The Consequence of Waking Up a Sleeping Giant: Intel Roadmaps Inside
by Kristopher Kubicki on January 25, 2005 7:44 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Single Core Desktop
Now for desktop processing; we have good news and better news. The good news is almost all desktop Prescotts (including the Celerons) will get a 64-bit makeover real soon. Unfortunately, you'll still need to buy a new processor but the roadmaps indicate there will be virtually no price premium on the 64-bit versions. With Windows XP 64-bit release less than a few months away, it makes sense that Intel's 64-bit push comes strong and hard in the 9th inning. We are particularly interested in how fully committed the roadmap details EM64T; even the puny Celerons get the instructions. You may recall that the Socket 754 Sempron processors are nearly identical to AMD's Athlon 64 processors with half the cache and the 64-bit instructions removed. It will be interesting to see how the two companies play this against each other as AMD will be the 32-bit SKU on the desktop when WinXP Pro x64 launches.
Just to detail the whole outline for 64-bit Socket 775 processors, here is a quick roadmap of what we have to look forward to:
| Intel Single Core Mid Range Desktop Lineup LGA775 | ||||
| Processor | Speed | L2 Cache | FSB | Launch |
| Pentium 4 XE 3.73GHz | 3.73GHz | 2MB | 1066MHz | Soon |
| Pentium 4 XE 3.46GHz | 3.43GHz | 512KB | 1066MHz | Nov 2004 |
| Pentium 4 571 | 3.80GHz | 1MB | 800MHz | Q2'05 |
| Pentium 4 561 | 3.60GHz | 1MB | 800MHz | Q2'05 |
| Pentium 4 551 | 3.40GHz | 1MB | 800MHz | Q2'05 |
| Pentium 4 541 | 3.20GHz | 1MB | 800MHz | Q2'05 |
| Pentium 4 531 | 3.00GHz | 1MB | 800MHz | Q2'05 |
| Pentium 4 521 | 2.80GHz | 1MB | 800MHz | Q2'05 |
| Celeron D 355 | 3.33GHz | 256KB | 533MHz | Q4'05 |
| Celeron D 351 | 3.20GHz | 256KB | 533MHz | Q2'05 |
| Celeron D 346 | 3.06GHz | 256KB | 533MHz | Q2'05 |
| Celeron D 341 | 2.93GHz | 256KB | 533MHz | Q2'05 |
| Celeron D 336 | 2.80GHz | 256KB | 533MHz | Q2'05 |
| Celeron D 331 | 2.66GHz | 256KB | 533MHz | Q2'05 |
| Celeron D 326 | 2.53GHz | 256KB | 533MHz | Q2'05 |
As you can see, the EM64T enabled CPUs have incremented their model numbers by 1 relative to their non-EM64T counterparts. We're glad that Intel is making a clear distinction between the two variants, rather than simply adding a new suffix. Where there is no earlier part, like the 3.33GHz Celeron D, the model numbers do not have the +1.
The 3.73GHz Pentium 4 EE will show up real soon, if that's your thing, and it will become the second processor to support 1066FSB. We haven't been real impressed with the 1066FSB launch thus far, and a 300MHz bump in clock speed doesn't strike us as something that will revolutionize the performance desktop anytime soon either. However, keep in mind this new P4EE is very different from the previous 3.46GHz revision, and with a different core we may see a very different performance curve on the 1066MHz front side bus. The rest of the Intel roadmap neglects to mention any other 1066FSB processors, including the dual core behemoths, so the technology is either a little bit ahead of its time or simply a temporary dead end.
Next we have the great news. Not only will we see the launch of four Prescott 2M/Iriwindale processors next month, but soon after we will also get our first taste of Smithfield - several quarters ahead of what the previous roadmap had anticipated! Prescott 2M will launch with four SKUs listed below, along with a "670" model clocked at 3.8GHz sometime shortly after.
| Intel Single Core Performance Desktop Lineup LGA775 | ||||
| Processor | Speed | L2 Cache | FSB | Launch | Pentium 4 670 | 3.80GHz | 2MB | 800MHz | Q2'05 |
| Pentium 4 660 | 3.60GHz | 2MB | 800MHz | Q1'05 |
| Pentium 4 650 | 3.40GHz | 2MB | 800MHz | Q1'05 |
| Pentium 4 640 | 3.20GHz | 2MB | 800MHz | Q1'05 |
Like the other Prescott processors, Prescott 2M will launch with EM64T and XD, but it adds Enhanced Speed Step (EIST) as well. EIST is very similar to AMD's Cool n' Quiet as it dynamically ramps the clock speed of the processor to conserve thermals and power. However, the big difference between CnQ and EIST is maturity - EIST has existed in some form or another since the earliest days of the P6 architecture. How EIST will affect performance on everyday desktop processing - particularly on a processor with such a high clock speed - we leave for the actual launch date sometime next month.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
Postoasted - Sunday, January 30, 2005 - link
Heat dissipation and power consumption are my main concerns.GiantPandaMan - Sunday, January 30, 2005 - link
Oops,Anyhow I was just gonna say, who cares who comes out on top?
Without AMD we'd be using Pentium 166's?
Without Intel we'd be using Apples.
I hope both AMD and Intel are around for a very long time and they keep pushing each other to make better processors faster and cheaper. Same as Nvidia and ATI.
After all, what's gonna power Doom 6 and Half-Life 4?
The PS3 Cell "4.6" Ghz processor?
GiantPandaMan - Sunday, January 30, 2005 - link
JarredWalton - Sunday, January 30, 2005 - link
^^ Don't we all, AtaStrumf?Don't underestimate Intel, though. AMD's power usage on 90nm was substantially less than their 130nm. Part of that is almost certainly due to the lower clock speeds, but regardless we can be sure that Intel isn't going to be underestimating power/heat concerns.
Prescott 2M is really the first major redesign of a 90nm core since the release of the Prescott. Dothan has shown that Intel can get very good power and heat results, and I'm certainly curious to see how Prescott 2M compares to the original. We might assume that it will use more power and produce more heat, but depending on what other tweaks have been made, it may not be so bad.
There's a LOT going on at Intel right now behind the scenes (including some serious consideration of Pentium M on the desktop, I think). Don't just blindly stick with a company because of one or two good products, but wait for actual availability before coming to a conclusion. Also, don't just blindly hate a company for one or two mistakes. If we all did that, AMD would have never even lasted this long. K6 and earlier CPUs were thoroughly outclassed by Intel chips. Only K7 and K8 have been competitive designs, and only K8 has truly beaten Intel's counterpart.
To draw a parallel, look at the GPU market. The FX line was a disaster for NVIDIA, and the R3xx ATI parts completely outclassed it. The latest NVIDIA chips, however, are arguably the better chip - not in small part due to their actual retail availability. These are two competitors that are very close together in price, performance, and market share. The AMD/Intel match-up is not nearly as close. If NVIDIA could make a "comeback" if sorts, how much easier would it be for a company with the resources of Intel to address some of their problems?
As we've said before, only time will truly answer that question.
AtaStrumf - Sunday, January 30, 2005 - link
OMG, how much hype over even more power leaking, room heating, inefficient transistors. If you think 65 nm is gonna be any better/easier/faster transition than 90 nm was, you're, well, khm, how do I put it ... WRONG. It'll be even worse! I see nothing for me from Intel in 2005 or 2006. If they offered me Dothan in desktop, then maybe I’d think about it, but MORE preshott, no thanks!!!Nice to see Intel in action once again though. Hopefully it will get AMD off their arses and start putting out something NEW. They seem to have fallen asleep since Intel got themselves in Prescott trouble. I wonna see high volume 2nd generation 90 nm SS SOI chips with SSE3, with dual core following shortly thereafter.
fitten - Saturday, January 29, 2005 - link
Actually, AMD doesn't have plenty of headroom on frequency as seen by the major overclocks only reaching 2.7GHz. If you think that clock frequency is tied to process technology (as in 90nm means that the Athlon can hit 3.8GHz just like the P4) then I'd suggest some study in processor/circuit design. Just a little food for thought is that some P4s have double clocked adders (2.6GHz P4 has a 5.2GHz adder, for example).karlreading - Saturday, January 29, 2005 - link
BTW, scuse the typos, thats cause me mum braught me a nasty TRUST keyboard for xmas, ill have to sneek a decent one in the house soon. as for the spelling, poor british education LOLkarlos
karlreading - Saturday, January 29, 2005 - link
I use mainly AMD processors, i would almost call myself a slight fanboi!! but i cant help but deel thers some amd fans on here showing themselves up.personally i dont understand why intel do continue with netburts. 65nm might help them get some more frequency from it, prhaps 4.2ghz? but generally i dont see that helping much. AMD64 (em64T) is welecome, but i doubt we will see the benefits of 64bit till all the software developers pull ther fingures out. IMHO pentium M is very strong, overclock one a bit on a oldskool platform i.e AGP4x / pc2700 / 400fsb) and it can frighten a athlon fx55. If i was intel id be binning netburst and getting the pM acheteture ramped up and on the desktop ( althouhg i know the design dosent scale well per core variation, its not ment to )
one last thing, yes, intel going for non compatibility on current chipsets regarding smithfield dose allow them to bring platform / performance benefits, whils amds upgradable stance does allow for a cheaper alternative. this dosent have to be seen as a weekness for AMD. Remeber, Intel wanted the whole world and his dog to go 64 bit there way, via Itaniums EPIC archetecture. EPIC on optimised code can probably cain x86-64 hands down. But AMD pushed x86-64 and eventually one the day. Why, ease of upgrade, cost effectivness. so by allowing opteron / a64 users a cheap dual core upgrade, all AMD are doing is repeating a act that has previously done them well.
Lets face it, to lead the desktop market into x86-64, make the 800IB gorilla conceed and bring out a product, push a product ( EM64T ) that a few month ago they even denide a said they would never consider, is a achievment AMD should be proud of.
as for these road maps, very good, certainly better than i expected for 2005, thaught it would be stagnent, but, more Pentium M actio is whats needed form intel.
karlos
justbrowzing - Friday, January 28, 2005 - link
I read these roadmap articles and gosh they always sound like intel/amd is just about to launch sliced bread in Q-X of 200Y--and occasionally they do. Northwood and Athlon 64 were great products. But this time you kinda wonder just when (if ever)it'll pay off like that with all these prescott iterations.Seems like waiting for the sweetspot--when to upgrade an intel platform for performance & longevity from the intro of Prescott & into the foreseeable future--is & will be a very long, confusing wait indeed.
StriderGT - Friday, January 28, 2005 - link
What really strikes me is why intel keeps trying to keep the clearly sinking P4/netburst afloat... ? More cache, more FSB, more DDR2 more laughable stuff, that would really benefit database servers... and power bills.I can not understand the reason they do not promote dothan/derivatives as their desktop solution and put there all their latest hype/duo letters. The only reason I can think of is that they might be working on something bigger for dothan, like on-die controller (ala AMD) and keep it under wraps for a later launch
PS1 Dual core in, HT out for the desktop or to put it otherwise: our HT did fail miserably...
PS2 Those lads that bought the 925, well you need to upgrade in less than 6-9 months (dual), because intel is always thinking with the customer in mind and changes the chipsets/sockets like T-shirts. Don't you love to change T-shirts?:-)
PS3 Same applies to DDR2, why don't they launch tech stuff when they are ready to be launched?!? What is the point of having a memory tech we do not take advantage of.
What would be the difference if they launched DDR2 with the 955 or the next chipset, where it could actually make some difference? Answer:
Pure marketing hype...