Pentium M

[howard]

anyone know much about the pentium M? i hear its one of the fastest mobile processors around but all i have are small tidbits of info. any of you know much about it?

[maxvamp]

Long and short. It is the processor for the Centrino setup. If a laptop has the centrino emblem, it also includes a air-port compatible transceiver.

The new Pentium M processors are neat in the respect that they only clock about 1.6GHz, but they have the performance near that of a 2.8GHz Pentium4. In this respect, I guess you could say that Intel will be a victim of the MHz Myth too. I have heard that this processor due to it's lower power use, and heat dissipation vs. performance may make it a candidate for a blade type server in the near future.

For more info, visit the Intel site, or visit the register web site.

Max

[shadowfax]

the centrino processors are also badass in that they draw like 1 freaking watt of power. centrino laptops are getting like 10 hr of battery life or something crazy like that. if there were actually, you know, a decent PC laptop designer in the world (sony comes to mind but not quite), they could give apple laptops a run for their money moreso than ever.

[maradong]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
the centrino processors are also badass in that they draw like 1 freaking watt of power. centrino laptops are getting like 10 hr of battery life or something crazy like that. if there were actually, you know, a decent PC laptop designer in the world (sony comes to mind but not quite), they could give apple laptops a run for their money moreso than ever.
about 8 hours on the one of my friend ... ( 1.6 ghz version )

[mim]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
the centrino processors are also badass in that they draw like 1 freaking watt of power. centrino laptops are getting like 10 hr of battery life or something crazy like that.

Geeze - I saw one advertised with a 13hour life!? :rolleyes:
I Googled a bit for some specific info, but it's hard to come across anything decent. Less than 1 watt average power consumption is pretty damn impressive.

if there were actually, you know, a decent PC laptop designer in the world (sony comes to mind but not quite), they could give apple laptops a run for their money moreso than ever.

I've always wondered about this. Does Apple send hitmen out to knock off the other talented designers or something? :rolleyes:

[cb911]

Centrino and the Pentium M (Codename: Banias) was a big thing in PC magazines in the last few months. i got Atomic (Australian Mag) and it happened to have the info about the Pentium M & Centrino in there. i would recommend getting a PC mag and reading up about the Pentium M in there.


about there being no good PC laptop designers out there... there has to be a better reason than the PC companies having no good designers. especially with the Pentium M now having ridiculiously small cases i was hoping that some killer PC laptops would come out. but not yet. :( hey, if you've got to use a PC, it might as well be a good looking one. i did however read a review in Australian PC Authority the other day. it was of a 15.2" wide-screen laptop (sound familiar :rolleyes: ) that looked very much like the iBooks. it had white plastic and was mostly squared, unlike many other laptops, like the new VAIO with the thick back & thin front look.

[methdxman]

Hi, i'm just a guy kinda deciding between a Pc laptop and a powerbook etc...

Compaq has come out with an excellent laptop. It's not as pretty as the Powerbook, but it's made out of aluminium, it's only 1.3 inches thick and is only about 6.5 pounds. You'll get faster speed and better battery life out of this laptop than a G4, although the G4 is probably designed much better and is a lot cooler. Check it out at the compaq website and tell me what you guys think.

Oh yeah, it has a Pentium-M in it and has the Centrino "certification" with the built in wireless... optional built in bluetooth on the wireless card... 15.4 inch widescreen with 3 different resolutions available. DVD+CDRW available soon for it. ATI 9200 with 64 megs...

Compaq's website doesn't have too much info on it, but the press-releases of this new laptop has more info if you guys search for x1000 or x1001us. Anyway there's only one configurable model on the website...

etc. etc.

[maradong]

Originally posted by methdxman
Hi, i'm just a guy kinda deciding between a Pc laptop and a powerbook etc...

Compaq has come out with an excellent laptop. It's not as pretty as the Powerbook, but it's made out of aluminium, it's only 1.3 inches thick and is only about 6.5 pounds. You'll get faster speed and better battery life out of this laptop than a G4, although the G4 is probably designed much better and is a lot cooler. Check it out at the compaq website and tell me what you guys think.

Oh yeah, it has a Pentium-M in it and has the Centrino "certification" with the built in wireless... optional built in bluetooth on the wireless card... 15.4 inch widescreen with 3 different resolutions available. DVD+CDRW available soon for it. ATI 9200 with 64 megs...

Compaq's website doesn't have too much info on it, but the press-releases of this new laptop has more info if you guys search for x1000 or x1001us. Anyway there's only one configurable model on the website...


well, i d buy the mac :D it just works. ...
etc. etc.

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
the centrino processors are also badass in that they draw like 1 freaking watt of power. centrino laptops are getting like 10 hr of battery life or something crazy like that. if there were actually, you know, a decent PC laptop designer in the world (sony comes to mind but not quite), they could give apple laptops a run for their money moreso than ever. Fairy tales will come true.
It can happen to you,
If you're young at heart.

The only way that Centrino can run at 1 watt is for the processor to be in deep energy saver mode in which case it is doing nothing useful.

[bennetsaysargh]

1 watt of power is impresive. very impresive. but does it actually do that? or do you have to just leave it there not doing everything for it to do it?

[MorganX]

There really is no MHz myth. It's just that cache tends to more than make up for a certain amount of MHz.

I'd probably take any processor available today with 25% less MHz if you're going to give me 100-200% more L1, 2, or 3 cache.

All of the high end processors, Power4, etc. compete with enormouse L3 caches, take that away, and MHz will generally rule.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
1 watt of power is impresive. very impresive. but does it actually do that? or do you have to just leave it there not doing everything for it to do it?

Basically, here's what Intel did:

Take a Pentium III
Add more cache (1MB L2), so it doesn't hit main memory as often (main memory apparently uses more power)
Add a 400MHz bus (from the P4)
Add a ton of power saving features (like turning off parts of the chip that aren't in use, etc...)
Add SSE2 instructions

Result: Pentium M

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by methdxman
Hi, i'm just a guy kinda deciding between a Pc laptop and a powerbook etc...

Compaq has come out with an excellent laptop. It's not as pretty as the Powerbook, but it's made out of aluminium, it's only 1.3 inches thick and is only about 6.5 pounds. You'll get faster speed and better battery life out of this laptop than a G4, although the G4 is probably designed much better and is a lot cooler. Check it out at the compaq website and tell me what you guys think.

Oh yeah, it has a Pentium-M in it and has the Centrino "certification" with the built in wireless... optional built in bluetooth on the wireless card... 15.4 inch widescreen with 3 different resolutions available. DVD+CDRW available soon for it. ATI 9200 with 64 megs...

Compaq's website doesn't have too much info on it, but the press-releases of this new laptop has more info if you guys search for x1000 or x1001us. Anyway there's only one configurable model on the website...

etc. etc.

Sounds Good, but I didn't see a price. How much?

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by hacurio1
Sounds Good, but I didn't see a price. How much?

They aren't cheap in PC terms, especially when you compare GHz. I've seen 1.5 GHz Centrino laptops in the upper $2,000 range.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
Basically, here's what Intel did:

Take a Pentium III
Add more cache (1MB L2), so it doesn't hit main memory as often (main memory apparently uses more power)
Add a 400MHz bus (from the P4)
Add a ton of power saving features (like turning off parts of the chip that aren't in use, etc...)
Add SSE2 instructions

Result: Pentium M thanks for the info. that's hilarious. really, intel hasn't come out with anything "new" since the PIII. i hate that. was the PIII even "new?" did it have anything innovative in it other than higher speeds? (not that that is)

anyways, i wish apple would put the 1 MB of cache in L2 on the G4s. wouldn't that increase performance?

[methdxman]

starts at 2499 for the compaq x1000.

[ilben77]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
thanks for the info. that's hilarious. really, intel hasn't come out with anything "new" since the PIII. i hate that. was the PIII even "new?" did it have anything innovative in it other than higher speeds? (not that that is)

anyways, i wish apple would put the 1 MB of cache in L2 on the G4s. wouldn't that increase performance?

So... what is the problem that they did came up with something new? I mean if it works it works. and they do seem to deliver, unlike the stuck g4

[ilben77]

a little typo

So... what is the problem that they did NOT came up with something new? I mean if it works it works. and they do seem to deliver, unlike the stuck g4

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by ilben77
a little typo

So... what is the problem that they did NOT came up with something new? I mean if it works it works. and they do seem to deliver, unlike the stuck g4 they deliver because no one else does. and everyone is ok with that. so they don't have any pressure to come up with new ideas. don't compare it to the G4. the G4 is the most terrible example of intel-ism at its worst, minus support for DRM. that Apple was duped by them is a tragedy, but sheesh. just pray for IBMs...

[mgargan1]

the P-M is actually not a P3 core, but based on a very similar archetecture. They added 1MB of L2 cache, and 400MHz bus, new instructions, improved speedstep, so as the processor actually turns off part of the FSB that it isn't using, it also turns on and off parts of the processor between keystrokes... this, and the fact that they added a lot more features like an enhanced data-prefetch unit makes this processor awesome. Intel is going to make the 1.7Ghz available soon, as they will intoduce the "dothan" processor on the .09 micron die with 2MB of L2 cache. That will be a screemer. Hope the PPC 970's will not produce too much heat so they can be put in laptops. I have a feeling they're going to run pretty hot. But i have no proof of that.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mgargan1
the P-M is actually not a P3 core, but based on a very similar archetecture. They added 1MB of L2 cache, and 400MHz bus, new instructions, improved speedstep, so as the processor actually turns off part of the FSB that it isn't using, it also turns on and off parts of the processor between keystrokes... this, and the fact that they added a lot more features like an enhanced data-prefetch unit makes this processor awesome. Intel is going to make the 1.7Ghz available soon, as they will intoduce the "dothan" processor on the .09 micron die with 2MB of L2 cache. That will be a screemer. Hope the PPC 970's will not produce too much heat so they can be put in laptops. I have a feeling they're going to run pretty hot. But i have no proof of that. the stuff you say is cool, but everything you said about the M has been said already. it's like you contradicted yourself.

anyways, i've actually heard somewhere, i think, that the 970 draws less power than the G4. so there may be hope.

[mgargan1]

yea... i know i said a lot of the stuff over, but i just wanted to put down everything... sorry if it seemed excessive.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mgargan1
yea... i know i said a lot of the stuff over, but i just wanted to put down everything... sorry if it seemed excessive. no problem, it just kinda weirded me out that you said it wasn't P3-based and then basically said it was, only with the core changes you mentioned, which had all been mentioned ('cept for the speedstep parts). either way though. Centrino isn't bad, it's just not as great as it could be if Intel put some R&D into coming up with something really new.

which, granted, the PPC970 isn't anything new, but it's at least something watered down from something much much cooler.

[methdxman]

The Pentium-M is built from the ground up and made for laptops. It wasn't adapted from anything else (at least according to intel). And just by the looks of it, you can tell they put plenty of r&d in it because it doesn't take up that much power, is fastest laptop processor currently available...

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by methdxman
The Pentium-M is built from the ground up and made for laptops. It wasn't adapted from anything else (at least according to intel). And just by the looks of it, you can tell they put plenty of r&d in it because it doesn't take up that much power, is fastest laptop processor currently available... the hell are you talking about? don't troll dude. it's not built from the ground up. nothing's been built from the ground up for like 20 years. especially at intel. it's still a Pentium for god's sake! they didn't put that much R&D into it either. they just added more speedstep into it, a technology they already had, and put more L2 cache into it, something that doesn't exactly require "R&D," and so on. of course they wouldn't advertise it's adapted from something else. they never told you that the pentium 4 was slower than the P3, either.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
the hell are you talking about? don't troll dude. it's not built from the ground up. nothing's been built from the ground up for like 20 years. especially at intel. it's still a Pentium for god's sake! they didn't put that much R&D into it either. they just added more speedstep into it, a technology they already had, and put more L2 cache into it, something that doesn't exactly require "R&D," and so on. of course they wouldn't advertise it's adapted from something else.
Anandtech disagrees. (http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1800&p=1)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by vniow
Anandtech disagrees. (http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1800&p=1) lol. alright, sorry, i'm a bit impressed. :o

[Catt]

In all the tests and reviews I've read (and I'vee read a few) the P-M is about 20% slower than a mobile P-4M with only marginally improved battery life and a higher price premium. But all the reviews have stated that they expect further revisions of the P-M to actually live up to Intels claims, unlike the first batch of 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 Ghz versions.

[methdxman]

I'm not trolling. I'm just as big a Mac fan. I'm just stating what I have read time and time again.




And no, to the contrary, every speed test I've seen of the Pentium-M, they pretty much trounce most pentium 4-m's.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by methdxman
I'm not trolling. I'm just as big a Mac fan. I'm just stating what I have read time and time again. then why are you doing it again? that's what trolling is, for god's sake.

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
the stuff you say is cool, but everything you said about the M has been said already. it's like you contradicted yourself.

anyways, i've actually heard somewhere, i think, that the 970 draws less power than the G4. so there may be hope.

Ok, somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember reading in these boards long debates about G4 in PowerBooks vs. the 970s and most of them concluded that the G4 is better situated for laptops than the 970 (at least for now). As far as I remember, I believe the new G4s that run up to 1.33 GHz and have a 200Mhz bus (I think) were supposed to be far more energy efficient on power consumption; suggesting that If and only if they are used on the new generation PowerBooks, they will provide excellent battery life (A lot better than what we have). So if anybody has more info, please share, but I think the next crop of PowerBooks will be in better shape to compete against Centrinos in battery life. Lets Hope!

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by hacurio1
Ok, somebody correct me if I?m wrong, but I remember reading in these boards long debates about G4 in PowerBooks vs. the 970s and most of them concluded that the G4 is better situated for laptops than the 970 (at least for now). As far as I remember, I believe the new G4s that run up to 1.33 GHz and have a 200Mhz bus (I think) were supposed to be far more energy efficient on power consumption; suggesting that If and only if they are used on the new generation PowerBooks, they will provide excellent battery life (A lot better than what we have). So if anybody has more info, please share, but I think the next crop of PowerBooks will be in better shape to compete against Centrinos in battery life. Lets Hope! :( but we need 970s to compete with the performance, lol. but yeah, looks like the 970 is in the 40 watts range at the .13 micron process. have to wait for the .09 micron process :rolleyes:

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by Catt
In all the tests and reviews I've read (and I'vee read a few) the P-M is about 20% slower than a mobile P-4M with only marginally improved battery life and a higher price premium. But all the reviews have stated that they expect further revisions of the P-M to actually live up to Intels claims, unlike the first batch of 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 Ghz versions.

That is similar to what I read in the technology section of the boston globe when the P-M first came out!! That the P-M is slower than the P4 but that Intel was really downplaying that fact so that people would focus on all of the other ways that it was a better mobile processor than the P4. But now I keep hearing that the M is faster... which is it?

And if the M is so much faster even at much lower clockspeeds, why not adapt the mobile processor for desktops? It should run even faster if they take out all the power saving laptop features...

I'm just saying, if the P-M is so much faster than the P4 in addition to being a better *mobile* chip, why aren't we seeing desktop derivatives of it across wintel product lines?

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
:( but we need 970s to compete with the performance, lol. but yeah, looks like the 970 is in the 40 watts range at the .13 micron process. have to wait for the .09 micron process :rolleyes:

I hear ya:D

[yzedf]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
That is similar to what I read in the technology section of the boston globe when the P-M first came out!! That the P-M is slower than the P4 but that Intel was really downplaying that fact so that people would focus on all of the other ways that it was a better mobile processor than the P4. But now I keep hearing that the M is faster... which is it?

And if the M is so much faster even at much lower clockspeeds, why not adapt the mobile processor for desktops? It should run even faster if they take out all the power saving laptop features...

I'm just saying, if the P-M is so much faster than the P4 in addition to being a better *mobile* chip, why aren't we seeing desktop derivatives of it across wintel product lines?
More work gets done per MHz, ala the G4 / G3 or even the AMD chips.

The M is designed to be a laptop proc, to put it in a desktop is foolish. Desktops don't have the power / heat constraints that laptops do. Only companies that can't afford to spend the money on a seperate proc line for laptops use 1 type for 2 different skill sets... (Motorola)

Also, a 3.2GHz HT P4 smokes the M's...

[QCassidy352]

Originally posted by yzedf
More work gets done per MHz, ala the G4 / G3 or even the AMD chips.

The M is designed to be a laptop proc, to put it in a desktop is foolish. Desktops don't have the power / heat constraints that laptops do. Only companies that can't afford to spend the money on a seperate proc line for laptops use 1 type for 2 different skill sets... (Motorola)

Also, a 3.2GHz HT P4 smokes the M's...

If more work gets done per Mhz, what if Intel could rev those processors up to the clockspeeds of that P4 3.2 Ghz? The M would smoke it, no?

I'm talking about a *modified* M processor in desktops. Of course you wouldn't just take it directly from a laptop. But as I said before, wouldn't the fact that you didn't have to worry about those heat constraints mean that the desktop version could be even more powerful?

It seems to me that if you have a processor that can do more work at the same speeds, it would be logical to push its clockspeed high enough that it can beat the "less efficient" processor. Now, this can't be done with the G4, hence why macs get smoked by higher clockspeed P4s that are "less efficient" per mhz. But if an M could be pushed to higher clockspeeds, why not remove the heat controlling aspects and have it be your fastest processor?

Look, I'm sure there's a reason I'm wrong here, but I'm hoping someone can explain what that reason is. Is it that the M, like the G4, simply can't reach the clockspeed of the P4 (so even though it does more work at the same speed, it can't do as much total work)?

[Catt]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
If more work gets done per Mhz, what if Intel could rev those processors up to the clockspeeds of that P4 3.2 Ghz? The M would smoke it, no?

I'm talking about a *modified* M processor in desktops. Of course you wouldn't just take it directly from a laptop. But as I said before, wouldn't the fact that you didn't have to worry about those heat constraints mean that the desktop version could be even more powerful?

It seems to me that if you have a processor that can do more work at the same speeds, it would be logical to push its clockspeed high enough that it can beat the "less efficient" processor. Now, this can't be done with the G4, hence why macs get smoked by higher clockspeed P4s that are "less efficient" per mhz. But if an M could be pushed to higher clockspeeds, why not remove the heat controlling aspects and have it be your fastest processor?

Look, I'm sure there's a reason I'm wrong here, but I'm hoping someone can explain what that reason is. Is it that the M, like the G4, simply can't reach the clockspeed of the P4 (so even though it does more work at the same speed, it can't do as much total work)?

It may well be to with Intels competitions with AMD. At the present time intel may not want to announce a processor that isn't megahertz orientated because it would damage its case with the P4 and strengthen AMD's Athlon XPs. Intel couldn't simply jump from 1.6Ghz to 3Ghz even if it wanted to because it needs the money to invest in R&D, money I assume it gets from selling previous versions of processors. So it maybe that Intel will work towards this, but to slowly scale the processor up and release say 1.8, 2, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6 and then say a 3Ghz P-M (perhaps called a P-D?) would damage its case against AMD. I don't know really. Seeing as intel already has a chip that beats AMDs fastest reasonably easily I suppose they don't really have any incentive to create an unber chip. The only reason I can think that intel may port the P-M to desktops is to create quiet, energy effiecient yet still powerful desktops for an office environment or library, or just for those consumers who want a quiet 'environmentally friendly' PC.

Edit: My next laptop may well be P-M driven but only if intel can unleash its full battery saving and raw processing power potential. Plus the 12inch power book is looking mighty tempting....

[yzedf]

The P4 is a ever-moving target. Soon to be 3.2GHz, and then up to 3.6GHz. New bus speeds in the 1000-1200MHz range (depending on who you believe).

And then you have AMD with their new 64bit proc that will be out soon (before end of the year, i think).

Intel and AMD have been concentrating on things besides the clock... they have been trying to minimize the other bottle-necks in the system (memory access, hdd access, faster AGP, better PCI, etc).

Apple with Motorola has not been doing that. Here's to hoping Apple with IBM will.

[methdxman]

Catt, if you read the Andandtech article, it basically says the M, with its current architecture cannot reach the clock speeds of a P-4... But I feel what you are saying. Since the P4 is so flexible with its clock speeds, I think they'll stick with it for desktops.

Originally posted by QCassidy352
If more work gets done per Mhz, what if Intel could rev those processors up to the clockspeeds of that P4 3.2 Ghz? The M would smoke it, no?

I'm talking about a *modified* M processor in desktops. Of course you wouldn't just take it directly from a laptop. But as I said before, wouldn't the fact that you didn't have to worry about those heat constraints mean that the desktop version could be even more powerful?

It seems to me that if you have a processor that can do more work at the same speeds, it would be logical to push its clockspeed high enough that it can beat the "less efficient" processor. Now, this can't be done with the G4, hence why macs get smoked by higher clockspeed P4s that are "less efficient" per mhz. But if an M could be pushed to higher clockspeeds, why not remove the heat controlling aspects and have it be your fastest processor?

Look, I'm sure there's a reason I'm wrong here, but I'm hoping someone can explain what that reason is. Is it that the M, like the G4, simply can't reach the clockspeed of the P4 (so even though it does more work at the same speed, it can't do as much total work)?