Slashdot Mirror
Intel Cancels 800 MHz Xeon
goingware writes: "This article at C|Net tells how Intel canceled plans to produce an 800 MHz Xeon. They had feedback from major OEMs telling them they wanted fewer speedbumps with larger incremental improvements. I think that's a positive step, actually. I know from doing performance analysis of software that simply making a speedbump to a processor doesn't win the end-user that much, it's mainly for marketing reasons. This is because the performance of real systems these days is limited so much by memory access times and other factors. It would be better if manufacturers concentrated on engineering improvements that would result in real performance gains rather than notching up the clock speed."
As You may or may not know... What intel OFTEN does is they simply switch their production line to produce the next higer chip in line, nad then STAMP them with a lower clockspeed. Thus I've been able to buy a P233MMX sold as a P166 (even WITHOUT MMX !!!), a P2-333 stamped as a P2-266 and even a P2-450 stamped as a P2-350. I have NO DOUBT that Intel will/would have continued to use this strategy, seeing as they don't even loose money on it (only one production line needed), if this announce,ent had not been made. And I too think it's a positive step. This means that Intel for once might actually be able to focus on developing a BETTER CPU rather than just a faster CPU. Does ANYONE doubt that Intel has not made any significant advances in technology since the jump from 286 -> 386 ? (OK, so integrating the MMX into the Chip rather than letting the vendors supply it as software MIGHT be considered a technological advance, but only a small one) If You have evidence to counter that point, I can give You even more that says otherwise. I think and HOPE that Intel will stop the race to have the FASTEST clockspeed, and insted start the race to build/design the best CPU. Right now they're being beaten in innovation by Transmeta and speed by AMD, so they really should focus on new areas that would make them more appealing to us the consumers, and I for one will not buy a new CPU simply because there's a few more MHZ in it.
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
10.5 times - in the latest 700 Mhz Celeron.
This is getting so ridiculous, with a 10.5 multiplicator the CPU is totally starving for datas, but Intel is controlled by the marketing drones, and they said "we will differenciate the Celeron and Pentium III, and Celeron shall not have a bus faster than 66 Mhz".
The Abit KA7-100 supports memory interleaving with 133Mhz DIMMs. Haven't had a chance to try it because I sent the motherboard back (don't ask!), but there is support for it out there. How popular it will become only time will tell.
Sure you can. You just have to shake it really fast. Like a tuning fork, but with less resonance.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I see a lot of posts here about improving bandwidth, blah blah blah....What the gurus who standardize this sheit need to do is ADD more friggen IRQ lines and DMA's!!! Breaking away from IRQ SHARING would be like the holy friggen grail!
I agree with the television example (which isn't yours originally, and you should at least try to provide a citation or at least disclaim authorship), I disagree with its utility as an analogy. Customers are actually directly consuming CPUs, whereas tv-watchers are only actively consuming the program and try their best to avoid consuming the advertising. If Intel raises the prices on its chips, then that will directly affect consumers' ability to purchase those chips, whereas if stations raise prices on advertising spots, that only indirectly affects consumers (by affecting stations' revenues and subsequent ability to produce programs).
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I know Xeon's are generally only used in server apps and not on the desktop. They also cost a heck of a lot more. Can anybody explain to me what's so 'good' about them that justifies the cost...
rm -rf / is the evil of all root
"3D Accelarator and RAM manufacturers should be working on methods to bring down production costs...so these things can become more affordable."
Seems reasonable..
"BUS speeds needs to be enhanced. USB is getting there, but it's not enough...and IDE sucks - and we really need faster hard-disks."
Hmm.. 1) USB is designed for slow speed peripherals, and is meant to replace serial connections.. No speed problem there. 2) IDE sucks, not because of the bandwidth (no way 2 devices will ever fill PIO4 -- 16.6mbs, let alone 100!), but because of the various contention issues (only one IDE device may speak at a time, etc). Think SCSI. Even at the "slow" 20mbps SCSI1, it outperforms ATA100. 3) Yes, SCSI HDs are faster...
"Cache sizes and Access speeds needs to become a lot higher. "
Not size, but efficiency. Your PII could have 512kb of cache, but my Athlon with 256kb of cache will kick its ass because I'm not duplicating the L1 cache in the L2 cache (exclusive vs. inclusive), and the associativity of my L2 cache is higher (4-way vs. 2-way).
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This seems to be a good thing for computer sellers, rather than computer buyers.
If the cpu speeds increase in less frequent steps, then the cpu prices will also decrease in less frequent steps (IMHO).
This seems more like an attempt by Intel to "throttle down" the market. Also it makes their marketing campaigns look better if they can demonstrate these artificially-contrived "big improvement steps". Which in turn leads to higher prices asked by Intel, for those big steps.
This seems to be a subtle money grab from the consumer...
> I've been told that thus is the only reason AMD has been able to get the foothold into the market that they have.
It is indeed a big reason, but certainly not the only reason, the other important one being that AMD has selling equally good processors at a better price.
And sometimes better processors at a better price. I've lost the link, but just a day or two ago I saw something comparing the Duron 700 to the Celeron 700, and the Duron won on almost every test. And that on top of being 25% cheaper.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That's because the 700 Mhz is a 100 Mhz bus CPU, while the 733 Mhz is on a 133 Mhz bus... so those two CPUs are for different platforms and are really two different product lines. The next big thing after the 700 is not 750, and after 733 it is 800.
Indy (as does Indigo2, both out in 1993) had a 400MB/s memory bandwidth and a 266MB/s gio-64 bandwidth. The R4k Indigo (circa 91 I think) had these same limits. So if an earlier post is right that the p3 has a 400MB/s bandwidth, sgi's had that about a decade ago.
The O2 (which you can get for under $1500 now) has a 2GB/s memory bandwidth, and the Octane has it's switch at around 1.6GB/s (memory bandwidth is dependent on cpu clock). Origin's memory bandwidth scales linarly with the number of nodes you have (each node having up to two processors and its own ram). So when the pentiumpro had just started coming out, with what intel pushed as its really fast l2 cache -> cpu bandwidth (1.2GB/s), there were computers from sgi with faster system memory (though more latency of course). Interesting.
In short instead of all them fast CHIPS, we need to work on fast SYSTEMS.
That means:
All these things means that with our current chipsets we have the potential for much faster computers...where are they ?
PS. That beer/mdma guy is like Barney, everybody wants him dead.
"Semper in excretum set alta variant"
Nowadays, we have ultra-fast x86 CPUs, but chipsets that hold them back. I used to have a 486 motherboard that did memory interleaving to speed up memory accesses. I suppose when we had 70ns SIMMS it was more important, as well as cheaper to implement extra memory busses due to the lower pin count on a SIMM compared to a DIMM.
Anyway, it would make sense for the current x86 chipsets to have interleaving, although with SDRAM burst reads, it might be difficult to get the timing right. Maybe that's what has prevented it in commodity chipsets? Otherwise, I suppose you could have 4 byte interleaving thus:
DIMM0:hell
DIMM1:o wo
DIMM2:rld!
DIMM3:!!!!
You would still need some really low-latency memory in-between the main memory and the processor, and I guess the cost is another barrier to use in commodity chipsets.
It's interesting to note that the Alpha architecture has up to 8 times the memory bandwidth at 5.2GB/s than Athlon at 600MB/s or 12 times the Pentium at 400MB/s (although, an Alpha machine of such can cost $13,000) - check out http://www.microway.com/products /ws/alpha_21264.html for more in-depth information.
Enjoy,
J
Mainframes don't just have faster memory - in fact, the DRAM used may even be slower. It's the overall I/O, the speed at which the mainframe talks to peripherals and storage, the speed and caching in the storage systems, and the ability of the mainframe to do all these things at full blast simultaneously. The speed advantage to a mainframe, as you indicate, isn't one of CPU power per se - it's the ability the mainframe has to walk and chew gum whilst simultaneously rubbing its tummy, so to speak.
The memory difference isn't just one of memory interleaving (many boards do that now), or the memory-side bus. All PC processors get their speed from outrageous multipliers - which accounts for a couple of things to today's systems:
1: The tight code loops of a lot of benchmarks operate mainly from cache - creating way-high scores.
2: There isn't that much difference between a 1 GHz processor and a 600 MHz processor in real-world usage. Some things will be faster, but many more virtually unaffected.
Mainframe buses don't have the bandwidth restrictions that PC buses have. And when you think about it, we have 10x multipliers on PC processors, but the bus has only improved 4x since the 486 and the glory days of the 33 MHz bus. Most servers need faster I/O buses, not faster processors. When 64-bit 2x PCI is commonplace (or something better), and the FSB hits 250 MHz, and the operating systems finally become worthy of all that horsepower is when the PC will really start to make a dent in the mainframe's world. Until then, there's a reason why a mainframe will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a PC server will cost (at most) tens of thousands. PC servers are neat, and they do a pretty good job at what they are designed for - but it ain't no mainframe.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I've always been amazed by the shortsightedness and selfishness of people who think that raising the MHz bar every month or two is a bad thing. They usually think it's a bad thing precisely because they're the type of person who wants to have the top-of-the-line processor, and when the speed bump comes they no longer have a supreme God Box. That's the reality of the situation, because NO ONE LOSES when processor speeds increase.
After all, processors are commodities whose values are expected to fall fairly quickly; they're not investments, they're tools, tools which are always being improved upon. No one ever says, "I wish they would stop making racing cars faster. I mean, it's absurd adding more horsepower and speed, when 120MPH is fast enough for anyone. They should just race around with that as the top speed, or they should invent new engine technologies to push performance up, they shouldn't tweak existing engine technologies to go faster." That's how absurd the argument that processor speeds should be limited is: it makes no sense, at least for the consumer. No one's use of Photoshop or Quake 3 or Premiere or compiling the Linux kernel was ever slowed down by monthly speedups in processor speed. You're no longer the fastest, but unless you're a complete jerk who has to compensate for small penis size or low self esteem by engaging in a Geek pissing contest about who has the fastest processor, it doesn't hurt you. And if you are that jerk, get a fucking life and a clue because there's more to life than bragging rights and there's more to a fast/useful system than just the CPU. And BTW, now that cache is integrated on-die in all new processor families, speed scales pretty linearly and reasonably with incremental MHz increases; the only exception is the dumbass Celeron on its starved 66MHz bus; but the P!!! at 133MHz FSB is good, and the Athlon or Duron with 200MHz effective EV6 bus isn't being starved for data and won't be for some time, as long as you have 133MHz or greater memory and a decent disk subsystem. Which isn't unreasonable, since PC-133 memory is about as cheap as PC-100 and can often be pushed up to 143MHz and sometimes 150MHz if you buy from the best manufacturers (look at the memory comparisons on Anandtech).
The only people faster processor speeds hurt is Intel and the big OEMs, and we should lose no sleep over that. AMD has, in part, made its progress based on not just better design but faster processors; being the first out at most major speed grades has given them prestige they wouldn't had if they'd stuck to slower speed grades. Pushing the MHz envelope has helped AMD's reputation. Keeping up with AMD has hurt Intel's pocketbook. And the large OEMs like Compaq and Dell and HP, they get hurt because they buy massive quantities of CPUs ahgead of time, for building crappy integrated systems on bulk assembly lines--which is good for smaller screwdriver shops, who buy fewer CPUs at a time and buy less far in advance, thus helping the small guy relative to the big corporations. Who can complain about that? Especially on Slashdot, where we mostly like the underdog and the little guy rather than the corporate empire.
Plus, in the long run, speed bumps are great for us consumers. I'm still using an old 400MHz box, ancient by today's standards, but I look at the long term and realize that every speed grade I fall behind is one I will gain when I can afford to upgrade. I think it's wonderful that early next year I will be able to afford a 1GHz or faster Athlon. I cannot complain in the least, and without the incremental speed bumps we end users would never be able to afford such a beast so soon.
The OEMs saying nay to an 800MHz Xeon is good for them, but bad for consumers. It helps them maintain value for their slower MHz Xeon systems, but does nothing for the advancement of consumer interests. Not that Xeons have much use for the average consumer, since only wealthy consumers and, more likely, businesses have use for the Xeon's big selling point, 4-way SMP. But businesses and Net companies who could have used the extra horsepower would have benefitted a little by the speed bump. The one caveat is that I doubt the relatively old Intel bus could handle 4-way SMP at 800MHz very efficiently, anyway, but that's a bus issue and not strictly a processor issue, since the other selling point of the Xeon was always its integrated L2 even when other P!!!s didn't have L2 cache integration. Also, the advantage for consumers would be the lowering in price of slower Xeons. At any rate, processor speed increases are nothing for users to complain about, now that L2 is integrated and bus speeds on high end processors are reasonable and the main bottlenecks are memory and disk subsystems, which aren't the responsibility of Intel or AMD. Make Seagate make faster hard disks, and make Micron hurry up with DDR-SDRAM, but it's just plain silly to complain about faster processors and lower prices.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
I've been running my main development system on a Pentium Pro/200 for about 4 years, and resisted doing an upgrade through *3* independent releases of new processors from Intel - the Pentium II, the Pentium III, and the Xeon (4 if you count the Celeron, but by that point I was too disgusted at Intel to even bother working out what a Celeron is...)
I recently decided that my compile times were just too long, and started looking for options - I chose an AMD 750. Mostly because AMD have a good chip, it works well, floating point is really nice, and it was very inexpensive.
Sure, AMD do the speedbump marketing bit - they have to, or Intel would eat their lunch. But at the lower price, playing speedbump catchup with AMD is at least a little more reasonable.
I think my AMD 750 system will keep me happy for a year or two, and hopefully by that time Transmeta or some other such company will have released a more cost-effective processor that can support another one of my personal policies for buying computers, which is to buy one for whatever function needs filled.
I don't try to cram all the functionality I need into one big mega-computer - that has proven too unstable and a pain in the butt to administer. Instead, I opt for getting cheaper secondary/tertiary computers for whatever function.
I have a laptop for email, correspondence, and general r&d work on code. I have my aforementioned AMD 750 for major development work (music software, telephony, etc). I have a Mac G4 for all of my audio needs - this recently replaced dedicated hardware sequencers for the job. I have a cheap old-skool Pentium for bookkeeping and print serving on the 'net. I have a couple of Pentium boxes (cheap and generic) for Linux development - no GUI required, and they sit idle most of the time. I have a fast P2/400 for my Linux web and mail server and it's idle most of the time as well.
All of this has been quite successful from the standpoint of low-cost, low-administration, low-risk if something goes wrong, and I hope that things change with the CPU mfr's to make cheaper computing a lot more feasible. These superfast chips with super-$ price tags are not what we need...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
It would be okay if they didn't go making life difficult for overclockers as well.
All in favor, say "HI!"
The practice of releasing new chips with negligible differences in clock speeds every few months has really seemed stupid to me. The sort of people who have to have the latest and fastest processor aren't going to be impressed when their brand new expensive X Mhz processor is superseded by the even newer X+25 MHz chip in two months time, and many of them will probably wait.
And it must also be costing Intel money to keep releasing incremental upgrades, simply because they then have to lower the prices of the now slower chips to get them to sell in the face of their latest speed king.
This pissing contest between AMD and Intel hasn't done Intel any favours at all, and it's probably time for them to take stock of where they went wrong.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Perhaps this is all in preperation for something huge they have planned and they want to drop it on the market to a considerably awed consumer-base.
---
seumas.com
I wish CPU manufacturers could concentrate on trying to make existing models cheaper to make and therefore cheaper for us to buy instead of spending too much time making them faster.
If they did this and the prices fell significantly it wouldn't be long before 2 or 4 processors in even a desktop machine became commonplace, giving us all faster machines and driving the per-cpu price down still further.
Honestly, I don't actually know much about why this might be or might not be possible or even desirable. I welcome any comments or reasons why I am wrong. It just seems like a good (albeit uninformed) idea to me.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
But when will they design a good architechture around the CPU? Practically speaking, everything ooutside the cpu is CRAP on x86-platforms. Yes, we're talking about 1GB/s burst-rate with AGP-bus, but that's only for gfx-board. Back in ...was it 1992 SGI had 1.6GB/s continous transfer rate on Indy. And that was for all components. Just compare x86 to any Sun or SGI workstation. I'd choose old Sparc anytime over new PC.
Common sence is taking over whoooooo hooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! These small speed increases were getting on my nerves. IT was just giving people excuses for writing sloppy code. I mean, I magine if we maxed out a 200 mhz for a while never passed 233. All the software of today would have had to writtedn for the chip of yesterday. Like console systems I.E. Playstation, which was out for years yet the games just kept getting better. The software would have had to become better to keep people coming back for more.
If we refuse to be flexible, we are in effect opting out of the game of life. The world moves on without us.