Slashdot Mirror
Intel Pushes Pentium 4 Past 3 GHz
denisbergeron writes "Yahoo has the news about the new P4 who will run at nothing less than 3.06 GHz. But the great avance will be the hyperthreading technology (already present in Xeon) that allows multiple software threads to run more efficiently on a single processor."
Yahoo has the news about the new P4 who will run at nothing less than 3.06mhz.
umm... I've got an XT clone that's faster than that... wanna buy it for about $600?
(/sarcasm)
And yet while running enterprise class systems I can't find a system with too little power.
Lets face it servers are well beyond 95% of applications.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Nice, you gotta love the way Intel has been ramping up, I only hope we dont see a 1.13 PIII repeat :(
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
I just hope hyperthreading is the real deal, not a load of hyperhype.
sig.
[sarcasm] I mean, it's not even an incremental improvement. It's a decrease in speed by an order of 1000. How is this supposed to improve upon current processors? I don't know. But I do know that I will not be lining up for a processor that is outdated by about 12 years. [/sarcasm]
What the hell is AMD doing? Are they even still alive?
...but the C64 still got better sound.
Yeah, but what's its top speed?
It's interesting to see what the cutting edge is capable of, but you pay such a stupidly massive premium for the latest processor that only fools would use their own money to buy it.
In the UK you usually have the ultimate latest Intel at about 700 UKP- the sweet spot in the price/performance trade-off tends to be around the 200 UKP mark, which will probably be the 2.5Ghz by the time this 3Ghz one is out.
graspee
"You won't see a heck of a lot of difference in Word, but software like [Adobe Systems'] Photoshop or video-rendering software will benefit considerably," he said.
How can Word appear any faster at 3GHz? I would think that after 1.5GHz, improvement in performance would be hard to notice. Granted, it will be good for people who are still running those 200MHz clunkers but what's the incentive if you're already running in the GHz range?
Disregarding all of the comments on the 3.06 typo. Geez, I remember the day when we use to comment on processors, peripherals, parts. Now the community is stuck on whining about typos. Read it, chuckle to self,move on.
Anyway they have ramped up the speed, and added something that could have always been, hyperthreading. Xeon has always had it. This is not progress, this is almost not worthy reporting.
Puto
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Or you can build a dual processor Athlon system for less money. No need for HypedThreading.
It has been reported on various sites that Athlon XP 2400+ chips (2GHz, new Thoroughbred Revision B core) are trivial to mod for dual CPU operation and easily overclock to 2.25GHz (150MHz FSB, aka 300MHz DDR, which is the most my ASUS A7M266-D will allow) with proper cooling (Thermalright SLK800 being my favorite). The chips are under $200 apiece. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those...
Proper Athlon MP 2400+'s are due shortly I'd assume.
Sometimes a little editing of the stories wouldn't help.
Oh, and its Ghz, not mhz.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but it goes to credibility.
overclocking is pointless cos the speed increase you get isn't worth the effort and money.
there ya go
I'll be able to run Word really fast now.
Humm, this raises a point for me. Of course they claim it is faster, but when exactly ?
...
I mean, is it faster when doing stack swaps or when using TSS to multitask? *BSD uses the TSS to multitask, taking benefit of the i386's way to quickly swap registers and stack. Windows doesn't do this
So, from a pure technical point of view, how does it work? Did they just make TSS switches faster? Some OS-es benefit highly from that, but others, well, don't.
Unreal Tournament 2003 just kicked my 1.0 GHz machine in the nuts and then made fun of me. If for no other reason, I'm glad to see this announcement, because I can expect a price drop on the 2.6 GHz and 2.8 GHz chips.
well, do other processors fair as well with hyperthreading, like ppc and sun?
- when it's on Slashdot, of course!
- you know, i thought journalists got fired for using poor grammar...
- oh, i forgot! it's Slashdot!
I have a 56k modem and the internet is soooo slow, will this make it faster? They said with the PIII it would but I didn't see much different.
I was torn between building another dual-CPU box (currently on twin 533Mhz Celerons with an ABit BP6 board), or going the small form-factor route. Now I can do both.
More at Shuttle's site.
Cheers,
Ian
Knock Knock!
...
...
Who's there?
15 second wait...
Intel
Yahoo has the news about the new P4 who will run at nothing less than 3.06mhz.
Does it at least have a turbo switch?
This will make things interesting for software licenses that charge per cpu.
for those of you who don't know, with hyperthreading, the system will appear to have two cpus. If you have a dual system with hyperthreading, then it will look like 4, and so on.
will it take for this artcle to be post a second time on /. Hmmmmm i give it a week,
Does this mean that AMD's scale for measuring the performace of its CPUs (the Athlon 2200+ runs at 2200 zlotniks) will no longer compare fairly against MHz for the P4? Perhaps a P4 will run about as fast as an Athlon of the same clock speed (if you could get Athlons clocked at 3GHz).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
the huge number of story errors that keep popping up. You'd think that the story editors would try to mantain some kind of quality control.
However, it's also possibly a ploy to keep people posting indigant comments about errors. 50% of posts on these kinds of stories seem to be pointing out these glaring errors. Like the recent story about PS2 games on an Xbox which was nothing to do with the Xbox at all.
Come on guys, wise up!
Finally... a processor that will be able to run Freenet without keeping my load pegged at 20+.
My poor P233 is begging me to stop the freenet process before it explodes.
Hyperthreading is a complex proof of the limitations of todays CPU architectures. I belive in a CPU architecture containing many small CPU cores on one chip, instead of just multiplying the issue and commit parts and sharing the execution units.
It would be more scaleable and easier to implement to use several complete CPUs. The biggest drawback (compared to hyperthreading) would of course be that in special situations some CPU cores would be idle, but this simply corresponds to pipe-line bubbles in the hyperthreaded case. This is easily compensated by two facts: 1) multiple CPUs can be made very scalable and 2) most computer systems today always runs multiple threads (i.e. utilization will be good).
Of course, for Intel to maintain their market lead, everything has to be compatible, so they'll have to pay, time after time, for the errors they made in the eighties (the 286 paging + the CISC ISA). By breaking Amdahl's law time after time (SSE, MMX, etc.) they have made an even more complex beast. The only area where they really excel is in the production processing. They can squeeze out high frequencies and pack the transistors tight. For that, I'll give 'em cred. For their CPU ISAs, I'll just laugh...
Maybe if you type really fast?
> FOR 1975!!!
Jump back in time... even further
Mhz = mega herz
mhz = milli herz
Imagine a computer that's triggered every 11 minutes... with hyperthreading!
Wow. It might have stunned Charles Babbage...
Great, so now we'll see nerds nitrogen-cooling these things to get an extra performance boost as well? What a waste of time.
This is all pointless. The entire pentium "architecture" (more like a shanty-town) needs to be dumped entirely. We NEED a clean start.
Even moreso, why is no one addressing the fundamental problem--that the PC is just horribly designed? There are better ways of doing things than just ramming everything through a single CPU. This is 2002--why are we not pursuing better computer design? The "PC" is the bottleneck for crying out loud. 10 years from now will we be reading about the new 10 Ghz PVII chip, still running in 30-year-old hardware? Wonder if I can still get a "Missing Basic ROM" error on my desktop machine...
Be, Inc. tried to redesign the "PC"...they had a very nice design, but they killed it before it's time. And how about Amiga...yeah everyone is sick of hearing about the Amiga but it WAS intelligently designed. Instead of shoving everything through the CPU the Amiga used coprocessors to deal with much of the stuff that bottlenecks PCs, leaving the CPU free for more important stuff. It was a great idea, and it actually WORKED.
I don't care who does it--I want to see a better machine being built. If done right, the Ghz of the CPU won't matter nearly as much.
Moderator tip: When the user clicks "Read more," and the article says "0 comments," he takes a reasonable amount of risk in making obvious humor posts like this.
:)
Just because 4 other people clicked SUBMIT with the same content before above user did is really no reason to penalize him.
Besides, he's a really nice guy in person...
I also used to have a PC with a turbo switch, but I never knew exactly what it did, can someone enlighten me please?
Enig? Det alt for hot det smor!
According to this artical: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/25774.html
Hyperthreading needs OS support and only Windows XP and Linux provide that
This will totally change my life! It's the announcement that I'd been waiting for! I must rush out and purchase ten thousand of these immediately, if not sooner! And so on!
</sarcasm>, wouldn't it be simpler for Slashdot to just link to every product announcement from a major hardware manufacturer rather than go through the farce of picking one of the dozens of frenzied (and typo'd) submissions from the "f1rz7 5Ubm1z10n, 5uX0rz!" brigade?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I'm personally going to build an octathreading CPU by tricking the OS into thinking it's working with EIGHT processors! Wow, that should give me 8x the performance! Stupid Intel restricting themselves to faking just two processors.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
3.06milliHz ! Wow ! That means about ten clocks an hour ! With the super deep P4 pipeline (20 deep IIRC), it means it will push some 200 "single clock instruction" in just an hour. But beware of pipeline stalls. They better have a solid branch prediction algorithm.
Aside from the obvious typo in the story, just how fast would a modern P4 run at 3.06 megahurtz? Would it be substancially faster than an early 1980s 3mhz Spectrum system or only the same speed / few times faster?
Slashdotters did this a while ago :-)
3 GHZ Intel cpu will be 2x the cost of the AMD equivelent.
It is also worth mentioning that core clock frequency has little to do with real world performance in a modern CPU architecture.
Yahoo has the news about the new P4 who will run at nothing less than 3.06mhz
There's only one explanation to 2 typographical errors in the post.. sex..
Rob posting articles to be posted automatically, Kathleen wants Rob.. if you know what I mean.. Rob tries to rush.. well.. you get the idea..
What about "who will run at..."?
Who who who???? I've never heard of a guy, or girl for that matter, called P4.
Securing the physical pathways that transpoty data on a computer's motherboard. This will sure help me against those tiny little hackers inside my computer stealing my data!
Oh wait, you mean this is to protect the data against me? Looks like we have about a year before this is built into the PC architecture. Plan your computer buying wisely.
Bastards.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
...Dual-CPU Athlon motherboards are not that easy to find in a retail store--you often have to purchase them mail order. :-(
Also, what end-user oriented software will take advantage of Intel's hyperthreading process right now? Will we have to wait for updates to CAD/CAM, drawing and image editing programs to use hyperthreading? And when will we see updates to multimedia programs such as Windows Media Player, RealOne, Quicktime, software DVD players, etc. that will take full advantage of hyperthreading? We might not see them until early 2003.
With Bigger Shots! (Though, only in Japanese) http://www.elecom.co.jp/news/20021015/mapp/index.
Zech Harvey, MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
I agree, it is a typo and is easily ignored. The level and intensity of /.'s typo-whining are generally out of proportion to the significance of whined about typos, but as one /.'er has mentioned, it can be a question of credibility.
/. is one of the premier websites for technical information. And even if that information goes through a highly democratic filtering process (known as moderation), the quality of the content does to some degree reflect on the editorial body of /. Typos that provide misinformation that could be easily corrected should be.
What happens in five weeks from now when Google's spiders cache this story's typo, or when you come searching on /. for that P4 3.06 mhz, or was it Mhz, or no, Ghz? (Sure, you could leave off the hz designation, but my point is that the reason for the failed search would not be clear.) This could easily be corrected by about 33.3 seconds of an editor's time. Instead, we get posts that get modded down as redundant, some of those moderations perhaps done by an editor him or or herself.
The irony in all of this is that /.'s editors can easily correct such errors. I know because I recently (yesterday) posted a thread as an AC that was deleted within minutes. I recognize that deletion as a wise one; I'm not complaining. But it seems to me that other editorial decisions should also be made with the same kind of responsiveness.
/., for all its flaws, is a source of information for many professionals. Its editorship should at least reflect that professionalism especially in matters of technical specification.
(readers dissatisfied with any typos they dind in this post are entitled a full refund)
blog
The advantage of Linux (and to a lesser extent W2K) and the low end Solaris, AIX servers is that for the first time it was sensible to scale horizontally, so rather than have 1 box that did everything ala a Mainframe you'd have 10 that shared the work, then you'd add 5 more. And because the real bottlenecks now are disk and other IO issues you start using things like EMC, Cached RAID disks and lots of other very expensive storage.
But if you are scaling an application horizontally the last thing these days is the processor speed, sure the heavy duty maths is still sitting on a mainframe, your ERP is still on an AS400, but that is more about reliability than power. Intel boxes fail, period, so having one box isn't a smart move, have 10 is a more sensible approach.
Dual NIC, external disk via fibre channel. That is where I'll spend the cash. The processor just needs to be fast enough, and I'd like there to be at least two in the box. 2 Boxes doing everything, federated systems.
If you lob everything on one box, then yes you need all the processor speed you can handle, you also need to think about what happens when the box fails.
If Intel announced that this new processor could degrade its performance when issues arose then I'd be interested. Overheating ? Turn off hyperthreading and drop the clock speed. Still got issues, move down to minimum speed and start a shutdown process.
I like servers that will run for 5-10 years with no down time. But with Intel/AMD boxen I'll stick with lobbing in lots on the basis that they'll fail.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Now my Windows will boot faster... :-D
~Once you have your choices narrowed down, the rest will fall into place.
The fact is that for work a 700MHz PIII is usually fast enough given the rest of the system, as well as being reasonably cool and quiet.
So what is the point of this advert? Is it the result of a kind of desperation on the part of Intel? Marketing departments insisting on announcing ever smaller "feature creeps" in an effort to create a buying climate run the risk of the very buyer turnoff they want to avoid. It's like the old Indian auto industry, where the big new feature for each year was something like a differently shaped tail-light molding.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Actually, it was just last month, not yesterday.
rooooar
B?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
What did Intel sacrifice to make the number of Ghz higher for the sake of marketing? Really, I'd like to know, because I've heard this is the case with previous Ghz barrier crossings, and I wonder how it affects the overall performance of the CPU, and the rest of the computer for that matter.
*BSD is dying anyway 8-)
Why not spend more R&D money in increasing the speed of the bus? It would give us way better performance.
And here are the results of using the Word spell checker thread on a hyperthreaded proc ..
One day your head will be your box, your brain will be your client, and all energetic problems will be solved...
now I can blue screen and reboot faster than ever!
The World's Worst Webcomic!
Thanks for fixing the typo (we do whine a lot, don't we?)
This post is now ready to be -1, Offtopic.
Don't bother if you're not an editor. You'll only waste a point.
msq
Fooey. It has to do with *everything*. Yeah, your graphics card is sooper-fast. But what has to feed that card data? Your CPU. Your memory bus. Your AGP bus. UT2003 happens to be CPU-limited even with the latest-and-greatest video cards, all the way up to the fastest Athlon chips available.
Take a look at this UT2003 benchmark chart:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1650&p =3
You can see that the GeForce 4 Ti cards are ALL still getting faster the faster the CPU gets, right up to the bitter end.
That's not to say that a couple of years from now that 3D cards won't handle physics and AI onboard-- but they don't exist now, so it's hardly fair to say "A better gfx card will almost always be a bigger win than a faster CPU."
It depends on the game, and the newer they are, the more CPU they'll eat. (See Battlefield 1942)
In related news Intel has now partnered with a major US energy company to use Pentium 4s in place of oil as a heat source.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Pentium Overclock
Does not burn in hell like the
Athlon Overclockers
I stand corrected
Does that really matter? Most of these new P4's are gonna be coming on Dell/Gateway/Whatever machines, and what counts is what OS those machines have installed when you buy them - Windows XP. No problemo.
Yeah I think you are right, it would be better to have multiple complete cores on each chip. However each core is then necessarily a simpler CPU than before, so then you really do need multiple threads to take full advantage. So its actually a software issue as much as hardware. I write programs for high-performance computers and I was initially pretty excited about SMT (hyperthreading), but reading up on the details, I am not so interested anymore. For typical scientific applications, the threads will just be competing against each other for the floating point unit and treading on each other's cache entries, reducing, if anything, overall throughput.
But writing a program that runs efficiently on a processor with multiple CPU cores all accessing the same cache is not trivial, and it is rather different to the current situation where you want memory access from different threads to be quite separate, as keeping multiple caches coherent is a big bottleneck.
The combination of SMP + SMT presents interesting challenges, as you want to run threads that have high cache overlap as SMT and threads that have low cache overlap as SMP. But how does the OS distinguish between these cases?
The high performance of CPUs makes me wonder why we couldn't do a more interesting type of a machine.
I'd have a case with a crosbar type bus. In this you'd add CPU cards that had memory and a single daughtercard slot. The daughtercards would be to add custom interface electronics for specialized tasks, but not actual processors, so a CPU card could be a video card, a SCSI card, NIC, etc.
One CPU card would be the "master" CPU card which ran the core of the OS kernel plus applications. The other cards would run applications or kernel modules specifc to their hardware daughtercards; network stacks, filesystems, display components (renderers, GUI).
Increase performance? Add a CPU module. The kernel or user tools could manage which cards ran which applications -- some apps could be dedicated to a specific CPU card, other apps could be "floated" to CPU cards based on available cycles.
I don't think this is such a terribly new idea -- its kind of the modularity that IBM 390 or other NUMA architectures do now, but condensed into a single box. Think of a blade server box, but with a switching bus and the ability to access other systems memory.
It would require an OS with a lot more modularity. I'm not sure what would happen to apps that wanted RAM beyond a single CPU card's RAM capabilities, or how fast or easy you could move an app and its memory space from one card to another. I'm also not entirely sure that even a P3 @ 3.xx GHz would be able to do the work of an NVidia GeForce, even if thats all it had to do, either.
But it would be an interesting way to make a highly scalable platform, and scalable both ways -- big and small. An OS written for such hardware could run on a single-card system (think of a laptop or even a palmtop as a single-card system), and multi-card systems could come in S, M, L, and XL sizes depending on cost and need, as well as eliminating the CPU/Memory/Bus bottlenecks.
if you want to be anal about upper/lower case: it's "Hz", not "hz".
I know that there are some of you on here that will flame me saying that you DO use that power. And that's fine, you are the 1% of the population I mentioned earlier. But to do it (like most of you would... admit it) just to get another 4fps in UT2003 or whatever, it's just sick. Yes, eventually I will buy a new computer, but only when my needs exceed the resources in my computer, which hasn't happend just yet (it's getting close though...). If any of you can actually tell the difference between this 3.06GHz P4 and the 2.5GHz P4 (without using a stopwatch that measures in the milliseconds) I have a bridge to sell you. Don't let Intel make you think that you need to buy a new computer right now. It may help the economy in the short term, but you will just be wasting precious electricity (in this case gobs of it) just to say you have the latest and greatest. It's becoming a disease!
today is spelling optional day.
Kirk: "Scotty? Why did we just pass our destination?"
Scotty: "Captain, ah gat ta have more time! The system, she just can't handle this light of a load! She's loading Bonzi Buddy and Clipit applications because she's bored and needs someone to talk to!"
Is this processor fast enough, that XP won't feel slow? I know that on 1.6GHz machines it feels like it needs a CPU twice as fast, which would be 3.2 GHz.
As I have stated in earlyer posts, I'm finished with Intel processors and comodity hardware in general. x86 has served me well through the years but trying to expand on it in it's current form has turned into a kludge. I'm moving on to someting else like Sun and/or Silicon Graphics hardware. Sure it's a lot more expensive but hell, 64 bit RISC processors and I/O bandwidth are the way to go. Besides, I can still run Linux on it :)
Mere mortals, I laugh at your 32 bit clunkers...
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
I recently purchased a laptop with a super duper 1.7Mhz Pentium 4 mobile processor. It's a nice box but it won't play GTA III worth a damn. Why? Well because the video hardware is crap. So I slapped together a cheap Athlon box, running at a lower clock speed but with a GeForce4 video card and all of a sudden I have high-res frame rates that leave my laptop in the dust. But both boxes have about the same performance for running Oracle.
If you think about it these chips are somewhat ridiculous. How many of them are going to be installed in motherboards that still have an IEEE 1284 parallel interface on them? How many of them will be installed in motherboards that still have PS/2 keyboard and mouse ports? How many of them will be installed on motherboards that have floppy controllers? You've got all of this insanely great hardware being strapped onto motherboards that are loaded down and dragged down with a bunch of legacy technology from the 1970s. I for one would be a little more excited if Intel were to dedicate itself to eliminating the cruft in the PC architecture. This would do a lot to improve performance and ease of use and would probably improve performance more than just slamming in a faster CPU every six months.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
the new P4 who will run at nothing less than 3.06 GHz
But I hear that if you cool it enough, it can go down to 2.5 GHz.
..and they had to mention the Palladium (in vain). In the future, we'll no doubt see technological improvements, only willing to improve the unimprovable (which is Palladium itself..). Who buys this kind of crap (mentally, not financially)?
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
You mis-read the article - they dont say that ONLY XP and Linux support it only that XP definately supports is and Linux probably does.
:o)
Any operating system that supports SMP should work fine with this.
NT And 2K both support Hyperthreading for the simple fact that Intel designed it to look exactly like 2 processors per chip. I have a hyper threading dual processor box here running SQL server. It has 2 physical processors but Windows 2000 and even the Bios see them a 4!
M@t
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
I keep seeing "funny" (more like redundant) comments on how this will not make everyday applications like MSWORD run any faster. Its odd though, i remember when CPU speed really started to pick up and thinking it would be great when all of my everyday actions on the computer are near instantanious. What i'm getting at is that, even w/ a four ghz CPU, WORD, and most things, still take time to load up. Is this a memory/hard drive issue? or is it just that our ability to make use of 4 ghz when programming software hasn't reached our ability to get that speed in hardware?
- Pete
I've tested a hyperthreaded p4, they are great as far as performance goes, but the ~20% speed bonus you get pales in comparison to the double licensing cost. What's that, double licensing cost you say? Yep, apparently many licenses (engineering software packages for example) see each CPU as TWO CPU's.
"Yahoo has the news about the new P4 who will run at nothing less than 3.06mhz."
It's just the latest in a long-running battle between AMD and Intel. Judging by the speed on this thing, and assuming it might actually be able to run at say... 3GHz, we're looking at a chip that can run 1,052,688,062,745 (over a trillion) times it's rated clock speed with no additional cooling!
I may be an AMD fan, but holy shit, Intel. Bravo!
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I can surf the web faster or no?"
(someone actually asked me this in talking about the 2.2p4)
--Joey
I love you.
That's strange. There are billions and billions of dollars who each say you're completely wrong, and your opinions insignificant.
Also - this "CISC" you mention, and the alleged violation of "Amdahl's law" (ooooh, important) seem to come to odds with the fact that they still make chips faster than the vastr, vast majority of CPU's out there. Strange, huh corky?
http://www.monroeworld.com/pchelp/xptweaks.php
:)
I've done most of these tweaks on a group of brand new 1.2Ghz machines, and I'd say it easily makes XP perform twice as fast.
And an added bonus, you no longer have AOLdows on your desktop
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Both Intel and AMD are CPUs for home users who don't need performance. Workstation processors, like the SPARC mentioned by my friend sql*kitten, have long known that real performance is obtained by putting even the weakest CPU with a fast I/O design. Indeed, I believe that even a 68040 with a very high scale transverse parallel memory design would give a mid to high end Pentium IV a run for its money. This link demonstrates the truth of this claim: Bandwidth is king.
The real improvements in the x86 world will come when they start quad-pumping and double-cheeling the memory system. Actually I believe that it'll be a great stride forward when they use the new lightpath memory architecture, removing the inherent speed limitations of tungsten interconnects used in modern systems. The elimination of filaments in the CPU core of the amatuer processors will be a good improvement as well.
Thank you for listening!
grrrlllpower
I am looking to accumulate friends. Please click on the circle and add me as a friend. Thanks!
... is that I can order it over the web at work and have it delivered there the next day! Now I have to spend my lunchtimes in the pub with my mates and not wandering around dodgy computer outlets looking for the model I want, the horror!
Unsafe at any speed! :)
I'm running a shuttle mb that was given to me when it died; a capacitor failed.
On this board all the caps over 1000mfd were 6.3v parts & ~1/2 of them were swollen and leaking. It works fine now after replacing them with junk parts caps that are rated @@least 12v.
Shuttle mb's suck, I guess.
How is it that Intel already has the technology to crank out GHz's many times that of what they are currently releasing, letting them spoonfeed consumers improvements at the rate they know people will be most likely to upgrade the most frequently?
If it's because of their proprietary R&D, what about AMD doing the same thing?
This slow-releasing of technology should not happen in our market. This is a market inefficency, and anyone competing with Intel could and should jump ahead of them so that we get improvements sold at a Nuclear Arms Race pace.
If AMD, Cyrix, or anyone else in the chip market can't put this pressure on Intel, that to me suggests that Intel has too much power and is an illegal monopoly. Even to the purest free-market idealists, government intervention with monopolies is appropriate and essential to further improvement.
In this tight, low-profit margin chip market, how is it that Intel is getting away with this type of marketing? AMD, make them step their game up. If AMD et al can't, it's time for the DoJ to whip out the machete.
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
wow, when i play quake 2 for BEos, i'll get the bestest performance around!!
GO TRULY MULTITHREADED OSes!!!
[/sarcasm]
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!
Maybe your real problem is the power-suckage of Citrix?
I'm sorry, but after doing some Citrix administration for a couple years - I'm convinced that the product is a solution to a problem that never really existed.
1. Their "reduced cost of ownership" is a blatant lie. Not only is Citrix ungodly expensive for licensing, but instead of having 30 or 40 users running a Win desktop happily on systems most firms already owned, they have to invest in monster servers to handle the load of serving all 30 or 40 of those desktops out. (Either served to the same, existing hardware that used to run the Win desktops anyway, or to overpriced "thin clients" which tend to break down as often (or more often) than the PCs they replaced.)
2. The "ease of administration" is questionable, at best. EG. I don't know many Citrix admins who found sharing multiple printers in the environment was "smooth sailing". I also don't really see the supposed advantage behind the "change it once on your server, and everyone gets the update!" concept. You can accomplish the same with a number of remote deployment tools for workstations (Enterprise edition of Norton Ghost, for example?). You also don't have to hassle with getting everyone logged out of a Citrix box to restart it after you make changes requiring a reboot. (I find it easier to schedule individual workstations to reboot at night or over people's lunch hour.)
Look, we all agreed that the mainframe/dumb terminal model was "outmoded" after the 60's and 70's. We embraced the personal computer, and eventually the usefulness of "peer to peer networking". Now, Citrix comes along and drags all the modern things back into the 60's and 70's -- yet this time, we're supposed to think it's "innovative"?
I have a G4 400mhz of old vintage and honestly most of what taxes the hell out of computer are matrix operations, like DFT or DCT operations. So the vector processor on the G4 is excellent for many purposes and programing unless you are designing some ridiculously complex program has no problems on old hardware. Some research scientists and engineers really do need cpu power but unless you are doing this stuff it is not a big deal. Also the graphics people need as much cpu power as possible. So really the pc people do not need this power, a P4 with this power is overkill, because those who need the speed also need a good architecture that is balanced along with a buttload of RAM and 64bit processing. The Opteron or the PPC 970 is a much better step at giving the public chips much more capable for high end tasks than intel. Also from what I have seen Matlab running transforms on my slow ass mac still seems competitive with dell 2ghz p4 machines.
I have dual Xeon 2.4Ghz chips. With hyperthreading enabled in the bios, Linux shows 4 cpu's in /proc/cpuinfo:
(So windoze isnt the only thing to support this)
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 2
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz
stepping : 7
cpu MHz : 2405.508
cache size : 512 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm
bogomips : 4797.23
processor : 1
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 2
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz
stepping : 7
cpu MHz : 2405.508
cache size : 512 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm
bogomips : 4810.34
processor : 2
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 2
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz
stepping : 7
cpu MHz : 2405.508
cache size : 512 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm
bogomips : 4810.34
processor : 3
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 2
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz
stepping : 7
cpu MHz : 2405.508
cache size : 512 KB
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 2
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm
bogomips : 4810.34
Linux does support HT. I run a 2GHz Xeon box with HT as a firewall (on 2Gbit lines :) and it runs an smp kernel, using both cores just fine. Blistering fast machine it is, too! (Well, whaddaya expect, with 15000rpm SCSI disks, 2xGbit ethernet, etc, etc :)
--
But I believe the 700 UKP price tag is to make you believe 200 UKP is a reasonable price for a processor.
If they priced the latest and greatest "normally", your sweet spot would probably e somewhere else...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I know a lot of you complain about the focus on clock speed, but I think you are neglecting that change happens slowly. People ARE pulling away from clock speed. Everyone was REALLY excited when processors hit 1Ghz, but 2 was hardly noticed, now 3 and who gives a damn?
All the while Via seems to be doing a pretty decent job with selling their c3 Cyrix chips none of which even hits 1Ghz (unless I've missed something). As opposed to hyperthreading AMD is working on building Clawhammers with two cores. Overall things will get better, but it takes time.
You are more or less right, but under certain circumstances Windows 2000 server doesn't take advantage of the Hyperthreading. Read this: http://www.compaq.com/products/servers/technology/ hyper-threading.html
"Windows.NET natively supports Hyper-Threading technology and is optimized to use with Hyper-Threading technology. Windows.NET is licensed by physical processor, but takes advantage of all logical processors and does not count logical processors against the license. For example, a 2P server with Intel Xeon(TM) processors running Windows.NET Server (2P support) will take advantage of four logical processors. Windows 2000 supports Hyper-Threading technology, but counts logical processors towards licensing. This means that the maximum number of logical processors available to the system is dependent upon the maximum number of physical processors that are supported by the operating system. For example, a 2P server running Windows 2000 Server (2P support) will only take advantage of two processors, even though 4 logical processors are available."
Good work! Kick that "Tune"-guy's ass! ...Now next time try posting something that gets modded "Funny" or with an otherwise little extra over Flaimbait/Troll/Redundant.
Keep up the good work!
I went ahead and got you a link to another page in the SAME ARTICLE I linked that shows a chart of CPU usage with Radeon cards:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1650&p =6
Note that other pages in the article include the Kyro II, Matrox Parhelia, and the older GeForce 2 and 3 lines, as well as the GeForce 4. Keep in mind that the faster the card gets, the faster the CPU must be to keep it fed with data. You may not see CPU saturation with a slow card, because the card is maxed long before 100% CPU usage. In the Radeon chart, you can see that the faster the Radeon, the more CPU constrained it is. Just like with Nvidia.
The Radeon 9700 isn't there because it didn't exist when the article is written. It will be even more CPU constrained than the GF4.
I suspect you are a troll, but I'd hate to see the issue confused any further.
All the big corporations depreciate their possessions, and you can, too,
provided you use them for business purposes. For example, if you subscribe
to the Wall Street Journal, a business-related newspaper, you can deduct the
cost of your house, because, in the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief
Justice Warren Burger in a landmark 1979 tax decision: "Where else are you
going to read the paper? Outside? What if it rains?"
-- Dave Barry, "Sweating Out Taxes"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...