Intel Preps Onslaught with New Pentium 4 Processors 600

Advertisement (Why?)

Makers of mainboards, systems and other computer hardware equipment are reportedly testing the new Intel Corp.’s Pentium 4 processors with enhanced performance and functionality, according to various sources in Taiwan. Intel Pentium 4 processors series 600 are expected to be positioned for high-end and performance-mainstream market segments in Q1 2005. The new microprocessors will be based on the Prescott 2M core that brings 2MB L2 cache, Intel EM64T, Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology (EIST) as well as Execute Disable Bit (EDB) capability. The chips will be clocked at 3.20GHz, 3.40GHz, 3.60GHz and 3.80GHz and will be intended for infrastructure supporting 800MHz Quad Pumped Bus and TDP of up to 115W.

View: The full story

News source: Xbit Labs

The API adds the following advanced search options to Google Desktop's basic search terms:

date (within the last year, month, or week; or between two specific dates)
item type (file, AIM, e-mail, or web page)
file extension
file name
folder name (with subfolders on/off)
what the web site address contains
what a web site is titled
who an e-mail is from
the subject of an e-mail
who an AIM conversation was with
text in an item

(1 reply) #1 Mx² on 04 Jan 2005 - 11:39

Sounds good to me

#1.1 divertom15 on 04 Jan 2005 - 18:56

sounds like a desprate move

(2 replies) #2 thenay on 04 Jan 2005 - 11:43

Nice but why not a 1ghz bus support... grr!

#2.1 ripgut on 04 Jan 2005 - 14:02

sorry but i jumped from 533 to 800fsb, not a noticeable difference so i think a jump from 800fsb to 1ghz fsb may not be noticeable as well. But then i could be wrong

these suckers are gonna be a heat problem, i have a 3ghz prescott right now and kinda regret it.

#2.2 goatsniffer on 05 Jan 2005 - 19:54

1ghz fsb won't make a difference if that computer is using DDR dual-channel @ 400mhz. Unless it is using some kind of dual channel DDR2 the computer will just be wasting power for that extra 200mhz on the FSB.

(3 replies) #3 nw_raptor on 04 Jan 2005 - 11:43

EDB is what Windows call DEP? Or is this different?

#3.1 Quick Reply on 04 Jan 2005 - 12:25

Correct, EDB(Execute Disable Bit) = DEP(Data Execution Prevention)

#3.2 alister on 04 Jan 2005 - 19:25

Intel wanted to give it a new name so that it will look like they came up with some new technology when they did not

Alister

#3.3 SquareSoft0 on 06 Jan 2005 - 04:40

Alister, nice trolling post, AMD has the same technology. They are two seperate things, EDB is hardware-based and DEP is software-based, while your post is troll-based.

#4 Boogiman on 04 Jan 2005 - 12:33

Wow, 115Watts. Can I hear heat problem?

#5 Fat Tony on 04 Jan 2005 - 13:05

Well that will sort out the heat problem in the Winter months 115W is enough to warm your room to a comfortable temperature...

(9 replies) #6 bucko on 04 Jan 2005 - 13:13

QUOTE

Intel EM64T

Does that mean it has 64Bit extensions like AMD 64? Is this the first Intel chip apart from Xeon to have 64Bit. If so I smell XP 64 comming out soon!!!! YAY!!! Am getting a AMD64Bit laptop in FEB 25th so want to make full use of it

#6.1 Sykil on 04 Jan 2005 - 13:26

No, I don't think this is the first.

EM64T *is* AMD64 by a different name. It really sucks that such a dominant corporation can't make up their own technology.

#6.2 bucko on 04 Jan 2005 - 13:32

It really sucks that such a dominant corporation can't make up their own technology

No comment

#6.3 Fagutish on 04 Jan 2005 - 13:38

Why would you want to have two competing and incompatible 64bit extensions?

Now that would suck.

#6.4 reKoiL on 04 Jan 2005 - 13:42

im wif u on that one fagutish

#6.5 Radium on 04 Jan 2005 - 14:56

Microsoft decided to support AMD because AMD was first to market with their extension, that's why Intel had to abort theirs and copy AMD, to make their CPUs COMPATIBLE!

Why would Intel make their own? The only way to make it compatible is to copy.
The extension itself is really small. AMD have copied Intel for many many years and Intel copy too little in my opinion, 3DNow! for example.

#6.6 equinox_76 on 04 Jan 2005 - 15:00

For all I know, AMD did the same back when Intel released MMX and SSE, AMD came up with 3DNow! which did basically the same thing.....

#6.7 ev0| on 04 Jan 2005 - 16:00

wrong. 3dnow are additional instructions that intel does not support. Amd has those in addition to MMX and SSE and SSE2, which it also supports (SSE3 coming soon too)

#6.8 BeyondGodlike on 04 Jan 2005 - 16:47

grrr i just bought an amd3500+ to
although id imagine these new intel chips will cost 2x as much

#6.9 ishtar on 05 Jan 2005 - 11:16

Not only that 3dnow blew away anything intel offered then , it was a giant step towards 3d graphics for games.

(1 reply) #7 mtdlabs on 04 Jan 2005 - 13:50

Why blame Intel for having the extensions? Of course they copied it, big deal. What has AMD done up until 1997 or so?

#7.1 zivan56 on 04 Jan 2005 - 22:58

Exactly, if you look at it, AMD copied the X86 instruction set for most of their processors.

(4 replies) #8 VikingStorm on 04 Jan 2005 - 15:07

A little too near the upcoming dual-core wars for my tastes, but I suppose those will be delayed as well somehow.

#8.1 ev0| on 04 Jan 2005 - 16:26

I have a bad feeling dual core isn't going to be all that. AMD recently said "Gamers (read : Anyone who likes a fast machine) will most benefit from a single core solution with maximum clock frequency until 2006" which basically means, the first dual cores will be clocked low and only benefit multithreaded apps (of which there are few)

#8.2 DrZoidberg on 04 Jan 2005 - 17:15

Hmm, looking at my Task Manager:

iTunes is using 18 threads.
Outlook 2003 is using 16 threads.
The iPodService app is using 7 threads.
VS.Net 2003 is using 6 threads.

Sounds like plenty of multi-threaded applications to me.

#8.3 antareus on 04 Jan 2005 - 17:43

Yeah, but typically only one thread is really doing much with those apps. Games tend to only have a few threads going at once -- thread synchronization isn't cheap.

#8.4 Radium on 04 Jan 2005 - 18:48

Not all threads execute at full speed all the time. Many of them are idle most of the time, even when you use the application.

(4 replies) #9 Hills420 on 04 Jan 2005 - 15:33

Bring on the 4GHz already...

#9.1 ev0| on 04 Jan 2005 - 16:01

ain't gonna happen, not on roadmaps this year either.

#9.2 Dodgy on 04 Jan 2005 - 16:18

wasnt Intel meant to reach 4gb by the end of 2004?

#9.3 Sykil on 05 Jan 2005 - 13:20

Intel decided to focus on the other aspects of processor performance.

#9.4 SquareSoft0 on 06 Jan 2005 - 04:43

Beyond that, they specifically wanted to NOT get to 4Ghz with Prescott cores.

(1 reply) #10 ir0nw0lf on 04 Jan 2005 - 15:55

TDP of up to 115W.

Yeouch, that's getting a bit insane.

#10.1 ev0| on 04 Jan 2005 - 16:28

My 87W Athlon XP is already a heating powerhouse and over the last 2 years its pissed me off with how hot it eventually gets when its running all the time on a warm day. I can only imagine the hell a 115W Pressy is

(2 replies) #11 Coolme on 04 Jan 2005 - 16:06

Real main difference between the 500 series vs. the 600 series... 2MB of L2 cache.. sad.

#11.1 divertom15 on 04 Jan 2005 - 18:53

why dont we just put 20mb of cache just to beat amd

#11.2 SquareSoft0 on 06 Jan 2005 - 04:44

There's much more than that, you're just a sad troll.

#12 spiritv2 on 04 Jan 2005 - 16:22

Nuff difference 4 me 2 consider getting /after price goes down heh

ninja out...

(1 reply) #13 ripgut on 04 Jan 2005 - 16:36

Intel has hit a wall. And there trying so hard to get around it. Bring on the 64bit chips already

#13.1 DrZoidberg on 04 Jan 2005 - 17:16

Err, this is a 64-bit chip.

Intel EM64T = x86/64. Allows addressing of > 4GB of memory, etc, etc, etc.

#14 GRex on 04 Jan 2005 - 16:47

Think they are going to bringing on Dual core chips and start getting away from just upping the speed.

#15 nX07 on 04 Jan 2005 - 17:48

What chipset will be supported?!
Would the 600 series processors be compatible with the 925XE motherboards?

#16 divertom15 on 04 Jan 2005 - 18:52

Weres the memory controller on the cpu?

When you weigh ddr2 vs. memory controller on the cpu with drr1 you know what the right choice is

(1 reply) #17 kev^ on 04 Jan 2005 - 19:39

The chips will be clocked at 3.20GHz, 3.40GHz, 3.60GHz and 3.80GHz

And that means absolutely nothing. AMD since the first athlon64's have been dominating Intel and Intel kept making radical changes to try and fight back.

The only thing will save them is the Pentium M on desktop.

#17.1 Quick Reply on 05 Jan 2005 - 05:16

I've been thinking about this for a while, all they need to do is add support for EM64T, Hyperthreading and EDB, and they've got one killer chip, they could even expand the clockspeed/fsb of these processors because they won't have to be as concerned with heat and power constraints. Making it Socket 774 compatable would be nice, because I don't think many will be happy if they take this path just after they bought their new Prescott system.

(2 replies) #18 Steven on 04 Jan 2005 - 22:00

E0 Core for all of these.

WIth new Halt and Idle architecture these processors will run as cool as possible.

#18.1 divertom15 on 05 Jan 2005 - 03:03

wish my imagination was as as good as yours. but honestly at 115w its not going to be cool at all.

#18.2 bilemke on 05 Jan 2005 - 05:05

Correct.. they will still be hot.. Only be cooler when in idle.. Woop de dooo

(1 reply) #19 Dead Silence on 05 Jan 2005 - 03:15

If the chip cost more than 200 they got two choices as to what to do with it - shove it or wipe with it

#19.1 SquareSoft0 on 06 Jan 2005 - 04:47

Ya, because as we all know the most high-end chips of brand new architecture should be under 200.

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