Page 1 of 2
Intel to launch 3.2GHz P4 on Monday
Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2003 10:26 pm
by fuuucckkers
By Tony Smith
Posted: 20/06/2003 at 13:14 GMT
Intel is expected to announce a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 on Monday at $637 a pop.
And it is believed that ATI will unveil its latest Pentium 4 chipsets on the same day.
The new processor will support a 200MHz frontside bus quad-pumped for an effective 800MHz frequency. It will contain 512KB of on-die L2 cache and be produced using a 0.13 micron fabrication process.
Its price should put the new P4 well above the current top-of-the-range model, the 3GHz chip, which is priced at $437, according to Intel's most recent price list.
Prices for either chip and the rest of the P4 range are not expected to fall until October, just ahead of the launch of Prescott, Intel's next generation of Pentium processor.
ATI is expected to announce its RS300, RS300VE and possibly the RS300M chipsets on 23 June. Officially, the company has said it will release P4 chipsets - branded as Radeon IGP - in the summer, but a Goldman Sachs analyst recently said he believed the products would be launched this month. Timing its own launch to coincide with the Intel announcement is an obvious move.
The RS300 supports the P4's 800MHz FSB and HyperThreading, offers dual-channel DDR 400 SDRAM support, and integrates DirectX 8.1 graphics courtesy of a built-in Radeon 9000 core. The chipset is believed to offer Serial ATA, 10/100Mbps Ethernet and support for six USB 2.0 ports, plus six-channel audio.
The RS300VE is a lower cost product that supports only single-channel DDR. All other features are expected to match the RS300.
What the RS300M offers that the RS300/RS300VE don't (or vice versa) isn't known. However, it is suspected that the RS300M may be intended to operate with Intel's Pentium M processor, aka Banias. ®
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 3:21 am
by Axilla
/drools
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:03 am
by Timelessblur
What I think is funny is software is currently years behind processor speeds. So you get that extra speed but it does not really speed things up much any more. The only thing nice is computer can last over 3 years now with out have to be complete replaces (the one I am on now is currently over 3 years old and it can do anything right now jsut because software has not become faster than it yet LOL)
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:21 am
by fuuucckkers
Timelessblur wrote:What I think is funny is software is currently years behind processor speeds. So you get that extra speed but it does not really speed things up much any more. The only thing nice is computer can last over 3 years now with out have to be complete replaces (the one I am on now is currently over 3 years old and it can do anything right now jsut because software has not become faster than it yet LOL)
I believe your talking about Software requirements for it to run descently on a newer or even old PC.
The only reason software requires so much processor speed and/or RAM etc.. is because Micro$oft sets the standards!
Their OS is bloated, which makes you need more harddrive space. They probably put all kinds of algorithms into their software to make it more processor intensive, yet again making you buy a new CPU.. or a new computer. It's all a scam.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:28 pm
by jester22c
Believe it or not software does a nice job of hogging memory and clock cycles all by itself. Microsoft doesn't "deoptomize" their software. That's rediculous. Operating systems require much more processing power than you would think. There are a hundred things going on at once. I'm not just talking out of my ass either. I am a coder myself. Sorry for the rant... I just hate seeing people blabber on about what they don't understand.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:31 pm
by DADINK13
....that could explain why the Mac OS is so effecient...
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:35 pm
by jester22c
The Macintosh OS and the software for Macs is efficient because of the proprietary hardware. People complain about the hardware but they don't understand it's purpose. On a PC software developers have to take into account that the users of their software could be using any hardware from any manufacturer. After all of the error checking and extra drivers being loaded along with the redundancy of the code to make sure the job gets done, the software becomes extremely inefficient and takes up twice as much memory as needed. Macs on the other hand know exactly what their users will be using in their systems. Even the third party Mac hardware meets strict requirements. It is a system that makes sense.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:46 pm
by DADINK13
jester22c wrote:The Macintosh OS and the software for Macs is efficient because of the proprietary hardware. It is a system that makes sense.
That's why the system works so damn well. PC's make due with what they have, but no matter what, all the true power comes from a Mac.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:46 pm
by insomica
But proprietary hardware makes them cost more. Am I right or not? Thats the only down side to Macs that I can see.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:56 pm
by jester22c
insomica wrote:But proprietary hardware makes them cost more. Am I right or not? Thats the only down side to Macs that I can see.
Macs can be a bit pricey yes, but if you have the money to
invest in a highend mac workstation you'll more than make your money back I'm sure. If you compare a PC and a Mac of equivellent processing power though, the prices really aren't all that different.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:04 pm
by insomica
What mac proc. would equal a intel 2.0ghz proc.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:44 pm
by DADINK13
Probably an 867MHz PowerPC G4.
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 2:04 pm
by insomica
DADINK13 wrote:Probably an 867MHz PowerPC G4.
Wow really... I guess all the speed comes fromt he frontsidebus
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 2:17 pm
by jester22c
The frontside bus actually doesn't have much to do with it. They are completely different architectures. Intel/AMD chips are CISC (complex instruction set computing) chips while Macs run on RISC (reduced instruction set computing) chips. CISC chips take extra time to decode instructions and run extra logic tests. Even if an instruction is predecoded this causes an increase in bit length, so either way it takes longer to get the job done. RISC processors are much more efficient, especially with floating point operations (which multimedia has alot to do with).
Just a bit of incite there for the uneducated
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2003 4:19 pm
by fuuucckkers
jester22c wrote:The frontside bus actually doesn't have much to do with it. They are completely different architectures. Intel/AMD chips are CISC (complex instruction set computing) chips while Macs run on RISC (reduced instruction set computing) chips. CISC chips take extra time to decode instructions and run extra logic tests. Even if an instruction is predecoded this causes an increase in bit length, so either way it takes longer to get the job done. RISC processors are much more efficient, especially with floating point operations (which multimedia has alot to do with).
Just a bit of incite there for the uneducated
Then why the hell don't AMD/ Intel use RISC ?? If it's better.. what's the deal?!