POST A COMMENT

22 Comments

Back to Article

  • OCedHrt - Sunday, May 30, 2004 - link

    Nice to see that the Pentium 735 seems to be now available.

    http://webshop.fujitsupc.com/fpc/Ecommerce/buildse...
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - link

    New AMD and Intel info this week....

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Sunday, May 16, 2004 - link

    Good to see another Intel CPU roadmap from the Twilight Zone. Personally, I'd really like to get my hands on that 3.73GHz/2MB/FSB266x4 part. Who knows what they're up to with that? I'd expect the reason it's in the 7xx series is that with the doubled cache, its die area and price would double and be comparable with others in the 7xx series. Reply
  • bhtooefr - Thursday, May 13, 2004 - link

    What I've heard is this:

    7xx - PM, P4EE
    5xx - P4, P4M
    3xx - Celery, CM
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

    Third week of june.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • JackHawksmoor - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

    Yeah, this is getting really weird...

    Do we have a time table for the release of the new P4 chips? We've got their names now, but no timetable...
    Reply
  • mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

    I think the numbering scheme is equivalent to how badly Intel wants to sell the chip.

    7xx - we really want people to buy these chips
    5xx - we sort of want people to buy these chips
    3xx - we really don't want people to buy these chips

    I hardly believe that the Pentium M @ 1.6 GHz beats a P4EE at 3.4 GHz. I could be wrong. If so, someone send me a link showing the banias or dothan core beating an extreme edition CPU in a decent number of benchmarks.
    Reply
  • bobsmith1492 - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

    So, for a '1066' bus, the actual bus clock would be 266.5 (asuming a quad-pumped thingamajigger), and synchronized DDR would run at 266.5*2, or 533. Isn't this one of the first official speeds for DDR2? So, it seems like this bus speed would require DDR2. Reply
  • Runamile - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

    Is it just me, or is this a whole lot more choices then there should be? I counted 46 processors. 46? whats wrong with about 6 or so for each class? This is going to cause way too much confusion for the common consumer. Basic marketing does state having 3 distict grades/classes of quality, but having 15 subclass inside each?

    Also, the fact does remain that the fastest of the 3xx can beat the slowest 5xx, and the fastest 5xx can beat the slowest 7xx (I am speculating here). Isn't that also going to cause confusion? It appears that when Intel announced their new naming scheme months ago they were counting on cutting out their P4 lines by looking at how almost all the 5xx series was filled up at the time. I hope that line is cut out pretty soon, to aleviate the amount of choices. Too many choices is frusterating to consumers. The mainstream consumer just want a computer, they don't care what the exact specs or model number of their CPU is. Telling a person they should get a 735 over a 733 isn't going to mean crap to them. They just want to know what is fastest or cheapest. Period.
    Reply
  • Pumpkinierre - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

    A suggestion the new Prescott 720 is a dual core Pentium M 750. 2x1.86MHz is 3.73 (allowing for the 3rd decimal) and 2x533MHz FSB is 1066. Its been strangely lumped in with the P-M mobile CPUs and its got a weird speed. Also, Its got 2Mb of cache same as the P-Ms and even for a dual core that's good enough. One of the other posts (Sudhan?) said there could be two types of Prescott and Intel said they were moving to dual core and cooler chips (most probably Pentium-Ms). Maybe they are really panicking at Intel!
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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!
    Reply
  • 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? Reply
  • wassup4u2 - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

    I assume the title for the Celeron roadmap table should read "Celeron Roadmap (3xx)", not (7xx). Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • retrospooty - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

    well, yes, the prescott performs poorly, but the other side it the pentium M is an incredible CPU. mhz per mhz, its even faster than the A64's in most apps. Reply
  • Oxonium - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

    Naming the new P4 the 720 seems really wierd. As pointed out, all the other cores listed are Banias/Dothan. In fact all the 7xx chips listed are mobile CPUs except for the 720. Even the Pentium 4 M is listed in the 5xx series. The stranger part to me is that if the larger number implies better performance, then the Pentium M 725 (1.6 GHz) outperforms the new Pentium 4 at 3.73 GHz with a 1066 MHz FSB? I know the Pentium Ms are great performers but this really puts into perspective how poorly the Prescott core performs. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now