Slashdot Mirror
Intel's 64-Bit Pentium 4s Hit The Streets
ThinSkin writes "Nearly 18 months after rival AMD released its 64-bit processors, Intel quietly added its first 64-bit Pentium 4 microprocessors to the market on Sunday. Four versions of the Intel Pentium 4 6XX series were announced at speeds up to 3.6-GHz, a frequency grade lower than the existing 5XX series. Prices will range from $224 to $605. Intel also added the 3.73-GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition to its lineup, a $999 chip that is fabricated on a finer 90-nm process than its older 130-nm P4EE components. As Slashdot previously reported, the 64-bit series will likely be the major enhancement to the Pentium 4 line before the introduction of the Pentium D "Smithfield," Intel's first dual-core part, which is slated for next quarter."
He's a good man, I've worked with him for over a decade. He's no Bill Brasky, though/
Now the A46 prices should come down a bit.
Was it just me or did anyone read that as the Pentium D "Seinfeld"?
Not that there's anything wrong with it...
Anyone know how much heat these put out?
Now Intel can cook my toast using more than 4 GB of memory!
I love you suckers out there who are buying these top of the line, bleeding edge chips. It brings the price of "outdated" hardware back to reasonable levels.
Now if you excuse me, I have a 486 DX4 100MHz that I've been keeping an eye on for a while.
Does that come with... uh... Intel Extreme Graphics? Sweet!
It would be interesting to see how much business Intel theoretically lost to AMD as a result of their failed first 64-bit attempt and subsequent delay.
The Inquirer is reporting that Intel will counter the AMD Turion 64 Mobile Processor with a Pentium M Extreme Edition. It is an alphabet soup of potential Intel Pentium M releases and you'll probably have to read it through twice or thrice to understand it all, but an interesting and inciteful read nonetheless.
There's another interesting article about the future of 64-bit as it relates to Intel here.
And of course, we can't forget our beloved Celeron.
What is the difference between these P4 em64t machines and the ones I've been able to buy before this?
Are they really AMD-compatible?
I believe it was because they found they couldn't claim IP rights to numbers such as '486' in order to prevent other manufacturers releasing products with the same name.
Ever notice how Apple was doing really poorly when they were providing dozens of different system configurations on a fairly large handful of Mac platforms, and were suffering because of it?
The problem was that the consumers simply didn't understand which computer most favorably matched their criteria.
I see the same thing here with Intel's lineup. What is what? Why is this M? Why is that Centrino? WTF does "Extreme" mean in relation to a CPU?
It wasn't until Steve Jobs was able to cut through the bullshit and bring the Mac lineup back to 2 basic consumer platforms that Apple was able to enjoy the benefits of the Apple brand. Until Steve came back, it was just another PC outfit. Now, with Jobs at the helm, and through his seemingly infinite ability to grasp consumer wants and needs, Apple is enjoying a resurgence in popularity and relevance.
Without someone with a grand vision like Steve Jobs, Intel is going to continue suffering through doldrums trying to guide the market with its "alphabet soup" (which you so very astutely coined) without actually listening to the consumers.
Sure, there is loads of programs that make use of the full 64 bits. Several vendors offer 64bit flavours of their distributions, such as Fedora, Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Suse.
The performance gain is found in how the chip itself works. 64-bits breaks the 4GB memory process limits of 32-bits. In 32-bits, a single process can access 2^(32) bytes -> 4 GB of linear memory. In 64 bits, you can therocally access 2^(64) bytes. Pratically, in Windows x64, a process is limited to 16 TB of memory. Plus, there's extra registers that a program can use.
I talked to some of the few people who were testing these. Apparently it couldn't keep linux running for more than 4 minutes. Lets hope Intel was able to fix that "issue"
Now it's time for game makers to get with the game [dum dum TISHHHH]. I'm tired of seeing 32 bits of my AMD 64 wasted every time I game, and now that every major player has 64 bit processors succeeding 32 bit, they need to get with the program and stop wasting bits.
The Peanut Gallery, Ubergeek, Biblically Sober
NCAAbbs.com: Thousands of fans, Hundreds of teams, Just one place
Will this be backwards compatible or support 32bit software.
Its nice to be important but its more important to be nice
Amen. This x000+ crap has got to stop. I'm t hinking we need some sort of ISO standard for clock speed, something we can compare PowerPCs, AMDs, Intels, and the like together without having to pull out a calculator and Google for benchmark tests. However it wont happen due to some stupid reason or other.
-Eric Smith
I was about to make the same comment; I just picked up a 630 based system last week. I'm running 32-bit XP on it at the moment, and it is very, very fast. Of course, that doesn't say a thing about the 64-bit features. Then again, this desktop is an upgrade from a 1.4 GHz P4 mobile, so maybe I'm easily wowed.
I've run SLES9 64- and 32-bit on identical hardware with EM64T equipped Xeons for file servers, and I can definitely "feel" the difference. I don't have any hard benchmarks, but the system with the 64-bit OS definitely seems more responsive under heavy load than the 32-bit configuration.
The true test will come when we get some serious analytical apps running. Beyond the ability to allocate more memory under a 64-bit OS, I expect to see moderate performance increases, though nothing earth shattering. Time will tell.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
Wow its about freaking time! Consumer 64bit computing here we come! On a side note, who bets that these chips will be as defective as the first 386's (double sigma anyone?)
Wow, and only 10 years after Sun's UltraSPARC, 13 years after the DEC Alpha, and 14 years after the MIPS R4000
Yes, I have or something simulations to run!
(is it ok to use * and HTML emphasis?)
What's the plural of emphasis?
Shut up. OK.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Question... do any of these processors come in the socket 478 form factor, or is intel forcing us to upgrade our motherboards yet again? If I have to buy a new mother board, I might as well go AMD this time around!!
Bryan
If you can get all the manufacturers to agree, comparing systems based on FLOPS would be effective, because it would remove the irrelevant clock speed argument, and thus allow you to compare how much work can be done in a time frame by the processor.
Unfortunately, I doubt you'd get the manufacturers to agree to it, since it would make too much sense and allow an easy and unbiased comparison between their products.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
> I'm thinking we need some sort of ISO standard for clock speed
I know!
We could call it "Hertz" (abbreviated as Hz), as a measurement of frequency where one Hertz means one cycle per second.
When used in relation to CPUs it could be prefixed with the SI multipliers G or M for Giga and Mega, and be used to refer to the speed of the internal clock by which the CPU synchronises its instructions. It however will say nothing about how many instructions happen in a cycle, or what those instructions actually do.
So I'm guessing you don't want a standard for clock speed, you want a standard for performance.
But regardless, if you make your entire purchasing decision off the numbers on the box (no matter what they mean) then you deserve whatever you get.
Advanced users are users too!
Donate anything 300mhz or above to your local school district. I am a computer tech for my local district and we need all the help we can get.
I'd mod ya down if I werent replying, but not because you're pro intel, just because your logic is flawed.
Its called marketing, you do whatever you can thats legal to get people to buy your product.
If a dumbass consumer things 4000+ is 4000MHz, especially when there is a asterik saying that the processor actually runs at 2.4GHz, then they're probably the ones who dont understand the 9/10ths of a cent at the end of all gas prices. Intel made processors all about MHZ and thats what AMD has to compete on. The processor ratings are somewhat accurate (varies depending on benchmark).
And FWIW, a 4000+ does outperform a P4-2.8GHz.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
I think your right. I have seen benchmarks on the AMDzone forums which show that while AMD gets a speed boost (on average) from 64-bit mode, Intel takes a performance hit (again, on average) when in 64-bit mode.
Intel is just trying to be compatible with AMD64. They won't have a serious product for another quarter or two (or three).
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
Our antenna design group is eyeing the 64-bit products with intrest. Their simulations always use up all the memory in their systems. Well right now, only option for 64-bit with their software is Sun hardware. That's really expensive and it doesn't tend to perform as well (the chips are more server oriented, less vector math). So they are quite interested in a 64-bit Intel or AMD system with 64-bit Windows. If they could get like 8+GB of RAM, they'd be interested. $1000 for a chip is fine, that's downright cheap compared to the Sun solutions.
Just a question...
So many versions of the Pentium4.
So many cores. So many variations. So many significant architectural differences.
Seriously... when it it enough to be the Pentium5? I seriously doubt there is as much difference between the Pentium-3 and the IV (original P4) as there is between ANY other P4 cpu and this one.
Seriously... what's the deal?
Other than the 5-for-$5 jokes (Pentium 5 being a rather redundant name, after all...)
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
65C? Under what conditions? What heat sink? Where is it measured?
Most important is the power dissapation figure. That shows how much energy has to be dumped by the cooling solution.
Does anyone remember what a VAX-780 cost? That was a 1 MIPS CPU.
Bruce Perens.
It's funny to me, how one can "tell the difference" between a 32bit and 64bit system, of the same frequency, and all else the same... My guess is the 64bit system would actually be slower, all else being equal. It's more stuff to move around!
Personally, I think it's all psychological. Deep down in your subconcious, you're willing your machine to be that much faster, because, well, you paid more for it!
Let's be realistic, the only pracitcal performance gain you're ever going to see from a 64 bit program, is if it does 64 bit math... And the best chance for people to encounter this (at least for non-sciencey types who don't need big numbers or double percision floats) is in a 64 bit file system, in the event, say that WinFS is 64 bit. Aside from that it's wasted on most people.
It's sort of like throwing a few billion dollars in the fireplace.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
He said, "RTFA, you fuckwit.".
All of this is for Joe Sixpack. Not gamers and enthusiasts.
If you want to go 64-bit, pick up an Athlon64 2800 for about $100, or Athlon64 3000 for abt $130. AMD motherboards also work out cheaper, since they have been around for a year and a half.
The 64-bit market is just opening up, expect the pentium prices to come down significantly soon. By 2006, most processors will ship with 64-bit capability. There are not many 64-bit native applications available now. Games are still 32 bit. Windows XP 64 bit is just coming out next month. And Linux still does not support Joe.
If you are price concious, NEVER buy anything quite recent. Save the money, and buy dual-core 64-bit processors a couple of years from now.
Life is just a conviction.
The problem with comparisons in MIPS (millions instructions per second) is that for different architectures, it takes a different number of instructions to accomplish the same amount of work. This doesn't matter for AMD/Intel (Athlon/64/Pentium/Xeon) as they all use the same (mostly) Instruction set. It would matter if, as the gp said, you wanted to compare Sun, Apple, Intel Itanium, or Intel Pentium, since they use differnt ISAs.
Flops are a little cleaner, but still only test the Floating Point units. What if a chip has good floating point, but really shitty integer (it could happen). It would still suck to use for a lot of things. The only decent way of testing something (AFAIK) is to run it with the programs you intend to use it for and compare.
immediately they're overtaken by AMD64s and G5s once they get on the freeway. They're really easy to spot with an infrared camera, too. Kinda like overheated, broken down cars.
Funny you should ask, I've installed both.
I just finished dowloading and installing the beta ms is offering.
It installed fine except for disabling lilo and drivers surprisingly weren't hard to find. It didn't seem any more responsive than it's 32-bit couterpart.
As for application's, I've only installed two so far: winamp and winrar. They both installed fine except their file assosiations never registered, and after making the correct assosiations winamp took over a minute to load when running an mp3 from explorer. Though when running the executable winamp loads normally.
I also tried four games, GTA Vice City, Kotor, Doom 3, and Star Wars Galaxies. The first two wouldn't run (a sound issure with gta, and an opengl issue with kotor) but Doom3 and swg ran just fine.
From what I understand ms dropped compatability with 16-bit apps so if you run anything that makes 16-bit api calls it'll probably fail.
So, though it was brief, my first impression was fairly dissapointing.
As for linux, about a month or two ago I tried the Debian amd64 dist. It too installed fine, hardware worked without any issue (nforce board with geforce video) and I had no issues with X.
Most packages were available to install, with the only notable exception being Open Office.
The kernel was as had all the usual modules availible and I was easily able to compile nvidia's kernel module with no problem using module-assitant.
Debian provides a linux32 package for running apps in compatability mode which worked ok, I can't remember the specifics but most apps ran fine with the exception of cedega which I couldn't get to run (some vague error which I can't remember).
There's also a pretty good howto on setting up a chroot environment for running 32bit apps natively. This worked almost flawless though I still couldn't get cedega to run (vanilla wine and OOo ran fine though).
I'd been running 32bit debian/unstable for about six months on the same system and I was pleasantly surprised at how much more responsive both the console and X seemed under it's 64-bit equivilent. Apps seemed to launch faster too (my first reaction to loading up firefox in gnome was WOW THAT WAS QUICK).
Under both Debian and Xp the memory usage was higher than under their 32bit counterparts. I think under Xp with just firefox running it's using just over 120mb physical ram and right now under XP x64 the mem usage is 233mb.
So anyway I was pretty happy with the Debian's 64bit linux but I'm gonna hold on to my 32bit xp for my gaming habit.
In theory of course.
In practice, you can get up to 1GFLOPS on a pretty simple machine, just put all your resources on doing flops asap. Ignore branches in your design, just make it run as many floating point instructions in a row as quickly as possible.
In real situations however, both FLOPS and MIPS say very little. There's a damn good reason it's commonly transscribed as "Meaningless Indication of Processor Speed"
It's possible that Linux might be quicker off the mark to support the chip - you might even be able to patch it yourself with the right gcc & kernel - but since you said Dell you're really talking about XP. And XP isn't going to see support unless Microsoft produces another service pack to shore up the gulf of time that exists between now and their next release. Even if they do release SP3 with 64 bit goodness, you're still talking 6 months or more and the chances are that it will only offer token support in a limited number of places.
On top of that, buying unsupported bleeding edge hardware is always a bad proposition. Its expensive, doesn't do anything and will probably be obsolete by the time that something comes around to supporting it. It would have been as foolish to buy AMD64 back when it was released.
I'd mod ya down if I werent replying, but not because you're pro intel, just because your logic is flawed.
But slashdot doesn't have a "-1, Stupid (and Wrong)" moderation, more's the pity...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Something that i have seen here that is a bit of a misconception is that some people seem to think 64 bit processors are twice as fast, or can handle twice as much data as a 32-bit processor. This is not so. 4 types of data run through a processor: Integer Address String Floating Point in a 32 bit processor, the ranges are as follows Integer - 32 Address - 32 String - 64 Floating Point - 128 in a 64 bit processor, however, the ranges are as follows Integer - 64 Address - 64 String - 64 Floating Point - 128 All that is simply saying, by saying a 64-bit processor, is that the processer can handle 64 binary instructions per clock cycle, twice as many as a 32 bit processer, only in the integer and address ranges. so it is not truly twice as fast, and neither can it truly handle twice as much data, just 2 of the 4 types of data have been doubled. theoretically, a 64 bit processor could address 16 exabytes of ram (i believe this is 16 million gigs of ram) but obviously there are limitations to this. and interesting fact i thought i would stick in here :p
ps. - my ranges for floating point and string might have been reversed, now that i think about it i cant remember whether floating point is 128 bit or whether string data is 128 bit.
"Potpourii doesn't taste as good as it smells." - Dark_Link2135
At least Gentoo apparently. That's how linuxhardware was able to get benchmarks of various linux software on 64-bit AMD and Intel, and compare the speeds of 64 vs 32 bit binaries on both. Presumeably other AMD64 distros shouldn't have a problem.
EMT64 is basically identical to AMD64, by design since they went off of pre-release documentation for AMD64 in order to be compatible (ha! what a historic reversal of roles!). The only differences that exist between EMT64 and AMD64 are almost certainly due to errors/changes in the documentation that Intel used. These differences don't seem to stop OSes for AMD64 from running.
The enemies of Democracy are