Slashdot Mirror
1100 MHz 'Athlon Killer' Due From Intel in December
jeffstar writes "According to this article at The Register, Intel has an 1100 MHz 'Athlon Killer' IA32 chip coming out. Yum, that's the kind of sauce I like." Sounds great. If it comes out - and performs - as promised.
Nonsense. They are, as every chip manufacturer is, pushing as hard as they possibly can to advance the state of the art. If a G4 stomps all over a PIII in certain applications, it does not mean that Intel has secret PIIIIs or PIIIIIIIs sitting in dark closets waiting to produce, it means that Intel is no longer producing the highest performance chips. What with the Athlon work being done, it is possible that Intel is now the weakest of major chip manufacturers now that Cyrixes and WinChips aren't exactly a factor.
Not only could they not 'release this processor at any time', they still haven't released it, and there is every reason to believe they will not release it in the manner they suggest either. It will take longer or be slower. They don't have stuff waiting offstage- this is _the_ premier 'paranoid corporation', the last one in the world that would be sitting around going "Ho hum, we got this chip here, seems to go real fast. Maybe we should make some of them and sell them, or gosh, why don't we just ignore the competition and tack it up on the wall for a while instead? It's real purty-like."
Uh-uh. Sorry. There is no Intel Fairy. That mystical creature seems to be hanging around Motorola, nVidia and AMD these days...
Do you realize how much 8 megs of SRAM would cost? SRAM is the whole reason that many processors (UltraSPARC, Pentium Pro/Xeon, ect.) cost so much damned money. If AMD had an 8 meg Athlon it would cost more than 2 or 3 Xeons.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
If you choose to believe Intel - go right ahead. Where's coppermine? Wasn't that supposed to ship Oct 17?
(disclaimer: "coppermine" in no way refers to copper wiring technology. Intel still uses aluminum. Apparently, they know better than the rest of the chip industry)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Point 1: I work at Intel. If people even messed around circulating something with "Athlon Killer" written on it they would probably be fired if it ever got near a manager. Point 2: Rambus was not Intel technology, it was Rambus technology....
One fellow ("ntsucks") said, "Either Intel has a stunning ability to improve its engineering process and timelines or they were withholding better chips until we had all purchase their current chip du jour"...
:)
To which I would have to add, "...or they are talking absolute crap".
Come on, people, get real. You're being manipulated. It's crazy to take some company's random promises as accomplished facts. You sure wouldn't do it for Apple, why pretend that Intel has a crystal ball? The intelligence you're insulting is strictly your own, 'cause other people are reading your comments and going "uh-HUH. Riiiiight. Aren't people credulous? Damn."
Seriously. Take a few deep breaths.
While that may be it's on-chip frequency that isn't always its emission frequency. If it were it's emission frequency there would be no way in hell the FCC would let it be sold in the US.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
The Register didn't have any sources. True... but the Register has been right on a lot of things in the past. It's like Matt Drudge: take it with a grain of salt, but it is quite likely correct. --- "Progress is the God of the Machine"
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
Essentially, every time Intel starts with a new chip, they back their production off to the largest die size they can fit and start making chips slower than the end result will be. Then the release the chips in increasing speed. They never introduce a new chip and make it in many speeds, as that would not make them as much money. I stopped bying the in between chips. I wait till the next iteration comes out, then I buy the fastest of the older chip. I won't be bullied by some corporation! I will not be briefed, filed, stamped, indexed! ;)
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
The anagrams never lie! I particularly like that one :)
From what I understand - Rev 2 will be copper, .18, support smp, 1 ghz and will have added to the chip - so it would be like a K7-2 =). So if they are compairing to the Rev 1, then this might be correct, but if they are going up against Rev 2 - then this is most likely FUD.
-Ellis of Geeknews.com
It could/would be a big issue for the DOJ for two reasons.
First, their is a big difference in a market leader making a statement and a market underdog making a statement. For Sherman antitrust violation: a company must be a monopoly and engage in anti-competitive behavior. Adobe does not have a monopoly in the relevant market, but Intel likely does. While their is no bright line distinction, companies have been found to be a monopoly with 60% market share. Calling the chip an "Athlon Killer" may not be per se anticompetitive; however, it would make convincing evidence that Intel's intent was to ddestroy competition. Amercican Aluminunen was found to violate Sherman anti-trust law merely for increasing their production facilities.
Also, if Intel is under a specific consent decree to not use such language, violation of that decree could have legal reprecussions. The Register refers to an agreement that Intel has with the DOJ; however, I do not know the specifics.
This is exactly what intel want you to think.
Microsoft use similar tactics - spread rumours about some wonderful product you're releasing in the near future, that beats your competitor's. Foolish consumers wait for your product, while you slowly let the release date slip, and slip, as all the while your competitor is losing business.
This is simply absurd. A lot of people don't realize it, but even once a processor design is finished it doesn't mean it will be in full production. The shortest time there has ever been between a processor tapping out and going into production is 11 months. It normally takes longer than that. The Willamette has not tapped out yet. The probability of it being out this year at all, let alone at 1100 mhz, is simply 0.
I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
There is nothing wrong with competing by producing a better product. It is against the law AND contrary to a free market to establish a monopoly and engage in anti-competitive conduct. If Intel's goal is to drive AMD out of business, it is both a civil and criminal violation of the law.
If you read a print ad you'll see those benchmarks where done using twice as much cache that was also running faster which does increase the benchmark numbers. If Motorola used these in production, it would be great, but they're have enough troubles getting above 500 Mhz.
The last I heard Intel doesn't plan copper until they switch to a .13 micron process.
If you extend the int and fpu scores on an Athlon to 1100 Mhz it will actually be faster than this Athlon killer. Besides Willamette was suppose to come out at the end of 1998, they're way behind.
Am I the only one who's having flashbacks to that anti-drug commercial from the 80s?
Just for the record, it wasn't an anti-drug ad. It was an anti-leaving-your-dog-in-the-car ad. The ad went:
Announcer: "Hot enough to fry an egg?"
(view of egg frying on a car hood)
Announcer: "Hot enough to fry a dog's brain..."
(view of sad-faced dog with tongue hanging out)
Announcer: "[stern admonition about leaving the dog in the car]"
Pretty disturbing, really. Poor little dog.
1. Megahertz is a dead end
Allready processors are too fast for the rest of the system. This has been alleviated for the last decade by an increasingly complicated system of caches and chipsets. At worst you'll go throgh 3 levels of processor cache, main memory, disk cache and finally disk, for a total of 6 levels of memory. This could go on indefinately but will have decreasing returns, unless the architecture of the computer can catch up to be generally faster. SGI/Cray has done this well.
2. Megahertz == Marketing
Ever since the P2, it's been terribly obvious that Intel just develops to satisfy what the majority clueless consumer wants- a higher megahertz number. The P2 made it blatant by being inferior to the older P's when run at equal megahertz. The only benefit was that it would run at higher megahertz.
Efficiency
No x86 has been really efficent- in many ways. More gates, more watts, more space, more heat. The unfortunate predominance of x86 is leading to space robots being designed with pentiums because Intel can push through to get the chips certified. When multiprocessing becomes a necessity as clock speeds dead end, who will be able to afford the power and large case for cooling that 8-64 P[3-5]'s will need? It's absurd.
Start Running Better Polls
Here are some of the things I'd do with a 1100MHz CPU:
SETI@Home
calculating digits of PI
searching for Mersenne primes
...any of a number of other neat distributed computing projects.
But most of all, can you imagine how fast a version of POV-Ray (http://www.povray.org) optimized for this chip would run?
It's a dream come true for us glass sphere and checkerboard folks!
Rick
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
or is that Itanium?
JC (at http://www.jc-news.com/pc/) made a good point on his page the other day about this, I'll quote it here...
"Register put up a very interesting bit here. It's about a surprise Willamette introduction in February of 2000 ("paper launch" in December, chip actually appearing two months later, according to the article). I passed this by despite the fact that a good ten percent (slight exaggeration, but you get the idea) of y'all emailed the URL to me. It just doesn't seem likely, considering the design, to our collective knowledge, hasn't taped out (and if it did, it was likely recently). Takes about a year from tapeout to production. You do the math. However, as I said, I wasn't going to put up a link to it, but I just realized something (thanks to Jocelyn Fournier, I think, for nudging me in this direction). The specint95 score of the P7-1100 shown at that register article is utter crap. If it is really the case that it is that slow, then Willamette will be pretty pathetic for servers, especially if you consider the 1MB on-die L2. The quoted score is 43 at 1100MHz. By my guesstimations (with the help of idiot from Ace's), an Athlon at 1100MHz would score between 50 and 55 (perhaps subtract a point or two for dropoff from linearity), depending on whether or not you optimize for prefetching. This means that Athlon pastes these alleged Willamette scores in specint. Actually, from the look of it, given Intel's Coppermine presentation at PF, it seems that Coppermine is also faster than Willamette in specint. I didn't check at all with the Winstone score, but as you can see, if Register's data is true, then it isn't really great news for Intel. I don't know about you, but I'll prefer to believe the more reasonable assumption that Willamette will come out in 2000 Q4 (or 2001 Q1) but will be totally rippin' in performance."
And you still only get 40fps in MK (with sound)
~ I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere.
I may get an Athlon sooner!
Let the price wars heat up!
Don't you just love compition!
Wrong again! HE said 640K! hehehe :)
*Sigh* Not only is satire gone, but a search party was sent out and found only its distant cousins, ignorance and misconception.
When I was able to do my own spam-armoring, you got a chance to email me. Now you can only hope I see your reply.
it's about time there's some real competition in the CPU market. AMD is really forcing Intel to get newer chips out much faster.
-
This Post has been brought to you by the letter "E".
0.18 micron does not refer to the wafer size. It is related to transistor size. The smaller the circuitry, the faster it can go for less power. If you want to bump up the speed, you have to raise the voltage, which allows you to go for high clocks and mo heat dissipation. I think the equation is somewhere is Hennesy and Patterson's book.
Hasdi
And to think I just got my 450..
Do ye it'll be better than the dual overclocked celerons running at the same speed?
------
poing!
If you're gonna troll, at least make up your mind on which conspiracy to blame it on! :) Or do you mean its Wintel combined? hehe
This processor, if it actually existed, would be much faster than Merced (if it actually existed), Intel's first cut of IA64. Or did you think because Merced was 64-bit it would be faster than any 32-bit processor?
This kind of RAM uses a narrower connection to the memory controller (typically 16bit) than tradionnal SDRAM (typically 64bit), but transmits data at a higher frequency (350MHz here), on both edges of the clock (hence PC700).
Though you get higher memory bandwidth (1.4GB/s here, versus 0.8GB/s for PC100 SDRAM) you must be aware that the memory latency is worse.
See Rambus, Inc's web site
1100 MHz? That's either 100MHz FSB at 11x multiplier, or some really strange FSB speed. You can't get to 1100MHz with 133MHz FSB (it's an 8.25x multiplier). I think someone at the Register is just having fun...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I've seen a fair few comments about the Register being biases against Intel and MS, but I've got to say that as far as I'm concerned their coverage of future chips and stuff is pretty accurate. If they say it's doubtful, I'd tend to believe them.
But can intel pull that off? Their 600's are really OC'd 550's, running 0.05 (or is it 0.5?) V higher than normal :) and unstable as Taiwan from what I've heard :)
Needless to say more
This is because you can put the same processor into a well designed system, that provides adequate airflow that keeps a processor well within operating specifications. NOTE: These are typically not created with "off the shelf" parts. They consist of design work by a (or more likely a team of) thermal design engineer(s).
OR
You can install that same processor into a off the shelf case that provides piss-poor airflow, not because the case has no ventalation, but because the moron that put the motherboard (I still call them planarboards when I think to myself) in the case routed his ribbon cables whever they lie. The person that uses this system will experience heat related problems. And being equally unqualified to diagnose the problem, blames the chip! "Dammit! This chip is a space heater!" "No, the runs fine, the system was designed by a moron that thinks that the ability to use a screwdriver makes him a design engineer!"
(sorry for the rant)
If you purcahse a commercial name brand system, they will tell you the maximum ambient room temperature that they warrant the system to operate in.
As happens way too often, /. managed to lose my first response to this, while giving every appearance of having accepted it. *sigh*
;-) Basically I haven't seen much in subsequent processor designs to counter the excellent arguments H&P put forth in their book regarding How It Should Be Done.
>What you describe is essentially the initial MIPS project started by Hennessy at Stanford.
I'm glad someone noticed.
>Most delay slots are never filled
Obviously, this can vary a lot, but according to the studies I've seen a single delay slot can be filled with something besides a NOP >80% of the time for most kinds of code. The important thing is that a NOP is no worse than a stall, except that the stall usually has a lot more wasted circuitry associated with it.
Yes, dynamic scheduling can do "better" than static, but at what cost? Does the improvement make up for the additional complexity and limitation of clock rate? More importantly, are there other things that can be done with that real estate which provide even better bang for the buck?
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Dream on. NT will someday be 64 bit like Win95 is 32 bit.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
No problem. a 333-MHz P2 chip runs on a 66-MHz bus with a multiplier of 5X. The 500-MHz P3 runs at a 100-MHz bus with a multiplier of 5X. If you place the 500-MHz chip into your LX (please don't be a FX) chipset board, it will run at 66-MHz, with a multiplier of 5X giving you... 333-MHz!!! (Of course, you need to make sure that your BIOS can handle the new chip. If the BIOS don't know how to load all the latest BIOS level workarounds for the chip, you are looking at serious instability)
Now, you will be paying the 500-MHz price for a 333-MHz performance, but you DO get your wish.
-- I could use some karma, please moderate me up 8-)
- WPI * IPC * CPS
Classical CISC architectures tried to maximize WPI, and this limited the other two factors. RISC was mostly intended to maximize CPS, intentionally sacrificing WPI to do so. Pipelining, superscalarity, and branch prediction are all targeted toward increasing IPC in different ways. VLIW and EPIC improve either WPI or ICP depending on how you look at it.WPI = Work Per Instruction
IPC = Instructions Per Cycle
CPS = Cycles Per Second
All of these approaches to improving performance tend to have characteristic challenges associated with them. In the current case, you have to deal with the fact that massively superscalar architectures require an instruction stream that keeps all the functional units fed. That means that compilers have to try to resolve data dependencies and competition for functional units, either of which would cause a stall, and also deal with branches which cause bubbles in almost any architecture. It's a very tough problem, which is why chip designers turn to second-order tricks such as speculative/predicated execution and VLIW/EPIC.
Personally, I think that's all a trap because it causes chip complexity to skyrocket and undermines the very idea of RISC. If I were designing a chip, my goal would be to crank the frequency sky-high and make the compiler (or a translating front-end processor such as Transmeta is rumored to be working on) do most of the worrying about how instructions get scheduled. In particular, I'd go for:
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Don't forget that it's much easier to test your home built nuclear weapons on a fast computer than doing underground detonations in your basement.
I don't think you need a 1GHz chip for word :)
processing. I do think you need it to solve
large eigenvalue problems and run atmospheric
model simulations. A PC/Linux combo is an
excellent alternative to expensive workstations in
scientific research. It's ironic that these
super-fast chips are really overkill for 99.9%
of the population, but for the 0.1% of us who do
serious number crunching it's a great deal!
The Register article you link to is very significant, but perhaps not in the way you intended. On 15/04/99 the Register reported the following:
Intel is twisting the knife by showing OEMs performance predictions stretching out until late 2000 featuring a Willamette IA32 processor rated at 1100MHz competing with an AMD K7 at a paltry 666MHz.
No specific figures are quoted, but graphs pitting the rival chips against each other show the Willamette 1110MHz scoring around the 50 mark in Winstone98 against the K7 666MHz at 35. On SpecInt95, Willamette reaches 43 against the AMD part's 20.
The same graph shows a 666MHz Coppermine appearing in late 1999, a clear 12 months before AMD is expected to reach the magical figure.
And perhaps more worryingly for AMD, a Coppermine-based Celeron appears in early 2000 (probably at 500MHz and 100MHz FSB with Streaming SIMD) which is predicted to perform almost on a par with the K7 666 reckoned to be due 6-9 months later.
Rather than demonstrating inaccurate reporting by the Register, this report simply presents Intel's OWN predictions.
It appears from this that Intel was expecting AMD to be unable to supply 666 MHz Athlons until Q4/2000! As you can see, Intel's current production is right on target, but their predictions for AMD were way off!. AMD is over a YEAR ahead of *Intel's* schedule. There's no way for them to adjust for this misprediction quickly, so expect Intel to lose a *lot* of market share to AMD over the next year.
"If the heat sink fails" i always thought that heatsinks operated on prity basic laws of physics :P
so i dont see how they can fail
Those People Who Are Crazy Enough To Think That They Can Change The World Probable Can
This has been said now for at least 5 years.
As of yet, none of the soothsayers that said this, have been correct. Who knows, maybe you are the first!
No, this does not qualify you to claim "first post" if you are right! 8-)
Well, that probably depends, I really liked having my p75 run run at 1.5 bus speed (on an 83mhz bus :), but Athlons have much more parralelism, and multiple exicution paths, etc. I'd be willing to be they would be more efficent.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
... but Intel would not let HP release it until it had ia32 reverse compatibility. So now we have to wait an extra two years!!
Why? You can't just recompile closed source. More reason for OSS I say. This is a very good example of the Wintel monopoly holding back technology progress.
Also, had intel not designed the x86 architecture in 3 months (normally takes over a year.. but they had to get it out quick) it might not be taking so long for Merced to appear.
sigh.
Hey! I was running a 4x86/133 AMD system, and overclocked it to 160 fine!!! (Gotta love motherboards with 40MHz as an option)
:)
If I ever get a peltier I might try for 200 (50MHz)... It would boot but lock up pretty fast, too much heat (had to crank the voltage a bit more)
If only the MoBo wasn't $200.. doh!
The technology that ends up in your PC, that is Direct Rambus, was in part developped by Intel.
Two quotes from the Rambus web site :
Developed in conjunction with Intel Corporation, Direct Rambus technology has the performance/cost ratio demanded by the high clock-rate microprocessors used in mainstream PCs starting to ship in 1999.
December 1996: Rambus and Intel disclose agreement to evolve Rambus DRAMs to meet requirements of PC main memory
Predication works on a similar assumption. When hard-to-predict branches are predicated, the hardware wastes some time executing useless instructions, but avoids the mispredict overhead of refetch and/or reexecution of everything after the branch.
--
Is anyone else getting tired of non-compatible cpu sockets? Ok.. so I can see AMD using the slot A tech to utilize the alpha tech.... I can see Intel's switch to the slot 1 (because they hold the patent) But how many different freakin sockets does Intel have to bring out? Please... this is getting ridiculous. Socket 7 was great.. (had some drawbacks.. yes) Socket 370 or whatever that non-slot celeron is Slot 1 Slot 2 and now a NEW socket design from Intel? Gah!
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
man i got the rare chance at where i work to show off an amd k7 for a tech expo and i am telling you the thing was fast but whats up with the dawm thing i thought it was suppose to be stable man if it was then i hope amd gets this new chip right because other wise i am sticking with my reliable p3 500 at least i don't need to restart it every 15 minutes when it playing unreal (about every hour) i have to agree when it's not over heating its a very fast chip.
Excellent point - nothing to add...
..it is nowhere near the Pentium III "killer" on the server, until they realease that damn MP motherboards.
I was at the Palo Alto Fry's the other day and they had dual Athlon MB's in stock for something around $400. Would that I had ~$600 to upgrade my system (And add the second processor later).
When I was able to do my own spam-armoring, you got a chance to email me. Now you can only hope I see your reply.
We'll see. My theory is that it will ship all 64-bit, but it will be about as popular on NT-on-Alpha.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
But intel aren't being anti-competitive and they don't have the same size monopoly as they used to to.
To be anti-competitive would be to reduce the price to below that of the Athlon and run at a loss and just hope that AMD goes bust first.
Of course intel want people to buy it's own chip and not AMD's. Of course intel want to drive AMD out of this particular area in chip making - that's what's called competing.
Nowaday, "the better product" is not just the best tech, but the best tech, price, sales, marketing etc.
--
-- Kernel Panic: Error reading
Did you mean 'hacker' or 'cracker'?
Do you know the diffrence? I don't think you do.
Actually, the PII/Celeron are more like P6 MMX, and the PIII is P6 MMX/KNI :)
The problem is, it's very tough for the compiler to do a good job scheduling statically. Most delay slots are never filled. Much more information is available at run-time (in a limited window for the hardware), so it can make some better decisions than a static compiler can.
However, the compiler can look much further ahead than the processor, so it seems that some sort of hybrid solution is called for. Whether that involves profiling and feedback optimization a la FX!32 and others, new ISA or something else is still an open question, I think. IA64 has made steps in this direction.
--
Right on! Your connection to the internet is what matters now.
I am connected by an ethernet to my university which has T3 lines to the University of Minnesota.
An IP that stays the same lets me setup apache from my dorm room. I can download MP3's 5 times faster than I play them. I've got ICQ. I can play Quake 3 without lag. The only time I _have_ to cuss at my connection these days is when the server on the otherside is slow.
Just a lot of motivation to stay in school really.
error27
Maybe he meant like "why'd the chicken cross the road?" :)
Also, our "450 MHz" is shipping. Barely, I know. But it's sure not just numbers on paper.
Yeh, us "PCweenies" are stuck at a lameass 700mhz (800 for supercooled units). Do you really thing a PPC is twice as efficent as comparable pentium?
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
yeah, but the decision to adopt Rambus was an intel SCREW UP, and one driven by greed and a desire to force other players out of the motherboard market.
I hope intel does release an 1100 MHz chip, and I hope they sell a billion of them, and I hope they're forced to recall them due to severe bugs, and not performing as advertised.
Will the world THEN learn not to listen to Intel's flatulent vapor? I doubt it.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Ah, the only Pentium Killer I know about is Windows NT. . . It sure killed MY pentium.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Wrong again! HE said 640K! hehehe :)
*splooge*
AMD has done a superb job, slaying the Intel dragon. Overcoming intel in thetech market is at very least a major acomplishmen. I recently had the opppritunity to play with a K7-500. Even in comparison with the PIII-600, the Athlon has outperformed it. AMD will undoubtily continue topping the PIII. The idea of something that is even faster coming from the depths of intel, when it was also reported by "reliable sources" that Intel had nothing even close, leaves me to wonder if they are getting close or not. I'll believe it when I see it.
Peltier's are like $50, wouldn't it be cheaper to just get a new CPU? (somthing like $55 for 300-400mhz)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
um. been saying that for 10 years. . .
Moore's law; It's not a keen observation of microprocessor technology, it's a business plan.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Didn't he say we wouldnt need more than 640K of RAM?
- hal9k
naw. I'm just hoping that when the 1100MHz comes out, the 500MHz will drop enough in price that my cheap-ass boss will buy me one. I'm SO tired of waiting for MS Word to open a document on my old 250.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
". . . should have no problem running an emulated environment for x86 programs"
The way I understand it, Intel is going to scale their lineup of CPU's, the high-end (very costly, only for businesses with $2burn) ones will do the x86 emulation in hardware, the low-end IA-64 chips will do the x86 emulation differently, with slower software-based emulation. So anybody caught running Windows NT on an IA-64 CPU better pay for the high-end CPU or it's going to run more slowly than the high-end IA-32. Especially since Microsoft has no *realistic* plans for porting NT to 64 bit anytime soon. (oh, they DO have plans, they're about as realistic as Intel getting an 1100MHz chip to market in two months).
This is why every Unix vendor this side of the pecos has jumped on porting their OS to IA-64. They don't want to be in the same sinking boat MS is in right now. There will be HUGE performance advantages for native IA-64 OSes. I'm actually a bit piqued about how Linux-friendly Intel has been lately. If this is done right, MS will look pretty bad in about two years, while they're still busily cranking out service packs to get 32-bit W2K running properly. Will they port to 64-bit? Yes, a little at a time, and I'm sure that they'll write like a 64-bit Notepad, and run it on 32-bit NT, and slap a big "optimized for Itanium" sticker on the box.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Additional processing power is not simply an invitation to excess mess. There are still some things we can't do with existing power. I myself am looking forward to the day when processing power and memory hits are sufficiently fast to allow scripted languages (like Perl, VB) to supplant compiled languages. Interpreted languages are superior in a number of ways from the standpoint of the programmer. They are simpler to modify and read, and typically easier to debug. Regrettably these advantages are offset by their relative sluggishness. But when we get processors adequately fast, the speed difference of "e" between Perl and C will be irrelevant to a human observer in all but the most computationally intensive situations. Similarly, I was working with my girlfriend yesterday on an image using Microsoft's PhotoDraw product. Now, yes, this may be Microsoft and ergo their code must be sloppy (right? uh, right?) but when you're dragging a picture of the Taj Mahal across a "corrugated" surface with a "watercolors" style and wrapping it around a torus, you are always going to hit the CPU pretty hard. We had to wait for the refreshes. There are still some pretty cool art applications for processors that we haven't yet supplied with consumer hardware. Then there's 3d desktops, VR, all the cool things we dream of having someday. Those aren't going to happen merely by unwrapping a few loops in assembly. Hardware at some point becomes a must.
...it is nowhere near the Pentium III "killer" on the server, until they realease that damn MP motherboards.
Our morons still insist on byuing quad Xeons for funny prices....
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Obviously he meant the 1 Mother Board limit. We need more mother boards god damn it!!!!
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
I think Intel should stop this stupidness. What if I want to under-clock my CPU?
(Case in point, I've got PII-266's systems I'd love to plop 333's into, but they don't make those anymore and the current production chips are multiplier locked.)
Nintendo didn't have any trouble implementing 500mhz rambus memory in the n64 in 1996...
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Yeap, so much for "Plain Old Text", eh?
Use ">" or "<" (WARNING: "Preview" will translate them into the literal chars.)
Yes, stupid question I know, ofcourse we want it, but what I mean is should we be so eagerly anticipating something that will simply have more resources to be eaten up by sloppy code? (Let's face it, M$ still hold the biggest share in OS, despite best efforts) Shouldn't we be also pushing for tighter and better coding, which would fix probably half the resource problems we have now?
nice speed, but do i have to install it in my freezer.
* * * --they cant all be your best, that would be confusing
Support for games, not scientific calculations, is one of the primary forces pushing companies to make more powerful CPU's. I guarantee you that gamers are much more than 0.1% of the marketshare.
Maybe I'm not in the majority, but there are people who use CPUs for more than compiling kernels (not that I'm flaming people who compile kernels, as I do so myself quite frequently)
Ever run a batch job that runs for 30-40 hours, and have to run 5 more after that's finished? Ever wish you could have realtime effects on multiple channels, downmix and realtime mp3 encode the result at multiple bitrates while streaming an uncompressed version to disk? Sure would save a lot of time in music production. Ever have to wait for photoshop to run a filter?
Sure, CPUs today are probably 90%+ idle, but we can afford to overprovision because human time is so expensive. I wonder what effect CPU speed has on TCO and total marginal benefit of ownership...
Especially with the Register reporting this taking into account their history of "creating" news. Although, it wouldn't be a bit surprising with all of the overclocking of Intel chips as it is. We all know that the cores of Intel chips can perform admirably well above there "advertised" clock speed. They probably have had 1100 MGHz capable cores sitting in the vault for sometime now.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
The article stated that it'd be a PAPER intro as early as this December. Not Silicon, Paper. Silicon won't hit the OEMs for another two months, which means systems on shelves in March/April. :)
Frankly, I can't see it. Intel has been botching a LOT of technology up lately (Rambus....), and by speeding up their releases, their marketoids could be setting Intel up for a VERY hard fall...QA anyone?
Also, if Intel HAS been using "Athlon Killer" in internal documentation wrt Willamette, that's bad news...DoJ anyone?
Heh.
I'm not slamming Intel, i think it'd be a cool thing if they pull this off, but I don't know if they can. We'll see in 6 weeks
No, you're not, but the guys behind IA64 are. and they did just that :)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
It wasn't even six months ago that people talked about AMD's "Pentium Killer". Now its the other way around. Changes fast doesn't it? Used to be everyone after Intel was trying to make the Pentium Killer. This is the first time I recall in x86 land that Intel is the one making the "Killer".
Perhaps this a true sign that AMD is a legitimate competitor to Intel; not just in the low-end but the high end too. If you didn't think that already.
VENI! VIDI! VICI!
i don't know if x86 supports branch hints...
It does
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I may have misunderstood you...
anyway, p6 branch perdiction is somthing like 95% correct
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Seriously curious...what would be the point of this for the majority of us? I'm running a single celeron 400 (soon to be dual) and it does everything I want, without problems. Kernel compilations are in the low single digits, I can play any games full speed, why does the average person here need something this fast? We don't, other than possibly being able to say "haw, my computer is faster than yours."
:P
Just some thoughts...though I wouldn't complain getting one of these things for my birthday or anything
That seems to be what this may amount to. AMD has released a superrior chip, so Intel doesn't want people to buy that - average-Joe might realize Intel does not make the almighty best chip for your PC. It could be the old angle of "Don't by that Athlon! It'll just be obsolete when our new monster chip comes out. And it will come out real soon. Really." I can see some marketing team corner the engineering team... "What the absolute theoretical maximum MHz we can get..." "What's the absolute earliest we can get these chips out." "Give us new cool buzz words..."
I think Intel gave themselves a lot of time in their original timeline to develop Willliamette. Given the trouble Intel is having with Merced/Itanium, that is probably a good idea.
But AMD's unexpected strong release of the Athlon means Intel can't be complacent any more. Most reviewing sites agree that the PIII-600 was rushed into production as a defensive measure. The fact that AMD promptly added Athlon-650 and -700 neatly demolished that Intel move to claim at least parity.
Let's look at some of Intel's moves lately...
Introducing the 820 chipset in order to sell MBs[diversify]
Dramatic price cuts in PIII and Celeron[price war] which cuts into Intel's profits
Premature release of PIII-600 which resulted in some errata
Hyping up future products like Williamette
Six months has brought Intel and AMD into a whole different situation. Early this year, Intel was also on the defensive as AMD chips flooded the low end market, even making in-roads to Gateway. In response, Intel cut their margins to the bone and flooded the market with cheap Celerons and PIIIs. But now Intel faces a situation that money alone won't solve.
Besides enjoying the fruits of competition, I'd be interested to see whether AMD can finally reach profitability and parity with Intel.
This sounds a lot like more vaporware.
Sure, it'll come out eventually.
"Released on paper sometime in January" with the chips actually available sometime around two months after that. Now doesn't that strike you as equivalent to "The check is in the mail?"
I want one. We all want one. But announceing plans to release something drastically cooler than everything else on the market should require a definitive time frame, especially when using that many "killer" buzzwords.
Athlon killer? Who even has one yet? Where do I get a mother board for an Athlon?
I can't believe this was anything but the PR departments intentional release of memos to get noticed and to try to take sales from AMD.
Computers can only simulate determinism. ~Hermetic.
No, there's a 1 Ghz Athlon coming out in Jan--wait for that! You see, the superiority of the Athlons is not just in the Mhz speed--they actually process more efficiently. And the P3 bus runs at 100Mhz, while the Athlon bus runs at 200Mhz. Not only that, but they also put a lot more cache on them. The Athlon 800 is supposed to have 8 megs of chip-speed cache! I would be willing to bet one of the Athlon 800's would still run faster thasn a P3 1100.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
The Register didn't have any sources. Sorry, but if you haven't read the article, do so.
;)
"We know, from a highly reliable source..."
"It's also worth referring back to this piece, which also came from a highly reliable source..."
"Another reliable source tells The Register..."
"One US source says..."
Hehehe. Boy I get a lot of laughs out of this kind of journalism.
But seriously, it seems to me that at this kind of speed (if it were to be true), the processor isn't going to be the bottleneck (but that will vary depending on what you are doing, of course). The slow point for most of the things I do, is, believe it or not, my internet connection. (And I'm over cable modem.) Give me a low end pentium class machine and a blazing link, and I'll be a happy man.
However, that is all just my opinion...but I got it from a reliable source.
This sig is false.
It would require 10X that :P
Just for a second, let's put aside the fact that the Register is a worthless rag that's wrong more than they're right and look at the rest of the story. They're talking about a launch on paper in December, with the chips not being available until a couple of months after that. Not only that, but
We now think the 800MHz rev will be the first, while Intel may be able to ramp that up by June.
So there will be no 1100 MHz part in December (and probably not one in June, either) - there MIGHT be an 800 MHz part. Roblimo would have realized this, had he bothered to read past the headline.
What do we have? The Register (an unreliable source) is telling us that Willamette will launch in december (6-9 months earlier than the rest of the world expects) with a non-existent chipset, and that it will reach a clock speed (1100 Mhz) that is unrealistic to expect from a 0.18 micron core.
As I started out - Yah... right.
Arcade machine emulator for X.
...unless the Big Brother Inside serial number from the PIII is gone, outta here, staked through the heart.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Yes, but, this digital camera also operates at exactly 2.4GHz ... hmm ... can i fry eggs on that camera? would it cook my hands when i hold it? can you say "sue!"?
yeah
Let's get this bad boy into a KryoTech setup and see what it can REALLY do. Oh no, I forgot. It's a new Intel chip and will therefore not allow itself to be over-clocked.
Silly me.
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
Can't everyone see that this is the famous Microsoft Vaporware scaming all over again? A competitor comes in with a really good product, and MS (or in this case Intel) just has to anouce that they have the something better comming in just a few months (Implied task: don't buy thiers, wait for ours) I'm sure a steady stream of delys will keep pushing the product back "Just one more month." They hope buyers will keep money in thier pocket holding out for the Bigger Better Deal (which is a prevelent mindset among hardware addicts). Please note: Rambus and Camino was not pushed forward by 1 year, and look where that is. I'll belive this when I see it (6 months after I see it, so they can find the bugs left in like the PPro).
"Revolutionary" in what sense?
The 386 was the first 32-bit x86 processor, and the first one with support for demand paging - it had a new instruction-set architecture. Not particularly revolutionary in general, but revolutionary for x86.
The Pentium implemented the same instruction set architecture (with some minor additions); it was primarily revolutionary in its implementation, in that it was the first superscalar x86 chip to ship (again, not particularly revolutionary in general, but revolutionary for x86).
The latter means that, with Pentium, they pretty much, well, "went for the speed race".
...or getting it from HP. (I have the impression a lot, perhaps most, of the ideas in IA-64 came from HP.)
The Lame Unit In I.T. does have a new instruction set, because it'll be the first IA-64 implementation; is that the kind of "better technology" you're looking for?
actualy, a K6 would be better then a comparable pII/pIII for things like this. Where the pX's beat the k6's is in 3d games. I've only got a p200, and it does multiple things just fine
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
It won't be an "Athlon Killer" unless it is competatively priced. Assuming this report is reliable, Intel takes it from paper to silicon, and a lot of other stuff, it still won't appeal to te typical computer buyer (which ain't us anymore) unless there's not too huge a price gap. Which would mean Intel selling under cost yet again, and how long can they keep that up? Fiscally, a long time, admittedly, but I'm talking logically.
fh
Nah I'll wait for a 500 MHz G4 instead ...
you keep waiting. while we enjoy our 700mhz athlons. A little heat is a resonable price to pay (IMO). plus the PIII's arn't that hot (athlons are though, arn't they)?
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Well, i will try an 700MHz computer very soon,
and the CPU cooler is so god dam big, it coolz down the CPU to - degrees
Well, if they are going to reach 1100MHz, what are they going to do about the CPU cooler?
do i need an extra chassi where i have my CPU and my gigantic CPU cooling system?
For the moment i think that some day CPU power should reach its end.
: )
But I'm doubtful. Intel doesn't have a particularly stunning record with delivering chips early and I'd rather not buy one of their step 0 chips anyway.
Let's see, AMD gets market share and major recognition with a quality product, and now suddenly Intel is claiming that it can suddenly make much faster chips RSN. Whatever.
I'm personally sick of talks of vaporware. I love new technology and reading about the future, but I don't buy my computers based on speculation from unnamed sources regarding the possible date that a chip will get put to paper. It's utterly irrelevant.
Call me when it's in silicon.
haha, good point. However, if it REALLY fails, it may melt, and then reform as a globular mass, thus drastically reducing the surface area, and ultimately failing as a heat sink. However, if you're in danger of melting a heat sink, you've got some serious design issues to consider ;-)
make world, not war
it seems to me, that adding pipelines (moderate space cost) and execution units (higher space cost) would be bring more performance than higher clock rates. that is, if the same effort to increase clock speed was put into superscalar expansion, the pay off would be greater, provided there's enough space.
also, it seems to me, multiple short pipelines would yield higher preformance than fewer high clocked, deeper pipelines.
i believe the reason intel goes the faster deeper route (compared to slower, wider) simply cuz:
1) it's cheaper to deepen pipelines and it isn't too hard to get a good enough signal to noise ratio for higher clock speeds (is that even an issue?)
2) marketing. this is the obvious one. they can say "our chips are fast! more MHz than our competitors" and the general public doesn't know any better.
ps, please correct me on anything, i'm just guessing at some of this stuff
Wonder how much heat it will generate since PIII are hot enough to heat up a flat at the moment what is that thing going to take to keep cool ? It's own freeezer ?
...
Nah I'll wait for a 500 MHz G4 instead
Isn't this the oldest trick in the computer (any) industry? when a competitor has a new/better product, start say that you have a "better" product just "right around the corner".. Seems to me IBM used to do this back in the 50's/60's to keep people from buying CDC machines... I remember seeing some sort of refecernce to this chip in one of the AnandTech/Aces/one of them when they were taling about a plant visit. again, we onl heard about this AFTER the athlon came out and put Intel to shame. Sorry, my next machine's either an Alpha or an Athlon. (here's a thought... who out here thinks AMD shoulc buy the Alpha division from Compaq (and all the designers)???... instant 64-bit, established as the fastest processor in the world, and proven RISC design as opposed to questionable EPIC...and the Alpha gets the promotion in the market it deserves and the lastest FABs... hmmmm.. food for thought.)
- --
"I Hate Quotes" -- Samuel L. Clemens
Does anyone else out there get the feeling that Intel could have released this processor at any time? Sometimes I wonder if they don't sell slower chips just to get people to keep buying faster and faster chips as they release them. It's a great way to make money and maximize profits instead of just releasing a faster chip every two years. And in this case, AMD might have caused them to have to jump the gun in order to show up the Athlon. Hmmm....
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
You'll need a 1100mhz to run the OS minimum.
Do we really need a processor that fast to run common apps (like a word processor,browser, etc)? The only demand for that processor will be from diehard gamers and PHBs.
My 200MMX chip running Linux outperforms a CeleronA @300MHz with windows.
Really good performance gain will be from tight code, not from the hardware.
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
August 31, 1999 - Microsoft and Intel Announce 64-bit Windows Running on Merced Processor
Intel and Microsoft hit key milestone for delivery of 64-bit hardware and software next year Link
I'm not astroturfing, but Microsoft has been promising a 64-bit version of NT for Alpha Real-Soon-Now for years. It's just wishful thinking that they won't get it done eventually.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Okay, let's have a look at what a P3 overclocked to 1100 MHz would score in SPECint95 if it is as linear as it is from 450 to 600 MHz.
:)
These are the highest scores these processors have gotten so far, according to the General Processor Information page at Berkeley, along with what they should've gotten if the score was linear with clock speed (l450 means linear to the CPU with 450 MHz clock speed):
MHz int95 l450 l500 l550 l600
450 18.7 18.7 18.5 18.2 18.0
500 20.6 20.8 20.6 20.2 20.0
550 22.2 22.9 22.7 22.2 22.0
600 24.0 24.9 24.7 24.2 24.0
As you can see, the 600 MHz version performs less than expected from the 450 MHz version by a margin of 3.7% (projected performance improvement if Deschutes scaled linearly from 450 MHz to 600 MHz). Similar margins are 0.9% for 500 MHz and 3.1% for 550 MHz.
Let's be nice and assume that the reduction won't be more than 4% for a clock speed of 1100 MHz compared to 600 MHz.
That would give us a SPECint95 performance of 42.2, slightly less than a 1100 MHz Willamette would do according to The Register, which is 43.
Without the 4% reduction, Deschutes might do 44, but I sincerely doubt that the architecture scales linearly when it didn't before, and a 2% reduction will bring you pretty close to the projected performance of Willamette.
I suspect, howere, that the reduction for Deschutes may be closer to 5%, and possibly greater, though I have no way of proving that now, of course.
As a side note, the projected linear performance (including a 4% reduction) of the 1000 MHz Athlon based on the 700 MHz Athlon would be 43.5, or 44.4 at 2%, or 45.3 at 0%. A 1100 MHz Athlon based on the 600 MHz Athlon would be 48.4% at 4%, 49.4 at 2% and 50.4 at 0%.
A 667 MHz Alpha 21264 processor (it's a pretty old thing now) performs at 44 already, BTW, which really shows how far behind both AMD and Intel still are in the high performance market (though not the bang for bucks market).
(and soon silicon-on-insulator: 30% more power at same Mhz).
:)
Well, ether you ment 30% less power for the same clock (electrical power, not computational power), or you really don't know(or understand) what you're talking about. Also, to make a fair comparison, you should look at the top of each line: 700mhz athlon VS 450mhz G4. I'm sure the G4 can beat a pIII, but that's beacuse a pIII sucks. I'm sure a pIII can beat a G3, but that dosn't really matter much.
Also. Next time try spliting you're comments into paragraphs, it makes reading much esayer
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
AMD and Motorola are in bed together, last I heard they have been working to let AMD in on IBM's copper process, and AMD "may" start producing G4's in it's dresden plant. (sorry to help with yet another rumor). "What would the world be like if Microsoft had gone on the Power PC route? Much cooler =)" -Me
1. The register is a rumour mill
2. At 0.18 micron this stuff needs a supa-dupa cooling system. Maybe with sharper fab, you can get this speed
3. Needs very large cache and very wide memory bus and heavy interleaving because the last time I checked the memory is still running at 100MHz max.
If I were you, i'll either get a dual celeron bundle at $799 or a 400 PPC750 with monitor also for $999.
1) Java is compiled when it's run. If its not, a faster interpreter means faster interpretation.
2) The only thing that IA32 and IA64 have in common is there similar name. IA64 is a radicaly new system based on an EPIC structure. IA32 is a 15 year old 32bit extention (hack?) to the 8086 arcitecture.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Personally, I think it is nothing more than Intel FUD, but then I would say that, because I use the K5 and the K6-II in my machines at home. I suspect that, as with most other Intel offerings, when it does finally arrive, there will be rushed testing and bugs galore in the next design in a vain attempt to beat AMD to the punch.
Don't take life too seriously. It is only a temporary situation. Usual disclaimers apply.
This chip could be based on copper interconnects, which means 1100 MHz is possible. I am sure Intel (and Motorola, etc.) have all been working on getting copper chips running, and Intel may be the first out of the gate in the x86 world.
Don't look for these things to be be cheap, and for the name "Xeon" to be attached somewhere.
EC
EverCode
HOW DARE YOU!!!?!?!?! Are you crazy???? Of course you, as Joe Consumer, need an 100 MHz CPU for your Word and Quicken programs!!! You should be ashamed for being perfectly happy with what you have!!! You MUST feel the need to upgrade every time Intel releases a CPU!!!! You will be assimilated!!
If the price gets low enough it might make the corporate suit type realise that cheap things can be good too. It could help the uptake of GNU/Linux.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Although for me disk capacity & speed are the greatest computing bottlenecks, I would have no problem putting 1100 MHz to good use compressing MP3s and running software DVD. Also, just think of all the RC5 key checking you could do for distributed.net!
It might even make Win2K run at a decent clip. ;)
Nope, I don't. I didn't find much info, but I saw that 1mb sram card for a Newton cost $50 in 1995. Not the same thing as what would end up on a CPU. I wouldn't be surprised if as much cost would be incurred putting on the die.
Also, remember that the processors you mention essentially have no competition. Nobody is producing compatible chips in that processor class. Things will be different when there are two high-end server x86 chips. I'm not saying I would be able to afford them, but I am inclined to believe that the prices will be competitive with current Xeon prices for a higher cache. After all, AMD has no mindshare in the high-end server market and will need to have something to offer them.
Also, hopefully the increased market in the chips will lead to more development and lower prices. : P
BTW, how much of a margin do you think those products have?
...I would think it would cause big problems for merced. who is gonna want to change their entire platform to something new if intel proves they can provide substantial speed increases wtihout changing the architecture. Maybe they just won't release the faster chips as Xeons, making them useful only for gamers. .^
^.
I'm left wondering if this article is going to be any more accurate than one the Register ran earlier this year when they said that the 666MHz Coppermine would appear in late 1999, "clear 12 months before AMD is expected to reach the magical figure". Yeah, right.
HH
Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
She's just dressing, goodbye windows, tired starlings.
That rant should say "...1100 MHz..."
largely that it's very hard to parallelize code so that you can run it through separate execution units without stalling the processor. With the Pentium's two shallow integer execution units it was possible to hand-optimize your assembly to keep the two pipes filled. But breaking up code that is linear in design (i.e. most programs have a single "flow" and assume linearity of execution as their core model) into parallel chunks is a hard problem.
Continuing down the "more, simpler pipes" path is akin to explicitly parallel chips. It's a hot area of research, and there are some applications for which it might pay off (the ones where multiprocessor machines already pay off, perhaps: servers that are doing several unrelated things at once) but for doing just one thing and doing it fast, faster deeper is probably far easier a problem. Remember, Intel has had problems with the old P6 core (ppro/pII/pIII) because it's already very hard to write a compiler that doesn't stall it left and right.
With all that said, I don't see any mention in this article about the actual design of the new chip, except for some very vague (and likely wrong imho) stuff in the article about Wilamette that's referenced in this one.
The Register reports what other people say. They even put a 2 para disclaimer on this one. Every now and then I see somebody on /. bashing them. If only these people would learn to read. Oh wait... people turn into nasty libertarian gun-jumpers when they post here.
Learn to spell before you give others gratuitous advice (ahem). It's "Ritalin."
If you look through the back-stories of The Register, you'll find that basically everything they've ever said has turned out to be a lie, or unproveable. I'd take this story, and the one about the 1GHz copper Athlons in January, with more than a little grain of salt. Also, those SpecINT numbers are much, much worse than even a P3 overclocked to the same speed would post. I think The Register can't even be bothered to lie convincingly.
--Conquering the Earth Since 1978.
One step closer to the frequency of a typical microwave oven (around 2.4 GHz)... Imagine, your pizza will never get cold if you just put it on top of your tower.
God, root, what is difference? - Pitr
I'm happy to see that the GHz barrier is likely to be broken before 2000, if just barely (though you have to wonder how much vaporware this is.) As for the MB RAM barrier, I guess it's always possible, but it's starting to sound like overkill (well, maybe not for W2K, but certainly for most of the uses I make of apps under Linux!)
Now all I need is a 1 TB hard drive to go with that 1 MB RAM and 1 GHz processor. In a Palm Pilot. There's nothing like misusing power to put any 1990 supercomputer to shame on playing X-mines!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Does anybody care about MIPS and FLOPS. G4 is lightyears ahead with better starting base. Did anybody see the Power G4 Avt. on TV.
Faster processors - they just wait faster.
Intel didn't release ANY information about the Willamette (P7) at the Microprocessor Forum. Now, as much as people want speed, Intel also has shareholders to appease. If they knew about an impending P7 release, they'd have to make that knowledge public otherwise they'd be misleading shareholders to believe that the Coppermine is the Q4 1999 and Q1 2000 contender.
While we're on that subject. If Intel does paper release the P7 in December, they've pretty much signed the death certificate for the Coppermine and PIII line. Now Intel's a marketing genius (love them/hate them for their technology, but any company that can convince people they need a PIII for the Internet has strong marketing) so there's no way they'll throw away all those ad dollars on the PIII line quite yet.
The Register had been getting better, but this is reverting to their old self...
Um . . . the Athlon's bus speed is set by the chip, not the bios . . . and the curent Athlons can be overclocked to 1050 Mhz using 100Mhz bus (although the bus bandwith is very close to maxed). I would expect good 133Mhz boards when there are Athlon processors that run with a 133Mhz bus.
1.1Ghz? Intel? So is this a replacement for my
stove or central heating? Do I need one of those
big restaurant freezers or can I just move to
Nome and keep it outside?
I believe the fact that Intel has had many high cost machines to even release to the public due to cost. How many want to bet that intel has machines in there building running at even higher than 1100.. Think about it, they just release stupid ?33's, ?50's and ?66's just to have more money in their pocket. People will by whatever is the cheapest out and most cost effective.
As long as they can keep dropping the voltage level, the heat can be kept under control.
(someone with electronics knowledge can quote the relevant formula)
Well, we didn't have our bottle to read...sure its easy for you to look on your bottle and let us know the correct spelling. Incidentally, spelling matters not to the HakorZ and PC weenies.
Hmm, this could quite possibly be an attempt by Intel to discover who is leaking stuff to the Register.
Its an old ploy: create false story, leak to likely engineers who has girlfriend who has loose lips, then see who the culprit is.
3... No IA32 (Intel Architechture 32bit) is from i386 to PIII. I think they mention this no to confuse with the new upcomming CPU (merced) from Intel.
It sounds from all these remarks that you have all forgotten how Pentium Pro came out something like half a year earlier than anticipated, and, took the breath out of everyone that time.
Me, I'm not surprised if this turns out to be true.
I'm ain't no whiner!!!
Kill Athlon if you can! Go for it! Kill, kill, kill with fair speed.
This must have something to do with their recent profit report. It looks to be nothing more than a way to reassure their investors.
sup
Once they get it out the door.
Timing is everything
And not just to OEMs. I got one just the other day. The hunt was hard to get one though. I checked all of AMD's recommended manufacturer's from their site for weeks and came up with nothing. I only got the 500mhz Athlon but oh, yeah, it smokes.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
What's XMAME ?
In the past, Intel has always been able to dismiss their competition as inferior. Oh, sure, there were times companies like AMD or Cyrix had a slightly faster chip, or better price-performance on the low end, but they were always brief and/or insignificant. Undercutting prices is a common enough thing on the low end; AMD/etc simply has to reduce costs below the giant Intel.
/. example, does a few things better then Linux.
Athlon was different. Athlon challenged Intel on Intel's home turf, and won. It was the fastest high-end x86 CPU around, and is going to stay that way for at least several months, if not longer. Intel had a serious threat for the first time. AMD may still be small compared to the behemoth Intel, but David was smaller then Goliath as well.
The fact was one thing, but as we know, the spin can be another. Intel could have found some sort of flaw in Athlon, or fired up the FUD guns. In most cases, you can argue some point or other as an advantage over your competitiors. Even Windows, to use the favorite
But Intel did not do that. Intel could not find a way to counter Athlon in the trenches. Intel looked for ammo, and found none. For the first time, Intel looked at the competition, and found itself unable to immediately compete!
Now Intel is scrabling to catch up, to try and build a counter-weapon to use against Athlon. The fact that they feel the need to "kill" Athlon is very telling. It is one thing to know you have a threat. It is quite another to classify it as the threat.
By accepting AMD's challenge, by admitting that the Athlon is strong enough that they need to target an entire product series at it as a "Athlon killer", Intel admits that they have lost a battle. That AMD has stole ground away from them. That Intel is wounded enough for it to hurt.
It may be only in pride, or in market perception, that Intel feels pain. Their sales are still large enough that AMD is no immediate financial threat.
But suddenly, the small fry that they paid little mind to before, has woken up and bit them hard. Hard enough for Intel to step back, shake itself, and wonder what to do about this new threat.
I imagine the British felt a similar feeling when their American colonies fought to break lose -- and started to win.
It will be very interesting to watch this war as it unfolds.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The P6 has dynamic branch prediction. That is, it remembers how the branch has been resolved in the past. For a loop executed 255 times, it might get the branch direction wrong the first time and the last time, but it gets it right the other 253 times.
The success on the first branch of the loop might be increased with heuristics : an unknown branch can be predicted taken if it is backwards (most loops) and not taken otherwise. I'm not sure if it's what happens in the P6, but this is used in several processors.
Static branch prediction (the branch hint in the instruction itself, generated by the compiler) can be used in combination with dynamic prediction, to help the predictor when a branch is first encountered. But static prediction only gives poor results.
Branch prediction is critical to achieving good performance with long pipelines and out-of-order superscalar processors, such as the P6 or the Alpha 21264. There are many clever techniques to increase dynamic branch prediction accuracy that I won't describe here.