Y
Yousuf Khan
Pentium D's going from 130W to 95W, and Pentium 4's going from 86W to 65W.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34149
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34149
W
willbill
Yousuf said:
wow, tough stuff!
at least, if true
and depending on how the revised
P4's stack up against comparable
AMD cpu's, it will put further
price pressure on AMD
if those with recent P4 mobos can't
make use of the new cooler P4 cpu's,
there will be great unhappiness with
those who've just bought a P4 mobo
i also note that AMD finally dropped
prices on their 940 Opty's, but i think
i'll wait another few months and see
what things look like then.
bill
Y
Yousuf Khan
willbill said:
Dropped power just as they are getting ready to discontinue them. They
have a ton of previous P4's and PD's to get rid of in their inventory,
and those they are likely going to have to write off.
Yousuf Khan
W
willbill
i mean it's like a prise fight (variant
of prize, sorry about the "ISA"
in a recent post to you when it should
have been PCI) with a 1-2 to the solar
plexus. 1st, low power high performance
core 2, and now this with cheap low
power P4
i'd like to correct that to "if accurate"
i looked at anandtech and did not find
anything on this, and also www.sandpile.org
i hadn't thought of that
i revise my "tough stuff" to VERY tough stuff
but i somehow doubt that previous P4's will be
written off; but i could be wrong given what
is going on
OTOH and having slept on it, i'm guessing that
this won't much affect server CPU prices
the reason for newegg's price drop on Opty 940 CPUs
(this past week) looks like their (AMD) intro of
AMD Santa Ana and Santa Rosa, which weren't there
on my capture of newegg's August 8 Opty prices
per chrisv's input, www.sandpile.org is a terrific
ref on current architecture, under the "impl" heading
bill
of prize
, sorry about the "ISA"in a recent post to you when it should
have been PCI) with a 1-2 to the solar
plexus. 1st, low power high performance
core 2, and now this with cheap low
power P4
i'd like to correct that to "if accurate"
i looked at anandtech and did not find
anything on this, and also www.sandpile.org
i hadn't thought of that
i revise my "tough stuff" to VERY tough stuff
but i somehow doubt that previous P4's will be
written off; but i could be wrong given what
is going on
OTOH and having slept on it, i'm guessing that
this won't much affect server CPU prices
the reason for newegg's price drop on Opty 940 CPUs
(this past week) looks like their (AMD) intro of
AMD Santa Ana and Santa Rosa, which weren't there
on my capture of newegg's August 8 Opty prices
per chrisv's input, www.sandpile.org is a terrific
ref on current architecture, under the "impl" heading
bill
Y
Yousuf Khan
willbill said:
Once Core 2 starts getting sold in any great numbers who is going to
want to buy the P4's?
Socket F?
Yousuf Khan
G
George Macdonald
S'always possible there's somebody out there who thinks Netburst is just
the ticket... hmm, well maybe not!;-)
W
willbill
Yousuf said:
people will go where a) the performance is
and/or b) price/performance/heat(lackof) is
we've all been assuming that P4 is dead,
and that Pentium M is Intel's future
this power reduction with P4 makes me wonder
i also note that Pentium M and Core 2 Duo are
both seen as generation 6 (by www.sandpile.org;
see 3rd line under "impl": PM and Core)
whereas they see P4 as generation 7 (3rd line
under "impl": P4)
not that "7" means it's inherently better
Santa Ana is Opteron with socket AM2
Santa Rosa is Opteron with socket F
both appear to be strictly dual core.
at least, Newegg isn't showing any quad
core Opteron CPUs
bill
C
Carlo Razzeto
willbill said:
Considering the performance advantage Core 2 has over the P4 (and even
Athlon 64 which wipes the floors with the P4) I doubt anyone other than
those people who don't want to switch out an MB quite yet are going to care.
From all points, netburst is looking like exactly everyone said it was when
it first came out, a mistake. A big one at that, considering how much Intel
has lost to AMD durring the reign of netburst.
Carlo
C
chrisv
Carlo said:
It's not like the Core 2's are hideously expensive, either.
Good thing most buyers are clueless, or the demand for the Core 2
would so far out-strip the supply that getting one would be nearly
impossible.
F
Felger Carbon
Yousuf Khan said:
Anybody who wants to build computers. It will take about all of Intel's and
AMD's production capacity to meet the total number of PCs to be built and
sold this year (any 12 month period you'd care to name, for instance
starting now). Since Intel cannot produce all Core 2 CPUs at this time, the
only way the total market demand can be met is for people to buy P4s, since
that's what Intel will have available to sell. The alternative is for
everybody to not build PCs and let the market demand be ignored. Yeh, like
that's gonna happen! ;-)
R
Rick Jones
In comp.sys.intel Yousuf Khan said:
Perhaps p4's are in more than just PCs? ISTR references to P4's being
in some HD-DVD players (or was that bluray?)
rick jones
S
Scott Alfter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
You never know...after all, there _is_ a sucker born every minute.
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFAIyKVgTKos01OwkRAnojAKDKWnuZ1aMB2uHxx8yeqn5w+GKN5ACfYu2J
ZKWtYK4g3WKGAa3b/XYToQc=
=tGb0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
You never know...after all, there _is_ a sucker born every minute.
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFAIyKVgTKos01OwkRAnojAKDKWnuZ1aMB2uHxx8yeqn5w+GKN5ACfYu2J
ZKWtYK4g3WKGAa3b/XYToQc=
=tGb0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
K
krw
....and the price of these systems won't reflect this, um, change in
the "market"? No, P4's have been toast for years. It's just
taken INTC a while to get with the program. ;-)
K
krw
If so, it's a crappy choice. The P4 is a huge power hog and for
this reason alone there are *far* better embedded alternatives.
G
George Macdonald
You're probably right but the reasons escape me: given that P4s in question
and C2Ds are produced in the same 65nm fabs, it is cerainly odd that Intel
would bring out a new iteration of P4 which is going to push C2D production
out of the way for a chip which nobody (who "knows) wants. Since the same
chipsets.mbrds are used with both CPUs, it makes it even stranger.
I have to ask: why can Intel not produce all C2Ds right now? They don't
want to write off the low-power P4 development & tooling costs? There is
still a P4 fan-faction at Intel? C2D has umm, yield problems? It's a
further plot to sink AMD with even lower prices? Are there large corporate
buyers who insist on 1,000 systems exactly identical to what they bought 3
months ago... P4 an' all?
It seems to me that something's afoot here. I don't see Mikey reversing
himself on desktop Athlon64s but we'll know more about the scale of that
effort in a week or two by all accounts. I dunno if you caught my post the
other day about the rumors flying around that Dell has sucked the Athlon64
channel dry.
Oh, BTW my favorite anal...yst babble this week was that, as part of the
sell-off/lay-offs, Intel might sell Itanium off to the highest bidder.
J
Johannes
chrisv said:
But (as said) P4 upgrade option if motherboard can't take a Core 2.
Don't worry, the cluelessness goes in to opposite direction. TV commercials
have suggested that you need Core 2 Duo for doing emailing and printing
at the same time...
N
nobody
It looks like C2Ds, especially 4MB variety, are hard to come by.
While not necessarily true, but one can suppose with a good degree of
probability that most, if not all, C2Ds start as 4MB, but most of them
have later 1/2 of it disabled for being faulty. Chances are, we are
about to see soon Celerons (or whatever Intel decides to call them)
with 2 cores and puny (1MB? 512k? even less?) caches, and also some
single cores based on Core2 - as soon as they sort out their dump bin.
NNN
C
chrisv
Johannes said:
Darn it, I could have sworn that I did that back in 1985 on my Amiga.
8)
G
Grant Schoep
Heh yes. I'd still like to see how a Core 2 Duo would do on an up to date
Beos... as much as I hated the Apple like interface, I really like the
"everything is threaded" concept.
What is annoying about this all. Is everyone could benifit from dual
processors now days. WinXP, as the most dominiant, likes it. I myself sit
and "play poker", "listen to mp3s", etc etc at the same time. If I could
play poker on Linux there would probably be a compiler and other stuff
running too.
Thing is, None of those are CPU intensive whatsoever(other than compile...)
basically, I think most everyone could benifit from multi-cpu, but... for
most parts, most common users only need big horsepower from CPUs in modern
games.
Dual-core, yes. But until more games are threaded, people will still
beleive that multi-cpu is not neccessary.
But then on games I know nothing. I hate action, I'm a turn based game
boy...
J
johannes
Grant said:
I'm not into games, but think there are many other ways of using CPU
horsepower. E.g. improved data visualization in Excel and Powerpoint.
Powerpoint, in particular, badly needs some more interesting stuff for
interactive data visualization or we'll all fall asleep.