Slashdot Mirror
New Pentium Chipsets Launched
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."
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
...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."
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)???
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?
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....
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.
...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!
Yeah, except Intel is INTC, for Intel Corporation. Intel vs. AMD log scale.
-theGreater.
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
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.
Intel is INTC. Inter-Tel is INTL. It appears that Intel stock has been doing better than Inter-Tel stock.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Pentium M on the desktop? Please?
Read Tom's Hardware Guide for some more info.
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.
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
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
Wow. WTF happened to AMD in early January?
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
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!"
Your rant about freedom is fundamentally flawed considering that like Intel, AMD is also a member of the Trusted Computing Group.
r s/
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/about/membe
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
However, while doing the due diligence for the new system, I saw the bazillion and one different processor names. GEEZ.
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.
TWO prescotts on ONE chip. where can i purchase an industrial cooler?
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 ....
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.
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!
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.
what fuckhead modded me down for that?
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.
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.
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 X2This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is a tribute.
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.
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)
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
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.
Great -- more crowding of an already-confusing product line.