|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Intel to introduce new Pentium 4 chipset
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Gunslinger
It has been learned that Intel will be quietly introducing a new Pentium 4 chipset which will allow the processor to be connected to DDR memory.
<font color="skyblue">The new chipset, a variation on the Intel 845 introduced in September, is a significant move for the company. DDR SDRAM is a faster version of synchronous dynamic RAM, the standard system memory used in desktop PCs.
When it came out, 845/SDRAM combination shaved about $100 off the cost of a Pentium 4 computer, allowing PC makers to offer desktop/monitor combinations for about $850. PCs equipped with 845/DDR SDRAM should start around the same price or just a bit higher, sources said. </font>
Perhaps this is what the Pentium 4 needs to really get itself off the ground after being the general disappointment that it was. With the predicted lack of price increase, it might bring over some would be AMD customers.
View the full article <a href="http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-8146118.html?tag=mn_hd">here</a>.
Source: <a href="http://cnet.news.com">CNET</a>
Posted by: Spork Lover
You know... everyone says p4 is a big disappointment...blah blah blah. Im not siding on any part of this argument... but it seems to me that there must be a narrow band of people that really dont like it, because intel showed a sales increase... which put them above their prediction. They attributed this all to p4 sales. With the p3 being phased out and p4 sales going up...intel making more money...how does it need more help getting off the ground.
I would like to point out that Im not flaming you in anyway. I just feel that its a misconception that the P4 isnt selling well. I would like to add that this chipset will please alot of the enthusiasts though  .... I think my 850 mobo is fried... so Ill buy a ddr 845.. pull 256mb ddr from my athlon and toss it into a new case with the p4 1.5ghz.
Posted by: SKYHN
Wow, P4 with DDR. I guess my P4 with RDRam is trash now.... I doubt even with DDR the P4 is gonna out perform the athlon.
But heres the question I have: Intel is just now deciding to make DDR p4 chipsets, why didnt they do it a lot earlier to maybe get more performance out of their chip?
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
P4's are a disappointment to techies because they're overpriced and underperforming. Rambus is the same way which makes the situation even worse.
Intel is strong in their marketing though. Techies are but a tiny % compared to the total sales of computers. Most people are going to buy the P4 because Dell Dude and the Blue Pentium Aliens like them.  And no one selling these computers are going to be saying anything bad about them either.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
As far as DDR vs. RDR, Chances are the P4's with DDR will have a better response time to applications and stuff. In a few handful of programs that stress memory bandwidth, the RDR will still probably be a bit faster.
The question is, will Intel deliberately limit the performance of their DDR boards so they don't appear better than their Rambus counterparts? They did it with the i815, why would they stop now?
Posted by: redwench
its doubtful anyone would notice a difference unless they ran a benchmark. anyway, intel has the next generation chip in the works, so theyre getting ready to phase out the p4. not that it will require much on thier part. as soon as the new chip comes out and proves to be stable, most people are gonna flock there, since the p4 isnt that great.
Posted by: SKYHN
I bet intels "Itanium" or whatever it is will barely beat(if it even matches) athlons current fastest. Unless the Itanium is like 10ghz.
Intel advertisement-
The new "Itanium" Processor Running at 10.0 Ghz featuring the "Antarctic Tundra" cooler.
LOL.
Posted by: redwench
it aint all about speed baby.
if athlon would make a chip that didnt overheat, and chipsets were made that were more compatable with everything out there, then everyone would be buying an athlon.
as long as speed isnt the limiting factor, which it certainly isnt with todays applications, then intel will win with a more stable chip. even the newest games out only require a 400mhz chip (500 recommended). and i doubt anything really takes advantage of cpus over about 1.2g at the moment.
note to athlon: i would be more than happy to buy your chips if the above issues were addressed 
Posted by: SKYHN
Well in the world of PC games, graphics are a big deal, that is why there are different video cards. But there is no way that I could play a game with a 400mhz processor and a GeForce 3 at 1024 resolution and then play the same game on a 1.2 ghz processor with a GeForce 3 at 1024 resolution and NOT notice a difference. Speed is a factor. I takes my old 233mhz p2 a looooong time to load a single level of diablo. Get on this pc(P4 1.3ghz) and the load time is a blink of the eye. You could say that its faster because of my video card, but original diablo does not have the code to take advantage of AGP, D3D, OpenGL and all that good stuff. I say CPU speed does matter.
when they say 400mhz(500mhz recommended) that is just saying that is the minimum your system needs to run the game, not necessarily that a faster CPU will not improve performance.
And I dont mean just games here, other things like photo editing, webpage building, etc can be compared. Even word processing. With general typing and formatting, CPU wont matter much, but if you are doing graphs, Large mail merges, importing/exporting data, and etc, you will see a huge difference. I remember when I was taking MS Office Classes, the first year we had PII 300mhz CPU's(I think, close to that). Then about the middle of the second year we got some brand new P3 800mhz machines. Processing times were cut down to 1/10th what they were before. Those things blazzed for that stuff.
EDIT: That may have seemed like I was flaming you, but I was just giving my personal opinion on CPU speed.
Posted by: redwench
are you seriously telling me that you would notice a difference playing a 1.6g vs a 1.7g? because i really doubt it. at the bottom end, of course youre going to notice the difference. but at the top end, speed doesnt matter, since the limitations are in the program, not the cpu.
my point with the required speed, is that new programs are now coming out that were written with a p3 in mind. top speed really wont make any difference to the human eye. that is why they started benchmark programs to evaluate the differences.
Posted by: SKYHN
No, im not saying that. 100mhz isnt really a big difference. But when you start comparing a 1ghz CPU to a 1.6ghz CPU, there is a big difference. I probably should have made that more clear.
The differences between a p4 1.6ghz and a p4 1.7ghz could really only be seen in bench marks. But a p4 1.2ghz compared to a p4 1.8 ghz would be noticeable, especially on games.
Posted by: Gunslinger
 Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
P4's are a disappointment to techies because they're overpriced and underperforming. Rambus is the same way which makes the situation even worse.
Intel is strong in their marketing though. Techies are but a tiny % compared to the total sales of computers. Most people are going to buy the P4 because Dell Dude and the Blue Pentium Aliens like them. And no one selling these computers are going to be saying anything bad about them either.
|
Thanks Ion. Saved me the trouble of saying it.
Wench is correct to a degree, but so is skyhn. Clock speed differences do matter between about the 400 mhz and 900 mhz marks. Anything over that, and the limitations are now in the program, and increased clock speed doesn't mean jack. I was originally running Diablo1 on a 75 mhz. The program will always be the limitation there. Your load times were not likely reduced by a better processor, but rather by a faster hard drive.
Now, I don't remember who commented that Intel's next gen processor won't beat any existing Athlons. This is simply not true. The Itanium will absolute destroy EVERY existing Athlon processor. There is no question about it, and no opportunity for discussion. The Itanium is a 64 bit processor. That is enough said right there. An Itanium at 1 ghz would take a T-Bird at 2 ghz, chase it out back, and beat it with a shovel. However, by the time the Itanium comes out, AMD will have released their 64 Bit processor codenamed "Sledgehammer".
I do have more to say, but I have to go . I'll come back to this later.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Itanium won't do jack for home users. Reason being is there isn't any software that takes advantage of a 64 bit processor. Unless they redesigned it, the Itanium has to use Emulation to run 32-but applications. Which slows it way down. Itanium is targeted for the server market.
The Sledgehammer can do both 32-bit and 64-bit which will give a better all around average performance. It's also being targeted for the server market.
Posted by: -Memnoch-
Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
The question is, will Intel deliberately limit the performance of their DDR boards so they don't appear better than their Rambus counterparts? They did it with the i815, why would they stop now?
|
I think thats a very good point. Look at the track record.
I still amazes me that Intel and Rambus even consider working with eachother. The way they go after eachother like a dysfuctional co dependant recovering addict couple the more I shy away from anything that uses Rambus. The only people I know who like the name Rambus are the lawyers getting rich on the lawsuits between the two companies.
And I might be overgeneralizing here but I still fail to see why Rambus is so... great? I don't see any real need for them myself.
Posted by: Spork Lover
Quote:
Originally posted by SKYHN
I bet intels "Itanium" or whatever it is will barely beat(if it even matches) athlons current fastest. Unless the Itanium is like 10ghz.
Intel advertisement-
The new "Itanium" Processor Running at 10.0 Ghz featuring the "Antarctic Tundra" cooler.
LOL.
|
correct me if im wrong... but itanium wont be home use at all... its designed with server use in mind... built to go head to head with sun and the likes...
Intel will get it right next time... AMD is turning up the competition which will force Intel to get their act together or continue to give AMD a bigger peice of the pie. competition is great... intel was sitting all fat and happy... and then tbird gave them a black eye
Posted by: Gunslinger
"correct me if im wrong"
Consider yourself corrected. =)
Itanium is a completely different kind of processor than we're used to seeing. So is AMD's "Sledgehammer". It's a 64 bit processor. Of course it will see server work, but the server grade chip will have Xeon type modifications to it.
It will see home use, just like the Sledgehammer. It's a 64 bit processor. The current Pentiums and Athlons are 32 bit processors. That doesn't mean that the performance is a multiplicative increase of 2. That is an exponental increase in power. If you wanna chunk the numbers, just imagine it taking the better part of a week to write out the bit per second capability of a 64 bit processor.
It's like the difference between 64 bit encrypotion and 128 bit encryption - for you crptos out there.
I can't wait for the 64 bit procs.
Posted by: SKYHN
Ok I guess I was partly wrong with what I said about the Itanium before. I forgot that it is a 64bit Processor.
Posted by: Chako
Going to agree with Ion on all his postings in this thread. I hate coming to a good argument late..sigh.
the new Itanium will run on a 64 bit WinXP platform designed specifically for servers, workstations, engineering/scientific fields. The promise that 32 bit codes will be able to run on a 64 bit platform is there, but in emulation mode. How much speed will be lost in emulation mode is not known at this time, but I am sure that there will be enough of a penalty hit for home users to stay away from it, in the beginning. This won't be a gaming platform. I do find this humorous though in that most hate WinXP as it now stands... I can't wait to see the reaction to the 64 bit version..hehe..talk about irony. Guess there is always Win2000 Advanced server limited Ed.
Any news on AMD's 64 bit CPU called the K8? After reading the lower link, I found it interesting, and possibly an Itanium killer. Time will tell.
By the way, here are a few links that pertain to the discussion:
http://www.windowsclusters.org/win64.htm
http://www.sysopt.com/articles/k8/index.html
Posted by: redwench
in the beginning, yes. but games and consumer progs will be written for 64bit eventually. so it will all be fine
Posted by: SKYHN
Isnt Doom 3 "Supposedly" going to be written for use with 32 and 64 bit processors?
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Here's a good article about it Chako. Looks impressive to me.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1546
|
|
|
|
|
