P4 800 MHZ FSB Has Arrived :)

Take a look at this recent article from PC World about Intel's new chipset and 800 MHz Front Side Bus:

Seems like it might be worthwhile to wait until June when Intel releases similar chip sets, code-named Springdale that will allow PC makers to ship 2.8, 2.6 and 2.4 Ghz P4 PCs with 800-MHz and DDR.

These systems will also feature hyperthreading, the CPU technology designed to improve multitasking. Currently, Hyperthreading isn't in Intel chips slower than 3 GHz.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110254,00.asp
:)
 
Thanks for the article. I found this statement the most interesting:

"What's the bottom-line buying advice? Power desktop PC users who favor Intel-based machines may want to sit tight until June. That's the expected debut date for "Prescott," the revamped P4 chip for which the 875P chipset paves the way. Note, too, that you can upgrade PCs with the 875P chip set to Prescott later if you need to buy an Intel system now.

Prescott, likely to launch at a 3.4-GHz clock speed, will double the P4's Level 2 cache and improve the hyperthreading technology. And, Prescott machines should more fully take advantage of the higher-bandwidth memory and 800-MHz bus that the 875P chip set enables, Krewell says."

As for the Springdale chipset, it will be a little worse in terms of performance than the 875 becuase it won't access memory as quickly eventhough it's also 800 mhz (Tom's hardware explains why).


As for a comparison w/ the Xenons, I have no idea.
 
Hyperthreading isn't a dual processor replacement.

Intels' own internal studies show no more than a 10-28% performance boost when running software that's been explicitly written and compiled (using Intel's Fortran compiler) to take advantage of thread-level parallelism and/or vector processing optimizations.

An HT processor only duplicates processor state hardware (e.g., registers, condition states, etc.). The HT logic emulates two processors but with only one set of shared processor resources. Primarily the boost you see (if you see one) comes from parallelizing integer and floating point operations.

So multimedia apps, software that does a lot of mixed integer and floating calcs that can be explicitly parallelized, etc. can be modified to take advantage of this. Adobe supposedly has already done that with Photoshop.

It's not a dual processor and it's way short of dual performance and general mixed workloads will only see boosts at the low end of the scale - but Intel's managed to allow a way to eek out some extra performance from the chip essentially for free.

According to Intel's tests - a single HT processor can perform in the 1.1 to 1.28 times that of an equivalent single non-HT processor and a dual HT processor can perform in the 2.1 to 2.23 times that of an equivalent single non-HT processor.

Target sounds primarily like desktops, especially those using multimedia software.
 
Quote from ArchAngel:

Hyperthreading isn't a dual processor replacement.

Intels' own internal studies show no more than a 10-28% performance boost when running software that's been explicitly written and compiled (using Intel's Fortran compiler) to take advantage of thread-level parallelism and/or vector processing optimizations.

An HT processor only duplicates processor state hardware (e.g., registers, condition states, etc.). The HT logic emulates two processors but with only one set of shared processor resources. Primarily the boost you see (if you see one) comes from parallelizing integer and floating point operations.

So multimedia apps, software that does a lot of mixed integer and floating calcs that can be explicitly parallelized, etc. can be modified to take advantage of this. Adobe supposedly has already done that with Photoshop.

It's not a dual processor and it's way short of dual performance and general mixed workloads will only see boosts at the low end of the scale - but Intel's managed to allow a way to eek out some extra performance from the chip essentially for free.

According to Intel's tests - a single HT processor can perform in the 1.1 to 1.28 times that of an equivalent single non-HT processor and a dual HT processor can perform in the 2.1 to 2.23 times that of an equivalent single non-HT processor.

Target sounds primarily like desktops, especially those using multimedia software.
More...


very well researched... this could almost be a thread in its own right...


one things' certain, is that Silly Con Valley is back at its marketing tricks, and making cash loaded geeks of the world unite in buying the latest, greatest and fastet "on paper" machines...

perhaps we should continue to purchase only what's needed until they either deliver on these much touted HT, 800 FSB systems instead of these exhaustive technical articles that debunk what's being advertised....
 
Ya want to hear something really funny? Since my main computer went on the fritz last month I've been trading using my old Pentium II 400 Mhz machine, with no hiccups whatsoever. Power, shmower.:cool:
 
I've got you beat. Dell PII 333 w/ a 66mhz FSB running XP Pro. That's about 1/10th the power of today's machines.

And I've got a 486 Compaq laptop running *Win 3.1* just to run Word 6.0 to take notes. :) :)

Good equipment doesn't die easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top