main

Pentium 4 Reaches the Speed Limit

Daniel Fleshbourne   on 16 November 2004 - 09:39 · 44 comments & 5782 views

Advertisement (Why?)
As expected, Intel has introduced a 3.8GHz Pentium 4 processor in what could represent the end of an era for the chip maker. The Pentium 4 570 processor at 3.8GHz will have the fastest clock speed of any processor available from Intel for an indefinite period. Intel has decided to cancel a planned 4GHz Pentium 4 processor and improve the performance of its desktop chips by adding cache memory.

Intel originally designed the Pentium 4 processor to run at faster and faster clock speeds and for years planned its marketing campaigns around those increases in clock speed. However, this year the company realized that the engineering resources required to eke out additional speed gains could be put to better use. The most recent Pentium 4 processors consume a great deal of power and can produce excessive heat within a PC, requiring additional testing and validation before they can be released.

View: The full story
News source: PCWorld


The major problem of efficient web surfing is organizing favorites and managing links to the web sites we have visited and found to be of interest to us. It is a well known fact that finding the web site that meets our needs and re-visiting it is much more effective than searching the web each time. With growing number of high quality online services it becomes almost impossible to keep the link information well-organized and easy to use. Browser favorites and bookmarks in most cases are not enough to represent complex information exchange models of a human being.
At this point, many of us realize that an application capable of organizing, cataloguing, sorting and synchronizing web links may save the day. But where do we find the one and only solution that would take the browsing headaches away?
Introducing Link Commander by Resort Labs, the unique fully automated links management solution that allows you surf the web easily and visit the places you want to visit, exactly when you need to!
Link Commander integrates with your web browser(s), automatically importing all your current favorites and bookmarks into a links collection. Once this is done, you can organize your links into groups, sort them basing on extensive set of criteria, set individual link verification options and even browse the web right from the application!
The program features convenient classic two panel interface available in five different visual styles and localized to several languages.
Besides link management convenience, Link Commander is capable of password-protecting either entire collection or selected folders only. Another great feature of this application is collection backup and comparison of current and backup copies, which is very useful when you want to synchronize links on home and office PCs. You can also share your links collection with anyone who has an e-mail address.
So why wait any longer? Download FREE 30-days trial version today and see how convenient web browsing can be!

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 44 additional comments
(4 replies) #1 pctuk on 16 Nov 2004 - 09:47
Finally the end of Moore's law?
#1.1 Jugalator on 16 Nov 2004 - 10:40
Depends on how much faster the twin core processors will be and when they'll be released. Could be some bump in the road though, as they're adapting to new technologies, but Moore's Law could very well continue to be true later on.
#1.2 Wrath Delivery on 16 Nov 2004 - 11:07
Not really, Moores law just says the number of transisters in a chip doubles roughly every eighteen months. It doesn't say anything about clock speed. More cache = more transisters = Moores law still alive and well
#1.3 XP-RTM on 16 Nov 2004 - 14:13
P4 is over... but P5 will come out
#1.4 Radium on 16 Nov 2004 - 16:02
The P names are codenames, Pentium Pro/II/III = P6.
Pentium M is similar to P6, I don't know if it is called P6 or something else.
#2 mooodi on 16 Nov 2004 - 09:50
it has finally happend
(4 replies) #3 -=NoX=- on 16 Nov 2004 - 09:52
moores law can never end... there'll be more (Moore's Law, the doubling of transistors every couple of years, has been maintained, and still holds true today)
#3.1 macrosslover on 16 Nov 2004 - 10:08
i think it's 18 months...
#3.2 theyarecomingforyou on 16 Nov 2004 - 17:57
QUOTE
i think it's 18 months...


But in practice it's apparently around every 16 months, I remember reading.
#3.3 Brain_Recall on 16 Nov 2004 - 21:49
No, no, NO! Bad Monkey!

Moor's Law is not a law, not at all. It's mearly a statistical observation an Intel exec (Gordon Moore) observed way back in 1965. Some unkowning press people dubbed it a law. (Even worse is when people throw in the "fact" that computer performance doubles every 18 months like the transistors.)

Besides, it's rarely followed in the semiconductor industry. Sure, CPU's may be close on it, but things like GPU's have far exceeded it and other things like the image sensor of a digital camera are far, far behind.
#3.4 Arcticflare on 17 Nov 2004 - 00:37
Yeah, so "Moore's Law". Got it.
#4 brent3000 on 16 Nov 2004 - 10:11
wow speed limits in the pc world... i guess intel giove the speed tickets
(1 reply) #5 nw_raptor on 16 Nov 2004 - 10:20
in a couple of years we will be ROFLing with this article
#5.1 ~*McoreD*~ on 16 Nov 2004 - 10:56
LOL. That's so true.
#6 leebobs on 16 Nov 2004 - 10:24
Let me be the first to say LOL!
(6 replies) #7 yudi_lks on 16 Nov 2004 - 10:28
No, it's true... It is more and more difficult to make the processor run faster (excessive heating, leakage current, etc etc).. Not until we use more advance transistor structure like 3D transistor, SiGe substrate, SOI, strain Silicon and so on, which are currently being researched....
#7.1 Jugalator on 16 Nov 2004 - 10:38
Well, or using dual cores, like they're going to now. That'll surely make them faster

(at least for applications and games making efficient use of concurrent threads, which not all software is)
#7.2 Wrath Delivery on 16 Nov 2004 - 11:10
Yeah, games developers need to start planning for multicore logic. I'm sure it won't be long before we see multicore processesors (and nevermind 2, i'm talking 4,8,16,32 who knows) becoming the norm. It would seem like a logical step as transistors continue to get smaller...
#7.3 Radium on 16 Nov 2004 - 16:15
Multiple cores creates overhead, so each core would make it less efficient per core.
I don't think that 4 cores will reach desktop market for many many years.

Too much overhead is not good for games and similar software.
#7.4 Turbonium on 16 Nov 2004 - 16:47
What exactly do you mean by overhead? How is this bad for games?
#7.5 theyarecomingforyou on 16 Nov 2004 - 18:01
QUOTE
What exactly do you mean by overhead? How is this bad for games?


Well, the cores have a shared cache so that would create a performance hit.
#7.6 Radium on 16 Nov 2004 - 19:08
Shared memory, and shared cache, I don't think that L1 will be shared as it's pretty small, but L2 cache is already HUGE.

Higher bus traffic equals less smooth execution.

Developers have to spend more time at the base code instead of add more interactive things.
Doom 3 showed that even a single core CPU and cause problem.

I think that 2 cores will be enough for a long period of time. No more than 4 is needed until we have much faster memory.

That's just how I see it.

32 cores in a home computer = crap
(6 replies) #8 Pierreken on 16 Nov 2004 - 11:28
Who knows, maybe in a few years we'll be using a whole different type of processors (organic?)
#8.1 Jugalator on 16 Nov 2004 - 13:06
Yeah, well, we're proof that you can make pretty advanced computers because the brain isn't too large and runs at a steady 37 C / 98.6 F.

Brains work differently though and while being outstanding at some tasks, it sucks at data storage/computing compared to a computer. But with sufficiently advanced technology, I think the brain is proof enough that some kind of combo of these advantages would give us small computers running without cooling. Possibly being even more amazing if we manage to get this deal about quantum mechanics right. Annoying part it'll probably happen a long time after we're dead
#8.2 Mav Phoenix on 16 Nov 2004 - 20:19
^There are those people who can remember every little detail though and do huge calculus problems in their head in a few seconds.
#8.3 paulhaskew on 16 Nov 2004 - 23:59
Star Trek Voyager... gotta love those gel packs!!
#8.4 PCyr on 17 Nov 2004 - 00:52
[QUOTE] Star Trek Voyager... gotta love those gel packs!! [/QUOTE]

Just don't catch a cold around the computer
#8.5 SquareSoft0 on 17 Nov 2004 - 06:33
Ghost in the Shell, 'nuff said.
#8.6 mikill on 17 Nov 2004 - 11:36
"Brains work differently though and while being outstanding at some tasks, it sucks at data storage/computing compared to a computer."

not hardly! maybe ur brain is, but the brain is infinitely more powerful than ALL the computers in the world put TOGETHER! all the data storage devices in the world together couldnt hold as much information as the brain can. get ur facts strait. u need to remember we dont even use hardly any of our overall brain power, its already a well know fact, at least i thought it was for some people.
#9 gabrielsond on 16 Nov 2004 - 12:00
i'm just glad i developed my own quantum computer so i don't have to put up with this nonsense...
#10 neufuse on 16 Nov 2004 - 13:46
screw syncronous clock cycle speeds, asyncronous processors all the way..
#11 AminoSC on 16 Nov 2004 - 14:50
Keep your eye on AMD.
#12 Thrawn on 16 Nov 2004 - 16:04
Noooooooooooooo!
#13 DeepBlade on 16 Nov 2004 - 16:33
i'm glad i OC'd my processor to 5ghz.....
anyone remember that article and video of someone clocking a processor to 5ghz by using cooling the processor using liquid nitrogen? click
(4 replies) #14 Digitalfox on 16 Nov 2004 - 16:37
Bye bye P4, welcome P5
#14.1 Radium on 16 Nov 2004 - 19:09
The P names are codenames, Pentium Pro/II/III = P6.
Pentium M is similar to P6, I don't know if it is called P6 or something else.

P5 is ooold.
#14.2 Colonel_Angus on 16 Nov 2004 - 20:54
P5 = 80586 Pentiums
P6 = 80686 Pentiums & 80686 Celerons
P4 = Pentium 4
#14.3 Radium on 16 Nov 2004 - 21:38
P4 = 80486DX
#14.4 grafXguru on 18 Nov 2004 - 14:58
8088 <-- my first IBM PC
80286
80386
80486

then...
Pentium (80586)
Pentium Pro (80686)
Pentium II (P2) (80786)
Pentium III (P3) (80886)
Pentium 4 (P4) (80986)
(2 replies) #15 Solarix on 17 Nov 2004 - 00:01
only thing i can say to the pc world and everyone else, PWNED!!!1111oneoneonefivesix
#15.1 PCyr on 17 Nov 2004 - 00:54
What are you blabbering about?

Are you running a supercomputer?
#15.2 neufuse on 17 Nov 2004 - 02:53
umm how so? they can still reach 4.0GHz just it's cooling is a lot more complex then what we'd generally use in a home system now, would need to be water cooled at least with the heat dispursion that their test chips gave off.. but just because they hit a clock cycle ocillation limit with the current cooling methods does not mean performance increases have been haulted... they still can increase transisters better pipeing and register improvements, along with pure 64 bit processing (not this extended crap AMD is pushing along with Intel now) and more instructions per cycle will all increase performance. Asyncronous processors also will have a very huge leap in the performance. They do not have a clock cycle because of the lack of a need for a clock (asyncronous doesn't use clock cycles), and then performance will need to be rated with either MIPS or some other rateing system in the future.
#16 tiwaris on 17 Nov 2004 - 11:51
IMO we need to get faster hard disks aka storage devices. They are real bottlenecks for practical use.
So research should be directed to that as well.
#17 ECEGatorTuro on 17 Nov 2004 - 21:22
The thing is that for many years chip manufacturers have made it a point to convince everyone that clock speed is everything... the truth of the matter is that it ISN'T! I'm actually glad that Intel isn't going to make a 4GHz. Chip manufacturers need to concentrate on streamlining the architecture and improving it. MIPS is what's important! I could make you a processor that runs @ 5GHz but it will excute like an old 486 because of the instruction sets and how long they take to execute. Most people don't realize that architectures make a huge difference in your processor. Clock speed is just an added bonus. A good example of this: try doing a multiplication instruction on a Motorolla 68HC11 and then try it on a TI DSP chip at the same clock speed and see which one finishes first!

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.

Advertisement (Why?)