Dual-Core Pentium 4 “Prescott” Processors on the Horizon

Advertisement (Why?)

Intel Corporation may release dual-core Pentium 4 “Prescott” processors in late 2005, a report over Geek.com web-site claims. If the information is correct, the roadmap of the world’s largest manufacturer of central processing units gets completely reshuffled once again.

Dual-Core Prescott Spotted

At the Intel/PC Magazine-sponsored Technology for Business Today seminar in Washington, D.C., Intel representatives discussed the present and future of computers touching upon the modern and next-generation microprocessors. The firm’s officials reiterated the company’s plans to issue dual-core processors in 2005 and even shed some light on the technical information about the chips. Apparently, the desktop processors will continue to utilize the NetBurst architecture and at this point such central processing units are referred as dual-core Prescott microprocessors. Mobile dual-core chips will have architecture similar to that of the Pentium M products available today. Such products may also find themselves in desktops, though, the premier performance will be offered only by dual-core NetBurst products.

News source: X-bit labs

Hello All,

We are currently looking to recruit trialists, for a trial of a new Internet Browser Toolbar. The trial is scheduled to begin around the end of June and will run until everyone has completed their script.

There are however a couple of requirements you need to be aware of:

*We only require trialists who have Windows 2000 or XP (if you have
anything different please advise)

*We are only looking for 100 trialists mixed across all tiers, so
recruitment will be done on first come basis.

I hope you would like to participate in the trial, and if so, please reply to this mail to advise.

thanks
NTL

(3 replies) #1 Gary_Player on 10 Jun 2004 - 22:58

They cant dissapate the heat made by one core how are they gonna deal with 2!

#1.1 Mav Phoenix on 10 Jun 2004 - 23:19

Liquid cooling?

#1.2 Mean Mr Mustard on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:48

Move to Antarctica?

#1.3 Gary_Player on 11 Jun 2004 - 03:37

LOL I figured some smart-aleck would be like "well actually they'll shrink the die size and blah blah blah stupid noob blah blah blah"...You guys made my day

#2 velkymx on 10 Jun 2004 - 23:06

how about a Dothan in a desktop socket?

(1 reply) #3 Daedalus on 10 Jun 2004 - 23:31

I thought we were going to see a complete move over to the Pentium M architecture for desktop chips?

#3.1 Octol on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:05

That's what I understood also.

#4 Coolme on 10 Jun 2004 - 23:38

a 200 watt dual core processor!! Ouch.

#5 SIG on 10 Jun 2004 - 23:41

Hehe, good stuff here!

#6 Inspire on 10 Jun 2004 - 23:46

That's POWER...

(6 replies) #7 N@t5 on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:03

Will these have HT to simulate 4 processors?
Isnt Windows XP only licensed for 2 processors?

#7.1 Mav Phoenix on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:53

2 Physical.

#7.2 xStainDx on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:53

QUOTE (#7.0)

Four 64-bit Microprocessors?

Intel reportedly said that with the HyperThreading technology enabled operating systems will report availability of four microprocessors into the system when a single dual-core Prescott is installed. Representatives also confirmed that future Prescott products will feature 64-bit capability.

There's your answer, it helps to read the artical.

Windows XP Professional can handle 2 Physical CPU's.

If these are DUAL CORE then it can handle it. 4 Logical CPU's.

HyperThreading "Logical" CPU"s do not count against the user license limit.

#7.3 y_notm on 11 Jun 2004 - 03:13

QUOTE (#7.2)

HyperThreading "Logical" CPU"s do not count against the user license limit.

that only applies to Windows XP, windows 2000 still each logical CPU as a physical one

#7.4 xStainDx on 11 Jun 2004 - 04:23

Windows 2000 should not be still being deployed in new computers by the time this comes to existance anyway. I know what you're talking about, but its a moot point.

#7.5 Mando on 11 Jun 2004 - 09:20

actually W2k works the same as XP with HT cpus. Well W2k server does deffo havnt checked out W2k pro yet.

my dual Xeon 2.4 server here @work is recognised as 4 CPUs in W2k server

#7.6 xStainDx on 11 Jun 2004 - 15:58

Thats not true at all, the reason it works is because W2K Server can handle up to 4 Physical CPU's. If you Tried doing a 4 Physical CPU system with HT (8 Logical CPU's) it will not work.

(11 replies) #8 Boz on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:04

Intel is lost. They don't know what to do anymore. First they talk about how 64bit is insignificant, now they are introducing 64bit instructions themselves. They've changed their roadmap 3 times so far. It is obvious that they are being slammed by incompetent leadership. AMD is producing some kick ass stuff and keeps doing things as planned, while Intel looks like a chaotic giant who doesn't know what route to take anymore. They are in major trouble if they don't clean their sh*t and I mean soon.

#8.1 tiagosilva29 on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:30

I say: let AMD pwn Intel!

#8.2 Mav Phoenix on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:55

And of course you are the authority in the business world in regard to Intel? I hope they check with you before they make any more boo boos.

#8.3 ANova on 11 Jun 2004 - 01:32

Yeah, that's it.

#8.4 Boz on 11 Jun 2004 - 04:31

QUOTE (#8.2)

Well Mav Phoenix, I worked with big companies and I run my own company so I have some inside in what competent management looks like and how they do business. I don't have to run Intel to see that there's something wrong.

#8.5 Mav Phoenix on 11 Jun 2004 - 05:18

I think their bottom line would disagree with your assessment.

#8.6 Boz on 11 Jun 2004 - 09:36

dude in almost last 2 years Intel has been losing money, and that lost actually increased once they opened the factory in Chandler, AZ. Prescotts suck, at least for now and that was a clear miss on top of every other crap. Even Centrino didn't bring them that much money as they hoped for. Too many desktop replacement models lowered the prices and they got sidekicked. Release timing sucked. So yes, their management has some issues for sure. Somebody is going to get fired, you just watch.

#8.7 Beast_4thHM on 11 Jun 2004 - 10:06

Intel been losing money? can you bring a single quarter report that shows that? I double dare you

#8.8 xStainDx on 11 Jun 2004 - 15:59

QUOTE (#8.7)

I double dog infinity dare you!

#8.9 Trek234 on 11 Jun 2004 - 19:03

Uhhh... it's called the stock market smart ones. Their share price has been steadily going down from the start of this year.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/analyst/earnest.asp?Page=EarningsGrowthRates&Symbol=INTC

Look at the earnings for the last FIVE YEARS. It's in the red 3.10% - they are earning less and less money over the past 5 years. That's not exactly raking in the profits now is it? If they can't get themselves out of the red in earnings they will NOT be making money in the future.

So yes geniuses, they have been losing money with earnings in the RED.

Oh - and look at the insider trading. Looks like the execs are jumping ship with the incredible 3 buys and (for a whopping couple thousand each) and 17 sells (for mostly a couple million each) from October 03 to present. Good sign, huh?

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insider/trans.asp?Symbol=INTC

Last edited by 29099 on 11 Jun 2004 - 19:17

#8.10 Beast_4thHM on 11 Jun 2004 - 19:20

Funny.... share price 34% up in last 12 months....
I guess you never seen one of those sites before

#8.11 Trek234 on 11 Jun 2004 - 20:55

Share price and earnings are two different things. It was asked rather or not Intel was making money. The answer is no - they are not.

Don't worry - I'm pretty sure economics is a required class in grade school. After you do you'll learn there is more to judging a company than the little graph.

#9 area91 on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:12

Holy shiznit!

(11 replies) #10 Ecander™ on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:40

/me is returning to AMD land

Once quality socket 939 mobos flood the market.

#10.1 xStainDx on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:54

You go back to AMD, while I sit and use my 4 Processor HT Machine. Ok?

#10.2 slapnuts_ox on 11 Jun 2004 - 02:23

im currently living in AMD land where it is nice and cool. enjoy your nice and hot p4 system.

#10.3 ~*McoreD*~ on 11 Jun 2004 - 02:30

my P4 3.00ghx is running at 37 degrees Celcius with just fans. What's yours slapnuts_ox?

#10.4 xStainDx on 11 Jun 2004 - 02:43

last I checked my Northwood was running about 40Degree on Full Load..

#10.5 Phil Gates on 11 Jun 2004 - 07:07

35c while OC'd from 2500+ speeds to 3200+ speeds

#10.6 sadatkarim on 11 Jun 2004 - 13:12

hah nice Phil!

Even though your current P4 systems are running cool, but once they switch to dual core wouldn't that heat things up a bit? Since its twice the power consumption?

#10.7 Fanon on 11 Jun 2004 - 13:36

QUOTE (#10.1)

Considering that Intel's mainstream HT chips are finding it hard to keep up, 4 logical CPUs may boost the performance up to par.

#10.8 VikingStorm on 11 Jun 2004 - 14:16

Guys, don't forget, not everything supports/uses HT yet (still).

#10.9 Ecander™ on 11 Jun 2004 - 16:23

I only based my response based on I wanted to see Netburst Die! My 3.57Ghz 2.8E Prescott runs at 41idle 45 load

So heat wasnt an issue just performance

#10.10 slapnuts_ox on 11 Jun 2004 - 17:44

"my P4 3.00ghx is running at 37 degrees Celcius with just fans. What's yours slapnuts_ox?"

my 2400+ @ 2.2Ghz is running on air cooling at 36C....on full load it hits 44C

#10.11 Fanon on 11 Jun 2004 - 23:35

QUOTE (#10.

True. However, I buy products based upon the performance I'll get now - not 3 to 4 years down the road.

(1 reply) #11 voidunknown on 11 Jun 2004 - 00:54

I dont understand dual core processors. Whats the advantage? Is it 2x P4 3.2GHz CPU's in 1? Will it clock at 6.4GHz or 3.2GHz?

#11.1 Mav Phoenix on 11 Jun 2004 - 01:33

Read up on SMP (Symetric Multi Processing).

#12 ANova on 11 Jun 2004 - 01:39

I find it sad that Intel is sticking with the Prescott instead of moving over to the Pentium M architecture. And now they are removing hyperthreading from them so they have something to push the Prescott as the leading performer. My guess is they invested so much money into developing the Prescott and the Tejas that canceling both would result in a fairly large loss. I doubt there is any truth to their "Dothan unable to use HT" excuse.

#13 ~*McoreD*~ on 11 Jun 2004 - 02:28

Man four 64-bit processors! that's gonna be mad.

#14 Silver Dragon on 11 Jun 2004 - 03:56

I'm surprised... I figured that Apple and IBM would release a multi-core system well before anyone else. Based on the problems IBM is having, I would expect that there's no chance that will happen.

Not a huge Intel fan, but this is a good thing. I'm a big fan of multiple cores, and hopefully AMD will follow suit.

#15 xStainDx on 11 Jun 2004 - 05:56

Please Be Aware of this:

UPDATE: A representative for Intel Corporation told X-bit labs the company had never released any precise details in regards the dual-core strategy. The information published herein should not be considered as based on official statements.

(2 replies) #16 elliot on 11 Jun 2004 - 10:50

Intel will have a 10 core, quad-HT, quad quad pumped FSB cpu running at 25THz, and the athlon xp 4000 will just about equal the performance

Do any of Intels big numbers actually do anything?

#16.1 xStainDx on 11 Jun 2004 - 16:01

if its 10 Core you ass. it would be 20 Logical CPU's.

Following your logic we've lost hmmmm... 16 Logical CPU's somewhere..

#16.2 bkleven on 11 Jun 2004 - 16:37

No, you numbskull, he's suggesting one core will have enhanced HT to emulate FOUR processors, showing a total of 40 to the OS.

But it's irrelevant anyway, since the whole point of his post was to be somewhat absurd in the first place.

(1 reply) #17 CrimandEvil on 11 Jun 2004 - 11:17

Okay

If I lived in Alaska or some other place equally cold then I'd build a dual core Prescott box to help stay warm. Other then that I'm definitely staying with AMD for the next few years (until Intel figures out that I can't have something as hot as the surface of the Sun under my desk).

I thought they were moving to the Pentium M arch. WTF? I was actually wanting to see that and build a nice box with one, and thats something since I'm an AMD kind of guy.
Maybe someone could remind me why people buy Intel again?

#17.1 Fanon on 11 Jun 2004 - 13:40

I agree. I would have considered building an Intel based machine with a Dothan. Looks like I won't be doing that after all. Dothan certainly is the better archie when compared to Prescott. Intel is stupid not to base their high performance systems on it. HT, while a good tech, isn't necessary. AMD does not have HT technology, yet the AMD64 performs just as well (and better) than mainstream Intel HT CPUs. Do we need HT for performance? Nope. This is a good example of allowing marketting to take over production.

(1 reply) #18 ~Greeno~ on 11 Jun 2004 - 11:44

I forgot how good these fan boy arguments were

#18.1 MegaManXcalibur on 11 Jun 2004 - 20:45

Yeah it's amazing how pasionate some of the fanboys get. It's actually rather interesting to read.

(3 replies) #19 Radium on 11 Jun 2004 - 12:50

Kids, go to school and come back when you know enough.

#19.1 sadatkarim on 11 Jun 2004 - 14:52

Whats up with you?

#19.2 xStainDx on 11 Jun 2004 - 16:02

Already went to school. ::points to my degree::

#19.3 Radium on 11 Jun 2004 - 17:25

LOL!

xStainDx, go back once again!

Just look at the comments...

#20 Wake6830 on 11 Jun 2004 - 14:44

i thought the point of dual-cores was that you could lower the clock speed (and thus the heat produced) but still have comparable if not better performance.

(2 replies) #21 lexor on 11 Jun 2004 - 14:49

from OS point of view Dual core will be just like HT is right now, so if HT makes no big difference except in a few very specific apps, why would dual core be any better?

#21.1 bkleven on 11 Jun 2004 - 16:43

You are sort of mixing and munging ideas in your post, so you aren't really on the right track.

Dual (or multi) core processors are NOT just like HT, they will perform better (versus HT) because HT is basically just additional hardware structures to fool the OS into thinking there are multiple processors.

However, the only way HT or multi-core processors provide any real value is if you use lots of apps that are multi-threaded or you like to run several processor hogging apps at once.

In other words, for joe user (not joe gamer or joe engineer), HT and multi-core are really not that important yet.

Joe gamer and Joe engineer are a different story, and their story is longer.

#21.2 lexor on 11 Jun 2004 - 19:57

not exactly, all dual core is, is makeing HT from logical to physical concept. software has to be written using multithread libraries which most languages have. however take XVID encoder for example, it's a single threaded application, and they said it won't change in any foreseeable future. thus my 42 hour single CPU encode will remain 42 hour with dual core CPU, just like it remains 42 hours with current 2xXeon setup. (1 of the Xeons simply idles)

the dual core will hit the same wall as the HT CPU and Dual CPU boards, software for Joe User/Gamer/Media-Editor/Encoder not written to support it.

thus only Joe Engineer is happy with his CAD/3dsmax/fluid mechanics simulations.

#22 tom5 on 11 Jun 2004 - 18:23

Reshuffled? I read here some time ago that there will be 2 core P4s in 2005.

#23 theLANDofSMEG on 12 Jun 2004 - 04:04

or alternatively, if you wanted dual-core, you could just buy 2 P4s so you don't need to have to use the extra core for extra money that you don't need.

(1 reply) #24 MicroZombies on 12 Jun 2004 - 22:16

Ok so Intel made a mistake with the Itanium. They decided to Re-Verse Engineer the AMD64. Might I point out that this is the FIRST TIME that Intel has felt the need to do so. Now lets look at AMD. Hmmm... Who invented the "x86"
Architecture -> INTEL . AMD has been Copying Intel since DAY ONE!!! Remember when Intel came out with MMX - what did AMD do soon after "3D Now". Come on its always been "follow the leader" - Congradulations AMD you succeeded in beating Intel to the Innovation Punch for the First Time - thats all!!!! I guarantee that the next generation of "Prescott" is going to POUND AMD64!!!!

#24.1 trigxine on 14 Jun 2004 - 17:36

To that, I say this: only the strong survive.

Who created the PC hardware architecture that eventually became what we know? IBM. But they didn't patent it while they could. So others came, did it better, did it cheaper, and bang -- IBM's not a major player anymore. Just as IBM failed to keep on top of innovation and price, so Intel made the same mistakes. Regardless of their past performance, the here and now is that Intel has fallen behind because of complacency, and just as the clones replaced the IBM boxes, so, too are AMD and Transmeta going to do in the microprocessor business.

#25 MicroZombies on 16 Jun 2004 - 23:17

Hmm... last time I checked AMD didn't even make Chipsets For thier Processors - Yeah they really have it together - not all just a bunch of Marketing Hype!

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