Slashdot Mirror
Intel Quietly Introduces 3.8GHz P4
BatonRogue writes "I didn't see this anywhere else, but it looks like Intel has quietly launched their Pentium 4 570J running at 3.8GHz. The J denotes Intel's Execute Disable Bit support, which they have also quietly introduced (it seems to save face of being 2nd to support it behind AMD). AnandTech seems to be the only place to have a review of the 570J. It performs reasonably well and even better than AMD in some areas, while falling behind in things like games. AnandTech has a nice one page benchmark comparison of the 570J to AMD's 4000+ as a quick reference."
Can someone justify that they compared Intel's 3.8 Ghz to AMD 4000+ (4 Ghz equivalent, theorically)? Maybe they wanted to compare both company highest speed CPU... anyway, the only positive side I see in these high speed CPU is that they'll drive prices of their (somewhat) slower counterpart down... the AMD 3500+ is already at a very interesting price/performance ratio, it can only get better... and HL2 is only days away!
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
while falling behind in things like games.
Perhaps that's why it was quietly introduced? Gaming is really the only reason for a CPU upgrade these days. Knowing that AMD would achieve another victory in that area, why would they spend money promoting yet another little bump to the P4's clock speed? My guess is that they're waiting for the real kicker; this is just something to keep their heads above the water until it's ready.
I once attended a lecture by one of the designers from AMD. He said, that the clock speed of the processor was a key selling point. In reality, all the development that went into making processors operate at a higher clock cycle could be spent in much better ways, making better and more efficient processors. But - alas - efficiency doesn't sell. High numbers on a package does.
Anyway, does any of you actually have a specific need for high frequency processors? Most of the projects I've been working on always had other bottle necks, preventing me from utilizing the CPU completly.
Underholdning.info
Don't mention Celeron. I don't know why Intel keep on releasing it. They give low-budget a new low. In today's market I just don't understand the need to have a low-end Celeron line.
I just don't believe Customers can't wait 2 weeks before the price of a Pentium-4 drop, and they MUST have a higher-Ghz-count Celeron today. What's even worse are the laptop Celerons, which perform like 486 chips relabeled.
If this were a Linux comparison, I'd probably agree with you. But as it stands, outside of the Mozilla test, I saw almost entirely commercial Windows software, which you don't have the option of compiling yourself.
While a Linux comparison might give you a better idea of the raw capability of each processor, keep in mind that Windows has a 90% marketshare, and as such, the way Anandtech tests is closer to "real world" performance for most people.
For those who don't know what this is (I didn't), Intel's writeup on it is here. It doesn't look completely evil, but then it is their own marketing docs. Anandtech's writeup is similarly positive, more or less.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
long gone are the glory days of the celeron.
the 300a, the 366, and the celery II 566
it was a short lived tactic from intel in the battle to win the "blessings of the enthusiasts"
intel lost that battle long ago...but it was fun while it lasted.
in recent years, Tom's of course would prop up Intel's warez occasionally, often to just freak out and flip sides.
rip toms. rip intel's enthusiast support.
All I'm saying is that they could include at least one compiled program in the benchmarking, such as oggenc or lame to demonstrate the "raw capability of each processor." Of course, different types of programs will naturally be stronger on different platforms, (I.E. gaming, audio encoding, video encoding, etc) so this is not a silver bullet. It would, however, reduce the problem of benchmarking processors with code optimized for another architecture.
The benchmark referenced in this article gives Intel a big break by not comparing the Athlon 64 in native 64 bit mode. The few articles that do typically don't come right out and show the graphs side by side with Intel. 64 bit support makes a big difference in an increasing number of applications.
Another important fact - a socket 939 based motherboard purchased today should accept a dual core Athlon 64 in about a year. The dual channel memory controller in the 939 version means there will be plenty of memory bandwidth for that upgrade.
Encoding and transcoding video and audio are two great examples of CPU intensive work that aren't "games".
I run natively compiled Gentoo on my Athlon 64 system.
...successfully introduces the first integrated I/O chipset which can sync up all critical peripherals to be on the same bus speed. Video cards and CPUs far exceed any processing capacities provided by memory or storage components. While there still may not be the "killer app" to justify all that extra power, it will allow the respective company to temporarily get a hearty headstart in the dick-waving contest.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
I have nothing personal against Intel, as they did much for the PC industry and served me well for a long time. They still make excellent motherboard chipsets as well. I have come to realize, however, that AMD consistently puts out better engineered microprocessors, and at least apppear to put quality ahead of quantity.
Were it not for AMD, Intel would not even be thinking about 64 bit desktop chips, and especially not dual core chips. Instead, we'd be seeing every last Mhz squeezed out of every current chip. You are only going to get so much out of overclocking your current chip inventory.
AMD has earned my business in much the same way that Linux has. Giving me more for less.
I fear that the paradigm shift will be very difficult for AMD based on the "nobody ever got fired for buying Intel" mentality, but I really think every corporation and IT manager across the country should start taking 2nd and even 3rd looks at AMD's offerings before sending off the purchase orders.
It's hard to believe that AMD is stll the #2 chip maker, but, as with everything, marketing trumps quality 90% of the time. I've seen very few AMD commercials over the years, but I can't get those dancing Pentium 4 "Blue Men" out of my head. They still give me nightmares.
Somethings gotta pay the bills. At least in large their reviews are objectionable, and, you dont have to subscribe to this webpage like gamespot did. Keep the ads, whatever, I just dont want to give you my life history and SSN for a stupid membership and another password to remember.