Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Pentium Chipsets Launched

Posted by Zonk on from the we-have-the-technology dept.

MojoDog writes "Today Intel has officially taken the wraps off their new mainstream Pentium D 820 Processor and i945 Express series chipsets. Additionally, they also cranked up the Pentium 4 6XX sequence line-up to include the new Pentium 4 670 at 3.8GHz. The Pentium D 820 is Intel's new dual core CPU clocked at 2.8GHz, which contains two Prescott cores per die but doesn't support HyperThreading like the Pentium Extreme Edition 840. The i945 is their new mainstream PCI Express based chipset, one version of which has Integrated Graphics and both supporting these new dual core CPUs. Additionally, Intel took their Pentium 4 6XX sequence processor, based on the Prescott 2M core, for a speed bump to 3.8Ghz."

151 comments

  1. Sand by 1967mustangman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I am sill amazed that the basic ingredient in these things (aside from oodles and oodles of smarts) is something I used to eat everytime my parents took me to the beach when I was a baby.

    --
    Madre de Dios! Es El Pollo Diablo! -- Captain Blondebeard
  2. Intel making more noise than ever... by theantipop · · Score: 0, Troll

    *yawn* Wake me up the next time Intel deserves to make so much noise over a (mediocre) product release.

    1. Re:Intel making more noise than ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just what the fuck have you ever done Mister, mediocre or otherwise?

      It's all very well for you to yawn, and piss and moan, but your opionion on this, and probably on anything else, isn't worth shit (u r just another sad /.er with a very high user #).

      STFU and go back to sleep, you waste of space.

    2. Re:Intel making more noise than ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the intel fanboys are up early today. Upset because your cpu doubles as a space heater?

    3. Re:Intel making more noise than ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Intels noise? I have not seen that they have advertised this as much? It is some journalists that highlight it, not Intel.

    4. Re:Intel making more noise than ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft, Intel CPUs run up to 10 degrees celsius higher than AMD CPUs? (Idle Prescott 3.2Ghz ~47C - Idle Athlon64 3200+ ~39C)

      I run an Athlon64 myself, and honestly the heat is a non-issue unless you've got a cluster in your basement.

      Can't you idiots think up of some new joke with which to lambast Intel with? *yawn*

    5. Re:Intel making more noise than ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..and 'theantipop' posts anonymously to try and discredit someone who has a go at his totally content-free fanboy post.

    6. Re:Intel making more noise than ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well firstly (as the original AC poster) I can tell you it's not early where I live! I hope you can grasp that. It isn't morning everywhere just because you happen to be munching your breakfast, dipshit.

      Secondly, I'm not an 'intel fanboy'. Nor any kind of fanboy. I'm just sick of know-nothing losers criticising people (intel is made up of real flesh and blood people, with feelings, just like any other corp.).

      The engineers at intel (and amd and ibm and everywhere else) are clever and work hard and then some no-mark like you comes along and *yawns*

      Go and get a job designing chips of major complexity then you can hand out on /. and *yawn* about it (as if!).

    7. Re:Intel making more noise than ever... by b00stA · · Score: 1

      Noise?
      They simply presented a new product of theirs.
      What else are they supposed to do? Keep it a secret?

      --
      Stop making that big face!
    8. Re:Intel making more noise than ever... by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be a chicken to smell a bad egg.

      Though in this case it's not so much a bad egg as a mediocre one. The current Intel design is little more than a pair of cores slapped onto a single piece of silicon, with little integration between them. The AMD design leverages the advantage of having multiple cores by allowing communication directly over the on-die system request interface rather than the external front-side bus.

  3. No hzperthreading shame that by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well considering that security alert recently about the problenms with hyperthreading , and given the fact that the chip is duel core anyway which greatly reduces the need for hyperthreading i don't really see it as too much of a loss and quite possibly its an advantage.

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:No hzperthreading shame that by vlad_petric · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The security problem can be easily fixed in a new core revision. The main problem with Intel's hyperthreading is their somewhat simplistic implementation, which greatly limits performance (for instance, when you enable HT, most of your out-of-order structures are physically halved).

      From a technical perspective, there's still a great deal of value from doing (proper) HT on top of a 2-core design - namely, you get 4 execution contexts. But that negatively impacts sales (very few would still need SMP, for instance)

      --

      The Raven

    2. Re:No hzperthreading shame that by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      dual core CPUs suffer from the same problem

      even SMP in a single core

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:No hzperthreading shame that by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      Is there any further links to details about the problem
      http://www.daemonology.net/hyperthreading-consider ed-harmful/
      The vunerability seems to only concern itself with the implementation of hyperthreading , though it is rather vauge

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    4. Re:No hzperthreading shame that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel's current implementation of dual core is NO different than current 2 CPU systems. Each core is physically independent and ONLY communicates with the other core at the FSB. They are essentially two seperate CPUs which sat next to each other on the die. Instead of getting cut, they were kept together and packaged as a "dual core".

      So the hyperthreading vulnerability does NOT apply to these dual core processors.

    5. Re:No hzperthreading shame that by DrSkwid · · Score: 1


      try again

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    6. Re:No hzperthreading shame that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

    7. Re:No hzperthreading shame that by DrPizza · · Score: 1

      Too bad the "security issue" was a problem not with hyperthreading but with the use of table-based lookups in encryption algorithms. The same issue can be demonstrated on single core Athlon systems, and they don't got no hyperthreading.

  4. Brought to you by by DrinkingIllini · · Score: 1

    ...the department of redundancy department.

    Additionally, they also cranked up the Pentium 4 6XX sequence line-up to include the new Pentium 4 670 at 3.8GHz.

    ...Additionally, Intel took their Pentium 4 6XX sequence processor, based on the Prescott 2M core, for a speed bump to 3.8Ghz."

    1. Re:Brought to you by by KUHurdler · · Score: 0

      ...the department of redundancy department.

      Additionally, they also cranked up the Pentium 4 6XX sequence line-up to include the new Pentium 4 670 at 3.8GHz.

      ...Additionally, Intel took their Pentium 4 6XX sequence processor, based on the Prescott 2M core, for a speed bump to 3.8Ghz."

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
  5. Struggling by glrotate · · Score: 0

    Intel has basically been stuck at this clockspeed for nearly 3 years. The executives have to be getting extremely nervous. The last 6 months haven't been paticularly kind to Intel's stock either INTL.

    If this continues much longer look for some major shakeups.

    1. Re:Struggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel struggling? What planet do you live on?

      They are a behemoth with lot of moola ($), the end of the P4 architecture for them is a "hickup", "minor bump". They have far superior production capability compared to AMD, they can afford to price their initial dual core at cheap prices (240ish$ vs 500+ for AMD). Yes AMD is superior in almost every way. So? No one was ever fired for buying Intel. Until they got Dell to back them, they will dominate the market, even when their CPUs are lagging behind AMD.

      There is also the death of the P4 line and that will be replaced by a much superior Pentium M architecture. All they need is to boost the FSB of this platform and they got a winner. Fast CPU with very little power consumption. Go look up some Pentium M desktop benchmarks. It's a good CPU. Not to mention it sells extremely well.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't like Intel at all, infact I own 3 AMD powered PCs/laptops (due to AMD having superior CPUs), but their "struggle" and "death" is far fetched and is nothing more than some AMD fanboi's fantasy.

    2. Re:Struggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, except Intel is INTC, for Intel Corporation. Intel vs. AMD log scale.

      -theGreater.

    3. Re:Struggling by PlazMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh, Intel's stock ticker is INTC, and the last six months have been pretty decent.

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=INTC&t=6m

    4. Re:Struggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they aren't getting nervous. Ever since Intel cancelled "Tejas" (Pentium V) and announced a product plan based on Pentium M, they known they would be fucked for a few years. They'll just tread water until the desktop P-Ms (with 64-bit and multicore) ship in 6 months or so.

      In fact, now might be a good time to buy INTL because P-M will provide similar performance to AMD but the production costs will be vastly cheaper, which means higher profits.

    5. Re:Struggling by sjaskow · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should look at INTC since that's actually Intel stock. And for the last 6 it's actually doing better than the Nasdaq.

    6. Re:Struggling by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Wow. WTF happened to AMD in early January?

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    7. Re:Struggling by cide1 · · Score: 1

      While the clockspeed remains the same, these chips are much faster, due to greater parallelism. A chip at 3.8 GHz with no hyperthreading, and one core, can only execute one stream of instructions at a time. Add hyperthreading, and it can execute only one stream at a time, but can switch to a second very quickly. Hyperthreading is basically one core with two sets of registers. In modern computers, the processor is so much faster than memory, that when a processor has a cache miss, hyperthreading gives it the capability of quickly moving to a differant stream of instructions while the missing data is brought from slower main memory into faster cache memory, instead of wasting those cycles. Two cores adds even more parallelism, becuase now two complete units are on the same die. Two complete streams of instructions are processed at the same time. I imagine the next step will be two cores with hyperthreading, allowing four threads on the die at the same time, two executing, and two that can be switched in quite fast.

      Parallelism is an easier way to add speed. Every doubling in clock speed is a quadrupling in power consumption. Intel's biggest flaw is their power density, and they have hit the physical limits of silicon. Adding a second core does not increase their power density, just their overall power consumption.

      It should be noted, too, that caches use six transistors per bit to store data, and therefore, leakage current from caches are a large amount of a processors power consumption. Features like hyperthreading do not increase the number of transistors dedicated to caching.

      --
      -- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
    8. Re:Struggling by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      Wow. WTF happened to AMD in early January?

      AMD's earnings came in lower than expected due to a loss in their flash memory operations that their growing CPU sales couldn't fully make up for. Oddly enough, Wall Street semiconductor "analysts" didn't have much to say about Intel's much larger loss in their similarly-sized flash operation (AMD MirrorBit flash is cheaper to manufacture than Intel's flash, fewer manufacturing steps, higher reliability, etc). Granted, Intel is hiding this loss as best they can, but it's pretty obvious they're trying everything they can think of to make AMD bleed. As AMD64 CPU sales ramp up (and Fab 36 comes online early next year) their flash sales become less and less important and they're spinning off the operation, retaining an investment stake, just so Intel can't pull that stunt again.

      This pattern held in April. Higher CPU sales, lower flash sales, small net loss. I think they'll be back to profitability in July, flash can't cause that much more damage, Opteron sales are still accelerating (dual cores are out, blade servers, etc), Turions are out in volume in June (the HP Pavillion L2000 and Acer Ferarri 4000 notebooks look particularly nice). WinXP x64 is having less of an impact than I'd hoped due to some incredible slacking by peripherals makers (where's your x64 printer/scanner/etc drivers, HP?) but AMD has 32-bit performance to fall back on and 64-bit Linux has been out for well over a year now.

  6. lost again to AMD by smack-pot · · Score: 1, Redundant

    looks like intel again lost to AMD, which has already launched dual core chips!!! :)))) how does these INTEL and AMD chips compare to IBM Cell processor (agreed their purpose is different but nevertheless)???

    1. Re:lost again to AMD by taskforce · · Score: 1
      Actually Intel and AMD launched their Dualies the same week, and infact Intel beat AMD by about a day. The fact that AMD's offerings are technically more advanced is what matters.

      These are new Chipsets which support those new CPUs.

      --
      My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    2. Re:lost again to AMD by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Funny

      how does these INTEL and AMD chips compare to IBM Cell processor

      there are all turing machines, therefore equivalent

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:lost again to AMD by BooRolla · · Score: 1
      how does these INTEL and AMD chips compare to IBM Cell processor (agreed their purpose is different but nevertheless)???

      You are an idiot.

    4. Re:lost again to AMD by alc6379 · · Score: 1
      how does these INTEL and AMD chips compare to IBM Cell processor (agreed their purpose is different but nevertheless)???

      Well, let's see....

      They've all got circuitry in them
      They all don't work without some type of motherboard to plug them into
      The computers designed for each respective processor stop working if you pull the chip out of it.

      Sounds like they're all pretty similar, yup.

      --
      I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
    5. Re:lost again to AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's certain situations like gaming? Where AMD definitely shines. There is certain situations where Intel shines as well vs. AMD. This is what everyone has to get thru their heads imo. You have to decide what type of things you will be doing on your system and which CPU + chipset benefits you the most for what it is you are out to do. This is very much like the ATI Radeon series being marginally better than current NVidia cards or future ones. ATI = better DirectX, & NVidia = better OpenGL. 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other. Pure tradeoffs.

  7. naming convention by y2dt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a Pentium 4 670 at 3.8GHz, Pentium D 820 at 2.8Ghz, a Pentium Extreme Edition 840 w/o HT, and a Pentium 4 6XX based on the Prescott 2M core???

    seriously, how is this naming convention better than the old one?

    1. Re:naming convention by MaTriXxx1 · · Score: 1

      the marketing dept. thought it was sleek

      --
      Do NOT goto this URL http://www.forthesims.com
  8. Dual core versus hyperthreading by sunderland56 · · Score: 3, Informative
    The Pentium D 820 [...] contains two Prescott cores per die but doesn't support HyperThreading

    Huh? Hyperthreading was a constrained, limited ability to run two concurrent streams of execution on one physical chip. Dual core CPUs allow unlimited execution of two streams. "Doesn't support hyperthreading" is listed here as if it was a limitation - but in fact dual core (in the benchmarks I'm running) conmpletely blows away any hyperthreaded chip. This is a far better, far more powerful, solution.

    It is nice to see Intel finally catching up with AMD....

    1. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by theantipop · · Score: 2, Informative

      The issue is that running HT on both cores in a dual core would allow four concurrent threads to be processed. There are many benchmarks of the Pentium XE (dual core, HT) which show the few applications that support multithreading give big increases in performance with Hyperthreaded dual cores.

    2. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by Erwos · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're missing one thing: the Pentium D EE _does_ have hyper-threading on both cores (looks like a 4 CPU system to your OS). HT and dual core is not an either/or proposition - you can have both, and HT is not going to hinder performace on dual core CPUs.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    3. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "It is nice to see Intel finally catching up with AMD...."

      Now if they could only do this on a instructions per watt basis ...

      The Athlons take less power per unit of wall clock of time as a P4 and they routine excute a higher instruction count per second. This means not only do you get a task [say compiling] done quicker, but you take less power while doing it.

      So you may say "wow that dual core dual HT 3.8Ghz sure is fast" but when you realize it takes 300W of power to run [as opposed to the 40W the new AMD Venice core takes] ... the comparison looks really shameful.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    4. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by Roofus · · Score: 1

      This is a far better, far more powerful, solution.
      Yes, but not as good as having Hyperthreading enabled PER CORE.

      The company I work at is eager to get our hands on two Dual Core Xeons (w/Hyperthreading) CPUs, which will give the appearance of 8 CPUs. We're hoping to see a huge leap in our bechmarking vs what we curently use (Dual 3.6 Xeons with Hyperthreading).

    5. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by the_xaqster · · Score: 0
      '"Doesn't support hyperthreading" is listed here as if it was a limitation'


      Indeed. But if you _do_ think that not supporting Hyperthreading is a limitation, then you can get the Extreme Edition, that _does_ support Hyperthreading.

      This looks like a case of separating the mainstream processor from the Geeks/Gamers processor. If they shipped all Dual core chips with Hyperthreading on, what would they do for the EE?
      --
      I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
    6. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by PornMaster · · Score: 1

      Which, of course, means multi-cpu blades with AMD CPUs will rock the house for HPC clusters.

      It's really fun to see the competition (watch out for the really bad pun) heat up (ouch!) in the x86 market, pushing not just price, but innovation in efficiency.

      --
      500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
    7. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by _Pablo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Better IPC and IPW is exactly what the next generation based on Pentium M is for.

      Even in it's current form the Pentium M can exceed the performance of even an Althon FX-55 at the same clock-speed with far lower power draw. When Intel transition this to the desktop as dual core with AMD64 (oops I meant EM64T) and a serious FSB it's going to give AMD a serious run for it's money.

      Hopefully AMD is up to the task and we can all look forward to lots of new multithreaded apps and lower electricity bills...unless you have SLI and AGEIA to soak up the juice that is! Good riddance Netburst.

      --
      $2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
    8. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man just use an 2x Dualcore Opteron, it will most likely be a lot faster than your Xeons

    9. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by Roofus · · Score: 1

      We'll be testing that out soon enough. However, we tested our current dual xeon w/hyperthreading against dual opterons, and the opterons didn't perform as well as the xeons.

      So Intel it is for the time being.

    10. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by Wiz · · Score: 1
      Far exceed? Not at FP it wont....

      SPEC FP results.

      Look, a Athlon FX-55 is nearly TWICE as fast at SPEC FP - when the clock speed is only 30% higher. SpecINT will be about equal looking at it.

      The Pentium M is good, but outright performance isn't something it has.

    11. Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading by _Pablo · · Score: 1

      Synthetic benchmarks aside, the Pentium M is already a very competitive processor and at 2.6Ghz it's topping many a benchmark. I do agree that the current Pentium M is not built for outright performance, afterall that is not it's current target market.

      I have no doubt however, that if Intel are switching from Netburst to Pentium M as their basis for future Desktop and Xeon processors, then they will be improving them significantly in any way they can - they simply cannot afford to put up weak competition against the constantly improving AMD products.

      --
      $2B OR NOT $2B = $FF
  9. socket 939 AMD boards already support dual core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    The subject says it all. Intel is really playing catchup here. I don't even have to buy anything new with my ASUS A8n SLU deluxe. It supports dual core athlon out of the box.

  10. Re:A warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your metaphoricaly talking about the clockspeeds and new features of the procesors then it got lost , otherwsie ... its a poor hypocrisy troll :P anyway im sure we could all kick your behind , and the place for Personal talk etc is the journal try it and sign up for an account... or are you too chicken , buck buck

  11. no ine-die bus by StupidStan · · Score: 0

    these new chips dont even have an on-die bus. This almost completely defeates the purpose of a dual core chip considering the price. If they cant communicate directly (like the upcoming AMD dual core ships) the speed is significantly reduced. Yet again, it seems MS released a product without sufficient development. AMDs product will be superior again, while MS will win in sales because people are cattle

  12. Duel cores by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

    Do these two cores fight for the privilege of processing your threads?
    Pistols and paces or what?

    Or is this perhaps one of those dual core things?

  13. lame innovations by 0kComputer · · Score: 1

    I remember seeing a commercial with the Blue Man Group about a week ago, they really need to come up with some new ideas instead of tweaking old successes, seriously.

    --
    Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
    10.
    1. Re:lame innovations by nokiator · · Score: 1
      Wow, Intel's top clock speed goes from 3.73GHz to 3.8GHz! That is less than 2%! And even within the 6xx family, only a 5% clock frequency boost.

      This must be the [lamest|smallest] clock speed increase associated with a new processor introduction in Intel's history...

  14. Way to suck... by http101 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...power. Why is Intel consistently a prime waste of power? (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_cor e_athlon-19.html)

    When wattage is spiking that high, I'd rather use the AMD processor solely because of the ever-increasing demand and cost of electricity. So not only are they cost-efficient and energy-efficient, but they're also faster and more durable. In the past 4 years, I've burned up (plugged it in, turned it on) a handful of Intel chips just because they were defective (purchased at various stores) and lost 1 AMD to a direct lightning strike.

    --
    -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
    1. Re:Way to suck... by tomcio.s · · Score: 0

      Better yet, look at a mac. My Power Book G4 requires a whopping 45W power supply. Yes, 45W. That's less than 1/2 of a regular light bulb!

      That includes chip, drive(s), wi-fi and display.. 45W max power requirement. Can't get much greener than that.

      The energy that the P4s need alone in an hour will drive my whole system for number of hours!

    2. Re:Way to suck... by kworthington · · Score: 0

      Well that _is_ a different architecture. I could also point out that my website (which I won't post here because I don't want it slashdotted to oblivion) runs on an Linksys NSLU2 and consumes less than 2 Watts on its own. (less than 15W with the external disk attached to it.) The NSLU2 uses an ARM chip, made by Intel, and has 32MB memory built in. So although that is great that your G4 powerbook consumes 45W of power, please do not troll. You must consider the architecture. [apu]Thank you, come again.[/apu]

      --
      Hosting: as low as $5.95/Mo
    3. Re:Way to suck... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      The energy that the P4s need alone in an hour will drive my whole system for number of hours!

      0 is a number so your assertion is useless

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    4. Re:Way to suck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an article about x86 CPUs. Please take your Apple zealotry elsewhere. Nobody gives a shit about you or your Power Book G4.

    5. Re:Way to suck... by andrew_j_w · · Score: 1

      ...1 AMD to a direct lightning strike

      Well, that's what you get when you leave your caseless pc outside during a thunderstorm!

    6. Re:Way to suck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ooooohhhhh a powerbook.... ooohhh

    7. Re:Way to suck... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Why is Intel consistently a prime waste of power?

      Because up to the introduction of P4, and especially Prescott, AMD's processors were the prime waste of power?

    8. Re:Way to suck... by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      s/a mac/a laptop/

    9. Re:Way to suck... by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what you get when you leave your caseless pc outside during a thunderstorm!

      While propped up on a 200 foot grounded pole...

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    10. Re:Way to suck... by tomcio.s · · Score: 1

      please do not troll
      ???

      So you can boast about the Linksys, yet me mentioning Apple somehow is trolling.

      And to be fair, 2W is wicked power optimization. Hell, even 15W w/ the external drives is great.

      It's a device (much like my G4) that REPLACES the use of a power hungry P4 chip- let's face it any P4 system that can be replaced with either low power consumption devices saves us $$ and saves the environment.

      Well that _is_ a different architecture.
      Then let's talk transmeta or geodes (now AMDs). They achieve the same idea via engineering around issues in the same arch.

    11. Re:Way to suck... by tomcio.s · · Score: 1

      Not even close.

      An HP laptop w/ mobile chip still uses a 125W ps. That is a far cry (good) from ~450W power supply that a P4 desktop requires, but also way shy of the 45W mac needs.

    12. Re:Way to suck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, nice. My 1.7Ghz Pentium-M Thinkpad X31 has a 56W power supply. Big deal.

    13. Re:Way to suck... by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      The only Powerbook that uses a 45W is the 12" Powerbook. Everything else is 65W.

      Virtually every Dell comes standard with a 65W power supply.

      Most HP notebooks use a 65W power supply. The 135W power supply is only for a limited number of machines - zd7000 (P4), zv5000 (Athlon 64), zx5000 (P4) - all "desktop replacement" class machines with large (15"+) screens, none using a mobile processor.

      The IBMs vary a bit more. The X series uses a 56W, the R and T series use 72W, and the G runs at 120W (hardly surprising, uses desktop CPUs).

      Regardless of the actual wattage, making a power consumption comparison between a notebook and a brand new multi-core desktop processor is highly disingenuous.

    14. Re:Way to suck... by Wdomburg · · Score: 1

      Geodes are pretty much aimed only at embedded applications rather than desktops, and Transmeta is transitioning out of the hardware business.

      Popularity of Pentium-M as a desktop chip (30W, 14W for the low voltage chip) is on the rise, and their ULV chips (7W) are gaining popularity in the SBC market.

      Via's line of Eden and C3 processors are also worthy units, with worst case draw ranging from 2.5W to 14W. The upcoming "Luke" chip, which combines the CPU and north bridge on the same die, is currently running at 10W, but is expected to drop to 3.5W when they move to a 90nm process. And that's with an integrated graphics process and MPEG-2/4 acceleration.

  15. MS makes chips??? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    When did MS start a processor fab? I hate them as much as any Linux zealot, but the correct answer was INTEL. You may now go back to your regularly scheduled stupidity.

  16. Intel is INTC by tepples · · Score: 1

    Intel is INTC. Inter-Tel is INTL. It appears that Intel stock has been doing better than Inter-Tel stock.

  17. Quad-thread on Home Edition? by tepples · · Score: 1

    You're missing one thing: the Pentium D EE _does_ have hyper-threading on both cores (looks like a 4 CPU system to your OS).

    And what's the cheapest version of Monopoly x86 Desktop Operating System that supports all 4 virtual cores?

    1. Re:Quad-thread on Home Edition? by kcb93x · · Score: 2, Informative

      What home users would *buy* a dual-core HT'd system anyway? If they did, it would come from Best Buy or Dell, in which case the System Builder/OEM would install an appropriate OS.

      But, as detailed here:
      http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/mult icore.mspx

      Microsoft isn't charging per core, it's per processor, so this would count as "one processor."

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Quad-thread on Home Edition? by tepples · · Score: 1

      What home users would *buy* a dual-core HT'd system anyway?

      Hardcore PC gamers with a delusion that a PC owner's penis shrinks by 50 percent every 18 months. And then 18 months later, dual-core HT becomes standard equipment on midrange machines.

      If they did, it would come from Best Buy or Dell, in which case the System Builder/OEM would install an appropriate OS.

      But is there an appropriate Windows OS right now?

      Microsoft isn't charging per core, it's per processor

      True about the Windows EULA, but the software might not be up-to-date with the marketplace conditions surrounding the EULA; specifically, it might not be able to tell two cores in one package from two cores in two packages. How many iterations of Windows Update would be needed to get the kernel to recognize the extra core?

    3. Re:Quad-thread on Home Edition? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      And what's the cheapest version of Monopoly x86 Desktop Operating System that supports all 4 virtual cores?

      Windows XP Home.

  18. Not upgrading yet. by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm waiting for the 9xx series, because they support VT (Vanderpool) machine virtualization in hardware.

    Bye-bye reboots to switch between Windows and Linux.

    1. Re:Not upgrading yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Me too....

      For those not in the know, Xen plus Intel's Vanderpool (or AMD's Pacifica) will allow you to get VMWare-like capabilities at near native speeds included into every Linux kernel.

      http://www.answers.com/topic/xen
      http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel /2005-02/msg00651.html
      http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1055

    2. Re:Not upgrading yet. by kcb93x · · Score: 2

      I'll be looking at AMD's version - memory management done in hardware rather than software. Much better performance.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Not upgrading yet. by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Xen will not be included in any Linux kernel, but it's still free and included in the distros so the result is more or less the same.

    4. Re:Not upgrading yet. by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      Fedora Core 4 I know will support Xen. I believe Suse also announced the same thing.

      Unfortunately Xen doesn't yet support graphics (hopefully I'm mistaken).

  19. But you'll be able to buy Athlon 64 X2's first by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 2, Funny

    according to The Inquirer. They'll do the launch at Computex Taipei next week and be officially buyable on June 7th. Pentium D's (D'oh!) will take a bit longer to reach retail. Something about awaiting approval from the fire marshal, I think. Paper launches are blast furnace CPUs are a bad combination, methinks.

  20. It's the CPU not the chipset. by vasqzr · · Score: 1

    Pentium M on the desktop? Please?

    Read Tom's Hardware Guide for some more info.

    1. Re:It's the CPU not the chipset. by i41Overlord · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anand reviewed the Pentium M on the desktop and found that it couldn't compete with dedicated desktop chips. While it was energy efficient, it just didn't have the power to compete against less-energy efficient chips on the desktop.

      In other words, it's great for laptops, but a bit slow for a desktop.

    2. Re:It's the CPU not the chipset. by fnj · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Anand reviewed the Pentium M on the desktop and found that it couldn't compete with dedicated desktop chips.

      Anand is full of bull. Pentium M at 2.0 is about on a par performancewise with Pentium M at 3.4 or so, at a fraction of the power and with much quieter cooling fans. That includes gaming. It lags somewhat for scientific floating point crunching, but not hopelessly so.

    3. Re:It's the CPU not the chipset. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      Anand is full of bull. Pentium M at 2.0 is about on a par performancewise with Pentium M at 3.4 or so, at a fraction of the power and with much quieter cooling fans. That includes gaming. It lags somewhat for scientific floating point crunching, but not hopelessly so.

      Anand is not full of bull. Have you read his review? He's one of the most thorough and objective reviewers out there.

      Yes, the Pentium M uses less power and generates less heat, but that's not so important on the desktop.

      And as you pointed out, the floating point performance isn't that great. That's fine for using MS Word and browsing the internet, but for things like games and encoding video, the floating point performance is very important.

    4. Re:It's the CPU not the chipset. by Noehre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the actual data in that article produces a different conclusion. Anand just draws the wrong conclusions. As usual.

      The 2.0ghz Pentium M performs within 10% of a Pentium 4 3.6ghz in most tests. That isn't exactly not competing.

      Anand then saws that it can't compete because of price and lack of chipsets. Well, no shit. They produce mostly Pentium 4 chips for the desktop, not Pentium Ms. Ever heard of economies of scale? And you can bet that if Intel decides to switch to a Pentium M-based design for its next desktop chip, they will have a much more modern chipset to go with it.

    5. Re:It's the CPU not the chipset. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Yes, I read the crappy Anand review, and also several much better ones, but more than that I built a Pentium M desktop. Anand is full of bull. The Pentium M is perfect for desktop, perfect for gaming, and more than adequate for scientific number crunching.

      If you want the noise of a freight train and a gust of hot air in your room when you use the computer, and you don't mind wasting petroleum to run it, that's fine. I happen to care about those things. I guess it's why they have chocolate (ugh) and vanilla (yeah!).

    6. Re:It's the CPU not the chipset. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      And you can bet that if Intel decides to switch to a Pentium M-based design for its next desktop chip, they will have a much more modern chipset to go with it.

      Intel is going to use the Pentium-M core in an upcoming version of it's multicore processors.

    7. Re:It's the CPU not the chipset. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      you want the noise of a freight train and a gust of hot air in your room when you use the computer, and you don't mind wasting petroleum to run it, that's fine. I happen to care about those things. I guess it's why they have chocolate (ugh) and vanilla (yeah!)

      Talking bad about processors is one thing, but saying "ugh" to chocolate is just wrong. Next thing you'll probably say is that you're a goddamned communist and want to destroy democracy!

    8. Re:It's the CPU not the chipset. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Pssst, bourgeois oppressor, Lindt makes these great white "chocolate" candy bars ...

  21. review site pimpage by !splut · · Score: 2

    While the poster successfully pimps hothardware.com, let us even things out by linking to some other reivews.

    Anandtech:
    P4 670
    PD 820
    Tom's Hardware on the PD 840s and such

    --
    The angel in the oatmeal.
  22. The editors are just imitating Intel by Mitchell+Mebane · · Score: 1

    In the spirit of efficiency, they decided it would be better to pack the dupe into the original post instead of placing it in a seperate post. ;-)

    --

    The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
    --Aristotle
    1. Re:The editors are just imitating Intel by j-cloth · · Score: 1

      A Dual core dupe?

    2. Re:The editors are just imitating Intel by chrish · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clearly a threading error, they didn't protect the post with a mutex.

      --
      - chrish
  23. Re:Sorry pal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what does this have to do with new Intel processors?

  24. AMD best bang for buck, supports Free BIOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Personally, I think Intel has pretty much lost control of the enthusiast segment. The majority of enthusiasts look for value and performance when it comes to hardware and quite honestly, the Intel platform definitely doesn't have any "value" attached to it.

    From the performance numbers published on numerous online publications, Intel has lost the Dual-Core War. The only competing factor that Intel has right now is the possibility to keep their prices low enough to attract those with strict budget. And before I end this column, I would like to forward a special note to Intel: Please make sure your next generation of processors isn't as atrocious as the Prescott, as AMD is making you look pretty silly right now.


    Agreed. AMD cpus are the superior choice. They provide a far better bang for the buck than Intel. Another reason to choose AMD over Intel is because AMD is providing valuable info to Free BIOS hackers, info that Intel is refusing to provide. One of the most important struggles that is coming upon the Free Software community now is whether we will be able to get a working Free BIOS or not. Whether the entertainment cartel will succeed in locking up our computers and turning them ihnto entertainment devices instead, via Digital Restrictions Management with the help of Intel, IBM and Microsoft through "trusted computing".

    AMD has decided to help Free Software hackers and the Free BIOS effort. Intel has decided against the Free Software community. Please decide carefully which company to support with your money, whether cpus, network cards, or other hardware Intel or other anti-Free BIOS companies manufacture or distribute. There are alternatives by supportive companies in most every piece of hardware. Unless/until Intel decides to support Free BIOS efforts, avoid buying Intel under any circumstance.

    Unless Intel changes their position on Free BIOS, any money spent on Intel hardware is money spent against the Free Software community, and against all computer owners because of DRM and a lack of Free BIOS which would prevent lock-in. This is as important a fight as the broadcast flag, more so if you consider the importance of computing even in future video/audio delivery.

    From the mouth of the father of Free Software:

    The most uncooperative company is Intel, which has started a sham "open source" BIOS project. The software consists of all the unimportant parts of a BIOS, without the hard parts. It won't run, and doesn't bring us any closer to a BIOS that does run. It is just a distraction. By contrast, AMD cooperates pretty well.

    You can help our campaign by buying AMD CPU chips and not buying Intel, and by publishing statements about what you are doing. Likewise, buy motherboards that support Free BIOS. See http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/supportlinuxbios.html for info on which companies cooperate and which models and motherboards are supported.

    When you do this, tell your friends and your coworkers. And please tell us, too -- please write to bios@gnu.org to tell us that you have chosen what to buy because it supports a free BIOS.
    1. Re:AMD best bang for buck, supports Free BIOS by rpozz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your rant about freedom is fundamentally flawed considering that like Intel, AMD is also a member of the Trusted Computing Group.

      https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/about/member s/

    2. Re:AMD best bang for buck, supports Free BIOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No organization is 100% free. Including GNU.org if you count the problem with the GPL and documentation.

      By your measure, we can't take a stand in favor of a Free BIOS because it parallels the situation with the GPL and documentation, a problem that even Debian has been "discussing" in the past and still crops up from time to time.

      I don't buy your premise. According to the person putting in the major effort, or joining others in the major effort toward getting to a Free BIOS, Intel not only has joined IBM, HP and others in refusing to cooperate, but has instituted a program to mislead others on real Free BIOS efforts by putting up a sham Free BIOS effort.

      When all the noise started with Trusted Computing, AMD would have been dumb to exclude itself from the working group that would hold the most influence over the implementation. Your premise is that AMD should have shot itself in the foot when Trusted Computing reared its head. As AMD has shown in the past (Unique Identifier in the CPU that hurt Intel a bit for a short period of time), it follows or joins when the 900 lb gorilla moves in a new direction. If trusted computing becomes the industry standard, AMD is making sure that it is not shut out. And perhaps making sure it is in a position to effect change.

      All this has nothing to do with the fact that AMD is somewhat cooperating with Free BIOS efforts, and Intel is not only refusing to cooperate, but throwing up roadblocks and attempting to stop Free BIOS efforts by promoting a sham effort.

    3. Re:AMD best bang for buck, supports Free BIOS by rpozz · · Score: 1

      My premise is that while AMD supports the Free BIOS project, they are no better than Intel in that they are also only out to make money. Your original post seemed to suggest that they were supporting freedom and were not supporting TCPA, when that is quite obviously not the case.

      It makes sense for AMD to support something like Free BIOS project given that a large number of their users are 'enthusiasts', however don't think that it is for any other reason than financial gain. As soon as it makes business sense, they will stop 'helping' straight away.

    4. Re:AMD best bang for buck, supports Free BIOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My premise is that while AMD supports the Free BIOS project, they are no better than Intel in that they are also only out to make money.

      So you have a problem with companies making money, you're one of those anti-globalization individuals?

      Or you believe that because AMD is a for-profit company, they can't be credited with helping Free Software, because they have a profit motive?

      Well, surprise, it is the requirement of every for-profit private company in the US to earn revenue for its shareholders. While some private companies may have alternate goals in their mission statements, they generally are non-profits (501(c)(3)) corps instead of for-profit companies. I and most other slashdot readers are under no illusion that AMD is a for-profit company and that AMD is participating with RMS toward a Free BIOS simply because it makes business sense. Nor are we under the illusion that AMD would stop participating with the effort when it stopped making business sense. The whole point of RMS's statements in this regard is to let "your friends know, your coworkers know, AMD know, us know" and even provides an email address for notifying him that you have decided to join the effort.

      By joining the effort, individuals are letting AMD know, reinforcing the idea that it makes business sense to support the Free BIOS efforts. That's the whole point. Using that as an excuse to state that my post is "fundamentally flawed" because AMD is behind Free BIOS and because AMD is also one of the key members (one of the top 5 cpu manufacturers would qualify them as key in my estimation) of the organization that can effect change in trusted computing is nonsense.

      The premise of my original post is valid and stands. AMD is supporting (whether somewhat or fully, enough for RMS to note it) a Free BIOS. Intel is actively trying to stop the same effort. You can choose to help in this effort or ignore the effort. The choice is yours, and that of every slashdot reader. I'm simply pointing out/reminding slashdot readers that besides having the best bang for the buck, AMD is also currently helping the Free BIOS effort by providing valuable info to RMS. Whether you choose to spend your dollars wisely or not is up to you.
  25. Re:Sorry pal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what you're talking about... on my mac, I can clone the OS to an external disk (or my ipod) and boot to it on any computer I use.

    Not only do i use my ipod as a portable music player, but I bring my entire computer with me everywhere I go and with a simple reboot of the lab computer, its like I'm sitting at my desk, in front of my computer.

    Now with Windows, that just can't be done.

  26. MIPS per Watt or MFLOPS per Watt by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's the real performance limitation in data centres as we move to smaller, cheaper machines. Raw MHz horsepower is becoming irrelevant for most applications except games and certain forms of data processing.

    Power supply and air conditioning are expensive. Transmeta are substantially better than AMD or Intel, which means you can install far more machines at a higher densities than you can with Intel or AMD.

    Course, if you want better still then you need to move away from ix86 to ARM, MIPS, PowerPC etc.

    --
    Deleted
  27. Early Story on Intel Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here, on Techweb.

  28. But what color noise? White? Pink? Mauve? Plaid? by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    Hiw, we're Intel, and we make random, new products because we think they're cool. We hope you like them, too. Maybe one day we'll get around to asking you what you want.

    Not that Intel is alone in this, but they are supposed to be a market leader. Leading by random acts of management doesn't do much for me, though.

    As Scot Adams says, "Don't step in the management!"

  29. Silly Article by stevev007 · · Score: 1

    This was a silly article. Where is the intrigue, imagination, or way to argue terribly with our slashdot neighbors.

    Or maybe it's just an off day for me ;-)

  30. Absolutely... by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1
    I just built my first system a week ago, and it is running smoothly. So well in fact, that a colleague wants me to build their next system (which will basically be built on the latest and greatest). Given that the first system I built is mainly for office/spreadsheet/web use only I just picked a low cost 3.4 GHZ Prescott.

    However, while doing the due diligence for the new system, I saw the bazillion and one different processor names. GEEZ.

    1. Re:Absolutely... by blackicye · · Score: 1

      "I just picked a low cost 3.4 GHZ Prescott."

      Gaaah! you consider a 3.4Ghz Prescott low cost?!
      thats a $269.00 processor..you could have gotten a 3.2 Prescott for $187.00

      Or better yet an Athlon64 3200+ for $146.00 - $169.00

      (Pricewatch.com)
      $269 Pentium 4 3.4GHz Prescott
      $249 Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800MHz
      $187 Pentium 4 3.2GHz Prescott
      $187 Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800MHz

      $250 Athlon 64 3500 90nm 939pin
      $272 Athlon 64 3500 512K 90nm Rev E
      $172 Athlon 64 3400
      $146 Athlon 64 3200
      $169 Athlon 64 3200 939pin
      $169 Athlon 64 3200 90nm 939pin
      $199 Athlon 64 3200 512K 90nm Rev E

  31. Re:Sorry pal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was supposed to be in reply to the "Mad as hell, switching to Mac".

  32. HOT by jgold03 · · Score: 1

    TWO prescotts on ONE chip. where can i purchase an industrial cooler?

    1. Re:HOT by Merithiel · · Score: 1

      I simply fail to understand how normal people without watercooling and such are keeping their new Intel chips cool. I personally own a 530J (3.0 Ghz w/ HT) and this thing runs around 50-55 Celsius at idle depending on the room and motherboard temps and can spike past 70 Celsius when it is under a load with the stock heatsink/fan. It runs so hot, that if it is under a load, it may trigger throttling, which of course reduces performance by around a half in order to keep the heat down, which sucks because you may as well be using a lower clock chip with more stability and easier cooling. I can't imagine how hot the new 6xx one gets. In any case, more cooling is bad because it takes more electricity. More electricity used by chip and by cooling == higher bills. Very bad. Is this related to the voltage used as opposed to that of AMD? I am confounded.

  33. Can anyone point me to a map? by twigles · · Score: 1

    I don't regularly follow chips, so when I start down the road to buying a new system I have to spend two weeks researching. Does anyone happen to know where to find a routinely-updated matrix of what chipsets/chips are out there and their differences? The naming conventions alone ....

    1. Re:Can anyone point me to a map? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this?

  34. 3 times a regular light bulb, not half. by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Don't tell me you are one of those fools stuck using (and replacing) those old energy wasters. A regular light bulb is now 13 watts.

    BTW, even the old energy wasters were normally 60 watts, not 90, so your half figure is still high.

    1. Re:3 times a regular light bulb, not half. by tomcio.s · · Score: 1

      Where I come from regular bulb is either 100W, or 60W (52W sometimes). They have 'energy efficent' bulbs - probably the 13W you are talking about, but they still run around 10x the cost of a regular bulb. I use them exclusively in my house, but I don't know many others that do.

      So the 13W is not a regular bulb by any standards.

    2. Re:3 times a regular light bulb, not half. by bluGill · · Score: 1

      This is a subtile hint: start changing your and everyone else's thinking. People buy the old bulbs out of habit. Start thinking of the energy efficient bulbs as standard, and use the old energy wasters only where you must.

      Compact fluorescent is no longer 10x the cost of a old bulb, though they are more expensive by several times. They last 10x as long though.

    3. Re:3 times a regular light bulb, not half. by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      Compact fluorescent is no longer 10x the cost of a old bulb, though they are more expensive by several times. They last 10x as long though.

      My own experience with them does not support your or the makers claims of extended longevity. Every single one of them I have ever installed has failed 9X sooner or greater than it was supposed to. In fact, many of them failed before the regular bulbs on the same switch did. I wanted this to work, I had hoped for energy savings to pay for the bulb, but what I got was a light with 10X higher cost and 75% of the life of the existing technology. I felt extremely ripped off.

      I sincerely hope these have improved, but I'm not willing to make another investment with them.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    4. Re:3 times a regular light bulb, not half. by syousef · · Score: 1

      Compact fluorescent is no longer 10x the cost of a old bulb, though they are more expensive by several times. They last 10x as long though.

      That most certainly has not been my experience. I'd say I'm averaging 2-3 times as long, with some dying in roughly the same amount of time as the old incandescents.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  35. Best ironic AC post ever! MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh! for fuck's sakes!

  36. Re:Sorry pal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure it can.. What are you smoking?

  37. Re:w00+ by rhesuspieces00 · · Score: 1

    what fuckhead modded me down for that?

  38. MOD PARENT DOWN -1 IDIOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FFS!

  39. Re:w00+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't imagine why it was modded down. It was a very interesting and thought-provoking post.

  40. No ECC support. by ChickenFan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only person who wants ECC in mainstream desktop chipsets?

    I kit out all my new machines with at least 1GB RAM and I want long uptimes on all my Windows, Linux and FreeBSD machines. I really want ECC RAM, but it seems that only Intel's server chipsets support it.

    It's built-in to the Athlon64 memory controller, right?

    You'd think Intel would be more on the ball.

    Of course, finding even an Athlon64 motherboard that actually ENABLED ECC is a challenge.

    1. Re:No ECC support. by fnj · · Score: 1

      You are not the only one.

    2. Re:No ECC support. by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      Am I the only person who wants ECC in mainstream desktop chipsets?

      No, but I think there are very few of us. I think most of the people who want ECC RAM for their desktop PCs want it for their "workstations," not "mainstream desktops." Heck, even some "workstations" don't support ECC RAM.

      I kit out all my new machines with at least 1GB RAM and I want long uptimes on all my Windows, Linux and FreeBSD machines. I really want ECC RAM, but it seems that only Intel's server chipsets support it.

      Not only Intel's server chipsets. Intel's 955X chipset supports ECC RAM and it's a "performance desktop/workstation" chipset. Unfortunately, 955X motherboards seem to carry about a $100 price premium over their "mainstream" counterparts. The ASUS P5WD2 Premium supports ECC RAM and costs $230 at Chiefvalue (Newegg's sister site). You can even put a lowly Celeron D in it.

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    3. Re:No ECC support. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Am I the only person who wants ECC in mainstream desktop chipsets?

      No, but the other four have moved on.

  41. Re:w00+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did!

    Oh wait, no I didn't.

  42. Intel chips cheaper? by fanfriggintastic · · Score: 1

    Despite all the Intel-trashing above, the really interesting part of the Pentium D (dual cores) is the price:

    Intel's Pentium D Price Half That Of AMD's X2
    --
    This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is a tribute.
    1. Re:Intel chips cheaper? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      they compare a 2.8 GHz intel chip with a 2.2-GHz 4200+ AMD, which is undoubtable faster. That's not really a fair comparison. On top of that the AMD dual cores share memory in a more effient manner that Intel. Also, the AMD runs much cooler, so basically you are paying more for an all round better chip.

  43. Pentium M remarkably cool by bterzic · · Score: 1
    That's an interesting point; I was completely unaware of this, but Pentium M processors have rather impressive performance. They have always been marketed as The Mobile Solution, in their Centrino package, but I could never get a handle on how I should compare these processors to say plain old Pentium 4.

    Turns out they do rather well. I have a Pentium 4 3Ghz machine with HyperThreading support at work, a standard Dell machine. By now a year old or so. Along comes a colleague with a _laptop_ with a Pentium M 2.13Ghz processor. I install part of our software on it and then notice that a particulary processor bound piece of it runs 3 times faster than on my machine! This thing solidly beats my desktop development machine. Ouch.

    Some digging around on the web uncovered that these babies are indeed competitive with a 3.4Ghz (even 3.6Ghz?) P4 AND they suck a lot less power.

    I can not understand why they don't market these things more, they look like a great desktop architecture.

  44. *sigh* by Eugene · · Score: 1

    After reading the article, I am not sure why I even bother going to hothardware anymore.. TFA sounds just like your regular Intel's marketing speech. I'm not sure why /. keep posting article about this website.. there are many other good hardware review sites with good articles. but it seems like this one get chosen much more frequently. I'm also very wary that when the submitter of the article is the one that operate the website (you always wonder if there's a *motive* behind the article submission)

  45. Hm. by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, all "silicon inside" jokes notwithstanding, does that mean that a dual-cpu system would be a Pentium Double D?

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
  46. Re:w00+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    GNAA!

    !

  47. More gobbledygook naming by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    Great -- more crowding of an already-confusing product line.