
Intel Chips For The Near- And Semi-Near Future 105
Brian writes "This
article reports that Intel will release new chips at the Comdex
trade show, its first low-power designs for super-thin servers. The
new Pentium III model is a
gussied-up chip taken from the company's product line for portable computers,
which share many of the same constraints as ultradense
servers. These systems can't consume as much power or give off as much heat as
ordinary CPUs because overheating causes processing errors. The systems
are the first swing of a one-two punch against Transmeta,
whose low-power designs caught Intel
flat-footed, first in the mobile market and then in the low-power server market. Intel now is fighting back just when most
server companies using Transmeta chips
are on the ropes." And albat0r writes: "Intel says that it will hit 3GHz on the mainstream Pentium 4 by the end of 2002. Intel will advance its Celeron line, currently based on Pentium III technology, with Pentium 4 technology by mid-2002." I look forward to good values on eBay when 2GHz is "obsolete."
Intel performance (Score:1, Redundant)
Intel demonstrated a Northwood P4 running at 3Ghz with _supercooling_. (it actually got up to 3.5Ghz, but the demos were run at 3Ghz). Who the hell told you Intel had a P4 running at 5Ghz? Yeah, they could probably make it to 10Ghz within 3 years pretty easily if they use the same design concept behind the current P4. Maybe they will increase the pipeline to 40 stages and get there even faster!
Oh boy.. Clock speed isn't everything. The P4 architecture is brilliant for a company trying to sell their CPUs to people like you. The chips are a hell of a lot easier to market when people just look at the clock speed. Rambus has little to do with being able to run between 3 and 10Ghz. Intel just doesnt want to admit that after spending all this time doing nothing but saying RDRAM is the only way.
AMD already has
Re:Who cares if its plagarized? (Score:2)
I also don't see any attribution to the original author.
Re:Intel performance (Score:3, Insightful)
It strikes me that the 3Ghz should be out sooner than the end of next year. It's been a couple months since the 2GHz was out, and so the total time in between there would be somewhere around a year, a year and three months.
The leap from 1Ghz to 2Ghz took considerably less time than that. I know we're all sick of hearing about the widely-misunderstood Moore's Law, but shouldn't somebody out there be screaming bloody murder at this, that it should be out much sooner, that Intel is going to cave in, etc.?
When AMD and Intel first hit the Ghz mark, they both announced that they were going to slow down their schedules, so they weren't left with a bunch of 600Mhz chips laying around while everybody wanted a shiny new 1.xGhz in their box. But there's shortages everywhere right now, so we know that Intel probably doesn't have a warehouse full of unsold P4s somewhere.
Just pointing it out. Maybe we're all getting a bit too spoiled when it comes to speed. Anybody know what's up here?
Re:Intel performance (Score:1)
Once again... Moores Law talks about the increase of transistors on a chip, not the speed of the chip itself. So you can not use it to reason that speeds will increase!!!!!
Re:Intel performance (Score:1, Funny)
Intel will double perceptual speed (read clock) every 18 months in order to stimulate upgrade purchases.
Re:Intel performance (Score:1)
I know that Moore's Law talks about the increase of transistors on a chip, not necessarily performance and so on. If you look at my original post, I referred to it as "the widely-misunderstood Moore's Law" for a reason.
I know this. You know this. Just about everybody reading on Slashdot, I'll bet, knows this. But it seems that the general populace that reads about Moore's Law out of Parade Magazine or USA Today probably doesn't know anything about transistors, let alone the way a processor is built, and so when some half-assed journalist writes about doubling transistors-- if he or she gets it correct even then-- John Q. Public at home is going to think "Double the transistors? Well, that must mean it's twice as fast."
I didn't mean that the P4 should be twice as fast in 18 months. I meant that the general perception out there, thanks to the aforementioned uninformed-but-meaning-well journalists, is that it probably should be. So that's where we'd hear the complaining. (If there is any. Note, again, my original post, when I said "Correct me if I'm wrong...")
C'mon, we all read Slashdot. I thought it was just a given that we think we're smarter than everybody else out there that doesn't.
Of course! (Score:1)
Re:Intel performance (Score:1)
So, Intel...Is that going to be a paper release or actual silicon?
Oh, well, if nothing else we will certainly get another lively discussion on the Mhz/Ghz wars, speed vs HP and such.
Yes I use a mac. Yes, I'm an NT admin. Yes, I realize the irony. And...yes, I'm keeping my mouth shut for the remainder of this discussion.
Fair enuf?
nVidia nForce just about to hit the market (Score:2)
Re:nVidia nForce just about to hit the market (Score:1)
If you do get one, get a TBird 1.4 to put in it and save your self some cash. The Palimino Chips (Athlon MP, Athlon XP) have improved pre-built in fetching logic - which negates the DASP on the nForce.
The built-in graphics is the GeForce 2 MX - nothing spectacular.
Where the nForce does have an edge, though is the built-in sound - it should rival the Creative Labs Soundblaster Audigy. I'd love to see a good review or comparison of which one sounds better with 5.1 sound.
Re:nVidia nForce just about to hit the market (Score:1)
Re:nVidia nForce just about to hit the market (Score:2, Informative)
Interestingly, I've just read a review of the first system (to my knowledge) that uses the nForce board as it's core. It's from Mesh [meshcomputers.com] and was reviewed in the December issue of Personal Computer World [pcw.com] in the UK. The review slateted it quite badly, saying that it's 3D performance was down even on Budget versions of the GeForce 2 card on which the gfx engine on the board is based. Mesh also seemed not to have bothered wiring up the cool onboard sound system the nForce carries. My advice : Wait a while folks - the first nForce systems are going to take a while to run really swish!
Good Values When 2 Ghz Obsolete? (Score:1)
Are you currently searching EBay for that "steal" on a 486-DX4-100?
Re:Good Values When 2 Ghz Obsolete? (Score:2)
At one time the difference between, say, a 386-33 and 486-66 were astounding, in terms of *feel*. But a few years ago I used NT on the job running on a 200MHz Pentium. Today I use an 866MHz Pentium III and it feels about the same. Compiles are faster, sure, games run better, yes, but it's not astounding. If I upgraded to a 1.4 GHz processor I doubt it would even matter to me.
So I can profit from silly people who think that "1.4 GHz is slow" and constantly have to upgrade to whatever comes along next. The rest of us, the people doing actual work, have given up caring about CPU speed.
Re:Good Values When 2 Ghz Obsolete? (Score:2)
That said, even if Intel does produce a 3-GHz processor, what will its real-world performance be like? We know their current 2-GHz P4 runs no faster than an Athlon running somewhere between 1.4 and 1.5 GHz, and I doubt that AMD will be standing still for the next year. It's also worth remembering which company actually had 1-GHz processors to sell and which company was only able to announce future availability.
Wall Clock time (Score:5, Insightful)
Transmeta wasn't originally meant as a low power processor. They tried to optimize transistors vs performance and did a good job. Unfortuneately they forgot that nobody really cares about it. They then decided to try the low power market, but since Intel made a chip specific to lower power of course Intel will beat them out.
Re:Wall Clock time (Score:1)
I can design a chip that runs at 200GHz, does some useful processing ..
I doubt this.
Re:Wall Clock time (Score:1)
Silly me. I just pre-ordered a Fujitsu P Series [fujitsupc.com] specifically because it uses a Transmeta TM5800 and gets around 10hrs runtime with the second battery.
As a commuter and longtime laptop user I care a great deal more about power use than I do raw speed. I don't think you should be so quick to declare "Intel will beat them out". Speed Step is pretty much worthless and I wouldn't count on the Intel M series to really be that much better. Intel is much more concerned with their core desktop & server business, and keeping AMD at bay.
I'd rather take a minor speed hit with Transmeta and get 1.5-2x the battery life, than have a slightly faster laptop that gets 2.5-3 hours runtime and that can also double as a space heater.
So you payed $1500 for basically a 400mhz laptop? (Score:1)
On the ropes (Score:1)
Re:On the ropes (Score:2)
Speed? (Score:2, Insightful)
From the various fans inside (motherboard, graphics card, power supply (2x)), my machine sounds like a twister.
Bring down the power consumption or I will stay with my "Low-End" 1GHz machine forever.
Imagine A Beowulf... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Speed Kills (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Speed Kills (Score:4, Interesting)
The same thing was said ten years ago.
Re:Speed Kills (Score:2)
Re:Speed Kills (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Speed Kills (Score:5, Insightful)
More cycles will NOT make Word run faster. Word is I/O bound, not CPU bound. It won't make Internet Explorer run faster either. It's bandwidth bound, not CPU bound. It won't make games run faster. Game's have become bandwidth bound as well, only different bandwidth. Specifically, AGP and North Bridge bandwidth.
There are things that will benefit infinitely from more Mhz though. Specifically AI and Physics simulations spring to mind. Haha, spring to mind, that's great, a figure of speach that combines both physics and AI. Whew. I kill me.
Anyway.
Faster memory, faster buses, more CPUs, that's what I think the future is like, not more Mhz.
But, I've been wrong before. Almost too consistantly to be coincidence
Justin Dubs
Re:Speed Kills (Score:1)
other famous quotes:
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"But what is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Attributed to Bill Gates, 1981
Re:Speed Kills (Score:2)
For home users we hit that point at 200MHz. Now we're at the point where developers don't even care. I have an 866MHz Pentium III and I do hardcore commercial software development (read "games"). No one where I work is running out and buying the latest 1.4+ GHz machines. It just doesn't matter to us; we don't see a noticible difference. Most of the games that run slow on so-called midrange machines are just because of sloppy coding, not because they really need 900MHz, and I think consumers are starting to pick up on this. Game X may require a 1GHz processor. Game Y may require a 500MHz processor and have noticibly more sophisticated visuals. Hmmm.
More cycles will NOT make Word run faster.
Again, this has been true since the original 200MHz Pentium.
Re:Speed Kills (Score:1)
Do you work on a 200 mhz pentium? Trust me...i have to deal with some crappy slow machines...and 200 mhz just izn't enough balls to do anything at any sort of "speed". Trust me, you notice the difference.
My AthlonC 1.4 can boot win98 unbelievably fast. And, it's noticable: ever waited 2 minutes for your computer to boot, and watch your friend's comp boot up faster than you can say the ABC's?
I always notice slowdown. Sure, i'm a power user...and sure, hardware can keep up with all the 'basics': Email, web browsing, media processing, etc. But we can always want it to be faster. Always want Winamp to stop skipping. Always want your program to load faster. And who doesn't play games?
Sure. keep your box all nice and neat, few apps, no crap running in the background. Be a power user.
But power users notice speed changes, they always want better.
And average Joe User runs all the crap that slows a pc down...all the background apps...and he notices when IE takes 15 seconds to get up. When windows takes 3 minutes to boot on his new gateway with all the crap they package.
Trust me, we always need more speed.
Re:Speed Kills (Score:2)
I bet it is also running on old 66Mhz or worse, 33Mhz (maybe even paired) RAM. Yuch.
I bet the Hard Disk is running in damned PIO Mode 4 rather than UATA/anything.
Sure, if you could stick a 200Mhz CPU in my current machine with PC2100 DDR and an ATA/100 EIDE RAID 0, it would slow my box down. Windows would boot more slowly. But not NEARLY as slowly as with the slow buses as well.
Anyway, you are right. 200Mhz is too slow for many things. Just thought I should point out the numerous other factors involved. Have fun,
Justin
Re:Speed Kills (Score:2)
I agree that the greatest bottleneck in modern PC's is I/O bandwidth between the components, but how you jumped to SMP as the solution just escapes me.
Re:Speed Kills (Score:3)
Lots of people, myself included, are now playing with hardcore audio manipulation- capturing albums/cassettes with their sound card and then digitally enhacning it to remove tape hiss and other noise...
Any idea how long this takes? For the last 45 minute cassette I did (Beatles' Get Back LP Compilation #1, if anyoen cares), I tally up the total computation time at around 7-8 hours on my 400MHz Celeron. Of course, I probably could have shaved 4 hours off if I did everything in 44.1KHz (I used 48 for the editing), but hey..
You could have told me when I got my 486 DX4/100 (coming from a 386 DX/33, which felt like a speed daemon compared to my 4.7MHz 8088...) that I'd never need more processing power, and I would have agreed. And that's true, too, if I don't use my computer to do anything that I wasn't doing in the early-mid 90s.
Re:Speed Kills (Score:2)
But in the era of the n86 machines, people would say 'why would I ever need more speed?' and buy the fastest or 2nd fastest machine on the market.
On the other hand, right now, I'm shopping for a celeron 600-700 for my mom, buying a p120 for $20 to use as a firewall/router/mailserver at home. Celerons and Durons are selling like hotcakes, people are buying used computers like never before.
A good friend of mine just upgraded to a blazing fast dual celeron 433 system, like the one I've been happily using for the past 2 years. I've upgraded it a lot, but extended it's functionality, not performancem, adding expansion cards for sound, firewire, iRDA, SCSI. Adding RAM (which I expect to start seeing in cereal boxes).
It is fast enough.
The only reason I actually use a GHZ+ machine is because I work on print at work and it's the machine my company gave me. I don't plan on upgrading until I can get a dual Athlon 1.4 for ~$250 here in europe. It'll be a vanity upgrade: I don't need the extra power, I just want to have it.
ram in cereal boxes (Score:1)
Just have to say that was funny. And it wasn't designed to karma whore either...I like it. Someone being clever on Slashdot for the sake of being clever. Whaddya know.
More speed due to OS being more powerful (Score:2)
Sure, you can run Linux in command line mode quite well on older machines, but if you plan on running either the KDE or Gnome graphical environments better plan on something a bit more modern. This is especially true if you want to be involved with digital media content in any serious fashion.
Re:Speed Kills (Score:1)
Maybe it will run Windows XP at a decent speed? I saw a demo running on a 1.3 GHz Athlon last weekend and it was decidedly sluggish...
....laura who tried very hard not to laugh
Re:Speed Kills (Score:1)
Re:Speed Kills (Score:1)
True, scientific computing as well as other things have been riding on the coattails of gaming, appreciating the miniturization and personalization of computers. Get a life, do some research, and then whine about the uselessness of chip power
Re:Speed Kills (Score:2)
But who's going to buy them? (Score:3, Insightful)
P V (Score:1)
Re:P V (Score:1)
I'm curious. Who's 'fault' do you think it is that the P4 is a dog?
Re:P V (Score:1)
Still only 32-bit (Score:4, Insightful)
I think AMD are on to a reall winner with their 64-bit Hammer architecture since that's completely backwards compatible and has a flat, 64-bit address space.
Re:Still only 32-bit (Score:1, Interesting)
Keep in mind, though, that you will not be able to use 64-bit addressing in 32-bit compatability mode with the AMD offering... you'll still be stuck with the 4 gig limit when running "legacy" code.
If both products were available today at the same price, and if applications were available, I'd have to go with the Itanic. Intel has thrown away the last 20+ years of legacy crap that has been slowing development for so long. AMD, in an effort to ease migration and appease the masses of consumers, has retained those old roadblocks and built new roads around them.
AMD also doesn't have the marketing to push their product and make it mainstream. Remember, in the modern economy it doesn't matter if your product is better: people have to BELIEVE that it's better. AMD isn't good at this, intel is.
Re:Still only 32-bit (Score:1)
Marketing hype only works if people don't know any better, which more and more people do these days.
Right now, AMD may not be selling as many units as Intel but they have a far superior product. Sooner or later the marketing ploy is going to run out for Intel (Men painted blue doing stupid things - wtf are they thinking?!).
Re:Still only 32-bit (Score:2)
Intel has traded a bunch of old road blocks and legacy crap for an entire new set of crap. Intel's developement of this new architecture has been bogged down for a while. You've said it your self that you've been hearing about it since the mid-nineties. Besides AMD's solution is really the same as Intel's. They both can execute IA-32 code on the chip, they both introduce a new instruction set which causes compilers to be re-written for. They both have their problems in design and manufacturing. If anything AMD has taken an approach where there is less to go wrong than in Intel's.
Re:Still only 32-bit (Score:1, Informative)
True, but with 64-bit OS's on Hammer, you can run 32-bit apps along side the 64-bit ones. Have a look at the work SuSE is doing.
http://www.x86-64.org
It's pretty impressive, and it's all working (on the simulator). I've seen 64-bit Linux boot and run X on a laptop running the simulator
Re:Still only 32-bit (Score:2)
Re:Still only 32-bit (Score:1)
Try 10^78 [prodigy.net] (the vast majority of the universe is hydrogen).
Re:Still only 32-bit (Score:1)
Re:Still only 32-bit (Score:1)
True, you have to use CPU extensions in code, but all processors since the PPro have had > 32 bit address buses. IIRC, the P3's support something like 64GB of physical ram, the Xeon processors support more (1TB iirc - 40bit).
The problem, of course, is the chipsets/motherboard manufacturers that fail to make use of the wider address bus.
Low powered chips are the way forward. (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder what Linus would think ?
Re:Low powered chips are the way forward. (Score:1)
SMP? (Score:2)
Re:SMP? (Score:1)
Re:SMP? (Score:1)
Watch out: MHz+, IPC- (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the P4 was an especially telltale sign of the times ahead for the PC chip industry. While the AMD rivalry has helped to spark fierce pricing competition, I also think that it has prompted Intel to go the "MHz at any cost" route. Don't be suprised to see the P4 as the first in a long line of "let's increase that pipeline to pump up the clock speed!" While undoubtedly this can make a chip faster if IPC is not just cut equivalently, it also smacks of "MHz at all" marketing strategy.
Intel has realized (more than AMD, who is still trying to "educate" those consumers) that the general mass of people don't pay attention to SIMD instructions, double clocked FPU units, superscalar speculative execution, full speed caches, or any of that other jive that gives you higher IPC. They look at MHz and just want to see higher numbers. And also more CPUs can't = bad either, can it? I mean, that's the next marketing blitz campaign once MHz stops working.
Re:Watch out: MHz+, IPC- (Score:1)
More is better, provided you can use it. Posted from a 150 MHz, 20 meg RAM, laptop with Mozilla running on a 650MHz Athlon thanks to SSH -X and Debian. Kind of nice to only have to install things on one machine. 66MHz 486 keeps the gate, 180MHz serves http, ftp and dns, 500MHz K6/2 and Red Hat drives a printer and makes the wife happy. There you have it, five freaking computers and it's only the beginning. Kerbos authentication would be nice, and I have a box that could do it if the mailbox gets slowed down. A box dedicated to voice recognition that had the authority to command would be excellent. A radio gateway to help eliminate the last mile rape is planned. A wireless hub for inside would be nice too. This hundred foot cable to the laptop can be a drag. None of this has cost that much. I've simply been collecting other people's trash and buying a hundred buck mobo from time to time over the last five years. My largest single expenditure was this $450 laptop.
Yes, I share with my frinds.
P4 architecture. (Score:5, Informative)
The P4 architecture is not brilliant, pushing up the clock speed won't help the fundamentally stunted technology. There are major problems with the architecture, the worst of which is probably their decoder implementation.
The new architecture implements the U-V pairing and 4-1-1 in a nonsensical way. Multiple decoders have been eliminated and only one functioning decoder operates... the result of this is that just one instruction can be processed per clock cycle. Intel's theory was that the trace cache would eliminate the need to decode an instruction every clock cycle.
However, this falls apart when a set of instructions is put forward that does not go into the trace cache.... the processor must call upon the L2 cache or put all that code into memory to pull in another 64 bytes of memory for each instruction - and then decode the 64 bytes of code each time! The end result is that the P4 takes a lot more cycles to decode these instructions. Compared to the AMD Palomino XP processor (the fastest Athlon chip at the moment, in fact, the fastest X86 chip at the moment!), the P4 performance is a bit underwhelming.
The new Thoroughbred line of processors will introduce even better performance and completely blow Intel's offerings out of the water.
I agree! :-) (Score:2)
What makes the AMD CPU's extremely good compared to the Intel CPU's is the fact that because AMD designed their CPU's with more much efficient FPU units (no Pentium Pro FPU legacy) and also more efficient access to L2 cache, the result is extremely high performance on a per MHz basis. Indeed, the Athlon XP 1800+ on a DDR-SDRAM motherboard will run rings around the Pentium 4 2,000 MHz on most apps except those that are optimized specifically for SSE2 multimedia extensions.
Re:P4 architecture. (Score:2)
But they made the trace cache way too small, which made this even less likely to work.
I agree with you: the P4 is broken in many ways.
If they really can push its clock rate much faster than AMD can, the P4 might start to win just on sheer clock speed; but so far AMD has been keeping up. Since AMD's chips do more per clock, they don't need as high a clock rate.
steveha
err (Score:3, Insightful)
Why??
Let's see... you can wait a year until the 2ghz P4 drops to $100 and get one used on ebay, OR, you can take that $100 today and buy a new 1.4ghz AMD Thunderbird. You get similar performance... but on yea, you don't have to wait a friggen year!
How much you pay = amount of money + transaction cost. A years worth of computing sure has value to me!
Low power - long term savings (Score:2, Interesting)
It already is... (Score:2)
For almost all purposes, it is. AMD's top chips blow it away, for a lot less cash...
Re:It already is... (Score:1)
In real life, AMD's top end is _comparable_ in some benchmarks to the 2.0Ghz. In other benchmarks (particularly highly optimized and memory-intensive) the 2.0Ghz beats them nicely.
Please try to exist in the same world as the rest of us.
"comparable in some benchmarks" (Score:1)
In reality, AMD's best chip can compete with and usually beat the P4. (shrug). that's the way it is. But, the point is that AMD's pricing is better, they are loved as the underdog (and not hated because of Intel's Monopoly Price Gouging ((tm), licenced from Microsoft).
Anyone remember the prices of Intel chips (especially high-end) before AMD came on the scene? I do. It was insane...the CPU was about half the system price. Now, I spend about $130 for a good chip, instead of $800. I attribute that to AMD. That is one of the reasons I love the company, that is why i drove 2 hours at 6 this morning to Detroit to their XPerience Tour to get a chance at a free chip and motherboard. People love AMD. No one 'loves' Intel.
And yeah, it was worth it, to hear the chant of, "INTEL SUCKS! INTEL SUCKS!"
Interestingly not represented... (Score:2)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
maybe we know that life must go on
Maybe we will keep complaining about Intel and Micro$haft Winbl0ws and looking at lego porn until Afghanistan (or Bill Gates) drops a nuke on us, but we will damn well have done our part. Not everyone is needed to fight a war - people are needed at home to keep the country running smoothly, the economy up, and the bastard monopolies from buying america while the general public isn't looking.
I know if someone like me was holding a gun on the front lines, I'd be worried about america, cause I couldn't hit Shamu from 10 yards.
Personally, if i can't die in my old age by being stepped on by an elephant while having sex (i believe thats from a Zelazney book), I hope to die directly after winning a game of ID software's latest hit, or finishing the conclusion of the Wheel of Time saga.
Then again, you probably don't read novels...I'm kind of suprised you know enough to post a troll. --Corwin StormSinger, supporting america from the desktop.