Intel speed bumps slowing...

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by gaomay, Jun 4, 2003.

  1. gaomay macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    Scotland, UK
    #1
    From Anandtech:

    n 2002 Intel released an incredible 7 CPUs for the desktop, but believe it or not, you're only going to see three more CPUs between now and the end of the year.



    As we mentioned in our last Intel Roadmap update, the 3.2GHz Pentium 4 is next up to bat and it will be the last 0.13-micron Northwood processor before Prescott. The 3.2GHz Northwood Pentium 4 will continue to be the fastest thing from Intel even through Q3 2003, before Prescott's release in Q4.



    We've described Prescott in great detail in previous articles, so here's some information on it if you're a bit rusty on the specs and benefits of Intel's first 90nm CPU:



    Things don't heat up until Q4, when we see the long awaited introduction of the Prescott core. Right now Intel is the unequivocal performance leader on the desktop, but what do users of the fastest CPUs today have to look forward to? Prescott of course. We've been preaching for months that Prescott would be the next CPU to upgrade to (much like we suggested waiting on migrating to the Pentium 4 until the Northwood core was released), and that time is almost upon us.



    The Prescott core will be introduced at two clock speeds - 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz. The 3.2GHz part will obviously overlap with the forthcoming 3.2GHz Northwood part, while the 3.4GHz speed will be a Prescott-only core. The other thing to keep in mind is that both of these CPUs are still Socket-478 parts, you won't see the first Socket-775 CPUs until Q2 2004, which we will talk about next.



    The 3.4GHz Prescott will close off 2003, but in Q1 '04 we'll see another speed bump to 3.60GHz. This 3.60GHz processor will be the one to stay away from, because it is still a Socket-478 CPU. In the following quarter, Q2 '04, Intel will introduce a Socket-775 LGA version of the 3.60GHz Prescott processor as well as 775-pin versions of the 3.2/3.4GHz Prescott processors.



    There is a chance that we will see a 3.80GHz Prescott core in Q2 '04 as well, however that will largely depend on how much competition Intel is faced with. If you recall, the major difference between 2002 and 2003 is that for the majority of 2002, AMD was a much more potent competitor. We will have to wait and see how the launch of the Athlon 64 goes before determining how big of a threat AMD will be going forward on the desktop side. One thing is for sure though; it's going to take a lot more than 64-bit support for AMD to pull sales away from Intel on the desktop side

    Looks like this will give PowerPC 970/980/990 a chance to ctach up with the x86 world over the next 2 or so years - if we see a 980 at 4Ghz in the next 2 years - cool!
     
  2. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #2
    Yep!

    This could be the first year since a long time that Apple's hardware is starting to catch up instead of falling behind even more....
    Can't wait for WWDC.
     
  3. maradong macrumors 65816

    maradong

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    Luxembourg
    #3
    certainly, but..
    well i am also wish to see the 970 on wwcd, but at the moment, it is just a rumor. Nothing more.
    Don t forget that...
     
  4. Cubeboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #4
    As Anand said, it'll depend more on the competition of AMD than anything else. We'll have to wait to see how potent Athlon 64 is before determining how fast the Prescotts will scale.
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    meanwhile motorola is making announcements that it hopes to hit 2 gigs one day. So Sad we didnt have a cpu maker who was interested. This is why we need the 970 now,this is why motorola's g4 should be dropped. Intel speed may be slowing but we are way behind untill we get a new cpu maker.
     
  6. MorganX macrumors 6502a

    MorganX

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    Midwest
    #6
    I liken Intel to the North in the Civil War, fighting most of it with one hand tied behind it's back.

    When it's time to seriously compete, I think Intel can ramp up and surpass anyone, IBM included.

    Apple doesn't need to "beat" Intel, it needs to be comparable to Intel across the board. And give respectable performance across the board. The bus speed of the 970 will do more for gaming and video than MHz. The questions are will it be used in desktops? Will it be used across the entire line? (No.) And will it, or whatever the next gen mac processor is be price competitive with sprindale/HT P4 systems. (doubtful)

    The result being, the overall picture won't change one iota, and current Mac users, who can afford the high end machines will remain happy.

    Intel is worried about 64-bit processors forcing it to move faster than it wants to, but whenver they get ready I believe they can put Itanium on the desktop at desktop prices. Until macs or Athlons catch up to the overall throughput of the x86 architecture, they simply don't have to.

    That's my thoughts anyway.
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    morganx makes some good points, but the fact is we have a lot of catching up to do. when you can take a mac with 1 cpu and compare it with a wintel unit with 1 cpu then we will have caught up. but your right just when we think we have caught up intell will do something else. at least there is the chance of parity with the 970. with the g4 and motorola we will allways be behind.
     
  8. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #8
    When the G4 was introduced @ 400-500 Mhz way back in 1999, it was seen as something special. The problem is the fact that 18 months later the G4 still wasn't quicker thatn 500 MHz, on a 100 MHz bus. :(
    In short Apple was stuck for more than a year. Picture having today's stuff come out exactly a year ago... so, now we'd be seeing Dual 2 GHz PPC 7457, running on a 200 MHz bus, expecting the 970 this fall.... and I would have had my Dual 1.25 GHz for more than a year now....
     
  9. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #9
    no kidding, i just saw a post at insanely great mac that says the 1.25 and 1.42 are actually 1 gigers overclocked. moto said they will have a 1.3 gig 7457 and they will probably be working on overclocking those as they did the 7455. Bottom line is this shows exactly why apple has been working on the 970 with IBM the past year. Moto has been and still sounds stuck if the best they can come out with is a 1.3 gig. No wonder we had monster heat sinks and windtunnels.
     
  10. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #10
    That's also why the G4 is ever expensive. Imagine how many overclocked 1 GHz will never make it in a DUAL (yeah, twice the price) 1.25 or even 1.42, 'cause they were faulty.
    Ofcourse we need something to happen, and the best bet is the 970 coming (very) soon.
    I was merely stating that Moto had screwed up for only about a year.... but see what the consequences are.... :mad:
     
  11. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #11
    now that almost all pcs sold are near or past 2 ghz, people are going to start to realize that speed is not the primary concern, but the computer's features

    if macs ever become as fast as pcs, that will be nice but by then few will care about speed
     
  12. mgargan1 macrumors 65816

    mgargan1

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    Reston, VA
    #12
    why should intel release more processors? their 3.0 GHz is the fastest in the market. let them upgrade to prescott, and leave 'em alone. I don't think AMD's A64 is going to be faster than prescott, but that's just my hunch.
     
  13. dethl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #13
    Intel is behind on the 64-bit processing. AMD's Opteron and Athalon64 will be out long before Intel finally gets a X86-64bit processor right (remember Itanium 1 and 2?). It seems to me that Intel can only compete by jacking the speed of their processors up. Eventually, Intel will reach a limit, due to heat mainly. When we start slimming down the core to even smaller fabrications, we're going to have problems with quantums affecting the processor.

    I really hope AMD does extremely well with the Athalon64, just to scare the crap out of Intel.
     
  14. Cubeboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #14
    Most people don't believe Athlon 64 will do better than Prescott, other than a on-die memory controller, a greater number of general purpose registers, hypertransport bus, more cache, and of course x86-64, it's still the basic K7 core. No doubt their will be significant performance increases from previous Athlons but I doubt it will be enough against Prescott.

    I hope Athlon 64 does very well too, just to keep Intel from charging $900 per processor again. However, I doubt 64 bit computing will be of much use on desktops until at least 2005.

    The benefits of 64 bit computing are:

    1)More memory addressing, 64 bit flat addressing rate of 2^64 bytes of memory (2^48 for Opteron and Athlon64) as opposed to 2^32 bytes of memory for 32 bit processors. (2^36 with PAE)

    2)higher precision integer arithmatic

    3)increased scalability (programs that are simply too large for 32 bit computing model well perform much better at 64 bits)

    At current, all 32 bit computers can address a maximum of 4 GB of memory, any 32 bit processor after the Pentium pro (Correct me if I'm wrong) has Physical Address Extensions (PAE) that allowed these processors to address 36 GB of memory (but still only 4GB per thread). So memory won't be a problem now or in the near future.

    Higher precision integer arithmatic is primarily useful in High Performance Computing and Technical applications most of which belong in the server/supercomputer space.

    Most desktop programs aren't nearing the 32 bit limit in size so again, their should be no problems in the near future.

    64 bit computing is for now, primarily useful in Large Databases, Decision Support, and Technical applications, until desktop programs for the most part outgrow 32 bits and can take advantage of specific 64 bits features, I doubt we will see any significant benefits from 64 bit Athlons.
     
  15. Cubeboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #15
    It's funny that you should say that, the current Athlons actually run quite a bit hotter than the current Pentium 4s. Due to smaller transistors from .09 micron process, the Prescott won't run anywhere near as hot as a Pentium 4 until it nears 5 GHzs. However, you are correct their will be a limit to how small we can go, but due more to size restrictions, not heat.
     
  16. Vlade macrumors 6502a

    Vlade

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Location:
    Meadville, PA
    #16
    Why? Then intel spends more RD dollars and gets a faster processor, putting apple farther behind.
     
  17. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #17
    That's exactly what I was thinking too. I'd much rather have both Intel and AMD slow down their releases, giving the 970 time to catch up.
     
  18. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #18
    Apple should catch up on their own... Intel and AMD shouldn't have to slow down for them, make Apple work harder, lol.
     
  19. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #19
    i wish there was some recognized standard of heat in the industry that would rate all the processors, from the G4 to the P4, on a scale of 1 to 10 on how hot the processor gets and how acceptable or unacceptable that is for the operation of the computer

    some processors heat up and slow down in a major way like my AMD k6-2 mobile chip, more so than the mobile athlon or athlon xp
     
  20. ddtlm macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #20
    dethl:

    Itanium has nothing to do with x86-64 except that it is trying to leave x86 behind.

    jefhatfield:

    How hot a chip gets depends on how it is cooled as much as how much thermal energy is dissipates. For this standard of yours to work, this means that every possible cooling setup would need to be rated separately, which is unrealistic.
     
  21. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #21
    i think that certain tasks on applications can be timed at five minutes after bootup then again at one hour after bootup and the slowdown in speed to complete those tasks could be tallied up into some sort of rating for each task and all the tasks combined

    a hotter chip will slow down the operation of a computer and this is what matters in the end

    i think it is a possible benchmark to standardize and publish for different computer models
     
  22. Cubeboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #22
    I'd usually just measure CPU temp using similarly equipped P4 and Athlon systems at the same time (fixed temperature outside) under idle and full workloads, for a set duration of time. You can then compare the results. Of course, then you have to take into account the thermal protection of each cpu.

    Usually, 40-50 degrees celcius is optimal, 50-60 degrees celsius is your typical full workload, 60-70 degrees is still fine but you should try to get the temperature down, 80 degrees and above is when you worry.
     

Share This Page