"Pentium 4" brandname ready to be dropped

Rob Stow wrote:
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.

And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
they use their cellphones. :-)

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Rob Stow wrote:

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.


And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
they use their cellphones. :-)

Yousuf Khan



Sales of Chanel #5 are about to take a huge boost ?

--
Reply to
Do not remove anything.

Rob Stow wrote:

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.

Indeed. If I were really desperate, I could buy one of those mini-ITX
jobs from Commell or Lippert, but damn are they expensive.

A lot of people - but
not me - would also be disappointed by no AGP 3.0.

I could go either way. I would love to build a Pentium M gaming system,
but what I'm really looking for is to be able to build low-power,
low-noise (preferably silent) servers to experiment with. (I live in a
small apartment and don't have the luxury of a spare room where I can
put all the computers and then keep the door closed.)

--
Mike Smith

In article tB8ed.181563$a41.62910@pd7tw2no,
Rob Stow writes:
| Yousuf Khan wrote:
| Rob Stow wrote:
|
| 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.
|
| And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
| they use their cellphones. :-)
|
| Sales of Chanel #5 are about to take a huge boost ?

You have forgotten the need to water-cool them - it's really
Channel number five.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Rob Stow" wrote in message
newsl_dd.1976$kN2.1018@pd7tw3no...

snip

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

For those, you might not want to have the jet engine run a generator to
create electricity. It might make more sense to gear down the turbine to
turn the shaft on the tool directly (i.e. like a prop jet) But I think
these are a long way off. :-)

--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam

Yousuf Khan wrote:

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

Yousuf Khan

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

Will the next one be an Intel Pentium Pentium, i.e. a Pentium 5?

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:17:35 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Rob Stow wrote:
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.

And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
they use their cellphones. :-)

Hmm. It would make Sidewinders more effective (in both Afganistan and
here.

--
Keith

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
Grumble wrote:
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).

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18967

"At MPF this week, AMD said two things of note, clock speed and performance.
The clock speed was given as three or five speed grades below the prevailing
chip at the time. This fits in well with the reports I am getting that it
will basically be a couple of low voltage cores on a slice of silicon to
remain under the 95W power cap."

"The performance estimates AMD gave fit even more closely. They were saying
that the dual core chips will be between 130 and 160% of the performance of
the highest clocked single core."


I haven't seen any similar info on the relative speed of Intel's dual-core
chips, but that's not surprising with the recent flurry of roadmap updates.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:48:49 GMT, Rob Stow
wrote:

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.

Come now, they've only been out for a year and a half! AMD has made a
few tweaks to the Athlon64/Opteron core with the 90nm shrink, though
nothing major.

On the Athlon64 side of things AMD has changed the socket used to
increase memory bandwidth (or reduce cost relative to Socket 940) and
added Cool 'n Quiet to reduce power consumption.

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.

Err, except that the cache has gone from 256K up to 1MB (2MB for the
Extremely Expensive Edition and maybe future standard-P4s), the bus
speed has gone from 400MT/s up to 800MT/s (with 1066MT/s being a
possibility in the near future), the core was significantly redesigned
for the Prescott (albeit with rather unimpressive results). SSE3 was
added in and 64-bit support is available in limited situations (only
to OEMs at the moment).

I would say that they have made some changes. Maybe not all the right
changes, but they have made changes.

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.

Yes, rather disappointing, those Pentium-Ms are rather nice little
chips but Intel really just doesn't want people using them in desktop
systems. I have no idea why not, it doesn't seem to make any sense to
me, but I'm sure they've got some misguided reasoning.

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

Tony Hill wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:48:49 GMT, Rob Stow
wrote:

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.


Come now, they've only been out for a year and a half! AMD has made a
few tweaks to the Athlon64/Opteron core with the 90nm shrink, though
nothing major.

True enough - and in that year and a half all AMD
has really done with AMD64 processors is to jack up
the clock speeds. I'm *not* putting them down for that.
My whole point is simply that they can't keep doing
that indefinitely - which is why they are switching to
dual cores as another way to keep jacking up performance.

The first paragraph I posted in this thread hasn't
been snipped yet, but what came immediately before
it /has/ been snipped. The poster I was replying to
was lamenting the fact that dual cores are apparently
going to be accompanied by lower clocks. And I say
again: isn't that the whole point of dual cores ?
Clocks simply can't keep going up the way they have in
the past.

On the Athlon64 side of things AMD has changed the socket used to

AMD has not really changed the socket. All
three socket types were planned for long before
the first Opterons were released. For some reason
they put off releasing the socket 939 versions for
a long time, but it was always something they had
intended to do.

increase memory bandwidth (or reduce cost relative to Socket 940) and
added Cool 'n Quiet to reduce power consumption.

I was under the impression that C & Q is was a feature
that has been in all of the chips since day one, but
disabled because it had bugs in it that needed to be
worked out.



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.


Err, except that the cache has gone from 256K up to 1MB (2MB for the
Extremely Expensive Edition and maybe future standard-P4s), the bus
speed has gone from 400MT/s up to 800MT/s (with 1066MT/s being a
possibility in the near future), the core was significantly redesigned
for the Prescott (albeit with rather unimpressive results). SSE3 was
added in and 64-bit support is available in limited situations (only
to OEMs at the moment).

I would say that they have made some changes. Maybe not all the right
changes, but they have made changes.


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.


Yes, rather disappointing, those Pentium-Ms are rather nice little
chips but Intel really just doesn't want people using them in desktop
systems. I have no idea why not, it doesn't seem to make any sense to
me, but I'm sure they've got some misguided reasoning.



--
BOYCOTT GOOGLE !
Partners in crime with the scum that rules China.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/interne...ogle.china.ap/