Intel cancels plans for highest-speed Pentium 4 chip
- Thread starter cristic
- Start date
Well Im loving the news. 
This should bump amd for a while. Hope they timely release their new chips later this month(?).
epic
This should bump amd for a while. Hope they timely release their new chips later this month(?).epic
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19023
Just as I said 6 months ago Prescott is DEAD, it was DOA.
Intel is in PANIC: they're shifting EVERY RESOURCE to their multi-core program - they never ever dreamed AMD is this much ahead.
Intel is in deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep shit: this year canned Tejas, Jayhawk (future Xeon update), now stopped the Prescott (that means won't be 4GHz Xeon neither), Itanium is losing ground from its already tiny market fraction (HP recently discontinued its complete IA64-based WS-line), only Dothan-core (mobile Centrino-stuff) could make wonder - but it's pretty immature for desktop and obviously way behind its schedule, compared to AMD's success with multicore.
2005 - that'll be a turning point, makr my words. I predicted this (Prescott canned), I'm predicting again.
Just as I said 6 months ago Prescott is DEAD, it was DOA.
Intel is in PANIC: they're shifting EVERY RESOURCE to their multi-core program - they never ever dreamed AMD is this much ahead.
Intel is in deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep shit: this year canned Tejas, Jayhawk (future Xeon update), now stopped the Prescott (that means won't be 4GHz Xeon neither), Itanium is losing ground from its already tiny market fraction (HP recently discontinued its complete IA64-based WS-line), only Dothan-core (mobile Centrino-stuff) could make wonder - but it's pretty immature for desktop and obviously way behind its schedule, compared to AMD's success with multicore.
2005 - that'll be a turning point, makr my words. I predicted this (Prescott canned), I'm predicting again.
Jimmers said:T2k said:If you don't buy Intel, you don't need these cooling animals...
I don't know about that. I've had my P4C running at 3.5 GHz for over 4 months now with just the stock cooler, and I've never had any heat problems.
That's Northwood, not Prescott.
Prescott has over 100W dissipation - ridiculous.
Goragoth said:
I'll agree with that. AMD and Intel seem to have their own ways of feigning progress. Intel releases a whole new core (PressHot) and socket/chipset (LGA775/i9xx) which do essentially worse than their predicesors, while AMD releases what, 3-4 sockets (754, 939, 940, sktA), each with the same CPU compatibility.
Well, at least now we know how long AMD has before the gauntlet gets thrown. They have until about 2006 to get their act together, or it's just another AthlonXP replay where AMD fritters away all the its market share gains and loses money for 9 quarters.
They have a year to do better than they've ever done before, even better than the lead with the Thunderbird vs. P3.
I really don't like their odds.
They have a year to do better than they've ever done before, even better than the lead with the Thunderbird vs. P3.
I really don't like their odds
.amd's roadmap is lackluster at best, and i speak as a stock owner. I hope they get their act together as you said 3d.
epic
epic
3dilettante said:Well, at least now we know how long AMD has before the gauntlet gets thrown. They have until about 2006 to get their act together, or it's just another AthlonXP replay where AMD fritters away all the its market share gains and loses money for 9 quarters.
They have a year to do better than they've ever done before, even better than the lead with the Thunderbird vs. P3.
I really don't like their odds
Or versus the early p4s...
But thunderbirds were really hot, whereas the athlon 64s are much cooler than the prescotts and the g5s, which makes them almost the ideal oem solution. However, I think amd's future basically depended on the timely arrival of 64 bit windows and applications to go with it, and since that hasn't happened and probably won't until intel has something 64 bit ready...well, maybe ibm will decide they want a piece of the x86 pie and buy amd or something.
Jimmers said:
Intel is a giant and therefore never gave a shit about costs. During the last 3-4 years it really became a dull, bully, slow giant - and that's what fucked up everything.
Now sales are declining, management started thinking perhaps they wouldn't have put everything on Itanium, thinking "we are Intel, we can force the world to do as we want, whatever is that"...
Intel sucked, thanks God - I hope they'll lose BILLIONS next year - that's the only way to get rid of these pompous idiots in the management, lazy assholes.
Fox5 said:3dilettante said:Well, at least now we know how long AMD has before the gauntlet gets thrown. They have until about 2006 to get their act together, or it's just another AthlonXP replay where AMD fritters away all the its market share gains and loses money for 9 quarters.
They have a year to do better than they've ever done before, even better than the lead with the Thunderbird vs. P3.
I really don't like their odds
Or versus the early p4s...
But thunderbirds were really hot, whereas the athlon 64s are much cooler than the prescotts and the g5s, which makes them almost the ideal oem solution. However, I think amd's future basically depended on the timely arrival of 64 bit windows and applications to go with it, and since that hasn't happened and probably won't until intel has something 64 bit ready...well, maybe ibm will decide they want a piece of the x86 pie and buy amd or something.
Well it's a double catch: IBM already working together with AMD on the CPUs but at the same time it's a very well-rouned cooperation: IBM wants to see whatever AMD knows and compete with that from the PPC side...
Keep in mind: IBM is much bigger than AMD and yet couldn't compete with Intel as AMD does...
T2k said:Fox5 said:3dilettante said:Well, at least now we know how long AMD has before the gauntlet gets thrown. They have until about 2006 to get their act together, or it's just another AthlonXP replay where AMD fritters away all the its market share gains and loses money for 9 quarters.
They have a year to do better than they've ever done before, even better than the lead with the Thunderbird vs. P3.
I really don't like their odds
Or versus the early p4s...
But thunderbirds were really hot, whereas the athlon 64s are much cooler than the prescotts and the g5s, which makes them almost the ideal oem solution. However, I think amd's future basically depended on the timely arrival of 64 bit windows and applications to go with it, and since that hasn't happened and probably won't until intel has something 64 bit ready...well, maybe ibm will decide they want a piece of the x86 pie and buy amd or something.
Well it's a double catch: IBM already working together with AMD on the CPUs but at the same time it's a very well-rouned cooperation: IBM wants to see whatever AMD knows and compete with that from the PPC side...
Keep in mind: IBM is much bigger than AMD and yet couldn't compete with Intel as AMD does...
IBM emphasized the traits that people hate about intel much better than intel did. Intel was the underdog when they took the market from IBM, but when intel took the market it was much smaller and probably more tech savvy on the whole.(after all, who needed computers 20 years ago?)
Edit: Amd's share in the market now is probably larger than the entire market was when IBM was still in it.
Polarbear53
Newcomer
The only bad thing is that now we have to wait for programs made to be run on two processors to see a major speed increase because 1 thread will still be about the same speed, i suppose.
Polarbear53 said:
Very true. I've always thought that multicore CPU's were an admission of being unable to produce better single core technology. Dothan was supposedly coming along pretty well (with a low clock ceiling thought), and I was really excited to see what would come of it. Instead, both Intel and AMD have this lame idea to just stick two modern day CPU's together and call it a 6 GHz (2*3 GHz) CPU. This sort of thing won't boost performance until whole new programs come out to take advantage of multicore CPU's.