Intel quietly ships 64-bit Prescott

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Server parts? So they must be quite expensive? If they aren't very expensive,
then they will probably put tremendous downward pressure on the prices of
Intel's 32 bit processors. I wonder about the power consumption and about
the performance.

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Apparently the 64-bit Pentium 4's are now ready. And they're server parts!?
>
> http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=26805631
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
> --
> Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
> Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

<grumble> stupid top-posting...

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 20:36:18 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> Apparently the 64-bit Pentium 4's are now ready. And they're server parts!?
>>
>> http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=26805631
>>
>Server parts? So they must be quite expensive? If they aren't very expensive,
>then they will probably put tremendous downward pressure on the prices of
>Intel's 32 bit processors.

Intel is not selling the chips at retail, only as an OEM part to IBM
and probably Dell (HPaq will probably be left out in the cold on this
one due to their loud support of the Athlon64 and Opteron). You might
see a few of them showing up in the gray market, but probably not
enough to make a serious dent in things one way or the other.

> I wonder about the power consumption and about
>the performance.

Power consumption should be more or less unchanged from the 32-bit
part. Maybe a few more watts here or there, I highly doubt that it
would be even a 5% change.

As for performance though.. well now that's the real question isn't
it. Benchmarks comparing the Xeon vs. Opteron (or this new P4 vs.
Athlon64) in both 32 and 64-bit code are still basically non-existent.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:00:08 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>Apparently the 64-bit Pentium 4's are now ready. And they're server parts!?
>
>http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=26805631

Not all "server" parts are created equal - the Prescotts are more likely just
desktop parts that will be used in some blades and pizza boxen (read:
seriously cost conscious products) vs the Noconas (Xeons) that will go in less
cost-sensitive applications.

The somewhat interesting part of this is that Intel is going along with
desktop processors being used in servers. They've had a major malfunction when
we thought out loud about doing the same with earlier P4s...

/daytripper ("Nancona"? Another fine job by EE Times! ;-)
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:50:35 +0000, daytripper wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:00:08 GMT, "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
>
>>Apparently the 64-bit Pentium 4's are now ready. And they're server parts!?
>>
>>http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=26805631
>
> Not all "server" parts are created equal - the Prescotts are more likely just
> desktop parts that will be used in some blades and pizza boxen (read:
> seriously cost conscious products) vs the Noconas (Xeons) that will go in less
> cost-sensitive applications.
>
> The somewhat interesting part of this is that Intel is going along with
> desktop processors being used in servers. They've had a major malfunction when
> we thought out loud about doing the same with earlier P4s...

Maybe they've listened to the market speak? Naw, gotta be something else.
They've never had that particular problem before.

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Rob Stow wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> Apparently the 64-bit Pentium 4's are now ready. And they're server
>> parts!?
>
> Huh ? You seem surprised ? Intel has been saying
> for quite a while that only the P4-Xeons were going
> to be getting the AMD64 compatibility.

The Xeons were the only ones officially announced at that point. The P4's
were always "eventually".

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

JK wrote:
> Server parts? So they must be quite expensive? If they aren't very expensive,
> then they will probably put tremendous downward pressure on the prices of
> Intel's 32 bit processors. I wonder about the power consumption and about
> the performance.

Not necessarily expensive. Intel's lowest Xeons have long been about
$10 more than the Pentium 4. Those are the 2-way only, no extra cache
versions. This is probably going to be priced the same + $15 or so.

Power consumption will be the same. It's the exact same chip. Since
exactly the same circuits are in use, the power will be 99.9999%
identical. Minute variation only due to greater activity factor on the
upper bits of pathways. But expect the difference to be under a watt or
two.

By performance, I assume you mean the performance on 64b code. I assume
that because there's been tons of 32b benchmarking of the 64b-capable
processors so far. I'm personally of the belief that performance of 64b
code vs Opteron will be comparable to 32b code on the same chips. Thus
if the performance of P4 vs A64 is X:Y in 32b, then it will be X:Y in
64b. Until someone can show benchmarks, that's a fair assumption.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> Server parts? So they must be quite expensive? If they aren't very expensive,
> then they will probably put tremendous downward pressure on the prices of
> Intel's 32 bit processors. I wonder about the power consumption and about
> the performance.

Since it's a Xeon, the higher cost of the motherboard and PSU will count
against it, even if the chip price itself if not much higher than a
comparable-speed desktop chip.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"Wanted: One .Sig-quote. Must work cheap."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Alex Johnson wrote:
> By performance, I assume you mean the performance on 64b code. I
> assume that because there's been tons of 32b benchmarking of the
> 64b-capable processors so far. I'm personally of the belief that
> performance of 64b code vs Opteron will be comparable to 32b code on
> the same chips. Thus if the performance of P4 vs A64 is X:Y in 32b,
> then it will be X:Y in 64b. Until someone can show benchmarks,
> that's a fair assumption.

I'd tend to agree with that assumption, but there have been some benchmarks
done by C't magazine in Germany which suggests that 64-bit performance on
Nocona (and hence Prescott) isn't as good as its 32-bit performance.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15149

And here's the original article:

http://www.heise.de/ct/04/08/020/

Translated:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D509258F8

I think whatever performance problems that they are talking about here,
might have to do with the 4GB limit of DMA for this processor.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
[...]
>
> I'd tend to agree with that assumption, but there have been some benchmarks
> done by C't magazine in Germany which suggests that 64-bit performance on
> Nocona (and hence Prescott) isn't as good as its 32-bit performance.
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15149
>
> And here's the original article:
>
> http://www.heise.de/ct/04/08/020/
>
> Translated:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?D509258F8
>
> I think whatever performance problems that they are talking about here,
> might have to do with the 4GB limit of DMA for this processor.
>
> Yousuf Khan

The machine translation of German is quite amusing. 'Processor whispers' is
of course 'Processor rumours', since whispering is sometimes the way rumours
are spread.
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 18:51:01 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:

>
>
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
> [...]
>>
>> I'd tend to agree with that assumption, but there have been some benchmarks
>> done by C't magazine in Germany which suggests that 64-bit performance on
>> Nocona (and hence Prescott) isn't as good as its 32-bit performance.
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15149
>>
>> And here's the original article:
>>
>> http://www.heise.de/ct/04/08/020/
>>
>> Translated:
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?D509258F8
>>
>> I think whatever performance problems that they are talking about here,
>> might have to do with the 4GB limit of DMA for this processor.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> The machine translation of German is quite amusing. 'Processor whispers' is
> of course 'Processor rumours', since whispering is sometimes the way rumours
> are spread.

Oh, PLease! A whisper is a physical layer issue, while a rumor is
a link layer. One is a transport mechanism and one is a message. Rather
like one doesn't scream sweet nothings into one's lover's ears.

;-)

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 15:36:37 -0700, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Server parts? So they must be quite expensive? If they aren't very expensive,
>> then they will probably put tremendous downward pressure on the prices of
>> Intel's 32 bit processors. I wonder about the power consumption and about
>> the performance.
>
>Since it's a Xeon, the higher cost of the motherboard and PSU will count
>against it, even if the chip price itself if not much higher than a
>comparable-speed desktop chip.

Prescott is not a Xeon...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.05.02.13.25.670211@att.bizzzz...
>
> Oh, PLease! A whisper is a physical layer issue, while a rumor is
> a link layer. One is a transport mechanism and one is a message. Rather
> like one doesn't scream sweet nothings into one's lover's ears.

It all depends in the height of ecstasy. :-o
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.05.02.13.25.670211@att.bizzzz...
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 18:51:01 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> I'd tend to agree with that assumption, but there have been some
>>> benchmarks
>>> done by C't magazine in Germany which suggests that 64-bit performance
>>> on
>>> Nocona (and hence Prescott) isn't as good as its 32-bit performance.
>>>
>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15149
>>>
>>> And here's the original article:
>>>
>>> http://www.heise.de/ct/04/08/020/
>>>
>>> Translated:
>>>
>>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?D509258F8
>>>
>>> I think whatever performance problems that they are talking about here,
>>> might have to do with the 4GB limit of DMA for this processor.
>>>
>>> Yousuf Khan
>>
>> The machine translation of German is quite amusing. 'Processor whispers'
>> is
>> of course 'Processor rumours', since whispering is sometimes the way
>> rumours
>> are spread.
>
> Oh, PLease! A whisper is a physical layer issue, while a rumor is
> a link layer. One is a transport mechanism and one is a message. Rather
> like one doesn't scream sweet nothings into one's lover's ears.


Um ... not into S & M then?

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.intel Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> Oh, PLease! A whisper is a physical layer issue, while a rumor is
> a link layer. One is a transport mechanism and one is a message.

I think you have skipped a few layers and jumbled things a bit.
Whisper is indeed physical layer, but the data link layer is phonemes
(sp). Words form the network layer, sentences the transport, and the
message is application-layer specific, which is why translation at the
network layer isn't always perfect :)

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com but NOT BOTH...
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 02:40:46 +0000, Hank Oredson wrote:

> "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.05.02.13.25.670211@att.bizzzz...
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 18:51:01 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I'd tend to agree with that assumption, but there have been some
>>>> benchmarks
>>>> done by C't magazine in Germany which suggests that 64-bit performance
>>>> on
>>>> Nocona (and hence Prescott) isn't as good as its 32-bit performance.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15149
>>>>
>>>> And here's the original article:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.heise.de/ct/04/08/020/
>>>>
>>>> Translated:
>>>>
>>>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?D509258F8
>>>>
>>>> I think whatever performance problems that they are talking about here,
>>>> might have to do with the 4GB limit of DMA for this processor.
>>>>
>>>> Yousuf Khan
>>>
>>> The machine translation of German is quite amusing. 'Processor whispers'
>>> is
>>> of course 'Processor rumours', since whispering is sometimes the way
>>> rumours
>>> are spread.
>>
>> Oh, PLease! A whisper is a physical layer issue, while a rumor is
>> a link layer. One is a transport mechanism and one is a message. Rather
>> like one doesn't scream sweet nothings into one's lover's ears.
>
>
> Um ... not into S & M then?

No, not on purpose. ...unless you count 33 years of marriage. ;-)

--
Keith
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 02:39:59 +0000, MyndPhlyp wrote:

>
> "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.08.05.02.13.25.670211@att.bizzzz...
>>
>> Oh, PLease! A whisper is a physical layer issue, while a rumor is
>> a link layer. One is a transport mechanism and one is a message. Rather
>> like one doesn't scream sweet nothings into one's lover's ears.
>
> It all depends in the height of ecstasy. :-o
^^^^^^

I don't do viagra either. ;-)

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.06.01.18.04.401026@att.bizzzz...
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 02:40:46 +0000, Hank Oredson wrote:
>
>> "Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2004.08.05.02.13.25.670211@att.bizzzz...
>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 18:51:01 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd tend to agree with that assumption, but there have been some
>>>>> benchmarks
>>>>> done by C't magazine in Germany which suggests that 64-bit performance
>>>>> on
>>>>> Nocona (and hence Prescott) isn't as good as its 32-bit performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15149
>>>>>
>>>>> And here's the original article:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.heise.de/ct/04/08/020/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translated:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?D509258F8
>>>>>
>>>>> I think whatever performance problems that they are talking about
>>>>> here,
>>>>> might have to do with the 4GB limit of DMA for this processor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yousuf Khan
>>>>
>>>> The machine translation of German is quite amusing. 'Processor
>>>> whispers'
>>>> is
>>>> of course 'Processor rumours', since whispering is sometimes the way
>>>> rumours
>>>> are spread.
>>>
>>> Oh, PLease! A whisper is a physical layer issue, while a rumor is
>>> a link layer. One is a transport mechanism and one is a message.
>>> Rather
>>> like one doesn't scream sweet nothings into one's lover's ears.
>>
>>
>> Um ... not into S & M then?
>
> No, not on purpose. ...unless you count 33 years of marriage. ;-)


ROTFL!

--

... Hank

http://horedson.home.att.net
http://w0rli.home.att.net
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

At our age, you have to scream for your partner to even hear you.

Hearing is the second thing to go.

Keith wrote:
>
> Rather
> like one doesn't scream sweet nothings into one's lover's ears.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

After 33 years, you aren't deaf yet? :)

Though, your wife has claimed you seem to be deaf for the
past 32 years.

Keith wrote:
>
> No, not on purpose. ...unless you count 33 years of marriage. ;-)
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 07:38:16 -0400, Walt wrote:

> At our age, you have to scream for your partner to even hear you.

At our age, who want's that?

> Hearing is the second thing to go.

Hmmm, can't remember the first.

--
Keith

===============================
> Keith wrote:
>>
>> Rather
>> like one doesn't scream sweet nothings into one's lover's ears.
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 07:39:46 -0400, Walt wrote:

> After 33 years, you aren't deaf yet? :)

Huh? What?

> Though, your wife has claimed you seem to be deaf for the
> past 32 years.

Selectively. ...goes both ways. ;-)

--
Keith

==================

> Keith wrote:
>>
>> No, not on purpose. ...unless you count 33 years of marriage. ;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

see http://developer.intel.com/design/pcn/Processors/D0104101.pdf page 3
there is processor number for Pentium 4 Presscott with EM64T

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:%I%Pc.61$Y5k1.34@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Rob Stow wrote:
>> Yousuf Khan wrote:

>> Huh ? You seem surprised ? Intel has been saying
>> for quite a while that only the P4-Xeons were going
>> to be getting the AMD64 compatibility.
>
> The Xeons were the only ones officially announced at that point. The P4's
> were always "eventually".
 

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

It seems like Intel wants to stick to its theme that 64 bits is not yet needed
for the desktop pc user, but is needed in the server space. That is why the
P4s with 64 bit compatibility are being called server chips. It will be
interesting
to see how soon those chips are available for consumers to purchase, and
how they will be priced.

Gilles Vollant wrote:

> see http://developer.intel.com/design/pcn/Processors/D0104101.pdf page 3
> there is processor number for Pentium 4 Presscott with EM64T
>
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> news:%I%Pc.61$Y5k1.34@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > Rob Stow wrote:
> >> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> >> Huh ? You seem surprised ? Intel has been saying
> >> for quite a while that only the P4-Xeons were going
> >> to be getting the AMD64 compatibility.
> >
> > The Xeons were the only ones officially announced at that point. The P4's
> > were always "eventually".
 

TRENDING THREADS