Intel to Kill off P5 / Tejas

[thatsright]

Sure, not that I have any inside info or anything, but I thought I'd be the messenger.

From everybody's favorite sometimes right news source, article about the death of Tejas

Just thought I'd let folks know. Then it it actually turns out to be true, then I can pimp real big here on the ATF!

 

[DaveSimmons]

Everyone already knows intel has gone bananas on CPU design and made the banias split.

That's why they're busy making up new nonsense model numbers to sell chips under, since they don't want to follow AMD's lead on using PR numbers.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Not a surprise. Netcraft confirms, Intel is dying.

Maybe they'll focus on a decent AMD64 chip.

 

[johnnnny5]

I don't know if you're the same n0cmonkey from the bsdforums... even if you're not though:

http://www.bsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21749

 

[drag]

I think that AMD has finally beat out Intel in retail sales of their CPU's for desktops. At least for one week, but it's the first time ever.


AMD chips are faster, cheaper and now (i think) generally run cooler then Intel chips. Plus the Athlon/Opteron 64's are a better implimentation of the x86-64 spec then the up and coming Intel32+ or whatever weird name they are going to call it their 64bit desktop line up.

Plus the dual/quad Opterons are much better then dual/quad Xeons for server setups due to the ability to support large amounts of RAM properly and their more power.


Luckly for Intel more and more computers that are being sold are mobile and desktop replacement laptops and notebooks. In a while notebook sales are suppose to outpace desktop sales...

And intel has a 82% dominance of that market.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: johnnnny5
I don't know if you're the same n0cmonkey from the bsdforums... even if you're not though:

http://www.bsdforums.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21749

I am. That's probably why it popped into my head

 

[Xernex]

Good to see AMD making a come back after only 6-7 months ago many places reporting AMD would be dead very soon if the A64 doesnt take off.

 

[sparks]

Seems to be getting more credible. C/Net article.

 

[drag]

I thought a while ago that Intel was stretching itself fairly thin... But I thought that it would be Intanium that it would be killing off, not the Pentium 4!!

Probably a good move for Intel..

IBM's and AMD's proccessors do much much more per clock then the pentium4 did, and the PowerPC did much more with a lot less energy per clock too..

So moving everything to the PentiumM would put Intel back on equal footing on the performance per clock/wattage ratio. The PentiumM is some good stuff.

I have a Pentium4 mobile proccessor and I like that a lot more then anything AMD does in the moble market and the Pentium M is much better then even that.

Small quiet cases with low power requirements and great performance here we come...

But its' still not a 64bit proccessor.

 

[Sohcan]

Originally posted by: drag
I think that AMD has finally beat out Intel in retail sales of their CPU's for desktops. At least for one week, but it's the first time ever.

Huh? AMD has had a strong presence in the retail desktop market for a long time. They surpassed Intel in retail desktops in 1999:
Link

 

[gsellis]

You guys are nuts... Intel is not dead. That sounds, frankly, like fanboy fantasy instead of what is really going on.

What this means is that they have realized that 64-bit is here sooner than they planned. The Tejas was geared more towards IA-32. Sounds like we can expect an X-64 midcourse change from Intel now. Why waste resources on something that is now going to be a market loser? Yes, AMD beat them to the punch, but remember that the consumer tends to buy by brand recognition, not technical merit.

I do know that MS has been telling everyone 64 bit, 64 bit, 64 bit at WinHEC. 32-bit is not dead either, but MS seems to expect a 64-bit explosion by the time Longhorn ships. AMD has a big presence here and paid premium bucks to get the message around. They even had one of the better booths in the show area.

 

[gsellis]

Freaking touchpad.... Sorry about the double post.

 

[Hulk]

We probably won't even need any type of PR numbers, be they Intel or AMD designed since the desktop variants of Dothan will probably perform much like A64's. It'll be back to the old days of clockspeed.

The big problem for Intel is how are they going to back out of this clockspeed thing?

Prescott was supposed to and probably will ramp up to 4GHz, then they go back down to Dothan at a bit over 2GHz for similar performance, except for video apps where MHz will probably still matter.

Looks like I'll be staying with my P4 3.06 for quite a while longer. This is the longest virtual standstill in cpus I've seen in a long time. I've been running a P4 3.06 for almost two years and it's still not a outdated cpu.

 

[Macro2]

Intel isn't dead by any stretch.

OTOH, AMD is ALIVE...as much or more than they were with the initial Athlon vs P-III/

Funny thing is that is all going back to the Athlon vs the old PIII core.

Whoever said intel is in trouble getting away from clockspeed is RIGHT ON.

 

[Macro2]

BTW, what happens to Sandra scores with the drop in CPU cycles of the Pentium M core?

New benches coming again from Intel?

 

[Eug]

IBM is having similar issues as Intel

The traditional scaling of semiconductor manufacturing processes died somewhere between the 130- and 90-nanometer nodes, Bernie Meyerson, IBM's chief technology officer, told an industry forum.

Speaking at this week's International Electronics Forum here, Meyerson repeated earlier comments on scaling. This time, he also referred to the end of conventional CMOS technology, which he portrayed as headed in the same direction as bipolar logic in the mid-1980s.

Meyerson expanded on his scaling-is-dead theme here, saying CMOS has hit a wall in terms of power consumption. He said industry faces a similar transition to the one faced when moving to CMOS from bipolar logic. A new problem is the lack of mature alternative transistor logic technology.

The interesting thing here is that IBM desktop CPUs (970FX) are actually cut-down single-core versions of CPUs that began life as dual-core. One might think that IBM might take a similar dual-core approach relatively soon too.

So where are those triple-core 3.5 GHz Xbox 2 CPUs gonna come from?

 

[Macro2]

Dunno but seem Intel is going DUAL CORE in a big way. Following AMD again?

Intel's Dual-Core Chips Bump Next-Gen Pentium 4, Xeon
By Jeffrey Burt
May 7, 2004

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1587826,00.asp

Intel Corp. is canceling the next generation of its desktop and server chips as it moves up its schedule for releasing processors with two cores on a single piece of silicon.

The Santa Clara, Calif., chip maker was scheduled to release its next-generation Pentium 4 chip, code-named Tejas, next year, as well as a Xeon processor targeted for low-end servers, code-named Jayhawk. Built on the same architecture as Tejas, that chip also was expected to be released in 2005.

ADVERTISEMENT



However, given the work done by its engineers, Intel will be able to accelerate its schedule for releasing dual-core processors, making Tejas and Jayhawk unnecessary, said Intel spokesman Bill Kircos. Intel officials have been saying that a dual-core Itanium chip, code-named Montecito, will be released in mid-2005, followed by dual-core processors for desktops and mobile computers. The company has yet to release the code names for those chips.

Now Intel will have dual-core chips in its entire line of processors by the end of 2005, Kircos said. Given that, it made no sense to release Tejas and Jayhawk and expect customers to start standardizing on those processors if they were going to be quickly followed by the dual-core Pentium 4 and Xeon, he said.

The engineers working on Tejas and Jayhawk will be reassigned to the dual-core processor projects.

Click here for a glimpse inside Intel's labs.

Dual-core processors enable users to get almost double the processing power in the same amount of space. IBM and Sun Microsystems Inc. have moved to dual-core processing in their RISC-based Power and SPARC architectures, respectively, with Intel making the move next year. Advanced Micro Devices Inc. will move to dual-core processing with its 64-bit Opteron server processor, most likely next year.

In an unrelated move, Intel on Monday will release three mobile chips in the next-generation family of its Pentium M processor, code-named Dothan. Pentium M is the processor in Intel's Centrino wireless platform. Dothan will run at faster speeds than the current Banias model and will double the current 1MB of Level 2 cache.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Macro2
Intel isn't dead by any stretch.

OTOH, AMD is ALIVE...as much or more than they were with the initial Athlon vs P-III/

Funny thing is that is all going back to the Athlon vs the old PIII core.

Whoever said intel is in trouble getting away from clockspeed is RIGHT ON.

Definitely more. The penetration into the more profitable server/workstation market is a huge plus. The flash memory divison is going great and they have good buzz surrounding their desktop platforms again. Their present business strategy is definitely working and with MS showing a little backing for the AMD 64bit things are looking up for my favorite underdog

 

[KhoiFather]

Wonderful!

 

[JBT]

Not a bad my lowly 1.3 Pentium M actually does a pretty good job IMO. MAybe cause I don't do anything that requires much CPU power but it gets the job done for light gaming.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: JBT
Not a bad my lowly 1.3 Pentium M actually does a pretty good job IMO. MAybe cause I don't do anything that requires much CPU power but it gets the job done for light gaming.

Ok so how would a dual core 1.3 M sound => around the speed of a 2.6 M centrino? I like the sound of that. The fact of the matter is, if intel didnt make processors for 5 years, they'll probably still have enough money to buy all of AMD and have leftovers.

Either way, we need competitors in teh market so anyone who is a fan of one or the other should never wish for the other to completely disappear or you'll see processors increase speed once in 6 months at best and prices to accomodate these increases that stay on without dropping for at least 6 months as well. I personally don't want that.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Ok so how would a dual core 1.3 M sound => around the speed of a 2.6 M centrino? I like the sound of that.

Well, that CPU be twice as hot, although acceptable for laptops.

The fact of the matter is, if intel didnt make processors for 5 years, they'll probably still have enough money to buy all of AMD and have leftovers.

No, Intel would be toast.

 

[mamisano]

Hmmmm, so much for socket T.... what's the point in even releasing boards based on it? Or is it necessary to get Preshott towards the 4Ghz mark?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact of the matter is, if intel didnt make processors for 5 years, they'll probably still have enough money to buy all of AMD and have leftovers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, Intel would be toast.

Damn straight! R&D costs and maitaining unused fabs alone would eat them up in short order. Not to mention out of sight, out of mind.

I also think the argument in both CPUs and vid cards where people compare the prices of the original Pentium to present pricing and heralding AMD as the reason costs are down and performance ramping up is a fallacy. The huge factors that aren't considered include that moore's "law" has been holding up so there's no reason to beieve it wouldn't have adhered to the principle if AMD wasn't a major player. As to pricing, it might be higher without the competition but I doubt it would be significantly so, because the number of computer sales have skyrocketed since '94 ahnd just like with TVs, VCRs, DVDs, when tech becomes cheaper to produce thanks to manufacturing process, and all the other factors involved, the mainstream consumer jumps on a bandwagon they wouldn't before due to it's prohibitive pricing. IMO all those factors would have driven down computer pricing even if AMD had 1% market share.

 

[RussianSensation]

yeah but if there was no competition why lower prices? why increase processor speed?

If amd had 1% market share, more likely than not it would disappear eventually. Even in russia they sold 1 car model for 30-40 years without redesign because there is no need for it proving that without competition there is little or no progress. And even if the manufacturing prices could fall, nothing would stop a company to continue to sell their products at same prices while increasing their profit margins. Afterall, if you want a computer what choice are you left with? Of course the problem is with computers, they are much more reliable than cars, and will last a long time, so it would be hard to sustain constant sales even with an increasing population growth rate. That is why intel would have to eventually increase processor speed to provide incentive and so on. Personally I wouln't mind having 3 or more competitors in the graphics or processor industry. The automotive and fashion industries have hundreds of competitors and look how fast they are evolving.