Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware Technology

New Pentium Chipsets Launched 151

Posted by Zonk from the we-have-the-technology dept.
MojoDog writes "Today Intel has officially taken the wraps off their new mainstream Pentium D 820 Processor and i945 Express series chipsets. Additionally, they also cranked up the Pentium 4 6XX sequence line-up to include the new Pentium 4 670 at 3.8GHz. The Pentium D 820 is Intel's new dual core CPU clocked at 2.8GHz, which contains two Prescott cores per die but doesn't support HyperThreading like the Pentium Extreme Edition 840. The i945 is their new mainstream PCI Express based chipset, one version of which has Integrated Graphics and both supporting these new dual core CPUs. Additionally, Intel took their Pentium 4 6XX sequence processor, based on the Prescott 2M core, for a speed bump to 3.8Ghz."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Pentium Chipsets Launched More

New Pentium Chipsets Launched

Comments Filter:
  • Well considering that security alert recently about the problenms with hyperthreading , and given the fact that the chip is duel core anyway which greatly reduces the need for hyperthreading i don't really see it as too much of a loss and quite possibly its an advantage.
  • ...the department of redundancy department.

    Additionally, they also cranked up the Pentium 4 6XX sequence line-up to include the new Pentium 4 670 at 3.8GHz.

    ...Additionally, Intel took their Pentium 4 6XX sequence processor, based on the Prescott 2M core, for a speed bump to 3.8Ghz."

  • lost again to AMD (Score:1, Redundant)

    by smack-pot ( 789301 )
    looks like intel again lost to AMD, which has already launched dual core chips!!! :)))) how does these INTEL and AMD chips compare to IBM Cell processor (agreed their purpose is different but nevertheless)???
    • Actually Intel and AMD launched their Dualies the same week, and infact Intel beat AMD by about a day. The fact that AMD's offerings are technically more advanced is what matters.

      These are new Chipsets which support those new CPUs.

    • how does these INTEL and AMD chips compare to IBM Cell processor

      there are all turing machines, therefore equivalent
    • how does these INTEL and AMD chips compare to IBM Cell processor (agreed their purpose is different but nevertheless)???

      You are an idiot.

    • how does these INTEL and AMD chips compare to IBM Cell processor (agreed their purpose is different but nevertheless)???

      Well, let's see....

      They've all got circuitry in them
      They all don't work without some type of motherboard to plug them into
      The computers designed for each respective processor stop working if you pull the chip out of it.

      Sounds like they're all pretty similar, yup.

  • naming convention (Score:5, Insightful)

    by y2dt ( 184562 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:26AM (#12644548)
    a Pentium 4 670 at 3.8GHz, Pentium D 820 at 2.8Ghz, a Pentium Extreme Edition 840 w/o HT, and a Pentium 4 6XX based on the Prescott 2M core???

    seriously, how is this naming convention better than the old one?
    • I just built my first system a week ago, and it is running smoothly. So well in fact, that a colleague wants me to build their next system (which will basically be built on the latest and greatest). Given that the first system I built is mainly for office/spreadsheet/web use only I just picked a low cost 3.4 GHZ Prescott.

      However, while doing the due diligence for the new system, I saw the bazillion and one different processor names. GEEZ.

      • "I just picked a low cost 3.4 GHZ Prescott."

        Gaaah! you consider a 3.4Ghz Prescott low cost?!
        thats a $269.00 processor..you could have gotten a 3.2 Prescott for $187.00

        Or better yet an Athlon64 3200+ for $146.00 - $169.00

        (Pricewatch.com)
        $269 Pentium 4 3.4GHz Prescott
        $249 Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800MHz
        $187 Pentium 4 3.2GHz Prescott
        $187 Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800MHz

        $250 Athlon 64 3500 90nm 939pin
        $272 Athlon 64 3500 512K 90nm Rev E
        $172 Athlon 64 3400
        $146 Athlon 64 3200
        $169 Athlon 64 3200 939pin
        $169 Athlon 64 3200 90nm
    • the marketing dept. thought it was sleek

  • Dual core versus hyperthreading (Score:3, Informative)

    by sunderland56 ( 621843 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:27AM (#12644564)
    The Pentium D 820 [...] contains two Prescott cores per die but doesn't support HyperThreading

    Huh? Hyperthreading was a constrained, limited ability to run two concurrent streams of execution on one physical chip. Dual core CPUs allow unlimited execution of two streams. "Doesn't support hyperthreading" is listed here as if it was a limitation - but in fact dual core (in the benchmarks I'm running) conmpletely blows away any hyperthreaded chip. This is a far better, far more powerful, solution.

    It is nice to see Intel finally catching up with AMD....

    • The issue is that running HT on both cores in a dual core would allow four concurrent threads to be processed. There are many benchmarks of the Pentium XE (dual core, HT) which show the few applications that support multithreading give big increases in performance with Hyperthreaded dual cores.

    • Re:Dual core versus hyperthreading (Score:5, Informative)

      by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:32AM (#12644639)
      You're missing one thing: the Pentium D EE _does_ have hyper-threading on both cores (looks like a 4 CPU system to your OS). HT and dual core is not an either/or proposition - you can have both, and HT is not going to hinder performace on dual core CPUs.

      -Erwos
    • "It is nice to see Intel finally catching up with AMD...."

      Now if they could only do this on a instructions per watt basis ...

      The Athlons take less power per unit of wall clock of time as a P4 and they routine excute a higher instruction count per second. This means not only do you get a task [say compiling] done quicker, but you take less power while doing it.

      So you may say "wow that dual core dual HT 3.8Ghz sure is fast" but when you realize it takes 300W of power to run [as opposed to the 40W the new
      • Which, of course, means multi-cpu blades with AMD CPUs will rock the house for HPC clusters.

        It's really fun to see the competition (watch out for the really bad pun) heat up (ouch!) in the x86 market, pushing not just price, but innovation in efficiency.
      • Better IPC and IPW is exactly what the next generation based on Pentium M is for.

        Even in it's current form the Pentium M can exceed the performance of even an Althon FX-55 at the same clock-speed with far lower power draw. When Intel transition this to the desktop as dual core with AMD64 (oops I meant EM64T) and a serious FSB it's going to give AMD a serious run for it's money.

        Hopefully AMD is up to the task and we can all look forward to lots of new multithreaded apps and lower electricity bills...unless
        • That's an interesting point; I was completely unaware of this, but Pentium M processors have rather impressive performance. They have always been marketed as The Mobile Solution, in their Centrino package, but I could never get a handle on how I should compare these processors to say plain old Pentium 4.

          Turns out they do rather well. I have a Pentium 4 3Ghz machine with HyperThreading support at work, a standard Dell machine. By now a year old or so. Along comes a colleague with a _laptop_ with a Pentium

        • Far exceed? Not at FP it wont....

          SPEC FP results [aceshardware.com].

          Look, a Athlon FX-55 is nearly TWICE as fast at SPEC FP - when the clock speed is only 30% higher. SpecINT will be about equal looking at it.

          The Pentium M is good, but outright performance isn't something it has.

          • Synthetic benchmarks aside, the Pentium M is already a very competitive processor and at 2.6Ghz it's topping many a benchmark. I do agree that the current Pentium M is not built for outright performance, afterall that is not it's current target market.

            I have no doubt however, that if Intel are switching from Netburst to Pentium M as their basis for future Desktop and Xeon processors, then they will be improving them significantly in any way they can - they simply cannot afford to put up weak competition ag
    • This is a far better, far more powerful, solution.
      Yes, but not as good as having Hyperthreading enabled PER CORE.

      The company I work at is eager to get our hands on two Dual Core Xeons (w/Hyperthreading) CPUs, which will give the appearance of 8 CPUs. We're hoping to see a huge leap in our bechmarking vs what we curently use (Dual 3.6 Xeons with Hyperthreading).
  • I remember seeing a commercial with the Blue Man Group about a week ago, they really need to come up with some new ideas instead of tweaking old successes, seriously.
    • Wow, Intel's top clock speed goes from 3.73GHz to 3.8GHz! That is less than 2%! And even within the 6xx family, only a 5% clock frequency boost.

      This must be the [lamest|smallest] clock speed increase associated with a new processor introduction in Intel's history...

  • Way to suck... (Score:4, Informative)

    by http101 ( 522275 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:33AM (#12644648) Homepage
    ...power. Why is Intel consistently a prime waste of power? (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_cor e_athlon-19.html [tomshardware.com])

    When wattage is spiking that high, I'd rather use the AMD processor solely because of the ever-increasing demand and cost of electricity. So not only are they cost-efficient and energy-efficient, but they're also faster and more durable. In the past 4 years, I've burned up (plugged it in, turned it on) a handful of Intel chips just because they were defective (purchased at various stores) and lost 1 AMD to a direct lightning strike.
    • Better yet, look at a mac. My Power Book G4 requires a whopping 45W power supply. Yes, 45W. That's less than 1/2 of a regular light bulb!

      That includes chip, drive(s), wi-fi and display.. 45W max power requirement. Can't get much greener than that.

      The energy that the P4s need alone in an hour will drive my whole system for number of hours!
      • The energy that the P4s need alone in an hour will drive my whole system for number of hours!

        0 is a number so your assertion is useless

      • Don't tell me you are one of those fools stuck using (and replacing) those old energy wasters. A regular light bulb is now 13 watts.

        BTW, even the old energy wasters were normally 60 watts, not 90, so your half figure is still high.

        • Where I come from regular bulb is either 100W, or 60W (52W sometimes). They have 'energy efficent' bulbs - probably the 13W you are talking about, but they still run around 10x the cost of a regular bulb. I use them exclusively in my house, but I don't know many others that do.

          So the 13W is not a regular bulb by any standards.

          • This is a subtile hint: start changing your and everyone else's thinking. People buy the old bulbs out of habit. Start thinking of the energy efficient bulbs as standard, and use the old energy wasters only where you must.

            Compact fluorescent is no longer 10x the cost of a old bulb, though they are more expensive by several times. They last 10x as long though.

            • Compact fluorescent is no longer 10x the cost of a old bulb, though they are more expensive by several times. They last 10x as long though.

              My own experience with them does not support your or the makers claims of extended longevity. Every single one of them I have ever installed has failed 9X sooner or greater than it was supposed to. In fact, many of them failed before the regular bulbs on the same switch did. I wanted this to work, I had hoped for energy savings to pay for the bulb, but what I got was
            • Compact fluorescent is no longer 10x the cost of a old bulb, though they are more expensive by several times. They last 10x as long though.

              That most certainly has not been my experience. I'd say I'm averaging 2-3 times as long, with some dying in roughly the same amount of time as the old incandescents.
      • s/a mac/a laptop/
        • Not even close.

          An HP laptop w/ mobile chip still uses a 125W ps. That is a far cry (good) from ~450W power supply that a P4 desktop requires, but also way shy of the 45W mac needs.
          • The only Powerbook that uses a 45W is the 12" Powerbook. Everything else is 65W.

            Virtually every Dell comes standard with a 65W power supply.

            Most HP notebooks use a 65W power supply. The 135W power supply is only for a limited number of machines - zd7000 (P4), zv5000 (Athlon 64), zx5000 (P4) - all "desktop replacement" class machines with large (15"+) screens, none using a mobile processor.

            The IBMs vary a bit more. The X series uses a 56W, the R and T series use 72W, and the G runs at 120W (hardly surp
    • It's the real performance limitation in data centres as we move to smaller, cheaper machines. Raw MHz horsepower is becoming irrelevant for most applications except games and certain forms of data processing.

      Power supply and air conditioning are expensive. Transmeta are substantially better than AMD or Intel, which means you can install far more machines at a higher densities than you can with Intel or AMD.

      Course, if you want better still then you need to move away from ix86 to ARM, MIPS, PowerPC etc.
    • ...1 AMD to a direct lightning strike

      Well, that's what you get when you leave your caseless pc outside during a thunderstorm!
    • Why is Intel consistently a prime waste of power?

      Because up to the introduction of P4, and especially Prescott, AMD's processors were the prime waste of power?

  • Not upgrading yet. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:41AM (#12644752)
    I'm waiting for the 9xx series, because they support VT (Vanderpool) machine virtualization in hardware.

    Bye-bye reboots to switch between Windows and Linux.

  • But you'll be able to buy Athlon 64 X2's first (Score:3, Funny)

    by Brian Stretch ( 5304 ) * on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:41AM (#12644754)
    according to The Inquirer [theinquirer.net]. They'll do the launch at Computex Taipei next week and be officially buyable on June 7th. Pentium D's (D'oh!) will take a bit longer to reach retail. Something about awaiting approval from the fire marshal, I think. Paper launches are blast furnace CPUs are a bad combination, methinks.
  • Pentium M on the desktop? Please?

    Read Tom's Hardware Guide [tomshardware.com] for some more info.
    • Anand reviewed the Pentium M on the desktop and found that it couldn't compete with dedicated desktop chips. While it was energy efficient, it just didn't have the power to compete against less-energy efficient chips on the desktop.

      In other words, it's great for laptops, but a bit slow for a desktop.
      • Anand reviewed the Pentium M on the desktop and found that it couldn't compete with dedicated desktop chips.

        Anand is full of bull. Pentium M at 2.0 is about on a par performancewise with Pentium M at 3.4 or so, at a fraction of the power and with much quieter cooling fans. That includes gaming. It lags somewhat for scientific floating point crunching, but not hopelessly so.
        • Anand is full of bull. Pentium M at 2.0 is about on a par performancewise with Pentium M at 3.4 or so, at a fraction of the power and with much quieter cooling fans. That includes gaming. It lags somewhat for scientific floating point crunching, but not hopelessly so.

          Anand is not full of bull. Have you read his review? He's one of the most thorough and objective reviewers out there.

          Yes, the Pentium M uses less power and generates less heat, but that's not so important on the desktop.

          And as you pointed o
          • Yes, I read the crappy Anand review, and also several much better ones, but more than that I built a Pentium M desktop. Anand is full of bull. The Pentium M is perfect for desktop, perfect for gaming, and more than adequate for scientific number crunching.

            If you want the noise of a freight train and a gust of hot air in your room when you use the computer, and you don't mind wasting petroleum to run it, that's fine. I happen to care about those things. I guess it's why they have chocolate (ugh) and van
            • you want the noise of a freight train and a gust of hot air in your room when you use the computer, and you don't mind wasting petroleum to run it, that's fine. I happen to care about those things. I guess it's why they have chocolate (ugh) and vanilla (yeah!)

              Talking bad about processors is one thing, but saying "ugh" to chocolate is just wrong. Next thing you'll probably say is that you're a goddamned communist and want to destroy democracy!
      • Unfortunately, the actual data in that article produces a different conclusion. Anand just draws the wrong conclusions. As usual.

        The 2.0ghz Pentium M performs within 10% of a Pentium 4 3.6ghz in most tests. That isn't exactly not competing.

        Anand then saws that it can't compete because of price and lack of chipsets. Well, no shit. They produce mostly Pentium 4 chips for the desktop, not Pentium Ms. Ever heard of economies of scale? And you can bet that if Intel decides to switch to a Pentium M-based design
        • And you can bet that if Intel decides to switch to a Pentium M-based design for its next desktop chip, they will have a much more modern chipset to go with it.

          Intel is going to use the Pentium-M core in an upcoming version of it's multicore processors.

  • review site pimpage (Score:3)

    by !splut ( 512711 ) <sputNO@SPAMalum.rpi.edu> on Thursday May 26, 2005 @10:49AM (#12644838) Journal
    While the poster successfully pimps hothardware.com, let us even things out by linking to some other reivews.

    Anandtech:
    P4 670 [anandtech.com]
    PD 820 [anandtech.com]
    Tom's Hardware on the PD 840s and such [tomshardware.com]
  • This was a silly article. Where is the intrigue, imagination, or way to argue terribly with our slashdot neighbors.

    Or maybe it's just an off day for me ;-)

  • HOT (Score:1)

    by jgold03 ( 811521 )
    TWO prescotts on ONE chip. where can i purchase an industrial cooler?
    • I simply fail to understand how normal people without watercooling and such are keeping their new Intel chips cool. I personally own a 530J (3.0 Ghz w/ HT) and this thing runs around 50-55 Celsius at idle depending on the room and motherboard temps and can spike past 70 Celsius when it is under a load with the stock heatsink/fan. It runs so hot, that if it is under a load, it may trigger throttling, which of course reduces performance by around a half in order to keep the heat down, which sucks because you
  • I don't regularly follow chips, so when I start down the road to buying a new system I have to spend two weeks researching. Does anyone happen to know where to find a routinely-updated matrix of what chipsets/chips are out there and their differences? The naming conventions alone ....

  • No ECC support. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ChickenFan ( 887311 )
    Am I the only person who wants ECC in mainstream desktop chipsets?

    I kit out all my new machines with at least 1GB RAM and I want long uptimes on all my Windows, Linux and FreeBSD machines. I really want ECC RAM, but it seems that only Intel's server chipsets support it.

    It's built-in to the Athlon64 memory controller, right?

    You'd think Intel would be more on the ball.

    Of course, finding even an Athlon64 motherboard that actually ENABLED ECC is a challenge.
    • You are not the only one.
    • Am I the only person who wants ECC in mainstream desktop chipsets?

      No, but I think there are very few of us. I think most of the people who want ECC RAM for their desktop PCs want it for their "workstations," not "mainstream desktops." Heck, even some "workstations" [apple.com] don't support ECC RAM.

      I kit out all my new machines with at least 1GB RAM and I want long uptimes on all my Windows, Linux and FreeBSD machines. I really want ECC RAM, but it seems that only Intel's server chipsets support it.

      Not only Int

  • Despite all the Intel-trashing above, the really interesting part of the Pentium D (dual cores) is the price:

    Intel's Pentium D Price Half That Of AMD's X2 [extremetech.com]
    • they compare a 2.8 GHz intel chip with a 2.2-GHz 4200+ AMD, which is undoubtable faster. That's not really a fair comparison. On top of that the AMD dual cores share memory in a more effient manner that Intel. Also, the AMD runs much cooler, so basically you are paying more for an all round better chip.

  • *sigh* (Score:1)

    by Eugene ( 6671 )
    After reading the article, I am not sure why I even bother going to hothardware anymore.. TFA sounds just like your regular Intel's marketing speech. I'm not sure why /. keep posting article about this website.. there are many other good hardware review sites with good articles. but it seems like this one get chosen much more frequently. I'm also very wary that when the submitter of the article is the one that operate the website (you always wonder if there's a *motive* behind the article submission)

  • Hm. (Score:3, Funny)

    by stonecypher ( 118140 ) <stonecypher@noSpam.gmail.com> on Thursday May 26, 2005 @03:00PM (#12647792) Homepage Journal
    So, all "silicon inside" jokes notwithstanding, does that mean that a dual-cpu system would be a Pentium Double D?
  • Great -- more crowding of an already-confusing product line.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.

Close