|
|
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
Pentium D's going from 130W to 95W, and Pentium 4's going from 86W to 65W.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34149 |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Pentium D's going from 130W to 95W, and Pentium 4's going from 86W to 65W. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34149 wow, tough stuff! at least, if true and depending on how the revised P4's stack up against comparable AMD cpu's, it will put further price pressure on AMD if those with recent P4 mobos can't make use of the new cooler P4 cpu's, there will be great unhappiness with those who've just bought a P4 mobo i also note that AMD finally dropped prices on their 940 Opty's, but i think i'll wait another few months and see what things look like then. :) bill |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
willbill wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: Pentium D's going from 130W to 95W, and Pentium 4's going from 86W to 65W. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34149 wow, tough stuff! at least, if true and depending on how the revised P4's stack up against comparable AMD cpu's, it will put further price pressure on AMD Dropped power just as they are getting ready to discontinue them. They have a ton of previous P4's and PD's to get rid of in their inventory, and those they are likely going to have to write off. Yousuf Khan |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
Yousuf Khan wrote:
willbill wrote: Yousuf Khan wrote: Pentium D's going from 130W to 95W, and Pentium 4's going from 86W to 65W. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34149 wow, tough stuff! i mean it's like a prise fight (variant of prize :), sorry about the "ISA" in a recent post to you when it should have been PCI) with a 1-2 to the solar plexus. 1st, low power high performance core 2, and now this with cheap low power P4 at least, if true i'd like to correct that to "if accurate" i looked at anandtech and did not find anything on this, and also www.sandpile.org and depending on how the revised P4's stack up against comparable AMD cpu's, it will put further price pressure on AMD Dropped power just as they are getting ready to discontinue them. They have a ton of previous P4's and PD's to get rid of in their inventory, and those they are likely going to have to write off. i hadn't thought of that i revise my "tough stuff" to VERY tough stuff but i somehow doubt that previous P4's will be written off; but i could be wrong given what is going on OTOH and having slept on it, i'm guessing that this won't much affect server CPU prices the reason for newegg's price drop on Opty 940 CPUs (this past week) looks like their (AMD) intro of AMD Santa Ana and Santa Rosa, which weren't there on my capture of newegg's August 8 Opty prices per chrisv's input, www.sandpile.org is a terrific ref on current architecture, under the "impl" heading bill |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
willbill wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: Dropped power just as they are getting ready to discontinue them. They have a ton of previous P4's and PD's to get rid of in their inventory, and those they are likely going to have to write off. i hadn't thought of that i revise my "tough stuff" to VERY tough stuff but i somehow doubt that previous P4's will be written off; but i could be wrong given what is going on Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to want to buy the P4's? the reason for newegg's price drop on Opty 940 CPUs (this past week) looks like their (AMD) intro of AMD Santa Ana and Santa Rosa, which weren't there on my capture of newegg's August 8 Opty prices Socket F? Yousuf Khan |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:01:34 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
willbill wrote: Yousuf Khan wrote: Dropped power just as they are getting ready to discontinue them. They have a ton of previous P4's and PD's to get rid of in their inventory, and those they are likely going to have to write off. i hadn't thought of that i revise my "tough stuff" to VERY tough stuff but i somehow doubt that previous P4's will be written off; but i could be wrong given what is going on Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to want to buy the P4's? S'always possible there's somebody out there who thinks Netburst is just the ticket... hmm, well maybe not!;-) -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
Yousuf Khan wrote:
willbill wrote: Yousuf Khan wrote: Dropped power just as they are getting ready to discontinue them. They have a ton of previous P4's and PD's to get rid of in their inventory, and those they are likely going to have to write off. i hadn't thought of that i revise my "tough stuff" to VERY tough stuff but i somehow doubt that previous P4's will be written off; but i could be wrong given what is going on Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to want to buy the P4's? people will go where a) the performance is and/or b) price/performance/heat(lackof) is we've all been assuming that P4 is dead, and that Pentium M is Intel's future this power reduction with P4 makes me wonder i also note that Pentium M and Core 2 Duo are both seen as generation 6 (by www.sandpile.org; see 3rd line under "impl": PM and Core) whereas they see P4 as generation 7 (3rd line under "impl": P4) not that "7" means it's inherently better the reason for newegg's price drop on Opty 940 CPUs (this past week) looks like their (AMD) intro of AMD Santa Ana and Santa Rosa, which weren't there on my capture of newegg's August 8 Opty prices Socket F? Santa Ana is Opteron with socket AM2 Santa Rosa is Opteron with socket F both appear to be strictly dual core. at least, Newegg isn't showing any quad core Opteron CPUs bill |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
"willbill" wrote in message ... people will go where a) the performance is and/or b) price/performance/heat(lackof) is we've all been assuming that P4 is dead, and that Pentium M is Intel's future this power reduction with P4 makes me wonder i also note that Pentium M and Core 2 Duo are both seen as generation 6 (by www.sandpile.org; see 3rd line under "impl": PM and Core) whereas they see P4 as generation 7 (3rd line under "impl": P4) not that "7" means it's inherently better Considering the performance advantage Core 2 has over the P4 (and even Athlon 64 which wipes the floors with the P4) I doubt anyone other than those people who don't want to switch out an MB quite yet are going to care. From all points, netburst is looking like exactly everyone said it was when it first came out, a mistake. A big one at that, considering how much Intel has lost to AMD durring the reign of netburst. Carlo |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
Carlo Razzeto wrote:
Considering the performance advantage Core 2 has over the P4 (and even Athlon 64 which wipes the floors with the P4) I doubt anyone other than those people who don't want to switch out an MB quite yet are going to care. It's not like the Core 2's are hideously expensive, either. Good thing most buyers are clueless, or the demand for the Core 2 would so far out-strip the supply that getting one would be nearly impossible. |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
... Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to want to buy the P4's? Anybody who wants to build computers. It will take about all of Intel's and AMD's production capacity to meet the total number of PCs to be built and sold this year (any 12 month period you'd care to name, for instance starting now). Since Intel cannot produce all Core 2 CPUs at this time, the only way the total market demand can be met is for people to buy P4s, since that's what Intel will have available to sell. The alternative is for everybody to not build PCs and let the market demand be ignored. Yeh, like that's gonna happen! ;-) |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
In comp.sys.intel Yousuf Khan wrote:
Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to want to buy the P4's? Perhaps p4's are in more than just PCs? ISTR references to P4's being in some HD-DVD players (or was that bluray?) rick jones -- portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 In article , George Macdonald wrote: On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:01:34 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote: Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to want to buy the P4's? S'always possible there's somebody out there who thinks Netburst is just the ticket... hmm, well maybe not!;-) You never know...after all, there _is_ a sucker born every minute. :-) _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting! \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFAIyKVgTKos01OwkRAnojAKDKWnuZ1aMB2uHxx8yeqn 5w+GKN5ACfYu2J ZKWtYK4g3WKGAa3b/XYToQc= =tGb0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
|
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
|
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:16:10 GMT, "Felger Carbon" wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ... Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to want to buy the P4's? Anybody who wants to build computers. It will take about all of Intel's and AMD's production capacity to meet the total number of PCs to be built and sold this year (any 12 month period you'd care to name, for instance starting now). Since Intel cannot produce all Core 2 CPUs at this time, the only way the total market demand can be met is for people to buy P4s, since that's what Intel will have available to sell. The alternative is for everybody to not build PCs and let the market demand be ignored. Yeh, like that's gonna happen! ;-) You're probably right but the reasons escape me: given that P4s in question and C2Ds are produced in the same 65nm fabs, it is cerainly odd that Intel would bring out a new iteration of P4 which is going to push C2D production out of the way for a chip which nobody (who "knows) wants. Since the same chipsets.mbrds are used with both CPUs, it makes it even stranger. I have to ask: why can Intel not produce all C2Ds right now? They don't want to write off the low-power P4 development & tooling costs? There is still a P4 fan-faction at Intel? C2D has umm, yield problems? It's a further plot to sink AMD with even lower prices? Are there large corporate buyers who insist on 1,000 systems exactly identical to what they bought 3 months ago... P4 an' all? It seems to me that something's afoot here. I don't see Mikey reversing himself on desktop Athlon64s but we'll know more about the scale of that effort in a week or two by all accounts. I dunno if you caught my post the other day about the rumors flying around that Dell has sucked the Athlon64 channel dry. Oh, BTW my favorite anal...yst babble this week was that, as part of the sell-off/lay-offs, Intel might sell Itanium off to the highest bidder.:-) -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
chrisv wrote: Carlo Razzeto wrote: Considering the performance advantage Core 2 has over the P4 (and even Athlon 64 which wipes the floors with the P4) I doubt anyone other than those people who don't want to switch out an MB quite yet are going to care. It's not like the Core 2's are hideously expensive, either. But (as said) P4 upgrade option if motherboard can't take a Core 2. Good thing most buyers are clueless, or the demand for the Core 2 would so far out-strip the supply that getting one would be nearly impossible. Don't worry, the cluelessness goes in to opposite direction. TV commercials have suggested that you need Core 2 Duo for doing emailing and printing at the same time... |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:06:22 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote: I have to ask: why can Intel not produce all C2Ds right now? They don't want to write off the low-power P4 development & tooling costs? There is still a P4 fan-faction at Intel? C2D has umm, yield problems? Yep, that's how it looks like. It's a further plot to sink AMD with even lower prices? Are there large corporate buyers who insist on 1,000 systems exactly identical to what they bought 3 months ago... P4 an' all? It looks like C2Ds, especially 4MB variety, are hard to come by. While not necessarily true, but one can suppose with a good degree of probability that most, if not all, C2Ds start as 4MB, but most of them have later 1/2 of it disabled for being faulty. Chances are, we are about to see soon Celerons (or whatever Intel decides to call them) with 2 cores and puny (1MB? 512k? even less?) caches, and also some single cores based on Core2 - as soon as they sort out their dump bin. NNN |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
Johannes wrote:
TV commercials have suggested that you need Core 2 Duo for doing emailing and printing at the same time... Darn it, I could have sworn that I did that back in 1985 on my Amiga. 8) |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
TV commercials have suggested that you need Core 2 Duo for doing emailing and printing at the same time... Darn it, I could have sworn that I did that back in 1985 on my Amiga. 8) Heh yes. I'd still like to see how a Core 2 Duo would do on an up to date Beos... as much as I hated the Apple like interface, I really like the "everything is threaded" concept. What is annoying about this all. Is everyone could benifit from dual processors now days. WinXP, as the most dominiant, likes it. I myself sit and "play poker", "listen to mp3s", etc etc at the same time. If I could play poker on Linux there would probably be a compiler and other stuff running too. Thing is, None of those are CPU intensive whatsoever(other than compile...) basically, I think most everyone could benifit from multi-cpu, but... for most parts, most common users only need big horsepower from CPUs in modern games. Dual-core, yes. But until more games are threaded, people will still beleive that multi-cpu is not neccessary. But then on games I know nothing. I hate action, I'm a turn based game boy... |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
Grant Schoep wrote: TV commercials have suggested that you need Core 2 Duo for doing emailing and printing at the same time... Darn it, I could have sworn that I did that back in 1985 on my Amiga. 8) Heh yes. I'd still like to see how a Core 2 Duo would do on an up to date Beos... as much as I hated the Apple like interface, I really like the "everything is threaded" concept. What is annoying about this all. Is everyone could benifit from dual processors now days. WinXP, as the most dominiant, likes it. I myself sit and "play poker", "listen to mp3s", etc etc at the same time. If I could play poker on Linux there would probably be a compiler and other stuff running too. Thing is, None of those are CPU intensive whatsoever(other than compile...) basically, I think most everyone could benifit from multi-cpu, but... for most parts, most common users only need big horsepower from CPUs in modern games. Dual-core, yes. But until more games are threaded, people will still beleive that multi-cpu is not neccessary. But then on games I know nothing. I hate action, I'm a turn based game boy... I'm not into games, but think there are many other ways of using CPU horsepower. E.g. improved data visualization in Excel and Powerpoint. Powerpoint, in particular, badly needs some more interesting stuff for interactive data visualization or we'll all fall asleep. |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
George Macdonald wrote:
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:16:10 GMT, "Felger Carbon" wrote: "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ... Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to want to buy the P4's? Anybody who wants to build computers. It will take about all of Intel's and AMD's production capacity to meet the total number of PCs to be built and sold this year (any 12 month period you'd care to name, for instance starting now). Since Intel cannot produce all Core 2 CPUs at this time, the only way the total market demand can be met is for people to buy P4s, since that's what Intel will have available to sell. The alternative is for everybody to not build PCs and let the market demand be ignored. Yeh, like that's gonna happen! ;-) You're probably right but the reasons escape me: given that P4s in question and C2Ds are produced in the same 65nm fabs, it is cerainly odd that Intel would bring out a new iteration of P4 which is going to push C2D production out of the way for a chip which nobody (who "knows) wants. Since the same chipsets.mbrds are used with both CPUs, it makes it even stranger. totally agreed on all points I have to ask: why can Intel not produce all C2Ds right now? They don't want to write off the low-power P4 development & tooling costs? to me it was odd that Intel would spend the money to further develop P4, given their current issues with profits(lackof) and layoffs There is still a P4 fan-faction at Intel? wouldn't surprise me C2D has umm, yield problems? It's a further plot to sink AMD with even lower prices? Are there large corporate buyers who insist on 1,000 systems exactly identical to what they bought 3 months ago... P4 an' all? It seems to me that something's afoot here. totally agreed I don't see Mikey reversing himself on desktop Athlon64s but we'll know more about the scale of that effort in a week or two by all accounts. I dunno if you caught my post the other day about the rumors flying around that Dell has sucked the Athlon64 channel dry. if there is any one person who is not stupid it is mike dell this whole thing is odd i just went to anandtech and tomshardware and there is nothing on this (i did not try googling, nor did i try searching on the intel site) iow, is it (lower power P4s) really true? bill |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 In article , Johannes wrote: Don't worry, the cluelessness goes in to opposite direction. TV commercials have suggested that you need Core 2 Duo for doing emailing and printing at the same time... Nothing new there. IIRC, Intel used to say in its ads that the P!!! made the Internet faster. :-P _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting! \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFBJo0VgTKos01OwkRAv2hAJoCj4q+dx2WSzsBOqM/JJiOFEQcdACfUKal /xdwHMwwtiv5QFgeqZOjspI= =CGNi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
If so, it's a crappy choice. The P4 is a huge power hog and for
this reason alone there are *far* better embedded alternatives. Yea, as much as the media aspect of a BD device fits with the P4, you'd have to be kind of crazy not to use...well...a DSP and probably something like a PPC or MIPS core. DK |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:27:56 -0500, willbill wrote:
George Macdonald wrote: On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:16:10 GMT, "Felger Carbon" wrote: "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ... Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to want to buy the P4's? Anybody who wants to build computers. It will take about all of Intel's and AMD's production capacity to meet the total number of PCs to be built and sold this year (any 12 month period you'd care to name, for instance starting now). Since Intel cannot produce all Core 2 CPUs at this time, the only way the total market demand can be met is for people to buy P4s, since that's what Intel will have available to sell. The alternative is for everybody to not build PCs and let the market demand be ignored. Yeh, like that's gonna happen! ;-) You're probably right but the reasons escape me: given that P4s in question and C2Ds are produced in the same 65nm fabs, it is cerainly odd that Intel would bring out a new iteration of P4 which is going to push C2D production out of the way for a chip which nobody (who "knows) wants. Since the same chipsets.mbrds are used with both CPUs, it makes it even stranger. totally agreed on all points I have to ask: why can Intel not produce all C2Ds right now? They don't want to write off the low-power P4 development & tooling costs? to me it was odd that Intel would spend the money to further develop P4, given their current issues with profits(lackof) and layoffs There is still a P4 fan-faction at Intel? wouldn't surprise me If you look at the Datasheet 31030605.pdf it shows potential core frequency up to 5.06GHz in some of the tables......Ô_õ C2D has umm, yield problems? It's a further plot to sink AMD with even lower prices? Are there large corporate buyers who insist on 1,000 systems exactly identical to what they bought 3 months ago... P4 an' all? It seems to me that something's afoot here. totally agreed Well.... here's the PCN http://intel.pcnalert.com/content/eo...N106404-01.pdf, which was preceded by http://intel.pcnalert.com/content/eo...N106404-00.pdf as I'm sure you've found that the URL at the Inquirer article is wrong. What *is* evident/important is that those new parts seem to be qualified for a "Mainstream FMB" as opposed to the previous ones which required a "Performance FMB"... dual core for the masses in a P4 package?:-) In fact there may be quite a few folks with older "mainstream" mbrds who could now upgrade to a dual core P4, though there is a BIOS update required apparently. I don't see Mikey reversing himself on desktop Athlon64s but we'll know more about the scale of that effort in a week or two by all accounts. I dunno if you caught my post the other day about the rumors flying around that Dell has sucked the Athlon64 channel dry. if there is any one person who is not stupid it is mike dell this whole thing is odd i just went to anandtech and tomshardware and there is nothing on this (i did not try googling, nor did i try searching on the intel site) iow, is it (lower power P4s) really true? Oh it's true - see the PCN above and even the Datasheet for the Pentium D shows the max current lowered from 125A to 100A. -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
Scott Alfter wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article , Johannes wrote: Don't worry, the cluelessness goes in to opposite direction. TV commercials have suggested that you need Core 2 Duo for doing emailing and printing at the same time... Nothing new there. IIRC, Intel used to say in its ads that the P!!! made the Internet faster. :-P I think they said that it would "enhance your internet experience". But the reason behind this was the infamous introduction of a unique CPU identifier that (in principle) could trace your surfing over the internet... As criticism inevitably followed, Intel had to provide a tool to disable this feature. |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
johannes wrote:
Nothing new there. IIRC, Intel used to say in its ads that the P!!! made the Internet faster. :-P I think they said that it would "enhance your internet experience". But the reason behind this was the infamous introduction of a unique CPU identifier that (in principle) could trace your surfing over the internet... As criticism inevitably followed, Intel had to provide a tool to disable this feature. The did retreat on that issue, but did they not come back with a similar "feature" on Prescott and later CPU's? |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
"chrisv" wrote in message ... johannes wrote: Nothing new there. IIRC, Intel used to say in its ads that the P!!! made the Internet faster. :-P I think they said that it would "enhance your internet experience". But the reason behind this was the infamous introduction of a unique CPU identifier that (in principle) could trace your surfing over the internet... As criticism inevitably followed, Intel had to provide a tool to disable this feature. The did retreat on that issue, but did they not come back with a similar "feature" on Prescott and later CPU's? Yeah, but by that time they had "Netburst" architecture to make the internet faster :P |
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
|
Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot
Why bother with the DSP? This stuff isn't rocket-surgery.
I don't know how taxing Blu-Ray read and decode is. I wouldn't be surprised if it was too much for some of the low end PPC embedded designs to handle. DK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com