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. '"
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
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
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..
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
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...
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.
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!
The Inquirer and The Register wites are more prone to this kind of article. More often than not, they have been right but then they really have some stinkers.
Oh come on, gate delay for a 90nm process shouldn't be more than 10-15ps.
Ever heard of heat pipes?
simple copper plate between the 2 processors with heat pipes emerging to channel the heat out to a radiating surface.
really simple actually.
I just hope they stop their current trend of raping their customers when they want to have SMP.
no a Xeon is not worth the price... Give me Pentium 4 chips that can do SMP (only fricking 2 way is fine!) AMD can do it... and do it well with their MP's why cant intel?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Just a scheme by Intel to keep those who are riding the fence on their side.
Thank the Lord this was modded up. I read the headline and thought 'Hot damn, i was wondering about the new Intel chips'.
Then i saw it was BS from The Inquirer
Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of
The problem here is that you are absolutely wrong... (nothing personal)
We haven't come anywhere close to the limits of traditional cooling... There are just such high temperatures in current systems, because OEMs are trying to save $1 on every unit. It's a ridiculous situation, but I can tell you, from first-hand experience, that buying relative inexpensive heatsinks/fans, you can get incredible improvements in cooling, all for only a tiny ammount more than your OEM paid for their crappy heatsinks and fans.
Spend $20, replace your heatsink/fan with a Volcano 9, and watch your CPU temperature drop *at least* 30F degrees.
Of course, the big issue is qualitaty. Ever since the demise of DEC, there haven't been any PC manufacturers that go for quality, rather than a nominal price-drop.
Again, if you look elsewhere, you would see that Intel has a lot of catching-up to do. There are plenty of examples of other processors that give off far less heat, while performing the same. The G5 is perhaps the most striking example, but not the only one. G5s, Alphas, Sparcs, even AMD processors, all are much more effecient than Intel's chips, so if they had the drive to do so, they could cut their heat output dramatically, it's just not a goal for them currently (hey, if people are still buying your chips, why spend more money on R&D?)
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
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."
...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
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?