PDA

View Full Version : Prescott 2.8GHz first benches


Pages : [1] 2

Dazz
11-15-03, 05:09 PM
And it seems to run very hot inall http://www.ocheaven.com/article/0310/readgoodarticle.asp?id=26

Malfunction
11-15-03, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
And it seems to run very hot inall http://www.ocheaven.com/article/0310/readgoodarticle.asp?id=26

¡¡¡¡This test has high reference value. Now adays the supporting to Prescott isn¡¯t optimized and some time needed to keep it Working stably as Pentium 4. On different condition performance varies , Prescott works very well. With 2.8GHz Pentium 4 works as good as P4 3.2G and some times better. Obviously 1M L2 Cache is different from 512K L2 Cache. latter software or program matched will release , good to Prescott. Although Athlon 64 floods to the market. But Prescott surely will face it with stronger power. We can judge from the date of Prescott releasing ahead to 2003/12/3 that Intel are ready to combat with Athlon 64.

¡¡¡¡finally, Rex put much energy on the complicated test. Hope it be valuable to user.Four i875P main board are useding, after inter-testing and changing several BIOS it runs formally. Just as mentioned above. BIOS edtion is very important or PC refuse to work! Many thanks for manufacturers PM and RD's assistant.

Oh yah, these things are selling like hot cakes...
:rolleyes:

Only seen one person that has one here at the forums.

Peace,

:rolleyes:

*Edit - Ya, I think I will pass on this dip's review... thank you. :)

Dazz
11-15-03, 05:30 PM
Well he used a poor machine translator not his fualt he can't speak english like so many other people can :) But noticed that 2.8GHz part produces 103w of heat.

Malfunction
11-15-03, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
Well he used a poor machine translator not his fualt he can't speak english like so many other people can :) But noticed that 2.8GHz part produces 103w of heat.

I also noticed they've said consumption, not heat when discussing 103w. I believed it was a power hog... lol. We shall see though. As well, he mentioned they will go Socket T which means more pins, which may mean 64bit... but who's speculating..lol.

Peace,

:)

Malfunction
11-15-03, 05:38 PM
You will also notice that the article is dated Oct. 3rd. Alot has changed since then, well... according to this:

10/14/2003 8:00 PM EST

Paul Otellini, president of Intel, dismissed the rumors about the 90-nm process. "There are a lot of rumors running around," he said. "The process is healthy," he insisted during a conference call with analysts.

He acknowledged that the company has tweaked the "thermal target" for Prescott. "We ended up changing the thermal target for Prescott," he said. Intel "changed the thermal envelope---slightly."

He was also quick to point out that Prescott and Dothan are both "sound" and that revenue shipments would occur by year's end, as previously planned. Dothan is Intel's next-generation mobile processor, based on 90-nm technology.

Intel's efforts to ramp 90-nm technology on 300-mm wafers "are progressing," added Andy Bryant, chief financial officer for Intel. In fact, the company not only plans to ramp up Prescott and Dothan on 90-nm technology by year's end, but it also will move "most of the value line" of processors onto this process in Q1 of 2004, he said.

Besides the 90-nm issues, it was difficult to find any faults at Intel. "It turned out to be among the biggest quarter we've ever seen," Bryant said.

Intel's third quarter sequential sales growth was the best in over 20 years and year-over-year unit growth was the best since 1996, he said. The company had record shipments of desktop and mobile processors, as well as chip sets, Otellini said.

Intel is benefiting from huge growth for processors, especially in emerging markets in Asia and Europe, he said.

On the down side, Intel is seeing only "modest growth in the corporate market," he said. Flash-memory unit growth was slightly up, but average selling prices were down, he said.

http://www.ebnonline.com/business/opinion/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=15300226

Peace,

:D

*Edit - Fixed the dates, works out even better! :D

Malfunction
11-15-03, 05:47 PM
Ok, for those who don't go to the links....

As reported, there are rumors flying that Intel is struggling with the 90-nm process, which is due out later this year. Intel's next-generation desktop processor was reportedly running at a whopping 103 Watts, according to a recent report from American Technology Research Inc. The processor, dubbed Prescott, is a 90-nm version of the Pentium 4 architecture.

Paul Otellini, president of Intel, dismissed the rumors about the 90-nm process. "There are a lot of rumors running around," he said. "The process is healthy," he insisted during a conference call with analysts.

He acknowledged that the company has tweaked the "thermal target" for Prescott. "We ended up changing the thermal target for Prescott," he said. Intel "changed the thermal envelope---slightly."

He was also quick to point out that Prescott and Dothan are both "sound" and that revenue shipments would occur by year's end, as previously planned. Dothan is Intel's next-generation mobile processor, based on 90-nm technology.

Intel's efforts to ramp 90-nm technology on 300-mm wafers "are progressing," added Andy Bryant, chief financial officer for Intel. In fact, the company not only plans to ramp up Prescott and Dothan on 90-nm technology by year's end, but it also will move "most of the value line" of processors onto this process in Q1 of 2004, he said.

Peace,


:afro:

Viral
11-15-03, 07:09 PM
Why even bother reading what the president of intel says? I'm sure he would say that if it was running fine or not at all....

Malfunction
11-15-03, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Viral
Why even bother reading what the president of intel says? I'm would say that if it was running fine or not at all....

As reported, there are rumors flying that Intel is struggling with the 90-nm process, which is due out later this year. Intel's next-generation desktop processor was reportedly running at a whopping 103 Watts, according to a recent report from American Technology Research Inc. The processor, dubbed Prescott, is a 90-nm version of the Pentium 4 architecture.

Paul Otellini, president of Intel, dismissed the rumors about the 90-nm process. "There are a lot of rumors running around," he said. "The process is healthy," he insisted during a conference call with analysts.


AMD's Silicon-on-Insulator (SOI) technology is going to save the company's migration to a 90nm process from the delays that appear to have plagued Intel's shift to 90nm.

So says American Technology Research (ATR) analyst Rick Whittington, who also reckons we should all go out and buy AMD stock.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/34002.html

I agree with you Viral! :D I suppose we should also dismiss AMD's 90nm transition as well, since both sources are connected together by American Technology Research (ATR). I reckon we should also dismiss ATR because of the most blatantly bias veiws of one of their analyst, Rick Whittington. (Who also reckons we should all go out and buy AMD stock.) :rolleyes:

Or, we can just take both reports as valid and eagerly wait for 1Q 2004. :D

Up to you Viral, call a spade a spade...

Peace,

:angel:

Harnagel
11-15-03, 10:00 PM
I personally would be more inclined to dismiss both (all three, whatever). A process can be "healthy" and "on track" and then run into major problems right at the end. As we go to 90nm and below there will be more and more problems due to leakage and eventually quantum effects. I don't put a lot of faith in what any CEO claims unless their talking about a shipping, reviewable product.

Malfunction
11-15-03, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Harnagel
I personally would be more inclined to dismiss both (all three, whatever). A process can be "healthy" and "on track" and then run into major problems right at the end. As we go to 90nm and below there will be more and more problems due to leakage and eventually quantum effects. I don't put a lot of faith in what any CEO claims unless their talking about a shipping, reviewable product.

Or when they *quote directly from the pages of Maximum PC magazine: Nov 2003 issue huh? :rolleyes:

Bahh... all good. At least you make an attempt to be involved as to what is going on.

Peace,

:D

Viral
11-15-03, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Malfunction
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/34002.html

I agree with you Viral! :D I suppose we should also dismiss AMD's 90nm transition as well, since both sources are connected together by American Technology Research (ATR). I reckon we should also dismiss ATR because of the most blatantly bias veiws of one of their analyst, Rick Whittington. (Who also reckons we should all go out and buy AMD stock.) :rolleyes:

Or, we can just take both reports as valid and eagerly wait for 1Q 2004. :D

Up to you Viral, call a spade a spade...

Peace,

:angel:

I agree that both of those sources are fairly incredible... but there is a different scenerio. The AMD CEO has nothing to do with the article you linked to.. the only common ground between the two is Rick Whittington. When comparing both these articles he seems AMD bias, but on the other hard he may have built this ideal from his inspections of both intel and AMD. Who knows..

But this doesnt change the fact that AMD's CEO wasn't mentioned at all... My statement is reffering to how little credit i give to what the CEO of either company states in situations like this. Whether Intel or AMD. I will not dismiss the report on AMD's 90nm migration because of this reason when i fail to see the reason applying in this article.

Sure i have little trust in Rick Whittington from comparing the articles.. but thats a different situation to trusting either CEO's statements. I give whittington some credit, on one hand he may be like me, someone who doesnt want to buy intel again and would like AMD to gain more market share to see an even playing field. On the other hand he may just be overly surprised that AMD, the underdog is having a smoother transition to 90nm than intel, the big dog ;p.

anyway.. although i trust the article on AMD's 90nm transition a little more than comments from Paul Otellini, i still dont have anywhere near 100% faith that it is fact.. but hey, you brought it up, i never mentioned that particular article, or any besides the original one you quoted for that fact.

I agree with the information we have, the best option is to wait and see. We cant buy a prescott, so not having information on how it runs now is not going to make us make a wrong purchase. What information we have on launch day is what is important... not some sample processor reviewed by some foreign web site (which i have yet to comment on in this thread).

{Sniping}Waste
11-16-03, 12:31 AM
If heat is not a problem for Intel for the prescot then why are they pushing the BTX case standered? Why do we need a 120mm fan pushing air from the front of the case across the CPU and another 120mm fan in the back in front of the CPU to pull the air out the back just for the CPU. This setup take away 3 slots and 2 bay on a mid tower.:eek: :rolleyes: :(

Dazz
11-16-03, 04:10 AM
A while ago Intel were thinking of pushing water cooling into mainstream due to the amounts of heat current processors are pumping out it is overpowering air cooling solutions.

Malfunction
11-16-03, 06:55 AM
Ya know, it is kinda pointless to keep answering the same things in threads that have to do anything with Intel. You don't wanna accept the info for what it is, fine.... don't.

Keep in mind though that the reason December is so important is Intel may paper launch the Prescott because it is suppose to be availible in Q1 2004. I can wait patiently, most likely because I am not affraid of AMD's 64bit tech being a short lived, faliure. :D

Actually, I do have plans on owning both CPU suppliers processors in my household by May 2004. I do believe that competition is good, however I also believe that AMD isn't there yet.

Too bad AMD hadn't released this chip 2 years ago. They would have dominated for a awful long time. Ofcourse, that reminds me of another company too...

Peace,

;)

Dazz
11-16-03, 02:04 PM
Me all i need's is 1 computer and it's used for one thing and one thing only.... Games :D I have no digi cam, web cam, printer or scanner :o

Malfunction
11-16-03, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
Me all i need's is 1 computer and it's used for one thing and one thing only.... Games :D I have no digi cam, web cam, printer or scanner :o

Unfortunitely I need atleast 3 at all time(s). I sold everything I had except for this one so I could make the move that I did recently. My son(s) need one for school/gaming w/dad, one for game server and one for me. :D

Wife wants/needs a laptop. Think we might share it, so I wanna get one with the new ATi M10 graphics VPU. :D I wish I had it so easy just worrying about myself. :cry:

Can't wait to get my new BF Game Server though...lol. It's gonna be cool and I might have my son help me build this one. Would be his first one. :D

Isn't she purtty...

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=233218


Peace,

:D

Viral
11-17-03, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Malfunction
Ya know, it is kinda pointless to keep answering the same things in threads that have to do anything with Intel. You don't wanna accept the info for what it is, fine.... don't.


I made a similar response in two different threads because you quoted the same article in those two threads.

Too bad AMD hadn't released this chip 2 years ago. They would have dominated for a awful long time. Ofcourse, that reminds me of another company too...

It was just over 1 year ago, not 2.

I have discussed how stupid such a statement is in another thread. AMD were not planning to release the exact same processors they launches two months ago 1+ year(s) ago. At most we would have seen a 1.8ghz A64, no SOI, no FX, and possibly only 256kb of L2 cache.. That would have only faced the 3.06ghz P4, nothing more.. I dont see how that would have been a better situation for AMD, especially with XP-64 even further away, and scaling even worse doe to the lack of SOI.

Don't even try to argue that AMD would have released a chip similar to todays because there is now way they could have profitably done so. Even if they did, it would not have SOI and XP-64 would still be years away, so that only changes the performance aspect.

Malfunction
11-17-03, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Viral
I made a similar response in two different threads because you quoted the same article in those two threads.

But you were wrong, I was just trying to correct you. ;)


Originally posted by Viral
It was just over 1 year ago, not 2.

I have discussed how stupid such a statement is in another thread. AMD were not planning to release the exact same processors they launches two months ago 1+ year(s) ago. At most we would have seen a 1.8ghz A64, no SOI, no FX, and possibly only 256kb of L2 cache.. That would have only faced the 3.06ghz P4, nothing more.. I dont see how that would have been a better situation for AMD, especially with XP-64 even further away, and scaling even worse doe to the lack of SOI.

Don't even try to argue that AMD would have released a chip similar to todays because there is now way they could have profitably done so. Even if they did, it would not have SOI and XP-64 would still be years away, so that only changes the performance aspect.

If you look around the microprocessor industry, especially at those companies that already have 64-bit parts available, Intel's strategy for IA-64 isn't all that extreme. Other companies rely on emulation or even separate processors in order to maintain backwards compatibility with 32-bit applications for those customers that are not ready to completely migrate entirely to a 64-bit OS with 64-bit applications. This puts a lot of weight on the consumer (in this case, large businesses, not your usual definition of the word) to decide when moving over to a 64-bit platform would be ideal, since using this approach, you're almost never allowed to have the best of both worlds, a high performing 32-bit solution and 64-bit compatibility.

AMD saw a major flaw with this approach and felt that there should be a way for them to become a supplier of a 64-bit processor without making the consumer sacrifice 32-bit performance for that support. We're already familiar with AMD's solution to this problem as they've already announced that they'd be extending the 32-bit x86 ISA to 64-bits with what they call x86-64, but now we're finally beginning to see exactly how x86-64 will work and what it will mean for AMD's future enterprise platform, the K8, also known as SledgeHammer.


http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1295&p=1

Your right, they started talking about it in 2000'. "AMD were not planning to release the exact same processors they launches two months ago 1+ year(s) ago." Ofcourse not, how much sense does that make if the competitions architecture has changed since then.

By the way, the AMD64 is still called the "K8" correct?

Peace,

:D

Dazz
11-17-03, 12:31 PM
Yeap, the AMD 64 is the K8.

Fatman
11-17-03, 12:58 PM
When are the new Prescott 2.8 and 3.0 shipping to stores?

Dazz
11-17-03, 03:25 PM
Next year.

Viral
11-18-03, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Malfunction
But you were wrong, I was just trying to correct you. ;)

What was i wrong about.. i diddn't know that conclusion had been reached.

I said:
Why even bother reading what the president of intel says? I'm sure he would say that if it was running fine or not at all....

Where have you proven that wrong?

Ofcourse not, how much sense does that make if the competitions architecture has changed since then.

Need i quote what you originally said again?

Too bad AMD hadn't released this chip 2 years ago. They would have dominated for a awful long time. Ofcourse, that reminds me of another company too...

"Dominated for a long time" how did you come to that conclusion when you seem to be unsure of what AMD would have released as the Athlon64 back then?

Here's some positives and negatives i think would have applied if AMD released Athlon64 when they originally intended to:
+ AXP would have come to an end with much more respect (?)
+ AMD would have most likely held the perf. crown over whatever intel offered at the time (as they also do now)
+ Those awaiting the launch would not be aggravated by delayed launches
- K8's launched would have no SOI (heat, Electrical leakage, scaling, production)
- XP-64bit would be years away, the question of whether 64-bit is necessary now would be even stronger than today
- Performance compared to P4?

So, given your original statement, would you care to explain why you think launching at this time would have allowed AMD to "dominated for a awful long time"....

Malfunction
11-18-03, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Viral
"Dominated for a long time" how did you come to that conclusion when you seem to be unsure of what AMD would have released as the Athlon64 back then?

Nahh, I know what I am talking about. That is why I have been able to find the info I have needed to back what I say as well. Personal Opinion/Fact, a very thin line for some. Others can differentiate the two from each other.

Peace,

:)

Viral
11-19-03, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Malfunction
Nahh, I know what I am talking about. That is why I have been able to find the info I have needed to back what I say as well. Personal Opinion/Fact, a very thin line for some. Others can differentiate the two from each other.

Peace,

:)

Right, well, congratulations, ten points for avoiding the real question.

Malfunction
11-19-03, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Viral
So, given your original statement, would you care to explain why you think launching at this time would have allowed AMD to "dominated for a awful long time"....

Well Viral, hoping you would change what you said here... I hadn't answered this question becuase it makes no sense. I will attempt to make it real easy for you...

"I, do not believe that launching at this time would have allowed AMD to "dominated for a awful long time."

I think the current line of products will be short lived due in part by the high prices and shallow performance gains. If you have ever care enough to notice, AMD has always tried to put the smack down on Intel's product line that has been out for atleast 6 months already. While managing to catch up or surpass Intel's previous generation, they don't attempt to blow it out of the water.

On top of this, their product support is usually plagued with problems. While most AMD user's will always defend their purchasing decisions, that drive to support the under dog kicks in. It's funny, if AMD would just practice some of the ways Intel does business, their customer base would be that much better.

Sure, we haven't seen many problems as it is right now with AMD's latest line of products. Could it be due to the expensive pricing? I think so, so that cannot be an accurate tool for researching the price/performance ratio or problems/issues. As soon as these pructs become more mainstream, we shall see the, "Same Ole' AMD" again.

Hope I am wrong, and I hope you actually take the time to read what I say and not make up things like I said them.

Thank you and Peace,

:)