24-Apr-2024 04:11 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Rant] Pentium IV Prototype at 3.5 GHzANN.lu
Posted on 29-Aug-2001 09:05 GMT by Christian Kemp41 comments
View flat
View list
Solar (BAUD) wrote: PPC vs x86, Intel vs AMD, believe me folks I´d like to see PPC rule the market, but this looks like x86 is here to stay. I think it´s interesting to see what will be tomorrow, even if it has little to do with Amiga today. Yes, I know that GHz isn´t everything, but that´s a *lot* of GHz to make up for with superior (?) architecture... From Heise Online:

"In the early morning, shortly after 8 AM local time, [Intel] presented a prototype of a 0.13µm Pentium-4 (Northwood), which - shortly - ran at 3.5 GHz.

On average, the IDF record breaking CPUs reach the market after roughly a year. The 2 GHz type that started production yesterday was also presented as a prototype on last year´s IDF. So we can expect the 3.5 GHz Pentium 4 in late summer 2002. In general, so Otellini, the architecture can be scaled up to 10 GHz."

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Anonymous28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 2Hans-Joerg Frieden28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 3Ben Hermans/Hyperion28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 4Tinman28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 5koan28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 6Solar (BAUD)28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 7Graham28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Pentium IV Prototype at 3.5 GHz : Comment 8 of 41ANN.lu
Posted by on 28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Graham):
>The Athlon will only be at 1.6GHz at the end of this year, when Intel will be >at 2.2GHz. The G4+ will be at 1GHz. Lets hope that next year the PPC will gain >some massive speed gains with the G5, although 2GHz looks to be the limit for >next year already.
Mmmmm, a little bit hopeful. All the tests I've seen suggest that a 1.4G Athlon is roughly comparable to a 1.7G Pentium (socket 423). The Athlon convincingly wins some tests, while the Pentium wins others. I would have thought that a 2G Pentium (again, socket 423) would have a slight advantage. Reason I say socket 423 is that they use the Intel 850 chipset and so use rambus memory which has a bandwidth at the lower end of DDR DRAM (which the 1.4G Athlon uses). It has been suggested that the Athlon is only able to be comparable at the mo because it can achieve higher data rates to and from memory. The new P4's (socket 478) are utter shit, as they use Intels 845 chipset, so using SDR DRAM. Tests have shown that 2G pentiums (478) are no better whatsoever than the Athlons. They are simply crippled with bad memory transfer. But in 6 months time, there'll be another revision of the Pentium which'll use DDR DRAM. Coupled with frequencies that are supposedly going to be starting around the 2.2 to 2.4G, you may see a wider margin appearing between the Pentium and Athlon, irrespective of the 20 pipeline stages.
To the question earlier of why all the GHz, well, the GHz is a great marketing ploy. Intel have got competition so they don't rest on their laurels and continue to try to push up the numbers. Joe Public laps it up cos the bigger number chip is perceived as being better, and given the choice, he wants the better one. If Intel didn't push this way and the Athlon came up with a 3GHz chip with the Pentium stuck at 2Ghz, Intel would start to lose sales big time.
As for who would use this number of cycles, in the greatest numbers it would be the game player. Increase in CPU cycles can increase framerate (as the P4 tests have demonstrated in the main).
Jump...
#13 Graham
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 9nOw228-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 10Amifan28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 11boingdude28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 12Nick28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 13Graham28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 14Hans-Joerg Frieden28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 15Alain Coderre28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 16Ian Shurmer28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 17Christian Kemp28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 18Ian Shurmer28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 19Bart Vanhaeren28-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 20Richie29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 21sutro29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 22Luca29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 23nian29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 24David Shipman29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 25David Shipman29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 26Mike Pearson29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 27Mike Pearson29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 28Solar (BAUD)29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 29Kjetil29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 30Chip29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 31dakang29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 32Thomas Frieden29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 3329-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 34Hans-Joerg Frieden29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 35Ian Shurmer29-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 36Tony Gore30-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 37Thierry31-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 38Thierry Atheist31-Aug-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 39sutro02-Sep-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 40sutro02-Sep-2001 22:00 GMT
Comment 41Mike Pearson02-Sep-2001 22:00 GMT
Back to Top