Pentium 4.0ghz Outdated??

[Maxil223]

I was at Computer Wizards and I was talking to the owner and a bunch of technicians,
and they said that Intel isnt even going to release a 4.0ghz CPU at all, and that they are
skipping straight to 5.0ghz . Anyone hear anything else about it?? is it going to be 128 bit??

 

[Markfw]

They stopped the P4 at 3.8. There is no word on 5ghz, except maybe from wishfull thinking fanboys. The word is they have decided to use their resources on the next generation, dual core (not sure which dual core though). So for the time being AMD reigns until Intel comes out with something

 

[Thermalrock]

think p4 dual core. pentium m not suppose to come to desktop mainstream till 2007.

 

[IamTHEsnake]

What they probably meant was 2.5Ghz core0 + 2.5Ghz core1 = 5Ghz

 

[BW86]

I would love to see the heatsink on 5ghz pentium :laugh:

 

[TheStu]

I don't think it will even be that fast.... maybe 4 GHz 2 on each core.. if it works that way that is....

 

[Thermalrock]

its definitely not gonna be 2x2ghz P4s cuz that would be slower than one 4ghz and would be beat by their 3.8 ghz in any non theoretical scenario. so unless they bring the pm earlier than 2007 to desktop which is when intel said they were its gonna have to be clocked higher.

 

[Mrvile]

Sony is working on a 4.something ghz CPU for the PS3. They say they have it running in labs.

 

[Bateluer]

I think Intel will move the Pentium M onto the desktop market a lot earlier than 2007, given their current problems with the netburst designs.

 

[Falloutboy]

I love stupid sales people....intel has no intention of releasing anything 5ghz for next year at least if not longer

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
its definitely not gonna be 2x2ghz P4s cuz that would be slower than one 4ghz and would be beat by their 3.8 ghz in any non theoretical scenario. so unless they bring the pm earlier than 2007 to desktop which is when intel said they were its gonna have to be clocked higher.

I thought dual core design would handle processing much in the same way Nvidia's SLI handles rendering.
Each core would be load balanced and take a percentage of the load, essentially making it much faster than a Dual processor config, which does not load balance. So, is this incorrect?

 

[Zebo]

bwhahahahaaaa. Ya right after they equip dell boxen with vapochill lightspeeds.

 

[charloscarlies]

Originally posted by: Zebo
bwhahahahaaaa. Ya right after they equip dell boxen with vapochill lightspeeds.

 

[BW86]

Originally posted by: Zebo
bwhahahahaaaa. Ya right after they equip dell boxen with vapochill lightspeeds.

tell me about it

 

[LTC8K6]

The 3.8 Prescotts are getting to 4.2 on air, so they weren't all that far away.

They certainly could have released a 4Ghz Prescott, but I am glad they decided to redirect their efforts elsewhere.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The 3.8 Prescotts are getting to 4.2 on air, so they weren't all that far away.

They certainly could have released a 4Ghz Prescott, but I am glad they decided to redirect their efforts elsewhere.

On what kind of air? $40 4kg copper HSF? 5000rpm 92mm screamers?
How much power?170W?
How much lost CPU cyles due to thermal throttle?


Face it, a Dothan derivative is intels future. Not these loud, expensive to cool, expensive to power hawgs. I'll be buying some kind of dothan the day they come out with DDR, 800+FSB for my silent game box. Even AMD will look like smokers then.

 

[Malak]

I thought I read the dual cores would be 2.6ghz cores, which would be 5.2ghz. That is probably what they were thinking. And if it worked like SLI works for video cards, you could call it an even 5ghz of performance. Would be nice to see that vs whatever AMD comes up with(anything? anything?) vs that cell chip which is 4.6ghz

I'm actually more curious about the cell chip than anything. Wouldn't it be fun to have a third company throw their hat into this mess and actually smoke both AMD and Intel single handedly? Wait, isn't that what the Playstation did to Sega and Nintendo?

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: malak
I thought I read the dual cores would be 2.6ghz cores, which would be 5.2ghz. That is probably what they were thinking. And if it worked like SLI works for video cards, you could call it an even 5ghz of performance. Would be nice to see that vs whatever AMD comes up with(anything? anything?) vs that cell chip which is 4.6ghz

AMD is coming out with dual-cores too, maybe even before Intel does.

I'm actually more curious about the cell chip than anything. Wouldn't it be fun to have a third company throw their hat into this mess and actually smoke both AMD and Intel single handedly? Wait, isn't that what the Playstation did to Sega and Nintendo?

That sony chip sounds pretty sweet, the problems that I see on first view (I haven't done any research yet) are x86 support (eg. would it be like Intel's Itanium2 that has completely different instructions so it can only run certain very uncommon software) and sony's production capacity. I doubt sony has processor fab capacity anywhere near either intel or even amd (anyone know?) so it probably couldn't sell the chip to PC consumers as well as ps3 consumers.

It would be cool though, I gotta do more research on it.

 

[LTC8K6]

Zebo, it was the stock fan in the review. They had it to 4.3 but it was not totally stable.

From firing squad's review:

"Using the D925XECV2 motherboard and its latest BIOS, which fixes a problem with Intel?s burn-in mode, the 3.8GHz Pentium 4 scaled up to 4.3GHz ? the highest setting available ? without crashing. It didn?t prove to be as reliable in games, so we dropped it to 4.2GHz, where the platform worked without issue."

Face it, Prescott was never as hot as it's rep, and the newer steppings are no worse than Northwoods.

 

[Sc4freak]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Face it, Prescott was never as hot as it's rep, and the newer steppings are no worse than Northwoods.

:thumbsup:

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
its definitely not gonna be 2x2ghz P4s cuz that would be slower than one 4ghz and would be beat by their 3.8 ghz in any non theoretical scenario. so unless they bring the pm earlier than 2007 to desktop which is when intel said they were its gonna have to be clocked higher.

I thought dual core design would handle processing much in the same way Nvidia's SLI handles rendering.
Each core would be load balanced and take a percentage of the load, essentially making it much faster than a Dual processor config, which does not load balance. So, is this incorrect?

No, AFAIK they cannot do anything like this because CPU operation and GPU operation are completely different. SLI works because video is the most insanely parallel operation a PC can do; video operations are completely linear; they work on one pixel, then the next, then the next...

In CPU's, you need to have OS support of multiple CPUs and then the programs need to be coded to take advantage of dualcore; once again AFAIK dual core is nothing more than a more cost effective way of doing dual processors then having two physical slots. It still is an exciting technology though - I'm really looking forward to AMD's dualcore, personally.

Originally posted by: TheStu
I don't think it will even be that fast.... maybe 4 GHz 2 on each core.. if it works that way that is....

From what I heard, Intel's P4 Prescott based dual core chips will start at 2.8 GHz (ie two 2.8 GHz CPU's on a single core), then run at 3 GHz and 3.2 Ghz (I'm not sure if all three of these will be available at launch or just the first two and then the third later).

Originally posted by: Maxil223
I was at Computer Wizards and I was talking to the owner and a bunch of technicians,
and they said that Intel isnt even going to release a 4.0ghz CPU at all, and that they are
skipping straight to 5.0ghz . Anyone hear anything else about it?? is it going to be 128 bit??

Intel will go 'straight to 5 GHz' only because of dualcore. They can't push the P4 architecture much past 4 Ghz right now.

As for 128-bit, I think you're confusing CPU's with game consoles. CPU's are still 32-bit currently and are in the middle of transitioning to 64-bit (mainly because the most physical memory a 32-bit CPU can address is 4 GB, while for a 64-bit CPU it's way past a terabyte (2^64 bytes, although initial 64-bit CPU's only support 2^40 bytes of RAM, which is about 1 TB or 1000 GB).

64-bit will be all CPU's need for addressing space for a LONG time.

 

[Thermalrock]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003


I thought dual core design would handle processing much in the same way Nvidia's SLI handles rendering.
Each core would be load balanced and take a percentage of the load, essentially making it much faster than a Dual processor config, which does not load balance. So, is this incorrect?

yes. this is incorrect.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The 3.8 Prescotts are getting to 4.2 on air, so they weren't all that far away.

They certainly could have released a 4Ghz Prescott, but I am glad they decided to redirect their efforts elsewhere.

On what kind of air? $40 4kg copper HSF? 5000rpm 92mm screamers?
How much power?170W?
How much lost CPU cyles due to thermal throttle?

"To cool our Pentium 4 570J down throughout our overclocking tests we took the most efficient air cooler for LGA processors we had in our test lab, Zalman?s CNPS7700Cu. As a result, the maximum FSB frequency the system was absolutely stable at was 226MHz. The processor was working at 4.3Ghz at that." XbitLabs

People should not underestimate intel. They had 4.5ghz like 3 years ago and I even remember an article with pictures from one of the computer shows with a 10ghz processor.

 

[gobucks]

intel has officially canned the 4GHz P4. Instead, in the short term, it will come out with 2MB L2 Prescotts to increase performance. Later on next year, it will release the x20, x30, and x40 "digital" line of dual core processors. These chips are gonna be somewhere around 2.8GHz, 3.0GHz, and 3.2GHz, respectively. Of course, performance will not even be close to double. An estimate by AMD on dual core is that a dual core CPU 3-5 speed grades slower than the flagship chip will have performance about 20% higher than the flagship chip. I'm not sure if that 20% is the 3 step down chip or the 5 step down chip, though. Also, AMD and Intel have different dual core designs, so I'm not sure which will end up being better (AMD uses separate cache, and has more memory bandwidth, Intel uses a shared cache and is stuck on an 800MHz FSB), so we'll have to see. Anyways, after that, we'll see dual core Pentium M chips, which I expect to be much more competitive, and considering with their thermal envelopes, they won't have to scale down performance as much. Of course, they need some changes, like faster busses, add floating point performance, and hopefully 64-bit support. Of course, I'm still probably gonna be going AMD, but it's always nice to have some good competition from Intel.

 

[Malak]

What about the affect of having dual-core chips and SLI together? Don't you think there's some way of increasing performance further in games using that setup?

And SLI isn't showing twice the performance as a single card, no reason to think dual-core will either. Just the performance potential is higher.