"Pentium 4" brandname ready to be dropped

RusH wrote:
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 )

Pozdrawiam.

Can you get me anything more detailed ?
Brand/Model ? URL ?

Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
and could perhaps ship something to me.

--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

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 the point is pretty much moot.

Given that the M/B vendors have done other things Intel didn't like,
such as dual Celeron boards and BIOS support for overclock for examples,
I have to think that this is because the M/B vendors don't see the
demand, rather than because there's some conspiracy.

I'm open to another explanation, I just have faith in greed providing me
with toys ;-)

--
-bill davidsen )
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me

Rob Stow wrote:

RusH wrote:

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 )

Pozdrawiam.


Can you get me anything more detailed ?
Brand/Model ? URL ?

Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
and could perhaps ship something to me.

Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.

--
Mike Smith

(Greg Lindahl) writes:

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.


Its possible they wouldn't have to. If AMD's highest clocked dual core
in 90nm by A4 2004 is 2.5 GHz, and their highest clocked single core in
90nm reaches 3.5 GHz, it may be possible to overclock your 2.5 GHz dual
core to 3.5 GHz. That's assuming the circuits are the same on the dual
core part -- they might use more lower performance lower power
transistors on the dual core parts so this is not possible. If you
could do it might require more power than some motherboards and power
supplies could handle, and produce enough heat to require a really top
notch heatsink and fan. But if the transistors were the same on the dual
core part I could see this being a favorite activity among overclockers.

Another route would be to support cool'n'quiet on a per core basis, to
allow the OS or BIOS to dynamically manage the power draw and heat on
each core. Each would be capable of 3.5 GHz, but when one went up to
that speed, the other might drop to low power mode of only 1 GHz. It'd
take OS support for this regardless of how its managed since the OS
would need to know if one CPU is 3-4x faster than the other.

Better yet, for the long term, might be to have one high performance
core and a bunch of little ones for less important tasks. A K8 type
core along with four cores that were more on the order of VIA's new C7
in terms of size, power usage and performance.

--
Douglas Siebert

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Thomas Jefferson

Mike Smith wrote :

Rob Stow wrote:

Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
and could perhaps ship something to me.

Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.

http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22pentium+m+motherboard
first hit - doh

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.

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.)

The initial ones are going to be based on Prescott, should be here by 2006.
Then probably a year later, they'll probably have ones based off of
Pentium-M.

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?

It's likely that all of the dual cores whether from AMD or Intel will be a
couple frequency steps behind their single-core cousins. I think the only
question is how many frequency steps behind they will be, and whether one
mfg or the other will be able to keep the percentage of the drop lower than
the other (eg. one might only be one step behind their own single-core,
while the other one might be two steps behind).

Yousuf Khan

Rob Stow wrote:
Greg Lindahl wrote:
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.

Well, I think Greg was referring to the overall evolution of the
microprocessors over the last several years. You could say the increase in
cache sizes, better branch-prediction, prefetch tweaking, etc. that's been
done over the last several years has been done to improve instruction
efficiency without needing to jack up clockrates. Of course another one of
the performance tweaks that's been done over the years is the jacking up of
the number of instruction pipeline stages, which was done mainly to
facilitate jacking up the clockrates. But both mfgs have tried a number of
techniques to increase performance in several areas.

Of course it looks like AMD has done much more in the last little while to
increase performance, with the integrated RAM controllers, and
Hypertransport I/O links.

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.

You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may
be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them. :-)

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559

Yousuf Khan

RusH wrote:
Mike Smith wrote :


Rob Stow wrote:


Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
and could perhaps ship something to me.

Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.


http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22pentium+m+motherboard
first hit - doh


In the section you snipped you missed the part about
wanting an ATX motherboard.

The AOpen one is just another one of those
less-than-full-featured micros. Only 2 DIMM
slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it -
particularly when it costs twice as much as a
full-featured ATX board. A lot of people - but
not me - would also be disappointed by no AGP 3.0.


--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Rob Stow wrote:

Greg Lindahl wrote:

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.


Well, I think Greg was referring to the overall evolution of the
microprocessors over the last several years. You could say the increase in
cache sizes, better branch-prediction, prefetch tweaking, etc. that's been
done over the last several years has been done to improve instruction
efficiency without needing to jack up clockrates. Of course another one of
the performance tweaks that's been done over the years is the jacking up of
the number of instruction pipeline stages, which was done mainly to
facilitate jacking up the clockrates. But both mfgs have tried a number of
techniques to increase performance in several areas.

Of course it looks like AMD has done much more in the last little while to
increase performance, with the integrated RAM controllers, and
Hypertransport I/O links.


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.


You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may
be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them. :-)

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559


Reet petite and awesome neat :-)

What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.


--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

"Yousuf Khan" writes:

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

The Digitino Cometh !