Pentium 5 - Stackable, 5-7Ghz, up to 4Ghz FSB?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
You're saying that my logic is flawed?

My main point is that 64-bit-extended CPUs are too expensive.

Besides, I'll upgrade within the next 6 months, not NOW. Thus it <b>IS</b> logical for me to try to make the best choice within that time period. If I were to buy my new computer NOW, then I'd almost certainly try to get an A64 3200+ or something... I can clearly distinguish between what Intel WILL do and what AMD HAS done! :wink:

:evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
 
The WinXP 64-bit is not only AMD 64. Inq stated, as well as Microsoft for sure, that it will have among the 64-bit support, SUPPORT for AMD64. Doesn't mean at all it is based on AMD64.
Click to expand...
You're right, that doesn't mean it is based on AMD64. Actually, AMD64 was more based on the guidelines set by Microsoft, and thus Universities developing the standard, than the other way around.

However, Microsoft had to have a 64bit platform to do testing and developement on. They certainly didn't do it on the IA64 platform, so they had to have been using AMD64 emulators and AMD64 processors (unless Intel already had their 64bit architecture finished and in Microsoft's hands). While Microsoft may have a wider 64bit guideline than AMD64, any 64bit processor coming out must be x86 compliant. I doubt you could be compatible with MS guidelines using a non-x86 architecture.

Intel could try to bully Microsoft into making a separate code path for their processors. Then we would run into many problems with compatibility. From a developers standpoint, it is much easier for a gamer maker to make separate code paths than for an OS maker to do so. They game maker doesn't have to worry about programs running on top of it. Microsoft would sooner market two separate OS's than try to support two code paths and resolve all of the issues that come up with other software companies.

Assuming Microsoft was as weak as AMD, Intel could bully them into making that separate version of windows and letting the other die out. However, we must not forget that Microsoft owns more of the desktop market than Intel does. The average consumer cares more about Microsoft than Intel and thus puts Microsoft in the position of power in the desktop arena. Therefore, Intels desktop CPUs will comply with Microsoft's specifications (x86) or they will find another OS to champion.

Because of this, I can only see Intel making an AMD64 compliant design, with further extensions to make their processor "supperior". Kinda like the 3DNow and SSE.

It'll be easier fr everyone, including Intel, to make their processor compliant with AMD64. In the future, when all software is running 64bit, they could introduce a new pure 64bit design with ease, in comparison to doing it now. By then, processors will be so fast that 32bit emulation will preform about the same as real 32bit does now.

53 69 67 6E 61 74 75 72 65 20 69 6E 20 48 65 78 21
 
My comment was more of a general observation, not directly targeted at you. (I just happened to click the reply button on your post :))

But you get my meaning. It's very odd for people to be saying; yeah the athlon 64 is pretty good, BUT Prescott or (this purely theoretical) pentium 5 will blow it away. That's just plain silly. It's like looking at a ford in fifties and saying; yeah but the mclaren f1 will make it eat dust.
 
That happens all the time, though. Before A64 arrived, people were speculating on how great it was, and how it would totally destroy intel in benches. They even O/Cd an Operton CPU to "emulate" the A64-FX results.

A64 is a good product, but at the cost for a total upgrade, it's better to wait it out for the next socket version than to buy now. Also, with WinXP-64 due out in Q4 2003(?) or Q1 2004, it's easier to have a wait and see attitude.

As for the next intel products...it's the same thing that happened with A64. More engineering samples being "tested" as a release sample. Same old, same old.

If people want to buy these puppies, have at it. I'm with the pack that will wait and see what happens, and maybe, just maybe upgrade in Q2-Q3 2004.

:)

How many watts does it take to get the center of CPU core?
 
I am in a very similar position to you, Mephistopheles.I too am looking to build again soon.I am impressed by the performance of the FX but it's way too expensive and the whole registered memory thing sucks and smacks of an unfinished product.Waiting for the socket 939 FX might be an idea but that will still be too expensive.So...then there's the A64 and Prescott.I have been impressed with A64 and the prospect of a new Windows is attractive, plus it seems that socket 754 should be around for a while...but it still aint cheap, and I can't help but feel that it will take the 0.9 process for that one to really mature.Plus there are the issues with the chipsets...well, nforce 3 anyway, which would have been my automatic chipset of choice.
As for Prescott, I am not expecting it to be that much of a record breaker, since it is not to be called Pentium 5 (IIRC) and the release of the P4 EE, which is intended to scale over time, suggests that Intel are not so sure that it will be such a dynamite performer.(Disclaimer!)Obviously this is all conjecture though as we know nothing about Prescott's performance!The massive thermal output of Prescott is also offputting.I am of the belief that Tejas is the one to watch from Intel and I expect great things from it.It seems like more of the revolution from the Intel front, as opposed to the evolution of Prescott.
So...I'm kinda stuck.I want to upgrade soon but it's difficult to know where to go.Ideally I should wait for 0.9 A64 or Tejas but I just can't wait that long.So I suppose December is the next port of call.By then we will know what Prescott can do and if I choose to go A64 at that point, the chipsets should have had most of their problems ironed out and the prices may have dropped.All the same though, I do feel my mouse finger itching slightly when I see that some of the online stores I use actually have A64 3200+s in stock :smile: .

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ad_rach on 09/27/03 02:12 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
Yes, I know that itching too... but then I remember that I don't really need an upgrade for now, at least not until Doom 3 tags along!...

:evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
 
Yes... it is indeed...

I was merely comparing my two purchasing possibilities within the next six months: Scotty or A64... so at least I'm clean... :smile:

:evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
 
the thing is that intel will folow what amd did, they will try to imitate, for exemple the 64 bit thing, amd lunched thr idea to put a 64 bit extention on their processors, so the processors can serve for longer times and u don't need to update.
the p4EE is impressive, but all they did is put 2mb L3 cache, what if amd put 2mb L3 cache to the A64??????
About the tejas, intel is puting all of its effort in it, don't now why the prescot was the one, i believe the high heat dissipation ....... was a problem with intel.
i don't like that mhz thing, increasing mhz all the time isn't that smart for gaining performance, while increasing mhz more problems can occure, and the price will raise.
amd supercharged theire already athlonXP processor with some new instructions, with integrating memory controler, etc the frequency of the cpu is still the same 2.2ghz, thats impressive what a 2.2ghz processor can do, it hasn't to be a mhz monster to be fast.
Im not against what intels do, but they have money far more than amd, so why they invest it to a blocked road (7ghz 10 ghz so what????? ), they can do a lot better than amd, but they seem to took another road, if u compare a porche that has a V6 engin to another of V12 engin, and u find the porche better is cos they do researche to improve performance not to make the engin biger to get performance.

If tejas will be like they tell, it will be indeed a performer monster, but a 5ghz processor, with huge fsb, and bla bla bla, its toooooooooo expensive to buy, so where is the good here?????
 
If tejas will be like they tell, it will be indeed a performer monster, but a 5ghz processor, with huge fsb, and bla bla bla, its toooooooooo expensive to buy, so where is the good here?????
Click to expand...
I don't exactly know how you can associate price with performance. If that was the case, then 4 years ago we would have been right in thinking that a 3.2Ghz processor on a 800Mhz FSB and dual-channel DDR400 and dual logical processors would cost $25000. But that just wasn't the case, was it?

:evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
 
what if amd put 2mb L3 cache to the A64??????
Click to expand...
You may as well say "well what if Intel put an on die memory controller on the P4?" You can say "what if" all you like, but the A64 simply does not have 2M L3.

with huge fsb, and bla bla bla, its toooooooooo expensive to buy, so where is the good here?????
Click to expand...
This is a very stupid comment. Are you aware that a 3.0 P4 is cheaper than a 2.0 GHz A64? Price is not going to necessarily increase with clockspeed.
 
You may as well say "well what if Intel put an on die memory controller on the P4?" You can say "what if" all you like, but the A64 simply does not have 2M L3.
Click to expand...
It does, however, have the capability to handle off-die L3. L3 could be provided through the motherboard, or both CPU and L3 could be contained in a cartridge module much like API did with Slot B EV6's.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
 
U Love to talke about 2 year away processors

can u keep the windows 6 months and lower...

tejas is not coming out until 2005 its not even 2004 yet
 
You may as well say "well what if Intel put an on die memory controller on the P4?" You can say "what if" all you like, but the A64 simply does not have 2M L3.
Click to expand...

2MB of L3 cache is not an "economic" decision, it was a decision made on Intel's part to have a product that maintains competitiveness with AMD's latest processor. The transistor count due to the 2MB cache is ridiculous: this chip will never be cheap.

Everyone knows that adding cache to a chip easiest trick in the book to gain performance. AMD did it with K6 and Barton, Intel did it with P4 and Xeon. Conversely, decreasing the cache is the easiest way to make a chip cheaper (duron and celeron) but "appear" just as fast.

So in reply, an Athlon 64 with 2MB cache isn't too far fetched.

AMD however does not have to resort to cache increases yet. They just released this chip and it has more room for clockspeed increases and design refinements (non ECC RAM). When the chip hits the ceiling of it's clockspeed is the time when AMD will use the cache trick.
 
You have a point there. Amd like a 350Z with 300Hp and very Light 3000lb. racing to a V8 Mustang 7000lb car. 400HP. The HP says alot but not everything. But how light the car is means everything.
 
Ad Rach a idea on this. Wait untel Presscott came out and then do your reviews. I m waiting untel chips drop down to .09 Microns. And then to 4 ghz Mark. And start building. Now Here the fact. The scale down verson of the Mirons will help drop prices of Intel and Amd. And it will help on Temp. So that Price Intel and Amd Selling at $700 or so will be lower. Everyone we all seen this before with New chips. Bigger the chip More Transisters. Higher Price. So Please get your fact in order. Once Amd Meets Demands the price will drop.

Question How many have you seen Athlon in Bestbuy or a computer store. I have Not seen none. I only seen like 6 Places. Where you could buy it that bring up the price of rthe chip. Once they Meet that demand That Price will Drop.
 
i know having the best processor is always great, but you might also want to consider price... (strange I say that right before mentioning intel...) the prescott can supposidly be had dec 3 for $417 (3.2ghz) considerably cheaper then any contender from amd. and non-ecc ram.
...just depends on how it preforms... but a $300 price difference is something to think about
 
the prescott can supposidly be had dec 3 for $417 (3.2ghz)
Click to expand...
No sir, that's the price for a 3.<b>4</b>Ghz Prescott. A 3.2Ghz Prescott will be cheaper ( :smile: !)... And the 2.8/3.0Ghz that will come by 2004 will be even cheaper (think 2.4C...)

:evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
 
Why do you think it's called AMD64 and not USUniversity64? It's all AMD!

I like the Pentium IV, I really do! And it's so versatile. You simply won't find a more stylish or decorative key chain ornament or paperweight.
<A HREF="http://www.faceintel.com" target="_new"> CLICK ME </A>
 
tejas is not coming out until 2005 its not even 2004 yet
Click to expand...
Did you bother to actually read the article that the inquirer posted? Did you actually read this thread or are you just saying the first things that come to your mind?

:evil: <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
 
What mustang weighs 7000, are you on crack. Just to let you know the 350z and the mustang weigh about the same give or take a few lbs. Can't compare a mustang to a 350z, if you want to compare something that would make more sense, then compare a s2000 to a mustang. Then you compare the hp/rpm to tq/rpm, you have a car that has great low end power(amd) and you have a car with high end power(intel) they both perform about the same but the cost is different. much better then your 350z and mustang, which was wrong to begin with.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> 😎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom