Slashdot Mirror
Intel Delays Release of 4Ghz Chips
bizpile writes "The AP is reporting that Intel's faster version of the Pentium 4 will not be available by the end of the year as previously promised. They told PC makers this week that the 4-gigahertz chip will not ship until the first quarter of 2005. Intel spokeswoman Laura Anderson said, 'We felt by adjusting the schedule for the products, we could better meet our customers' volume requirements and their high expectations.'"
Mod me up if you hate the color scheme. Here's a fixed link using the "old" slashdot colors:
0 9&tid=118&tid=137&tid=126
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/30/22152
The new iMacs are not delayed to clear out inventory. You cannot buy an iMac now (At least in Australia). The production schedule for the current iMac was dependant on IBM producing G5 processors on target. IBM has not been. G5 iMac is delayed.
I would think Intel is having the same problems as IBM has been having. They just can't get the yeild required for a mass market.
We don't have any idea how AMD is doing with 90nm, because they haven't shipped anything at 90nm yet.
SOI (Silicon on Insulator) yes, and that seems to have given them a bit of a boost, but no 90nm.
I note the article is about Intel being unable to supply processors on the promised schedule. Yes, I realise that there's AMD around as well, but I don't see how switching to x86 will solve Apple's problems.
The basic issue with Motorola was that Moto weren't interested in developing new high-end CPUs. Apart from Apple, they were only targeting the embedded market.
IBM, on the other hand, has to develop new high-end chips, because they are required for their P-series (RS/6000) and I-series (AS/400) servers. In fact, IBM has already produced the chip that the next-generation PowerPC will be based on - the Power5. (G5 Macs use the PowerPC 970, which is a cut-down version of the Power4.)
The issue with higher clock speeds - whether from IBM or Intel - seems to be an industry-wide problem with the 90nm process. It's so bad that IBM has announced that "scaling is dead". See also the scary power dissipation of the new Pentium 4 chips.
When was the last time you saw Intel or AMD delaying a product by months, and causing problems for suppliers?
Prescott?
Or if I wanted to be really mean I could mention Itanium. That was, what, 5 years late?
AMD tends to be very conservative with its timetables, but even they have experienced problems.
As for IBM, they've run into a wall at 90nm. But so has everyone else. Expect to see lots of announcements of dual-core (and multi-core) chips, and larger caches, but no great increases in clockspeed in the next few years.
Opteron/Athlon 64 and the S754 Semprons have SSE2 (being effectively a 64bit-free Newcastle).
You do realize that there ARE disadvantages of moving to 90nm? In the past, a process shrink pretty much guaranteed large power savings, and a big speed boost. However, we're reaching a point where each new process brings with it SIGNIFICANT increases in device leakage, which can kill any potential power reduction, and the speed boosts aren't as great as they used to be.
My server
Exactly. When I replaced by 1Ghz Thunderbird with an XP 2400+, my average CPU temperature went down.
64bit processors have nothing to do with "high encryption". 64 bits just signifies the unit for data and memory addressing. Osho
That's a pretty silly prediction. What's more likely to happen is that dual, quad, octa-core CPUs will be marketed to the general public. Progress will be made faster at integrating cores together than it will be at making individual cores faster. Plus, a cheaper Barton core could be thrown together into a quad-core chip, letting companies capitalize on mature technology for budget applications.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb