Intel is getting rid of the P4 and going back to the P3!!!!

[FreeTheRock [banned]]

Yes i know its THG which isnt a very good site but this article is very interesting and im sure other sites will make a article similar to this, yes the dothan beat the FX-55 when it was overclocked but they forgot to OC the FX-55 thats the only big problem i have with the article.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

[Google]

[Silicon Skum]

like this is NEW?
There are posts on the internet from me and many others dating back a few years, all pointing out the fact the newer generation chips from chipzilla are actually weaker clock for clock. This has been true since the PII first surfaced. I remember a thread on a website somewhere that showed the results of an overclocked PII ( I think peltiers and water blocks were involved) running a comparative FSB and multi against a PIII of the same resulting clock speed. It was not a HUGE difference, but it WAS big enough to be suprising.

The P4 was never really a good CPU design, fast - yes! but it suffered too many problems like heat, greedy voltages and WAY to many revisions and redesigns. Intel basically made a total cock up of this by throwing money at it and adding bells and whistles that don't seem to have made an impact in the chip's usefulness.
The only recent additions to the P4 line that has been of any REAL performance gain has been the Hyper Threading and dual dye CPU.

Of course it's no big suprise that the PENTIUM line of CPU's have been gradually slower, afterall Pentium (meaning 5) was a designation of a FITH GENERATION CPU! Roll on generation 6 chips!

§
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award!

[[KoG]^weaZel]

*Moved* This is about Processors isnt it?



the Pentium M has some similarities to the PIII but the architecture is different. Just as different as the P4 is to the PIII. Just because they are saying that Netburst is dead doesnt mean that they are going back to the PIII. Yes Intel is going back to a shorter pipe to make the chips more efficient.

As you state they did overclock the P-M but when you level the playing field with the clock speeds the P-M can game better than the same clock of any other chip. And it also does so with alot less heat. This doesnt make it the better chip though. It has a weak FPU, and that is why is suffers in other areas. But using this base chip and adding a better FPU to it along with dual core and 64-bit extentions, and you will have one killer chip. That is what they are going to using when they come out with the next gen cpus. This will also be on the 65nm process.

Right now AMD has the better all around chip with the A64 X2. Which I will be building my next system on. This should tide me over till the next gen chips come out and we see the performance with them. But as of right now it looks like I will be going dual-core with AMD. The intention is to use a DFI Overclockers Party motherboard and maybe some GeIL CAS 1.5 memory and dual 7800 GTs (when they come out). The downside is, its going to be a while before this can be build. I should be getting the Koolance Lian-Li Model# PC3-725SL here soon.

Back to the topic at hand. Intel is not going back to the PIII. But probably wouldnt be a bad thing I loved my PIII's
_________________
I tweaked and it tweaked back! So I Tweaked some more!

"Barney is like the Michael Jackson of PBS." - James Tybeerious

[2old2care]

[fussnfeathers]

Weaz has it right. This is actually very old news, the only thing new is Pentium M based desktop boards and adapters. Back in 2002, the Intel rep I dealt with when I was a Gateway repair tech hinted that the Pentium M would eventually find its way into desktops in one form or another, but they would primarily be in laptops for a couple of years (after all, they'd just released HyperThreading for desktops, so that was the hot thing then, no pun intended). And, the P3 never really died, up until last year you could still buy laptops with a P3.

Where Tom's Hardware falls flat is in one statement, that "Intel has yet to give us a satisfactory reason why the Prescott P4, with its 90 nanometer design, has a higher thermal loss than its 130 nanometer predecessor, the P4 Northwood, when comparing chips at the same clock speed." In fact, they have, and it's been well documented as well. It's a simple reason, really.

Thermal loss increases as the die size and complexity decreases. In making a smaller die, you reduce the distance from point A to point B, so the electrical signal can travel "faster" given the same amount of power. However, shrinking that distance also involves shrinking the size of the wires. All electrical wiring has some loss (and that's all a CPU is, in simplistic terms, a bundle of electrical wires and switches). Small wires lose more than thick wires, they simply can't contain all of the electricity as effectively.

Let me give you a visual:

Take your outdoor faucet, that has a small leak at the valve. When you have a large-diameter hose hooked to it, the leak is barely noticable, just a slight trickly from the handle. Now, hook a small diameter hose up to it.......that leak increases to a nice, steady stream. Now, hook a spray nozzle onto the end of it, that leak is spraying like a mofo all over your wall. Now, imiagine that while this was happening, the hose itself started leaking water out of its surface. Might be just a fine misting on the hose, but water is definitely being "pushed" through the surface of the hose. This doesn't happen with the large, thick hose, it's not under as much pressure.

Simplistic, yes, but true of what "thermal loss" is in a processor. What happens with a CPU, though, is that the excess electricity that's being "pushed through" the sides of the wire turns into heat. That's why Prescott chips run so much hotter than Northwoods and other 130nm procs. Much smaller wires (25% smaller or more), smaller interconnects, more leakage from the power stream, which also hurts efficiency.

What I expect to see is a combination of P4 and Pentium Mobile tech, and in reality, they're not that different now. To say they're going "back to a P3" isn't true.......the current Pentium M chip is actually closer to a P4, only missing a couple of instruction sets, than it is to a P3. It's not a huge jump backwards, and I don't expect to see P4's go away anytime soon.

In fact, the new Pentium D and Pentium EE's are based on refined P4 cores, not Pentium M. That will probably happen within the year, though, I would expect. Figure they'll still be slated for notebooks, though, and not desktops.
_________________
Big enough to scare you

[FreeTheRock [banned]]

trust me P4 is going away, Intel didn't show a single Penium4 Processor at Computex 2005 which is one of the biggest indrodution to technology conventions there are, all intel hade there were tons of centrino laptops and Pentium M. now you say this about 90nm but how come 90nm AMD64 processors pruduce less heat than a 130nm AMD64 processor? if your explaination is right then the venice and winchester cores should put out more heat then the clawhammer or newcastle.

[fussnfeathers]

Simple reason.........AMD chips aren't as complex as Intel, as far as the number of traces. Never have been. AMD chips are also lower voltage, so less power being pushed through.

You could argue the same about Pentium M chips, they produce much less heat (50% better or less) on a 90mm process.

Intel went one way with the cores, adding more and more, shrinking the die, while AMD went another way, and didn't include as much new tech in the new procs.

An Intel P4 Prescott includes double to four times the cache of a P3, along with new SSE instructions, HyperThreading, and now SpeedStep, all of which take up space, use power, and leak. AMD's new cores aren't much different from previous versions, for a reason: They didn't need to include new stuff, so they didn't. They simply shrank the core to be more efficient.

And, the Venice chip does put out more heat, but not as much of a jump as a P4 Northwood to a P4 Prescott, because they didn't add much. A few new instructions, that's about it. BUT, it will scale to faster speeds for that.

You can't compare the two companies that way. Sure, it's the same 90nm process, but what's ON the chip is totally different.

Intel never shows much at Computex (which, quite honestly, is smaller than Comdex). They didn't show a final version of the Pentium D or Pentium Extreme Edition, but AMD didn't show their new dual-core either.
_________________
Big enough to scare you

[FreeTheRock [banned]]

um yes they did, Computex marked the official launch of the Athlon 64 X2 processor

[doc18]

isn't it also true that intel's SOI, or strained silicon, wasn't as efficient as amd's? that would've had an effect on it, too
_________________
Asus P5W DH (bios 1407)
Core 2 Duo e6600 @ 3.25Ghz with Zalmn CNPS 9500LED
2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 @ 360Mhz 1:1 3-3-3-12
XFX 7900gt w/ vivo @ 560mhz core/1.6ghz mem with Zalmn VF900 Cu - LED
74GB WD Raptor + 200GB Seagate 7200.7
NZXT Lexa case

[Hoedizzy]

Did you guys hear??? The 80886 is going to replace the Pentium 4!!!