Intel Q3 and Q4 Roadmaps: 1066MHz FSB and Stack Protection Near

8 Comments

View All Comments

• stephenbrooks - Monday, July 12, 2004 - link

  Something I heard elsewhere is that Intel uses two 'parallel' copies of this numbering system, one for the mobile chips and one for the desktops. So you see two copies of the Intel "350J" chip, which are actually completely different chips. I guess the only way to sensibly distinguish them is to call them "Mobile 350J" or "Desktop 350J". Why couldn't they have used the even-numbered centuries for the mobile ones*, or a simple prefix making 350J vs. M350J, etc.?
  
  [* a possible reason for this is that Opteron already uses 2xx and 8xx]
  
  One thing to bear in mind is that mathematical elegance is not high on the list of priorities of people in marketing (7 out of 10 probably can't do long division, but I didn't mean that-) with Intel in a weak position, perhaps having a confusing numbering system actually statistically helps them generate higher revenues than a system that allows transparent comparison of performance across families? Transparency only benefits the performance leader! Think about it...?
  
  The other option is that they've just completely ballsed it up.

• Anemone - Monday, July 12, 2004 - link

  Yep thumbs down on this dumb numbering scheme.
  
  Interested in how the 3.76 @ 1066 fares, as it will probably be the final teller in the end of year system build for me. By then the NV4 and a 90nm A64 should be a fair comparison to this 3.76 chip (sorry I don't even want to USE that number scheme).
  
  We'll just have to see how they do, but Intel is looking rather bleak atm.
  
  ...
  

• mkruer - Monday, July 12, 2004 - link

  Perhaps Intel should just use AMD PR rating system, at least that made sense. What they have now is nuts. Oh well I guess AMD will win the PR in the end, because we all know 1600+ is greater then 770J
  
  LOL
  

• sprockkets - Monday, July 12, 2004 - link

  I guess you are correct, the EE had 512kL2 cache and then 2MB L3, good point but still dumb numbering scheme.

• Pumpkinierre - Monday, July 12, 2004 - link

  Launch date on the Pentium-M 750J 1.86Gig is Q4 04 same as the 720J. 2x1.86 equals 3.73 (allowing for 3rd decimal).
  

• KristopherKubicki - Sunday, July 11, 2004 - link

  Actually the 720J is not a P4EE. Its a completely different chip that hasnt been announced yet.
  
  kristopher

• sprockkets - Sunday, July 11, 2004 - link

  Oh, yeah, I'm sure lots of people will know the difference between a 720J and a 730J. Wait the 720J is the super duper EE P4 Prescott chip and the 730J is the next speed level of that chip, oh S--- that's a completely different processor running at less than half the speed of the 720J yet I have the higher number.
  
  At least you can get a nice Pentium M now for the desktop, but again, it's going to be so f-ing hillarious when you see a 720J and 730J next to each other for sale, and not even the informed people remembering which is which.

• ranger203 - Sunday, July 11, 2004 - link

  I think intel is shooting themselves in the foot with this numbering scheme.... some precessors i.e. 770, have such a high number "770" that future chips will start to be numbered funny, and what happens when they break 1000, they might as well go back to naming them by GHz