"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.)

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.

(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

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

"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