• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

prescott 64bit clarification

S

Spearboy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
240
i have been reading about the prescotts and im a little confused as to whats been released about them. From what i gather, they have 64bit technology in them but its not active. Does this mean that they are capable of running in 64bit if there is a supported o/s or program that runs on that technology, or does this mean they will not be able to run 64 bit at all?
 
It means they already have 64-bit extensions embedded into their core but you cannot enable it yourself even with a 64-bit OS. You would have to have one of the new Prescotts where it is enabled and most likely those will be LGA 775. Some said that the reason it wasn't enabled already could be because socket 478 didn't supply enough power but i dunno.
 
From what I read, it's in there...just not activated or enabled. This doesn't seem to be something that can just be turned on....it needs to be enabled by Intel in their factories. Intel doesn't feel it's needed yet...and I mostly agree. There's no real software besides linux stuff available right now that will run on that proc that's 64 bit code. I'm also hearing that the 64 bit XP version has some serious problems....and that it's not anywhere near ready for release.
 
The Xeon cores (Nocona) will probably have it enabled (still on Socket 603). Desktop chips will probably not see x86-64 enabled for a while.
 
Originally posted by FreiDOg
The Xeon cores (Nocona) will probably have it enabled (still on Socket 603). Desktop chips will probably not see x86-64 enabled for a while.
Click to expand...

I dunno how accurate they are but PC Mag and Maximum PC in their roadmaps are showing the Nocona cores late 2nd quarter into the start of third and then Prescott w/ 64-bit extensions enabled in late 3rd quarter along with Microsoft releasing XP-64 3rd quarter.

The Nocono cores WERE due to ship before June 30 but i believe they got slightly delayed.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I doubt Intel waits till next year to enable it but you never know what these microprocessor manufacturers are thinking.
 
i read in Maximum PC that the prescott does not have 64 bit extensions.. This was in an issue that came out like two months ago or so.. i read on the intel website that intel is including 64-bit extensions in their xeon line..
 
Originally posted by RancidWAnnaRIot
i read in Maximum PC that the prescott does not have 64 bit extensions.. This was in an issue that came out like two months ago or so.. i read on the intel website that intel is including 64-bit extensions in their xeon line..
Click to expand...
Its the same core. Maximum PC was wrong.
Not the first time...

One of the gaming mags had an article about consoles and routers, talking about routers share internet between PC and consoles, so you can use a router to game over cable, DSL or satellite...

???

Satellite?

Maybe if you're playing poker on a PS2... or some turn based game...
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
I dunno how accurate they are but PC Mag and Maximum PC in their roadmaps are showing the Nocona cores late 2nd quarter into the start of third and then Prescott w/ 64-bit extensions enabled in late 3rd quarter along with Microsoft releasing XP-64 3rd quarter.

The Nocono cores WERE due to ship before June 30 but i believe they got slightly delayed.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I doubt Intel waits till next year to enable it but you never know what these microprocessor manufacturers are thinking.
Click to expand...

Well, they may have changed their mind, but Intel has said there is no firm plan right now for 64 bit prescotts (atleast to the general public).

Previously it was believed that all Prescott processors in LGA775 packaging, such as Intel Pentium 4 E, would sport EM64T, but Intel denied such claim.

Intel said it would ship Prescott processors with 64-bit capability for 1P applications only to system integrators requesting such microprocessors for their servers and workstations. Although all Prescott CPUs, including Intel Pentium 4 and Celeron, are 64-bit from micro-architectural standpoint, processors supplying for retail channels as well as for typical desktops will have their 64-bit capability disabled.

Intel deems that 64-bit chips should be plugged into widely used desktop and laptop computers only when there is suitable operating system, particularly Microsoft Windows, as well as broad portfolio of drivers for various types of hardware are available. Santa Clara, California-based chip giant believes that users who may decide to install trial version of currently obtainable Microsoft Windows 2003 Server for 64-bit Extended Systems as well as drivers from various companies for this OS may eventually put too much pressure on technical support of PC makers because neither the operating system nor drivers are completely baked to ship to clients.
Click to expand...

XBit Labs

Even if we see XP64 for x86-64 this year, i'd be surprised to see x86-64 enabled Prescotts this year. Even after you get windows, and decent hardware support, software will be very spotty at best.
Intel is treating this as a niche market in the desktop. A market they already exploit pretty well with the high end P4 EE chips, and i doubt they want to see $200 desktop chips cutting into their 1P Xeon systems.
 
yamhill tech is definately in prescott and nocona (intel has said this), nocona will be intels first chip with it activated, prescott will probably follow several months later as so not to cut in on nocona's sales as much.
 
Originally posted by RancidWAnnaRIot
i read in Maximum PC that the prescott does not have 64 bit extensions.. This was in an issue that came out like two months ago or so.. i read on the intel website that intel is including 64-bit extensions in their xeon line..
Click to expand...

Which issue was that? I save all my issues and i dont remember reading that. They were just talking about Prescotts 64-bit extensions in the May issue and PC Mag shows Prescott in 3rd quarter and Anandtech also showed Prescott 64-bit CPU's this year in their roadmaps when they even first announced the Nocona Xeon cores w/ EM64T. Intel hasn't said much about their 64-bit desktop chips but they haven't denied it or said that they wouldn't ither. They said there wasn't a need without a 64-bit OS.

Microsoft is suppost to release xp-64 in 3rd quarter and Intel is saying they will release when there is a 64-bit OS and there will be one then so it just stands to reason Prescott will show up with 64-bit extensions around 3rd quarter. Intel wont sit back if there is a windows 64-bit version out retail that everyone is wanting to use. If the public wants it its going to get released, simple as that.
 
MAX PC issue March 2004 Vol, 9 No 3.

The cover is yellow it has a house. It say's "The perfect Wireless network" bottom left coner has a picture of a P4 and then it's scratched out and it has a P5 written.

Look at page 31, bottom left coner. It's a question then an answer.

Question :
Are the rumors true that dormant 64-bit support extensions have been tucked into Prescott?

Answer:
Despite many rumors circulating on the internet, Intel has continued to publicly deny that 64-bit extensions are hidden in the Prescott......
 
Maximum PC was running on old info. Intel has denied 64bit the entire time only to come out and state that it does have it.

Its not like they can just flip it on as an afterthought, they denied it the entire time even tho it was in there from the start. At least the start of this released Prescott core... could be they junked one version at some point and never changed the name.

As the mags have a certain amount of dead time between writing the articles, print and distribution, it is entirely likely that they're info was 100% correct, according to their sources at Intel, at the time the mag went into print.

Then Intel made the announcement and made Maximum PC look foolish...
 
Originally posted by RancidWAnnaRIot
Ok well, MAX PC didn't give a definate answer.. but at the time Intel was saying no.. heheh..
Click to expand...

Yea i remember reading that lol. Intel usually always denys new stuff like this until right up till time to get ready to release it. Usually the information about things whether they be rumors or not come from those that have close ties with Intel or someone that would be in a good place to say what Intel is working on. Its not ALWAYS true but then again sometimes it is.

As far as what i'm seeing right now, 64-bit extended Prescott's are almost a sure thing for 3rd and 4th quarter IF Microsoft releases their XP-64 in 3rd quarter. They've still got alot of bugs to work out of the current shitactular beta.
 
i thought xp-64 was not going to work with intels processors. Is this true or will microsoft get it working stable by the time the release it
 
Originally posted by 0ldman
Its the same core. Maximum PC was wrong.
Not the first time...

One of the gaming mags had an article about consoles and routers, talking about routers share internet between PC and consoles, so you can use a router to game over cable, DSL or satellite...

???

Satellite?

Maybe if you're playing poker on a PS2... or some turn based game...
Click to expand...

They are likely referring to two-way satellite services such as DIRECWAY. This has *long* been possible with cable and DSL (or even *dial8up*, as soft routers such as Sygate have proven for years) so why would satellite make it impossible (especially in the case of where both inbound and outbound travel via the dish)?

Even if the return path were telco-based, it would *still* be possible (most residential DSL is asymmetrical in nature; same applies to most residential cable modem services), and V.90 and V.92 are also asymmetrical. So that dog doesn't hunt.
 
Originally posted by Spearboy
i thought xp-64 was not going to work with intels processors. Is this true or will microsoft get it working stable by the time the release it
Click to expand...

EM64T is identical to AMD64 in every way but a few minor differences primarily on Intel's part to it. Nothing that will make it incompatible with XP-64. Intel has already said on their site that their 64-bit extended chips will be compatible with the AMD 64-bit chips on the same OS. The few changes intel has made to it may or may not play much of a role in how certain software performs. Intel doesn't guarantee all software to be compatible with both chips but i'm sure there will be a workaround for this if there is a conflict. But i bet you can guess which version software vendors are waiting to optimize their code for considering how Intel is still holding over a 83% desktop market share even with AMD's 64-bit chips out.
 
Originally posted by PGHammer
They are likely referring to two-way satellite services such as DIRECWAY. This has *long* been possible with cable and DSL (or even *dial8up*, as soft routers such as Sygate have proven for years) so why would satellite make it impossible (especially in the case of where both inbound and outbound travel via the dish)?
Click to expand...
low latencies rank in about 500ms, average latencies while in use are around 850-1000ms.
Never used a satellite based system have you?
Even if the return path were telco-based, it would *still* be possible (most residential DSL is asymmetrical in nature; same applies to most residential cable modem services), and V.90 and V.92 are also asymmetrical. So that dog doesn't hunt.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, 28.8 dialup plays better games than satellite of any nature. PS2 and Xbox seem to allow for dial up latencies, but once you start sending data on satellite sytems latencies climb high. While trying to play Unreal Tournament over satellite latencies jumped over 1800ms. needless to say it didn't work with nearly a 2 second delay.

You can use a router to share satellite based internet, however you usually lose the acceleration software that keeps transmission speeds up, compensating for the latency. Gaming over satellite is all but impossible, and I can't think of any PS2 or Xbox games that are even turn based, which really is the only game that would work.

I've had a satellite system and have several clients that do as well. It is a nice way to get broadband for office use or general browsing, it is not for gaming. Even those damn Yahoo games, pool, poker, etc, do not work properly over high latency connections.

Research it a bit before you start arguing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top