Intel to Dump Pentium 4 in Favor of Pentium M

Opinion writes "According to The Register, Intel is to dump its Pentium 4 plans in favour of the new Pentium M architecture. The scrapped Tejas and Jayhawk processors represented Intel's next-gen 90nm P4 CPUs, due to arrive in 2005."

Comments

Good Idea

[derphilipp]

This seems like a really smart idea. Dont go an get the Ultra-Gigaherz-Processor but a descend, processor that consumes only a low amount of power -> Longer batterylife for laptops -> Silent PCs -> Longer lifetime of the processor (?)

No Suprise

[paitre]

This really shouldn't be a suprise to -anyone- who's been paying attention to what's been going on.
Prescott is disturbingly hot, and the next-gen chips had no real hope of being much cooler. At most 10-15%, which wouldn't have gotten near their MHz goals.
P-M, on the other hand, is a damned good chip in its own right, has better IPC, and is a better CPU, all around, than the P4 line.

Now, what does this mean for those of us in the enterprise space? Are we -really- going to have to wait until 2006 for a new chip iteration from Intel? If that's the case (and I -really- doubt it), AMD would have a disturbingly large (and long) opening in which to pitch its wares...Intel would definately lose marker share in the server arena at that point.

So, multi-core P-M chips for the desktop next year-ish. So we're stuck with the hotplate known as Prescott until then. Guess I'll be sticking with AMD for a while yet :)

Re:No Suprise

[ionpro]

...consuming only 70% of the power of the AMD Athlon 64 mobile chip with about as much CPU power.

Eh? I don't think so. The Athlon 64 mobile chip (at least the 3000+) achieves near performance parity with the desktop chip. Near as I can tell, the IPC of the Athlon and Pentium-M archetectures is nearly the same per clock (and I own one of each). For instance, my 1.3Ghz Pentium-M performs equivilantly in benchmarks to my Athlon 1800+ desktop (which is handicapped by PC133 memory). But the clock speed of the Pentium Ms is far below the clock of the Athlon mobile, and it wasn't designed to ramp in clock speed at all. The Athlon, on the other hand, has shown itself to be quite the clock speed maven, going from a 550Mhz Duron Slot-A to the short-lived Throughbred-B Athlon 2800+ at 2.25Ghz (and the soon-to-be-released Athlon 64 3700+ at 2.4Ghz)

I agree, though; it will be interesting to see AMD as the overly-hot higher clockspeed contender in this new processor race. AMD has never done particularly well with mobile chips (as witnessed by Intel's 85% market share in the mobile sector); perhaps this will force their hand on that front somewhat.

Religious Nomenclature?

[Himring]

Dothan is in due course expected form the basis for 'Jonah', Intel's first two-core Pentium M, due to ship during H2 2005, possibly at 65nm. To date, Jonah has been scheduled to be succeeded by 'Merom' and 'Conroe', two chips based on the same architecture, during H1 2006. While Merom is to be pitched at notebooks, Conroe - crucially - is a desktop chip.

Dothan: Meaning: two wells. A famous pasture-ground where Joseph found his brethren watching their flocks. Here, at the suggestion of Judah, they sold him to the Ishmaelite merchants (Gen. 37:17). It is mentioned on monuments in B.C. 1600.

Jonah (We all know who Jonah was and/or you need to back to sunday school....)

Merom (WebBible Encyclopedia) - christianAnswers.Net. Merom. Meaning: height. a lake in Northern Palestine through which the Jordan flows

Looks like Intel got some religion....

Faster Pentium M?

[strictnein]

Have they been able to ramp up the speeds for this architecture? None of the articles that I've read even speculate on what speeds these would be introduced at. I know Intel was planning on releasing a 2.0GHz Pentium M in the near future, but what about for desktops?

Side note: "Whitefield" a new processor in the Xeon line based somewhat aroudn the Pentium M, was created in India.

Is this surprising ?

[data1]

It has been known for quite some time that the Pentium-M processors would outperform desktop chips even when clocked at a higher frequency.
Seems that Intel finally wised up and is exploiting the technology in the Pentium-M Chips to lower its development costs even though that isnt explicitly stated in the article.
Yes, I did RTFA.

About the P-M architecture

[Anonymous Coward]

Ars has an in-depth article on the Pentium-M architecture. A quote from the conclusion:

The PM takes one of the P4's strengths--its branch prediction capabilities--and improves on it, adding its advantages to the strengths of the P6 architecture. The PM also deepens the P6's pipeline a bit, allowing for better clockspeed scaling, but without making clockspeed the central factor driving performance. In short, the PM looks like what the P4 might have been, had Intel not been so obsessed with the MHz race--it's a kind of alternate past, but one that may provide a glimpse of Intel's future.

Re:braniac vs. speed demon

[Yoda's Mum]

The long pipeline approach was sustainable for a while, but with their newer processes (like the 90nm process used for the Prescotts) the heat costs of having the longer pipelines have proven too high. Their long pipeline design worked quite well for the Pentium 4's - give them enough cache, and they perform spectacularly, but the even longer pipelines required to keep cranking the clock speeds up, as with Prescott, are starting to be quite detrimental to the design. The Prescott architecture may be able to run at much higher clock speeds than the previous Northwood P4's, but they do so at the cost of requiring an even larger cache, and a much improved branch predictor. Had the improved branch predictor and increased cache simply been implemented on an existing Northwood core, and if Intel manufactured the chip on their 90nm process, it's quite likely that they'd have an even better performing chip than what Prescotts are capable of at higher clock speeds. That's all conjecture though - Intel didn't go that way, they let their marketing people decide on what the Prescott was going to be, and are now paying for it.

Re:Intel is so far behind anyway

[Chanc_Gorkon]

80186 was not a failure. I just was not used in PC's. Once upon a time, there was no real difference in the embedded field between the desktop processor and the processor used in say a traffic light. The 80186 was used in lots of embedded solutions. Checkout Wikipedia

Re:End of an era?

[timeOday]

I can't believe this, to me it seems like a big deal. The Pentium-M is a modded Pentium-3. If this is true, Intel is abandoning the whole direction they took with the P4 = MHz at all cost. Also IIRC the Pentium-M was designed in Israel, and was their first-ever chip delivered on time, so this isn't a great development for US computer engineering.

I don't think we can count on quiet, low-power desktops though. I bet Intel will just ramp up the Pentium-M until it's a hot as the P4 (but by then it will be faster than todays P4 due to higher IPC).