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

-----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-----

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

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

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.

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?

"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

In article om,
says...
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.

Why bother with the DSP? This stuff isn't rocket-surgery.

--
KEith

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