Intel (P4) Netburst is dead (it's _official_ now)

The forum for non-component-related silent pc discussions.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
halcyon
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 3:52 am
Location: EU

Intel (P4) Netburst is dead (it's _official_ now)

Post by halcyon » Fri May 13, 2005 4:47 am

From behardware (courtesy of golem.de originally):

In an interview with Golem.de, Patrick P. Gelsinger, Intel CEO, confirmed the abandonment of the NetBurst architecture. Future Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest processors, the second dual core generation for laptops, desktops and servers will all share a common new architecture.

The philosophy of this new architecture will be the same (but even more efficient) as the Pentium M: a relatively short pipeline which doesn’t reach very high frequencies but has a very high efficiency per MHz and per Watt. The Pentium 4 Netburst architecture long pipeline, which reaches high frequencies to the detriment of efficiency per cycles and which generates very power greedy CPUs should now be part of Intel past.
This puts to rest the remaining speculation as to whether the post-prescott CPUs based on Pentium M tech will use Netburst or not.

Also the goal seems to be high efficiency / Watt as well, which is good for us silent enthusiasts.

The problem is that we won't be seeing these till very late 2006 or early 2007, but at least they are coming.

Here's hoping that the other cpu speed demands will not have negated the wattage savings by then :)

~El~Jefe~
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: New York City zzzz
Contact:

Re: Intel (P4) Netburst is dead (it's _official_ now)

Post by ~El~Jefe~ » Sun May 15, 2005 7:25 pm

halcyon wrote:From behardware (courtesy of golem.de originally):

In an interview with Golem.de, Patrick P. Gelsinger, Intel CEO, confirmed the abandonment of the NetBurst architecture. Future Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest processors, the second dual core generation for laptops, desktops and servers will all share a common new architecture.

The philosophy of this new architecture will be the same (but even more efficient) as the Pentium M: a relatively short pipeline which doesn’t reach very high frequencies but has a very high efficiency per MHz and per Watt. The Pentium 4 Netburst architecture long pipeline, which reaches high frequencies to the detriment of efficiency per cycles and which generates very power greedy CPUs should now be part of Intel past.
This puts to rest the remaining speculation as to whether the post-prescott CPUs based on Pentium M tech will use Netburst or not.

Also the goal seems to be high efficiency / Watt as well, which is good for us silent enthusiasts.

The problem is that we won't be seeing these till very late 2006 or early 2007, but at least they are coming.

Here's hoping that the other cpu speed demands will not have negated the wattage savings by then :)
knowing intel, it wont give up any 'technology' but instead, created insanely hot chips that are truly useless in many ways. Whatever happened to the whole "relying on dothan" for future use?

These new dual cores are not riding that better highway. Id go for intel in a second if it made a more cold running dothan styled dual core setup.

wsc
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 9:25 am
Location: Oklahoma

Post by wsc » Mon May 16, 2005 1:56 pm

Hell, I'll be satisfied if Dothan CPU/MB prices drop down 30% or so. That's all the processing power I need.
[size=75]beleted.com[/size]

Ralf Hutter
SPCR Reviewer
Posts: 8636
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 6:33 am
Location: Sunny SoCal

Post by Ralf Hutter » Tue May 17, 2005 4:49 am

wsc wrote:Hell, I'll be satisfied if Dothan CPU/MB prices drop down 30% or so. That's all the processing power I need.
FWIW, a few months ago I remember seeing some Intel price move info that showed Dothan CPU prices are set to drop 28% sometime in late June/early July when Intel introduces some new CPUs.
Main Box: Intel i3-3225, Intel DH77EB, 16GB Corsair RAM, 256GB Samsung 830, SS360GP PSU, CM PS07 case.
Music Server: Intel DH77EB + i3-3220, 2xSamsung 2TB F4, Pico PSU, Fractal Define Mini, 2xScythe Fans @250 rpm.

frostedflakes
Posts: 1608
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: United States

Post by frostedflakes » Mon May 23, 2005 11:35 am

A step in the right direction for Intel IMO.

But I do not believe that Intel will completely abandon Netburst. Shorter pipelined CPUs like Dothan and Athlon K7 and K8 seem to be inherently worse than Netburst at certain tasks, encoding for example. I think Netburst could still flourish in a server environment, where heat, noise, and power consumption are less of a concern. But for a desktop, I would welcome a Dothan-esqe CPU with open arms. :)
Corsair Obsidian 650D | Seasonic X-650 | Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 | Phenom II X4 955 | Noctua NH-D14 | 2x4GB Corsair DDR3-1600 | ASUS HD6950 DirectCU II 2GB | OCZ Vertex 2 120GB | 2x WD Green 1TB

Green Shoes
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:41 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Post by Green Shoes » Wed May 25, 2005 6:59 am

There's a new article over at THG (I know, I feel dirty) that explores the death of Netburst and the possibility of using Dothan in a desktop even more....and it certainly raised my eyebrows. Long but worth a good read. I question those benchmarking numbers, but if they're correct.......wow........

Ralf Hutter
SPCR Reviewer
Posts: 8636
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 6:33 am
Location: Sunny SoCal

Post by Ralf Hutter » Thu May 26, 2005 5:03 am

Green Shoes wrote:There's a new article over at THG (I know, I feel dirty) that explores the death of Netburst and the possibility of using Dothan in a desktop even more....and it certainly raised my eyebrows. Long but worth a good read. I question those benchmarking numbers, but if they're correct.......wow........
Toms is about the biggest Intel shill on the internet. Combine that with their fairly poor methodology and note the results.

Note that in this particular "review", they're comparing an seriously OCed Dothan against a non-OCed AMD CPU. Their benches are also skewed towards ones that showcase Intel processors.
Main Box: Intel i3-3225, Intel DH77EB, 16GB Corsair RAM, 256GB Samsung 830, SS360GP PSU, CM PS07 case.
Music Server: Intel DH77EB + i3-3220, 2xSamsung 2TB F4, Pico PSU, Fractal Define Mini, 2xScythe Fans @250 rpm.

Green Shoes
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:41 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Post by Green Shoes » Thu May 26, 2005 6:17 am

Hmm...well, maybe I should trust my intuition a little more. I think they have a point, though, as trained monkeys could come up with a better architecture than NetBurst.

ExpertNovice
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:28 am

Post by ExpertNovice » Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:45 am

Ralf Hutter wrote:
Green Shoes wrote:Toms is about the biggest Intel shill on the internet. Combine that with their fairly poor methodology and note the results.
Note that in this particular "review", they're comparing an seriously OCed Dothan against a non-OCed AMD CPU. Their benches are also skewed towards ones that showcase Intel processors.
I agree about comparing an overclocked chip with a non-overclocked is really assinine. However, even SPCR has touted the use of the Pentium-M for silent systems.

I'm happy to see that an SPCR reviewer is willing to slam results that confirms an SPCR philosophy. I assume that SPCR is now saying the Pentium-M should be shunned and AMD used instead?

Ackelind
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Umea, Sweden.

Post by Ackelind » Fri Jun 03, 2005 2:44 pm

In the review at tom's hardware, they praise the dothan chip for it's efficiency compared to AMD A64.

The only problem is that they are comparing it to the newcastle/clawhammer core.

Why the heck would they compare intel's newest flagship against a really old and sluggish AMD-core which has been outdated for quite some time now. I mean, they are two revisions back!

Sigh.

Ralf Hutter
SPCR Reviewer
Posts: 8636
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 6:33 am
Location: Sunny SoCal

Post by Ralf Hutter » Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:50 pm

Ackelind wrote:In the review at tom's hardware, they praise the dothan chip for it's efficiency compared to AMD A64.

The only problem is that they are comparing it to the newcastle/clawhammer core.

Why the heck would they compare intel's newest flagship against a really old and sluggish AMD-core which has been outdated for quite some time now. I mean, they are two revisions back!

Sigh.
Already answered a few posts back:
Ralf Hutter wrote:
Toms is about the biggest Intel shill on the internet. Combine that with their fairly poor methodology and note the results.
Do what I do, pay no attention to Tom's and you'll be the better for it.
Main Box: Intel i3-3225, Intel DH77EB, 16GB Corsair RAM, 256GB Samsung 830, SS360GP PSU, CM PS07 case.
Music Server: Intel DH77EB + i3-3220, 2xSamsung 2TB F4, Pico PSU, Fractal Define Mini, 2xScythe Fans @250 rpm.

Shining Arcanine
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:02 pm

Post by Shining Arcanine » Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:06 pm

Green Shoes wrote:There's a new article over at THG (I know, I feel dirty) that explores the death of Netburst and the possibility of using Dothan in a desktop even more....and it certainly raised my eyebrows. Long but worth a good read. I question those benchmarking numbers, but if they're correct.......wow........
What impresses me is this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005052 ... y_cpu_load

The Pentium-M uses the same amount of power at different clock speeds. This means that it has no leakage problems. Of course its transistors will refuse to operate at insane clock speeds but the point is that they don't leak.
Ackelind wrote:In the review at tom's hardware, they praise the dothan chip for it's efficiency compared to AMD A64.

The only problem is that they are comparing it to the newcastle/clawhammer core.

Why the heck would they compare intel's newest flagship against a really old and sluggish AMD-core which has been outdated for quite some time now. I mean, they are two revisions back!

Sigh.
Maybe they didn't have review samples. Anyway, the new core shouldn't make a huge difference in the benchmarks. It will still use more power than the Pentium-M and it will still be getting creamed by an overclocked Pentium-M (which doesn't use more power than the stock version :shock: ).

darthan
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by darthan » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:00 am

I seriously question the system power results that Tom's got. They are, in fact, quite impossible. There is a fixed amount of current that flows through a processor to perform an operation. This is a fixed power cost (unless the voltage is changed) to do work. For it to do more work per second it has to use more power (it's overcoming more entropy at the very least) and I'd hope it is doing more work per second if it is overclocked.

Also for all you people whining about wanting a Dothan dual core and not some other stuff, the Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest, Sossaman, and Yonah architectures are all improved (and multi-core) versions of Banias just like Dothan. Intel is switching entirely over to this architecture in the future. I wouldn't expect the desktop derivatives to be nearly as cool as the laptop chips because Intel will tweak them more for speed than for power efficiency but if they run twice as hot as Dothan the hottest chips will have a TDP of only 42W.

See Jon "Hannibal" Stokes' articles at Arstechnica here on the Pentium M or here for information on Intel's future cores ironically as they apply to Apple.

Post Reply