Intel clockspeed ramp slowing......

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by gaomay, Nov 29, 2002.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    Scotland, UK
    #1
    Looks like Intel's rate of increasing clockspeed will be much slower in 2003 than in 2002. Seems that with the 3.06Ghz CPU part running so hot they are reluctant to increase the clockspeed much more until their .09 micron process comes onstream at the end of 2003.
    This might give IBM/Moto a chance to reduce the gap somewhat.

    http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1752
     
  2. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #2
    The heat is the stick that can bring Intel to a screeching halt - the MHz carrot is getting a little moldy.

    Processors already are at a fast enough clock speed (MHz wise) -- lowering heat/power, increasing the chips I/O bandwidth, and increasing benchmark scores at the current clock speeds would be a dandy idea.

    But since Intel has backed themselves into their own MHz trap, they're sort of stuck.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    Scotland, UK
    #3
    Yup

    A classic case of the corporation that cried Mhz.....

    Hoist by their own petard........
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #4
    :D

    I knew this would happen, inefficient design, fixated on how fast it spins compared with how it performs. The P4 was crap when it came out, by the time it got to 2Ghz and moved up to the northwood core it started to look like a good performer, now it's at 3Ghz with Hyperthreading and it's hit it's peak. It's so funny.
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #5
    Oh yeah. Here comes the fall of Intel. This must mean in 2 years, Apple will be the dominant home computer again. Intel might as well close up shop, since they obviously have no money for r+d to push into the next stage of processing.

    Yeah, and the G4 is faster than a P4.

    When is everyone going to wake up?
    :rolleyes:
     
  6. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Location:
    In front of my Mac
    #6
    Intel's next stage of chips, the Itanium, has significantly lower clock speeds than the P4. Even you'll agree that Intel's backed themselves into a Mhz=Power corner, and even if the Itanium comes out with enough processing power to lift the Titanic, (compared to the P4, which could boil the ocean water away from the wreck :) ), they'll have a fun time explaining to Joe Consumer why this chip is more powerful than the 2.5 ghz P4 (or so) it'll be replacing.

    In the mean time, Apple will have a nice little chip from this teeny little company called IBM :). And since they got off the Mhz treadmill long ago, will have a marketing advantage they can exploit right away.
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    agreenster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Location:
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    #7
    IBM and Apple

    I sure as hell HOPE so. But its been years since the Mac has been faster than an equivalent PC.

    Hopefully, IBM will be ready to mass-produce in time to pull Apple up out of its speed slump. According to the rumors on this site, IBM wont be ready till late next year or later.......thats a long time to wait..........the G4 is at the end of its life too you know.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #8
    Wait, so there's a such thing as Intel R & D?
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #9
    Although I'm sure that gloating is tempting to all the zealots here, at this time no one knows if the PPC-970 will even be available before Intel has chips fabbed on 90nm tech available. Not to mention that Intel can release a few more P4's before 90nm, and not to mention that they are talking about an 800mhz FSB in 2003, virtually gaurenteed to arrive before the PPC-970 does with it's 50% core-speed FSB.

    barkmonster:

    It is getting near it's peak, but it isn't there yet. Big difference.

    agreenster:

    Huh?

    Hawthorne:

    Itaniums and Pentiums have very different target markets and noone is having any trouble with the clock speed issue, despite what all the Intel-haters would like to happen.

    NavyIntel007:

    You stupid troll. Intel's R&D is the best in the industry. Even IBM cannot equal it, although they aren't as far behind as most companies are.
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    rice_web

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota
    #10
    First of all, the P4 is nearing the end of its life, but the P5 is just warming up. The P5 will boast such things as increased I/O and lower power consumption, and will be premiering late next year at 4GHz, 667MHz system bus, and 1MB L2 Cache (still rumored--it might be better).

    You see, Intel can still play a number's game, even if they don't play on the overall MHz. Intel will have a dominant lead in the system bus and L2 cache, while still maintaining a lead in CPU MHz.

    I'd like to see the 970 compete in any category other than system bus and total I/O throughput.
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Location:
    In front of my Mac
    #11
    I think the batteries in your sarcasm detector need replacing. :)
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
  13. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #13
    rice_web:

    Actually it looks like the FSB will be 800mhz on P4's next year, based on the (rather reliable) rumors on the PC side, so the the P5's will (if the rumors are right) certainly start off with the 800mhz FSB as well. Word is that Intel is prepping the faster bus because the 130nm P4's aren't going to scale enough to deal with the Hammer otherwise.
     
  14. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Doesn't the 970 have a 900 MHz FSB (~450 DDR)? I'm guessing the P4/5 667 and 800 FSBs will be Quad pumped 167 and 200. Anyone know why they still do that when most of their new chipsets support DDR over RDRam?
     
  15. macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    Yes, ...

    ...but because of the way the bus protocol works, it has an effective speed of 400MHz DDR (800). So it's ending up looking like the 970 and the P4 (or P5 as it may be called by then) are going to be almost identical in speed. Same bus (800Mhz for both), half the clock frequency (1.8GHz vs. about 3.6GHz) but double the IPC (about 4 vs. about 2), roughly equivalent vector units (the 970 uses the old G4's Altivec layout which is a bit less beefy than the current one). The difference is that the P4 will be on a .09 micron manufacturing process, allowing for more L2 cache (512k vs. 1MB). This should give the P4 a slight lead, until a .09 micron 970 comes out (which would have enough space for dual cores, or on chip memory controllers, or big caches, or any number of other cool things. Plus, it will be cheaper, faster, and run cooler). Overall, I think it's going to be case of the winner being whoever scales the chip fastest in the future. Normally, this would be Intel, but with AMD less in the picture, the P7 core aging, and IBM's huge budget, I'm not so sure. If Apple goes with dual 970s it should be the crap out of the P4 (although it'll cost a bundle).

    <edit> to answer the original question, they're planning on using dual channel DDR400 (which is also what the 970 will probably use). That means their ram is 200x2x2, same as their bus. </edit>
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #16
    solvs:

    I am unaware of any reason why the choice of DDR vs RDRAM makes much difference as far as a quad-pumped FSB being good.

    Catfish_Man:

    To what you've said I'd like to add that since the PPC-970's FSB operates at 50% of core clock (and then looses 1/9th of what's left to overhead), PPC-970's above 1.8ghz will have more theoretical bandwidth, and those below 1.8ghz will have less theoretical bandwidth than a P4/P5 with a 800mhz FSB. The two FSB's are implemented very differently though, so I don't think anyone here is qualified to say which one is better.

    Yeah I was wondering if that's where people where getting the "two AltiVec units" from. :) Oh well, I can give up a little AltiVec power for some more general-purpose power.

    But is it huge compared to Intel's?

    How about a dual P4, AKA Xeon?
     
  17. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #17
    Um, unless you are like Uber-Hardcore gamer or are running a Super Server you don't get Dual P4's or Xeons.
    Microsoft tech can't handle the 2ed processor as well as lets say OS X. :D
    And If the 970 Came out not it would kick, but it didn't so we will have to wait...
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #18
    MrMacman:

    Being the anti-zealot-zealot that I am, I'm going to think dirty thoughts about you until you can provide support for this statement of yours, which on the surface looks like just more of the usual FUD-spewing and MS-bashing that is so popular on Mac hangouts. In my own experience OSX is not especially good at managing two CPUs, in fact in my experience with 2-CPU-OSX, it stutters at regular intervals in virtually every application where a steady framerate (or the lack thereof) is observable.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    rice_web

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota
    #19
    Dual-CPUs work EXCELLENTLY on a PC. My father runs three dual-CPU workstations at his office, and I can personally say that the performance gain from the extra CPU is all-too-noticeable. Granted, OS X might have a slight upper-hand in dual-processing configurations, but who's going to win: Dual 1.25GHz G4 or Dual P4 Xeon at 2.6GHz? Which is going to cost less?

    (BTW, you wouldn't buy a dual-processor rig for gaming on a PC, maybe two or three games will actually take advantage of a second processor)

    Oh, and it is 800MHz system bus? Wow, I thought those were only optimistic rumors. In this case, I cannot see how a 970 configuration could beat a P5 configuration in any test, especially with an Altivec unit that is less potent. Granted, the move to 64-bit processing allows some information to travel faster and for memory allotments to increase, but I do not think we'll see enough of a boost to beat the P5 of 2003.

    In either case, I think comparing the G4 to the P4 and the 970 to the P5 is irrelevant. If you can do your work on a G4 450, consider the 970 a God-sent item. If you've been working with a P2 450, the P5 at 4GHz is a fantasy that can be fulfilled. I don't see why we compare Apples and Oranges, whichever system you PREFER, you should buy. Only worry about speed if it's actually an issue. For example, in my house are two Win2k machines at 866MHz and a single iMac at 400MHz. I use the Win2K machines for my web design and programming, while my family uses the iMac for its simplicity and software selection (e.g. iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto). Speed is hardly a part of the equation for my family, so they've clung to the iMac; I need speed, so I've hung on to my relatively quick P3 system.

    EDIT: Some quick links
    - http://www.geek.com/procspec/intel/prescott.htm
    Possible P5 with SSE3..... (drools)

    - http://www.geek.com/procspec/ibm/power4desktop.htm
    The first chip in a long time to make a PowerMac worthwhile.... (drools)
     
  20. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    San Jose
    #20
    Look what i found

    Hey i was searching the web and found this web site

    Anyone think it is reliable?HERE




    PowerBook G4 1GHZ
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #21
    rice_web:

    I wouldn't recommend being quite so pessimistic about the PPC-970 just yet. :) 2 AltiVec functional units or 4, it should still mop the floor with any G4 ever made in any code ever made (pretty much). Going to 4 functional units was nice and all, but pretty much everyone is familiar with the problems the 7-stage 4-unit G4's had against the 4-stage 2-unit G4's until the clock speed difference was > 50%. It was like P4 vs P3, except in PPC land. I'm aware that observation doesn't prove a whole lot, but it provides some reasoning to back up my lack of concern over the "missing" 2 functional units.

    In other news, I am going to be very interested to see how the battle of the FSB's plays out. One is pretty simple quad-pumped bi-directional and 64-bits wide, the other is wizbang dual 32-bit unidirectional and packet based. Which will have lower latency? Which will be better in common "streaming" apps? Not a lot of people know the answer to that, just yet.

    50% of core clock could be very important after the PPC-970 scales a bit. Of course Intel will not sit down on the job...
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #22
    fatalerror101:

    Yeah, Arstechnica is a well-known webiste with an active Mac sub-community. That article is perfectly reliable... but it's also been discussed before at this site. Note: certain things in that article seem a bit out of date now.
     
  23. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #23
    fatalerror101:

    The current arstechnia thread about new processors is here, of course it's around 20 pages long right now - so it's a lot to look at.
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    #24
    Megahertz Mythology and other Wildebeasts...

    The Megahertz Myth can't be raising it's ugly head here again???

    All the world’s a stage,
    And all the men and women merely players;
    They have their exits and their entrances,
    And one man in his time plays many parts.

    :cool:
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    rice_web

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota
    #25
    I'm not being pessimistic about the 970; I think it's a great chip and a significant advance over the current batch of G4s. However, the Pentium V will likely still beat the 970.

    The true test will come in from Altivec production. If the 800MHz system bus (900 sans the overhead) that the 970 can finally do Altivec justice, we might finally have an Intel killer, but I wouldn't hold my breath (although, with the ability for more memory, Final Cut Pro could become very fun....).
     

Share This Page