Slashdot Mirror


Intel Chips For The Near- And Semi-Near Future

Brian writes "This article reports that Intel will release new chips at the Comdex trade show, its first low-power designs for super-thin servers. The new Pentium III model is a gussied-up chip taken from the company's product line for portable computers, which share many of the same constraints as ultradense servers. These systems can't consume as much power or give off as much heat as ordinary CPUs because overheating causes processing errors. The systems are the first swing of a one-two punch against Transmeta, whose low-power designs caught Intel flat-footed, first in the mobile market and then in the low-power server market. Intel now is fighting back just when most server companies using Transmeta chips are on the ropes." And albat0r writes: "Intel says that it will hit 3GHz on the mainstream Pentium 4 by the end of 2002. Intel will advance its Celeron line, currently based on Pentium III technology, with Pentium 4 technology by mid-2002." I look forward to good values on eBay when 2GHz is "obsolete."

11 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Wall Clock time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who cares what intels chips can get up to in MHz. I can design a chip that runs at 200GHz, does some useful processing and is slower then a 486.

    Transmeta wasn't originally meant as a low power processor. They tried to optimize transistors vs performance and did a good job. Unfortuneately they forgot that nobody really cares about it. They then decided to try the low power market, but since Intel made a chip specific to lower power of course Intel will beat them out.

  2. Speed Kills by ll5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Low power is great, there is a definite need for using less power and producing less heat in some systems. As for MHZ increases, I truly wonder what is driving the need for speed anymore other than media types and gamers. Where are the next generation apps that will utilize this kind of firepower? Media producers, avid gamers, engineers, and server roles excluded, who else needs or even wants this kind of power? What will you do with it, besides *everything* you do today "faster"?

    --
    Wanna get high?
    1. Re:Speed Kills by AntiNorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Low power is great, there is a definite need for using less power and producing less heat in some systems. As for MHZ increases, I truly wonder what is driving the need for speed anymore other than media types and gamers. Where are the next generation apps that will utilize this kind of firepower? Media producers, avid gamers, engineers, and server roles excluded, who else needs or even wants this kind of power? What will you do with it, besides *everything* you do today "faster"?

      The same thing was said ten years ago.

      --

      I pledge allegiance to the flag...
      of the Corporate States of America...
    2. Re:Speed Kills by jtdubs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but that doesn't make it true. I honestly feel that in the near future. Maybe even the recent past, we hit the point where home users will NEVER need more Mhz power. I think the future is SMP, not Mhz. I don't mean dual-proc machines. I mean 32 processor machines and 256 processor machines. Multiprocessing is the future. Threaded applications running across several CPUs is the future. I think.

      More cycles will NOT make Word run faster. Word is I/O bound, not CPU bound. It won't make Internet Explorer run faster either. It's bandwidth bound, not CPU bound. It won't make games run faster. Game's have become bandwidth bound as well, only different bandwidth. Specifically, AGP and North Bridge bandwidth.

      There are things that will benefit infinitely from more Mhz though. Specifically AI and Physics simulations spring to mind. Haha, spring to mind, that's great, a figure of speach that combines both physics and AI. Whew. I kill me.

      Anyway.

      Faster memory, faster buses, more CPUs, that's what I think the future is like, not more Mhz.

      But, I've been wrong before. Almost too consistantly to be coincidence :-). So, we'll see.

      Justin Dubs

    3. Re:Speed Kills by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe some day they will be able to do a brute-force speech analysis of 'Louie Louie' with all of those extra MHz.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    4. Re:Speed Kills by bugg · · Score: 3
      Assuming the pattern of the home user's usage doesn't change.

      Lots of people, myself included, are now playing with hardcore audio manipulation- capturing albums/cassettes with their sound card and then digitally enhacning it to remove tape hiss and other noise...

      Any idea how long this takes? For the last 45 minute cassette I did (Beatles' Get Back LP Compilation #1, if anyoen cares), I tally up the total computation time at around 7-8 hours on my 400MHz Celeron. Of course, I probably could have shaved 4 hours off if I did everything in 44.1KHz (I used 48 for the editing), but hey..

      You could have told me when I got my 486 DX4/100 (coming from a 386 DX/33, which felt like a speed daemon compared to my 4.7MHz 8088...) that I'd never need more processing power, and I would have agreed. And that's true, too, if I don't use my computer to do anything that I wasn't doing in the early-mid 90s.

      --
      -bugg
  3. Re:Intel performance by Murdock037 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Somebody correct me if I'm getting my dates wrong here, but...

    It strikes me that the 3Ghz should be out sooner than the end of next year. It's been a couple months since the 2GHz was out, and so the total time in between there would be somewhere around a year, a year and three months.

    The leap from 1Ghz to 2Ghz took considerably less time than that. I know we're all sick of hearing about the widely-misunderstood Moore's Law, but shouldn't somebody out there be screaming bloody murder at this, that it should be out much sooner, that Intel is going to cave in, etc.?

    When AMD and Intel first hit the Ghz mark, they both announced that they were going to slow down their schedules, so they weren't left with a bunch of 600Mhz chips laying around while everybody wanted a shiny new 1.xGhz in their box. But there's shortages everywhere right now, so we know that Intel probably doesn't have a warehouse full of unsold P4s somewhere.

    Just pointing it out. Maybe we're all getting a bit too spoiled when it comes to speed. Anybody know what's up here?

  4. But who's going to buy them? by Pathetic+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The economy is in the toilet, no one is working, the machine you bought two years ago is just fine for your needs: revising your resume and dialing up Monster ...

  5. Still only 32-bit by morbid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    3GHz is all well an good, but we're coming up against the 4GB RAM addressing limit of 32-bit machines. Granted, the Pentium architecture can address 36-bits using segments, but we're back to the bad old days of LIM Expanded Memory and segments (who could ever need more than 640k?).
    I think AMD are on to a reall winner with their 64-bit Hammer architecture since that's completely backwards compatible and has a flat, 64-bit address space.

    --
    I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
  6. P4 architecture. by Dwain_Snyders · · Score: 5, Informative

    The P4 architecture is not brilliant, pushing up the clock speed won't help the fundamentally stunted technology. There are major problems with the architecture, the worst of which is probably their decoder implementation.
    The new architecture implements the U-V pairing and 4-1-1 in a nonsensical way. Multiple decoders have been eliminated and only one functioning decoder operates... the result of this is that just one instruction can be processed per clock cycle. Intel's theory was that the trace cache would eliminate the need to decode an instruction every clock cycle.


    However, this falls apart when a set of instructions is put forward that does not go into the trace cache.... the processor must call upon the L2 cache or put all that code into memory to pull in another 64 bytes of memory for each instruction - and then decode the 64 bytes of code each time! The end result is that the P4 takes a lot more cycles to decode these instructions. Compared to the AMD Palomino XP processor (the fastest Athlon chip at the moment, in fact, the fastest X86 chip at the moment!), the P4 performance is a bit underwhelming.


    The new Thoroughbred line of processors will introduce even better performance and completely blow Intel's offerings out of the water.

    --

    2DUP * ;

  7. err by RainbowSix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I look forward to good values on eBay when 2GHz is "obsolete."

    Why??
    Let's see... you can wait a year until the 2ghz P4 drops to $100 and get one used on ebay, OR, you can take that $100 today and buy a new 1.4ghz AMD Thunderbird. You get similar performance... but on yea, you don't have to wait a friggen year!

    How much you pay = amount of money + transaction cost. A years worth of computing sure has value to me!

    --
    --------
    It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.