Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pentium 4 6XX Sequence and New EE P4s Launched

Posted by timothy on from the james-bond-stole-this-stuff-in-1963 dept.

Mojo-Dog writes "Today Intel took the wraps off their new Pentium 4 Processors with EM64T extensions for 64-bit computing. The Pentium 4 6XX Sequence and Pentium 4 3.73GHz are based on Prescott 2M cores with a full 2MB of on-chip L2 cache as well. HotHardware.com has a full review with benchmarks posted of these new P4s, many of which also offer Intel's SpeedStep technology for power savings and improved thermals, which has been available in Pentium Mobile CPUs for some time now."

6 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Compatibility with AMD64 by chefren · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "EM64T is nearly completely compatible with AMD64 technology"

    Wow, nicely said. Is this close enough to make binaries interchangable or are they two separate platforms? Either way I am 100% sure that things are exactly as they are.

  2. still by Foo2rama · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Runs hot, still going to be a cooling nightmare... And we all knew intel was putting a 2mb on die cache to speed up the proc. The only mysteries are why the 64 but extensions which look to prove pretty worthless in the long run, have been added (lic from AMD). And what took Intell so long to put the speed step tech on the desktop p4's? I mean come on it is a great way to cool those p4 heat pigs, people have been screaming for it for about a year, kinda a no brainer.. gg Intel still catchup. Not being a fan boy or anything but I will still save my money and get the AMD chips, and deal with slower excel benchmarks, since that extra 4 seconds I waste every few hours will really add up.

    --


    ---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
  3. Still catching up to Athlon wrt games by aendeuryu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quick summary for gamers:

    This P4 still lags behind the Athlon FX-55 and 64 4000+ for Doom3, HL2, UT2004, and the general 3dMark benchmark. Pricewatch has the FX-55 at 900$ US and the 64 4000 at 620$, which is cheaper than the best chip of the bunch at 999$. Granted, video cards are probably the biggest system decision for gamers, but if CPUs figure into your decision, you might want to consider the comparisons.

  4. Nothing really about 64 bit performance by GreatDrok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have been trying to find out what the performance of the AMD and Intel chips is really like with 64 bit apps on a 64 bit OS and have yet to find anything that covers it. This article as usual goes on about 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS which really doesn't help. I want to know if the Intel implementation is as efficient as AMDs and this would be easy enough with Linux but none of these reviews ever consider running on Linux. Just saying that 64 bit support isn't an issue at the moment doesn't cut it, I want to know now!

    --
    "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
  5. Intel the leader in 64 bit extensions? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, AMD invented those extensions, but Intel has 80% of the desktop processor market (amd only stole them a 2% in the last 6 months). This should mean that soon most of the desktop processors with 64 bit extensions will the ones from intel, not the ones from amd.

  6. After reading a few other articles about the 600s by doormat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its quite easy to see how biased the HotHardware review is towards Intel. You wonder how much intel paid them for that review, or let them break NDA early or something. Its a shame /. is giving them traffic for that bullshit "review".

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.