A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 7th 06, 10:09 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot

In comp.sys.intel Yousuf Khan wrote:
Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to
want to buy the P4's?


Perhaps p4's are in more than just PCs? ISTR references to P4's being
in some HD-DVD players (or was that bluray?)

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #12  
Old September 7th 06, 10:11 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Scott Alfter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article ,
George Macdonald wrote:
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:01:34 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to
want to buy the P4's?


S'always possible there's somebody out there who thinks Netburst is just
the ticket... hmm, well maybe not!;-)


You never know...after all, there _is_ a sucker born every minute. :-)

_/_
/ 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)

iD8DBQFFAIyKVgTKos01OwkRAnojAKDKWnuZ1aMB2uHxx8yeqn 5w+GKN5ACfYu2J
ZKWtYK4g3WKGAa3b/XYToQc=
=tGb0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  #15  
Old September 8th 06, 02:06 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
George Macdonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 467
Default Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot

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.

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? There is
still a P4 fan-faction at Intel? 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. 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.

Oh, BTW my favorite anal...yst babble this week was that, as part of the
sell-off/lay-offs, Intel might sell Itanium off to the highest bidder.:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
  #16  
Old September 8th 06, 02:29 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Johannes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot



chrisv wrote:

Carlo Razzeto wrote:

Considering the performance advantage Core 2 has over the P4 (and even
Athlon 64 which wipes the floors with the P4) I doubt anyone other than
those people who don't want to switch out an MB quite yet are going to care.


It's not like the Core 2's are hideously expensive, either.


But (as said) P4 upgrade option if motherboard can't take a Core 2.

Good thing most buyers are clueless, or the demand for the Core 2
would so far out-strip the supply that getting one would be nearly
impossible.


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...
  #17  
Old September 8th 06, 03:10 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 262
Default Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 09:06:22 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote:

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? There is
still a P4 fan-faction at Intel? C2D has umm, yield problems?

Yep, that's how it looks like.
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 looks like C2Ds, especially 4MB variety, are hard to come by.
While not necessarily true, but one can suppose with a good degree of
probability that most, if not all, C2Ds start as 4MB, but most of them
have later 1/2 of it disabled for being faulty. Chances are, we are
about to see soon Celerons (or whatever Intel decides to call them)
with 2 cores and puny (1MB? 512k? even less?) caches, and also some
single cores based on Core2 - as soon as they sort out their dump bin.

NNN



  #18  
Old September 8th 06, 04:18 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 580
Default Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot

Johannes wrote:

TV commercials
have suggested that you need Core 2 Duo for doing emailing and printing
at the same time...


Darn it, I could have sworn that I did that back in 1985 on my Amiga.
8)

  #19  
Old September 9th 06, 08:30 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Grant Schoep
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot


TV commercials
have suggested that you need Core 2 Duo for doing emailing and printing
at the same time...


Darn it, I could have sworn that I did that back in 1985 on my Amiga.
8)


Heh yes. I'd still like to see how a Core 2 Duo would do on an up to date
Beos... as much as I hated the Apple like interface, I really like the
"everything is threaded" concept.


What is annoying about this all. Is everyone could benifit from dual
processors now days. WinXP, as the most dominiant, likes it. I myself sit
and "play poker", "listen to mp3s", etc etc at the same time. If I could
play poker on Linux there would probably be a compiler and other stuff
running too.

Thing is, None of those are CPU intensive whatsoever(other than compile...)

basically, I think most everyone could benifit from multi-cpu, but... for
most parts, most common users only need big horsepower from CPUs in modern
games.

Dual-core, yes. But until more games are threaded, people will still
beleive that multi-cpu is not neccessary.


But then on games I know nothing. I hate action, I'm a turn based game
boy...
  #20  
Old September 9th 06, 12:57 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
johannes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Intel drops Pentium 4 power a lot



Grant Schoep wrote:

TV commercials
have suggested that you need Core 2 Duo for doing emailing and printing
at the same time...


Darn it, I could have sworn that I did that back in 1985 on my Amiga.
8)


Heh yes. I'd still like to see how a Core 2 Duo would do on an up to date
Beos... as much as I hated the Apple like interface, I really like the
"everything is threaded" concept.

What is annoying about this all. Is everyone could benifit from dual
processors now days. WinXP, as the most dominiant, likes it. I myself sit
and "play poker", "listen to mp3s", etc etc at the same time. If I could
play poker on Linux there would probably be a compiler and other stuff
running too.

Thing is, None of those are CPU intensive whatsoever(other than compile...)

basically, I think most everyone could benifit from multi-cpu, but... for
most parts, most common users only need big horsepower from CPUs in modern
games.

Dual-core, yes. But until more games are threaded, people will still
beleive that multi-cpu is not neccessary.

But then on games I know nothing. I hate action, I'm a turn based game
boy...


I'm not into games, but think there are many other ways of using CPU
horsepower. E.g. improved data visualization in Excel and Powerpoint.

Powerpoint, in particular, badly needs some more interesting stuff for
interactive data visualization or we'll all fall asleep.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
power supply damaged even with ups ??????????? Vanguard General 1 January 1st 06 03:09 AM
Intel Timeline, Year 2005 Mikhail Sidorin Intel 0 December 27th 05 11:46 PM
x800xl and Far Cry, disasterous! AAvK Nvidia Videocards 38 October 14th 05 01:42 PM
Amd-Intel cathy General 1 June 27th 05 01:44 PM
Intel Commander Intel 0 October 30th 03 08:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.