Intel Prescott Released 205
daemonslayer writes "The nondisclosure agreement on Intel's long awaited new Pentium 4, codenamed Prescott, has just been lifted. So can it beat its predecessor, the Northwood? Find out at Anandtech, Tom's Hardware, or any of the other thousand review sites." Or HotHardware, PC Magazine, XBitLabs, or HardOCP. Basically, looks like it's faster, but still not the fastest in all areas. Tide goes in, tide goes out.
Increased cache latency. (Score:5, Interesting)
The most interesting characteristic of these new P4's is IMHO:"
"On the other hand, Prescott is looking at some massive increases in latency, the access latency for the Level 1 cache has quadrupled, and the Level 2 cache accesses are approximately 50% slower." -- Lost Circuits [lostcircuits.com]
Intel better ramp up that clock and/or have everyone optimizing for SSE3 if they want to dominate the benchmarks.
Suggested mod-limit: 3, Interesting
Re:Increased cache latency. (Score:3, Interesting)
In reality, x86 benchmarks have become all but meaningless. They're all within a short distance of each other, and each chip is faster for some things, slower than others. There hasn't been a real breakway technology CPU in a long time.
So... if you half the cache speed... (Score:2)
Re:Increased cache latency. (Score:2)
Re:Increased cache latency. (Score:2, Interesting)
Informative? (Score:4, Informative)
Readable review (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Readable review (Score:4, Informative)
Page info (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Page info (Score:2)
Re:Readable review (Score:2)
Yeah, I'll have a very good review up later this week on The Jem Report [thejemreport.com], and I'll be testing in FreeBSD and GNU/Linux as well as Windows. I'll have some very interesting (possibly /.-worthy) things to write about if all of my testing goes as planned.
And... most importantly, I will be using retail product, not pre-release samples like all of the reviews posted above. That means you get the real review, not prototype results.
-Jem
Re:Readable review (Score:2)
Hmmm.... no, you weren't trolled, but you are trolling.
I have confidence in my reviews. If you have a problem with that, too bad. Maybe that's why you're a nameless coward on /. and not writing your own reviews?
-JemThe Tech Report (Score:2)
Linkie [tech-report.com]
Re:Readable review (Score:3, Informative)
Thoughts. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're looking for nothing more than a purchasing decision let's put it simply: if you're not an overclocker, do not buy any Prescott where there is an equivalently clocked Northwood available. This means that the 2.80E, 3.00E, 3.20E are all off-limits, you will end up with a CPU that is no faster than a Northwood and in most cases slower.
I figured as much before the NDA was lifted. After all, with a 31 stage pipeline, the Prescott was bound to be clock for clock slower than it's previous incarnations.
This only makes me wonder. If a 4ghz Prescott is going to be much like a 3ghz Northwood, is AMD going to adjust its PR Rating to the new cores that Intel has? This will only end up confusing things, as a newly rated A64-3400 will be faster than a "Higher numbered" intel version.
Great... Just what we need. More PR confusion.
Re:Thoughts. (Score:5, Insightful)
This situation is shaping up, in my eyes, to be a repeat of the release of the Willamette P4 - an inefficient IPC coupled with a low clock speed nearly killed the P4 before Intel could increase the clock speed. The same thing is happening here - another inefficient IPC design with a clock speed equal to the current Northwoods, with subsequent losses in performance. And like another poster here said, the A64 3400+ still beats the Prescott in a number of benchmarks, or ties evenly with it. Despite Anand's statements about how higher clockspeeds increase the efficiency of the Prescott core, I still think that this processor is an expensive upgrade that doesn't do very much.
If Intel can't get the clock speed up on Prescott, I have a feeling that it's going to tank until the LGA775 packaging is finally brought out, which is going to mean more business for AMD and a lot of eggs on Intel's face.
Re:Thoughts. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd really like to address this question fully but I'm currently working on an Intel processor. It hurts me not to type what I want but I know better.
Re:Thoughts. (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the benches, the Prescott cores generally aren't too much slower than Northwoods and the areas where they lag the most are the ones that SSE3 looks like it should alleviate.
The Prescott delivers respectable performance and will end up costing less at the same clock speeds than Northwood. We're not looking at an event like the original P4 launch where the new chip was not only slower but also more expensive & required hardware upgrades to use.
The Prescott is not being marketed as an upgrade to Northwood systems; while I'm sure Intel would love you to replace your 3.2C with a 3.2E, they're not suggesting it be done. They're just introducing it now so they can ramp up production before the Northwood gets phased out.
As far as the 775 socket goes, Athlon64 is also kinda waiting for a new packaging to reach its full capabilities; the A64 & A64FX lines are going to be moving to a unified socket that'll give the A64 access to dual-channel memory.
Re:Thoughts. (Score:3, Informative)
I don't anticipate that SSE3 will have much of an effect on performance, certainly not like SSE2 does. It's really just filling in a few holes, instructions that probably should have been included in SSE2 but weren't for whatever reason. Some odd special-case scenarios might see a big boost, but for the most part I would throw out a guess of 0-5% max for most programs, with the majority falling closer to the 0%
Re:Thoughts. (Score:2, Informative)
Anand mentioned this, but the decision to add pipeline stages, whether it be 1 or 11, wasn't done on a whim. In fact, just to go through with the design, verification, and implementation processes would take over a year (probably closer to two).
Even when you add one pipe stage, you have to worry about creating new hazards/bugs and making sure that the chip is functionally correct. In fact, I'm surprised that Prescott is even considered a P4 core. To me it seems like a radical design change.
My guess is t
Re:Thoughts. (Score:2)
I do agree that the Prescott should be a Pentium 5, seeing as it's a redesign, and it has a new revision of SSE (Intel DID get away with Katmai being a Pentium III, after all - I think Katmai should have been the P2B, but...)
The performance that Northwood is achieving right now would probably be much more difficult to hit on a Pentium 3 core.
Do you mean a Tualatin core, or the P6 core that is
Re:Thoughts. (Score:2)
Re:Thoughts. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course you don't see any AMD chips that are *clearly* head and shoulders above Intel in benchmarks, though. Maybe a few percent faster here, a few percent slower there. It's all just noise.
Re:Thoughts. (Score:2)
You don't read slashdot do you? This post links [slashdot.org]to some very recent research that claims lengthening the pipeline is actually the right thing to do.
Another armchair architect.
Re:Athlon Performance Ratings (Score:5, Informative)
"is AMD going to adjust its PR Rating to the new cores that Intel has?"
I don't think so. AMD Athlon PRs are not measured against Intel Chips.
AFAIK, the AMD Athlon PR numbers are the newer CPUs' (Athlon XPs, 64s) ratings against the older Athlon Thunderbirds which were the last ones that were labeled and sold in MHz/GHz.
So roughly, an Athlon XP2600+ would be akin to an Athlon Thunderbird that was theoretically made to run at 2.6GHz
Remember, a 1.33GHz Athlon Thunderbird stacked up pretty well against a 1.7GHz P4 back then, and only lost out on SSE optimizations.
Re:Athlon Performance Ratings (Score:5, Interesting)
a 3000+ is 3 times faster than a 1GHz Duron, etc.
This is according to "PC Hardware in a Nutshell" 3rd edition (O'Reilly).
Can anyone back this up with a reference from AMD?
Re:Athlon Performance Ratings (Score:2, Interesting)
They got it the other way around, but that's more or less correct.
A 1GHz Duron is roughly the same speed as a 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird since the 1GHz Duron was the then newer "Morgan" cores (which came out with the Athlon XPs). Benchmarks then showed that 1GHz Morgan Durons ran more or less at the same speed as the older 1GHz Thunderbird Athlons.
The increase in performance mostly came from the additional SSE instructions present in the 1GHz Morgan core Durons. Yep, especially since Quake III makes heavy
Re:Athlon Performance Ratings (Score:2)
This is according to "PC Hardware in a Nutshell" 3rd edition (O'Reilly).
Can anyone back this up with a reference from AMD?"
Nope, but I can happily dispute it. According to this [amd.com] document from AMD's site, it's based on the performance that would come from a 2.6GHz Athlon processor. The specific core to which it's compared is not detailed, however it would only make sense from a marke
Re:Thoughts. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thoughts. (Score:2)
My guess is, no. Despite what may seems intuitive, the AMD PR rating is not scaled against the P4. The baseline measurement for AMD's PR system is a 1GHz Duron. IE: My Athlon 2600+ is supposed to perform 2.6 times faster than a 1GHz Duron would. Hope that clears things up for you some.
Re:Thoughts. (Score:2)
Re:Thoughts. (Score:2)
This is what amazes me about the chip... Intel has done a really good job improving branch prediction and other parts of the core to keep the pipeline filled as much as possible. Being able to increase the pipeline length by over 50% and not have a large decrease in IPC is just amazing.
And when you consider that a 3.2 GHz processor runs up to at least 3.8 on air cooling n
Re:Thoughts. (Score:2, Insightful)
Will this work? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Will this work? (Score:2)
Re:Will this work? (Score:2)
No. Overclocking leads to read errors from the keyboard buffer.
Slower!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, the increase in cache helps, but the increase in pipeline stages really kills intensive non-repetitive computing tasks...
and oh...i think I got first post!
Re:Slower!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slower!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree.. I think that the performance enhancements were due to factors other than the lenghtened pipe and fast clock.. The clock merely compensates (currently badly) for the added [wasteful] buffers, longer latency, and deminishing marginal return on a single enhanced variable (clock-speed).
Intel needs to create a market for it's higher priced CPUs.. So by having a nominal performance chip, they can increase the other variables (cache performance being a big one), and thus charge an enormous premium.
I believe that they could go a long way to enhance the performance of their existing P4 archtecture, but they need more marketing power.. They don't want to waste time/money advertising Pentium 5. Additionaly, the "extreme-edition" moniker on a similarly clocked CPU is going to be a hard-sell. Thus they will make the most money on clock-enhancements.
AMD has the potential to capitalize on this by getting a higher benchmark rating, virtually for free, so I don't really see this as a big win.
The only issue is that it's cheaper to design a CPU with more stages than to optimize a lower-stage-count to get more Instr/sec. So AMD might not be in a position to get a truely faster cpu out any time soon, and relabeling their existing CPU's won't go over very well.
from the amd information minister... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:from the amd information minister... (Score:2)
Re:from the amd information minister... (Score:2)
Athlon64 - the consumer level chip. limited to single-chan. memory
Athlon64 FX - Opteron targeted at single-proc workstations.
Opteron - A64 FX with SMP capabilities.
Aww man (Score:2, Funny)
Hemos, damn you, I was about to read the articles and you spoiled the end
Re:Aww man (Score:2)
2 Jags Prescott (Score:4, Funny)
This also conjours up an impression of the Intel Prescotts being in ineffecient, environmentally-unfriendly and handling code in an annoying accent.
Why oh why couldn't Intel have called them something else, like Intel Bloody Powerful chips?
Re:2 Jags Prescott (Score:5, Funny)
Intel markets it as the TedKennedy core in the US.
Re:2 Jags Prescott (Score:2)
But on the other hand, it could also suggest that the new processor packs a punch [bbc.co.uk].
Re:2 Jags Prescott (Score:2)
BTW, the town were the punch-up incident happened (that the BBC article calls a "tourist resort") is just round the corner from me, and is not the kind of place that it is unheard of for punch-ups to happen in. It has been voted worst town in Britain several times in a row. Also, my mates who li
Prescott will be like the P4 (Score:5, Interesting)
Its a shame but that is how it goes and went with the P4 it need more speed to be able to show it true worth.
It would be nice if they said screw it and just released it a 4.0
Re:Prescott will be like the P4 (Score:4, Informative)
Now, I'll assume you're talking about the initial P4 launch (Willamette). This is nowhere near as embarrasing as that was. The Prescott is only a few percent slower than the Northwood at the same speeds and works in (most) existing motherboards. The Willamette, OTOH, when it was launched, required new motherboards & RAM and was getting beaten horribly at benchmarks by chips with a significantly lower clock speeds.
While upgrading from a Northwood rig to a Prescott rig would be silly unless you're making a significant clock speed jump too, the Northwood looks respectable. If you consider that projected prices on them are somewhat lower than Northwood, it all balances out.
More Reviews (Score:5, Informative)
accelenation [accelenation.com] Prescott Review
Ace's Hardware [aceshardware.com] Prescott Review
Gamers Depot [gamersdepot.com] Prescott Review
HardTecs4U [hardtecs4u.com]
Hexus [hexus.net]
K-Hardware [k-hardware.de] Prescott Review,
Legit Reviews [legitreviews.com] Prescott Review
LostCircuits [lostcircuits.com]
MBReview [mbreview.com] Prescott Review
VR-Zone [vr-zone.com]
X-bit labs [xbitlabs.com] Prescott Review
XtremeSystems [xtremesystems.org] Prescott Review
Extreme-tech [extremetech.com] Prescott Review
Re:More Reviews (Score:2)
Ironically (Score:2, Funny)
Will software catch up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Happy Trails,
Erick
Re:Will software catch up? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Will software catch up? (Score:2, Interesting)
My point is that unless the software takes advantage of the extra speed, the extra speed is meaningless in most situations. Most applicaitons won't feel any different betwee
Re:Will software catch up? (Score:2)
Faster processors have enabled more dynamic higher-level languages like Python, Erlang, and Smalltalk to shine. This results in more robust software, software that's also quicker to implement.
(In reality, the proper approach would be to design a CPU to run Python or Erlang or Smalltalk directly. Ericsson prototyp
Re:Will software catch up? (Score:2)
There are many good reasons for the abstraction layers between a programmer's chosen programming language and the CPU.
If Language X goes out of fashion you can still use something else.
Plus, with the abstraction layers it is easier to have programs originally written in Language X AND Language Y AND Language Z on the same CPU, all executing at a decent speed.
Unl
Re:Will software catch up? (Score:2)
There are tons of other areas you can think of where the CPUs just aren't that fast.
With a fast enough CPU enough people may decide that performance would be acceptable in most cases to implement SSH servers in a reasonably sane+popular language just to avoid buffer overflows in what should be security software.
What market is it for? (Score:5, Interesting)
With the Athlon 64, IA64 and G5 vying for the 64bit market, and Athlon offering native supports of 32-bit binaries. Why would anyone want a new series of Pentium 4E?
Is Intel feeling that Athlon may be about to make leaps and bounds in the small business/desktop market?
Re:What market is it for? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's like trying to sell the orcs of mordor solar powered cars. They won't work till the return of the king.
Re:What market is it for? (Score:2)
ARGH! I just hate car analogies when discussing processors!
Re:What market is it for? (Score:2)
MS will also bring out a 64-bit/AMD64 version of Win2003 Server at about the same time. Hardly 2006.
British Politician (Score:4, Informative)
Just suck it up Intel, GIve us what we want!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just suck it up Intel, GIve us what we want!! (Score:2)
9nm??!! The quantum effects would be crippling! Oh, you mean 90nm. Whew! :-)
Re:Just suck it up Intel, GIve us what we want!! (Score:2)
Re:Just suck it up Intel, GIve us what we want!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Reflecting on the recent SUV craze in the USA, this really isn't hard to understand. However, markets do change--just look at the newer generations of station wagons labeled "crossover" SUVs. People are realizing that they never really wanted a 10,000lb SUV all along, and we're moving back to the early 80's super-practical family mover.
One thing that hasn't penetrated in the computer markets is that 100W CPUs really can
Re:Just suck it up Intel, GIve us what we want!! (Score:2)
Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Origin of the name Prescott (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Origin of the name Prescott (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Origin of the name Prescott (Score:2)
Their marketing prolicies are really sucks..... (Score:3, Interesting)
For most people, the most areas Pentium4/Althon XP take advantages are 3D applications, data servers, and some scitisfic applications. However, a SMP system with two main stream processors also can achieve the simpilar(just slower a little bit) scores. Those applications always can be implemented through parallel approaches. (I believe it already have done this during the designing time....).
For example, for SMP solutions, I have to choose between Operton and Althon MP, but in actually I want a dual-althonXP with the double prices. I think that such system is what many other people really want to buy insteading of investing massive money on new processor/cooling system for better performance.... I believe there is not a big technical matter for this just trying to force us follow their single processor upgrading ways....
"Why spend billions, when you can spend millions?" [slashdot.org]
Re:Their marketing prolicies are really sucks..... (Score:2)
I think the biggest point that you're missing is the fact that increasing the number of processors in a system does not linearly increase the
Re:Their marketing prolicies are really sucks..... (Score:2)
Also, the extra transistors are on the pre-Tualatin Celerons. Ever heard of the ABIT BP6? A dual-S370 board from when S370 was only used by Celerons.
Re:Their marketing prolicies are really sucks..... (Score:2)
and
The real question is, do the majority of users out there really hammer their systems like that? I think the answer is no
I have to say I disagree. IMO many people, including home users, are running more than one application at a time -that means the apps don't have to have multiple, parallelizable threads to take advantage of multiple processors. Maybe its the people I hang around with, but more and
Still 32 Bit... (Score:3, Funny)
It's the early Pentium 4 all over again. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see the Prescott-core CPU's become popular until software catches up with supporting all the functions of the CPU; we may see that with Windows XP Service Pack 2 and later builds of the Linux 2.6.x kernel.
Re:It's the early Pentium 4 all over again. (Score:2)
Hyperthreading specific instructions?
Anyone got any real info on them; from what I've read so far, the specifics of what SSE3 can do are kinda fuzzy...
SSE2 vs. SSE3 (Score:3, Interesting)
The rest also sounded like "special interest" functions, much like many of AMDs 64 bit extensions. Great for specific uses like scientific calculations and cryptography, not that much for general computing. Cache is already
Re:SSE2 vs. SSE3 (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not really surprising either: A feature-size shrink (such as the move now from 130nm to 90nm) lowers the power per transistor, however, it increases the power per unit area (IIRC proportionally to the sqrt of the shrink).
Of course - a different processor layout could completely counteract these effects, and a change to 31 stages instead of 21 stages would qualify as su
speed vs design (Score:3, Interesting)
but given the fact that a big percentage of decrease in latency from existing northwood cores and big increase in pipeline does not reduce the speed *significantly.* it can still compete with the current northwood with a small drop in performance on a clock per clock basis.
given these things, i think the cpu may be designed quite well given its current performance with numerous internal slow downs. i'm sure in their next core, they will be able to reduce the latency by significant amounts and increase the branch prediction system thereby causing their future cpus to perform better than current iteration.
i believe the current purpose of prescott is to do a couple of things. first, refine their 90nm processing of the cpu. they will be able to iron out manufacturing bugs (like yields.) they will also be able to improve in the design of the cpu (to put minor revisions to improve the manufacturing or even performance.) they will be able to earn more (since 90nm should product more yields for them.)
probably, i believe that in around 1 year's time, just like their transition from williamete to northwood, their cpu will be much faster. they should be able to solve the latency of their cache. they may already adopt a very good branch prediction unit that will reduce the effects of a very long pipeline.
also, this year will be a transition year of technologies. so pretty much everything you buy not will almost be worthless by next year. the cpu packaging will be changed to lga. slots in the computer will feature pci express. i/o will be standardized with usb. storage devices will be sata. intel will be prepping up for speed wars next year. (i think this usually happends every other year where there is a speed war and there is a slow increase in speeds by both sides.)
Re:speed vs design (Score:3, Interesting)
"given these things, i think the cpu may be designed quite well given its current performance with numerous internal slow downs."
So.... new CPUs are supposed to run slower than those they are replacing? I see...
"i'm sure in their next core,"
Which won't be just a core; it'll be a whole new CPU running the Tejas core, and will probably be marketed as a Pentium 5 or thereabouts. It's due out some time early next year.
" they will be able to reduce the latency by significant
Re:speed vs design (Score:2)
i am not looking at the marketing aspect. i am just analyzing it from a technical perspective.
What latency? Where? How much of a latency redction are you expecting to see that you refer to it as "significant"? Do you have information sources with which to back this up, or is this something you gathered from an in-depth conversation with Ms Cleo at $4.99/min?
its just like what happened with the transition from willamett
Re:speed vs design (Score:2)
Prescott (Score:2, Funny)
With a swift left jab, a Prescott can beat anything. Even egg throwers from Wales.
Power dissipation: 89-103 Watts (Score:2, Insightful)
Ick. That's gonna hurt.
Re:Power dissipation: 89-103 Watts (Score:2)
Ick. That's gonna hurt.
And this is the big issue with the Prescott and x86 architecture in general. Sure, Moore's law, blah, blah, blah. But diminishing returns kick in hard if power consumption goes up at the same rate, and we're seeing some scary numbers now. It already looks like we'll be past 150 watts by the end of the year. How long can this continue?
Re:Power dissipation: 89-103 Watts (Score:2)
If you look at the various chips in spec.org (Sun SPARC, POWER, PRIMEPOWER, Alpha ) many of them dissipate about the same amount of power given the same performance level.
Design and fab methods seem to play a bigger part nowadays. e.g. SOI or not SOI. More cache or less, cache 100% active all the time or not, etc.
The highest performance PowerPC chips are lower power than the x86 equivalents, but the other chip vendor
Re:Power dissipation: 89-103 Watts (Score:2)
The difference is that the x86 line represents the processors used by businesses and individuals in desktop machines. If the the power requirement doubles, then this is significant. It used to be that the monitor was the biggest source of power, but this is no longer true now that LCD displays are becoming standard.
Does anyone know (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Just what definition are you using for the word "faster"? To my eyes [aceshardware.com], it's slower than the older Northwood core in the majority of real-world situations, clock-for-clock. If you're talking about absolute performance, then it's significantly slower than, say, the AthlonFX CPUs. Even the biased-as-hell airbags at Tom's didn't have much good to say about this CPU. That's not to say that it wont see strong performance gains as applica
varying multiplier? (Score:2)
Can somebody fill me in on what's going on?
Re:varying multiplier? (Score:2)
I think the wrong question is being asked (Score:2)
Re:So it's kinda like the celeron? (Score:2)
Re:So it's kinda like the celeron? (Score:2)
The people who don't care can stick to the nnnn+ XP numbers, and I doubt it'll really make a diff to them.
Re:So it's kinda like the celeron? (Score:2)
Re:The funny thing is... (Score:3, Insightful)