main

Intel Pentium 4 “Prescott” Processors Can Enable 64bit?

Daniel Fleshbourne   on 05 January 2005 - 11:15 · 38 comments & 4859 views

Advertisement (Why?)
A Taiwan based web-site reported a rumour claiming there is a possibility to enable 64-bit capability on Intel’s latest Pentium 4 microprocessors in LGA775 form-factor using a mainboard BIOS update. While the information may be correct, it is currently highly-unlikely that such operation will becomes popular.

“Lately there have been some rumours about some special BIOS that can ‘turn on’ the 64-bit [capability] on the [Intel Pentium 4] “Prescott” processors. I have made some enquiries and it seems that there are works in progress [that] are still in ‘alpha’ stage,” a claim over the web-site OC WorkBench states.

Intel’s Extended Memory 64 Technology also known as 64-bit Extension Technology or IA32e lets Intel’s 90nm microprocessors for desktops, workstations, 2-way and 4/8-way servers to execute specially-written 64-bit code while maintaining absolute compatibility with today’s 32-bit applications.

View: The full story
News source: Xbit Labs


A few things to understand about NexPad:

  • It requires .Net Framework 2.0
  • This is an early BETA. There will be bugs. Please report them to me thoroughly


Changelog:
- Ported to .Net 2.0
- New icon
- Added 'highlight' option to find bar
- Added ability to middle click tab to close it
- Added rudimentary "previous" searching (will refine code at a later time)
- Added "Minimize to tray" option
- Added print preview capability
- Temporarily disabled drag & drop into text area. Still works anywhere else
- Refined behavior of pad that is selected after one pad is closed

- Fixed: Possible crash when selecting edit menu directly after closing a tab
- Fixed: Text formatting not saved properly for other apps to read
- Fixed: Crash when selecting edit menu with no pads open
- Fixed: Newly opened pads may not be sized correctly
- Fixed: Nonapplicable File menu options not disabled when no pads exist
- Fixed: Nonapplicable Pads menu options not disabled when no pads exist
- Fixed: Nonapplicable Format menu options not disabled when no pads exist
- Fixed: Attempting to find or replace text, with no open pads, would crash NexPad
- Fixed: Undoing all changes would still result in a "save prompt" when closing pad
- Fixed: Drag and dropping a file from explorer, with no open pads, would crash NexPad
- Fixed: Current line indicator was 1 off
- Fixed: Small graphical errors with tabs when status bar enabled (top of tabs cut off)
- Fixed: If file load, at startup, fails, a blank pad would not be opened as planned
- Cleanup: Removed nonfunctional, leftover code (extra if statements)
- Cleanup: Recoded much of the file load and pad creation functions
- Cleanup: Removed useless printDocument

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 38 additional comments
(2 replies) #1 EnIgMa-PenGuIn on 05 Jan 2005 - 11:31
all Im gonna say is about time... after all the things they've been saying about it lately.. to finally get into the 64 bit game would be a good idea for them (at least in the normal desktop market) .. even if it is premature.

but unlocking such things on present chips, seems a bit crazy... there might be more than one reason things like that were locked away.
#1.1 b0b on 05 Jan 2005 - 17:11
Thank you for saying that about the desktop market. Many think that Intel hasn't gone 64-bit yet, but they don't realize that the Itanium 2 is the Intel's 64bit chip and it is #1 64-bit processor, period. But this is only useful for people you are gonna use IA64 to their advantage, like NASA.
#1.2 SVT on 05 Jan 2005 - 17:42
QUOTE
it is #1 64-bit processor, period.


... Um... POWER 5?
(4 replies) #2 ArtOf_War on 05 Jan 2005 - 11:35
I don't see why intel would lock this feature oout, i mean just slap a 64 bit label and the dumb people that buy intel will think its twice as fast and fork in a lot of extra money for it.
#2.1 Paschendale on 05 Jan 2005 - 11:57
QUOTE
... the dumb people that buy intel ...


Haha, should I order your gravestone now, before the masses arrive?

It does seem a little strange that Intel would lock-out such a feature if this is true. Perhaps it's in a premature stage, therefore affecting stability. It'll be interesting to see what churns out of this..
#2.2 EnIgMa-PenGuIn on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:11
nah, we have moderators in here for a reason these days
#2.3 b0b on 05 Jan 2005 - 17:15
I would laugh so hard if Intel announced that the Prescott core uses the base extensions that are in IA-64. AMD would have absolutly no chance at all. Expect at least to triple your frame rates in Doom 3 with all the max settings like 1600x1200 and such.
#2.4 Radium on 05 Jan 2005 - 22:09
hehe, there were rumors that Tejas was a IA-64/x86 hybrid. It used up to 150W.
But EM64T is just a simple extension.
(1 reply) #3 ProgramGeek on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:13
"operation will becomes popular."

I am such a bitch.
#3.1 slimy on 05 Jan 2005 - 21:36
ya, saw that too
(1 reply) #4 Quick Reply on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:14
So it is possible to enable 64-bit extensions on non-"J" suffixed processors/ones that don't specify EM64T, even Prescott on Socket 478?
#4.1 dismuter on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:24
The J-suffixed (P4-J) processors don't have EM64T enabled/specified, although the silicon is most surely there.
Only the P4-F and P4-P have it enabled.
#5 caveman017 on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:19
I would doubt you could enable it on the S478.

"Its about time" i say, but why not make it offical... most mid level desktops OEMs are selling on the market are Athlon 64 vs P4, and in the celeron range its the Athlon Sempron, so intel wouldnt loose out though
(2 replies) #6 indiehead on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:19
seems odd, turn a 32bit processor into a 64bit processor, why would they hide this for so long?

is it emulation or just they've had that feature in there all this time and it's some kind of secret weapon against amd in the event 64bit processors ever become popular (which they are now)

sort of "here's a taster of what 64bit chips can do, and now if you want the full thing... buy this"


i swear if i ever see that Crazy Frog advert again i'm going to throw a brick thru my TV and put out a contract on Jamster, you cannot make something that frivolous become a must-have by press-saturation.

if it weren't popular in the first place it won't be after 1000 ad's. a piece of **** dressed up nice is still a piece of ****.
#6.1 AJCrowley Esq on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:52
I believe the phrase you're looking for is, "You can't polish a turd.".
#6.2 bilemke on 05 Jan 2005 - 22:16
It is not turning a 32 bit chip in to a 64 bit chip.. It is re-enabling what was disabled.
#7 amdme3200 on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:23
Hey HT was locked out why not this. This is nice if it dose work out I might buy one
#8 giginger on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:33
This is the same as when they locked out Hyper Threading. No sensible reason was given. To my knowledge anyway.
#9 Quick Reply on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:39
I saw the paragraph in the article that says HT was locked out, where can I find a source for this or some direction on how to enable it?
(1 reply) #10 Shibby on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:50
maybe it's something to do with it being stable.
and they where just doing tests.
still seems strange that they would bulid a processor that is rumored to be able to run 64bit and yet lock it out. seems a waste of space and money if its their and not getting used
#10.1 Jaded on 05 Jan 2005 - 18:29
Actually it does make sense. They might be waiting for the motherboard manufactures to produce a motherboard that is stable and capable of supporting them. This way they dont have to reset the die's nor desgin two chips. This would save millions of dollars in design and production.
(2 replies) #11 [DGS] on 05 Jan 2005 - 12:50
Will ALL Prescotts be able to be enabled or only the ones described above? (LGA775)
#11.1 N0x on 05 Jan 2005 - 13:11
This is just a rumour... i doubt it very much.
#11.2 EnIgMa-PenGuIn on 05 Jan 2005 - 13:19
your best bet is to buy a processor thats meant to be 64 bit, instead of hacking one up
#12 devianca on 05 Jan 2005 - 13:18
link

can i enable 64bit on this (my) prescott?
#13 Radium on 05 Jan 2005 - 13:22
It's the same core, so why not? I think it's better implement such a feature at a early stage. But there might be something in the core that prevents us from using it and even enable it.
Early implementation makes it easy for Intel put out EM64T processor when ever they want, as they produce all their processors themselves and the changes required to enable it is very very small.

I don't think that Socket 478 can enable EM64T as there might be missing some pins used for addressing.
You might also need the i9xx chipsets.
#14 Hills420 on 05 Jan 2005 - 14:32
very interesting...
#15 Nelsinho on 05 Jan 2005 - 14:36
hmm, if true is amazing, but still very premature for sure , wait is the better bet thought
#16 frankchn on 05 Jan 2005 - 14:38
the reason why they lock out is because they do not want to flood the market with the most high end stuff immediately after they develop it, thus causing prices to drop dramatically.

if they developed and released chips like the way microsoft does its software, we would be seeing Yonah out by now
#17 lare2 on 05 Jan 2005 - 15:10
Can I enable this in my Classic Pentium or no ?
#18 Tikimotel on 05 Jan 2005 - 15:38
QUOTE
operation will becomes popular

operation will become popular
#19 Burned on 05 Jan 2005 - 16:12
That first paragraph should read.
"While the information may be correct, it is currently highly-unlikely that such operations will become popular."
#20 iconboy on 05 Jan 2005 - 16:18
i think they kept it quiet because telling people that they could have 64bit capabilities with one chip in the whole line would really effect sales of their older chips they are trying to get rid of.
#21 lostspyder on 05 Jan 2005 - 18:48
Mabie they need to find a way to keep the cpu cooler. I know a64 cpus run much hotter in 64 bit mode, and if prescots run even a tiny bit hotter, all hell would break loose (doom style).
(1 reply) #22 ishtar on 06 Jan 2005 - 23:15
Who gives a crap , its a piece of crap anyhow.
#22.1 MrCobra on 06 Jan 2005 - 23:47
Totally agree.
(1 reply) #23 on 07 Jan 2005 - 05:21
Makes no diff anyways. Until Microsoft puts out a 64-bit ready edition (that's not still in beta) I'm not touching 64-bit with a ten-foot pole.

What can I say, I'm not an early adopter.
#23.1 gliscameria on 10 Jan 2005 - 18:24
Ditto. Why pay for something fancy if you really have no use for it now. Once MS goes 64bit there will many much less expensive alternatives anyway. Although it is a nifty little possible secret.

I wonder if by enabling 64 bit on the chip there are any ill effects?

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?)