Pentium 4 64-Bit

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 5th, 2004, 11:40 am

Here is the first article from PCWorld and here is the second.

Intel will introduce 8 CPUs over these few months for Socket LGA775. 5 will be 32-bit: 2.8GHz, 3.0GHz, 3.2GHz, 3.4GHz, 3.6GHz. 3 will be 32-bit with 64-bit extensions: 3.2GHz, 3.4GHz, 3.6GHz. However, these 3 will be considered "workstation" Pentiums, not "desktop" Pentiums. I don't excatly know what that means, but I'm guessing Intel will only release this CPU to computer manufactures to put in workstations only. Further details are unknown. Intel, however, plans to fix their power/heat problems for these 8 new CPUs. But considering they are still going for the BTX format, I doubt they will consume a lot less power/heat than before.

Anyway, AMD, with their Athlon 64 3700 at least, is on right top of Intel. For it acts like a 3.7GHz CPU. Intel only has 3.6GHz coming out. However, after these 8 CPUs, expect 3.8GHz and 4.0GHz by the end of this year (from Intel). But don't worry, AMD has the Athlon 64 FX-53 to compete against 4.0GHz.

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 5th, 2004, 3:44 pm

I'll be willing to bet that the heat situation will be better on the new socket type. i

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 5th, 2004, 4:15 pm

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 5th, 2004, 5:44 pm

3.7? What?

MaNiAc · Post by **MaNiAc** » June 11th, 2004, 8:41 pm

Those intel chips will be using AMD's method for their 64-bit extensions.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 11th, 2004, 9:44 pm

They use AMD64 but they downgrade it.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 1:56 am

Perhaps there are a few misunderstood things.

First, workstation means that it is in the 700 series, whereas desktop is in the 500 series. It has to do with Intel's new naming scheme.

Also, Intel's new naming scheme is there because the P4's are now acting more like Athlons in that, for example, a 3.6 GHz new P4 would run as fast as a 4.0 or 4.2 old P4. That's comparing the performance of 64-bit prescotts and 32-bit overclocked northwoods.

Basically, AMD is no longer the only cpu company keeping clock speeds down to work more on other things.

Neither AMD nor Intel is better. Period. Each is better for certain tasks, but neither is better or has a better price to performance ratio any more. It depends entirely on what you use it for.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 2:36 am

That is where you are wrong. Intel is only good at video encording. Everything else, AMD is top and will remain top because Intel's present architech is failing them. Also, 700 only means it is an EE CPU. And according to my charts:
Athlon 64 3200=Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE
Athlon 64 3400=Pentium 4 3.8GHz EE
Athlon 64 3500=Pentium 4 4.0GHz EE
Athlon 64 3700=Pentium 4 4.4GHz EE
Athlon 64 3800=Pentium 4 4.6GHz EE
Athlon 64 FX-53=Pentium 4 5.0GHz EE

Athlon 64 FX-55 is just around the corner.

That would mean it is as good as a Pentium 4 5.4GHz EE (or greater because of the onbaodr memory controller and the HyperTransport technology).

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 3:06 am

700's are just high end P4's. You clearly are clueless. Your data has no backing in any source outside of your ignorant mind.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 3:45 am

Oh, I'm sorry. There are no 700s for desktop CPUs.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 3:46 am

EE's are 700's, but there are other 700's too. Just face it, you are an idiot.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 3:52 am

The only 700s are mobiles. If you don't believe me, just go to their site.

I'm sure I know much more about computer hardware than you considering you didn't build a computer yet. Just believe what I say. AMD is and will remain a better CPU company than Intel because they are cheaper and faster and offer much more features (NX, Onboard Memory Controller, HyperTransport Technology, 64-Bit Extensions, Cool & Quiet, and the highest quality a CPU can get, the quality of an AMD CPU).

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 4:07 am

Ok, Osama bin Laden comes up to you and told you something, and you said that what he said was a bunch of bs. Then he tells you just believe what he said. What do you do.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 4:11 am

Am I him? No. I am an experienced computer developer.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 4:12 am

LOL ... experienced developer, lol!

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 4:14 am

Yes. I am.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 4:15 am

You can't even write a one form VB program without help.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 4:19 am

I said "computer developer," not software developer.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 4:21 am

You don't understand computer terminology. The term developer is used exclusively for software.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 4:23 am

A developer is one who develops something. I develop computers.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 4:24 am

You are the most hopeless, confused person I have ever met.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 4:26 am

What do you mean? A developer develops things. If you think that is wrong, what does a developer do?

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 4:29 am

Google for "hardware developer" and "software developer" (each with quotes). Hardware developer gets 7,440 results and software developer gets 2,080,000 results. Hm, which one is the proper use.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 4:32 am

That just means "Software Developer" is used more often.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 4:34 am

If a google search like that gets less than 50 thousand results it is extremely rare. Hardware developer only gets 7 thousand making it so scarse that only 7,000 web pages out of several trillion contain the phrase software developer.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 4:37 am

That is because most people call themselves computer builders.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 4:39 am

It's actually because the word developer when discussing computers relates to software and only software. I'm not going to continue arguing wiht you since you aren't capable of arguing.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 2:09 pm

Ok, after that long discussion and a good night sleep, I figured out the mystery behind the Pentium 4 64-Bit Workstation CPU. Let us first look at what we know:
Desktop 500s = Pentium 4
Desktop 300s = Pentium 4 Celeron
Mobile 700s = Pentium 4 M / Pentium 4 M Low Voltage / Pentium 4 M Ultra Low Voltage
Mobile 500s = Mobile Penttium 4
Mobile 300s = Pentium 4 Celeron M / Pentium 4 Celeron M Ultra Low Voltage
*There is no Desktop 700s.

Ok, so where does this Pentium 4 64-Bit Workstation CPU fit in?
Well, it can't be desktop or mobile since they are already filled. It has to be the Pentium 4 Xeon series. To confirm this, I have this quote:
"Intel Xeon 3.2Ghz (Nocona) IA32 64-bit CPU is expected to be released in Q2 on a 0.09 micron process. Nocona is the server version of Prescott targeted towards the high volume Dual Processor market. Nocona is expected to use an 800Mhz FSB, contain 1Mb of L2 cache (possibly supplemented with 2Mb L3 cache) and support Intel's HyperThreading II technology. Nocona will be Intel's first x86 processor to support Intel's CT (formally Yamhill) 64-bit extensions. These extensions are expected to be 100% compatible with AMD's 64-bit extensions, but may also feature additional instructions."
*I only added the bold to show you what I am talking about.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 2:27 pm

The Xeon's dont' get the new naming scheme. Only the P4's and P4 Celerons released this summer and later.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 2:34 pm

I didn't say they did.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 12th, 2004, 5:28 pm

woah.. way off topic.. ease it down there guys... I agree with Smartweb, Intel has the same price performance ratio as AMD does.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » June 12th, 2004, 6:01 pm

This would have never gotten off topic if it hadn't been for:

Aggressor Prime wrote:That is where you are wrong. Intel is only good at video encording. Everything else, AMD is top and will remain top because Intel's present architech is failing them. Also, 700 only means it is an EE CPU. And according to my charts:
Athlon 64 3200=Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE
Athlon 64 3400=Pentium 4 3.8GHz EE
Athlon 64 3500=Pentium 4 4.0GHz EE
Athlon 64 3700=Pentium 4 4.4GHz EE
Athlon 64 3800=Pentium 4 4.6GHz EE
Athlon 64 FX-53=Pentium 4 5.0GHz EE

Athlon 64 FX-55 is just around the corner. Smile
That would mean it is as good as a Pentium 4 5.4GHz EE (or greater because of the onbaodr memory controller and the HyperTransport technology).

More statements by Aggressor Prime later on continued to get this thread off topic.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 12th, 2004, 8:06 pm

I too believe that post is false information

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 10:03 pm

I corrected myself later. I now know there is no Desktop 700 series.

As for price/performance, are you saying that a Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE is faster than an Athlon 64 FX-53 Socket 939?

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 12th, 2004, 11:06 pm

64bit vs 32bit.. amd has the advantage there

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 12th, 2004, 11:23 pm

For the last time, 64-Bit is not where the increase of performance comes from. The increase of perfomance comes from the HyperTransport technology and the onboard memory controller.

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 12th, 2004, 11:25 pm

and higher IPC with a shoter pipleine.

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 13th, 2004, 12:26 am

Yeah, that too. I was just naming the performance differences between the K7s and the K8s.

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 13th, 2004, 1:58 am

oih, i thought it was in comparison to the P4. The K8 has a slightly longer pipeline than the K7 (10 K7 vs 12 K8 i think, been awhile) K8= IPC of 11 K7= IPC 9 all P4's= IPC of 6, i am assuming for prescott to, not sure. Prescott= 31stage pipline, Northwood and earlier =20.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 13th, 2004, 2:08 am

Intel too has a lare L2 Cache, same with AMD.. I also in my own opinion, Intel has a more advanced HyperTransport technology than those of AMD processors.. That is just my opinion though

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 13th, 2004, 2:23 am

Uh, Intel doesn't have HyperTransport technology.

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 13th, 2004, 4:04 am

Neo-Tebow2000 wrote:Intel too has a lare L2 Cache, same with AMD.. I also in my own opinion, Intel has a more advanced HyperTransport technology than those of AMD processors.. That is just my opinion though

pure fanboy comment there

HyperTransport is radically different than HyperThreading

visit http://www.hypertransport.org

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » June 19th, 2004, 3:10 pm

lol oh, sorry.. I meant Hyperthreading technology.. Has AMD hit the markets with theirs yet?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » June 19th, 2004, 3:12 pm

AMD does not have high GHz per core yet so they don't need Hyper Threading yet.

monte84 · Post by **monte84** » June 19th, 2004, 3:32 pm

Athlon's wouldn't benefit from HT because they are already an effcient processor, HT is 1) A marketing gimmic 2)just a way for the processor to make up for a lack of IPC, by simulating multiple processors. Since the K8 has nearly twice the IPC of the P4 you can begin to see why it isnt needed on AMD processors (11 vs 6)

ComputerBB

Pentium 4 64-Bit

Pentium 4 64-Bit

just one thing