Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Intel to Dump Pentium 4 in Favor of Pentium M 413

Opinion writes "According to The Register, Intel is to dump its Pentium 4 plans in favour of the new Pentium M architecture. The scrapped Tejas and Jayhawk processors represented Intel's next-gen 90nm P4 CPUs, due to arrive in 2005."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel to Dump Pentium 4 in Favor of Pentium M

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @08:55AM (#9082835)
    I'll pick up as many as i can carry..
  • by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @08:56AM (#9082848) Journal
    So... What's the deal with Moore's law? It appears that heat density vs. pricing trends are now causing microprocessors to compete with charcoal (very hot, very cheap).

    Is this the end? Or is Intel just trying to squeeze every last drop of cost out of a deal with IBM on their silicon-on-insulator patents?
    • by croddy ( 659025 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @08:58AM (#9082862)
      or are they just feeling the heat from AMD?

      ...or is that heat coming from their current products? ;-)

    • Re:End of an era? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Paladin128 ( 203968 ) <> on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:43AM (#9083320) Homepage
      It's an unexpected turn that makes a LOT of sense. If you read the article, the real catalyst for this change is the decision to go with 2 or more cores on one die that share the same L2 cache. The P4 is a poor architecture to do this with. Yes, nothing can really beat it at simple integer math, but it's got lots of problems:

      1) The core is fscking big!
      2) high frequency == draws lots of juice == runs way too hot
      3) 20 stage pipeline (or like 30 in case of Prescott) makes penalties way too high on a branch mis-prediction, and requires more cache to minimize the impact.

      The Pentium M architecture has a relatively high IPC, and lack of int throughput that is lost from lower overall clockspeed can be overcome by paralellism that multicore will bring. It also is rather efficient as far as power goes, and a much smaller core overall.
      • Re:End of an era? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by anderm7 ( 68050 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @10:07AM (#9083588) Homepage
        Yeah, I agree. I this is a great move. I'm an EE in Microelctronics, and I had been very dissapointed in Intel's tricks to get MHz up. For instance, those overly long pipelines. I'm glad they finally decided to come around and realized that both MHz and CPI(cycles per instruction) matter.

        To first order, a chip is only limited by the setup & hold time of a latch, but that may not be a very good chip. It may run at 50 GHz, but its not going to do much more than heat up your case.
      • I can't wait to see how they spin this is marketing.

        "Say, guys? When we told you that clock speed was the only factor in speed, and that a long pipeline was the only way to go, we were joking! NO NO NO, wait, don't go buy AMD chips or G5s, because -- uh -- they're the suck. Look, a dancing guy in a shiny suit uses our chips!"
      • Re:End of an era? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @01:50PM (#9086752)
        I can't believe this, to me it seems like a big deal. The Pentium-M is a modded Pentium-3. If this is true, Intel is abandoning the whole direction they took with the P4 = MHz at all cost. Also IIRC the Pentium-M was designed in Israel, and was their first-ever chip delivered on time, so this isn't a great development for US computer engineering.

        I don't think we can count on quiet, low-power desktops though. I bet Intel will just ramp up the Pentium-M until it's a hot as the P4 (but by then it will be faster than todays P4 due to higher IPC).

  • Good Idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by derphilipp ( 745164 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @08:58AM (#9082861) Homepage
    This seems like a really smart idea. Dont go an get the Ultra-Gigaherz-Processor but a descend, processor that consumes only a low amount of power -> Longer batterylife for laptops -> Silent PCs -> Longer lifetime of the processor (?)
  • Because the name pentium came as the successor to the 80486,(ie 5, thus pentium) which was the successor to the 386, 286,186,8086. Thus the 5th generation of the 5th generation chip would have been kind of dumb. I think they should just abandon the pentium name all together, but by this point it has too much name recognition.
  • Pentium mm (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mad Man ( 166674 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @08:59AM (#9082866)
    due to arrive in 2005

    Shouldn't that be Pentium MMV?
  • by cpghost ( 719344 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:01AM (#9082884) Homepage

    The more laptops out there, the more important are power saving CPUs. Pentium-M's are a good step in the right direction after the P4 90nm debacle.

    Even in the server market, cutting on power consumption is getting more and more important. If you have a park of 1000+ machines in a data center, power consumption matters.

    • by getch(); ( 164701 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:32AM (#9083189)
      The issue of power consumption is rapidly becoming much more significant than even the parent poster realizes.

      The general dynamic power (operating power) equation for CMOS circuits has switching frequency as a squared term. Voltage and junction capacitance (think die size here) are also present, but are not squared.

      If Intel were to take the P-IV architecture as far as it had planned, an extra few bucks for electricity would be the least of its worries. Without some unforseen advancement, power per unit area would become a (relatively) intractable problem. Even though voltage and die size would probably decrease, the increase in frequency coupled with the reduced area would likely provide a serious problem for cooling. I've read papers that have estimated that air cooling won't be able to dissipate much more heat than it's already required to. Taken far enough, the head produced could just vaporize the silicon (obviously that's not occurring in the near future).

      In short: good move, Intel.

    • by ballpoint ( 192660 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:40AM (#9083279)
      Not only for laptops or server rooms. My power consumption at home has increased by 25% in three years due to increasing computer use by kids & wife.

      I'd like to install still more always-on equipment like webcams, video servers and such. But, with energy prices that will probably triple over the next 10 years, I'm not going to be able to afford these increases much longer.
  • Change of ideas (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SavedLinuXgeeK ( 769306 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:02AM (#9082887) Homepage
    As stated in a previous article, I think, Intel has been running the PIV name for a long, long time,(in computer years), and now with AMD64 coming out, people will see the PIV as old, and the AMD as new, even if things are comparable. Consumers are extremely superficial (Speaking from sales experience). I think this may just help Intel get some more umph into their line, before 64-bit hits critical mass.
  • No Suprise (Score:5, Interesting)

    by paitre ( 32242 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:02AM (#9082888) Journal
    This really shouldn't be a suprise to -anyone- who's been paying attention to what's been going on.
    Prescott is disturbingly hot, and the next-gen chips had no real hope of being much cooler. At most 10-15%, which wouldn't have gotten near their MHz goals.
    P-M, on the other hand, is a damned good chip in its own right, has better IPC, and is a better CPU, all around, than the P4 line.

    Now, what does this mean for those of us in the enterprise space? Are we -really- going to have to wait until 2006 for a new chip iteration from Intel? If that's the case (and I -really- doubt it), AMD would have a disturbingly large (and long) opening in which to pitch its wares...Intel would definately lose marker share in the server arena at that point.

    So, multi-core P-M chips for the desktop next year-ish. So we're stuck with the hotplate known as Prescott until then. Guess I'll be sticking with AMD for a while yet :)
  • by Himring ( 646324 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:03AM (#9082894) Homepage Journal
    Dothan is in due course expected form the basis for 'Jonah', Intel's first two-core Pentium M, due to ship during H2 2005, possibly at 65nm. To date, Jonah has been scheduled to be succeeded by 'Merom' and 'Conroe', two chips based on the same architecture, during H1 2006. While Merom is to be pitched at notebooks, Conroe - crucially - is a desktop chip.

    Dothan: Meaning: two wells. A famous pasture-ground where Joseph found his brethren watching their flocks. Here, at the suggestion of Judah, they sold him to the Ishmaelite merchants (Gen. 37:17). It is mentioned on monuments in B.C. 1600.

    Jonah (We all know who Jonah was and/or you need to back to sunday school....)

    Merom (WebBible Encyclopedia) - christianAnswers.Net. Merom. Meaning: height. a lake in Northern Palestine through which the Jordan flows

    Looks like Intel got some religion....
  • Faster Pentium M? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by strictnein ( 318940 ) * <(moc.oohay) (ta) (todhsals-ooftcirts)> on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:03AM (#9082898) Homepage Journal
    Have they been able to ramp up the speeds for this architecture? None of the articles that I've read even speculate on what speeds these would be introduced at. I know Intel was planning on releasing a 2.0GHz Pentium M in the near future, but what about for desktops?

    Side note: "Whitefield" a new processor in the Xeon line based somewhat aroudn the Pentium M, was created in India [].
    • No, the ramp of Dothan has not been all that spectacular, it was set to around October of last year, and it is only coming out. There were several speed path issues that were resolved, and it is due out on the 10th.

      That said, it is still not what was promised last year, power consumption is higher, no new FSB as promised, and other problems. When it hits what was promised, it will probably be a year late.

  • well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hangin10 ( 704729 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:04AM (#9082902)
    We've been on 32bit chips for quite some time..
    Is 32bits enough? Is that why 64bit chips don't
    seem to be catching on? or does the fact that
    AMD and Intel seem to have fairly different
    workings to their interface (AMD's seems fairly
    simple, I haven't looked at Intel's).

    Slightly related,
    It seems both Intel and AMD stopped shipping free
    copies of their Architecture Manuals. :(

    • Well I think the reason AMD64 chips aren't catching on as quickly as they could is that the AMD roadmap clearly shows how they're moving to a new socket soon. Why would you buy or invest R&D into a machine that is essentially dead-ended in terms of CPU availability?

      I think that once the socket-939 chips come out and the platform 'congeals' into a long-term solution you'll see more of these things selling.

      It also doesn't help that there's no version of Windows that takes advantage of 64-bitness yet, or
  • AMD (Score:3, Funny)

    by kpogoda ( 580939 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:04AM (#9082904)
    Looks like the recent AMD press and popularity has forced Intel to rethink its business strategy. Here is my most recent ocrrespondence with Dell Sales Support. You should find it amusing: Problem Description: I am in the market for an AMD machine. I have been browsing your website but can't find an AMD processor-based machine. Do you sell any AMD machines? If not, I will shop elsewhere. Thank You. Dear Valued Customer, Thank you for choosing Dell Online Consumer Customer Care. I apologize for the inconvenience caused with regard to this issue. I have looked through your e-mail and show that currently Dell is not offering AMD machines. I have forwarded your message to management and I assure you they will look into this issue and will work on making improvements based on your feedback. Once again, I apologize and truly regret any frustration this matter may have caused. Thank you for your patience and understanding. They are both greatly appreciated. If you have any further questions or concerns, please visit the following website to contact us. Respectfully, Alexander ~DTC41593 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM CST Mon to Fri Dell's Online Consumer Customer Care
    • Don't you just -love- canned responses?
      Even though slightly modified to be a "direct" reply to your "problem", it's still a canned response.
      'sides, Dell isn't going to offer AMD systems until they're forced to by -corporate- market pressures. It's happening, it's just slow (and they know they lost a decent sized purchase I just made because of it).
    • Re:AMD (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Spoing ( 152917 )
      1. Do you sell any AMD machines? If not, I will shop elsewhere.

      Is there a technical reason you want a specific brand of processor?

      To me, the CPU brand is becoming much less important. The supporting chipset (features and quality), memory expansion, and system maker tend to sway me much more these days.

    • Re:AMD (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheLink ( 130905 )
      Yeah. Maybe there have been one or two searches for opteron servers on Dell's search page :). Anyone looking for an Opteron version of the Poweredge 1600SC?

      But their hands are probably tied. Rumour [] is that Dell has committed to buying USD5 billion of Intel stuff. I suppose that's how Dell gets real cheap Intel stuff? Now I'm wondering if Dell has a "get out" clause (they should if they are sane) somewhere, and if it does, what it is and whether it is close to applying... Watch Intel and Dell closely to see
  • Is this surprising ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by data1 ( 23016 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:05AM (#9082916) Homepage
    It has been known for quite some time that the Pentium-M processors would outperform desktop chips even when clocked at a higher frequency.
    Seems that Intel finally wised up and is exploiting the technology in the Pentium-M Chips to lower its development costs even though that isnt explicitly stated in the article.
    Yes, I did RTFA.
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:07AM (#9082935)
    1979 - 86 (186 existed too but was a failure)
    1982 - 286
    1986 - 386
    1989 - 486
    1993 thru 2004 - Pentium (meaning 5-something), with a sub-version number

    So, like, where's the Hexium, Heptium, Octium?
  • by elwinc ( 663074 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:07AM (#9082938)
    After all, you can't go in increasing CPU wattage indefinitely. I can recall the days far past when 30 watts was considered power hungry for a CPU. Sure, you can win a little with more and more rococo CPU cooler designs, but at some point you have to look for still more ways to limit CPU power. The mobile chips do it by varying their clock rates and turning parts of themselves off part of the time. Just think of it as an additional scheme for reducing CPU heat output.
    • After all, you can't go in increasing CPU wattage indefinitely.

      For the n-th time, "wattage" isn't a word (perhaps it is, but then only in the M-W). It's called "power".

      I can recall the days far past when 30 watts was considered power hungry for a CPU.

      I remember a day where it took between 1 and 3 days to complete a raytrace in Povray, where it takes 2 hours tops today. You want to go back to that?

      Sure, you can win a little with more and more rococo CPU cooler designs, but at some point you have to l
      • For the n-th time, "wattage" isn't a word (perhaps it is, but then only in the M-W). It's called "power".

        What the heck are you talking about? Wattage is a word, and it means "power". I'm an electrician. We use the term "wattage" rather than "power" because the latter is too ambiguous. A watt is a unit of measurement, so asking "what's the wattage on that bulb" will get you an answer in watts. Asking "what's the power on that bulb" will get you either puzzled stares or an answer in watts. It is always pre

  • More info (Score:4, Informative)

    by Groo Wanderer ( 180806 ) <charlie@semiac[ ] ['cur' in gap]> on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:11AM (#9082976) Homepage
    There is more on The Inq here:

    And more coming soon, this story is far from over.


    Disclaimer: I write for The Inq, but I did not do these stories.
  • by Mad Quacker ( 3327 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:11AM (#9082979) Homepage
    Now it all makes sense why Intel wants to use model numbers, their newer (faster) cpu's will run at a lower clock rate. Looks like they let marketing run engineering when the produced the P4, and now it's come to resolution.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:11AM (#9082980)
    Ars has an in-depth article [] on the Pentium-M architecture. A quote from the conclusion:
    The PM takes one of the P4's strengths--its branch prediction capabilities--and improves on it, adding its advantages to the strengths of the P6 architecture. The PM also deepens the P6's pipeline a bit, allowing for better clockspeed scaling, but without making clockspeed the central factor driving performance. In short, the PM looks like what the P4 might have been, had Intel not been so obsessed with the MHz race--it's a kind of alternate past, but one that may provide a glimpse of Intel's future.
  • by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:14AM (#9083006) Homepage Journal
    Is that pronounced Pentium "emm" or Pentium "One Thousand?"
    Confused Mac User
  • In the article, they mentioned 2- and 4-core chips coming out in 2005 and 2006. How long will it take the unix and windows operating systems to take full advantage of all the cores? Are they already there? Does software running on these systems need to be specially written and/or compiled in order to take advantage of the multiple cores or will they mostly serve to handle multitasking?
    • There are four different approaches to handle several cores.

      a) Tread them like different processors. This requires you to use either an SMP capable operating system (virtually all Unices, Windows NT Series Server edition) to fully leverage the advantages, or...
      (Operating system level)

      b) ...have your software being aware of multiple cores and use a multithreaded approach. So calculations can be split into different treads and those dispatched to different cores.
      (Application level)

      c) Have your compiler opt
  • If Intel is moving to low power multicores chips what will this mean in terms of os licenses that limit the number of cpus which can be used at any one time such as MS? Will the likes of MS relax the licensing terms so that this type of technology will take off or will they use it as an excuse to make more money and kill off demand for multicore cpus? I wonder if Intel has discussed this with MS?
  • Hook 'em (Score:2, Funny)

    by mgs1000 ( 583340 )
    Well, there goes my plan for having a Tejas Longhorn computer...
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I always thought naming a processor chip after a deputy minister who is responsible for transport but prefers to drive high-performance cars (Jaguars) for short distances, was the equivalent of putting on metal armour, climbing to a mountain during a thunderstorm, and waving a sword in the air while making disparaging comments about the gods.
  • by zsazsa ( 141679 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:17AM (#9083040) Homepage
    Wow. This is amazing. The P6 (PPro, PII, PIII) architecture is coming back to the desktop. This does make pretty good sense. The P6 has high IPC, and by applying some Pentium 4 tricks (Quad-pumped FSB, longer pipeline), this can make for a killer CPU. For more information, check out this Ars Technica Article [] on the Pentium-M's P6 heritage. The chip doesn't even lie about it - its CPUID reports a P6 family CPU [].
    • by barawn ( 25691 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:38AM (#9083249) Homepage
      Quad-pumped FSB, longer pipeline

      A quad-pumped FSB might make sense, although I doubt that the PM is actually all that memory-hungry, as the old P6s weren't, and neither were the Athlons.

      A longer pipeline is virtually the definition of the P4 - it has one of the (if not the) longest pipelines in desktop processors anywhere. A long pipeline is what causes low IPC.

      I really doubt that they'll lengthen the PM's pipeline much. Look at the Athlon XP -> Athlon 64 evolution - the pipeline was only stretched by a couple of clock cycles.

      This is a curious point for Intel, as processors can't continue to get faster in a simple way - the heat issues are just too large right now. The PM will probably start getting the standard tricks that others are playing - hyperthreading, like the P4s, integrated memory controller, maybe even an L3 cache. But definitely not a long pipeline - that was the P4's mistake.
  • by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:25AM (#9083125)
    Desktops have been in trouble for a while. A new CPU comes out with an 8% higher clockspeed, and then it uses 15% more power. Obviously there was a limit to how long that could continue, especially as those diddly performance increases weren't providing tangible benefits (compare an 8% clockspeed increase with switching to a dual core processor, for example). And at the same time the desktop market has been being heavily outpaced by laptops and mobile devices.
  • Cheap laptops (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SpinyManiac ( 542071 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:31AM (#9083187) Homepage
    This means the end of desktop CPUs in laptops.

    Decent battery life in a cheap laptop? Nah, they'll cut down on the batteries instead.
  • by swillden ( 191260 ) * <> on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:43AM (#9083319) Homepage Journal

    Will this move make the AMD "marketing ratings" irrelevant? They were invented to help make it clear that AMD processors performed as well as their P4 competition, even though the P4s were clocked much higher. The Pentium M, however, is based on the P3 architecture, which has always had performance that is comparable to the AMD chips at a given clock rate.

    Will this now force AMD to find a graceful way to drop the marketing ratings, lest they appear to be artificially inflating their processors' performance?

  • by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:49AM (#9083385) Homepage
    Here's a guess about what Intel is up to. From the brief article -- and keeping in mind this is The Register -- it looks like Intel is going for two targets;
    1. Smaller; faster with lower power.
    2. Multiple logical and physical cores; multi-threaded apps/OS will do well.

    These two basic tagets seem to be a good idea;

    1. Processing speed is really damn good now for single tasks.
    2. More tasks are becoming standard, so having the 'extras' run without delay on a seperate core makes the system seem more snappy.
    3. Some tasks can be CPU intensive and benifit from the extra cores; a reason to upgrade for Intel customers.
    4. Speed per-core will increase, though the raw speed in MHZ is costly (in power and because it costs more to make the fab plants) so the fewer fab changes the better or being able to spread the operating life out for more years would be good.
    5. With the speed and core # increase, lower-end devices become practical; disable the cores not needed just like other parts were disabled in the past (FPU, cache, ...).
    6. Power savings; some cores can be throttled down when hybernating without taking down the whole processor.
    7. Multi-processing; if you need the extra umph, plugging another set of cores in might be an easy upgrade or for use in a cluster. (Though CPU speed is not typically the main issue even for many complex problems.)
  • by mc6809e ( 214243 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:55AM (#9083451)
    The new 90nm Pentium 4's really didn't get much of a clock rate boost, which was a surprise. Reducing feature sizes has usually given us a good bump in clock rate. Remember the original Pentium 4 when it came out? There was a big jump in clock rate. This lastest shrink hasn't provided much. Now we hear that Intel is going to the Pentium-M: a chip with a lower clock-rate. That doesn't mean the chip is a poor performer. In fact, it runs very well. Like the Athlon, it gets much more work done per cycle than the Pentium 4.

    Still, process shrinks in the past have yielded easy speed increases, but not this time around. Intel's move seems to confirm that there might be trouble ahead.

    It looks like the folks at IBM also have concerns:

    "Somewhere between 130-nm and 90-nm the whole system fell apart. Things stopped working and nobody seemed to notice." []

  • by Mr. Neutron ( 3115 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @09:58AM (#9083482) Homepage Journal
    It seems to me like Intel just doesn't know what it's doing these days. While AMD does new and innovative things, like the first consumer desktop 64-bit x86 archetecture chip, what's Intel doing? Die shrinks and more absurdly drawn-out pipelines, it seems. If I were in charge of the shop at Intel, I'd set the following priorities:

    1. Make a 64-bit challenger to Athlon64. If it means butchering the Itanium die and adding a 32-bit co-processor, so be it.

    2. Enable SMP on something faster than Tualatin.

    3. Wake up to the fact that Intel can no longer dominate the CPU market on name recognition and MHz rating alone.

    All I can say is, at least Intel is opening up the way for more competition. It won't be long before the market share is split 60-40.
    • by aksansai ( 56788 ) <aksansai&gmail,com> on Friday May 07, 2004 @10:34AM (#9084009)
      1. Make a 64-bit challenger to Athlon64. If it means butchering the Itanium die and adding a 32-bit co-processor, so be it.

      Intel has already announced that it will also be releasing a variant of the x86-64 technology that was developed by AMD. You can see their announcement here []. While technology analysts see that there are indeed differences, it is approached fundamentally in the same manner that AMD used - making compiler development for the "extended" 64-bit Intel processors easier.

      This does not mean Intel is simply give up on the Itanium. They have more than a decade worth of R&D dollars into the processor. I don't believe they will actively pursue integrated the two 64-bit processors under one flag, either, because it would be easier to keep one facility churning out Itaniums and all their other facilities to make modified P4/PM chips with 64-bit extensions.
      2. Enable SMP on something faster than Tualatin.

      This is a matter of market preference. The market prefers a single processor (right now). I remember seeing supporting statistics but I can't find those at the moment. It was better than 90%. R&D is currently focusing on making single processors more efficient (Intel's hyperthreading is a good example). All these improvements will eventually trickle down to the small SMP sector Intel supports.

      Also, Intel wishes to keep its Xeon and Xeon MP line strong. To do so would be to limit the offerings of SMP capable chips and chipsets to focus the multiprocessor market for higher profitability.
      3. Wake up to the fact that Intel can no longer dominate the CPU market on name recognition and MHz rating alone.

      Intel is beginning to realize this, but this does not change the fact that there are many people that will still choose Intel over AMD just based on name alone. I run into these types on a regular basis.
  • by yngv ( 320015 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @10:31AM (#9083970)
    Chalk it up as yet another product whose fourth version was bloated and disappointing.

    Think DOS 4, Netscape 4, IE 4... any others?

    Interesting how Windows skipped version 4...
    • Interesting how Windows skipped version 4...

      Windows 95 and 98 are actually version 4.something, which you can see with the 'ver' command in a DOS shell. Bloated and disappointing, you said?

  • by anethema ( 99553 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @10:36AM (#9084054) Homepage
    that say this is a great idea. I'm personally not so sure. They havent got the core beyond 1.7 ghz. Why? This is a P6 core cpu! Thats right, pentium pro, pentium 2, pentium 3, etc. They added some features, new stepping and thats it.

    This has also been mentioned, but what I'm saying is, I have NO idea how they will get any kind of clockspeed out of this thing. It's been tooth and nail to try to get it to run where it is even. They can drop the process size to get more speed out of it, but that only takes you so far. You will have to lenghten the pipeline eventually which carries with it all the problems of the P4.

    I just honestly cant see them taking the P6 core any further. I'm suprised they can even do what they do with it.

    I also doubt they will drop the Pentium 4 core while they still have a lead on the athlons performance wise. P4 is a core they spent a LOT of time and money developing. I doubt they will just drop it.

    Also, in the article, they say that intel will be tearing up their roadmaps and they SPECULATE Pentium-M will be the replacement. Might be a modified Pentium 4, or maybe a Pentium4-PentiumM mix.

    Just my 2c.
    • This has also been mentioned, but what I'm saying is, I have NO idea how they will get any kind of clockspeed out of this thing. It's been tooth and nail to try to get it to run where it is even. They can drop the process size to get more speed out of it, but that only takes you so far. You will have to lenghten the pipeline eventually which carries with it all the problems of the P4.

      I just honestly cant see them taking the P6 core any further. I'm suprised they can even do what they do with it.

      I see a ple

  • by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 ( 718736 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @10:42AM (#9084140)
    I have a P4 machine on every floor in my house Just when I was about to cancel my Natural Gas service, the go and try to Lower the heat output of chips.
  • by CritterNYC ( 190163 ) on Friday May 07, 2004 @11:45AM (#9085003) Homepage
    Actually, the reason it took THIS friggin long to come to this decision was the resistance on the part of Intel in the US to fully accept the design of this chip by Intel in Israel. Apparently, there was quite a bit of "not invented here" mindset on the part of the US Intel folks, even though it was still Intel that created the Pentium M... just in Israel.

    I can't find any info regarding this online at the moment, but I did get this information from a reliable source. Anyone else read this?

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling