Intel's 64-Bit Pentium 4s Hit The Streets 388
ThinSkin writes "Nearly 18 months after rival AMD released its 64-bit processors, Intel quietly added its first 64-bit Pentium 4 microprocessors to the market on Sunday. Four versions of the Intel Pentium 4 6XX series were announced at speeds up to 3.6-GHz, a frequency grade lower than the existing 5XX series. Prices will range from $224 to $605. Intel also added the 3.73-GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition to its lineup, a $999 chip that is fabricated on a finer 90-nm process than its older 130-nm P4EE components. As Slashdot previously reported, the 64-bit series will likely be the major enhancement to the Pentium 4 line before the introduction of the Pentium D "Smithfield," Intel's first dual-core part, which is slated for next quarter."
Pentium D. Smithfield? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pentium D. Smithfield? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pentium D. Smithfield? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Pentium D. Smithfield? (Score:3, Funny)
Mark McKinney: I am wearing a di-aper!
*Silence*
Everyone: TO BILL BRASKY!!!
Will Ferrell: "Did I ever tell you about the time Brasky took me out to go get a drink with him? We go off looking for a bar and we can't find one. Finally Brasky takes me to a vacant lot and says, 'Here we are.' We sat there for a year and a half and sure enough someone constructs a bar around us. The day they opened we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burned the place to the ground. Brasky yelled ove
Re:Pentium D. Smithfield? (Score:3, Funny)
Great (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:2)
Was it just me... (Score:5, Funny)
Not that there's anything wrong with it...
Re:Was it just me... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, Intel SHOULD call it "Seinfeld"! (Score:2, Funny)
Patty: The easiest way to be popular is to leech off the popularity of others.
Selma: So we propose changing our name from "Springfield" to "Seinfeld".
Intel can start making processors with names that make sense!
Pentium D Costanza!
- This is our newest budget-aimed processor which will deliver today's technology in ways you can't imagine. The Costanza will answer your multimedia needs thru experimentations that one would never dare to even think
Power dissipation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:2, Interesting)
Paper when burned has an energy density of 4,725,382.41 calories per kilogram. 500 sheets of paper (US letter) weighs 9.07 kilograms, so the weight of the printed out library of congress would be 75,583,333.3 kilograms.
Thus as an energy unit, the library of congres
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:5, Informative)
Intel has done its homework on these Prescott-based EMT64 chips. They allow a reduction in voltage and die size, which results in a cheaper core too.
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:2)
The P4 in my laptop had been running at 75 degrees C while sitting idle! (it DIED if I opened anything like ut2k4 or even CS)
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet this CPUs will consume as much (and more) than regular P4. Which is bad, unless your house lacks central heating.
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:2)
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:2)
Anyway, can't argue with Homer!
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:2)
You need active cooling such as a peltier unit to get below ambient.
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) When you say "heatsink", you're just talking about a type of radiator. Usually, we restrict the term "heatsink" to a local radiator, an object in direct contact with the CPU core (or whatever your heat source is), as opposed to a remote radiator that uses fluid exchange to transfer heat from the core to the radiator.
2) ANY cooling system, be it passive/active, air/water, local/remote, is going to incorporate a radiator somewhere. Even with phase change systems or Peltiers, you eventually have to dump heat passively. Meaning that any cooling system will have a radiator of some kind.
SO: If you refer to a cooling setup as a just a heatsink, when it incorporates some kind of phase-change or other active cooling method, you're being ambiguous and misleading with your language. The real distinction is that active cooling systems can chill the CPU to an arbitrarily low temperature approaching the limit of 0K, whereas passive cooling systems can only chill the CPU to an arbitrarily low temperature approaching the limit of the ambient temperature of the radiator's environment.
I think it's best not to confuse the issue by referring to active cooling systems as "heatsink" setups, because they HAVE to have a radiator of some kind. It's like calling a submarine a "boat"--while technically correct, the term doesn't describe the subject in a way that adequetely distinguishes its important characteristics.
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:3)
He didn't say "air cooled", he just said "heatsink". A heatsink is simply an object that maintains a cooler temperature and draws out heat. It could very well be using refrigeration to do this.
those numbers mean nothing... (Score:2, Interesting)
Most important is the power dissapation figure. That shows how much energy has to be dumped by the cooling solution.
Re:Power dissipation? (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically, it shows two things (note, the clock throttling wasn't working on the Opteron processors mind):
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
Keep buying, suckers! (Score:5, Funny)
Now if you excuse me, I have a 486 DX4 100MHz that I've been keeping an eye on for a while.
Re:Keep buying, suckers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Low end AMD or P4 processors are dirt cheap now and do everything you could want unless you're running weather simulations or something.
I only have enought plutonium for one shot! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I have or something simulations to run!
(is it ok to use * and HTML emphasis?)
What's the plural of emphasis?
Shut up. OK.
Re:I only have enought plutonium for one shot! (Score:2, Funny)
emphysema
-ken wheezed out breathlessly
Re:I only have enought plutonium for one shot! (Score:3, Informative)
Emphases
There's plenty of uses (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There's plenty of uses (Score:2)
Re:Keep buying, suckers! (Score:3, Funny)
On that note, can you people start buying up tons of those 27" plasmas? I seriously need a 19" for cheap. Trust me, you need'em...
Re:Keep buying, suckers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keep buying, suckers! (Score:3, Informative)
there are far, far, FAR more embedded computers in the world than there are PCs. millions more.
the z80 originated in 1976 and is still mass produced.
Re:Keep buying, suckers! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Keep buying, suckers! (Score:2)
Donate it!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Donate it!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Make sure that your hardware is in good condition, and that the district actually needs systems.
My district, for example, already has over 500 decomissioned Pentium-II (450MHz) systems. There are only so many places that we can put computers (and so many ports on the network), so old hardware builds up as it is replaced with newer hardware. We try to reuse hardware wherever possible (computer lab systems might become lookup terminals, for instance), but eventually we have to pay to get the old systems recycled.
Note, however, that this varies dramatically by district. My district donates over 250 systems to our neighboring district every year because they don't have the budget for much new hardware. They are happy to get good-condition P-IIs, and we're happy that they aren't ending up in landfills.
The key is to know what is needed and where.
Also, don't purchase a computer to donate without first consulting the district. My district, for example, purchases only one model each year (last year it was the HP D530 small-form-factor). This simplifies management and deployment. By purchasing the same model, you can save the district a lot of time for years to come.
Re:Donate it!!! (Score:5, Informative)
At my previous job, a K-12 District, we *hated* computer donations. They don't conform to a standard hard drive image, so they require special attention. They have no warranty, and the techs to work on them as they die end up costing more than a new machine would have.
Management of dissimilar hardware costs a lot.
Now, if your District isn't to that level of management, they'll probably be pleased with anything they can get. When I started there, we were ecstatic to get extra hardware. But as time wore on, we spent the majority of our time on these donations. When I left, the District had switched over to a completely Leased solution. It ends up much easier to manage from a budget perspective if there is a fixed amount spent on hardware every year in the lease.
I agree with the poster above:
Ask your District if they want them. If you go over to drop them off, they may just refuse them, and now you've packed up all those old machines for nothing.
Re:Donate it!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Donate it!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and don't donate monitors. That pissed us off. People would leave monitors in the office for us, and we had about 50. It costs money to get them d
Re:Keep buying, suckers! (Score:2)
We're still not back to minicomputer price levels (Score:3, Informative)
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, better late than never (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well, better late than never (Score:3, Interesting)
What's more interesting is how for the first time Intel are playing catch up on their own platform. Retrofitting EM64T or whatever it's called has got to be costing them in terms of taking the initiative on new technologies - and between that and having to move to
Re:Well, better late than never (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you mean having to move back to the P3 line? As far as I'm concerned, the Pentium Ms are a glaring example of how stupid the whole P4 experiment was. They applied their shrunken process and advancements in material technology to the P3, retrofit a few of the things they picked up along the way on the P4s and called it a Pentium M. And look how its performance compares with the P4s!
Imagine what the performance of these Pentium Ms would have be
Failed 64-Intel Attempt (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel is just trying to be compatible with AMD64. They won't have a serious product for another quarter or two (or three).
Re:Well, better late than never (Score:2)
Itanic (Score:4, Informative)
It's sort of like throwing a few billion dollars in the fireplace.
Bruce
Re:Well, better late than never (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, what does "ia64" have to do with "64bit amd chips" other than that those are two entirely different architectures? I don't understand this post.
ExTREmE! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ExTREmE! (Score:3, Funny)
That being said, I downhill ski so I really should have this.
Pentium M and Celeron, 64 bit (Score:5, Informative)
There's another interesting article about the future of 64-bit as it relates to Intel here. [thechannelinsider.com]
And of course, we can't forget our beloved Celeron [theregister.co.uk].
CPU alphabet soup and the demise of Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem was that the consumers simply didn't understand which computer most favorably matched their criteria.
I see the same thing here with Intel's lineup. What is what? Why is this M? Why is that Centrino? WTF does "Extreme" mean in relation to a CPU?
It wasn't until Steve Jobs was able to cut through the bullshit and bring the Mac lineup back to 2 basic consumer platforms that Apple was able to enjoy the benefits of the Apple brand. Until Steve came back, it was just another PC outfit. Now, with Jobs at the helm, and through his seemingly infinite ability to grasp consumer wants and needs, Apple is enjoying a resurgence in popularity and relevance.
Without someone with a grand vision like Steve Jobs, Intel is going to continue suffering through doldrums trying to guide the market with its "alphabet soup" (which you so very astutely coined) without actually listening to the consumers.
Re:CPU alphabet soup and the demise of Apple (Score:2)
And last I checked it wasn't IBM that's taking marketshare away from Intel, not yet at least.
Re:CPU alphabet soup and the demise of Apple (Score:5, Informative)
"EE" stands for "Extremely Expensive", "Centrino" means "doesn't suck on laptops". Other than that, I also am now completely lost as to what Intel's lineup actually is. Their marketing department are fucked.
Dave
Re:CPU alphabet soup and the demise of Apple (Score:2)
Actually Centrino is the name for using the Pentium M AND the Intel wireless chipset. And I kind of think the wireless chipset is a bit wonky.
Re:CPU alphabet soup and the demise of Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
For years intel has owned the market mostly because of its slick sales and marketing department. Their commercials are wonderful, and make people honestly feel they are purchasing something super cool, super powerful, and super relevant - all while completely ignoring the nerdy specs. Why would anybody want to know Why something is strong/fast/meaningful?
These folks have managed to sell themselves to most people out there, but eventually they are going to have to put up numbers. Like car commercials...what size engine does it have? How many horsepower? How many seats? 4 wheel drive? All these things are pretty important and in the end sell cars. Specs sell chips too, but only the 'nerdy' are deemed able to understand these things so intel leaves that information out.
Now their advertising and chip naming is becoming on the level of nerdy. Who the F$@! knows what the Celeron D, P4, P4EE, P4-64, Centrino, Pentium -M, Pentium dual core, Pentium[next new thing to sell chips]? Honestly if they just put a few specs out there to differentiate chips it would make life a little easier.
What is a P4?
Which of the dozen incarnations of compatible chips do you mean? Prescott, etc...
What is hyperthreading?
What is a dual core?
Why does my 333Mhz RAM beat the S%@# out of my uber-expensive 800Mhz RAMBUS?
Why this? Why that?
Why can't people understand what they are purchasing now? Simplify people. Simplify. Or lose more market share to the ACTUAL superior product that AMD manufactures.
Re:CPU alphabet soup and the demise of Apple (Score:3, Informative)
AFAIK:
P4 is the bog standard current Intel chip (32 bit)
Prescott is a P4 cheap and nasty P4 with even higher clock speeds with lower power/cycle (with the innevitable exceptions). Similar to the difference between P3 and P4, only a smaller difference.
Celeron is a cheap P4 with stripped down cache
Centrino, same as Pentium M i
Re:CPU alphabet soup and the demise of Apple (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pentium M and Celeron, 64 bit (Score:2)
Yeah, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Late last year... (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem Intel or Linux? (Score:2)
Assuming of course the issue is Intel's not Linux's. Yeah, heresy, sorry about that.
Actually I should also say assuming the hardware is not flaky. How's the 64-bit WinNT beta run on that system?
Yay. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yay. (Score:2)
Re:Yay. (Score:5, Funny)
(That's the sound of 32 bit code on a 64 bit processor...or was that 16 bit code on a 32...I forget...)
Re:Yay. (Score:2)
Re:Yay. (Score:2)
The extra bits are not really a big issues yet.
Why(Assuming you are a home user)?
Fews apps can gain much from using over 2 gigs of memory currently, I know there are special cases, but really I dont think it is a issue (yet).
Most apps dont gain from the extra processing of using 64-bit from 32 bit math.When are you really maxing out an INT, or needing to use a double?
So what do you really gain from having a 64bit processor?
Extra Registers are key to the performance gains with 64 bit with most ap
backwards compatible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:backwards compatible? (Score:2)
b) Qualified yes. You can run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit OS on x86-64 chips, provided that the OS supports this. Some do, some don't.
First enhancement since the 386! (Score:2, Insightful)
Intel the Trendsetter (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, and only 10 years after Sun's UltraSPARC [wikipedia.org], 13 years after the DEC Alpha [wikipedia.org], and 14 years after the MIPS R4000 [wikipedia.org]
Socket 478 (Score:5, Interesting)
Bryan
Re:Socket 478 (Score:2)
Fine, but what we *really* want to know is... (Score:3, Funny)
Ever wonder if there will be a Pentium-5? (Score:5, Interesting)
So many versions of the Pentium4.
So many cores. So many variations. So many significant architectural differences.
Seriously... when it it enough to be the Pentium5? I seriously doubt there is as much difference between the Pentium-3 and the IV (original P4) as there is between ANY other P4 cpu and this one.
Seriously... what's the deal?
Other than the 5-for-$5 jokes (Pentium 5 being a rather redundant name, after all...)
Re:Ever wonder if there will be a Pentium-5? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ever wonder if there will be a Pentium-5? (Score:5, Informative)
The P4 was a completely different architecture (NetBurst) which was intended, from the ground up, to hit high clock speeds, without concern for actual performance (granted, once they hit 800MHz FSBs, the P4 finally started showing its stuff). This was one of the biggest mass-market counterexamples to the MHz Myth, with first generation P4s (1.5-1.7GHz) getting solidly beaten by cheaper, lower-powered, lower-clocked P3s (1GHz-ish).
Granted, the P4 wasn't a complete waste - there were some very good technological advancements in it. The Pentium-M is essntially a P3ish core that has some of the enhancements from the P4 (quad-pumped bus, SSE2, awesome branch prediction) added to it but retained the P3's lower power consumption & clock-efficiency. Not to mention that a 3+GHz P4 with an 800MHz FSB is going to be an absolute monster at number crunching, given software that properly uses the SSE/SSE2 (vector math) extensions.
For the most part, however, the launch of the P4 was a disappointing event that helped AMD grab mindshare & marketshare in the CPU market, particularly with those who actually care about more than cute commericials and buying the cheapest thing Dell is pushing out the door.
For the general market, Athlon64 is a better buy (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to go 64-bit, pick up an Athlon64 2800 for about $100, or Athlon64 3000 for abt $130. AMD motherboards also work out cheaper, since they have been around for a year and a half.
The 64-bit market is just opening up, expect the pentium prices to come down significantly soon. By 2006, most processors will ship with 64-bit capability. There are not many 64-bit native applications available now. Games are still 32 bit. Windows XP 64 bit is just coming out next month. And Linux still does not support Joe.
If you are price concious, NEVER buy anything quite recent. Save the money, and buy dual-core 64-bit processors a couple of years from now.
Pentium 4s hit the streets and.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A little late? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A little late? (Score:5, Informative)
I've run SLES9 64- and 32-bit on identical hardware with EM64T equipped Xeons for file servers, and I can definitely "feel" the difference. I don't have any hard benchmarks, but the system with the 64-bit OS definitely seems more responsive under heavy load than the 32-bit configuration.
The true test will come when we get some serious analytical apps running. Beyond the ability to allocate more memory under a 64-bit OS, I expect to see moderate performance increases, though nothing earth shattering. Time will tell.
Re:Naming schemes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AMD is the worst. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:AMD is the worst. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can get all the manufacturers to agree, comparing systems based on FLOPS [wikipedia.org] would be effective, because it would remove the irrelevant clock speed argument, and thus allow you to compare how much work can be done in a time frame by the processor.
Unfortunately, I doubt you'd get the manufacturers to agree to it, since it would make too much sense and allow an easy and unbiased comparison between their products.
processor speed measurements (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory of course.
In practice, you can get up to 1GFLOPS on a pretty simple machine, just put all your resources on doing flops asap. Ignore branches in your design, just make it run as many floating point instructions in a row as quickly as possible.
In
Re:AMD is the worst. (Score:3, Informative)
Flops are a little cleaner, but still only test the Floating Point units.
Re:AMD is the worst. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know!
We could call it "Hertz" (abbreviated as Hz), as a measurement of frequency where one Hertz means one cycle per second.
When used in relation to CPUs it could be prefixed with the SI multipliers G or M for Giga and Mega, and be used to refer to the speed of the internal clock by which the CPU synchronises its instructions. It however will say nothing about how many instructions happen in a cycle, or what those instructions actually do.
So I'm guessing you don't want a standard for clock speed, you want a standard for performance.
But regardless, if you make your entire purchasing decision off the numbers on the box (no matter what they mean) then you deserve whatever you get.
Re:AMD is the worst. (Score:2)
Flops (floating point Ops per second) arent that good because while a processor can process so many Flops per second, stuff like branch mispredicts and caching strategy can affect operation throughput and deliver a lower than theoretical FLOPS figure.
Re:AMD is the worst. (Score:2)
4000+ = 4 gig+ in Intel numbers, the system is simple as hell. AMD processors get more power out of a smaller clock speed because they do more cycles per second.
So no, they just label their products to compare them to the Intel line easily.
Re:AMD is the worst. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its called marketing, you do whatever you can thats legal to get people to buy your product.
If a dumbass consumer things 4000+ is 4000MHz, especially when there is a asterik saying that the processor actually runs at 2.4GHz, then they're probably the ones who dont understand the 9/10ths of a cent at the end of all gas prices. Intel made processors all about MHZ and thats what AMD has to compete on. The processor ratings are somewhat accurate (varies depending on benchmark).
And FWIW, a 4000+ does outperform a P4-2.8GHz.
Re:AMD is the worst. (Score:3)
But slashdot doesn't have a "-1, Stupid (and Wrong)" moderation, more's the pity...
Re:64-bit? (Score:4, Informative)
The performance gain is found in how the chip itself works. 64-bits breaks the 4GB memory process limits of 32-bits. In 32-bits, a single process can access 2^(32) bytes -> 4 GB of linear memory. In 64 bits, you can therocally access 2^(64) bytes. Pratically, in Windows x64, a process is limited to 16 TB of memory. Plus, there's extra registers that a program can use.
Re:Should I tell Dell to hold off? (Score:3, Informative)
It's possible that Linux might be quicker off the mark to support the chip - you might even be able to patch it yourself with the right gcc & kernel - but since you said Dell you're really ta
Re:Should I tell Dell to hold off? (Score:3, Interesting)
EMT64 is basically identical to AMD64, by design since they went off of pre-release documentation for AMD64 in order to be compatible (ha! what a historic reversal of roles!). The only differences that exist between EMT64 and AMD64 are almost certainly due to err