Anybody got a P-IV yet? After you read this, you may not want one! "Respected computer industry publications have run benchmark after benchmark and the latest 1.5ghz Pentium IVs fall short of 1.2ghz and 1.3ghz chips made by archrival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). Some benchmarks have even shown the old 1ghz Pentium III is faster than the new Pentium IV! Ouch. To make matters worse, the faster AMD chips are typically less than half the price of the premium-priced Pentium IV chips. The Pentium IV also runs hot and has thermal management problems. If the chips get too hot, they simply shut down half the time. They run 2 milliseconds and then cycle down for 2 milliseconds, in order to keep from literally burning up. When in thermal management mode, the Pentium IV chips only run at an effective speed of 0.75ghz, half their advertised speed. Why buy a new Pentium IV based computer when it performs worse than your existing 1ghz Pentium III chip on existing software?" I'm somewhat of a gold bug, and found this article over at gold-eagle. It's a discussion the Fed rate cuts, but quite a bit of it is critical of Intel's latest and greatest, and why they may not be out of trouble any time soon. I know this is a little off topic, but since some of the best tech heads in the world hang out here (grin), I'ld like your opinion. Would you buy a Pentium IV based system? If you did, is it what you expected? Any thermal problems? We haven't purchased any new machines at work in a while, so I haven't seen one yet. Now I'm not sure I want to... Emergency Rate Cut Numero Dos http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_01/hamilton042301.html :)
Posted on 2001-04-28 18:55:00 by S/390
Makes sense to me, I look at a computer as an industrial device that I expect to run long hours for some years without it playing up so I lean towards conservatism when I build one. Current box is a PIII 600 that runs at 39 - 40c so in terms of thermal cycling, it does not have any problems. I do not like the idea of forking premium prices for hardware that is not fully debugged yet. My own approach is one of trying to match the various pieces of hardware so that the whole box works well, disks that are fast enough to work with the processor, a main board that can handle the data transfer rate and enough memory to overcome bad operating system design. I leave the unreliable "leading edge" to people who can afford to keep fixing hardware problems, buying new and later main boards etc... Regards, hutch@pbq.com.au
Posted on 2001-04-28 20:29:00 by hutch--
Hi! It is somehow anoying to see this way of thinking in our world. Everybody (well, there are some wise guys out there *grin*) is heading towards the newest and fastest stuff one can get no matter what it really does (we had this topic once with the newest MASM version) and what I maybe cost. Like disease_2000 I have got an AMD K5 PR-150 and comparing it to other machines (like my brothers' for example, he bought a Duron 700) my machine is the fastest and stablest on world :D I only laugh when looking at his computer as it crashes very often and a lot of programs (NO, I don't speak about games only) are not able to run correct (MM, maybe the role of knowledge comes in here as well :P). To the Pentium 4 (are you listening, Intel? :rolleyes:). When it came out and it didn't reach those rates it should have they said "Ohh, that is because of software! It doesn't support the new instructions the P4 has". And now? After several PC Gurus had warned about buying this Processor? What are they going to tell us now? Stefan P.S. Take care and don't get caught by the blue men ;)
Posted on 2001-04-29 04:18:00 by Stefan Krause
I heard that the blue man group uses Macs when creating their music. Just something to think about :)
Posted on 2001-04-29 08:40:00 by Satrukaan
disease, for what its worth, if the processor you are using does the job for you and you can still get it, having more memory always helps. I had 128 meg in my P166 and it was an excellent machine and a lot easier to time code on than my new one. I got 3 and a half years of work out of it and then a scsi died and took 6 months work out with it so I built a new one with multiple bachup systems on it. I rebuilt the p166 with a warrantee replacement scsi and my mum now uses it to play games on and type letters, probably the only little old lady who has a development box with 128 meg ram, scsi, modem, ethernet card, 4 com & 2 printer ports. If you old box works well, maybe get some more memory for it if its still available as it really helps. A lot of ppl think its a status symbol to have a bigger better box but at the end, its whether itsuseful to you, not whether its some fancy but unreliable pig. Regards, hutch@pbq.com.au
Posted on 2001-04-29 11:31:00 by hutch--
The Pentium 4, isn't that bad! As I'm sure you are all too aware, the Intel x86 arch is blighted by the fact it is still an 8086, just with extra stuff added on! It is for this reason Intel is desperate to introduce Merced! The P4 is a new design, the engineers took the brave (possibly stupid) step of sacrificing performance of the previous generation of apps for the performace of future apps. There is a lot of clever technical wizardry in those chips, and optimised apps on the P4 will THRASH optimised apps on the PIII and Athlons... Just there aren't many around yet (we're talking a %50 drop in encoding times for mpeg2 -> mpeg4)! The chip isn't really a casual mans chip, and I don't believe the engineers even tried to appeal to the masses with the P4. On CAD/CAM, and content creation, the P4 will kick ass (software in this sector costs, so people expect it to work well ;) ). The REAL reason not to buy a P4 (if you're in the market for an extreme powerhouse chip, designed for modern and future apps), is the fact that Intel do not intend to keep the same packaging. The P4 will increase the number of pins it has fairly soon, and so there will be backwards compatibility. Basically Intel is kicking the early adopters in the mouth with this! As far as we are concerned (ie. assembly programmers), the P4 offers a new challenge (if you're into that kind of thing). There is a whole new architecture to play with, but only a select few will use it, or even need it! So what have we learned here today? 1) Intel is a money grabbing beast, with marketeers trying to screw you for every thing they can 2) They also have some talented engineers, who can produce a new, interesting, and for certain purposes at least, very powerful chip. Mirno
Posted on 2001-04-30 06:10:00 by Mirno
the problem is that almost no mainstream applications will be/are optimised since then they would cost too much. And I'm talking about the simple home user here.
Posted on 2001-04-30 06:43:00 by Hiroshimator
somebody sent me this, check it out ;)
Intel's Thermal Design Guide has revealed that the absolute maximum power dissipation of the 1.5GHz P4 is actually 72.9 watts. This is 33% higher than the published system design specification, and essentially identical to the 1.33 GHz Athlon. If power dissipation is sustained at a level higher than 54.7 watts thermal overload can occur. In order to deal with this, a mechanism called thermal throttling is used. If performance critical applications drive the CPU above a predetermined temperature, the CPU is halted with a 50% duty cycle (alternating 2 microseconds on; 2 microseconds off) until it cools down. This effectively turns your 1.5GHz processor into a 750MHz processor - just at the moment you demand peak performance. On the other hand, you will probably still be able to check your email at 1.5GHz. This scheme is described on page 23 of Intel's P4 Thermal Design Guide. Commentary is already floating around the web that perhaps Intel feels guilty about selling 750MHz CPUs in 1.5GHz clothing, and thus has decided to cut the price by 50% as well.
Posted on 2001-04-30 13:30:00 by Tola
Try this, it has detailed info on Pentium 4 flaws... indeed, I've been reading up on this since about December or so... http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm _Shawn
Posted on 2001-04-30 23:40:00 by _Shawn