Slashdot Mirror
Intel to Release Pentium 1.13Ghz
NoWhere Man writes "According to TechWeb, Intel officials have said that they plan to ship a 1.13-GHz Pentium III in limited production quantities on July 31 >(which also happens to be the anniversary of AMDZone). Interestingly enough, at the same time, the schedule for the Itanium, the companys first 64bit processor, seems to have slipped from the 3rd quarter of next year to the 4th quarter."
Anyone know what FSB they are running at? WHat kind of overclocking potential?
If the quantities are as limited at the rest of the Cu series, then you can expect Dell and Compaq to get the only case, and they'll probably have to share. Bring on the Athlon love, baby!
--
Does narcissism count as a hobby? --Shawn Latimer
It seems clear that Intel is adopting the 'limited quantity' strategy as a tactic of exerting influence over the OEMs that recently complained about the Xeon incremental releases.
Created a limited supply is a good way to create artificial demand and a means of initiating punitive action against the companies that were 'uppity' so recently.
I suspect that if the whole Xeon controversy hadn't happened, this would just be another quiet incremental upgrade like before, but now.... it's an opportunity to put the OEMs in their place.
Nice, but my P3 450 is still even fast enough to easily run any games I throw at it... Does anyone need 1.13GHz? What are you going to do to use all that power?
Intel's development path:
Is this going to be the same quantity as the P3 1 GHz. So far, it still isn't possible to get those. This seems more like "marketware" than anything useful.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
What's the big deal? I'd rather have two 600mhz chips than OneBigOle 1.13Ghz chip. Nothing has scaled to this processing speed, save research stuff, so why waste the cash?
Everyone I know who has a 1Ghz machine says they noticed no significant performance increase. Sure Apache compiled 4 seconds faster, but you're still using vi to edit the conf. The my dick is bigger than your dick argument is tiresome.
One point twenty one gigawatts! er, hertz!
I guess you'll be able to toast bread on that wafer. Can't wait to get my hands on one...
-- Estoy feliz, feliz de que no sea cierto.
1.13 gigaHz?!!!!! 1.13 gigaHZ!!!!! Marty! nobody can generate that kind of speed! Why, they'd have to use......A Bolt of Lightning!
admit defeat, live in decline, be the victim of our own design
I have this nasty feeling that the very term "GHz" is going to be used to goug the CPU market for some time to come.
The 64 bit processor is the thorn in Intel's side... It is Intel's ball and chain... It is Intel's Microsoft... the list of metaphors goes on...
Maybe Intel's persistent failures with Itanium will allow a new chip maker to take Intel's crown, like IBM, AMD, or MOT (maybe even DEC*, prolly not Transmeta tho :) anyway, the fresh air new leaders in this sector would bring would be Nice.
*I know its Compaq now, I just didn't want to break with the three letter trend going there.
I don't believe that I could get my hands on a 1.0Ghz PIII, even if I wanted to.
so, Intel is doing yet another paper launch.
I guess that it is all about marketing, not about availability.
Wouldn't it be cool if AMD beats them to the punch by a week, just like last time?
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?
Interested in the Colorado Lottery or Powerball games?
check out http://colotto.com
Frankly I'm not suprised Intel is doing this. After all, what sense would it make for them actually use any manufacturing capabilities that they might have to make the 1GHz CPU's available in some respectable quantities. I believe that Intel is running scared. AMD has them shaking, because the Athlon outperforms the PIII hands down. Intel continues to promise new technology, but when they actually produce something tangable (RAMBUS) it falls flat on its face. They are scrambling to introduce technology they don't have the bugs worked out of yet. And all because of the little company they've tried to bury under all the mud, FUD, and rigged benchmarks for all these years, AMD. Granted this is the first time AMD has out performed Intel, but it has made the giant nervous. And nervous giants tend to be clumsy. See any resemblence there?
Long live progress & competition!
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
NEWS FLASH! CPU Maker Announces Incremental Speed Increase; Chip Expected To Be Slightly Faster Than Previous Model
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I hope they actually sell both of the chips they manage to fab, and not keep one in house for testing.
When is the computer industry going to abandon this idea of a faster and faster single CPU in favor of slower but massively parallel CPUs. IMO, the latter would be able to accomplish far more. Yes, they're expensive, but that's only because there's little focus on them. Of course, programmers will have to get used to thinking differently for parallel programming. As it is, the few 2/4/8 way systems seemed to be being deliberatly kept expensive and off of the desks of us mere non-corporate peons. Linux already has SMP support, yes? Or are we all waiting for MS to "invent" SMP for (user grade) windows before we see the HW to support SMP get cheep?
At least there are ways to obtain those things when they are announced...unlike Apple's 500 Mhz G4 announcement a year ago which took almost 6 months to fulfill...
The voices in my head don't like you
This is just marketing hype from Intel. Their 1GHz Pentium III is being outshipped by the 1GHz Athlon by a factor of 12 to 1. You can't even find a 1GHz Pentium listing on the Pricewatch CPU page, let alone compare prices.
Given how much Intel has been suffering from their decision to go with Rambus (see this article from Tom's Hardware), you can see why they feel the need to brag about something.
Are they going to be collectables?
CPUs are kind of like sports cars. You can't let the other geek down the street out clock you. Who needs a car that can go 180? Well, I guess I do, when my stock options come through anyway.
Kate
_________________________ Visit me at http://pornforcomputers.com
..have a /. story about every speed bump that Intel or AMD makes? Next thing you know, /. stories will all start running together because of redundanc... shit... too late.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
I was looking at CompUSA's add, pentium 3s on one side athlons on the other. 733 MHz top p3s 1000 MHz top athlons Sure p3s are close to atlons at the same clock speed, but where are the 1 GHz p3s? (aside from their 'favorite' companies?) I see 1 GHz athlons. btw, when are the .18 micron copper alphas coming out? (supposedly 2.5 GHz+ ?)
Actually the article says that Intel won't start selling the chip until the fourth quarter of *this* year, with general availability for consumers coming sometime in 2001.
Actually Itanium has slipped from shipping the third quarter THIS year to the fourth quarter, THIS year. McKinley is the one supposedly set to ship in the second half of next year.
Nuthin' like checkin' the facts every now and again.
All right people, this is the time to band together! It's not long until we'll go from this to our ultimate goal - 1.21 Gigawatts!
Only then can we inadvertantly prevent our parents from getting together!
-Denor
Intel's moving back of the projected in-volume ship dates for the Itanium is far more important than the release, in limited OEM quantities no less, of an incremental increase in speed grade for the current generation x86 chips. Itanium, as the first line of IA-64 systems, represents the unveiling of a multi-billion dollar gamble by Intel (and its strategic, quasi-partner HP) in making inroads into the high end, 64-bit processor market. IA-64 is an elephantine archetecture; it includes everything including the kitchen sink, the waste disposal, the plumbing, and the hot water heater. It's such an unwieldy ISA for an idea that was supposed to simplify the processor by effectively exposing processor functional units to programmer visible namespace. And yet, Itanium has 10 pipeline stages (3 more than the Alpha 21264, I must add), is barely pushing 500 Mhz, and will probably be slower on a clock for clock basis than the current Alphas and PA-RISCs. I don't buy the ISA, the implementation of the ISA embodied in the Itanium, the projected performance of the Itanium (although I do have greater hopes for HP's Ft. Collins team in the McKinley...it would be hard to see how they could screw up as badly), and the market placement of the initial IA-64 processor line. All in all, I'm not exactly surprised at this delay.
Maybe this means that Intel will have some sense and wait for HP's processor team to finish design so that they can fab the McKinley and avoid embarassment.
Too many people forget that all CPUs wait at the same speed. A 1Ghz anything is a waste considering the state of I/O and memory technology.
This CPU is going to spend a lot of time waiting for memory, even with a generous cache. How many programmers design their data structures to be cache friendly?
With all of the processing of multi-media data types (music, video, and pictures), there isn't a cache big enough to contain the data. Also, the temporal and spatial locality of these data types stink - you process a few pixels, and move on. You don't get to revisit a certain pixel very often. Yet it is wasting space in the cache.
Intel and other manufactures would do much better to add some architectural improvements designed to help multi-media, which is much of what people do with these chips now. How about a section of "streaming cache" for data that will pass through, but only once? That way you don't have to fill the entire cache with useless bulk data.
Or how about I/O model improvements - split the bulk data from the signal and control data so that the bulk data doesn't have to go through the memory hierarchy and the processor at all? If I'm playing a video file, why should the cache and processor be deluged with data being routed to the sound card and the video card? Put the signal and control data out of band from the bulk data so that the processor doesn't have to sift through the bulk data.
It's probably been delayed to give Microsoft time to finish porting Windows to it...
hang on, I've just thought about that comment. It isn't really that funny.
insignificant sig
I can't recall too many performance increases smaller than this, percentage-wise. There were smaller increments between 60/66, 90/100, and 120/133, but I'm pretty sure that the faster models came out at the same time as the slower ones.
A 11% increase doesn't sound that exciting to me. Then again, a 113MHz increase doesn't sound so bad.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
I was listening to most of the AMD conference call today, and they said that they would be releasing a 1.1 GHz chip this quarter (I'm guessing Tbird) with the Mustang (Server chip), Corvette, and Camaro (both notebook) coming in fourth quarter. Also, there will be faster speeds in the fourth quarter. I also think they mentioned something about the Sledgehammer (K8 - 64 bit) coming next year, but I'm not sure when. They also said that they will be moving toward DDR SDRAM, but that they had a Rambus license in case customers wanted a rambus support. There's probably some more things I missed (apart from all the financials).
... the REPENTium?
J
I'm assuming you copied all of that from a textbook... because I can't imagine some TrOlL having such knowledge. Amazing that I understood it all too...
the real at&t mix
Intel has to one-up AMD to feed its ego and deliver what the market wants (by Intel's definition, "deliver" equals "announce"). If the market really demanded it, they would find a way to actually produce the chips they announce en masse (AMD can already do this). Why isn't there an antitrust suit against Intel yet?
Sent from my iPhone
Can you imagine if Intel had continued with their scheme of releaseing procs with half a bin more speed? How funny would a Pentium 1.066 GHz be?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Can we stop the nimrod who say 1GHz is wasted because of limits in memory and I/O technology? The speed is only wasted IF you're doing certian types of tasks. In every other case, it is not.
Places where proc speed is wasted:
- Serving.
- Databases.
- Programming/Compiling.
Places where it definately is NOT wasted.
- Gaming.
- 3D rendering.
- Running high load apps like 3D Studio, Maya, and MS Outlook.
- Running Win2K.
- Scientific probs. where the data-sets are fairly small.
- Image processing.
In these types of tasks, I/O bandwidth is a non-issue, because if you're 3D renderer is swaping, you're wasted anyway. Machines for these tasks tend to have a load of RAM, thus disk I/O really isn't a factor. For stuff like games (and the little preview window in you're 3D app) the data sets are small, and the computations are large. Even a complex game like Quake3 rarely pushes over 200MB/sec of bandwidth to RAM. That's one reason why RDRAM is often useless, because apps rarely push even the 800MB/sec of SDRAM.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Great joke, except not. If I made the same comment of Netscape on Linux, I'm afraid I would have gotten quite a few remarks telling me where to put my CPU.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
What'll happen is this: They'll release an 1100, an 1133, an 1150, an 1166, and a 1200 (eventually), which will just confuse the hell out of people and get more people to buy AMD stuff. At least AMD got smart and pledged to release in 100 MHz increments after 1 GHz.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
If I'm playing a video file, why should the cache and processor be deluged with data being routed to the sound card and the video card?
Subject says it all. Sure most video cards will do MPEG-2 in hardware nowadays; maybe you'd save something by getting the CPU out of the way there (although it's not actually in the way very much when you're just doing a memcpy of compressed data). But then here comes MPEG-4, and suddenly you need to do all that decoding work in software again. Which sucks if you're concerned about your SETI@Home performance, but it sure beats buying a new video card.
That's actually 1210Mhz ... ;-)
o/~ Join us now and share the software
- Gaming.
Not quite. Games are more than happy with current CPUs. Anything over 800MHz or so is really useless. At resolutions 1024x768 and above, the FPS of a game is limited by the video card. Just check out the benchmarks. At high resolutions any reasonably fast CPU is able to saturate the video card with data. I especially like the benchmark where Celeron 667 is compared to 1GHz Pentium (see either Tomshardware, or Anandtech). The 1GHz beast easily smokes Celeron by like 40-50% at 640x480. But the FPS numbers quickly start to converge as the resolution is increased. At 1024x768 1GHz Pentium is only slightly ahead of the Celeron, and at higher resolutions, there is essentially no difference at all. (BTW, the video card was GeForce 2 GTS, the fastest at the time).
As for running Win2k and Outlook... well, can't argue with that ;-)
Even a complex game like Quake3 rarely pushes over 200MB/sec of bandwidth to RAM. That's one reason why RDRAM is often useless, because apps rarely push even the 800MB/sec of SDRAM.
Agreed. While the higher bandwidth of RDRAM helps a little, the higher latency slows things down a lot. That's one of the reasons I hope Rambus will die a horrible death. The sooner the better.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Has a nice ring to it.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Maybe its Trollaxors english paper and he wants to get feedback on it.. its rather creative if thats true
If you think education is expensive, try ignornace
You should take this to Illiad, I hear he's looking for bold new computer humor like this for User Friendly.
Good point. I work with DSPs - who cares about the clock speed? It's all about throughput, babe - MIPS and BOPS. I like to see this 1.21 gigahert thingy's specs WRT these measurements.
Hi. Read this: http://www.kuro5h in.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2000/7/18/122257/231. Please don't b-slap me; this is important!
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Finally, Intel is breaking away from 33 mhz increments for its chips. It was ok when the 133 was followed by 166, with about a 20% mhz difference. But later we were seeing 833, 866, 900, etc., with differences of less than 4%. Factor in Amdahl's law, and that was a fairly useless distinction.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Most(if not all) PC system designes are based on the 40+ year old von Neumann architecture. This is high level enough to serve us as a guide. Sorta like "If you want to build a house you need a foundation walls and a roof". So as a basis it serves us well.
The current Intel/AMD architectures are more specific than the von Neumann. They embody the actual physical motherboard design.
The Intel/AMD architectures are based primarily on what we knew in the 70's and have been added to over the years. This can be shown as my (c) 198x Word Star will still run on my Win NT 4.x (*office*) PC and that this new 64 bit Intel chip wil support 16 bit apps.
I agree that the principles of processing etc will always remain the same, but what if....
We throw out that old Intel/AMD design and start afreash. New bus architecture, chip architecture, design for the future and with the user in mind. We saw what BeOS did when they started from scratch
Anyway I put it to the /. masses that there is good reason to redesign with our original and newer (I don't remember user frendliness mentioned in von Neumann's paper) goals in mind, using technology that is available now.
Your thoughts please(as if I have to ask for them)........In the days that more and more are migrating to an OS that will run happily on a 486
that's right...all those happy new linux users running KDE, GNOME, Netscape, GIMP, XMMS, BladeEnc, StarOffice...all on a 486!!! and they say it beats a 1GHz Athlon running Win2000!!! wow...those Linux programmers are smart guys. either that, or most linux zealots are full of shit about this whole "linux runs great on a 486" lie.
Looking at it from another perspective, you might come to the conclusion that Microsoft actively stays in the Intel camp.
Intel does seem to try to spread outside of Microsoft, though...
Damn it, these news about new cpus are getting annoying. I would hope that Slashdot will stop helping these animals and their hypes. Everyone knows that more mhz doesn't mean better! For crying out loud, I just upgraded from a 266mhz to 350mhz last month. Too much cpu power for me, who cares about 1130mhz?! How many of you will buy it if Intel releases it today? (1) It will cost an arm and a leg, (2) You will probably need to buy a new motherboard (3) It is more likely to be bugged and unstable compared with what you have today. (4) Unless you are crunching some number, you will not see the performance. So, why is this news important to slashdoters? Hrm, I have no idea.
Time does not wait.
Gee, I hope they hold a lottery for those dozen chips. It would be my dream come true to buy a non-field-tested superfad for about 20x the price that it will cost in 4 months! Where do I sign up?
www.niftyness.com
------
Let me give you the lowdown
Hmmm...the last time I opened up the ole Hennessy and Patterson Computer Architectures, A Quantitive Approach, measuring the CPU performance in terms of MIPS is a fallacy.
Benchmarking in general is a big lie. It has been proven time and time again their is no way to quantitatively compare the performance of two CPUs accurately. Everything we have come up with as of now is just rough guesstimates.
This goes on to show that this is especially true when comparing across two different architectures(i.e. - A MIPS and a x86)
Considering the intel line of IA-32 has changed both internally in the way it handles x86 instructions and the fact that MIPS is a meaningless method of measuring performance, you have left me with a vaccuous statement as the subject of your post.
Here is a good example:
I have two computers the Foo-1 and Foo-2, both run on the Foo86 instruction set. Foo-1 runs the Foo86 code itself, Foo-2 runs the Foo86 code through a frobulator-translation and then executes the frobulator code. Frobulator code is notoriously much larger than Foo86 code because it follows the RISC principle of KISS (Keep it simple stupid). Now we see the figures below for some arbitrary piece of code.
arch.: Foo-1, Foo-2
program: gcc.c, gcc.c
Foo86: 2M inst., 2M inst.
Frobulator: N/A, 15M inst.
Both Foo-1 and Foo-2 execute the gcc code in 1 second.
Foo-1 has a MIPS rating of 2
Foo-2 has a MIPS rating of 15
But the execution time is the same you say?
Hmmm....maybe MIPS is not such a great idea afterall.....
But it won't stop the marketdroids from using it to proclaim the Foo-2 is a better, more enhanced Foo-1 because it has a higher MIPS rating...
And of course people wilkl run out and buy the Foo-2 and their code will run at the same speed as the rest of us stuck on the Foo-1's.
Dan O'Shea
typing this on his Foo-1.
Massively parallel.... There is a reason why everyone doesn't have a 32 or 64 way system. Its because the more processors you add the better your memory system needs to be to keep up (and therefore the more expensive). What you have effectively done is trade a fast CPU for a fast memory system. There is this cute little multiplier effect (which NUMA tries to alleviate a little of) for every processor you add you must add enough bandwidth to your memory to support it until you end up making massively expensive memory subsystems.
SMP just doesn't make sense for the desktop. It really doesn't make much sense for server either. SMP is a solution for lack of CPU performance. Most users don't really have tasks that would benefit from dual CPU's. Quake III is a wonderful example. Tasks that are latency sensitive work much better with faster CPU's than massively parallel ones. By definition most desktop tasks are single user, latency sensitive. The question is this... If you have two machines that cost the same amount of money and have the same parallel throughput but one has two processors the other has one. Which one are you going to choose? Personally I want the single processor machine because it will keep up with the dual processor machine when it is running a throughput sensitive task and it will be twice as fast when it is running a latency sensitive task.
Dual processors is easy since the differences are easy to quantify. In truth dual PIII systems aren't that much more expensive than single processor systems. You can add a second processor to a machine for pretty much the cost of the second processor which can be as low as 5% of the system cost. It just doesn't buy you that much for everyday desktop use. Sure there are some things that run faster but with processor speeds the way they are most of the applications that can be run in parallel are bottlenecked by disk, memory, video etc..
Two points.
First get out your computer arch textbook and read about how to calculate effective CPU fetch latency given memory latency, cache latency and average hit ratios. Plug in the values Intel lists, and you will discover that Intel with PC133 has gotten itself a little headroom and the processor shouldn't be loosing much performance due to memory constraints compared to a 933. After all, its only an 8.5x multiplier.
Second with the x86's abysmal FPU arch the floating point speed usually gets a nice increase. With that nice increase in floating point speed you get a nice increase in anything that is heavily FP intensive.
Ah.. Have you installed mandrake 7 on anything less than a PII 300? It sort of sucks. In fact it is damn slow. I would go so far as to say it is a sh*t load slower than 95 on the same hardware.
Oh, don't even think about it with 16 megs of ram on a DX33...
it was 1.21 Giga Whatevers sorry if im bitching.