Intel Presler to clock at 3.4GHz, gets named 9XX series

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: dmens
i dont give a s*** as long as my stock/salary/bonus goes up. they dont pay me enough to care.

Originally posted by: clarkey01
K10 will just be a turbo charged K9 dual core (BTW they dual core K8's are know known as the K9's, and the orignal k9's are now the K10's).

Intel will have an on die memory controller by then the K10's arrival, as well as a point to point bus.

just freq scaling? amd has to be doing more than that... if not, we'll run them into the ground, big time. im sure they're doing some funky stuff... makes life more exciting for us.

Webber stated that the K8 will be around for a long time, tweaks here and there, I'll try and find the link, but I think he's just playing down. Who knows.

The K8 was just a K7 with double the registers, on die mem controller, point to point bus, and a few tweaks with the FP.Not much but enough.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: clarkey01

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: clarkey01
They didnt ramp barton to the proper clock speeds(im guessing they kept it in reserve to make the K8 look more migthter) . The K8 was a year late, and the 533FSB & 800 FSB (B's and c's) came out of nowhere.

Bartons (M) hit 2.6 Ghz no problem, thats = to a P4C 3 Ghz. They just didnt do it...

its beyond me why they'd bother.

amd64 vs p4 bores me. im more interested in what we're doing now vs K10.

Yeah I bet AMD are never intrested when they lose too. lol j/k

K10 will just be a turbo charged K9 dual core (BTW they dual core K8's are know known as the K9's, and the orignal k9's are now the K10's).

Intel will have an on die memory controller by then the K10's arrival, as well as a point to point bus.

Intel having an on die mem contoller can you confirm this.. also what is point to point? is this the same as HTT cutting out the Northbridge??

 

[dmens]

p6 after yonah has been revamped, big time. im amazed by the amount of goodies we're packing into this core, a lot of it brand spanking new, revolutionary stuff.

hopefully ill get paid enough to be excited about it when it comes out. hahaha.

 

[clarkey01]

Intel will have an on die memory contoller and a point to point bus, the second one is confirmed but im told by an Intel worker they are going to have an die memory controller.

I do speak to an Intel worker in the Ireland fab (fab12) the pilot fab he refers to it, he's joining the fab24-2, he's learning about "1264 technology".

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

It is funny that Intel is copying all the AMD innovations after AMD copying Intel for so long. LOL. The K10 from what I remember reading will be more than just a turbocharged K9. I remember quadcores, virtualization, DDR2, and a some other stuff but can't remember where. Why is there is sudden belief that AMD better release the dual core soon? The Intel requires a new motherboard and their pushing out the door April 18th some small quantity to say (WE WERE FIRST) strikes of desperation. Why isn't Intel releasing a dualcore Xeon chip is my question. Why wait until 2006! An eternity in cpu time! If AMD releases their X2 at 2400 in June, Intel is going to be in a world of hurt. The single core 2.4 (basically a 4000 or FX-53) beats any 3.2 Intel prettly handily in everything (even with hyperthreading does Intel maybe eke out a victory here or there) so the dual core (designed from the ground up for dual core, with low latency memory access) I bet will destroy the Inte 3.2.

 

[ahock]

It is a known fact that Intel played a catch up in the dual core area. They made a big development here. They server products need to be fully verified and this is the reason why server CPU are very expensive as they are thoroughly tested.... Also I think Intel dont have any chipsets which supports dual core (as they came late). But once they release (from the recent IDF) it will have a lot of features, virtualization etc etc etc.... *T's which they usually calls it. I'm not sure if AMD can somehow match the platfom approach Intel is pushing for the server side.... Yes AMD can claim the best processo but we know that its not just the processor that really matters. Remember Intel's chipsets.... I dont know how AMD will respond to this? It will be very very exciting.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: AnandThenMan

Originally posted by: dmens
the gamers market is not worth a damn. more people would benefit from dual core than single threaded performance, and people won't switch because intel's dual cores will be more competitively priced.

The gamers market is not worth a damn? So you are saying more people do heavy multi-media multi-tasking work than play games? But you're also saying that people WON'T switch because Intel DC's are priced more competitively. ??????????

U R off your rocker.

You basically just repeated what the dude said. Did you have a point of your own?

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: MBrown
Intel is going to pass AMD again with this pressler core.

Agreed. The yeilds and overclocked speed will be MUCH more comparable to Tejas than Prescott @ 65W for Cedar Mill you are seriously talking about damn near 5ghz on air, purely because heat isnt AS much of a factor.

I think Cedar Mill and Presler is where Intel will start to stack up nicely to A64s again.

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: MBrown
Intel is going to pass AMD again with this pressler core.

Agreed. The yeilds and overclocked speed will be MUCH more comparable to Tejas than Prescott @ 65W for Cedar Mill you are seriously talking about damn near 5ghz on air, purely because heat isnt AS much of a factor.

I think Cedar Mill and Presler is where Intel will start to stack up nicely to A64s again.

Too early to tell. AMD will have 3 Ghz K8's by 06 q1. Dual core should be up to about 2.8 Ghz ( and this isnt a high IPC desing like the K8's/K9's).

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: MBrown
Intel is going to pass AMD again with this pressler core.

Agreed. The yeilds and overclocked speed will be MUCH more comparable to Tejas than Prescott @ 65W for Cedar Mill you are seriously talking about damn near 5ghz on air, purely because heat isnt AS much of a factor.

I think Cedar Mill and Presler is where Intel will start to stack up nicely to A64s again.

That depends on how the leakage current is with Intel's .065micron process. If they have the same problems they had .09 then they won't be able to increase clockspeed all that much. If they can work around this problem then we will hopefully see tejas-like speeds.

 

[Duvie]

If it is good I will buy it!!!!

I never trust marketig hype until I see it perform....I think it stupid not to be running with a 1066 or greater bus though....they will starve these fvckers too...

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: Sentential

Originally posted by: MBrown
Intel is going to pass AMD again with this pressler core.

Agreed. The yeilds and overclocked speed will be MUCH more comparable to Tejas than Prescott @ 65W for Cedar Mill you are seriously talking about damn near 5ghz on air, purely because heat isnt AS much of a factor.

I think Cedar Mill and Presler is where Intel will start to stack up nicely to A64s again.

That depends on how the leakage current is with Intel's .065micron process. If they have the same problems they had .09 then they won't be able to increase clockspeed all that much. If they can work around this problem then we will hopefully see tejas-like speeds.

Ive read the TDPs of both chip via the INQ and others.

Preler @ 3.4 stands at 130W
Cedar Mill @ 3.6 (i belive) stands at 65W

Not bad when current Prescotts chew up 84-115W. Im a little dissapointed that Presler uses almost the same amount of power as does Smithfield. But then again it has 2X the cache (4 vs 2) AND its 2 seperate cores and not 1 combinded.

AFAIK all preslers/cedar mills carry some form of hyperthreading. However I havent heard a mention of an EE yet. Its too early to tell at this point.

 

[IamTHEsnake]

Is presler the dual core or is it cedar mill?

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: dmens
the gamers market is not worth a damn. more people would benefit from dual core than single threaded performance, and people won't switch because intel's dual cores will be more competitively priced.

Sure the gaming market is rather small on the PCs. However, you gotta realize that A64 is better at office tasks (anything in word, excel, antivirus, online browsing), extracting zipping files, etc. In fact, most users would benefit much more from faster single thread performance since common every day tasks (as listed above), are faster on a single faster core. If processor speed was not limited by physics, then dual-core would be on the back burner for a lot longer.

Thank you. People seem to be falling for dual-core hype without realizing that they're likely going to take a performance for a year at least while the software gets written.

 

[LithographWoker]

Originally posted by: IamTHEsnake
Is presler the dual core or is it cedar mill?

My understanding is that they are both dual core. Presler from what I?m reading and being told is a decedent of Smithfield (i.e still based on netburst), that would explain the 130W TDP. Cedar Mill on the other hand is two Pentium M?s( I could be wrong). I think Intel has also used this code name before, the same with nehalem so it is hard to keep track.

There was talk that cedar mill is nothing more then a pipeline increase :

"Intel's official cancellation of the 4.0GHz Pentium 4 is only the beginning of the problem. The 65nm variant called Cedar Mill, if it ever comes out, is only expected to clock to 4.4GHz, a piddling increase."


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19110

A few months old but take it for what its worth.

 

[LithographWoker]

Cedar mill appears to be single core.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/03/15/intel_cedar_mill_power/

 

[LithographWoker]

Sorry ( Had to retract what I was going to post)

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: LithographWoker

Originally posted by: IamTHEsnake
Is presler the dual core or is it cedar mill?

My understanding is that they are both dual core. Presler from what I?m reading and being told is a decedent of Smithfield (i.e still based on netburst), that would explain the 130W TDP. Cedar Mill on the other hand is two Pentium M?s( I could be wrong). I think Intel has also used this code name before, the same with nehalem so it is hard to keep track.

There was talk that cedar mill is nothing more then a pipeline increase :

"Intel's official cancellation of the 4.0GHz Pentium 4 is only the beginning of the problem. The 65nm variant called Cedar Mill, if it ever comes out, is only expected to clock to 4.4GHz, a piddling increase."


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19110

A few months old but take it for what its worth.

Cedar mill will be single core. Presler is dual core, and I believe it to be 2 cedar mill die in one package. Yonah is the dual core Pentium-M.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: dmens
the gamers market is not worth a damn. more people would benefit from dual core than single threaded performance, and people won't switch because intel's dual cores will be more competitively priced.

Sure the gaming market is rather small on the PCs. However, you gotta realize that A64 is better at office tasks (anything in word, excel, antivirus, online browsing), extracting zipping files, etc. In fact, most users would benefit much more from faster single thread performance since common every day tasks (as listed above), are faster on a single faster core. If processor speed was not limited by physics, then dual-core would be on the back burner for a lot longer.

Thank you. People seem to be falling for dual-core hype without realizing that they're likely going to take a performance for a year at least while the software gets written.

If your a one task at a time person, then yes they would be falling for the dual core hype. Fortunately, nobody is a one task at a time person. There is always something else running on your system besides the encoder your running or the game your playing. The point to dual core is "stamina" of the machine. You can run more apps at the same time without performance DROPPING down to the level of a single core CPU. Yes, software will all be multithreaded eventually, but there is nothing wrong with running several single thread apps for now either.
So, I will be falling for a Pentium D if it is indeed 241.00 suggested retail price. THATS CHEAP!!! I am due for a platform upgrade at this point anyway so the new mobo would have been par for the course anyway.

 

[clarkey01]

If and more likely when Intel drop netburst and long pipelines designs in favour of the P6, hyper threading will be gone, multitasking will go to the CPU with the best communication between the two cores, and that will be AMD.

 

[MBrown]

What a fight.

 

[Sentential]

Originally posted by: LithographWoker
Cedar mill appears to be single core.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/03/15/intel_cedar_mill_power/

That is correct. More technical info ive found:

Cedar Mill-
Single Core
2MB of Cache
(possibly shorter pipeline)
hyperthreading support
Vanderpool technology
(unknown bus)
(unknown clock speed, rumored to start at 3.6ghz and finish past 4ghz)
(netburst based)
65W TDP
.65nm process

Presler-
Dual Core (2 physically seperate cores unlike Smithfield)
2MB of Cache per chip, 4MB total
(possibly shorter pipeline)
hyperthreading support
Vanderpool technology
(unknown bus)
(unknown clock speed, rumored to start at 2.8ghz and finishes at 3.4ghz)
(netburst based)
130W TDP
.65nm process

 

[Duvie]

The thing ppl have to remember HT will be different then we know it. With going to shorter pipelies the effectiiveness of HT will be greatly diminished. Especially if they go to a pipeline length like that of the dothans.....

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: dmens
the gamers market is not worth a damn. more people would benefit from dual core than single threaded performance, and people won't switch because intel's dual cores will be more competitively priced.

Sure the gaming market is rather small on the PCs. However, you gotta realize that A64 is better at office tasks (anything in word, excel, antivirus, online browsing), extracting zipping files, etc. In fact, most users would benefit much more from faster single thread performance since common every day tasks (as listed above), are faster on a single faster core. If processor speed was not limited by physics, then dual-core would be on the back burner for a lot longer.

Thank you. People seem to be falling for dual-core hype without realizing that they're likely going to take a performance for a year at least while the software gets written.

If your a one task at a time person, then yes they would be falling for the dual core hype. Fortunately, nobody is a one task at a time person. There is always something else running on your system besides the encoder your running or the game your playing. The point to dual core is "stamina" of the machine. You can run more apps at the same time without performance DROPPING down to the level of a single core CPU. Yes, software will all be multithreaded eventually, but there is nothing wrong with running several single thread apps for now either.
So, I will be falling for a Pentium D if it is indeed 241.00 suggested retail price. THATS CHEAP!!! I am due for a platform upgrade at this point anyway so the new mobo would have been par for the course anyway.

You certainly have a point. But as you said, you will take a hit when you play a resource intensive game or are encoding. For the other 95% of the time when I have a defrag program running with Dscaler or an AV scan running with Zoomplayer and FFDShow dual core would come in handy.

The issue I wonder about is that I have video related programs that can use up 90% of the CPU of Overclocked A64 3200+ at 2.6GHz. That is supposedly equivalent to a P4 4000GHz. Now I wonder how a P4 3200GHz dual core processor will handle that main thread. I feel that it might drop frames or stutter. However I did read the AT article on dual core performance and I like the idea of having a second core around when the main core becomes unresponsive despite that being a very rare event for me these days.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: dmens
the gamers market is not worth a damn. more people would benefit from dual core than single threaded performance, and people won't switch because intel's dual cores will be more competitively priced.

Sure the gaming market is rather small on the PCs. However, you gotta realize that A64 is better at office tasks (anything in word, excel, antivirus, online browsing), extracting zipping files, etc. In fact, most users would benefit much more from faster single thread performance since common every day tasks (as listed above), are faster on a single faster core. If processor speed was not limited by physics, then dual-core would be on the back burner for a lot longer.

Thank you. People seem to be falling for dual-core hype without realizing that they're likely going to take a performance for a year at least while the software gets written.

If your a one task at a time person, then yes they would be falling for the dual core hype. Fortunately, nobody is a one task at a time person. There is always something else running on your system besides the encoder your running or the game your playing. The point to dual core is "stamina" of the machine. You can run more apps at the same time without performance DROPPING down to the level of a single core CPU. Yes, software will all be multithreaded eventually, but there is nothing wrong with running several single thread apps for now either.
So, I will be falling for a Pentium D if it is indeed 241.00 suggested retail price. THATS CHEAP!!! I am due for a platform upgrade at this point anyway so the new mobo would have been par for the course anyway.

You certainly have a point. But as you said, you will take a hit when you play a resource intensive game or are encoding. For the other 95% of the time when I have a defrag program running with Dscaler or an AV scan running with Zoomplayer and FFDShow dual core would come in handy.

The issue I wonder about is that I have video related programs that can use up 90% of the CPU of Overclocked A64 3200+ at 2.6GHz. That is supposedly equivalent to a P4 4000GHz. Now I wonder how a P4 3200GHz dual core processor will handle that main thread. I feel that it might drop frames or stutter. However I did read the AT article on dual core performance and I like the idea of having a second core around when the main core becomes unresponsive despite that being a very rare event for me these days.

As I said? Where did I say that?

If your video related program is multithreaded, it will eat the o/c'd A64 alive. As would a dual core A64. If its a single threaded app and your not running anything else, the A64 o/c will most likely beat out the dual core. Seems logical.