Slashdot Mirror
New Pentium 5 Details - 5-7ghz?
zymano writes "This article gives some details on Pentium 5. It will have 64 bit extensions and maybe a 4000 mhz frontside bus. Quote from the article,'The Pentium V is likely to fly along at between 5GHz to 7GHz, have 2MB plus of level two cache, be built on a 90 nanometer process, and have a stackable design. '"
Is it me or would you pronounce that "Nail 'em"? A dig at AMD perhaps?
Mid-Eastern Pennsylvania Gaming Convention
My Heat-sink will process more than your puny P4!
Wonder what will happend when they come to the point of creating processors with the new EM design of transistors...
yeah, but does it run linux?
The fifth fifth processor.
64-bit extensions? In the same way AltiVec was 128-bit extensions?
The 4GHz bus does sound good, thought.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Remember the floating point coprocessors? I don't want to have to deal with a 40h bit coprocessor. AMD has right now and in one package.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
... will it be able to do Math correctly?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
'The Pentium V is likely to fly along at between 5GHz to 7GHz, have 2MB plus of level two cache, be built on a 90 nanometer process, and have a stackable design. ' And raise the temperature of the room it's in by 50 Celsius.
Karma: Excellent^(-t/Tau), Tau=Wittiness/Trollishness
An add-on module with 64 bit extensions? Does that sound crazy as crazy to everybody else as it does to me?
For example, how many here actually ever bought a math co-processor after there were processors with this built in?
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Windows will certainly get just as bloated and suck down all that speed and power. That's how it has always been, and always will be.
But DOS would scream.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Does that also mean bigger and louder cooling system? :)
The chip will sample internally at Intel in January 2004 and will take between four to six months to get to market. The Pentium 6 will follow a very similar schedule.
The Pentium V is likely to fly along at between 5GHz to 7GHz, have 2MB plus of level two cache, be built on a 90 nanometer process, and have a stackable design.
The processor we believe, sits in the LGA 775 pin socket, and above it is a very thin heatsink. But, according to sources close to the firm's plans, another permeable heatsink can sit between this and another microprocessor module, giving a stackable design.
The final design of this arrangement is not set in stone.
According to this source, and the details have not been confirmed, a module sitting on top could provide 64-bit extensions.
And the source claimed, Microsoft is ready to launch a version of Windows called Elements with 64-bit extensions.
The idea seems to be that people can buy a 32-bit module, and then add in the 64-bit processor.
There are three samples of an arrangement of the Pentium V here in Taiwan this week, with a very thin processor and lots of wires and patches stuck on it, just to show proof of concept.
The Pentium V could have a front side bus speed of as much as 4000MHz, the source claimed, although this may be reserved for the next chip along, the Nehalem.
Looks good for your age..
.. That article sounds a bit too good to be true, I'd like to see their sources. Some of those figures seem to be plucked from thin air. ...
..
They would need some serious cooling going on at those speeds
Anyhow Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
First things first, people - Apple thinks this new chip is great and all, but what is its Photoshop filter performance?
This article is all speculation...
Ok here, um the next AMD processors will be faster than before, have more cache, maybe some new instructions [doworkNow! then doworkNow! (ext)].
I must be an AMD insider now, l33t l33t !
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Stackable designs sound really cool in the sense that you can cut latency between processors (for things like cache coherence) to rediculously small levels, but what about cooling? Cooling ability is roughly proportional to surface area, and two stacked chips will make twice as much heat but have almost the same surface area as only one (as two sides cancel out). This has to be a problem.
No this is not a troll. I honestly wonder how they expect to accomplish this.
Anyone know?
Cheers,
Justin
Intel is up to Pentium 5 now, my question is when will they drop the 'Pentium n' line and go with something new. By the same token, Apple as well is up to 5 with their G-line. After a while, it gets a little rediculous and reduntant, so companies come up with a new product line (Geforce FX, kinda hybrid cause nvidia didnt want to loose the geforce recognized name). I have to say that I prefer AMD's system more with the lettered naming system, XP, MP, etc since atleast its different. So how far do you think pentium will rise to? I have a hard time saying 'Pentium 7'...
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
I still prefer AMD chips for some reason.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Does anyone else get the feeling that this is a
vapour-ware announcement (a la Microsoft) designed
to delay or prevent people from purchasing the 64-bit AMD processors?
but will actually perform the same as a 2.5 GHz Athlon
1p}{ 1 sp34k |33+ +|-|e|\| p30p13 \/\/il| 8e i/\/\pr3553|)
Proccessor. Add-on? OS. Add-on? This sounds like a clever attempt to creat a support nightmare for anybody developing for the pentium pentium. Oh well.
Looks good for your age..
The article doesn't say the processor will have 64-bit extensions. The article doesn't say anything.
Some quotes:
"The Pentium V is likely..."
"The processor we believe..."
"The final design of this arrangement is not set in stone."
"...details have not been confirmed,..."
"... the source claimed..."
"The Pentium V could have..."
"...although this may be reserved for the next chip along, the Nehalem"
This isn't news, this is BS speculation.
Why is the 64-bit module an addon? This chip will not come out until at least this time next year, and AMD already has a 64-bit chip, which will be even more mature then it already is next year. I really think that not integrating 64-bit support is a bad move for Intel. An addon module? And how many people actually bought those floating point coprocessors when they were available? Intel could make more money by charging more for the chip up front because it was 64-bit. Even to the average user who doesn't know the true advantages of a 64-bit chip, 64 sounds better than 32, just like 3 GHZ sounds better than 2.
I swear that the PIV 2.4 Ghz machines I've used are no faster that some of the P III 1 Ghz boxes I've used. We upgraded all our development boxes at work this way and there was hardly any notable improvement... yes, the memory is tricked out so we're not having swapping issues. But you run apache, mysql, and X on one of them and it just doesn't seem like an improvement.
Are they doing a direct trade off where they ramp up the clockspeed and break the instructions down so that less is getting done per clock or something?
Cheers.
Running at 5-7GHz is absolutely retarded for a processor to do. If you look at the way that every single "wire" in the professor acts, they all must be treated like transmission lines. just sitting there and doing thost calculations to find out how much power is being delivered would be the most bit*h/bullsh*t job every. A processor running that fast would probably lend its self to using onboard optical systems (waveguides) and running parts that way so as not to have to deal with running copper or Al and doing all of the insane calculations associated with that.
Oh and by the way, i'm running a PIII750 and the only things i would upgrade to are Apple and a 64bit processor. I'm not going to upgrade for a long time.
-=gabe2=- macbook dual 2.0
Give a man a break!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That could be cool.
Lets just hope that the thin layer of heat sink is enough.
Also that seems like a very complicated system in which case it makes for more chances for things to go wrong.
Liebermann claims their desktops AND laptop designs are ready for the first gen of P5 chips. Given the kit they're already coming out with I'd expect they have some pretty awesome hardware in the pipeline.
Their 16" notebook has me drooling
The Pentium V is likely to fly along at between 5GHz to 7GHz, have 2MB plus of level two cache, be built on a 90 nanometer process, and have a stackable design.
Will it make coffee?
Pentium 5, isn't that redundant? Maybe it'll be the Pentium^2.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
A "Pentium" ("penta"=5)came after a 486, which came after a 386, which came after a 286, which came after a plain old "86"... So this one is the "Five-five"... Such wit, those marketeers...
IF the artical is correct it almost seems to imply that the default CPU will be 32 bit then with some method of upgrading it to 64 bit with an addon. Surely it would just make sence to make the 64 bit run 32 bit code well ala the Opeteron
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Does this CPU will be compatible with today's x86 ? If yes, WHY NOT ditch the x86 design one for all ? It's getting old and patched to make it work. They should focus on a better designed chip for tomorrow's applications than optimize it for speed.
My 0.02$
There's no point in raising the speed of the processor to 5GHz if the memory speed (esp. latency) can't keep pace.
4GHz front-side bus? Yeah, right.
"6 GHz! That's two times faster than my 3GHz!" when in reality it won't be nearly that fast?
Let's hope Intel focuses on the bottlenecks with the 2MB+ cache and the 4GHz bus rather than get in a GHz war. AMD already rates its CPUs with a "performance equivalent" clock speed rating. How long before the number of GHz is irrelevent to the speed a processor?
Maybe we need a stardard CPU benchmark. Something that shows perfomance and not statistics. Something where more == better.
How about floating point operations per second? Or bogomips?
First the Prescott with hidden 64bit abilities, now this, I'm buying an Athlon 64 PERIOD.
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
I calculated a while ago that assuming that RAM was 5 cm away from the CPU, at 5 GHz a clock cycle would be lost on waiting for the signal to travel the 5 cm to the RAM and back.
If the speed of light is not far from being a limit at this point, then clock speed improvements can't continue working for long.
Besides, there's the question of whether it will "fly" or not. Clock speed doesn't measure performance. It especially says nothing of the performance of a new chip.
P-V should have 64bit extensions for both pointers and basic math.
64bit pointers and basic math on those pointers, are really what people desire so that more than 4GB can be trivially addressed in a single process's virtual memory space. Think about people who want to manipulate a video file that is larger than 4GB.
AltiVEC **128 bit** is just wide data manipulation and is of no use for those that require large memory footprints. It has the same 32 bit address lines and pointers at a 60MHz Pentium I.
That being said, P-V should also have more than the current 36 bit of physical address lines. I'm guessing they will have 40 usable bits or so of the address bus to physically address memory.
So if you want to put in more than 4GB of RAM you can. But if you don't, 64 bits will be useful to address more than 4GB of a video file sitting in virtual memory.
... is that all the CPU's instructions will take between 100 & 500 clock cycles to execute...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
It was mistaken for a joke at the expense of Apple. That is completely verboten. Apple users have no sense of humor. It's very serious business having to carry around the title of FA57357 C0mpU74R 3V4R, so there is little time for joking.
/.
Our apologies, but let this be a warning - don't even THINK about fucking with THE APPLE.
The Apple users of
I had a P5 back in 1996! And it could whip through Windows 95 like nobody's business.
I can't believe anyone hasn't pointed this out yet, but the story is at The Inquirer. That means the credibility of the story falls about 90% right out of the gate.
I remember reading a while back, that if CPUs continue increasing GHz, at the same current rate, then at some point in time they would be generating as much heat as a small nuclear reactor.
Asynchronous processors are meant to be able to provide extra processing power, without having to tie everything down to a clock cycle. The added benefit being that the information is only delivered when everything is ready.
Does anyone know where we are with these chips, and how long before they find themselves in main line production?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
First there is Itanium with a new instruction set. Second compatibility. Who would buy the new CPU if there isn't any applications for it? Who would write apps if there are no CPU's to take advantage of the power?
Is this hot melting CPU going to kill Sun and damage Oracle more than it would AMD and Apple's business? Specs says it's not targeted for ordinary users.
And the source claimed, Microsoft is ready to launch a version of Windows called Elements with 64-bit extensions.
Wonderful. Once again, a new version of Windows. I would look forward to downloadiing hundreds of patches and hearing endorsements from Rob Enderle.
Intel: "Oh my god this is so AWESOME because we have super high gigahertzian-ness and you dooooooooon't!"
AMD: "Uh... We don't need GHz to keep up. That's what We have these new nifty + ratings eh?"
Intel: "Uh... HYPER-THREADING! WE'RE AWESOME!"
AMD: "And we have a better 64-bit processor than your dinky Itanium. It doesn't need to 'emulate'. What a bunch of idiots."
Intel: "OMG OMG! WE HAVE ULTRA 1337 SPEED! I MEAN 5-7 GHZ AND 4 GHZ FSB! I MEAN AREN'T WE COOL! 64-BIT EXTENSIONS!"
AMD: "... Shut up. Better yet, don't shut up. It's good for our business, because at least we're delivering."
There is no such thing as a "x86 design" or "x86 architecture" these days. x86 only defines the instruction set, and the CPU does things very differently internally. This adds a little bit of complexity to the chips, but most of the chip area is cache anyway these days and a little extra bit of logic doesn't matter much.
Frankly this endless x86 bashing is getting a bit annoying, like the endless X bashing. I think both come mostly from clueless people who like to complain.
Face it - the only way we'll see the end of x86 is if someone builds a new, non-x86 chip that can still run all that existing x86 code at least as well as the best existing x86 processors. Otherwise it's just another niche architecture, and no-one's going to "upgrade" to it.
Intel forgot that, or thought they could force it on people anyway. AMD remembered, but took the easy way out & just extended things. Similarly, IBM got it wrong with OS/2, and MS jumped straight in with Windows. Note how long it took before MS was able to phase out DOS completely, even so.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I'll believe when I see it, as slow as MS has been to produce WinXP for x86-64, I doubt they'll produce a version for Intel's in less than a year. That and 5-7GHz!!! Defuinately remains to be seen.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
no, actually he was correct the first time
They did. It's called the Itanium. Look how well that's worked out.
Even running it outside of a server, you have to have a special version of Windows, which doesn't have all of the features that the 32-bit Windows does (Windows for the Opteron line is supposed to fix this). It's hideously expensive, meaning fewer people adopted it, which meant that costs stayed high, so there was less encouragement for people to adopt it, even within the server/workstation market in which it was sold.
AMD is going about it the right way. Allow a smooth and orderly transition. That they're going about it using a 64-bit adjustment to x86 makes it more difficult to move on to a new architecture, but perhaps in a few years, this will be looked back on as a successful model.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Hahaha, does anyone thing this sounds like a leak from Intel in an attempt to dampen the tide of people eyeing the Atlon 64 FX? "Hey! Don't buy our competition's superior product. We'll have something that might be as good or better ready in.. er.. half a year! And we'll try to have it on the market in quantity... er... maybe in a year if everything goes perfect! What, things have never gone perfect? Sssssh.
A bird in hand is worth two in bush. Intel, you will now pay for your complacency. You did not believe the consumer market needed the 64-bit processor; it was cheaper to milk your enchanced Pentium Pro core a little bit longer. AMD had other ideas. Well, well, well.
I love competition!
They're full of baseless speculatoin. They're practically as reliable as the National Enquirer.
My server
This person is clearly a troll/flamebait. Sadly, casual metamoderators might miss this completely.
You're an idiot. Please go pick up a copy of The Elements of Style by Strunk & White. It's a bit outdated, but will do more than any other book to help your prose.
... Why just don't call it "The Fifth".
...
I never understood why people didn't use that
tune on their mobile phones - seems pretty
appropriate to me
7GHz, even 6GHz is impossible without next-generation 65nm processor. Unless Intel is planning to bundle LN2 canisters with CPUs.
Its hard to put much respect into this news when previous articles at the bottom are...
See Also
10-20GHz Intel Nehalem slated for 2005
Pentium 8 spotted on the wibbly web
Intel Tejas pictures up on web
More Tejas pictures, Grantsdale mobo make it to web
Intel's Tejas to have eight new instructions
I already ditched my x86 for a better designed chip. I bought a Mac.
They resurve rebranding for major product changes.
Apple was mistaken to go with the G5 name though since the changes are big enough to warrent a new brand.
Okay, do people believe everything they read on the internet? Wait a minute while I put up my page for the Pentium 59. It's expected to come out in 3045 and run at 64THz.
Fair enough, it's a spoof article but so many people are actually reading it and believing it.
The fact it's hard enough to get the INTERNAL bus of a CPU up to 4GHz is pretty much proof that this entire article is just BS. Unless of course Intel have made revolution steps in quantum computing and can knock out processors for $20 each. If so then sign me up for 10, I'll make a Beowulf cluster of it and of course do first post with it.
Sounds great, except that MHz means nothing.
that we should ignore all of those silly Opteron and Athlon 64 announcements in the past six months, because next year Intel will announce something that will blow them all away, and lead us all back to the One True Processor Roadmap.
Does this qualify as a pre-announcement, that just happens to be overlapping a competitor's introduction? I seem to remember that several decades ago, another three-letter company got in a decade-long heap of trouble for just that type of behavior. (Amoung others, but then there are more stories of things Intel has done to keep AMD 'present, but weak.')
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
...when they also deliver that option with their chips. Hubba-hubba! *lol*
home
The traces do act like a waveguide with no sides. Just a top and bottom to propagate the wave. The problem is fringing effects. That is why its such an accomplishment when they move the spacing closer and closer.
Give yourself a pat on the back...you're obviously a real geek and clearly understand the issues raised by the parent poster a hell of a lot better than the other clueless idiots (geek wanabes...they should be ashamed!) that have responded so far. You've also answered a question that I've often wondered about.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Perhaps finally have enough CPU power to make good use of the bandwidth.
Dependable, Reliable Furnishings
...likely to fly along at between 5GHz to 7GHz...
...and Windows 2005 (Code named Canyonero) will still manage to slow it to a crawl!
.
You're using her as bait, Master!
I'll be happy if they include the barrel shifter, ROTL. I want to stay intel loyal, but it's hard when my ./dnetc speeds suffer so much. ]:3}>
Pretty Pictures!
No, there is an architecture, which includes the instruction set and the rules that determine how the processor will behave.
For instance, x86 processors allow unaligned memory access, which is one of the reasons that SMP on x86 is difficult. Most modern (non-x86) processors will raise an exception if you don't align memory access. Make an x86 processor that does that and it's no longer an x86 processor.
If you look at media benchmarks, encoding requires a lot of processing power. So, while ripping your DVD may not take any more time on your P3-1GHz versus your P4-2.4GHz, converting it to DivX MPEG-4 for your media jukebox will take significantly longer on the P3 than the P4. In fact, decoding H.264 video and WMP9 High Definition supposedly requires 3GHz (or the equivalent in AMD doublespeak) processors. Add to that the fact that you may want to do more than one thing at once (i.e. encode video in the background and play back another), and you will quickly run into a hard wall. Check out this link for a very nice roundup of how older processors fare against newer processors. A simple DV-to-MPEG2 conversion takes approximately twice as long on a P3-1GHz than it does on a P4-2.4GHz. That's a lot of time when you have a couple of hours of video to encode. Audio and image manipulation applications, video editing and the like will also benefit in similar ways.
Games, it goes without saying, scale in a similar way and a similar doubling of performance.
The caveat: for many business applications, you will hardly notice a difference. A faster I/O subsystem and more RAM, as you mention, will pay much larger dividends for these users than any processor upgrade will. In fact, this post is being written up on my trusty P2-400MHz all-SCSI box and it's still going strong, though it's getting a bit long in the tooth.
LKML LKML LKML And I couldn't find it this time, but somewhere he makes reference to research Transmeta in this regard and how other architectures just end up doing the same thing another way, such as in software IIRC.
So there are bad things about x86, but they seem to be exaggerated.
Just a scheme by Intel to keep those who are riding the fence on their side.
So, basically what your telling me is that I can run Quake 3 at 1000+ FPS?
5-7ghz and yet i still find no scenario to replace my pIII .5ghz. other than games but i dont game that much anyhoo
For The Best Jazz/Hip-hop fusion > COlD DUCK
This shit sounds like one of those old math co-processors for the 486SUX.
"According to this source, and the details have not been confirmed, a module sitting on top could provide 64-bit extensions."
Get ready to hear about a lot more burnt penises. Cause the faster the processors go, the hotter they're going to get.
Un-news
I'm wondering what type of PSU they're hooking this thing up to as well. I mean, at that speed and probably power consumption, we'll be seeing a whole new line of PSU's just to power the thing (not to mention needing a new video card to take advantage of it).
Wonder if I'll have to unplug my stove in order to allow my PC access to the ol' 220V, or perhaps I'll just ask my landlord for access to the MAINS.
Either way... I have this picture of the lights in my apartment dimming and my power meter suddenly spinning around at 60rpm...
All that speed needed just to boot into the next version of Windows.
As I read it, it reminded me of when people are being sarcasticly speaking of processors.
"Yah, it's going to have a 4000 MHz front side bus and run between 30 and 40 GHz."
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Hebrew for: To refresh them?
-Ghostis
Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
It complicates cache design, yes, but it's a solved problem.
In x86, you can store into instructions. Even right before they get executed. Even right before they get executed by another CPU. And it all works right. Now that causes architectural complications.
Think about what that means. The superscalar processor is happily going along, executing several instructions ahead simultaneously. Then information comes in that some instruction already executed but whose results have not yet been committed to memory has been overwritten. The processor has to discard everything dependent on that instruction, back up, and do it over.
It sounds horrible. But if you view it as another case of speculative execution (where, at a branch, the CPU starts executing on both paths until the branch is decided) it starts to become clear how to implement this in silicon.
The key to all this is the "retirement unit", which first appeared in the Pentium Pro. The Pentium Pro was the first "modern" x86 machine. Up until the Pentium Pro, what went on inside the CPU was reasonably closely related to the user-level instruction set. In the Pentium Pro, the user-level and internal architectures parted company. Inside a Pentium Pro/II/III/IV is a dataflow machine, pipelining little self-contained operations expressed in an internal instruction set that's quite different from the one the programmer sees. The dataflow machine is front-ended by an x86 instruction translator, and back ended by the "retirement unit". The "retirement unit" takes the outputs of the dataflow machine, figures out which ones to keep and which ones to dump, and determines what gets stored in the programmer-visible registers and memory.
In addition, the Pentium Pro and later machines have far more registers in the CPU than the programmer sees. The Pentium Pro and later have 40 or more registers storing temporary results. Storing data in a temporary variable on the stack just puts it in a register representing that stack slot. There's little or no penalty for this compared to having the value in an x86 register. Eventually the retirement unit pushes the value out to memory (i.e. cache), but the processor doesn't wait for that event.
Once architectures broke the problem apart like that, the programmer-visible instruction set didn't matter that much. This is why RISC isn't very important any more. The original RISC idea, as expressed in early MIPS machines and the DEC Alpha, was to have simple, fixed-sized instructions, a simple CPU, and execute one instruction per clock. This made sense when non-RISC machines were executing less than one instruction per clock.
But the Pentium Pro architecture changed all that. Now, more than one instruction was being executed per clock in a microprocessor. To keep up, RISC machines had to go to similarly complex architectures, losing the simplicity advantages of RISC, while keeping the code bloat of fixed-size instructions.
There are other ways to accomplish the same result. AMD does instruction translation when instructions move into the cache. Transmeta does it in software when the program is loaded. But none of today's fast machines are directly executing what the programmer wrote.
That's why instruction set architecture doesn't matter much any more.
All this takes huge transistor counts, and acres of chip designers. (Intel's acres of chip designers, each in their own tiny cubicle, with one acre of cubicles per room, are at Intel's Santa Clara facility. I've been there, but fortunately don't work there.) But it all works.
Why can't companies come up with good names for stuff anymore? The Pentium 5? Come on guys, it's obvious this isn't a 586 anymore. I thought that the 'pent' in Pentium had its roots in meaning "5". As in "Pentium, 5th generation processor". Well it's obvious it's not a pentium anymore. This naming scheme is about as bad as the naming scheme for the GeForce line of video cards. I'm sure the GeForce Super Ultra 22000 FXDXLX is gonna be a great card. I think I'll buy an Opteron, since its the first processor out in a while with an Original name.
Different takes on this.
... soon.
INTEL: Don't buy AMD now. Just wait we got something better
SCEPTIC: Newsflash there is always something better in the works. If we would hold off buying whenever something new was announced we would not have bought a computer ever.
MICROSOFT:Oh and here is a kicker it will be compliant with AMD's 64 bit instructions, as we(MS) already wrote 64Bit code for the Itanic(it sank).
GURU: Anyhow don't hold your breath, whatever they rush out will be more trouble then its worth like all the other times this happened.
Intel has built up the megahertz myth so much that most people who don't understand the work/clock cycle dynamics would need to see this type of 4-7GHz speed to even think about why they should upgrade to a next-generation Intel processor, even if it was only marginally faster computationally when compared to the P4. How much would you like to bet this "next-gen" processor has a 75-stage pipeline and a one-trillion transistor branch prediction unit to try to keep it working, not to mention the most-likely needed nuclear power plant water cooling tower that would have to be attached, or the 240V power outlet that would be needed. Yeesh.
today is spelling optional day.
I can see it now, the marketing department developed the slick brochures and issued press releases, the sales team has already sold it, and as usual - the engineers are shouting "You sold them WHAT?!! Christ, now we've got to design it!!!"
This happens all the time in my company.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Could this be vapourware designed at reducing sales of AMD's 64-bit Athlon? As in:
"Well, I would but an Athlon, but a Intel's P5 is just around the corner"
Personally I'll withold any judgments on this until I read the first third party review of the actual chip.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
We all know that Intel is going to come out with something faster and better than the current P4. But what matters is what is shipping, not rumors companies place with tech column writers in order to scare people away from their competitors. Apple made a lot of noise about the G5, which ended up basically just keeping up with the x86 world in terms of speed, and Intel made a lot of noise about the P4 and that was a disappointment, too. When the P5 ships and how well it will perform remains to be seen.
Class, what is the name of element Pd? Yes, Billy?
Palladium!
Althouh AMD rocked them on this one, Intel is still has the best compiler around. Or so they told me when I was paying my 30 bucks for it :)
In other news, Intel is looking to expand their business into central heating systems.
My other OS is the MCP!
instantly comes to mind.
When AMD's K6 came out following up on the massive name recognition of the K5 I was really looking forward to eventually being able to buy a K9. Think about the possible slogan: "Introducing the AMD K9. No fancy names, no gimmicks, just pure processing power that dogs the competition." Then when the K9 got older people would say "K9? Man, that slow-ass chip's a dog!" Yup, I was looking forward to both. AMD could have even made that robot dog thing from Dr. Who the mascot. But then AMD blew their chance by listening to some marketing twits and called the K7 the Athlon, whatever the hell that means--sounds sort of like someone sneezing right before they jump off a diving board.
I still bought one, though.
Hey guess what Intel can come up with a 1thz processor and it will still be crap. AMD does a much better job but not by much. whats killing them is that they keep following Intel. i believe that the opteron uses IA64 for its 64 bit code. if AMD scrapped x86 and IA-64 remade its own arch or used power 4 code. than they wouldn't have to pay the Intel tax and they may even have a better processor. i know now you say what about OS, well get Linus involved build a great compiler and when it starts beating the crap out of Intel then windows will have to follow. the fact is that x86 Intel and AMD are junk processors. their great for gaming but if you want to actually do something with them thats a different story. thats why it takes 100 x86 CPU's to keep up with one mainframe. (ie POWER 4 or RS based processor) Intel and amd are like little children on a road trip bickering at each other and the parents are about to bitch slap them. if you want a real computer than wait until next year when IBM comes out with p970 workstations or buy and apple. and ill bet money that by then MS will have a version of XP that will run on it.
a Beowulf cluster of those would not be welcomed by our new Soviet Russian overlords.
speed matters not when your getting an anal probe from M$
First there was the 8086, then the 286, then 386 and 486. They changed then, instead of going with 586, they named it the Pentium, a word based on 5.
So, isn't Pentium 5 part of the Department of Redundancy Dept.?
We've been hearing about this great new 64-bit chip that's OUT NOW from AMD... what kind of impressive vapor-silicon can we swear will be out REAL-SOON-NOW so that people won't buy this AMD chip?
Promise 'em anything. We can drag it out with fake R&D, make it seem like it's "just around the corner" for months and months. You know those wankers will fall for this trick... they always do!
... is the ultimate wet dream INTeL engineers have after they experienced the implementation of the PowerPC 970 and its road map with frequencies up to 10 Ghz in the upcoming three years, shrinking the processes down to .65nm etc., you may speculate.
I guess theyre really desperately trying to put their guts together. They are trapped, and they will - in futre times - will be caled the ones responsible changing the climate in the milky way.
INTEL IS EVEN TOO HOT FOR HELL, THEY WOULD NEVER EVER GET ACCESS DOWN THERE!!!
Why do you guys run this stuff? I mean, come on, everything from the title to the content is completely misleading in this story. First, the title:
"New Pentium 5 Details - 5-7ghz?"
Now, when I read this, I read "Pentium 5" as all-inclusive of the assumed PV cores, which would include Prescott. A Prescott core at 5GHz probably would not be seen on shelves until mid to late 2004 at the very earliest. Personally, I think Prescott simply won't scale to 5GHz before they dump it for a newer core. Starting at 3.2/3.4 and later hitting 5 without changing a number of things in between simply isn't how Intel generally does business. No, this article mentions nothing of Prescott; it talked about Tejas, something that isn't even sampling yet.
Now some of the content (a word I use sparingly in this case):
" It will have 64 bit extensions"
Unlikely as hell. At least, it's very unlikely that it will have said extensions actually enabled. First of all, it's not news at all. Prescott is long since known to have 64-bit disabled extensions. Why are they disabled? Well, simply put, Microsoft probably wont support it, and it would annihilate Itanium's chances of any sort of large-scale adoption. Gee, there goes about 13 years of research down the drain. Why? Because Intel's customers simply aren't that stupid, and will demand 64-bit extensions for any Xeons if they're released in stock P5s, which will make the Itanium all but worthless. Secondly, with Microsoft already supporting a 32-bit Windows for the masses, a 64-bit Windows for the Itanium crowd (all three of you please raise your hands), and a 64-bit version for Opteron/Athlon64 users, having to throw yet more money into making the same OS run on another platform would make them start to feel like the NetBSD folks. Microsoft has long told Intel what, when, and how, without giving a damn about the why, so I doubt Intel would do forward with 64-bit extensions any time before Longhorn, which we can't expect until late 2005 or so.
"and maybe a 4000 mhz frontside bus."
And maybe? It almost sounds like you're taking a rough guess. Have you ever seen CNN come up with a story that reads: "And maybe 300 people were killed in a planecrash in Brazil"? Please leave the "maybe" stuff for speculative sites such as The Register and The Inquirer. I think I speak for a great many Slashdot readers when I say that I expect maybes from those sites; NOT from Slashdot.
And for further clues to the editors for why this story should never have made it past the submission cutting room floor:
" Quote from the article,'The Pentium V is likely to fly along at between 5GHz to 7GHz, have 2MB plus of level two cache, be built on a 90 nanometer process, and have a stackable design."
Aside from the fact that the only reasonable claim of that entire sentence is the process size, it's filled with likelies, 'or mores', and a design which probably won't be implemented until 2006 in Itanium, which will have long since been dead according to this 'article'. Then when you factor in that Intel's roadmaps have shown Tejas to not be around for about a year after the first Pentium 5s hit the shelves, the claims look even more farfetched.
Quite frankly, this is sensationalist journalism at its worst. I may as well submit an article that says, "New AMD chip to hit 90 TFlops" and then reference some article talking about an AMD CPU scheduled for 2008. It's misleading, unconfirmed rumors (according to the article itself), and quite frankly belongs nowhere near any news site that isn't understood to have entrusted its stories to sources that are at times, inaccurate, at other times completely wrong, and a bit less often, misleading or lying.
So editors, please stop posting speculation and rumor. If I want that, I'll go to the sites that publish it regularly. If you don't stop posting it here, then it gets mixed in with the real news and gets far too much credence mixed in with it.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you PC fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Dell (a Precision 3.06 w/128 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my G4/450 tower running 10.0 Public Beta, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Dell, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, IE will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Notepad is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various PC's, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a PC that has run faster than its Apple counterpart, despite the PC's faster chip architecture. My old Performa 120 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 3.06 Ghz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the PC is a superior machine.
PC addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a PC over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
The 3.4GHz Pentium 4, due late this year, dissipates 103 watts. That's completely crazy. It's 200MHz faster than the 3.2GHz chip--roughly 5%--and yet power consumption has increased by significantly more than 5%. This is how the last several P4 speed bumps have gone, and why there was that big story about Intel not being able to keep Moore's "Law" in effect for much longer.
In all likelihood, the P5 is going to have some appalling numbers associated with it. Don't be surprised to see "150W" on the spec sheet. As such, the P5 will be a niche chip, even if the performance is impressive. It's out of the question for notebooks (and more than 50% of PC sales are notebooks). It's not something you'd want in a small form factor PC, which is a fast growing market. And at some point having a super hot, expensive to run PC at home is a losing battle.
WOW! I'm in LOVE! :-)
Just imagine a beowolf cluster of trolls like these. Scary.
Slashdot needs a seperate label aside from "Troll" for people like this. Maybe something like, "+6 Fucktard".
How embarrasing for you. Grammar is important to you and you can't tell a possesive pronoun from a contraction.
The history with ultra-deep pipeline of P4 will repeat and P-V will operate at 5-7GHz and...
...will have 200-stages pipeline and effectivelly it will be slower than 1.2GHz PIII ;)
Robert
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Just because he links to Tom's Hardware doesn't make his comment any less valid. Maybe you'd like him to imply that a 1 gigahertz Pentium 3 is really almost as fast as a 2.4 gigahertz Pentium 4? Or that it invalidates the rest of his comments? No wonder you posted anonymously.
how long will we have to wait until the onchip cache is 128mb?
I'd settle for a p3 with 128mb on-chip cache.
Aye, but you'll be able to run half-life 2 at 300 fps also. :)
Can't Intel come up with a new name for their freakin' chips? I mean come on! Pent means 5, as in a pentium is a 5th generation chip. Pentium II = fifth generation II? Now we've got fifth generation chip V. If anything they should call it the Pentpentium. Intels naming scheme makes me so mad. Mad enough that I won't buy their chips even if they are faster. I used to joke back in 1999 about there being a pentium 7. Well, I bet there will be. There'll probably be a Pentium 23 too.
Yes... the "source claims so"...
This seems to be only an stealth Intel move in order to discourage everybody from going on with AMD's already-available 64 bit offer, until they have some real reasonably priced 64 bit technology to sell.
Well MY inside source tells me that Intel are ready to release the Pentium X, running at 50 Ghz and having a FSB of 25,000 Mhz.
.......... yes, yes ........ THEY'RE ON SALE NOW!
It has their patented uber-cool ultra-wizzer-extra-special 128-bit extensions, and it also has an expansion port that you can slap an extra processor on in case AMD releases a 256-bit processor in the meantime.
This thing is going to scream, baby! It will plug into existing Slot-1 motherboards, and will be built on a 2 nanometer process.
Microsoft are believed to already have a version of Windows running on the beast, with their new 'WTF That's Friggin Incredible Mate' extensions that go hand in hand with Intels 'Fuck Me If This Isn't A Faster Chip Than AMD Has' architecture.
Wait a moment
Is it me, or are we finally entering the era when the specs on these new machines sound made up? It seems like in a couple more years after this our processors will be going like Warp 4 or something...
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" -MLK
DETAILS HAVE EMERGED of the future design of Intel's Cajones/Pentium 6 processor, and of how the chip firm will present it to the world.
The chip will sample internally at Intel in January 2006 and will take between four to six months to get to market. The Pentium 6 will follow a very similar schedule.
The Pentium V is likely to fly along at between 50GHz to 60GHz, have 6MB plus of level two cache, be built on a 60 nanometer process, and have a stackable design.!
KABUL: Intel must be quaking in its underwear. With the advent of the 64-bit mushroom cutter from AMD, the groin-to-wankle-rotary -engine ratio must be putting anxiety into their chips and also into their socks. Hoo-ha! but maybe Intel has something up its arm-insulation unit. Time will tell, but until then, keep on drinking the cool aid. We sure will.
Some dweeb is probably swimming in bonus money because his mommy packed some Pringles in his lunch box.
Sorry, I had a comment but then I realized that I was NOT reading a story from theonion.com. I guess excellence in news reporting isn't just confined to the Onion, after all. Hats off to theinquirer.net!
...omphaloskepsis often...
PIV went beyond 1G to 4G (thats the designed for speed and the point at wch we can expect a P5). That's a 4 fold speed increase over the life of the processor that has respectably kept up with Moore's law (OK the artificial extension of Moore's law that says performance doubles every 18 months).
The article predicts that the next Intel CPU will NEVER double in speed in its lifetime and be around for the same duration. If this is true then the performance increases Intel has counted on all these years will evaporate after this new processor is out.
Unfortunately, Intel still seems to be able to sell a 6% speed increase (most recent PIV bump) as some amazing accomplishment and get a bunch of idiots to run out and buy it. I imagine that the PV 5.1 will get replaced by the PV 5.3 and everyone will ooh and ahh at the performance increase.
Given the description of what the Pentium 5 will be like, the folks who make CPU heatsinks will have to work lots of overtime to develop a heatsink that cools this new CPU properly. This new CPU is going to make the Athlon 64 FX look positively cool-running in comparison.
No this is not a troll.
I love how you have to add this to a comment that no reasonably sane person could consider a troll, just in case the retarded subset of moderators happen to think this is a slam on Intel or something.
(This is not a troll either, but probably Offtopic - just a helpful hint for you fucking ignorant mongols with mod points...reasonable people with mod points may freely ignore this addendum)
NT Technology.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
To Translate the parent article into English for laymen, "Sun's UltraSPARC III is dead meat."
Granted, quite a few applications have their working set of about or less than 2MB .... but server apps don't (db, webserver, etc).
DRAM was so far designed for capacity, I believe it's time for a significant change.
The Raven
"stackable design" that will add on 64-bit support.
::eye roll::
RIGHT
If it were true, the extra chip would
a) Replace and disable the other chip (486DX anyone?)
b) Act as a glorified jumper to enable a feature on the other chip.
Plus that takes care of complicated heat management issues.
And if they are really planning on using that design, every tech pundit with a working long term memory will laugh it out the door.
I can't believe Intel regards people as that naive. The market is too cost sensitive for that kind of tactic. Intel's not dumb.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
Which of course will run only 12-15% slower than Windows 2003 does today on the fastest CPU available.
No one should need more than 640kb right?
5ghz will be an ancient relic of slowness in 2010.
"Comedy's a dead art form. Now tragedy, that's funny."
From zero to a superheated lump of useless plastic in only 3.25 seconds!!!!
Intel are apparently in negotiations with the Malaysian civil construction firm that built the Petronas Towers to develop the heat sinks for these little cookies...
~
~
~
-- INSERT --
...but if you looked at Anandtech and read how fast the current Pentium IV (not EE) would have to run compared to the Athlon 64 FX in the areas where it really excels, it's not that far from the truth. Of course, Intel is improving their architechture (FSB, HT, cache size +++) also, so it won't actually come to that. But I suspect the difference in clockspeed for same performance might increase.
The reason? Intel has sold the GHz (aka the MHz) myth so well, they need to increase clockspeed in order to make their own customers upgrade, even if that means the performance/cycle has to suffer more than what gives optimal performance. Unlike AMD, they can't make up PR (Performance Ratings) because it'd look stupid, while AMD has a valid excuse with their chips being fundamentally different from the Pentiums.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
got DRM who cares? I mean its not like you will be able to do anything with it... Start the boycott now for maximum effect.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
But will it be fast enough to run Windows 2006.
I think you can boys and girls.
Reading these amazing specs, with the attendant oohs and aahs and lots of ifs thrown in --"it seems, it could be" -- this gives me the feeling that it might just be vapourware, brought out at this time in the time honoured tradition of microsoft announcing products that do not even exist beyond specification form simply for the reason of cornering the market. AMD's Opteron and IBM's PPC 970 (G5 in Apple's Macs) are getting more press than the desasterous Itanium or even the Itanium2 for that matter.
My feeling is that while Intel is probably less worried about the G5/PPC 970 as their marketshare is very small, but is more worried about the effect a successful Opteron could have on the market, on the one hand not needing special recoding for 64 bit apps (compatible to x86 32bit) and more importantly what the Opterons could do to the server market, causing companies to switch their 32 bit Xeon stuff to 64 bit Opteron with little effort and low price.
I seriously doubt that all of a sudden next year, CPUs will be on the market running at 5 to 7 GHz without having serious cooling problems or running away from memory.
So, in summary, I think it's Intel's marketing department in microsoft mode:Vapourware.
With the Dragon, AMD Operon and AMD64 it is time for Intel to now make big promises. This new Pentium 5 will be late like the Itanium, unless it is just a repackaged Itanium. In which case it will be Itanic 3.
Quite frankly the code names for the chips are all much better than the actual release names. "Katmai" and "Mendocino" are pretty cool-sounding (well to me anyways; "Deschutes" is a bit hard though).
And does anyone remember, right after the transition to "Pentium", how everyone was calling the different generations of chips? The original Pentium was the "P5", to distinguish between the prior 486 and the Pentium Pro ("P6"), on which all the Pentium II etc. offshoots were based (i.e. PII was "based on the P6 architecture") etc. But now what do we call the Pentium-V?
If we call it "Pee Five" then do we mean P5 or P-V? P-III and P-4 there's not all that much confusion...
(I also hate the way Apple has named their machines. There are, what, six seperate classes of machines all called the "PowerMac G4"? It's kinda sad to have to distinguish which model you have by checking things like "uh, do your drive bay doors look reflective, i.e. "Mirror-like"?).
What's wrong with good old model numbers?
For the past 25 years, the trend has been to make a premature product announcement when the competition seems to be getting the upper hand. Notice it's scheduled just far enough out to make the Intel die-hards put off making a decision for month's. Also notice the 64bit weazle words; extension?, etc.
There was always a performace disadvantage to having your Math unit on a seperate chip. That's why it was integrated onto the main die in the 486DX and above. Having this add-on module does sound like a marketting gimick, and a nightmare from a technical point of view, so you're conjecture that it's probably a CPU replacement like the 487 will probably turn out to be true. Intel needs to pull some rabbits out of its hat fast. The itanium is failing to sell, and AMD just brought out a technically superior cheap consumer processor. I bet there will be Yamhills on sale by the spring.
Stick Men
My dad used to have one of those. It broke down all the time though, so we got rid of it.
The Mini Repository - more links
So where does this leave the Itanium (IA-64) product line? Officially, this is Intel's 64 bit chip, despite it not selling very well.
And will the P-V have the nice smooth transition path from IA-32, which Itanium lacks relative to AMD's K8 line?
Given cheap Pentium 4's or Athlon XPs to make clusters with good interconnects, any significant architecture change has to offer substantially great performance for the price to make any inroads. Otherwise, there's little incentive to change.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Should we go back to the old naming convention then?
Think Intel would deliver all of that, on time? Sounds like vaporware to me. I've got a better name for it:
Unobtanium.
Galaphine
Ok, just for the record, there's a lot of belief that Intel can't break away from Ghz being the be all and end all of performance, I just want to shed some light on this. First thing is first, Intel admits that Ghz is not the performance of a processor, more like it's speed. Performance on the other hand takes many things into account, and Intel is begining to also educate the market on this fact. the Pentium M processors in Centrino are a perfect example. Look at the web site, there will be benchmarks showing a 1.3Ghz Pentium M outperforms a 2.5 (or there-abouts) Pentium 4-M. However, do not believe this is pushing what AMD has said all along, Intel still stand behind performance comparisons with AMD, including benchmarks (that can be linked to through older SlashDot forums) showing that in some situations, the AMD 3200+ performs like a 1900+ when compared to a 3.0Ghz P4 HT. But this is another story for another forum, back on track... Speed however, is still a vital component of chip architechure. A brief example is RAM. RAM opperates on clock cycles, not cache, instructions per cycle (ala AMD's only claim to fame and fading excuse for inacurate performance claims), not FSB speed. The faster the clock cycle, the more effecient the RAM can opperate. Just one advantage of higher clock speeds. It's interesting that people are so quick to bag Intel for increasing clock speeds so fast as a way of increasing performance. Wonder how they'd feel if we stayed at 3 Ghz for a few years... They'd start complaining we're not moving fast enough... anyway... Performance however includes Processor speed, as well as performance upgrades, such as Hyper-Threading, SEEE2 Instruction Sets and so forth (or if you are an AMD fan - instructions per cycle *cough* ). But Intel is, and will be educating the market that Ghz does not mean everything. Will this stop them trying to increase Ghz speeds as fast as possible? No... Why? I think the question is why not?!?! I just can't believe some people might complain that intel is striving ahead to increase clock speeds... That just seems weird. Hope that clears up the idea that Intel is hiding behind the old wives tale that 'ghz is everything'. Hey, 8 years ago, it was... sorry if there's spelling or gramma errors, very late and very tired. Now time to let the egg heads nit pick my statements to and find flaws... This should be fun.... Later guys "People who think they know computers buy AMD, People who know computers buy Intel" - famous industry quote by an unknown author "Oh yeah, Macintosh, I've heard of them... They're in the plumbing business aren't they?" - not-so famous industry quote by a known author
I'd still rather have a duel processor G5 :)
"It's better to be a pirate then join the Navy"
you're obviously a real geek
:)
I'm an EM geek
yuck, you do know that's macintosh crap right?