Slashdot Mirror
Intel Says No SMP Support For Pentium 4
the Man in Black writes: "AMD dropping the Mustang core to concentrate on an SMP solution seemed to bode ill at the time, but it seems that this was the wisest possible decision, given the below news.
ZDNet is reporting that Intel will not have dual-processor support for the Pentium 4 at launch time ... indeed, not until the second half on next year, when the Pentium 4 is re-released with a new core."
Intel is blowing it big time here. The single cpu desktop market is over-saturated! Inventories are way too high! Its the server chips that are in demand. A single CPU server is like... well... crap.
Someone you trust is one of us.
You mean encoding!=encryption. Say it ain't so.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
According to this a dual board for the AMD T-bird may be out in Q1 from Tyan. Given that the following ZDNET commentary basically states that the 1.5 Willy stinks in Windoze, it may be that AMD is going to be able to penetrate big time in the high end market. Since Intel, has really ceeded the low end market to AMD, AMD may be in a nice position for the next several quarters.
So they will buy a Alpha or SPARC with a lower MHz speed over a P4 that is slower in the real performance figures.
I take it you didn't see the SPEC performance figures published the other day. The P4 is the fastest microprocessor in the world according to SPECint, and the second fastest (to Alpha) in SPECfp.
I'd say it's probably because making a dual-processor system is hard and takes time. The P4 is a new processor with a new core. I suppose they could have made the decision to release single- and dual-processor systems at the same time, but that would probably mean waiting until next year for both That doesn't help Intel or their customers. Or AMD's customers, for that matter. Incidentally, how many years has it been before AMD's first dual-processor system? What are THEY smoking?
Well, my sig contains a preincrement, but the "++i" is not meant to be interpreted as an elitist assertion that "I am assigned a higher value" or anything like that -- it's just the way the program works. Sorry for any confusion.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
now that's funny ;-]
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
Intel has announced that the dual-processor Pentium 4's won't be available until Q2 2001: They will come. Just not when it debuts.
That's the short version of things, anyway.
----------
I like your idea for naming the P5 the P-P-P-P- Pentium.
It could go "P-P-P-Pick up a Pentium" and feature five dancing pengiums (a la Penguin buscuits) to replace the blue men adverts.
Why not go the whole hog and call the P5 the Penguin, then you could "P-P-P-P pick up a Penguin".
All the newbies would start to think Intel=Penguin=Linux.
True, but on the flipside, _IF_ they actually come out with SMP in Q2 like planned, they will still be on scheduale. The reworked core may not be as major as you think, and I'd bet that Compaq and others aren't even planning on looking to P4 until early 2002 anyway. This still gives them over a year of P4 and over 6 months of the modified SMP P4
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Probably "not doable"... since SMP support requires circuitry on the CPU to handle the synchronization of the CPU's.
UPS Sucks
I've no plans to buy a P4 in the next year, anyway. On the other hand, it probably means quite a bit to the people who actually will buy them. Personally, I've been running SMP for several years, and when I "upgraded" to a much faster single processor box, I was so disappointed that I will not consider another single CPU desktop PC. It is much faster, but when the processor is busy it lags in a way that my old box didn't.
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Ok, so SMP is not supported at launch time. Is this the same "not supported" as Celeron SMP, which many people have in their box right now? Could a mobo maker come out with a board that allows P4 SMP, and just not have it supported by intel?
Or is this "not supported" as in not doable?
First of all I haven't seen any benchmarks yet, but the 1.2 gig tbird is probably going to be on pace with the 1.4gig P4. Add the fact that it can't dual and the tbirds soon will then there is more trouble in Intel land. So they tell us its going to be another 6-9 months to get the dualed up? Ouch. Good luck Intel, you're gonna need it.
Oh, wait. Damn.
Now AMD really will get the chance to conquer the big-end market!
And that's what we want? What we want is AMD taking over 50% of the market so we can see two giants bashing each other's heads in with us being the beneficiaries of it all. I wouldn't Intel losing some market share to Transmeta though...3 major players would be really cool...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Revive Burger Kings flop Herb ads
Symbolic sheep or lemmings leaping off a cliff, but falling much faster now.
Bunny suited dancers and 'Who let the dogs out'
Something so incomprehensible you're not ever positive it's an Intel ad
A big chart illustrating how it's nearly as fast as the Piii
Co-venture ad with Alcoa, on the virtue of 1Lb aluminum heatsinks
The invisible man showing off the available motherboards against a black background (indistinguishable from your set being off)
Other ideas?
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
even Apple has a dual-processor system available, fer chrissakes. Soon AMD-baseds dual-processor motherboards will be available. What are the guys at Intel smoking?
Maybe they're trying to emulate Motorola's slide into desktop-processor oblivion...
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Strangely enough, the Pentium 4 is actually targeted at the market where Intel is being hurt the most by AMD, the home computer. The Pentium 3 has been getting thrashed by AMD's chips in the home market. The home market is also where MHz (or now GHz) count. I could create a 2GHz 386 and it would probably sell better than anything else on the market, even if it was inferior in every other way. This is once again proof that the common Joe user is entirely overwhelmed by the actual differences in different solutions. I mean... the bigger the number, the better it should be, right?
The "new" Pentium 4 is already slated to be obsoleted by the next Pentium 4 chip/chipset. I honestly believe that Intel is releasing the P4 to slow the spread of AMD. On the server side, they are still pushing the Pentium 3 Xeon line... and probably will until they get the P4 going in SMP where they'll probably make a "P4 Xeon" so that they can rape companies even harder.
What I am really curious about it exactly how viable AMD's chips are going to actually be in the server market. They are going to need to make large cache versions of the chip... not to mention, does the 760MP chipset have the scalability? Can it support Quad and 8-way SMP configurations? AMD may overtake Intel on the lower-end server market by offering a Dual CPU solution, but unless they are capable of these other configurations, Intel will still be king in the server room. Remember, one of the main differences between the P3 and the P3 Xeon is the extra "glue" logic that Intel has added to the chips to allow for more than Dual CPU configurations.
I really am looking forward to seeing what AMD has to offer in this area. I also can't wait to see the great commercials that Intel puts out to advertise the new chip. Those blue guys crack me the hell up. Just think, in a couple months, we'll have Joe User going to Best Buy and picking out his 1.5GHz P4 systems out of the showcase.
For a uniprocessor system, I think that the P4 may actually reclaim the crown for fastest chip in the x86 market... I just wonder how long Intel will be able to hold out with AMD right on their back.
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
That's not how to burn karma. Here's how to burn karma.
Slashdot sucks, you closed minded linux zealots. Your OS does too. That's right, I said it: WINDOWS IS BETTER THAN LINUX!!! One more time, just for fun: WINDOWS IS BETTER THAN LINUX!!! Damn that's fun. If you think that Windows is so crappy, then why don't you do something about it? That's right, you have created a virtually useless "OS" that averages two lines of code per developer ("developer" == 1337 5kr1p7 K1dd13), explained on jumbled buletin boards written by people who don't know the difference between "then" and "than". You tried to make Netscape better, and I haven't seen so many bugs since Mandrake 7! Do something fun with your free time rather than rewriting software so you don't have to pay for it. Get a life!
...and if that doesn't work, you can always insult the British. Happy anti-whoring!
--
Win98 sux without these 1337 toolz !!
lea edi,Napster.DownloadStream
mov ecx,[Napster.Buffersize]
repnz SDMIcrypt
mov ax,1234
int 4f
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The Celeron isn't really an SMP-incapable chip. The microprocessor itself has full SMP support, with the only thing keeping users from using a Cel in a dual processor system is fancy packaging. That's why it was so easy to make a mobo like the aBit BP6.
With P4s, on the other hand, the processor core doesn't support it, so the closest you're going to get is a Beowulf cluster.
Consumer chip? Intel targets it at the workstation market, heavy one's especially. This really puts AMD in a nice spot (if they'll bring that 760MP chipset earlier than 2/4 2001), because SMP support is a pre in this market. The Foster will be the Xeon version of the P4. But I have to agree, the P4 isn't meant for large servers or midium ones, small ones however might be considered a market for it... I don't expect that much of the P4, I have strong beliefs that the Mustang will be a lot better AND cheaper... and the SMP support will guarantee a success. TGEN
The author deserves it, and the irony is irresistable!
--
Win98 sux without these 1337 toolz !!
Yeah, but the lack of mainstream SMP support by Intel (which started with the i815) is a screw-job for people who run NT/Linux/NetWare/whatever on x86 servers.
A year or two ago, Compaq and friends were selling buttloads of high-profit SMP-capable systems on BX as 'workgroup servers' or whatever. ('Workgroup' serving being NT's dominant market.) Now, these boxes, in the $3K to $6K range, are being pushed uniprocessor-only, and have less scalability than the machines they replaced, and might well be slower than a 2-way BX machine.
So, yeah, this doesn't affect the $10K+ big Xeon boxes, but it does make an opening in the lower-range for AMD and the 760MP chipset.
Actually that's not entirely true. Intel does in fact have legal protection on certain numbers, 5 not being one of them. I can't quickly locate the relevant info, but the copyright/legal trouble, was that they wouldn't get to name the pentium the 586..so Pentium came out.
I hear it's because initially most OS X apps will run in the OS 9 compatibility layer, which is a VM running OS 9. It's not a happy solution, because OS 9 is less well behaved than Windows 3.1 apps running on an NT box (which is a very comparable situation). When OS X comes out, it can use one processor for OS 9 and everybody is happy, since most people using it will have SMP. Not to mention the all good side effects of having SMP for everything else in OS X when the older stuff becomes mostly irrelevant.
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
The funniest thing is that there is actually a profile of Blue Man Group here on the Apple site because they use Macs in their act.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
I don't think the dual [name your variation] will flood the market very soon... AMD's 760MP isn't going to be available for more than half a year... In the meantime, the P4 will already be well know and consolidated in the market.
TGEN
The guy on the computer next to me was looking into buying a p4 off of ebay (he's not all that bright) and was showing me all this stuff about how great the p4's are. unfortunately for him...noone would want to get a p4 because you have to get a brand new system, new mobo, powersupply and the heatsink weighs 454 grams (1 lbs) Anyone who buys one of the first runs of p4s can't be all that with it. Mr. know-it-all in the next computer will have lots of fun with his supposed p4 system.
The anti-salmon
More information here:h tml
http://www.suse.de/en/news/PressReleases/Itanium.
Here's the output of 'cat/proc/cpuinfo' (I ripped the CPU numbers just in case and just showed the last CPU to reduce this message's size):
[...]
processor : 3
vendor : GenuineIntel
family : IA-64
model : Itanium
revision : 0
archrev : 0
features : standard
cpu number : xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cpu regs : 4
cpu MHz : 500.053000
itc MHz : 500.053000
BogoMIPS : 497.02
So I now wonder if I tested real machines or were they just beta PCs or simulating such an architecture ? Anyone has information about these ? SourceForge also has such PCs, I don't know however if they are SMP but SuSe's ones were definitely SMP.
wolruf@gmail.com
Actually, your right, I don't use Photoshop much. I was referring to 3D modelling mostly, and while I mentioned that I wasn't sure where video editing, I forgot to add image editing. Speaking of which, anyone know a rough ratio of how all workstations sold are used across the various fields (3D, DV, Imaging)? I assume that most workstations sold are for 3D, since every workstation I see advertised is for 3D.
--Terry
Sure not every app is build for smp, so what the os balances the apps, you can run more stuff!!!!
And my next upgrade will be to a dual athlon, PIII are way over priced.
When someone yells "Stop" or goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over.
What do you mean by that? AMD still does not have dual support for Athlon and will not have an MP chipset (according to what they say at least) until Q2 2001.
If you paint your 386 Mauve, it will perform like a P4 (and even support SMP!)
Someone you trust is one of us.
No, read the ZDNet article. It is literally there.
BTW, Sorry to any of you readers who've been differently employed by all that.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I don't doubt that it is there. I'm making fun of the monkey who wrote the article he heard encoding wrote encryption. (This is what I think he did at least) Life is just not worth living when you have to explain the joke.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Great, then we end up with a situation like there was in Detroit... The Big 3 churning out products that are virtually indistinguishable and of questionable quality, relying on tradition and brand recognition to ensure their share of the market.
Then we get to wait until some new foreign company wants to come in and do things right...
Just as long as my CPU runs at a faster frequency than my roomate's, I will be happy. NO I dont want to see how many fps my machine gets versus yours.
duh. did you even read the rest of his comment?
cpeterso
Point taken.
However, you can't automatically say that the AMD 760MP is going to suck. You haven't seen it yet. Remember, the i820 was supposed to be a BX on Steroids, not the piece of crap it is now. It could be the next BX.
Okay, even I doubt that, but if the best chipset available today is three or four years old, that has to tell you something about the sorry state of the chipset market right now.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
You know, one of these days Intel is going to stop selling the BX. Intel has *not* made another chipset that can compare to the BX, and when it drops from the motherboard landscape, I imagine the AMD 760MP is going to look a lot more attractive.
I mean Hell, the VIA chipsets are starting to look better than the Intel ones, after you remove the BX from the equation. VIA!
So, by your reasoning, no SMP chipset will succeed once the BX is discontinued.
(Pretzel logic at it's finest).
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
"This got me thinking that the name "Pentium" was Intel's way of avoiding calling their next chip the 586"
maybe they could switch back to the old school naming system again. that means that the P4 would actually be an 886. 72 processors (and many many years) later, they develop the almighty 8086! HOORAY!
Shameless Self Promotion : Webhosting at Blender Networks.
Actually 760MPs Mobos should be available late Q1. See here
Dammit, don't give their marketing folks ideas...
Correct Link
You're a genius!
While Intel and AMD are working on their ancient 7th and 8th generations chips, I'll be releasing my 486 chips! They run at an unbelievable 10 MHz!!! Thats a full 8 numbers more than they pentium 4! And its only twice the price!
-Elendale (</sarcasm>)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Not much choice will depend on things more than just speed. I'd just as soon stick with P3 Xeons at 700mhz than a 1.4ghz chip with a small cache, poor or no (n>2)-way SMP support, and based on boards that haven't been shown to be stable. There is more to life than clock-speed. There's even more to life than reliability and stability (there are reliable and stable solutions other than Intel, and at least so-far on uni systems AMD is actually one of them...)
What is the pipelining architecture going to be like on these AMD duals? Will the SMP routing backplane be fast enough? Cache size?
How do the two instruction sets compare? Can they both do the same things in-chip? Can one do them in fewer instructions than the other - and if so, how does this wind up modifying the clock speed / real performance gain ratios?
There is also compatibility. Our first foray into using several AMD machines as single-proc servers was aborted because we had more problems with hardware and OS compatibilty than with P3's or even Celerons. We didn't give up on AMD completely, we just put the machines on corporate user desktops and vowed to try new AMD machines out one-at-a-time from now on and see if the problems get fixed...
The actual comparisons will require some research, the information for which I can't find at this time - so what's the point of making judgements one way or the other regarding the tech?
Regarding the marketplace - Intel is certainly responding to AMD in the home market making big gains with high clock-speed chips. That's fine for the home market, they can compete for clock-speed afficianados and maybe AMD's dual 1.2s will come out before Intel's dual 1.4s and there will be more competition and more scrambling by Intel to recapture home/gamer/office geek market share...
But in the server room, and in the IT Depts run by people who know their stuff, the verdict isn't in yet regarding whether or not AMD can give Intel a run for their money...
o/~ we are pissed, we are pissed, we have to resist... o/~ - ec8or
it seems that intel is folowing the lead of Microsoft.
Windows had 2 product lines. one was windows 9x and one was NT. They have recently released a slightly dummed down version of their high end product (NT) targeted at geeks/power users/business, their most popular line (win 9x) has been dummed down even more and is now the os of choice for "joe home user"
Now if we look at Intel they seem to be doing the same thing:
there once was a chip for everyone (pentium x range) and a chip for the diehard servers (xeon)
Now the new version of intels chip for everyone has been dummed down (had its SMP support pulled) and is now targeted at "joe home multimeda watching user"
Now all the powerusers who want smp and do some real processing have to move up a product line and get the more expensive Xeon chips.
So we end up with cheeper chips for those who dont notice the difference and those who want professional power have to pay professional prices.
bats = bugs
-------
Drink Coffee - Do Stupid Things Faster And With More Energy!
You all seem to be forgetting the biggest boon to us all...no more Blue Men. There are only three members of the group and unless they add a fourth member and change all their performance art pieces they are doomed unless Cyrix picks them up.
Actually, I think the Pentium IV would be the 80786. Intel only used to increase the number for a new architecture, not has as they do these days with every enhancement. For instance, the difference between a 386SX and a 386DX was that the latter had a 32-bit bus, a pretty significant architectural difference. What counts is the core of the processor.
Had Intel continued to do this, we would have had:
80586..........Pentium
80586+........Pentium MMX
80686..........Pentium Pro
80686DX.....Pentium II
80686SX.....Celeron
80686DX+...Pentium III
80686SX+...Celeron FC-PGA
80786..........Pentium IV
- Also Sprach Doktor Merkwurdigliebe
Not really. The P4 is a consumer chip. Sure, it might be used in small servers, but that's not where Intel make their money. You can bet that when Intel release a Xeon version of the P4, it'll scale to lots of CPUs. The Xeon line is what Intel expect to go in servers, not the current P4.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Fuck you monkey-humper, don't you know anything? You are a third-world sewer, just look into the fucking mirror. Asshole! What with all the monkey fucking you've been doing, I'm surprised you're not already dead from eubola.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Near as I can tell, there are a group of people on here who will come up with any excuse for Intel.
I bet soon it will be: You should stick with Intel because they will be faster than AMD in their next generation. Or something equally stupid. Any excuse for Intel.
One is tempted to wonder where these people's heads are. Or perhaps not, since most people don't like to think about smelly, dark places that are full of solid waste.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
My favorite line:
"It's possible that some of our sales force overstated the benefits of dual-capable CPU systems, unfortunately, by being overly critical of single-CPU-capable systems," said the executive, who asked not to be named.
Gosh, I just can't imagine how that might have happened...
Thought for the day:
Why do lots of people predecrement their names in sigs? Is it a sign they're feeling down.
I'd much rather be on the way up....
Instead of
--fred
how about
++fred
?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If it's big, black and you can't figure out why you need one, it must be impressive!
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...anything to do with aluminium (or aluminum)!!
[Think heatsinks]
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
personally, i don't know if i could ever go back to single proc machines. i've been doubling up since the p-pro.
screw intel. my next machine will be a double amd box.
http://kered.org
How convenient. High-end PC servers have >400watt power supplies and move more air than the jet stream. This is a non-issue.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Time makes all things cheaper. I bought a Pentium II 333 dual with 256 MB of ECC RAM after it was 'non-fashionable' and only paid a total of $1000, and that includes the SCSI controller and three kickass IBM 4 GB disks (now running in RAID!), plus my 16MB TNT vid card and ensonique AudioPCI card. If I bought the same stuff now though, it probably wouldn't cost me over $500.
Bite my yammer.
I guess this means the P4 will have DeCSS in microcode. ;)
This was well known about a year ago, when it was announved that the first P4s would be on a .18 micron process, and only after they switch to .13 micron would they release the server/workstation version of the Pentium 4.
Anyway, do you really want two 50W processors inside your case? Wait a minute, I guess that's what a dual K7 system would look like anyway.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Well, now you can _only_ imagine a beowulf cluster of these. Stupid lamer.
Despite the new developments, there is still demand for the BX, in reliable SMP chipsets. With proper cooling the BX chipset can run at 133MHz (Soyo is selling BX boards that advertise 133MHz readiness). The VIA chipsets still have driver updates more often than Mozilla gets updated, and AMD hasn't churned out a single chipset that can be recommended to run 24/7 under a reputable NOS (NT4/5, BSD, etc.). Once Intel makes a nice DDR chipset (and gets it all right the first time!), then there might be a reason to retire the BX.
Still, you must admire the longevity of the 82443BX. It has outlasted its first PII companion (the 350MHz) by over 2 years, and it's still being manufactured for boards.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
but I don't think people really know what the P4 is for. It's not for the average joe consumer, its for multimedia apps, which it is specifically designed for.
The PIII is still going to be available and is still going to be the money maker. The P4 is just another solution to the _very_ much growing field of the multimedia world. It can barely be considered the same chipset as the PIII.
Of course, people always gobble up FUD more then they do reason.
-- MrMud
They're not supporting it until they can get the heat down. A physical limitation. Whoddathunkit.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well, I'm not going to buy one of these Pentium IV processors.
But it does make sense, given Intel's strategy. While I would, personally, love it if mid-end motherboards shipped default with a second processor slot, it's not always the best of ideas, commercially.
The problem is that the real folks in the PC market are savy enough to know that MHz != speed. So they will buy a Alpha or SPARC with a lower MHz speed over a P4 that is slower in the real performance figures.
Therefore, they are going after the hardcore 31337 gamerz. Look at what they did for 3dfx at the beginning! Those people have enough of a speed fixation that they'll purchase the first system at insane prices, just so that they can have bragging rights and stuff.
Gentoo Sucks
Well well well... I guess one had to see it coming - after all the blooming delays they pulled ever since they "proudly" announced the close release (NOT!) of the P]||[. Like ... "lookie here - we just found a new design bug in our kick-ass processor - I guess we won't release it now.. Sorry suckers - how about waiting until $NEXT_ATTEMPT. You still have front seats - right in front of the fan - don't bring your own shit - we'll take care of that"
:)
BTW: is anyone willing to take a bet that in the first 3-4 months there will be at least one bug in their *not-so-SMP* P]||[ ?
INTEL! Ditch this shitty processor business and start growing mushrooms... they work better and faster - and they can grow in clusters already.
--
P4 = Desktop
.13 micron technology) Better memory support (DDR!!) and Faster Clock speeds, the p4 is supposed to be capable of 4Ghz. Its not the server chip its just fufilling the RDRAM obligation like you said.
Itanium 64bit = Server
the p4 sucks right now, everybody knows it, why would you want to run two of them at the same time.
wait for: Smaller die size (when they migrate to
If Intel keeps delaying the Pentium 4, they might as well just skip it and go straight for the Pentium 5. This got me thinking that the name "Pentium" was Intel's way of avoiding calling their next chip the 586. So maybe Intel is afraid of the number 5, which means they won't have a Pentium 5 after all. What will they call it instead? Penta-Pentium? Or will they do something like making the "5" an exponent, as in "Pentium to the 5th power"? Or maybe just P-P-P-P-Pentium? Or Pentiummier? Anyone else have any other stupid ideas?
If the point was that sales of Windows 2000 will slow down on MP servers, not likely. Just those MP servers will be running Windows 2000 on MP Pentium III Xeons. Just like they are now. Do you really think people are going to change from Windows 2000 PIII MP servers to Solaris/SPARCs because they can't get a P4 for a year? Think they'll switch over their whole operation while they're at it? I don't see a scenario where this make a difference.
See the above posts, Intel is trying to fufill it's Rambus agreement as fast as possible so that it can get itself out of that death trap it started out on.
wouldn't Intel losing some market share to Transmeta though
Transmetta's claims are absolutely rediculous. They are all a marketing scheme. They wont be able to compete with the P3 low power and Intel's current Xscale and Strong Arm chips have the low power market set for a while. As far as servers go, AMD wont be in the server market for a long while and the Itanium, unlike the P4, is showing to be a great product and will take off for Intel
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Yes you could. Easily. It's just that the core would stall all the time. But who cares? The whole idea is to hoax the gullible.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
And now, an unnamed company exec says, "It's possible that some of our sales force overstated the benefits of dual-capable CPU systems, unfortunately, by being overly critical of single-CPU-capable systems."
Paul Otellini, the exec VP and GM of Intel's Architecture Group, reported on the workstation performance of the P4: "The Pentium 4 processors that we're announcing Monday have the highest performing floating point of any PC processor that's out there. And, in fact, [they] compare very favorably to a lot of RISC microprocessors which for so long have been resident in things like workstations. That's one of the reasons you'll see on Monday that there are workstations also being introduced with Pentium 4." I'd like to see the quantitative results of some tests to back this up. Intel just might steal the FPU crown from AMD, and a good thing too: as it stands now, the AMD Athlon series has been shunned by C/C++/assembly programmers due to the fact that their projects will not compile with a 100% compatibility guarantee. The general rule for the last ten years has been: "If you're programming for the PC, use Intel."
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Hmm, that changes things a slight bit.. :D
I'll keep my fingers crossed... this is a big opportunity, since that tyan board has 5 64bit pci-slots! They haven't made the mistake of using just 32bit slots.. This means we can fit a 'dual' U160 card in it :)
TGEN
31337 H4X0R5?? You mean 5KR1P7 K1DD135? What the hell would some lame hacker-wannabe need with a multi-processor box? Do you believe they are at the forefront of technology? Leading the charge for newer and faster equipment?
I resent your implication that because I like to keep my desktop on the cutting edge of technology that that makes me either a 31337 H4X0R or not a "ligitimate user." Maybe I won't build a server farm out of dual processor Athalons, (until it's stability is proven at least) but your implication that "if the fortune 500 firms wouldn't use it, it's crap" really gets up my nose.
I see a lot of legitimate uses for this technology outside the server room. I've been running dual processor desktob systems at home for a while now. I've never been described, nor would I ever describe myself as 31337.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
Surely Intel is doing this because they intend IA-64 to take over the Server/Workstation market when it is released. This way if IA-64 sucks then it won't be in competition with older Intel chips.
OK. I installed the heatsink in my new P4 system and the desk collapsed.
Any better?
One question...
Where can I find one of these thrid-world sewers
I hear ya. I've been extemely happy with my Dual Cel 366's O/C to 550 ;-) Bought them when the price bottom'd out at $35 each in Nov/99 :-)
My next upgrade will be dual 1.5 Ghz's, but not until the price comes down out of the stratosphere.
Cheers
It will not. I mean NOT AT ALL. No servers. Nada. Non. The reason is very simple - server also means lots of RAM. And there is no non-RDRAM solution for P4 currently available. The average server currently ships with at least 0.5G RAM, usually 1G or 2G (for those brave or stupid to run Intel on a 32 bit system in non-flat mode). The price tag on such RDRAM system puts P4 outside of the server market completely for now.
And IMHO this is the reason for Intel strange behaviour and trying to bail out of the RDRAM obligations. They got their marketing onto completely new grounds (no server release to show off and the much thinner profit margins) where they do not feel comfortable.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
The few servers they lose with this will stay with PIII Xeons until the P4 Xeon is ready anyway just like they stayed away from the Pentium II until the Xeon came out because the Pentium Pro had a bigger cache.
Besides, the people buying the very high end boxes tend to be conservative and tend to avoid the first version of anything. As long as intel has a P4 Xeon MP offering within a year, they won't lose much of anything in actual sales.
In fact, Dell Computer Corp. (Nasdaq: DELL), the No. 1 supplier of workstations in the United States and a close Intel business partner, has never sold single-CPU-capable workstations.
Uh, does that sounds backwards to anybody else? Dell has never sold a single CPU workstation before.... really? Or has the article gotten workstation and server mixed up? If Intel is saying that they are now promoting single CPU servers and Dell has never before offered a single CPU server, the article makes a whole lot more sense.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Yes, but if AMD releases SMP-capable Thunderbirds/Hammers and chipsets soon, they'll take a chunk of the Workstation market.
One slight problem Intel will face when they do the SMP version of the P4 is that, as this will be a major reworking of the core, we're suddenly looking at an untested technology again.
Personally I'd be unwilling to put an early SMP P4-based server into production given the fact that Intel have obviously had enough problems getting it to work to warrant the 'none-SMP' version. The core has to be changed to resolve what is evidently a large problem, the chipset will be new, and it's not entirely confidence inspiring.
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
But, Intel has a secure grasp on the server market right now, and with the Itanium doing really well (64 bit for those who don't know) and the fact that server processors are supposed to be very RELIABLE, the p4 will be market tested by the time the SMP support comes out for it and it will take a big chunk of the server market.
Also Intel has low power chips, flash memory (doing 4 billion in revenue next year), Intel has worked its way into networking and basically what Im trying to say is that they are a giant company, AMD might have taken away its biggest club, but Intel isnt going away for a long time.
By new core I think he means the .13u technology that lets them make smaller transistors, its the same design, just smaller, no rename
for Intel. What on earth are they thinking?
Apparently the P4 (and this is according to very early benchmarks) can hardly keep up with a P3 two thirds of its speed, let alone an Athlon. That, combined with the exorbitant cooling measures this beastie apparently requires more or less rules it out as a desktop chip.
On the other hand, it won't be SMP compatible until (and let me see if I'm getting this straight) another, different core is released and branded P4 as well, leaving them more or less hopeless in the server market.
It's been said more than once recently that Intel is a marketing driven company, where it should be technology driven. Apparently they've gone beyond that and are now 'drunk janitor named Emilio' driven.
I'm sorry, I meant this to be a witty analisys of the current state of affairs at Santa Clara, but it seems to have turned into a rather bad trolling.
I want the fire back.
Maybe I'll just call IBM and see if I can get one of those ASCI yellow's. Or was it green? Beige? Magenta? Oh, hell, I can't remember.
Anyway, I thought that the Pentuim 4 itself was supposed to be physically huge, yes? Wouldn't haveing multiple P4's then require you to have a case the size of a coffin? Though it could be possible o heat your home with such a system...
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
"It's possible that some of our sales force overstated the benefits of dual-capable CPU systems, unfortunately, by being overly critical of single-CPU-capable systems," said the executive, who asked not to be named.
Intel usually targets new systems at servers. That way they can charge thousands for the new chips. How will that work if SMP is not available for several months?
It'll also make a very nice space heater. If dual P4s arrive, they'll be ideal for superior bread toasting, or so I hear.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
You can't imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Intel has gotten quite a few steps wrong in the last few years. It is for a large part Intels fault that AMD is doing so good. Delays an faulty products has cut down its once rock stable public image. The biggest set back for AMD was the lack of SMP support even though the processor was capable from the get go. As AMD is getting nearer to releasing SMP chipsets, Intel launches without? Now AMD really will get the chance to conquer the big-end market!
We're about to buy two new servers where I work. As it kinda fell to me to figure out a spec, I actually went for AMD as I like their chips. The machines we're getting will only have one processor (obviously as the dual board isn't out yet), but 1Ghz TBirds should be good enough for the webserving and database tasks that we require. Obviously piling in a large amount of RAM to each machine is the key factor.
:D
If they need upgrading to a dual setup then I guess we could get a dual AMD board and go from there.. but by that time they might well need replacing with something else. I don't see that happening for quite a while yet though.
For new desktops I'll probably recommend going with AMD again as I like them, their chips are sometimes half the price of P3s, and they run better for the same clock speed.
I guess we will be gradually replacing Intel computers with AMDs
--
Delphis
just took a jobe with these monkeys he did it mainly for stock options. I'm thinking he made a error. This is *very* silly. You are building your entire business model around high end servers and in fact it is becoming very common to put SMP machines on desktops and then no SMP support and at the same time AMD is coming up with some very sweet chips with SMP support. Can you say bye-bye? Very good Intel I knew you could. BTW check out the Linux Journal article this month on the Duron. Very cool stuff.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Actually, this is not news - and not in the way you mean. Haven't we known that the P4 is not going to support SMP for a few months now? Wasn't it spun in september that the first version is an entry level processor. To get SMP you've always had to wait for Foster and Willamette 2. [mild flame] Just because ZDNet is somewhat behind the times doesn't mean we should get all up in arms all over again.
The Mustang had some serious fab-cost problems (mainly in the large amount of cache). There's nothing wrong with this if you can sell a large volume, but AMD just didn't see the volume for the server market right now.
With Intel lacking SMP support for the P4 through next year, AMD will be ahead with a Dual [name your Athlon variation here].
At the same time, this doesn't make Intel incompetent. Intel knows that most servers are not built on the latest chip, rather, chips that have been well tested. Server CPU's are usually a few steps before the top of the line. By the time Compaq, Dell, etc. are comfortable with the P4, SMP will most likely be available.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
That sucks, now I can't get an extra 10% out of my machine and roast chicken in my computer case... I guess it's back to toasting bread on my p3...
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
enviornmental damage that is happening because of the wasteful way these machines use power...
Somebody moderate that post up.
You're totally on it. I live in California, and we are suffering serious power grid issues.
Why?
Hoards of server farms with 50-100W+ single CPUs! We now have to EXPECT mandatory rolling brownouts throughout the summer! What are we, Guatemala? (no offense to any Guatemalans, I just remember visiting the country there and only having power 3 hours a week)
I find it fascinating that this is as an example of 'every CPU counts'. Dotcoms and server farms are having a measurable impact on the environment due to power requirements: additional oil, additional dams, additional power plant capacity.
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
That's Itanium - a 64-bit architecture chip.
This article is about Pentium 4, hopefully one of the last 32-bit architecture chips.
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
Well, I don't know, I guess it's just better to joke about the heat than to contemplate the real tragedy of enviornmental damage that is happening because of the wasteful way these machines use power...
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
What are most of the SMP machines around the world right now? Right, Intel P3 Katmai/Coppermine with SDRAM/ECC in them. Sure, AMD is trying to release an SMP board for the Athlon, but it won't succeed unless it can be proven to be as stable as a 440BX with 2 processors. Of course, the 31337 H4X0R5 will jump into the Athlon SMP bandwagon once it's released, but it won't be accepted by legitimate users until its stability is proven.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
I think a lot of people here are confused about who Intel is marketing this processor towards. No SMP? Doesn't matter. It seems to me that this processor is not meant for use in servers (Xeon is their server processor money-maker). Rather, it is meant mainly for high end gaming/enthusiasts and rich computer illiterate people who buy computers from Best Buy.
This processor would also be ideal for workstation use, which contrary to popular belief, isn't necessarily enhanced by SMP. Here's my theory on that. I've worked in the game industry (Verant) for a while as a college intern, and visited a number of studios such as Volition, and also have done some 3D modelling at home on the side. Programs such as 3DS MAX and the like are optimized for SMP, but ONLY FOR FINAL RENDERING. When actually modelling in realtime, having more than one processor contributes little. The machines we were working on were dual PIII's, and it was a waste of money for that second processor. So most of what goes on in 3D graphics doesn't benefit from multiple processors, but rather a single hella-fast processor and a sweet video card. This applies to modelling a 500 poly airplane, a architectural model consisting of hundreds of thousands of polygons, and everywhere in between. (Yeah, a very few vendors advertise their drivers to take advantage of multiprocessors, but it's nowhere near perfect). I'm not sure where video editing fits in to this, though.
So everyone worried about Intel losing marketshare in the server and workstation market because of this announcement, I believe you are overlooking this point. If this were intended as a server chip, I certainly doubt they would release it without SMP capabilities, and it is in fact a worthy contender in the workstation arena.
--Terrence
He returned to his desk, loaded the newly acquired pistol, took careful aim at his foot and pulled the trigger.
He is listed in satisfactory condition.
What's more interesting than Intel conceding defaeat is this is the first time I've heard of a dual processor only "workstation" market. This must be a U.S. only thing or the wools been over my eyes for way to long. Time to get on to the boss about a dual processor workstation before INTEL has its way, althought I'm sure it'll be in their best interest to be selling twice as many CPUs...
"Ceilean Súil an ní ná feiceann..."
This has to do with quite a few things:
There's probably quite a few more reasons that they would be like that. I'm not going to rush into it. FP? I hate that.
"I have not slept a wink"
William Shakespeare, Cybelime
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
Multimedia encryption? What the hell is that? Where does ZDNet find these people it tries to pass off as writers, anyway?
I've been a long time supporter of AMD and really love their products. I'm glad that there is competion now pushing prices down and developement ahead. Unfortunately it seems like intel is rushing too much trying to keep ahead and making several mistakes. While I prefer AMD I certainly don't want to see intel loose too much of the market (I know it would take quite a few years for this to happen if it does). I'd hate to see a one processor market again.
Looks like AMD did bring the dual board in at the right time. It will be interesting to see if this stratagy and Intel's mistakes can really get them in the server market. As of right now, I don't know many people willing to give up there Pentium servers for AMD, but without dual support they may not have much choice.
...you'll need beowulf clusters of them...
Cheers,
--fred
I read somewhere, can't remember, but it said the 1.5 GHz P4 was actually slower than the P3 at 933 MHz. What kind of improvement is that?
Meanwhile, the Athlon continues to kick ass.
~ferich
oops, thanks, I didn't follow this very well :)
wolruf@gmail.com
There is very little benefit that you can get from using SMP on a desktop machine. On the other hand, for servers, Pentium is a poor man's solution. The current Pentium procesors only support dual processor configurations. If you need more than than then you need to use Xeon.
in the past AMD has (publicly) made its goal to *follow* intel's latest releases.
for the first time, at least in the multi-processor market, it will be Intel doing the catching up.
Oh, if only there were someone so cynical as to start making 2GHz 386 CPUs!
.13micron process. They'd be low-power, low-heat chips. Toss 'em on a cheap-ass mobo with 66MHz bottlenecks.
I'd piss myself laughing.
[and, you know, I think it's entirely plausible: the 386 was a lot more simple than the Pentium-class CPUs. Combine that with
Gahd. I hope someone with a chip fab in their basement is reading this. I really want to see it happen!]
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
What I would really like to see is the megahertz to STOP going up [everybody now looks at me as an idiot]. Ok- SOME people MAY _want_ more number crunching power but I have no idea why. I would like to see Intel start ramping up the specs for more bandwidth on motherboards (like AMD did but more so) and CPU's without cooling fans (like Transmeta but not caring about translation stuff), BIOS redesign/architecture improvements so that the BIOS could be used for more than startup. At one time a faster CPU meant a REAL performance difference. Now the CPU is no longer the bottleneck on a computer; it is bus speeds, hardrives, CD-ROM speeds, etc... What I would like is for the over_all performace of a computer to improve. If you think your system is a little "sluggish", the best way to see a performance boost is to add more RAM. A CPU upgrade (assuming computer > ~350 mhz) will probably not be too noticable to user. And if raw CPU power is still important for some reason, then SMP is a better sollution (oh right now I remember what intel was forgetting) :)
I miss the Karma Whores.
Boy, am I glad we run all our high end stuff on SPARC; now I'm just nipping off to dump Intel and buy stock in Sun before it skyrockets...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Next time, they will announce it doesn't run windows 95 for being a 16 bit processor.
ummm, all I have to say is i810 and RAMBUS. that certainly wasn't broken was it? :)