Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Breathes New Life Into Pentium

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the it's-alive dept.

Intel 207

angry tapir writes "Intel is giving new life to its Pentium processor for servers, and has started shipping the new Pentium 350 chip for low-end servers. The dual-core processor operates at a clock speed of 1.2GHz and has 3MB of cache. Like many server chips, the Pentium 350 lacks features such as integrated graphics, which are on most of Intel's laptop and desktop processors."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GOOD GOD MAN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163860)

I don't want a Pentium !! I want Bulldozer !! I want the best !!

Re:GOOD GOD MAN !! (1, Offtopic)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164036)

I want the best !!

Why do you want bulldozer then?

Re:GOOD GOD MAN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164088)

I T A N I U M IS THE B E S T
not tenderness
  not tenderness
    not tenderness
      not tenderness
        not tenderness

Re:GOOD GOD MAN !! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164102)

Because Pentiums are far too small for earth-moving work?

Re:GOOD GOD MAN !! (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164582)

Actually I'm shocked nobody has tried cooking up a low cost low power server based on brazos. With OpenCL you could harness the built in Radeon GPU and at 18w for a dual core 1.6GHz part its a power sipper. You could slap 4 of them into a blade and only be using 72 watts for an 8 core with 4 Radeon GPUs you could run GP/GPU code on. Now that even Nvidia is supporting OpenCL it seems like that would be a better deal over the Pentium in TFA.

This actually makes sense (3, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163866)

A chip like this would work good for servers that are limited more by network bandwidth and disk IO than by CPU load.

Re:This actually makes sense (1, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163906)

What they would be good for is trying to make money from the inventory of chips that were too defective to be part of a first-pass yield and sold with a more expensive name. I wonder if they were already written off as losses for tax purposes?

*cough*

Re:This actually makes sense (1)

zwarte piet (1023413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164416)

I still don't understand why a windows computer is used for fileserver purposes. Something embedded with for example an ARM processor on it sounds must more robust and energy efficient to me.

Re:This actually makes sense (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164860)

Who says it has to be running Windows?

While you can get ARM processor might be nice, but the few that I've used also had pretty cut-down and altered operating systems at best, I'd rather run an OS configuration I'm more familiar with.

Re:This actually makes sense (1)

egamma (572162) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164992)

I still don't understand why a windows computer is used for fileserver purposes. Something embedded with for example an ARM processor on it sounds must more robust and energy efficient to me.

Sometimes you want features. I suspect Linux has equivalents to these, but maybe not quite as easy to set up:

DFSR multi-master file replication [microsoft.com]

BranchCache for file caching either on your Win7 machine or distributed Win2k8R2 servers [microsoft.com]

Re:This actually makes sense (5, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164766)

Actually, a server is one of the few places I actually want an integrated graphics chip, because it means I don't have to take up a PCI slot and associated energy and I/O load with a low-end graphics card just to provide a console, not to mention the space considerations and form factor requirements to be able to put in a PCI card. While I like that it's not built into the CPU (freeing up those transistors for, you know, CPU things), I'd still be buying a motherboard that has built in cheap graphics.

If you're in a situation where network and disk bandwidth is the limiting factor, then why wouldn't you put in a ULV celeron chip? My laptop has a 1.2GHz dual core with 2MB of cache, and a TDP of 18W, and while that is 3W higher than the processor in TFA, that's also including the graphics card, which this one isn't. And failing that, try putting in an Atom... I have built Atom-powered fileservers before, and they run very well: even with an Atom, the limiting factor is disk I/O, not CPU power for a fileserver.

Re:This actually makes sense (-1, Troll)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164884)

Since when does a server need "low-end graphics"? Do you mean the desktop OS that, thanks to Turing, can run server programs?

Re:This actually makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38165010)

Pedantry and insightfulness are not the same thing.

So, exept from the name.... (5, Insightful)

Ch_Omega (532549) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163868)

... What exactly does this have to do with the older pentium architechtures?

Nothing (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163994)

And this is also nothing new. They've been selling "Pentiums" for some time now. The Pentium G6950 is one for the last generation Core i series systems (LGA1156). The Pentium G600 and G800 series are for this generation core i series (LGA1155, Sandy Bridge). They are the same architecture as the i series chips, just more cut down.

So for example with the current LGA1155 offerings:

-- The i7-2600/2700 are the quad core, hyperthreaded chips with 8MB cache.
-- The i5s are quad core, non-HT, 6MB cache.
-- The i3s are dual core, hyperthreaded, 3MB cache. They also lack AES-NI instructions.
-- The Pentiums are dual core, non-HT, 3MB cache and have slower graphics and clockspeed. They also lack AVX instructions (and AES-NI).
-- The Celerons are even slower, and 2 or 1MB of cache, and the lowest end one is single core.

In all cases they are all Sandy Bridge. They are 32nm chips with that core architecture. The lower end ones just have less features, cache, clockspeed, and so on and thus can be made cheaper.

Basically these days "Core" is Intel's mainstream and high end brand. Everything from about $120 up is branded Core. Pentiums are their budget brand, the $60-100 range. Celerons are their extreme budget brand. $40-50 (only sold to OEMs).

Re:Nothing (5, Interesting)

Shinobi (19308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164074)

The difference with the Pentium 350 is that it is HT and supports VT-x and ECC. And has a TDP of 15W.

I'm trying to dump the Zacate I bought about a month ago onto someone now, and buy a Pentium 350 instead.... The Zacate gets rather hot(noticed 67 degrees Celsius from on-die sensor) when decoding a movie for example, even with a fan. With the Pentium 350 and a GT 520 for example, I could go completely fanless, and not reach those temperatures.

Re:Nothing (5, Funny)

rapidreload (2476516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164094)

Sycraft-fu, your posts are consistently accurate, informative and insightful. Could you at least pretend to troll once in a while? It's much more fun!

A cluster**** of unclearly-positioned brands (5, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164546)

Basically these days "Core" is Intel's mainstream and high end brand. Everything from about $120 up is branded Core. Pentiums are their budget brand, the $60-100 range. Celerons are their extreme budget brand. $40-50 (only sold to OEMs).

Good grief, Intel's marketing department really needs a good slapping.

Their brand positioning used to make sense when you knew that Celeron was their budget line (though sometimes quite decent) and Pentium-XXX (later replaced by Core-XXX) the standard midrange, with Xeon for servers.

So when they brought back Pentium, I was confused until (as you say) realising that it was meant as a kind-of-lower-priced line, but not as cheap as the Celeron (*). Confused partly because they still had the Core 2 (**) then i3/i5/i7 lines as their mainstream brand which Pentium used to represent.

In other words, they brought back the Pentium name due (presumably) to some vague consumer recognition, but not for what it was used before and for some vaguely-defined semi-budget segment.

Worse, it isn't even necessary because the current "Core" line is split into i3, i5 and i7, which is an easily-understood hierarchy, and along with the "Celeron", there's absolutely no need for another damn confusing name.

*Now* they're making things even more of a cluster**** by using the Pentium name on low-end *server* (not mainstream) processors.

Please note that I'm *not* talking about the underlying architecture, which marketing doesn't necessarily follow, and which the man on the street probably doesn't care about much. I'm simply talking about incompetent marketing and positioning in that there are a mess of names that no longer represent their intended price segment and/or use clearly.

Then again, perhaps confusion is the aim of the game, as it makes it easier for sales people to bamboozle the public and upsell more expensive CPUs than they need? But I suspect not.

(*) You say that Celeron is now an ultra-cheap OEM-only thing, but I can still apparently purchase boxed versions here [dabs.com] and here [ebuyer.com] , for example.

(**) And while I'm here, "Core" and "Core 2" were absolutely stupid choices for a processor name, as "core" already had a technologically-defined use we all know well, and "Core" (the name) was thus guaranteed to confused anyone not in the field, e.g. a dual-core Core, etc. etc..... "Core 2" was even worse, as it's going to get easily confused with "dual core" and terms like "Core 2 Quad" (i.e. a four-core "Core 2"!) are just a confusing mess for Joe Public. I know of at least one alleged computer technician (i.e. someone who *could* be expected to know this) who thought that "Core 2" in itself meant that it was a dual-core processor! I'll give them a free pass on the fact that the original "Core" line didn't actually feature the "Core" architecture, as I was complaining about bad marketing, and marketing doesn't normally mention internal architectures anyway.

Re:A cluster**** of unclearly-positioned brands (5, Funny)

iviv66 (1146639) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164752)

*Now* they're making things even more of a cluster**** by using the Pentium name on low-end *server* (not mainstream) processors.

You forgot to include the footnote for explaining the **** there!

Re:A cluster**** of unclearly-positioned brands (2)

gallondr00nk (868673) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164976)

What's worse, up until fairly recently they had *two* different chips named after the Pentium. The Pentium D and the Pentium Dual Core.

Who thought up these product ranges? Never mind naming them both Pentium, but giving them similar names? I've known lots of people confuse the two. I have no idea why we need all these product ranges. Celeron, Pentium and Xeon should be sufficient, with maybe something to differentiate the i7. But for god's sake, give them distinct and understandable names!

Re:Nothing (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164722)

Celerons are their extreme budget brand. $40-50 (only sold to OEMs).

Sounds incorrect. I can get a Celeron here [alternate.de] . Not that I'd ever buy a Celeron or a Pentium. Those names are tarnished for me.

Smart move by intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163872)

Their chips became to powerful and you can run 4-8 vm's off a core i7. That's only 300 bucks. We don't need that much power, scale it back and sell chips that would do the same as a p4 2.4ghz that appeal to the masses. Kudos intel.

Re:Smart move by intel (1)

bkmoore (1910118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163970)

How does a dedicated server appeal to the masses?

Re:Smart move by intel (5, Informative)

leenks (906881) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164104)

HP Microservers sold like hotcakes, and were based around AMD's Athlon II Neo N36L processor - which is 64bit, dual core, 25W TDP, VT-x etc. No doubt Intel want part of this pie

Re:Smart move by intel (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164228)

It's pretty obvious that the low TDP means it's meant for something fanless/low-noise like MacMini servers. Though the MacMini already runs a laptop i5 chip for the same reason.

I hope, but have little faith in Intel when it comes to putting out cooler chips with lower TDP. When they have 100W+ TDP, you can only stuff 4 of them in a 15A rack. When they're 15W, that comes up to 24 ,machines or even blade systems.

But I think it might actually be an attempt to beat Calxeda before it sells any servers. http://www.calxeda.com/products/energycore/ecx1000 1.5Watts per chip (5Watts at maximum power.) The point to notice is the Pentium VTd feature is missing, which means it's not meant for VM's

Dual core for servers? (2)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163880)

That'd be a very very low end server!
You can buy more powerful hardware, a desktop actually, with 4 cores and call it your server.
Naaa, Intel is killing the Pentium.

Re:Dual core for servers? (5, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163936)

Desktops don't have ECC. This does. Two cores with hyperthreading and ECC, only drawing 15W, isn't such a bad idea for the lowest of low-end servers.

Re:Dual core for servers? (5, Interesting)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164048)

What this looks perfect for is a NAS... now if only anyone would release a mITX C202/C204 board with 6 SATA ports on it.

Re:Dual core for servers? (1)

Fackamato (913248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164548)

That'd be perfect. 6x 3TB in RAID6 on that baby... 12TB in a small box!

Re:Dual core for servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164602)

wtf happened to the other 6TB?

Re:Dual core for servers? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164656)

RAID 6 = 2 disks for "parity"

Re:Dual core for servers? (0)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164666)

RAID-z2 thanks

Re:Dual core for servers? (5, Informative)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164152)

Depending on the company, this would even be fine for an ESXi host to run 5-6 VMs on, given enough ram. As any ESX admin will tell you, you'll run out of IO and memory LONG before you get anywhere near running out of CPU these days, for all but the most cpu-demanding tasks (like VDI, code breaking, rendering, etc).

Doesn't support VMs in hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164504)

So it won't be fine for an ESXi host.

Re:Doesn't support VMs in hardware (1)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164910)

Hmm.. thought i saw someone else comment that it has VT instructions. If not, then too bad.

Still, point remains I guess. Even if its pushed at low end physical servers - CPU these days just isn't required. Even less so if you aren't virtualising multiple servers onto one machine. Just retired a couple of blades last year that were pentium III 1.3ghz single cores. They were still running around 90-99% idle most of the time (web server for internal app + db server to go with it).

Re:Dual core for servers? (2)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164418)

Desktops don't have ECC. This does.

Pretty much all AMD desktop chips support unregistered ECC memory. It's great for situations where you load up a desktop with RAM and hard drives instead of building a separate NAS. If Intel has two memory controller designs, I can understand that they don't ship ECC on desktops, but I suspect that they just flip a bit in the microcode, which is really annoying. AMD did it once as well, when they disabled a perfectly good core on quad core chips to get the cheaper 3-core versions, but they don't seem to disable features as much as Intel. I can totally understand that the Pentium ships with worse integrated graphics, because that's a large amount of silicon. The other stuff seems like a failure of capitalism to me -- Companies should be encouraged to make the most of their resources. People who buy i3s may realise that they want to do full disk encryption, why not give them the AES instructions?

Re:Dual core for servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164466)

My HP desktop workstation at work has ECC and can take up to 32GB of it. ECC is available for desktops if you want it and it makes sense if you have a lot of RAM.

Re:Dual core for servers? (3, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164516)

Desktops don't have ECC. This does.

Really? Because even a low end AMD motherboard supports (certainly the 40GBP range ASUS ones do) ECC. It's very hard to find such a low-clocked processor as the 1.8GHz Pentium 350, but processors don't put out all that much heat if you don't use them much. It's also a motherboard which allows for easy underclocking, should you wish to reduce the power draw.

Re:Dual core for servers? (2)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164632)

Intel desktop (Core/Pentium/Celeron) processors don't. You need to get a Xeon UP/DP workstation processor (same socket as the server processors, but have a larger TDP and run at a higher clockrate) in order to get ECC. This is a "Pentium" branded processor, and not a Xeon that has ECC.

Re:Dual core for servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164588)

Actually, it is quite nice to use as the MAC in a hardware-based router or switch. You must have a hardware forwarding engine to go with it, though... still, this chip is easily and cheaply connectable to ~4GB of ECC DDR3, and therefore is quite capable of holding large routing tables (such as several copies of the full Internet routing table, which is ~400k routes for each copy) and therefore it could work well in a border router.

Re:Dual core for servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164700)

By my calcs, the difference in cost at 12 cents per kwh, between a 15 watt CPU and a 45 watt CPU in a 24/7 system is, like, $32/yr. I mean, hey, if you're generating your own power from solar panels or something, that kind of power micro-management is perhaps significant, but really, power savings alone don't seem to justify their use.

Re:Dual core for servers? (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164738)

"Intel Desktops don't have ECC" FTFY

AMD desktops all support ECC and have for ages. When you figure in the cost of the board and Intel's price for the chip one could easily get get one of the low power Phenom variations and still have money in your pocket. One of the places i like to get chips from (great bunch to shop with BTW) has the AMD Phenom X4 9150e [starmicroinc.net] which is a 65w quad at 1.8GHz for $55. Slap it in a nice cheap business class board, I prefer the ECS business class myself, and you have a nice cheap server that will be quiet as a churchmouse while being cheaper and more powerful than the Intel Pentium dual.

Re:Dual core for servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164886)

It wouldn't be a bad idea if there was also a good and cheap motherboard to go with it. I checked on Newegg and the cheapest C204 motherboard is $165 and it doesn't even have USB 3.0 nor a PCI-E x16 slot.

Re:Dual core for servers? (1)

Agripa (139780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38165012)

My Phenom II desktop has ECC. The cost difference between it and an equivalent Intel system more than paid for a hardware raid controller and 4 big drives. My previous two desktops, a P4 and P3, both have ECC as well.

It's only a matter of time. (5, Interesting)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163894)

Until Intel brings back the Pentium brand in general.

Unless they're stupid.

I'll never understand why they killed their most visible, most recognised brand.

Easy answer, dude! (1, Troll)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163916)

Because they're stupid! And stupidly dumb.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (2)

yourdeadin (944000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163948)

They had too much money and apparently AMD gave them enough rope to hang them self.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (1, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163950)

Their whole Pentium M, Centrino and Core brands are based on the Pentium III "Tualatin".

Pentium never died, although P4 came close. That was a dead end.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163962)

Because the ageing pentium architecture was a mess, and they needed to redesign from scratch for the Core 2 architecture - which was a great improvement. They stopped using the pentium brand because they stopped selling chips with any pentium-based technology in.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (5, Informative)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164072)

Because the ageing pentium architecture was a mess, and they needed to redesign from scratch for the Core 2 architecture - which was a great improvement. They stopped using the pentium brand because they stopped selling chips with any pentium-based technology in.

What is the "Pentium architecture"? The microarchitecture of the original Pentium (P5) was different from the microarchitecture of the Pentium Pro/Pentium II/Pentium III (P6), and P6 was different from the microarchitecture of the Pentium 4 (NetBurst), and NetBurst was different from the microarchitecture of the Pentium M (which was, I think, P6-derived). The microarchitecture of the Core 2 (Core) was, I think, Pentium M-derived.

So there's Pentium-the-chip (P5), and there's Pentium-the-brand, which was first used with the P5 chip but was also used with chips with significantly different microarchitectures from the P5 chip.

The Pentium 350 apparently uses the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture, along with a bunch of other microprocessors [intel.com] , some named Core, some named Xeon, some named Celeron, and some named Pentium. Some of the ones named Pentium were launched in Q3 2011, before the Pentium 350, so "Intel Breathes New Life Into Pentium" is, to use the technical term, a "complete bullshit headline".

Re:It's only a matter of time. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164270)

It is complicated, yes. I can't keep track of it all myself.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164314)

32-bit x86 CISC instruction set based CPUs should be called Pentiums - as you point out, the core architectures were all over the place. I'd consider Celerons, Xeons and others as subsets of Pentiums.

As I said elsewhere, I'd call the x64 based CPUs something else other than Pentiums.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164500)

That makes absolutely no sense. You would consider a 32-bit Pentium 4 505 as a "True Pentium" and a 64-bit Pentium 4 506 as something else even though they are both based on Prescott microarchitecture but the 505 processor has 64-bit capabilities disabled???

Re:It's only a matter of time. (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164590)

Yeah. I'd not base the naming on the internal similarities, but on the external differences. The way I'm suggesting it, one wouldn't be able to run 64-bit instructions on Pentiums, and so if the same CPU had the 64-bit capabilities enabled, I'd not call it a Pentium.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164566)

George: Who's keys are these?
Jerry: Not my keys?
Kramer: Who's are these?

Re:It's only a matter of time. (2)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164158)

Where "redesign from scratch" means "tweak the old p6 core a bit more"

Re:It's only a matter of time. (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164326)

Only 'redesigned from scratch' CPU from Intel was the Itanium. And to an extent, their EM-64s

Re:It's only a matter of time. (2)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164358)

To most people, Pentium was just a brand name. The technology behind it was irrelevant. Even if tomorrow Intel starts making their CPUs out of tungsten and unicorn tears, they could still call it Pentium.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163978)

you mean like any of these?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116381

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116399

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116398

Pentium has always been here in name, its just not their primary chips any more. Pentium is more along the lines of "budget" chips these days

Re:It's only a matter of time. (4, Interesting)

korgitser (1809018) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163984)

I'll never understand why they killed their most visible, most recognised brand.

For me that hasn't been much of a question. For what I gather, the Intel brand is way stronger than the Pentium brand. You don't buy Pentium or Core, you buy Intel. Their changing the processor name only signifies that they are moving forward (and leading) as usual.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (3, Insightful)

unitron (5733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164160)

"You don't buy Pentium or Core, you buy Intel."

The more technically aware perhaps, but people like the dudes who got Dells (i.e., the ones who had no idea that there were any OS'es besides Windows) knew they wanted a Pentium even if they didn't know if it was made by Intel or Mat-tel.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164668)

The more technically aware preferred AMD over Intel back when AMD were selling their AMD Athlon XP desktop processors. Those processors ran hotter than Intel equivalents but they sure offered a lot more performance for compute-intensive applications and games.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (4, Funny)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164008)

It's all about the Pentiums, baby

...of time, 22nm, till intel hit brick wall (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164044)

Because IBM rename one of their O.S.'s "i", and released the POWER7 which dominates the sever market in performance. Microsoft renames windows version 6.2 as Windows 7. IBM announces their PowerPC A2 processor which also sets record levels in performance all under 50-watts, so Apple names their processor A4. IBM announced in the late 90's the huge performance upgrade to their mainframes would be G5, so Apple decides to refer to the PowerPC 74xx's as the G series. Apple, Intel, and Microsoft are all trying to defuse the technological dominance that IBM has.

Re:...of time, 22nm, till intel hit brick wall (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164206)

and released the POWER7 which dominates the sever market in performance

Yes, but when you can get so many of anything else that is slightly slower it's fairly irrelevant unless you have a black-ops budget to play with or some other reason to be immune from accountants.

Re:...of time, 22nm, till intel hit brick wall (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164348)

Except that IBM's A2 was based on PowerPC, whereas Apple's A4 & A5 were based on ARM.

PowerPC 750 was already the G3 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164936)

IBM announced in the late 90's the huge performance upgrade to their mainframes would be G5, so Apple decides to refer to the PowerPC 74xx's as the G series.

Or perhaps they called the 7400 series "G4" because the PowerPC 750 was already the G3. As marketed to Mac users, the first-generation PowerPC was 601, the second was 603 and 604, and the third was 750.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164242)

You know that a technology has become a commodity when even the nerds focus more on brand issues than on technical details.

Re:It's only a matter of time. (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164260)

The impression I got from P4's was that they were always overheating and the consessions made to get these high frequencies were unacceptable (looooong pipelines) and limiting to the actual speed.
It was an overall recognised brand, but not always in a good way.

Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38163944)

Will this one be defective and unable to do math like the pentium 60?

Re:Cool! (5, Funny)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163974)

it was a 59.97, actually...

Re:Cool! (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164124)

I thought that was the video sweep on color NTSC sets.

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164340)

59.94, or to be more precise 60*1000/1001, it's the framerate of NTSC.

Re:Cool! (3, Funny)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164168)

A mate had a bugged P90 that he got cheap. For 99.9% of users, there was no issue. It certainly made for a cheap machine that kicked arse at quake, back when he got it for about the price of a 486.

Re:Not Cool, yet Hot Very HOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164708)

In the mid 90's DOE built a cluster Pentium Pro's, yet they were always over heating and the electric bill was extremely prohibitive. So they scraped the entire system that was less then a year old, and brought in IBM to build the super's using POWER4's.

Intel (1)

Cherubim1 (2501030) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163956)

I assume this is for low duty servers ? In any case, Intel has made a complete mess of its processor naming conventions. They lack any form of consistency or logic.

Atom.. (2)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38163982)

Is to try and stop people using Atom chips on the server due to their low profit margins? Doesn't have me fooled atleast. On the subject of the Pentium brand, it's best off where they left it. I think of Pentium I think slow, old and crap. To they extent I was put off the second I read the name.

It makes some sort of sense (2)

jwijnands (2313022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164020)

I suppose. Although these days I see most serious customers by a few high end servers and use vmware. I've yet to see a single low end low power server in a datacentre in this country

Re:It makes some sort of sense (2)

leenks (906881) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164114)

This kind of product is ideal for SMBs though, and even individuals who want a high performance NAS box. I've got AMD's equivalent processor (as I see it anyway) in a HP Microserver, and it runs a couple of Linux VMs and a Windows XP VM without a problem (for the odd bits of Windows stuff I have to do), as well as providing me with a fast 4x 3.5" removable HDD storage solution.

Re:It makes some sort of sense (2)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164190)

This will likely be aimed at the small 10-20 employee shops to run vmware (or hyperV - blech) on. Free copy of ESXi, low end cpu like this with plenty of RAM = win. Add nodes/vcenter license and CPU/RAM as you grow.

Re:It makes some sort of sense (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164924)

There are corps who buy a ``a few high end servers and use vmware'' and then there are corps who buy thousands of low-end cheap boxes and build hadoop clusters.

Retroactively rebrand... (2)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164022)

... all their 32-bit x86 CPUs as Pentiums, including the recent names, such as Pentium i3 Dual Cores, etc, an come up w/ a new name for all their x64 CPUs - maybe call it Hexiums, or Sexiums, and append them w/ their current names, such as Xeon, Core2Quad, et al, so that they'd have a good branding strategy. And come up w/ low cost versions of the Itanium, since it's obviously going nowhere in servers, and they might as well get some lower cost versions of that CPU and offer systems on that loaded w/ things like FreeBSD, Debian, et al.

Still selling the same chip? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164058)

1999: 1.2 gHz
2011: 1.4 gHz

NO SALE

Re:Still selling the same chip? (4, Insightful)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164076)

Hmmm... processors do do more work per clock nowadays as compared to 12 years ago. And, they do it at waaaaaaaay less power and cost. Think about your huge many-fanned nearly 1kW rig from the turn of the millennium vs. the cramped space of a 1U slot pulling maybe 100W. This ain't your father's Pentium.

Only by changing the architecture. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164748)

So if you're right, and it gets far more done per clock, then it isn't a pentium. If it IS the pentium, then the OP is right, and it's a 200MHz speed pimple.

Pentium 350? (2)

unitron (5733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164134)

What happened to the Pentium 5 through 349?

Re:Pentium 350? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164294)

The Pentium did have maths problems.

Re:Pentium 350? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164350)

Floating point divide problems, to be precise. But I think GP was asking what happened to all the integers between 5 and 349?

Re:Pentium 350? (2)

thogard (43403) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164444)

Their formula for picking the next number involved a sub expression of 4195835/3145727.

Re:Pentium 350? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164474)

I had a Pentium 66 and a Pentium 266 back in the day.

Re:Pentium 350? (3, Funny)

unitron (5733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164508)

In other words you had a waffle iron and a 266.

Re:Pentium 350? (1)

timepilot (116247) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164634)

They were not entirely successful.

Windows 95? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164988)

The same thing that happened to Windows 4 through 94.

Good News! (-1, Offtopic)

Tom Cross (2517010) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164234)

This is a very good news, I have some kind of emotional affection to Pentium! Moving [movingcompanies.co.uk]

Integrated graphics? (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164264)

More like integrated waste of money.

Re:Integrated graphics? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164524)

on 1.2ghz server though, integrated graphics would be more reasonable than on most of the machines integrated graphics ship on.. so.. uh.. I don't think this is a chip for totally gpu'less installations either..

New legal battle on the horizon (2)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164310)

So if Intel is now pushing the Pentium brand, and having suffered Intel's legal belligerence myself, I feel sorry for all those who have brand names starting with P and having less than 12 letters.

What about Windows Servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38164690)

Are these not for Windows servers? Or do they expect that a desktop system will work with integrated graphics, and a Windows server will require a real graphics card?

I would expect it to be the other way around. The desktop user needs the real graphics card for his games, where as the server will do fine with integrated graphics.

hopefully without any bugs (1)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38164922)

f00f

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?