P4 system that I was a designer on. Not only do we have a fansink on the P4 itself, the chassis has four separate fans to dissapate heat, and one of them is a monster 5-incher. There is no way that one of our systems is going to overheat the P4 and cause it to slow down.
Unfortunately, customers don't seem to appreciate thermal management in their buying decisions. But keep in mind that all 1.5GHz P4 systems are not alike.
Why AMD can't market the Duron processor (Score:2)
despite the fact that the Celeron is more than double the price of the equivalent Duron, Intel has a virtual monopoly on the sub-$1000 market, which makes me very seriously question AMD's marketing abilities.
Consumers probably think that "Duron" is a paint [duron.com] not a processor. Plus, AMD doesn't have the Blue Man Group [blueman.com] doing cheesy commercials (QuickTime [adcritic.com]).
x86 serverS plural. In that case, build a cluster. (Score:2)
Try buying a MP AMD system from your local vendor. If a corporation needs SMP, they _must_ buy Intel (for x86 servers).
Recent Athlon processors use a bus protocol similar to that of Compaq Alpha processors. Somebody else wrote that VA Linux Systems [valinux.com] (Slashdot's parent company) is building an Athlon-based SMP server and patching Linux to improve its SMP performance. But still, can you imagine...
Clustered database (Score:2)
OK, you have that "effective SMP" web cluster of maybe 100s of machines. Fine. Now what's your database server?
This is also an Athlon cluster. Specifically, an Oracle8i Enterprise Edition Parallel Server [oracle.com] cluster. (MySQL doesn't seem to support clustering.)
Re:Ahem yourself.... speaking of overheating (Score:2)
A melted blob of silicon would be all the remained of your chip.
Ideally you'd have enough time to have the OS detect a failure, send a page or an email and do a controlled shutdown before burn up. Or allow it to survive at full speed with no fan long enough for the OS to detect it and cut the speed - at which point all the above (paging/email/shutdown) could be done at reduced speed.
Cooling failures happen. Fans stop. Cars have overheat protection modes on the engine controller, so should CPUs.
That said, a CPU should NOT go into its "overheat protection mode" or thermal throlling as part of normal operation. I.e. room under 100 F and even at 100% CPU load, if the fan is turning at least minimum spec'd speed, it should NOT overheat.
Simple as that.
Re:Ahem (Score:2)
See here:
http://hardocp.com/articles/cooling/alpha&tbird
Game FPS (Score:2)
Or is the cycling between full performance and throttled performance so small that it is perceived to average out to a constant FPS in a game?
I could imagine it being difficult to certainly attribute FPS changes to this, but I'm very curios to know if anyone has firsthand knowledge.
Thankfully when I bought my Athlon, the P4 cost about 5 or 6 times as much (when purchased w/lots of memory)
I can say one thing against the P4. The two people at work that got brand spanking new Dell w2k boxes with it weren't much impressed with it over their old 500MHz machines.
---
Re:Ahem (Score:2)
It took a LOT of hammering, welding, and sheering and grinding of metal, but after a few days I made them fit.
Then I started the car and the wheels broke my axle 10 feet down the road. Stupid garbage Nissan Micra, what the hell???!??!! They're just wheels, I got them to fit and they were on the road, they should work!
Ow! Another headache! I hope I didn't brain my damage!
Ahem yourself.... speaking of overheating (Score:2)
Overheating? It is called a heatsink and fan.
Thermal grease also helps, you know, the white/silver/copper shit that costs $2 an oz?
Mounting the friggin heatsinks right would also be a plus here. Using one meant for the processor would help too, i.e. not a heatsink for a pentium pro.
I suppose geniuses like you who burned up their athlons/tbirds are bitter.
AMD makes good products, you just have to know a few basic things about them, like how to properly install a processor.
Oh, the P4 throttles when it reaches a specific wattage, that means, even though it is running cool, safe temperature, it still throttles down.
oh.. and in case you didn't pass grade 3 math, "a bit" is not 1.5ghz to 750 mhz, thats "half", which isn't "a bit".
What the hell is with this intel fetish with some people? Intel, at the current time, makes sub standard stuff. AMD makes really great, and cheap products. Your choice should be clear.
And FYI, a p4 will cook just as good as an athlon if you do something stupid.
Fuckhead.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
Intel Cutting prices soon (Score:2)
In other words, they're having problems moving them out, so they are going to slash prices.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:What? (Score:2)
Fact: AMD now holds twenty- to thirty-percent marketshare.
Fact: AMD Duron and Athlon processors are now spec'd by all but one mainstream, brand name supplier.
Fact: The latest AMD processors outperform -- and are widely reported as such -- the latest Intel processors.
Fact: AMD K6-2 mobile processors have a 20% marketshare, and AMD K7-family processors are gaining marketshare.
Fact: Intel keeps fucking things up. And I mean *seriously* fucking up. From backing Rambus to failing chipsets to bolloxing up its relationship with their customers... oh, gahd, the list is endless.
Just because you, and every other computer guy/gal knows this, does not mean your average consumer (assumed to be reasonably informed -- we'll ignore the idiot consumer for now) also knows.
According to the average consumer, Intel is the only game in town. And don't tell me that they're stupid for thinking that, or anything equally naive. They are simply uninformed, and it is not economical to them to become properly informed. For them, anything being sold now will be grossly overpowered for their web surfing and email writing.
What I don't understand, is why companies don't sell decent computers that are low powered and quiet for web surfing. I mean a "real" computer, not a stupid internet terminal (that are only useful for haxoring and installing free OSes). Something like a Celeron 400, 128 MB RAM, and 20 GB drive.
Re:Take this with a grain of salt. (Score:2)
It's always sad when you have to state the obvious because it isn't obvious to those who should know...?
Your point is 100% valid, and I agree entirely, but at the same time, I think that you shouldn't have to make that point in the first place...
::sigh::
So, basically what you're saying is (Score:3)
Didn't we already know that?
The only plus side from my viewpoint is I was going to buy some 500 MHz Pentium II chips, which should drop in price.
What about the power consumption claims from Intel on the Pentium IV - anyone got any specs on that?
Some followup notes (Score:3)
And note the CPU rampup - yeah, it will run faster than a P3, so long as you don't ask it to run fast for very long. Kind of like a car that goes 0-60 mph in 0.1 seconds, but if you actually try to get to top speed of 125 mph, it will suddenly kick in the limiter and drop you back down to 115 mph. Sure, the car's rated to do 250 mph, but it can't actually run at 250 mph.
Translation - very sucky. Trying to fight AMD on "bandwidth" by faking it and also fight Transmeta on low-power by using a heat limiter (faking it). It saves power when demand gets high by cutting throughput, instead of Transmeta which saves power when demand is low, but lets you use full power when you need it.
"Scotty, I need more power!" "Sorry, Cap'n, but the speed limiter just kicked in - I can give you warp 1.3, or if you turn off the shields and the phasers, I can give you our full rating of warp 9. Of course, then we'll die anyway
Yup, sounds like Intel
Re:Lies damb lies (Score:2)
Maybe you weren't around back in 1981 when IBM was advertising its 8088-based PC with the 8-bit data bus as a "16-bit" machine. Of course, this was in the days when CPU clock x RAM width = speed. Sure, it had a "16-bit core" which they advertised as making it "faster," except, waitaminute, in benchmarks with real software the PC was slower than, say, a Z-80. Oh, the distance that slippery slope can lead...
Re:Take this with a grain of salt. (Score:2)
28db *3 + 31db + 33db = 37db.
No, that's probably less than 80db.
- dave f.
Unfortunately slowing fown for a P4 is relative (Score:3)
Once I finish this reply, I will return to the air-cooled T-bird on my dining room table that is being happy as happy can be running at 1.6 GHz. This is with a $140 mobo, a $220 chip, and a $10 fan in a good case. After I get an OS on it, I will run Tim's benchmark. Dare say if past is prologue, it will surpass the 2.2 GHz P4 when that turkey is released.
Sorry to say, but Intel has let the marketing types run their company a bit too long. The blue man group is probably going to be the folks that are blue because their investment in Intel stinks so maybe their use in their advertising is more than appropriate.
Re:So? (Score:5)
_________________________________
Clerk: Can I help you?
Joe: Yeah, I'm looking for a computer.
Clerk: Oh, what you want is the new spiffy Intel Pentium IV that has 1.5 GHz!!!
Joe: What's a GHz?
Clerk: It's, uhhh, a thing that tells you how good your computer is. Having 1.5 is really, really good!!!
Joe: Oh, OK. What about that one over there? [points to a less expensive AMD-powered computer]
Clerk: Oh, well, that one only has 1.2 GHz. It's not a bad computer, but I'll tell you, personally, I'd never buy it. 1.2 GHz aren't nearly enough for today's demanding applications such as web browsing and e-mail!!!
_________________________________
As much as I hate to admit it, Intel made a good decision when they increased the depth of that pipeline: They decreased the speed, but they increased the only thing that matters to computer buyers, the GHz number. What AMD really needs to do is start an advertising blitz showing how much faster their chips are at a lower clock speed (and a lower price). Otherwise, Joe Consumer (and those clueless clerks) will never hear about it.
The P4 is no slouch (Score:2)
I don't like the P4 design. It's complex, has a messy instruction set, and consumes too much power for the performance they deliver. But the same is true of the whole Pentium series, and we have learned to live with it.
Overall, I think the Athlon may be a somewhat better deal than the P4, but the P4 isn't a slouch either. Now, I am looking forward to Sledgehammer: the 64bit AMD chip might end up being a much better compromise than Intel's 64bit offerings.
At the moment, yes. (Score:2)
However, when Intel moves to their own VLIW RISC solutions, (which they call EPIC instead) AMD will likely be forced to follow them, sooner or later. And cloning that chip (or even creating a compatible interface) should prove to be a far larger challenge than merely making yet another x86-compatible chipset.
AMD hopes to avoid all of this with Sledgehammer, and keep people on at least a quasi-x86 platform. And that might work for a couple of years. But eventually the x86 architecture will run out of steam, and when that happens, Intel will be there to take over again, for at least a few more years, until everyone else catches up again.
So? (Score:3)
We already knew that the P4 offered less performance, clock-for-clock, than other modern chipsets, but it is nice that someone has identified why. Also, it's about time that more people realize just how important cache performance can be.
However, the real question here is, what can we do about it? I mean, switching to AMD is fine in the short term, but Intel is likely to dominate the platform war in the long-term. And the P4 will likely be the first step in migrating people to their new architectures. Unless AMD's Sledgehammer is wildly successful, they will have an enormously more complicated cloning job on their hands.
Better coverage (Score:2)