Intel Preps New Pentium 4 Processors

Advertisement (Why?)

Intel is planning to introduce over the coming months eight new Pentium 4 processors utilizing a new packaging technique. Among the new chips will be the company's first workstation processors with 64-bit extensions technology, according to a document posted on Intel's Web site. The forthcoming chips were revealed within a Product Change Notification (PCN) document posted to Intel's Web site that contained details about power management and security enhancements planned for the Pentium 4. Hardware enthusiast Web side XbitLabs.com first reported on the document. Intel regularly distributes PCNs to hardware developers and customers to inform them of upcoming changes to existing products or plans to discontinue older products.

Coming Soon

Five of the eight new chips will launch alongside the Grantsdale and Alderwood chipsets on June 21, an Intel spokesperson confirms. Grantsdale and Alderwood are new chipsets that come with support for the PCI Express interconnect technology and DDR2 memory. Those five Pentium 4 chips will be introduced at clock speeds ranging from 2.8 GHz to 3.6 GHz. They will be labeled with Intel's new processor numbering system, starting with a 520 label for the 2.8-GHz chip and scaling up to a 560 label for the 3.6-GHz chip, according to the PCN.

News source: PCWorld.com

Beta Feedback
To submit a bug report, go to the Submit a Bug Report page at http://msdn.microsoft.com/vfoxpro/support/default.aspx. Please do not contact technical support for questions since the public beta is unsupported and is to be used as-is. Refer to various FoxPro community resources for Visual FoxPro 9.0 beta technical questions, see http://msdn.microsoft.com/vfoxpro/communit...ty/default.aspx.

#1 sumeet on 04 Jun 2004 - 22:13

3.6???? *drools*

(5 replies) #2 DJ Prem on 04 Jun 2004 - 22:27

I find their new number system confusing they should have stuck to the speed unlike AMD

#2.1 Radium on 04 Jun 2004 - 23:20

Both would be good, don't you think?

"Pentium 4 560 - 3.6 GHz"

#2.2 Mav Phoenix on 04 Jun 2004 - 23:54

^I don't think so. They need an independent board to test all CPUs and then give them a rating number. That would be better than any marketing from any company.

#2.3 cracell~ on 05 Jun 2004 - 03:21

ya i think a standard benchmarker needs to be down, in which the processors are tested with the major chipsets, and other equipment, test them with a variety of different programs, and then take all the results and give it some average score, complicated and probaly expensive, but currently the numbers aren't telling u hardly anything, and when they do u have to stop and think

also didn't intel say like 6 months ago that desktops weren't ready for 64 bit when amd released theirs?

I think somebody was lieing, lol

#2.4 Mav Phoenix on 05 Jun 2004 - 03:42

^Intel is a big company, I don't think the left hand knows what the right is doing sometimes, especially when it comes to the press.

#2.5 Octol on 05 Jun 2004 - 08:27

QUOTE

Both would be good, don't you think?
"Pentium 4 560 - 3.6 GHz"

I think that's exactly how it's going to play out. Even if Intel doesn't list clock speeds in its literature, you can bet that all the hardware vendors will be noting them in their sales material.

Best of both worlds if you ask me.

#3 lexor on 05 Jun 2004 - 00:33

this is off the wall perhaps but does anyone know what DDR1 memory speeds Grantsdale supports? only upto 400MHz or more?

(2 replies) #4 no-sweat on 05 Jun 2004 - 03:20

so how does this new numbering system work? how do they get 560 out of 3.6ghz? i mean come on, now someone says "hey i have a 560".. im going to have to look it up to figure out how fast it is... there has to be some method to their madness..... anyone??

#4.1 Octol on 05 Jun 2004 - 08:37

The new numbering system is basically a relative rating of work performed.

A P4 Extreme Edition processor rated at 3.2GHz with 2MB of L2 cache will seriously outperform a standard P4 3.2 GHz processor with 512KB L2 cache. Ergo, the P4 EE gets the higher number, even though they both run at the same clock speed.

#4.2 lexor on 05 Jun 2004 - 15:12

aha then why is Pentium M 2GHz rated 755, and Pentium 4 with a 2MB L2 Cache, running on a 1066MHz FSB, clocked at 3.73GHz is rated 720?

no bloody way PM outperforms it (that's Dothan PM which we already know performance off compared to current P4 EE)

#5 hardgiant on 05 Jun 2004 - 05:40

I really don't care what model number or what clock it runs at.

The only thing that matters is how fast can it run apps and how much does it cost.

Right now overclocking an Athlon XP 2500+ is the best solution for anyone looking for bang for your buck

(1 reply) #6 Mr. Black on 05 Jun 2004 - 10:07

I swear too many new processors come out in too short of a time period....

#6.1 NinjaOfLove on 05 Jun 2004 - 15:00

That's for sure. I just now upgraded to Socket A for all of my 'puters.

Of course AMD and Intel would like everyone to think that's woefully obselete.

(2 replies) #7 Wake6830 on 05 Jun 2004 - 16:17

The new numbering system is retarded. You can only have relative names when the name is relative to something, like when AMD starting doing the 2500+ - it was relative to the Intel chips. Now if both companies have such a naming scheme, who can tell what it means without doing their own benchmarks?

This sounds to me like an easy way to get consumers confused and make them buy things they don't need or want.

#7.1 Skyfrog on 05 Jun 2004 - 18:54

it was relative to the Intel chips.

No, actually it wasn't. It was relative to the original Athlon Thunderbird.

#7.2 Mav Phoenix on 05 Jun 2004 - 23:25

^The public didn't think so.

(1 reply) #8 Gary_Player on 07 Jun 2004 - 13:05

I think instead of random modeling numbers they should make each one a price/performance ratio

Heh, then everyone would probably buy AMD though

nah, intel has gotten alot better with their pricing...although AMD has gotten quite a bit worse

#8.1 ~Greeno~ on 08 Jun 2004 - 11:58

That'd be stupid though, because each chip would have a multitude of 'names/numbers' throughout its life cycle..

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net