• 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.

The Immediate Intel Future

Vanderpool sounds like a "gee-whiz" feature for the desktop. Something tells me that running multiple instances of an OS is not the most elegant way to maximize system resources.

Still, 64-bit Celerons will help put the pressure on application development by increasing the installed base of x86 64-bit systems. My question is, where's Intel's answer to AMD's 64-bit contender on the mobile side of things?
 
Pretty far off. Still, there's no practical reason to rush it, but still, it doesn't seem right from a marketing sense when the entire desktop lineup will soon be 32/64-bit but no mobiles will have 64-bit capabilities for quite some time.
 
xonik said:
Pretty far off. Still, there's no practical reason to rush it, but still, it doesn't seem right from a marketing sense when the entire desktop lineup will soon be 32/64-bit but no mobiles will have 64-bit capabilities for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Cant a 64 bit P4-M be concocted in a matter of seconds, though? They use prescott cores right?
 
Yeah, but nothing more than desktop replacement. The Mobile Athlon 64 can already span most segments of the mobile market, and the Turion 64 will cover any remaining gaps when that's released.
 
xonik said:
Yeah, but nothing more than desktop replacement. The Mobile Athlon 64 can already span most segments of the mobile market, and the Turion 64 will cover any remaining gaps when that's released.
Click to expand...

But short term fixes are what Intel has been doing since the prescott, so it wouldnt surprise me if they ended up making 64bit P4-M's.
 
AMD doesn't have a real 64 bit mobile CPU yet either... In fact, AMD has never actually produced a true mobile CPU yet. All their mobile CPUs have been slightly modified desktop CPUs, much like the P4-M.
So a 64 bit P4-M would not be a shame... Intel will eventually get it right with Yonah anyway, and AMD probably won't. AMD doesn't have the resources.
 
Scali said:
AMD doesn't have a real 64 bit mobile CPU yet either... In fact, AMD has never actually produced a true mobile CPU yet. All their mobile CPUs have been slightly modified desktop CPUs, much like the P4-M.
So a 64 bit P4-M would not be a shame... Intel will eventually get it right with Yonah anyway, and AMD probably won't. AMD doesn't have the resources.
Click to expand...

The Turion is going to be AMD's attempt, and I'm fairly optimistic about it. I'm also optimistic about the Yonah, just so you know. I think it's amazing that Intel already has a 65nm part running XP.
 
robberbaron said:
Cant a 64 bit P4-M be concocted in a matter of seconds, though? They use prescott cores right?
Click to expand...
A P4-M using a Prescott core!?

Somehow, I don't think that is very likely.
 
Sc4freak said:
A P4-M using a Prescott core!?

Somehow, I don't think that is very likely.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse it with the Pentium M. The P4 M is a slightly modified desktop P4. The Pentium M (part of the Centrino bundle) is a ground up design based on the P6 (PPro/PII/PIII) architecture.
 
I think he's saying that a Prescott-based Pentium 4-M would not be feasible on the mobile front because of its thermal and electrical characteristics.
 
Sc4freak said:
A P4-M using a Prescott core!?

Somehow, I don't think that is very likely.
Click to expand...
No P4-Ms use a Prescott core. Intel makes 2 "mobile" P4s:

Pentium 4-M: the low voltage w/advanced speedstep processor that uses only a little more power than Pentium-Ms on battery power. Maximum speed: 2.5GHz and 400MHz FSB, Northwood core, 21W-35W TDP (full speed on AC power): http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/list.asp?ProcFam=826&CorSpd=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&Pkgtype=ALL . Also called "Mobile Pentium 4-M".

Mobile Pentium 4: the low voltage desktop P4 that uses a lot more power than the P4-M. Maximum speed: 3.46GHz, Northwood and Prescott cores, 60-88W TDP (full speed on AC power): http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/list.asp?ProcFam=1025&CorSpd=ALL&SysBusSpd
 
FreiDOg said:
oh, I'm getting all warm and fuzzy with my AS/400 VM flashbacks...

I do think this a good idea, it's going to be a very niche market on the desktop that actually uses it, but pretty handy for any one using Windows and *nix.
Click to expand...

Think servers, not workstations. OS Virtualization will enable all sorts of wonderful things on servers. Hosting companies will be able to run multiple OS instances for their customers. Data Centers will be able to isolate applications completely by running them on a separate OS instance.

Yes, things like this are already possible with products like VMWare, but support at the hardware level will increase performance and stability while making it easier to implement.
 
xonik said:
Did he not specifically mention "desktop"? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, and I wasn't saying he was wrong about that assessment. I was just pointing out where this really was being marketed to, so that others who had no clue about it would understand :)
 
ThomasE66 said:
Yes, and I wasn't saying he was wrong about that assessment. I was just pointing out where this really was being marketed to, so that others who had no clue about it would understand :)
Click to expand...

It was originally going to be a XEON-only feature; however, I can see some desktop uses for it.

Applications such as VMWare, VirtualPC, etc., attaching specifically to the unused core (right now, neither application takes real advantage of multithreading, let alone additional cores).
 
PGHammer said:
It was originally going to be a XEON-only feature; however, I can see some desktop uses for it.

Applications such as VMWare, VirtualPC, etc., attaching specifically to the unused core (right now, neither application takes real advantage of multithreading, let alone additional cores).
Click to expand...

Oh, I certainly see uses for it to, being a heavy user of both VMWare and Virutal PC. However, that's a tiny niche of desktops, whereas *many* server applications will benefit from hardware level virtualization.

I agree with you more or less. My original comment on the topic was just to point out where this feature was really aimed primarily.
 
pxc said:
No P4-Ms use a Prescott core. Intel makes 2 "mobile" P4s:

Pentium 4-M: the low voltage w/advanced speedstep processor that uses only a little more power than Pentium-Ms on battery power. Maximum speed: 2.5GHz and 400MHz FSB, Northwood core, 21W-35W TDP (full speed on AC power): http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/list.asp?ProcFam=826&CorSpd=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&Pkgtype=ALL . Also called "Mobile Pentium 4-M".

Mobile Pentium 4: the low voltage desktop P4 that uses a lot more power than the P4-M. Maximum speed: 3.46GHz, Northwood and Prescott cores, 60-88W TDP (full speed on AC power): http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/list.asp?ProcFam=1025&CorSpd=ALL&SysBusSpd
Click to expand...
..

Right, but Pentium M is based on the P6 core and has virtually nothing in common with the Pentium 4 M.

Many people get confused about this. Hopefully when the Pentium D comes out, there will be less confusion.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
..

Right, but Pentium M is based on the P6 core and has virtually nothing in common with the Pentium 4 M.

Many people get confused about this. Hopefully when the Pentium D comes out, there will be less confusion.
Click to expand...

They'll just find something else to get confused about ;)
 
That S479 to 478 adapter looks pretty sweet. Does anyone know whether or not it works well? Would you need a BIOS update for the mobo or something to make it work?
 
Should work with P4P800 but needs bios update. P4C800 and P4GD1 support coming.
Don't know about other brands.
 
ThomasE66 said:
Oh, I certainly see uses for it to, being a heavy user of both VMWare and Virutal PC. However, that's a tiny niche of desktops, whereas *many* server applications will benefit from hardware level virtualization.

I agree with you more or less. My original comment on the topic was just to point out where this feature was really aimed primarily.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was indeed aimed at servers (as I pointed out, it was originally planned to be XEON-only); however, there are small businesses that primarily use desktop processors in servers (because XEONs cost too much) and this is where AMD is eating Intel's lunch with budget Opterons, and this is where I see Intel aiming the VT-equipped P4: the small-biz server space.
 
PGHammer said:
Yes, it was indeed aimed at servers (as I pointed out, it was originally planned to be XEON-only); however, there are small businesses that primarily use desktop processors in servers (because XEONs cost too much) and this is where AMD is eating Intel's lunch with budget Opterons, and this is where I see Intel aiming the VT-equipped P4: the small-biz server space.
Click to expand...

Not to start any crap or anything, but Opterons only hold 16% of the small X86 server market. Opterons in this market aren't much cheaper=P Most of the 16% AMD gained, up from 3% they already had with AthlonMP and etc.., Came at the expense of Sun, HP and IBM home grown processors, as the market moved from Big Iron and Tin to smaller systems, sales are flat BTW. Opteron servers are not much cheaper than Xeon Servers. Still not hot-swappable, still low volume, better with some apps, and slower in others. HP and Dell can undercut anyone=P Xeons costing too much sounds more like an old wise tail or something. After almost two years of Opterons, Intel's share of the market went up.
Intle just shipped more 64bit Xeons than AMD has Opterons.

Info taken, IDT research, common news on the TechWeb, ZDNet, CNet, CNN TechWatch and etc..

Donnie
 
wait a second.. Now I'm confused

According to the document, Smithfield will consume up to 130W and draw 125A


125 AMPS?

What power supply puts out 125 Amps?
 
V = I*R and all that.
The CPU runs at a lower voltage than the PSU outputs... which basically means it can draw more amperes than at the voltage the PSU is rated at.
 
Using Watt's Law, P = VI, we can estimate the current draw by dividing the power by input voltage. For this case, a processor consuming 125 W at 130 A has a Vcore of 125/130 = 0.9 6 V. If we knew Vcore and power consumption, we could find the current draw using the same relationship.

What power supply can provide that kind of power? Well, it's up to the motherboard's voltage regulators. It's much easier to deliver 130 A at a voltage of 1 V than if it were at 12 V. As it stands now, the voltage regulators on boards with the 915 and 925 series of Intel chipsets have to deliver upwards of 80 A, so 130 A isn't impossible to deliver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top