Slashdot Mirror
Pentium III hits 1Ghz
Frac writes "somebody has finally overclocked a Pentium III to over 1 gigahertz. Here's the translated version of the original French article. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The big deal about 1GHz+ processors is now I can use the microwave radiation from my cpu to make popcorn, cook Hotpockets, etc...
Are you kidding? Gigahertz speeds are essential to seeing Netscape crash faster than ever.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
The fastest G4 you can get currently is a 450Mhz, and I have a hard time believing that the g4 is does twice as much per cycle then an Athlon Especially since it's a 'RISC'. The original Idea behind RISC is to do less per instruction, and run many more cycles per second. (The benchmarks apple touts on TV comparing a g4 to a pIII are done with a faster clocked g4).
For a long time, Apple had Intel beat in MHz game, but they don't anymore. I'm not saying that an 900Mhz Athlon is necessarily faster then a 450Mhz G4, but I'll believe it until someone can point me to some real, hard numbers that prove otherwise.
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Bear in mind DPCE was based on Thinking Machines' C* language. The Thinking Machines boxes could have up to 65536 CPUs, and so it's reasonable to expect C* could generate code to make use of that. What's nice is that the programmer still writes in nice, linear code. The explicit loops they had to write before to do, say, a matrix multiplication, now become simple math operations. The compiler can then parallelize as it sees fit. The programmer actually sees nice linear code which is actually simpler than the looping code which he would've written before.
The people who want major parallelism (and can actually benefit from it) are numeric processing goons running weather simulations and other large number processing that is the traditional province of supercomputers. The other space where it is useful is in signal processing and graphics. The desktop crowd isn't going to care much, unless the parallelism gives them an extra frame per second in Quake III. :-)
As for knowing multiple paradigms: Yes, it's useful, just like learning foreign languages is beneficial, even if it only serves to help you understand your native tongue better. The problem is that not all programming paradigms are immediately useful to the task at hand, so many of us just don't have the time or inclination to get around to it. (I fall into this category.)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
And you fell for it. ha-ha!
'nuff said
That was totally funny!
What exactly is the big deal about speeds in the GHz? May be a mile stone, but it's only logical progression.
Well I think the big deal at least with this test is that it actually scaled very well, I personally found it impressive the amount of performance gain that it actually acheived. It basically means 1) Intel probably can do Ghz soon w/o much problem 2) the Coppermine architecure is pretty solid 3) We don't know if AMD can scale as well, which means Intel might catch up sooner then AMD would like
Yeah, come off it, bloke!
FIRST POST!!!
Within a week of its release, across the pond?
;)
I don't think so...
But maybe with an unladened swallow carrying it under its dorsal feather...
second first post!?!?!
nobody expects...
What exactly is the big deal about speeds in the GHz? May be a mile stone, but it's only logical progression.
:-), 30MHz, 40MHz, 100MHz, 200MHz, 300MHz, 400MHz, 500MHz and 700MHz. 2GHz will also be a big deal :-)
It's the same big deal as with 10MHz (those 12MHz AT clones were "way cool"
--
It has to work - rfc1925
What I'd like to see is AMD's Athlon technology (micro-ops, along with all its weird Funky massive parallelism and the like) applied to a decent architecture such as PowerPC. Sure, the clock speed would only be a 'measly' 700MHz, but it would be able to do so much *more* at that frequency...
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
I thought I heard about this when thew first PIIIs came out.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
No, it wouldn't.
The English language uses capitalisation at the start of sentances, also "i" when used to say "me" or the first person should also be capitalised you illiterate troll. Incorrect spelling is often used to reduce the amount of text entered, not to make yourself look like a script kiddie, you should have used the word "anyway" rather than "n e wayz", this would have used 2 less characters, your "z" at the end was a pitiful attempt to make yourself look "kewl", besides which a GHz processor will not increase your internet performance, all your time on the internet is lost to lag and bandwidth. (please note: this article was not serious, well, mostly...)
Don't try that with a Pentium. You'll have a massive meltdown from the heat.
Did you read the article?
They used the ASETEK Vapochill system to cool down the coppermine.
Now, since the multipliers are locked on Coppermine processors, there's no way that these people could get a 7.5 multipler. The highest is a "7" with a front-side bus of 100 mhz
Intel engineering samples are not multiplier-locked. I guess we can throw your "simple facts" table from Tom's right out the window.
it'd be wise to check the facts first.
I agree. Do you plan on following your own advice though?
If you are seriously trying to add something to the discussion, there are a few things that you can do to avoid being called a troll.
1)The most important thing is that you use capital letters. Obviously not All caps obviously, but using at least a few capital letters, particularly at the beginning of your sentences really helps readability. You'd be surpized how much more rational you sound using them.
2)Use conventional spelling. instead of 'n e wayz' write 'anyway'. You don't need to spell everything correctly, but try to stick with conventional norms.
3)Avoid swearwords, unless you really need to empathize a point. interspersing every couple words with a 'fuck' or a 'shit' really just makes you look stupid
4)Actually have something to say. Even if you break all the above rules, You still have a chance to be listened to if you actually do have something to add. If you don't, well then, it doesn't really matter what happens to your post, because no one looses out by not reading it.
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
People are questioning the validity of this, and some funny quotes. 1. Don't forget that this is translated... 2. Intel Engineering samples are not multiplier locked. They could've put that thing at 1.066 GHz, too. Wouldn't matter... 3. I still think that those copper Athlons (not coppermine, it's still made of aluminum) are going to rock. A 1.2 GHz Athlon? Oh, yeah...
and hence you try to use SCSI with the more demanding systems! try to reduce the CPU usage!
I just find it funny that ppl. will have a PIII with a old IDE drive running at 5400Rpm and having a nice 128K cache!
Ohh but i forgot, its the CPU that matters for everything!
I would hope that the HIGH end system from Gateway anmd others would have started using SCSI by now... but hey, its just the clock speed that matters! And lets not even talk about RAM, how in the earth can you justify having a K7 with 64 Megs of RAM!
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
I reread it today and it made sense. Guess I was up kind of late. It's actually kind of funny knowing mathematicians. Thanks for the translation though....
It is not the same thing to go over 1 GHz with the combined frequency of two chips.
What is considered significant is to do this with one (1) chip...
Someday Intel chips will get so hot and so powerful that only the five richest kings of Europe will be able to cool them.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
I remember back when the 386 came out, people commented that it was "more power than any home user would *ever* need". CPU speed/power is very relative. One minute it seems extremely fast, in a year it will be ok, and soon enough it will be the slowest thing out. Software and technologies will move along with the processor... people will always want better= more=faster (for the computer industry at least). Don't be too quick to say that a certain speed is more than any home/business user can ever use. It reminds me of a slightly related quote. I don't remember who said it, but in was said in the early 1900s. "Everything that can be invented has already been invented"
boo
I remember back when the 386 came out, people commented that it was "more power than any home user would *ever* need".
CPU speed/power is very relative. One minute it seems extremely fast, in a year it will be ok, and soon enough it will be the slowest thing out.
Software and technologies will move along with the processor... people will always want better= more=faster (for the computer industry at least).
Don't be too quick to say that a certain speed is more than any home/business user can ever use.
It reminds me of a slightly related quote.
I don't remember who said it, but in was said in the early 1900s.
"Everything that can be invented has already been invented"
What exactly is the big deal about speeds in the GHz? May be a mile stone, but it's only logical progression.
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
Nawh, no reasons. Just thought it sounded good.
Ni
Finally a coomputer that can run Windows 2000 and usefull software at the same time. :)
it was the operating system
Actually, if you want to complain about the math, you might try using the "actual" bus speed, which the screenshots show as 133.64 MHz, not 133.
Doesn't anyone screen these claims? Editors? Intel scientist Albert Yu showed 1GhZ trick P7 core at a backroom meeting months ago. This is nothing new.. assuming these french clowns actually pulled this off.. which is still doubtful.
...of 1 GHz on a Win98 machine? What's the reason you'd want to speed up a single-user system like that? Surely those extra Half-Life frames aren't going to make that much of a difference? (And if you have a chip that fast to begin with, is your processor really a framerate bottleneck?) Maybe I unfairly associate overclocking with mysterious gcc crashes, but I just don't see why it's worth the instability.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
> What exactly is the big deal about speeds in the GHz? May be a mile stone, but it's only logical progression.
:-)
;-)
Because its a baby step to TeraHz computing.
Us graphics programmers can ALWAYS use the extra horsepower.
Imagine 4096x 4096 x 32 bit @ 120 Hz
(Which on a 17" monitor (16" viewable) is close to 300dpi! Hey, I can dream, right?
(yes I KNOW a gpu doesn't need to run as fast a cpu)
Cheers
Intel has clarified the situation.
Check out the P3 spec's.
'Scuse me, but in the computer world, isn't a "giga" considered 2^10, or 1024?
... but ... meh.
According to the shots, it's running at 1002 MHz, or about 0.98 GHz.
I guess, technically, if you use the SI definition of 'giga', it's correct
This is the kind of talk that reduces the credibility of LINUX.!
.sig that you do!
being the flagship platform for the greatest OS every written, namely Linux!
What are you talking about! i am a Linux fan, but realize that Linux is not even close to coming near some OS's like IRIX and Solaris!
SlOW SPEEDS LIKE 400MHZ!! I am guessing you have learnt your computers from the corner store of the latest version of computer gamer! I would recommend reading a book on computer architecture! Learn about the difference between clock speeds and how much use is made out of them! Heck man intel has had a rough time getting a 64 Platform!! I wonder why ?
SGI, Sun and IBM (they still make some monster machines) have some of the fattest machines! I mean for them to have a few Gigs of Memory and butt load of processors is common!
Finally....... but pathetic poor performing unscalable machines form sun and sgi
What are you talking about.... adding a new graphic card or sound card is not what constitutes scalability! Look at some of the SGI;s, hell you can just drop in a few more processors when you feel like it! And where can i find a motherboard that will allow 64 processors ? IBM, SUN, HP and SGI all have em! Hmmm but they are not used for games!
sun/sgi/hp will be out of business within a year, they just cannot compete with such superior technology.
I will not even comment about this! i mean you just have to be out of it to make such a statement! please if you dont know what you are talking about dont say anything..... its a shame that you have the
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".
What exactly does this mean?
are you REALLY that ignorant?
-niteq
umm.. test samples don't have multiplier locks on them.
I compared our companies G4 450 to my Athlon 600 using Matlabs "bench" utility. The Athlon was much faster in the "Integer" (0.33),"Mixed Integer/Floating" (0.33), "2D" (0.77) and "3D" (0.71) catagories and the same in the "Pure Floating" (0.27) catagory. My Athlon is much slower when looking for ET but at least comperable if not better when running our companies propritary software.
No, don't say it!
Actually, having the mobo support the 700+ chip isn't surprising. Asus, for example, already has bios updates for their old mobos to let them run coppermine. You're forgetting that the mb manufacturers have known about this stuff for considerably longer than the general public, and so have had time to prepare.
The grammar in that article is better than the grammar on slashdot.
The x86 instruction set is such as hack job its not even funny. Go take a look at some of the Motorola CPUs to see a nice orthogonal layout.
x86 can't die soon enough.
The problem is, does Intel have enough influence so that the massess will want a Itanium?
Cheers
LAST POST!!!
I need to doublecheck my data or information better.
You need to relax.
I was wrong, true. Next time just point that out. Otherwise, your reducing a rather intelligent past time to verbal buffonery.
Rock hard, ride free
Big Din K.R.
WOW! At my High School we had tons of AMD 486's which burned like crazy. I've watched them literally "pop" in half with a heat sink and fan on top of them. Our Intel 486's would be sitting there with just a heat sink on top of them running nice and cool and compiling code in Visual Basic in Windows 95! My Pentium II 400 runs nice and cool and does some major # crunching in the Distributed.net RC5-64 competition and calculates Merisene Prime #'s, and still compiles in Visual Basic 5 and Windows 98 and still has cycles to spare (for Winamp of course!).
What's he gonna do? Nibble me bum?
Wouldnt it rather be a contest to see who can design the most efficient CPU. From what I've been led to believe the x86 architecture is not very efficient, and has a very low Hz : performance ratio, vs. other competing chip architectures.
Here.
This was done a few months ago with 2 P3 500s by Hardwarecentral. They said it wasn't terribly stable at 1055 Mhz (1.055 GHz), but it DID go over 1 GHz. In fact, they did it with DUAL CPUs.
Results.
(Yes, their CPUs were unlocked, they modified the CPU for the cooling, but it does count)
Actually, AMD has demoed K7's running at 1ghz at shows and such using Kyrotech.
Yeah, but these are not engineers with test samples, they're French-types with outrageous accents.
Giga in software terms is considered a power of two (because the computer works in base 2, or one's and zero's). It's easy for the computer to work with.
;).
In most scientific fields, it is very inconvenient to work in base two, so people often use a number system called "base 10"; don't know where they came up with it (something to do with the number of toes a person has or something rediculous like that
As a result, MHz is a power of 10, GHz is a power of 10, KHz is a power of ten, etc. If you're really curious, I'd suggest getting an old physics book (the one you chucked out the 10th floor window after finally finishing that last required physics class) and look at what they define "mega" and "giga" as. It should also list what powers "nano" and "um" are as well, to give you a general idea of how really SMALL (yet, not small) the stuff inside your computer is.
This guy is apparently an uneducated 'normal' computer users who makes decisions with the 2% of the computer knowledge he has... I wish these kinds of people would educate themselves a little further before speaking. This is how the market thrives on gimmicks, small increments in technology, and hyped products. Please! Think, then write!
forget those previous replies, this is a funny comment! good laugh...
You know, it *does* take engineering effort to make something good. Intel's *problem* is that they're made to be cheap. If you want something good, it comes out of someone's pocket. What's so unreasonable about $2000 for a kickass G4 system anyway? Sure, if you want to really crank it, you can spend a lot more, but you clearly want a compromise between cheap and good. Or you could get a low-end G3 and overclock the fucker till it's blue in the face. Oh, wait; it already is. My old beige G3 233 runs happily at 300MHz. I'd overclock it more, but a) I don't need to (compiling is more or less instantaneous), and b) I like it a whole lot and don't want to fuck it up.
-------- oops! I posted!
DC flows through a conductor, but AC tends to stay towards the surface. At 60Hz the current will penetrate to about 0.25" or 8mm. Which is the entire wire in most homes.
But the higher the frequency the less the penetration until at somewhere around 40GHz the entire current is crawling along the surface with almost no penetration.
So what? Well, it turns out that once you've achieved that level any surface irregularity adds impedance to the circuit. A sharp right angle bend, a sharp burr, a sharp edge along the leg of an IC, the sharp point of the leg, etc. All affect the impedance and thus the tuning of the circuit. And the circuit must be tuned or the CPU can't talk to the memory.
This is the great speed barrior the chip venvors are approaching. Not size or cooling. But how do you manufacture an entire system with no sharp edges, bends, points, etc. Every conductor a smooth and perfect curve down to the microscopic level.
For this reason the first serious (20?)GHz systems will be expensive, hand crafted industrial pieces. It will require a complete re-engineering and re-tooling of the entire industry before you will see 100GHz systems at affordable prices.
The alternative is to get everything - system memory, CPU, ROM - inside of a single chip so as to keep the GHZ contained and let the MotherBoard run at more mundane rates. Which would be neat because then we could finally get rid of that cache memory which has been slowing us down all these years. (No, Virginia, cache is not there to speed us up. It's there to save money. If your main memory ran at CPU speeds, like it did in the old days, then you would have full speed without the overhead of caching. But you system would cost $20,000).
But the ability to process on the skin is the big-hairy-deal with GHz.
Think orthogonally and always stay one dimention ahead.
The SH3 processor is a good example of nice code density. The StrongARM is also a good example. Unfortunatly they trade off a FPU for smaller die space and lower power comsumption.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
no biggie - I get 552Mhz from my Celeron 366s. Am I a hoax too? The bus speed isn't always _exactly_ 133Mhz or 100Mhz. Mine runs at around 100.4xx , and changes all the time. with a multiplier this big, what's wrong with getting a 4-5mhz extra?
Apple says a lot of things, in this case its "G4's are twice as fast as pentiumIIIs*" if you follow the astrick, it leads you to the statement "in 'cpu mesurement' and Photoshop tests". I'm not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that photoshop is optimized for the Mac harder then the PC (though I could be wrong). In any event, they didn't mention what photoshop tests were done, some have usualy done better on x86 with mmx.
as for 'CPU mesurement', well that dosn't really help. What I was asking for was acutal SPECint and SPECfp for the CPUs, and real numbers not someone say 'up to twice as much' or other meaningless nonsense.
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I was thinking of chaning it, but you've convinced me to keep it. :)
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
or maybe AMD's equivelent chip, x86 must die, at least intel finnally stopped listening to micro$oft, and is going to make a chip that can rival motorola's G4. I think that was a slap in the face to intel, and it could be blamed on micr$oft's influence. Now maybe we'll get a real chip that can run linux better, don't know how many have tried to run PPClinux, or another flavor of Mac-linux, but I for one can't stand the one-mouse-button thing, and you can't get rid of macOS completely, Apple just barely supports linux, just enough to help micro$oft lose it's hold. we should be ruting for the death of x86, since it will spell the end of legacy windows code, and either force micro$oft to make a whole new OS, or find a way to live on old machines. but in the eyes of healthy competition, I hope to see AMD come out with something much like Merced, and maybe my next machine will have something like that instead... wait and see.
Ok, so you can super cool it, and get it running at >1Ghz; but where is the beef?
ALL of the current fast processors are crippled by a lack of memory bandwidth; all of these high multipliers and slow main memories make for great benchmarks when the code fits in the L1/L2 cache but the speed goes into the toilet when the chipset hits the screeching breaks and must talk to main memory.
I WANT LOW-LATENCY DDR PC266 OR BETTER SDRAM!
Or if RAMBUS can ever get the initial latency down, a four or eight channel RDRAM rig would rock.
--------- Webmaster, http://www.cpureview.com and
Gawd, reminds me how junked PCs are. Maybe someday prices of workstations will reach our grasp :P Then we can observe the real power of computers, not some silly gaming machine.
x86 chips are actually quite efficient in terms of ops/cycle. For example, loading a 32-bit immediate value to a register takes one cycle on a pentium or K6, but on a MIPS RISC cpu for example takes 2 instructions and 2 cycles due to the smaller instruction size. The problem is that the complex instruction decoders use a lot of power. So while x86 cpus are quite fast on a mHz:performance ratio, they aren't very energy efficient.
> are you REALLY that ignorant?
:))
"are you REALLY that ignorant?" back at ya...
(The only way he could have made it more obvious that he was kidding would be to put "THIS IS A JOKE." in big bold flashing letters. Good grief, man.
No, this is NOT a hoax, the test was done with an 'Intel Confidential', so the CPU is NOT locked. Yep, Hardwarecentral where the first, but it was PIII and not PIIIE, and there is no bench And ... don't forget, this is just for FUN ! :) Marc Prieur www.hardware-fr.com
The Pentium overclocked to 1000mhz didn't run very long without crashing. People have gotten overclocked Athlons to actually run stable.
A 3-inch tall man with a hundred-pound rock on his back can move his legs ten times faster than I move mine and still get nowhere. [For our slower readers: hundred-pound rock == ancient architecture produced without forethought and a refusal to destroy back-compatibility]. Clock rate is fairly meaningless, and people who do not understand this are the problem with the computing industry today.
in todays enterprise market you cannot top intel for price/performance.
Well, I'm sure it was unintentional but you let a nugget of truth slip in there. Of course, this only applies to P/P of actual CPUs, and only for CPU-bound applications, and finally it should be noted that, strictly speaking, AMD not Intel is the leader.
it leads the industry in scalability and reliability as well as being the flagship platform for the greatest OS every written, namely Linux!
What a joke. Scalability? Of what? The only area I can think of in which the PC architecture scales well is heat production. Reliability? I suppose there's a sick truth to this: PCs can be relied upon to offer low quality, terrible scalability, and atrociously bad design all around, from the processors to the cases to the i/o subsystems. That's reliable, I suppose, in the same fashion as Microsoft produces reliably bad products.
this is great, sun/sgi/hp will be out of business within a year, they just cannot compete with such superior technology.
One might. Not all three. Have you ever used anything other than a PC? If so, you'd know why such companies are still in business. Hint: it's the hardware, stupid. I'll agree that (for instance) Solaris can kiss my ass [happily running Linux on a sparc], but there's no way you can find me a PC-type machine that I could use as a drop-in replacement for, let's say, an Origin 2000. Not gonna happen. I'm truly sorry you've never had the opportunity to work with real hardware. And even more sad that people with your attitude will eventually make sure that nobody gets that opportunity. We've just seen the end of it all, folks, all wrapped up in one brain-dead post.
I definitely hope so. For many tasks parallelism is the easier and more logical way to gain speed, for instance, neurocomputing, computer graphics, games, signal processing etc. Many of the problems could be reduced to separate problems that can be solved concurrently.
Hopefully we will also see transition from programming languages that don't support parallelism (like C/C++) to better languages that are easier to parallelize even implicitly by the compiler (like the functional and logic programming languages).
The programming tools are not really up to massive parallelism yet and it may be one factor affecting development; the change requires a paradigm shift. I don't think many people would want to program a 64 threaded program in C.
I also hope the parallelism will become fine grained where individual statements in procedures can be executed in parallel, which of course puts the burden on the compiler.
Not quite relevent, but I'm curious:
I have never like overclocking because I was under the impression chips burn out faster. Since I am a starving student, lifespans are important to me (the 3 boxen I am running are a k5-75, Cyrix 6x86 P200+ [150 MHz, what a gyp!] and a P-100, all of which have been in use almost 24/7 for 2-3 years).
My question is: assuming the computer stays on 24/7, is the total number of MHz*hours greater with or without overclocking? In other words, taking into account both speed and lifespan, do you get more for your money with or without overclocking?
Obviously, this has a large number of simplifing assumptions: a) the mobo/chip burns out first, b) lifespan is shorter than total upgrade cycle, etc. Still, I'd be curious, does anyone have any sort of numbers one way or the other?
--Nick
(The email is real. I don't check it though)
Gee, I bet those would make a nice Beowulf cluster...
ACWhat I believe this gentleman was getting at was the fact that while Sun and SGI stagnate, the rest of the world is moving on. The MIPS R12000 processor was in the works for years before it finally came out, and at a jolly mediocre speed. Ditto for the UltraSPARC III, when it finally is released.
While this is somewhat off-topic, the same stagnation principle can be applied to the software (and more importantly, the GUIs) of Sun and SGI... CDE and "Indigo Magic"/4Dwm!? Yikes... I believe most of the sane world has moved on to bigger and better things... there's no way anyone can leave KDE and/or Gnome and go back to those dinosaurs.
Granted, SGI and Sun had (and to a point, still have) their days, but times are a-changing. I'd imagine nothing can still touch a 128-processor, 16-pipe Onyx2 Infinite Reality 2 pumping 8 billion texels per second. Ditto for a Sun Star Fire and it's immense floating point prowess. But for practically any non-extreme project, or any project with a finite budget, a distributed Linux cluster can deliver. Deliver faster. Cheaper. And easier.
Sun, SGI, thank you for raising us into this exciting new world. It's now our turn to let loose and grow. We have fresh new vehicles (Linux, BSD, Gnome, KDE, GTK, Qt, GLX), and wider choices (Alpha, Intel, AMD). It's time to break free from the paternal grip and move on.
hey Big Din K.R. you are drunk =) First, PMMX, PII, PIII have only 32 K L1 Cache. Only Cyrix MII, AMD K6-x have 64 K L1 Cache. (and Pentium have 16 K L1 Cache). Second, Yep there is nothing listed under the l2 setting ... because even with the latest version of CPUID this info is not supported with the new PIII (Wanna see another screenshot of CPUID with coppermine ? http://www.hardocp.com/reviews/cpus/intel/coppermi ne/copperminecpuid.jpg ...) So Big Din K.R., Please think before post :P
Hey I am the man who test the CPU. Yep, this is not very stable. Why ? Simply because the bench used were CPU Intensive but not too long ... Winstone for exemple freeze, because it take 10 minute !. On the system i can't run 2 FPU WinMark between , it crash. I must run one bench ... launch CPUIDLE (then the CPU go to -15) ... and then run one bench etc ... If you want a test of the Vapochill with pics, go here (hehe yep this is in french) http://www.hardware-fr.com/oc/asetek_vapochill/ind ex.htm Marc Prieur - www.hardware-fr.com
No I truly don't give a rats a$$ about games. Sorry. Coding is far more fun. :)
OFTC: By the community, for the community
There's a point where microwaves can't be carried on wires, so they are acutally ducted (just look up at a microwave repeater). Now that's what I want... a CPU that's ducted to my motherboard!
There are a lot of things running at those frequencies. Take GSM-mobile phones. They run at 1900mhz in the US and 1800 in Europe. If you just crank the output up a bit you'll be able to fry chicken with it. As of today we just fry our brains...
thats not that cool.... i could hit 1ghz by overclocking my dual p3 500s to 533 each. but then that would be on two chips and not one... =P
Global warming is good for you!
... Intel would allow itself to slack-off and stay with the same CPU lines for much longer. AMD are excellent competition for Intel, and that can only mean one thing: great CPU's for us the consumer at tug-of-war prices.
I only run AMD, but what's pushing AMD to come up with great chips like Athlon? It's Intel. What's forcing Intel to come up with 733 MHz chips? AMD.
Competition is good. Flattening out other companies is baad.
Not that I think anybody reads posts to old stories here at Slashdot, but one point is that
copper interconnect on both of the current techniques, doesn't really lower resistance. The resistance stays the same - the technique has difficulty making tall thin wires (which are the way current lower-level wires look like), so instead the copper process reduces the thickness/height of the wire by a little less than half. Thus the capacitance of the wires drops while the resistance essentially stays the same.
So someone managed to get a coppermine up to 1GHz. So what? It had to be an engineering sample or they wouldn't have been able to adjust the clock multiplier. And since all production coppermine chips are locked to a particular bus speed and clock multiplier, this means you, the end user, won't be able to get your coppermine up to 1 GHz. Youwill be stuck at 733 MHz. So what does this gain you. It sure makes Intel look good to people who don't know any better, but it won't help me any.
The K7-Athlon, on the other hand, can be tweaked right off the shelf. So while Joe Consumer can't have a 1GHz coppermine, right now he can have a 1GHz Athlon.
I guess the non-metric version would be "cycles" or "cycles per second", as I recall from old books and movies.
Which are just Hz under another name, but sound kinda cool - "Zounds! Professor, this interocitor is running at a speed of one million kilocycles! Surely it's the product of an advanced civilization!"
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Actually, there is a bit more headroom available.
Some boards using the chipset from Apollo have an 8x multiplier for the 133MHz FSB. So with some very insane cooling, an engineering sample, and a board that uses the new chipset (i.e. DFI's PA-61), you could actually push the CPU to ~1066MHz.
Why push it that high? Why not? We try to be the fastest at everything else, so why not CPU clock speeds?
--
Close. Better said the RISC philosophy was to reduce the number of cycles per instruction by simplifying the instruction set without increasing the instructions needed to execute a program too terribly much. This also ment smaller and cheaper CPU's. It worked pretty well but the cost of silicon real estate dropped so far that former RISC shops have been loading their CPU's with fancy features to the extent that I've heard the G3 has a more complex instruction set than the PII! The RISC/CISC distinction is outdated and misleading. See http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.ht ml
Wasn't that picked because it is the resonant frequency of H2O?
If so, then it would stand to reason that anything off that frequency would be a very inefficient microwave heater.
I stand corrected. The main point is still valid: Copper is faster because RC went down. Instead of R being less, it sounds like it was C. Thanks for the info! :-)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
The L1 cache on a PIII is identical to the L1 cache on a PII, 16k+16k.
>> 2) The L2 cache of the 733 PIII is 256 kb ONBOARD! Why is this important? Well first of all, there is nothing listed under the L2 setting. Did they have to DISABLE THE L2 CACHE to get it to work? If this is not the case, then why isnt' the L2 amount shown? If it was indeed disabled, then it's extremely doubtful that those benchmarks are reliable.
The L2 cache on CuMine is new and (slightly) different. Many programs and some BIOSes that were released before the CopperMine don't know about the new L2 and missidentify it. It's no big deal so Don't Panic.
Uhhh I guess you don't care about games. But why would you you use Linux...what a suckka
1) If I'm not mistaken, the L1 cache in the PIII is at least 64k (32+32). According to the screenshot (which can easily be faked) it's 16 and 16.
2) The L2 cache of the 733 PIII is 256 kb ONBOARD! Why is this important? Well first of all, there is nothing listed under the L2 setting. Did they have to DISABLE THE L2 CACHE to get it to work? If this is not the case, then why isnt' the L2 amount shown? If it was indeed disabled, then it's extremely doubtful that those benchmarks are reliable.
Performance of todays processors is almost as much dependent on cache performance as archetecture and design. By increasing cache performance and memory throughput through the chip, you are decreasing the amount of time that the processors instruction pipelines are left empty. With no L2 cache, this would prove an incredible crippling of the chips ability to execute instructions.
The only other possibility here is that the L2 is disabled, but the test scores are real. This being based on the idea that perhaps, all of these benchmarks are running within the L1 cache, which if true, would mean that the tests are not indicative or real world performance.
But then again, I could be wrong,
Big Din K.R.
I have grown tired of this stupid MHz game. I don't care if it runs at 2000MHz, it's still a poor architecture. What I want is a chip that runs at 200 MHz (pushing it maybe) but runs as fast (and cooler!) as my Celery 400.
And while we're at it, let's reduce the die size a little, eh? Ah, but then how could Intel's marketroids brag about their 27 million transistor count. Geez, what impresses me more is that the PPC can keep up with Intel (or smoke them, depending on who you ask) with what is it, nearly 1/3 the resistor count?
But then, at least I can afford Intel hardware. Apple's prices make Wintel look reasonable.
I keep hoping the Iburnium will improve things. What I've read about it sounds impressive, but the thought of ass-backwards compatibility has me scared. I wish the x86 would die and be forever buried. (Hmm, speaking of IA64, will this be targeted at all at people w/ a budget, or is it restricted to the mega-server market?)
I really don't think you understand how this works. An R12k SGI Mips processor running at 250MHz on a typical O2 will absolutely blow away a 1 GHz PC. Even the older R10k at 180MHz is much faster than a 500MHz PC. One reason is that they don't use a bus. All memory is shared instead, which gives you over 2.1Gb per second data transfer!!!! And then we go up to 1000+ processor machines with over 1 Terabyte of RAM (That's 1000 Gigabytes - roughly)
We like the Cray T3E
There is no contest. Believe me! PC's are currently baby food.
On the super PC note, you must have seen Slashdot's article about SGI's new Linux Supercluster. Should be the fastest machine in the world.
You cannot compare completey different architectures, based only on a 'more MHz is better' idea. Cauze if it were doing that kind of simple math you could say that the sparcs are 64 bit vs intel 32 bit, pushing 2 times as much data per clock, so a 400 MHz USparc would be equivalent to a 800 MHz intel (but with a decent sized cache - and have been shipping for months, without cryo-stuff, not even a fan, just a heatsink). Or you could say that those sparcs can do 64-way SMP, setting your max at 64*400= >25GHz where intel maxes at 4 CPUs, with all the cryo-stuff still only 4*1=4GHz...
I wonder how their translation system managed to translate 'front end bus' into 'drunk face side'
---
Dev elpizw tipota, dev phoboumai tipota eimai lephteros http://euclidian.org
For those who don't get it... Speed doubles every 18mo, so if 1000MHz doubles, it becomes 2000MHz... Y2K-style rollover takes it to 0MHz == DC.
No, they're not.
So? Generating 32-bit constants is not what interesting programs spend most of their time doing. Optimize the common case.
To sum it up, I'd have to disagree on several points:
- Complex instruction decoders are a bottleneck to issuing large numbers of parallel instructions. It's more than just a power issue.
- The 32-bit constant generation example you have is not a typical bottleneck in most code. Control flow is more likely to be.
- x86 is less efficient than alot of other machines due to being a register-starved architecture. It has to rely on tricks such as store-to-load forwarding and micro-caches to turn a small cache of memory addresses into a pseudo-register file.
- While Intel has generally been the "Floating Point King" in x86 world (with Athlon recently taking the title away), x86 floating point as always sucked compared to architectures that have traditionally taken FP seriously. RISC wins squarely here, period.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
These milestones are completely arbitrary - we only use base 10 because humans like to count using their fingers. We use decimal because it's easy.
;-)
If we had 8 digits on our hands instead of 10 we would have been celebrating when cpu's reached 512 Mhz (1000 octal). Woohoo!
Also - we'd only be in year 3717 so we wouldn't have to worry about Y2K!! Of course we probably would have had to worry about the year 3700 since programmers were still trying to save those precious bits 17 years ago
they realized that the performance bottleneck was never the processor. Doh!
Not exactly, but close. Signal propogation delay is getting worse and worse with respect to clock cycle. In the early days, you could consider wire to have zero delay, since transistors were so slow compared to the propogation rate on the wire. As wires have gotten smaller and smaller, their resistance has gone up. Meanwhile we've packed them closer and closer together, so we have tons of capacitance between wires. And finally, transistors have gotten orders of magnitudes faster.
End result: It takes bloody ages for a signal to get anywhere on the chip with respect to how long it took to generate the signal.
Most pieces of silicon nowadays operate with various "domains", each of which has its own local clocking. Depending on how fast you're running, it can take several clocks just for a signal to travel from one end of the chip to the other, so designers tend to subdivide problems into domains that aren't more than a clock-cycle wide. Pipelines and replicated hardware help a little, but physics really starts to bite you in the arse. Copper helps a little here (since it lowers resistance), but it's not a cure-all either.
Our friendly constant 'c' is a couple orders of magnitude above the propogation rate on the chip, so it's not the main limiter. To put it into perspective, light travels 30cm every nanosecond, and chip dimensions are usually closer to 1cm on a side. But we're getting uncomfortably close. :-)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
Awhile back, the X3J11 group responsible for the ANSI C standard was looking at some rather nifty data-parallel C extensions that retained the otherwise "serial programming" nature of the control code. I suspect that an evolutionary approach such as this is likely to gain more ground than forcing people to think about programming in a completely different paradigm.
Postscript and text files containing the Data Parallel C Extensions draft is available here: ftp://ftp.dmk.com/DMK/sc22wg14/data-parallel/
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
Oh, man. that sounds nice, but I seriously wonder what kinda of cooling we need. KyroTech or above? At the lab here, we have Duel PIII-600's in Mini-Tower [had to go Mini-Cause we have 20 of thse suckers] and 2x9 GIGS SCSI HD and SMC 1211TX NIC and they generate heat. [Each of them runs a program called GAUSSIAN which somehow runs for like two weeks each time and generates scratch files totallinng 8 to 12 gigs each run] and it does get damned hot.
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
So 733MHz goes to 1GHz.
Next year we get an Athalon 1.1GHz, which we overclock to 2GHz. And so forth.
But why is this such a big deal?
Probably the same reason as going from 700 mph to breaking the sound barrier in the air was, or having the first car exceed 100 miles per hour. Its a logical progrression, but milestones are important in our culture. Why do we celebrate our 50th birthdays or 50th anniversaries? Well, because they are milestones.
I'm still using a p/233MHz and it still offers me instant gratification for anything I want it to do. What's the rush?
OFTC: By the community, for the community
For some reason I tend to wish Intel would blow AMD out of the charts. I once owned an AMD 486 processor. It burned. My Intel 486 is still working today. I know AMD has improved its design and reliability, however I still can't get over the burnt silicon that consumed my bedroom a few years back.
Imaging going through your kitchen and turning off all the appliances so that your overclocked system will be stable enough for running Quake 3!
Okay, if that's the Athlon Killer, where's the Athlon Killer Killer? I'd like to have that.
Now the big question is -- where the hell did they get a PIII CPU with a multiplier of 7.5? Coppermine 733 has bus speed 133 and multiplier 5.5. Since the multipliers are locked, there is no way to change them. The PIII would have to work at 750MHz (100MHz bus) to have a multiplier of 7.5, but such CPU does not exist. The only CPU that has a multiplier of 7.5 is Celeron 500.
So does that mean it's a hoax?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I don't remember exactly, but it's something like that. Maybe the resonant frequency of the H-O bonds, or maybe one or other resonant frequency of the H atom itself (in that case microwaves would not only heat water but also all carbohydrates).
If so, then it would stand to reason that anything off that frequency would be a very inefficient microwave heater.
That's right. But who knows what other atoms or molecules vibrate at other gigafrequencies... Let's hope silicon doesn't have a resonant frequency at 1.5 GHz, for example. Those CPUs wouldn't last very long.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Heheh it would be funny if they were using the metric system, and had really just cranked a 333 up to 500 or so :o)
Yeah yeah i know that's not it.
I'm just saying it would be funny :o)
ZP
Got Rhinos?
Isn't 900Mhz the frequency at which microwaves ovens operate... will PCs really fry brains?
Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
"i await the day that i awake desiring absolutely nothing."
;) Can't you just imagine it? Instead of Mormons knocking on your door every week, it'll be monks. hehe
Yeah, it's called Nirvana.
According to an article I read in New Scientist, isn't 1GHz around the frequency one uses in domestic microwaves? So as well as yer average Pentium running hot enough to fry eggs, will it be that the inside of a computer is going to resemble a combination oven now...?
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
WOW WOW You should know that Intel always send special samples of their Cpu to the press. They are not locked and you can change both the multiplier and of course, the bus clock. Therefore, this articles doesn t represent what the man in the street can do with a P III 700 but what the cpu is able to do whitout these (stupi....) locks. I am a writer for Hardware-fr (the site which DID IT : ) and i saw it whith my own little eyes..promised.
On the other hand, AMD demoed a long time ago Athlon at 0.25 micron, stable at 1.0 GHz using Kryotech cooling (and 900 MHz is publicy available).
So I'm left wondering what will happen when AMD shifts production to 0.18 micron too (the shift already begun, all current Athlon wafer starts are at 0.18 from now). Should be able to break the 1GHz barrier with just air cooling, and more (1.2 GHz sounds good) with Kryotech.
Posted by cookieman.k:
Hi! Does this mean that my system will (c)rush in to the BSOD whit greater speed ? Or is it Microsoft presuring INTEL to make the csip faster due to the great time requirements of booting Win2000.? How much time do we have left ? Our UPS wont resist more than 3 hours , sir...
numb
?syntax error
I just wonder if this kind of monday-morning sydronme is still experienced in today's mini-toasters. Any comments?
we're probably going to see multiple cores on one die with AMD's next gen sledgehammer
---
It's fake People there is no way it could be done:
First: The program recognizes the CPU as a coppermine witch it should not be able to do yet. Since this is a new CPU
Second: The chip was tampered with Intel set the lock multipliers at 5.5 AKA they fucked arround with the insides.
Third: The board does not officially support the chip. Meaning they're roasting the board.
GPF : The program Win.exe has caused an erorr in
I do believe that the 733Mhz Intel CPU only came out last week. Could the programs already be updated to recognize Intel 733Mhz chips? I seriously doubt it. And I looked at the specs for the mainboard they used for the 1Ghz chip, although it does support up to 8.0 mulitplier, it only mentions support up to the 500Mhz chip. (This doesn't mean that they can't be used for the board, but motherboards required a BIOS update to support AMD chips, I am sure something similar would be required for a 700Mhz+ chip) And it is likely that the Intel 733 chip used in overclock could not be obtained by anyone as the mulitpler was obviously unlocked for these tests and will not be sold that way. Something is not right about these tests. A more reliable source is needed.
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
The problem with UNIX (and Windows, NT, etc) is that they've been written mainly in "C". FORTRAN is a much stauncher language. When will we get a FORTRAN-based system?
Subject says it all
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
it's rather interesting how analogous the semiconductor market is to the manifest destiny belief of the US 'progressive' movement in the early 1900's. Some may argue that it is an innate desire or urge to 'strive for more' or 'further our development', but *enough* never tends to suffice. i await the day that i awake desiring absolutely nothing.
in the meanwhile i'll crank up that voltage setting...
-raj jr
I hate to be the one /. poster who always has to question the validity of the article. First he says that its not very stable. Then he runs all these processor intensive benchmarking programs. I'm sorry... anyone can fake a processor speed by touching up the pics with some photoshop work. I dunno I don't trust overclocking stories without some pictures of the cooling setup or at least a picture guy himself. This could just be an add for Vapochill. I didn't even see a temperature that he got the processors chilled to.
The chips that Intel sends out to reviewers arn't locked, I belive. So they can be tested to full speed.
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
It's a fairly run-of-the-mill "Hey I overclocked my processor to Ludicrous Speed!" article. However, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at some of the truly odd translated phrases...
"If no processor given rhythm at this frequency..." - these processors have rhythm baby! This line reminds me of the dancing bunny-suit Intel engineers.
"While waiting, greediest in MHz can fold back itself on the systems KryoTech Cool Athlon 800 and 900..." - greediest in MHz? Fold back itself while waiting? Sounds like a contortionist that wants all the MHz for itself...
"While waiting, history to dream a little and to see what will have in the belly the processors of demains..." - no comment. Too good for words.
"...on a chipset BX the AGP is to 88 MHz when one uses a drunk face side of 133 MHz..." - my question is, if it's drunk then is it still greedy? Does it still have rhythm? (I know that I lose any rhythm I have when I'm trashed)...
"...the profit of 39% is a little less significant but remains impressive, even if it is also with the read-write memory given rhythm to 133 MHz." - ok it's getting dumb now (the joke, not the article) so I'll end it here... but I like to think that my read-write memory has rhythm too, since my Celeron 300a doesn't shake its stuff too well yet...
Sun has a 64 bit chip called the UltraSparc. Ever heard of it?
Where are my moderator points when I need them?
The simple facts (from Tom's Hardware)
Coppermine processors:
Rated Speed Bus Speed Multiplier
733 133 5.5
700 100 7
667 133 5
650 100 6.5
600 EB 133 4.5
600 E 100 6
533 EB 133 4
550 E (PPGA) 100 5.5
500 E (PPGA) 100 5
Now, since the multipliers are locked on Coppermine processors, there's no way that these people could get a 7.5 multipler. The highest is a "7" with a front-side bus of 100 mhz.
Note that they also make absolutely no mention of any method of cooling this thing. The only thing presented are the benchmarks, all of which are directly proportionate to the increase in mHz rating. Coincidence? I doubt it. There's no mention _at all_ of the hardware this was tested on, except for one screenshot that mentions an ABIT BX6 (Rev. 2) motherboard.
Before you go expounding on the wonders of 1ghz Coppermines, it'd be wise to check the facts first.
Come on man, PCs are unreliable horseshit. IDE is a shitty interface, cases/power supplies/whatever is of low quality. Get real man, linux isn't as great as you think it is. The I/O performance of real Unix boxen rocks shitty PC stuff. I'll take a decent Unix workstation anyday over some PC shit. If you've ever had to work on PCs for a living you'd really begin to hate the bastards.
You could heat your room with that thing. Or at least have a GREAT heated foot stool. Dude.
Bigger and better keeps getting bigger and better. On a slightly more serious note, I wonder how that 1GHz PIII stacks agains the 800 or 900 MHz Athlons. Will the speed difference make that much of a difference? I remember an article a while back on /. that stated that while they have 800Mhz cooled Athlons, the G4 produced a fraction of the heat, but outperformed it by a healthy margin. Makes me wonder if they should maybe start concentrating on new technology innovations, rather than trying to crank up their numbers. Any thoughts?
"BX the AGP is to 88 MHz when one uses a drunk face side of 133 MHz." Don't ya just love babblefish. I wonder how fast the processor would run if it were sober?
Been there. Done that.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Anyone else ever found duel uses for computers :) A buddy of mine once used his monitor @ work to heat pizza pops :)
And the fscking machine will still take 4 minutes to boot up and will still seem painfully slow while the unimanigable bloated OS struggles to fire up that 3D Holographic Netscape v64.1 on the 15 head display!
Well, the good news for AMD is that this is just an Overclocked 733 (although, I can hardware junkies trying out the 153mhz bus speed on some 'overclocker' boards like the bx6-2), so right now AMD still has the fastest chip. Of course, if the yields are high enough over at Intel, they could hit 1Ghz quicker then AMD.
:)
I personally hope that AMD can keep ahead of Intel; their competition has dramatically lowered the cost of PCs in the past few years. When I purchased my p75, it cost me $1500, and that was about as far down the line as you could get in terms of CPUs (The chips out were the 75, 90, 100, and 120 (little did I know at the time that my little 75 could be overclocked to 133). This Saturday I saw an Athilon 600 system for the same price (made by IBM no less). Cheap PCs are good for everyone
Of course there are probably other reasons as well, such as the emergence of the PC as an 'internet appliance' But if it weren't for AMD, they'd all be using Pentium 200s, instead of celeron 466's (witch by the way, was selling for about $500 in a Compaq that day.)
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The way I see it, we'd have had retail 1GHz P!!! processors even before now if only Intel had its mind on the right technologies instead of pie-in-the-sky technologies that no one really wants. How many of us really care about Rambus, considering that we haven't nearly reached the limits of SDRAM? Think about what graphics cards manufacturers are using in their next-generation (or for the GeForce, current-generation) cards--Double Data Rate SDRAM, much as the Athlon FSB is really 100MHz but transfers data twice in the time it takes a normal FSB to transfer once, DDR SDRAM would effectively double memory performance whereas Rambus will start out more expensive than SDRAM and perform worse than 133MHz SDRAM.
We could have DDR SDRAM 200Mhz memory right now if Intel had supported it instead of Rambus, and DDR SDRAM would quickly reach effective speeds of 300MHz--150MHz x 2 times the transfer rate.
But what does this have to do with the 1GHz mark? Intel pushed Rambus for its own agenda, not caring about customers' needs; likewise, development has been almost completely shifted to Merced (oops, make that stupidly-named-Itanium) instead of pushing x86 to its limits first. Were it not for AMD--and this is supported by Intel's own "development roadmaps"--we wouldn't even have seen 700MHz Coppermine this year (and we still won't get it in quantity this year). We have AMD to thank for 700MHz P!!!, which is reason enough in my book to buy Athlon--Intel simply does not care about the consumer, they care about pushing the unnecessary and too-expensive technology of their Rambus partner, and they care about finishing their high-end server processor Itanium; they do *not* care about making their soon-to-be-low-end-compared-to-Merced P!!! run as fast as it can for their customers. Why do you think Intel is suing VIA, whose 133MHz SDRAM chipset beats Rambus performance to Hell and back? This is not off-topic--this is why we don't have 1GHz retail processors by now, which is as on-topic as it gets. Intel, we want x86 at well over 1GHz before we even want to think about Merced. We want you to care about what we care about. But since you don't, a lot of us are going to start thinking AMD Inside instead of caring about Intel, and by the time your prized Itanium rolls around we just might drop it in favour of AMD's 64-bit x86-on-PCP offering. Think about it.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*