Intel's 1066MHz Front Side Bus; See you in the Fall

22 Comments

View All Comments

• Chaotic42 - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

  Hah! When I was 16, we used to joke about needing a 4GHz Pentium 5 with a 1GHz bus and 2GB of memory to run Quake I at 1024x768.
  
  How far we've come.

• Falloutboy525 - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

  I have a feeling intel is defenatly having scailing issues....so thier dumping out what were going to be the prescott equivelent of a Xeon as desktop chips to keep pace with AMD...This will proubly work in the short term but can they afford to do this wouldn't that make the die size really big?
  
  what I'm woundering is if amd current stagnation due to the fact that they feel they don't need to go any faster or they having issues also.

• kamper - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

  Marsumane, as you might have gathered from TrogdorJW's post: p4EE has 512kB L2 cache but 2MB L3 cache, which just wasn't listed.

• tfranzese - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

  I must correct myself - it is not more than double. However, it is very difficult to compare mobile chips because of their mobile platforms. Not to mention it is hard to find detailed benchmarks that don't use lump programs to do a cumalitive comparison.
  
  Again, good chip but my guess is the A64 has the higher IPC. The matter will clear up next year hopefully when Intel finally ditches NetBurst.

• tfranzese - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

  "mhz per mhz, its even faster than the A64's in most apps"
  
  You must have a funny way of interpreting numbers. MHz/MHz the A64 is faster by far and only does the XP manage to be overtaken by the Pentium M. You need to check your numbers and also keep in mind there is also desktop counterparts that more than double the speed you see on a 1.6 GHz Pentium M compared to a Athlon 64 that is clocked a mere 400 MHz faster. The Pentium M is a good chip, and a good mobile chip at that, but Intel still can't touch AMD when it comes to raw IPC.

• TrogdorJW - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

  Just remember that for Intel's new naming scheme, the 7XX is the high-performance area, while 5XX is more mainstream and the 3XX are the "cheap" processors. Or maybe we should say that the 7XX are the most expensive? Anyway, with the Prescott running on a 533/1066 bus, it will almost certainly outperform many other Intel processors. It will also have 2 MB of L2 cache, which should make it even faster than the P4EE chips (L2 is generally faster than L3 cache). We also don't know yet what the P4EE chips are going to be called in the future. Maybe they'll remain as simply P4EE, maybe they'll be discontinued (not a bad option, since the Prescott + 2MB design should be cheaper to produce), or maybe they'll eventually get a 7XX name.
  
  Anyway, who's really excited about these processors and roadmaps anymore? If I had a P4, I would be okay with it on socket 478, but there's not a chance in hell that I would go out and buy a new P4 system using the 775 LGA sockets.

• Pumpkinierre - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

  They're bumping up the cache on that Prescott (that's if it is a Prescott)! A sure sign they are'nt going to make the 4Gig mark. All of this is weird!
  

• Marsumane - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

  Why are the EE's w/ only 512 cache!? What is intel doing? shorter pipelines or something? How are they getting what they are getting at such low Ghz?

• wassup4u2 - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

  I assume the title for the Celeron roadmap table should read "Celeron Roadmap (3xx)", not (7xx).

• OCedHrt - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

  Or maybe only numbers that end in the same digit can be compared. For example, all ending with a 3 such as XX3 are ULV. All ending with an 8 are LV, 5 is 400 fsb and 0 is 533 fsb. The 1 mb cache increase on the ULVs seem to justify it as the next step up and equiv to 100Mhz increase as the next step up.