Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD and Intel Update CPU Roadmaps

Posted by timothy on from the processors-duel dept.

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."

10 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Water cooling? by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, why not just make water cooling mandatory for new CPUs, just like Apple did?

    1. Re:Water cooling? by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This still does not address the massive power consumption problem seen in the P4s, especially the "Prescott" version of the P4s. While heat is a problem, when you're already using +1 lb heatsinks more active cooling is just a temporary fix. Not to mention that Intel, while it can give recomendations it can't ensure that every OEM to produce machines to their specs. I've opened up a number of Dell boxes only to find below-spec power supplies and such.

      Prescott in general has had more then its fair share of problems. Prescott is a massive CPU with a 31 stage pipeline, compared to the older P4's 20 and the Athlon XP's 12. I'm not sure off the top of my head how many stages the Athlon 64 has.

      All this extra complexity is supposed to make it easier to clock up the processor, and was the same trick Intel used to gain clock speed from the PIII to the P4, so the marketing folks said "Do it again."

      Of course the biggest reason why Intel doesn't show many (or any) speed increases is they've scrapped all their future P4/Prescott based designs, even projects that were closed to or already completed because of the problems they have had with Prescott. Intel's plan is to rework their Centrino/Pentium-M core into a desktop chip, but that will take several years.

  2. Is the processor clock rate trend coming to an end by Ckwop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The clock rate of the CPU went up madly through the 90s but the wind appears to have gone out the sails a little. Is the actual speed of the CPU still climbing but they're doing this without adjusting the clock rate?

    Don't really keep up on the hardware these days.. :P

    Cheers,

    Simon.

  3. So I'm screwed? by reub2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just got an MSI K8N Neo Platnium, which is a socket 754 motherboard. Looks like socket 754 is going no where.

    1. Re:So I'm screwed? by Mesaeus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And no worries about heat production either. I just assembled a quiet pc for a customer, containing the Athlon64 3000+. Boy what a cool chip. I used a 80mm 1800 rpm fan instead of the default and still it gets really cool. In fact on the motherboard I used, Asus K8V, there's a Q-Fan technology that lowers the speed of the cpufan according to the temp, and the fan regularly stops completely. And yes, this is by design. When not under load, the cpu temp actually goes UNDER the case temp if you disable Q-Fan and thus let the fan run at its full 1800 RPM (very quiet BTW). On top of that, it's real easy to undervolt the cpu, so you can run it at 2.0 gigahertz (3000+) and lower the voltage from 1.55V to 1.30V, this gives another big bonus in temps. The largest temp I saw while running under full load was 42 degrees celsius, the lowest 32. At the same time Intel has serious problems with heat, AMD seems to have made their coolest chip in years. Anyone else have positive experiences with this ?

  4. Re:Is the processor clock rate trend coming to an by opk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've noticed this. I got a 1GHz Athlon a few years back and it doesn't seem to be much behind the latest Athlons (especially when I count my athlon's overclocked speed). My previous machine was a 100MHz pentium and that seemed to go out of date really quickly.

    Are the new processors really much faster?

  5. Re:Is the processor clock rate trend coming to an by no+longer+myself · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It's more along the lines that the clock speed was getting faster, but the performance wasn't proportional. Right now I've got a 2GHz Celeron laptop that is much slower at compile than my Athlon 1.47GHz. (Both have a modest 256MB RAM.) So obviously, clock speed isn't everything.

    Don't get me wrong... I still love my Laptop! :-)

    The important concept to keep in mind is that all these computers are powerful enough to do what I need them to do, so merely making CPU clocks tick at a higher rate isn't going to persuade me to run out and upgrade.

  6. I'm starting to worry by rokzy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have always thought AMD is better than Intel (price/performance, no annoying jingle, no annoying "... inside", no "MHz myth"), but now it seems Intel is getting its arse kicked so much I worry AMD might get too complacent.

  7. Re:Is it just me or are people stupid these days? by Ianoo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Being designed for laptops, arent Pentium M chips much more expensive than P4s?
    I can't speak for American prices, but over here we can get a 1.7GHz Pentium M for about 190GBP, the same price as a Prescott 3.2GHz. So yes, there is a definite price premium, but no, the difference is not huge, especially since the Pentium M's are very overclockable, or so I've heard.
    Also, can you get ATX mobos for them?
    Yes
  8. Re:*sigh* by Okonomiyaki · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    I think we will actually. If I understand your meaning correctly when you say "corporate stuff" I'm thinking web, file, email servers and so on. Like you said, 3 year old machines are fine for most of that stuff now and will continue to be for some time. On the other hand, the end user is going to be requiring more and more power and not just for games or pretty interface animations. Apple and Microsoft have both been talking about the idea of the PC as a digital hub (well, I don't think MS uses that term exactly because it may be a Steve-ism) for a while. As it becomes a hub for more and more devices it's going to need more power. Loading an iPod with songs is trivial. Manipulating digital photos is a bit tougher. Beyond that you get into editing video and burning DVDs. Encoding and Decoding video. Music creation software. Maybe it won't be long before we see easy to use, prosumer quality 3D animation software...

    We've seen a lot of things that used to require very expensive, specialized equipment make their way into the consumer space in the past few years. It's not too hard to guess where that trend may go next. One thing is for sure, it will continue to require more and more powerful processors. Not everyone will need all that power every day but when you get back from that European vacation and you want to do something cool with all the video you shot, you'll be glad it's there.