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
Wonder what will happend when they come to the point of creating processors with the new EM design of transistors...
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
... 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
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
blah, blah, blah. DOS screamed on my 486. Get over it.
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
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..
Very insightful comment. Almost as if you thought it up yourself, go back to your uh.... DOS!
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
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
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?
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...
> 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?
Maybe they'll market it as the Pentium "ME 2"...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.
I'm waiting for the day that Microsoft Windows GUI will be fully raytrace/radiosity/photon map rendered.
I won't be happy unless I have a glass refracting mouse cursor made up of at least 64,000 triangles, updating at no less than 60fps. It had better be casting both a shadow and also focused light complete with chromatic aberation.
That'll show those OSX zealots!
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
... is that all the CPU's instructions will take between 100 & 500 clock cycles to execute...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Since they stack I'd say the Pentium^3 would be a more accurate description.
We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
I had a P5 back in 1996! And it could whip through Windows 95 like nobody's business.
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?
If Windows can't do it alone, our IT department has a magic bag of software tools that'll finish the job. Maybe McAffee with double-dare mega hueristics wicked up full blast.
Why is the 64-bit module an addon? Intel have poured obscene amounts into Itanic, and no one is really buying it so far. If they enable 64 bits on x86 right now, it will likely kill the Itanic investment outright. The latent x86-64 functionality is there as a quick way to recover ground if AMD's new stuff begins to steal away too much market share.
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."
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
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
Just FUD to stave off AMD and the Apple-IBM consortium with the G5 and its 1GHz shipping-now bus.
It is to be shelved unceremoniously for later inspection, just like Jobs statement that the G5 will reach 3GHz next year.
Which BTW, brings up the: come on, just end the GHz stupidity, please!!!
dani++ (Intel will keep you warm all year long, leader in Alaska and North Pole)
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'm waiting for the day that Microsoft Windows GUI will be fully raytrace/radiosity/photon map rendered.
Huh, why settle for petty approximations like that. Just to give an incentive to MS, I'm not happy until the light-matter interaction between the light source and the cursor is given a correct quantum mechanical treatment! Of course, with todays computers that means something on the order of a CPU-year for every nanosecond time evolution in a system with 10-100 atoms. But who cares? You know, do something right or don't do it at all!
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.
Yeah, but us OS X people will probably get that stuff before you do. :)
Just a scheme by Intel to keep those who are riding the fence on their side.
By then, OS X will have metal windows so perfectly polished you'll be able to see your own reflection in them.
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
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...
Don't give them ideas!
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.
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.
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.
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.?
... 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."
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.
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
I'm sorry, could you please let me know why you feel this way and i can clarify it for you. Thank you.
-=gabe2=- macbook dual 2.0
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.
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.!
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...
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.
Umm.. My first PC had 640kb of RAM, which wasn't that bad -86. Now one could copy it 200 times in the cache of the P5.. I wonder, are we 200 times happier now? :)
I really wish one could get real chrome look on a screen. That would be nice. But i'm not going to hold my breath for nice shinny/glossy colors.
NT Technology.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
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.
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.
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.
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
ok, how about this,
MS can licence the Doom 5 engin off ID software,
that sounds like what it would be like, and they
can even try and outsource there APs to ID.
hehe.. imagin MS software being scripts in a
gaming engine.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
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?
Too bad you'll have to die and be reincarnated as a non-nerd before you ever even get *near* a chick like that.
speeking of which,
I just whish all those stupid Video card and CPU reviews would drop games when they get over 100fps, its just stupid, and as we have seen before you hit limits outside of what your testing at points.
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
Think Intel would deliver all of that, on time? Sounds like vaporware to me. I've got a better name for it:
Unobtanium.
Galaphine
You mean there's a CPU with 128MB of cache? :-P
Whatever calculation you're doing there it's got to be wrong. 2MB is only 3.2 times more than 640 KB. Of course maybe you mean kilobits, but in that case the difference is 25.6 times, which still is very far from 200.
T-Splines or nuttin' baby.
-- Flaw
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
Yeah, but us OS X people will probably get that stuff before you do. :)
I'll get it too, since OSX is on my main machine.
; )
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?