dcsimg
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Intel Speaks on Dropped 4GHz P4

  1. #1
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922

    Intel Speaks on Dropped 4GHz P4

    IMHO they should have at least brought it to 4, and stopped it there. 3.8 is just such a wierd number to leave it at. But alas, intel will be intel.

  2. #2
    Member SLX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    304
    Yea it is kinda silly to leave it at 4 ghz, but like you said Intel is Intel. They might saving the 'prestige' if the 4ghz mark for there next line of processors. So they can say hey our 'pentium 5s' run at 4ghz!

  3. #3
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    Maybe they'll ramp their dual cores up to 4GHz (or 2x2GHz) and proclaim a "performance milestone" with them.

  4. #4
    Ultimate Member porsch1909's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,121
    well really amd have got 4 Ghz performance first now that they release the 64 4000. lol; so all the amd fanboys id imagine are claiming a milestone.

  5. #5
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    The difference between 3.8 and 4.0 means so little in a performance arena anyway. It's not like the difference between a PIII 600E and 800E back in the day - then you could actually TELL a slight difference from the increased CPU speed.

    Something like 4 to 5.5GHz would be necessary to do that.

    And dual core won't! The vast majority of generic code scales much better with a single CPU core. Only parallelism-friendly code, which is an alarmingly low percentage of all practical code out there, will see gains from dual-core.

  6. #6
    Member SLX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    304
    Are single processors comming to a physical performance limit? I mean Intel and AMD have seem to be stuck in the 3-4ghz range for the last 2 years?

    Is this just reason for the processors going to duel core? Seems like alot of trouble to program everything to utillize duel core technology? I mean look at hyperthreading it is great, but not every thing utillizes it.

    Seems like intel is easing its way into duel core, hyperthreading first then the 2x core?

  7. #7
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    You're right on all counts.

  8. #8
    Ultimate Member Strawbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,706
    I doubt very much that Dual Core will reach 4Ghz anytime soon!

    I would more expect to see a drop to around 2.5GHz before a steady increase ensues, Hence Intel's move away from speed related monikors. Performance will increase over the 3.8 prescott's even at that low a speed, that is precisely amd's strategy - more performance from less cycles = less heat generated.

    They "may" have stopped short of the 4GHz mark because Prescott "may have" reached it's critical operating temperature without the need for expensive cooling solutions. Such a requirement would not make good business sense for Intel - which relies heavily on it's image as the provider of stable CPU's. It only takes a few system builders\reveiwers to report the CPU's failure because of high temperatures to turn Intel's good name to mud.

  9. #9
    Member Zephyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    in front of my comp =D
    Posts
    41
    it's certainly an interesting idea to think that processor companies have hit a wall with their speeds. i dont like the idea that dual-core is the only way to get good speeds. just because im so used to single core. although, things like here show that many slow processors beat a fast processor, so will multi-processor boards become the norm in 2 years? i would be much more welcome to this than dual-core, for every reason from heating to utilization. plus, i can imagine it would be very simple for processor companies to make the entry-level processors for people who, at most, online chat on their computers, using it for mostly file-keeping, web browsing, and possibly some music-playing, simple and easy to manufacture, effectively making them cheaper. so companies could sell a base-level computer, the equivalent of a 2600+ or so with integ. graphics and 512MB of ram for 200 bucks. how nice would that be for small buisnesses? and for a gamer, it would be as simple as having a dual-processor. processor and motherboard manufacturers could start specializing processors and setups to be in completely made for dual configuration. making it much more efficient. i dunno, just some thoughts.

  10. #10
    Banned zybch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    2,292
    Intel have only themselves to blame.
    For years and years they have been working under the "MHz at any cost" system, and producing chips that run at incredible MHz speeds, but actually do very little real work (IPC).
    AMD's athlon 64's have probably scared Intel a lot, hence the change to a bizzare numbering scheme. But what else can you do when your new 3600MHz part, runs slower than the competition's 2200MHz part?

  11. #11
    Ultimate Member porsch1909's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,121
    I am interested in this new DFI pentium M motherboard though. the new news article. the 2.8 Ghz is suppose to be blistering.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •