AMD and Intel Update CPU Roadmaps

vincecate writes "Recently AMD updated their processor roadmap. It shows their move to 90 nm and has a range of new processors over the next 1.5 years, including dual-core chips. An unofficial AMD roadmap shows speeds and performance increasing. Intel also recently updated their roadmap. Intel does not show anything faster than the current 3.6 Ghz in the next 11 months, including the recently delayed 4 Ghz chip, except to say '3.6 Ghz or greater.' Strangely, some of the recent SPEC benchmark results show the 3.6 Ghz chip to be slower than the 3.4 Ghz chip. One possible explanation for this is that the 3.6 Ghz chips will slow down due to 'thermal throttling' if you are not very careful to keep them cool. So it seems like heat may be the reason Intel's roadmap does now show much improvement."

Comments

*sigh*

[SinaSa]

As I wait for the skin to grow back on my eyes from this horrible colour scheme, I can consider the information in the story summary.

We're obviously starting to see a convergence between the industrial processor market and the end-user one. I mean three years ago you would get a dual 3.2GHz (1.6 * 2) system to host a medium sized website, and that kind of horsepower is probably still adequate today. So what kind of apps (I mean, apart from Doom 3) do end users need this kind of grunt for? 3GHz? 3.6GHz? 4Ghz?! If Architects could use AutoCAD 2000 on a 950MHz cpu, without complaint, what has changed? Obviously a speed increase is nice, but three or four times that?

Are we going to see a point where the convergence turns to over taking, and end-user CPU's need to be faster than a lot of corporate stuff?

p.s: I'm aware of shit.slashdot.org, no karma whores please.

Re:*sigh*

[sholden]

As I wait for the skin to grow back on my eyes from this horrible colour scheme

Didn't that skin make it hard to see the colour scheme?

But back to the actual topic...

CPU speeds are just stupid for most people. I write code for a living (at the moment anyway) and the 400Mhz "Mobile PII" I'm using at the moment is adequate for that.

I understand that if your job involved compiling Mozilla or X11 a lot then more CPU (and more importantly more and faster RAM) would make you more productive.

I understand that if you are doing computer generated animation or physics modelling or whatever then more grunt would make you more productive.

But for most people, computers were fast enough a long time ago. This 400Mhz laptop is my fastest machine - both home computers are 300Mhz or so. One of them runs Windows XP Pro just fine, runs Office just fine, runs firefox and IE just fine, runs gimp just fine and even does all of those at the same time just fine.

Every time someone asks me for advice on buying a computer, I ask "do you want to play games?", and if the answer is no then my answer is "buy the slowest CPU model they sell and spend any extra money on RAM".

Re:*sigh*

[Wetware]

Well... CPU speed is very important to me. One app I tend to spend a lot of time on is iMovie (run on an Apple machine of course, but IBM seems to be running into the same sort of troubles in its transition to 90nm processor manufacturing that Intel and AMD are experiencing) and I am always frustrated in waiting for each title, effect, transition, etc. to render. I don't think that iMovie is a particularly inefficient application. And home video editing is certainly no longer an obscure application. For those doing such work, every extra bit of speed will help.

Re:So I'm screwed?

[mondoterrifico]

It has been known for some time that amd was going to go with socket 939, until 2006. The socket 754 will simply move into the budget category, replacing the xp line.
Recent price drops of athlon 64 3000 make socket 754 solutions attractive price wise.

Re:Is it just me or are people stupid these days?

[kinema]

"What I don't understand is why more people aren't building Pentium M desktops." It's simple. Intel's megaherts myth has finaly come around and bit them in the ass.

Clock speeds seem to have stalled.

[arcade]

More people than me seem to have noticed that clock speeds seems to have stalled. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing - as computers has grown fast enough for me lately. I'm still content with my 1.3Ghz Duron.

What I personally really, really want to see is cooler CPU's. CPU's that doesn't require a huge fucking fan. CPU's that are content with a heatsink would be nice.

Furthermore, I would love it if Dual configuration became more widespread (and thus cheaper). Personally I would love a multi-CPU machine far more than single-CPU ones.

My personal wishlist:
- 64bit CPUs to become the norm (seems to be happening).
- Cooler CPUs, not requiring fans (seems to be happening, look at the VIA EDEN CPU's)
- Dual/Quad/Multi -CPU configurations becoming the norm in home computers.

I don't care much whether single CPU's grow much faster at the moment, as there doesn't seem to be applications requiering it for regular use. There are of course specialist tasks that require more horsepower, but those are .. specialist tasks.

Re:Clock speeds seem to have stalled.

[Tim C]

There are of course specialist tasks that require more horsepower, but those are .. specialist tasks.

Once upon a time, viewing images was a specialist task. Then, viewing them in full colour, then editnig them. Sound used to be a specialist task, then editing sound.

Now, things like video encoding/editing is a specialist task, requiring (relatively) serious amounts of horsepower.

Well, once that sort of horsepower becomes commonplace, the task stops being specialist, as more and more people do it simply because they can.

True, there will always be truly specialist tasks that never become mainstream (animation and rendering work, phsically simulation and similar number crunching), but there is stuff now that could most certainly benefit from more CPU power (whether it be from single- or multi-cored machines) that would become more mainstream when that power became affordable.

Apple's premiums can handle the extra cost...

[michaeldot]

...but maybe the cheaper PCs cannot?

Also, a liquid cooler is probably inherent harder for Intel to package with an OEM processor. Affixing a liquid cooler to a processor requires more case aware design than simply clipping a fan to a mainboard socket.

Re:Is it just me or are people stupid these days?

[hayds]

Being designed for laptops, arent Pentium M chips much more expensive than P4s? Also, can you get ATX mobos for them?

Since its already a cutthroat pricing market, I guess PC makers dont see the need to up the cost of a PC by putting in a Pentium M chip when they can use a P4. Even if the P4 does use more power.

Re:I'm starting to worry

[lakeland]

How about we wait until they're getting close to 50% market share _before_ we start to worry about AMD turning evil? AMD has a better product, and they have had a better product for _years_. Thanks to their better product, and our support, they have very slowly being gaining market share. However, they are still very much the underdog. If we withdraw support now and go with something else (transmeta?) then I would guess both AMD and transmeta would end up as minority players.

Where is the roadmap I want?

[MancDiceman]

Where is the roadmap for low-power consumption chips that can operate either fanless, or with low less cooling gear?

I survived just fine on a PII for several years until recently biting the bullet and getting myself a P4 box in a Shutttle Zen XPC case (relatively quiet). I seriously considered getting myself an EPIA box as my main machine, simply because it would be lower power (therefore cheaper to run), silent and enough umph to use mutt, firefox and ssh into the server kit where the real work is done. The only reason I ended up with a P4 is because a friend had a 3GHz one going very cheap.

I want less power, not more. The idea I should overclock, buy liquid cooling systems and should pay a ridiculous amount so I can play some games? I'm sorry, what planet are you all on?

Re:Is it just me or are people stupid these days?

[gunnarE]

The reason the 3.6GHz processor runs slower than the 3.4GHz processor is because they're different processors

most importantly the 3.4GHz one on the quoted SPEC page has 2MB of L3 cache, but the 3.6GHz one has none.

How Fast is Fast Enough?

[Gigantic1]

Sorry, but I look at these speed numbers and say to myself, "Who Cares?" I can't speak for those of you who are serious Doom Players, or for those who like to process video, or mathematically search for new planets, but a while back I believe I saw something interesting: PCs had become fast enough for most people. What do I mean? Well...I was working on a Telecom Development Project where we did some demos. PCs with 1.2 GHz Athlons and a Gig of RAM were receiving real-time, streaming, high definition video (e.g., a movie) while being able to play a video game and support MS Office, Not bad. The same PCs could also support the movie video, MS Office and person-to-person video, too: you college guys could watch a movie with your buds and do your homework together, too. Unfortunately, this stuff won't be widely available for a while. Sorry. My only complaint were that the PCs max RAM was 1.5 Gigs - I'd like to have at least 10 Gigs please so I could also do some advanced Photoshop while I watch my movie - and talk to my girlfriend over high-speed telecom. Ain't that enough for most people? I mean if I can get a 3 MHz AMD or Intel and about 10 Gigs of RAM (and a good sound and video card, of course), what more can I need - for now or the future? If I'm mistaken, please let me know - I don't mind being corrected. Thanks. Gigantic1

Re:So I'm screwed?

[Mesaeus]

Actually, I've managed to stop the fan even under full load (when Cool 'n Quiet doesn't work). The important part is the temperature, and undervolting the cpu can drop the temp quite a bit. The important thing is that the Athlon64 can be made to run REALLY cool, while it is already a cool processor to begin with. So I don't have to use loud fans to cool it, that's why it's so fantastic for "quiet" pc's. I've lost count of the number of people who have asked me for recommendations to lower the noise of their jet-engine-screaming prescott towers.