Doesn't it seem like we have hit a wall? P4 3ghz

[fkloster]

jesus....seems like we have been here for a very long time!

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: fkloster
jesus....seems like we have been here for a very long time!

I just think there hasn't been a need for anything over 3. Isn't there a 3.2 in the works?

 

[elbirth]

True, but was there really a consumer need for 3ghz when they got that out?

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: elbirth
True, but was there really a consumer need for 3ghz when they got that out?

Probably not, but AMD has put up vurtually no fight or threatened them once they hit 3GHZ. All the new AMD chips have a higher PR rating than what they are performing, I think thats hurting them a bit. Intel is just laying back and taking in the cash.

 

[elbirth]

You have a point...
And, while it's very unlikely... it be hilarious for AMD to pop out a new chip surpassing Intel's 3ghz chip and catch them off guard while they're at this "stand still".... but like I say, I seriously doubt that'd happen unfortunately.

 

[Yourself]

Originally posted by: elbirth
You have a point...
And, while it's very unlikely... it be hilarious for AMD to pop out a new chip surpassing Intel's 3ghz chip and catch them off guard while they're at this "stand still".... but like I say, I seriously doubt that'd happen unfortunately.

With the overclocks people are getting out of the current stepping of P4's, I would say that Intel has a fair amount of headroom left in these cores. I also agree with what was said above...ie. AMD doesn't seem to have an aggressive product to push Intel lately.....


Self

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: elbirth
True, but was there really a consumer need for 3ghz when they got that out?

Probably not, but AMD has put up vurtually no fight or threatened them once they hit 3GHZ. All the new AMD chips have a higher PR rating than what they are performing, I think thats hurting them a bit. Intel is just laying back and taking in the cash.

I disagree. AMD systems are bought by two people: enthusiasts online and ignorant home users looking to save a few bucks. The ignorant home users are just looking for something fast and don't know how something performs outside its model number/rating. The enthusiasts like myself aren't bothered by the discrepency that much. I couldn't care less what that processor does because I'd never pay $300+ for a processor anyway. The rest of the enthusiast community knows full-well how they perform, and if they're wanting to go the AMD route, then there's no reason why they wouldn't pick up a 3000+ or 3200+ if they were willing to pay that much for a CPU.

Intel is just laying back and taking in the cash? No more than they always have. Besides, it's not like the ratings are horrendous. Yeah, they're off some, but they're not THAT ridiculous. Any system like that is inherently tough to work with. When everything was based on 256K caches and 266MHz FSB's, it was simple: raise the model rating by x for every y increase in MHz. Now, however, there are other factors.

 

[bendixG15]

why do some people have to turn everything into a flaming war ?///

if you don't have anything intelligent to say....then don't say anything...

 

[specktre]

I'm an idiot, AMD sucks, Intel will prolly end up buying AMD

PS: i'm 100% certifiably retarded.

**gets dragged away from computer by two orderlies at mental hospital**

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: bendixG15
why do some people have to turn everything into a flaming war ?///

if you don't have anything intelligent to say....then don't say anything...

Because AMD's CPUs are one of the major forces driving intel's clockspeed increases, and it's a valid point that the 3200+ is not even beating a 3.0C let alone the 3.2C coming out in 2 weeks.

It was AMD (in better days) that pushed intel to release the original faulty 1.13 GHz coppermine P3, but right now AMD isn't competing well enough to make intel rush out a 3.4 GHz.

Other factors are of course the weak economy, slashed IT budgets, and no games out that need even the 3.0C.

 

[LikeLinus]

I don't think anyone was starting a flamewar. Intels only competition is AMD. When AMD isn't putting anything out that Intel feels is a threat to their market, they have time to R&D and not have to throw out new products immediately. It's supply and demand. There is no demand based on what their competition is doing or what the users need.


Ilmater - I wasn't saying they were hugely off. What I was stating was that AMD's chips have not had the performance they are saying they have, which i think has hurt them a bit. What's key is they've done nothing of threat to Intel and Intel had no reason to release new chips as fast right now. They can sit back and "rack in the cash" from OEM's such as Dell, Compaq, Gateway, IBM and every other major vendor and not have to produce or market newer chips right now.

 

[dawks]

AMD is also focusing more of their efforts on the Opteron right now.

 

[sandorski]

I agree to an extent that AMD's inability to surpass Intel at this time is what's holding the P4 back. However, I think another major factor has to be with the soft market we're in. It's hard to maximize revenues on new products when so few people are willing to purchase them. Another possible reason, somewhat related to my second point, is that there are a lot of people with really old systems still(P2's, P3's, and low end Athlon/Duron) leaving a huge potential upgrade market yet.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I agree to an extent that AMD's inability to surpass Intel at this time is what's holding the P4 back. However, I think another major factor has to be with the soft market we're in. It's hard to maximize revenues on new products when so few people are willing to purchase them. Another possible reason, somewhat related to my second point, is that there are a lot of people with really old systems still(P2's, P3's, and low end Athlon/Duron) leaving a huge potential upgrade market yet.

True True. When most people purchase PC's, they dont purchase a $2500 P4 3.0GHZ system. They get the 2.4-2.6Ghz system that will be just as fast, and under $2000. So the P4 3.0Ghz isn't selling nearly as much as the 2.4's or so. Makes coming out with a new CPU pointless for the market right now.

 

[ElFenix]

intel has been upping the FSB, they're also not being pushed by amd as much as they had been.

 

[Cosmic_Horror]

Compare the current situation with when the first athlons where released! AMD had a product that clock speed for clock speed was very competative with the P3! The race to 1Ghz was on and a multitude of cpus were released by both Intel and AMD!

The competitivness just isn't there currently so the pressure for Intel to release a faster cpu doesn't really exist, so Intel is milking the market selling as many chips of its current range before it needs to replace them with faster models. As more cpu's of the currently model line are sold, Intel gets a better return for there R&D in that model line.

Hopefully AMd will come back fighting with the Athlon64 and the race will start once more, and we will see an explosion faster cpu's being released once again.

 

[draggoon01]

any idea when reviews for intel 3.2c will be released?

 

[dullard]

Yes we have been stuck at 3 GHz for quite a while (coming on 8 months). But there are several reasons for that.
1) Intel rushed the 3 GHz P4 out much sooner than they had planned. It was an anomaly. It was the only chip with HT, it was not on any of their roadmaps, etc. Basically they planned for a 1Q 2003 launch so there would be even spacing between the 2.8 GHz, 3.06 GHz, and 3.2 GHz P4s. However Intel realized they had a decent product ready to sell just in time for the Christmas season. Anybody knows it is better monitarilly to get the product out as soon as you can - especially if it will get the Christmas season. However the 3.2 GHz P4 was not ready early. They wanted a bunch of improvements first.
2) Intel had put in their roadmaps for quite some time a slow increase in frequency for 2003. That was in large part due to the enormous heat produced by the chips. Instead of bumping frequency they planned to go for efficiency - getting more work done at the same frequency. Finishing the HT release, tons of new chipsets, a major bump in fsb speed, etc. These were all planned for well in advance. These were meant to improve performance without running into the heat wall. The consumers don't want 100+W processors, Intel doesn't want the nightmare of trying to keep those running cool and stable.

So you have the planned slowdown in frequency combined with an early release of a chip. No wonder there is a lull. But the 3.2 GHz P4 in two weeks should get the ball moving again. Then with Prescott coming soon we will see the heat plummet and the frequency increases will roll out quickly again. Then the whole process will repeat - improvements with greater cache, better HT, faster fsb until the next die shrink...

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: bendixG15
why do some people have to turn everything into a flaming war ?///

if you don't have anything intelligent to say....then don't say anything...

Because AMD's CPUs are one of the major forces driving intel's clockspeed increases, and it's a valid point that the 3200+ is not even beating a 3.0C let alone the 3.2C coming out in 2 weeks.

It was AMD (in better days) that pushed intel to release the original faulty 1.13 GHz coppermine P3, but right now AMD isn't competing well enough to make intel rush out a 3.4 GHz.

Other factors are of course the weak economy, slashed IT budgets, and no games out that need even the 3.0C.

I was right with you until your comment about games not needing it. Every recent game that I know of is limited by the speed of the CPU. Buy a faster CPU, and the game gets faster. Unless you consider 3DMark03 a game, there is always room for a faster processor. But , as was said before, AMD isn't even a threat to Intel with their out-of-whack PR ratings and their slow-as-molasses Opetron (ok, so I exaggerate a little), so we may be stuck at 3 GHz for a while.

I think most overclockers are getting at least 3.5 GHz out of the 3.0C, so it's not like Intel couldn't go faster if they wanted to.

 

[EGBTHappyGilmore]

There's a very simple for this wall we've hit in technology, necessity aside. Pentium and AMD have been pushing their technology so fast and hard to top each other, that where they used to withhold technology and release at more regulated times, they have been putting it out as fast as they can. Now they have reached a point where their pool of unreleased technology is depleted so they must make further advancements before they can begin to release more new processors.

 

[paperfist]

I read awhile back that the reason we are at this 'standstill' is because Intel and AMD shot themselves in the foot. From all the competition of the increasing MHz race they have supplied the mass consumer (not the enthusiast) with more GHz then they will need for a while. So this mass consumer market has no need to upgrade their computers when their 2.0GHz machine is opening Word and running AOL just fine. So for Intel and AMD to keep increasing the chip speed they will keep hurting their wallets and this is why we are stuck at the current speeds.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: fkloster
jesus....seems like we have been here for a very long time!

The economy is soft and demand for computers and components are very soft.
I am sure the gHz race will heat up again when people start buying and upgrading computers again.

 

[Sunner]

Another point is that both Northwood and TBred are at the end of their lifespans.

Prescott will soon replace Northy in the high end, and Clawhammer will replace TBred.

 

[nick1985]

not tryin to flame, just found a funny pic.


but i think that the 2 companies are good for eachother. they keep eachother from driving up cpu prices and they make sure their products are quality. i like them both, but amd was just a better price/performer for my needs at the time that i upgraded

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: nick1985
not tryin to flame, just found a funny pic.


but i think that the 2 companies are good for eachother. they keep eachother from driving up cpu prices and they make sure their products are quality. i like them both, but amd was just a better price/performer for my needs at the time that i upgraded

LMAO

This has really turned into an AMD vs. Intel war from the origional subject of 3 Ghz. So since I'm an "AMD fanboy" I'll throw in my 2 cents.

You guys are right about AMD not providing any stiff competition for Intel, except in that picture =) You expect to see a 3.2 Ghz P4 soon? I dunno about that... Intel is already holding the performance crown right now... the only reason for them to release a "3.2" is to compete with AMD's "3200" It's a battle of titles right now... not really performance, we can all see which is a better performer.

One thing I will disagree with you on is the PR ratings. You're assuming the rating is based on the performance of Intel processors, and they're not. The PR rating was developed back when the origional P4's were out and sucked donkey nuts. AMD created the PR rating saying "This XP1700 would perform like a 1700 Mhz Athlon if it existed." And you guys keep wanting to compare it to Intel processors... for a while, it was right on target and worked out that way... but the P4 has gone through several core revisions, so it's performing better than a regular Athlon at equal clock speeds if they existed. AMD adjust their PR ratings to reflect the performance of their core revisions compared to an origional Athlon processor... not current Intel competition. So the XP3000 and XP3200 ratings are most likely right on target based on the system they're using to rate them.
I'm not saying I like the rating system, I didn't like it ever since I had my Athlon 1.2 and heard about an XP1600 in the makings. "XP1600? What the hell is that? It doesn't run at 1600 Mhz? Well what DOES it run at then?"
I think AMD should have kept up the clock speed wars while continuing to improve the efficiency of their processors. Can you imagine a 3.0 Ghz Barton core? It would annihilate a P4 at 3.0 Ghz. Look at the benchmarks for even P4 2.4 C and compare them to an XP3000 that's only at 2.167 Ghz...

Anyway... I wouldn't be surprised if Intel could stretch the P4C's to 4 Ghz if AMD made a surprise announcement today that next week they'll be releasing the Athlon-64 at speeds starting at 2.0 Ghz and going up to 2.8 Ghz. ... or somethin like that. It would probably only take Intel a month or two of work to get clock speeds up to a reliable 4 Ghz.

To sum it up, I don't think we've hit a wall at 3 Ghz... I think Intel has just stopped running and is leisurely jogging now because they're a half mile ahead of everyone else.