"Pentium 4" brandname ready to be dropped
 

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187

Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
(Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)

AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?

--
Regards, Grumble

Grumble wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187


Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
(Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)

AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?


the dual core clocked at 3.2GHz that Inq lists would be the one they've
been talking about for months--two prescotts stitched together at the
pins. Intel has announced Prescott based, Prescott's successor-based,
Pentium-M-based, and Itanium 2-based dual cores for 2005. That's just
the one most people will care about--the first desktop model.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187

Yousuf Khan


Newsflash: The Inquirer floats down out of geek hyperspace and
acknowledges some everyday reality:

"Intel's aggressive marketing of the kitemark and the Centrino brand has
paid dividends for it. To many folk, wi-fi notebooks and Centrino means
the same."

Staff probably needs a hit of something or other to regain altitude.

RM

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:07:55 +0200, Grumble
wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187

Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
(Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)

AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?

Err, 3.2GHz is their planned top speed for this dual-core chip when it
arrives in early 2006. Given that they are already at 3.6GHz now and
plan on getting to 3.8GHz before the end of the year, I would say that
they are indeed downclocking their dual-core chips relative to the
single core ones!

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

Tony Hill wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:07:55 +0200, Grumble
wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187

Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
(Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)

AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?


Err, 3.2GHz is their planned top speed for this dual-core chip when it
arrives in early 2006. Given that they are already at 3.6GHz now and
plan on getting to 3.8GHz before the end of the year, I would say that
they are indeed downclocking their dual-core chips relative to the
single core ones!


Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?


--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

In article rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no,
Rob Stow wrote:

Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?

Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds. Multiple cpus
on a die is one of many things they're trying. The reason people are
wondering about how low the clock will be is that they hate
sacrificing too much single-thread performance to get better total
performance. Also, they want to know how much improvement in total
performance that they're going to get.

-- greg

Greg Lindahl wrote:
In article rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no,
Rob Stow wrote:


Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?


Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.

Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example.
Multi-core would be the first significant change to
the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were
released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime
is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is
nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months.

The situation has been much the same for the P4 since
it first came out. Many small changes have been made
to allow Intel to keep jacking up clock speeds, but
the basic chip design has stayed the same.

You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.

Multiple cpus
on a die is one of many things they're trying. The reason people are
wondering about how low the clock will be is that they hate
sacrificing too much single-thread performance to get better total
performance. Also, they want to know how much improvement in total
performance that they're going to get.



--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.
Such as ?

pipelining, OOO execution, bigger caches, faster caches, higher
associativity in caches, fewer cycles for some operations, on-board memory
controller, wider busses, better compilers, SMT, more registers, new
instructions, more reservation stations, more ALUs, better branch
predictors, ...

Take the AMD64 processors, for example. Multi-core would be the first
significant change to the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240
were released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime is a steady
jacking up of clock speeds and there is nothing else on the horizon for
the next 6 to 9 months.

Only Ghz can be changed without some significant redesign, so it's no wonder
that within a short time span nothing else than Ghz will change.


Stefan

Rob Stow wrote :

You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
motherboard for Pentium M

yes You can, in Japan :o)

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.