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!

2.2 GHz Xeon

Hemos posted more than 13 years ago | from the cut-on-out-speed-one-up dept.

Intel 253

INicheI writes "According to Intel, the plans for a release of a 2GHz Xeon for dual processor servers have been cancelled. Instead Intel is planning to debut a 2.2GHz chip codenamed "Prestonia" that will be ready the first quarter of 2002. I would love to see Quake running on a 4.4GHz computer."

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

Just Quake? (1)

EvilBuu (145749) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323873)

Classic Quake + Software Mode + 4.4GHz = How many hundred fps?

Re:Just Quake? (2)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323901)

Classic Quake + Software Mode + 4.4GHz = How many hundred fps?

Just think of how bad the bottleneck would be at the video card. Heck, with a config like this, software mode would be better than hardware mode.

Re:Just Quake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323910)

duh, classic quake didn't support any hardware rendering. You had to get VQuake (for Rendition cards) and GLQuake for everything else.

Re:Just Quake? (1)

havardi (122062) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323956)

some ass actually convinced me that Vquake (and hence rendition) was much better than Glquake (voodoo) and i bought a diamond stealth 3d II with the rendition piece of shit.. Nevermind that it was nearly impossible to run in X, but besides Vquake I think I played exactly ONE other game that actually supported the chipset.

It's still sitting a box along with a gravis ultrasound and a number nine video card :-p

Re:Just Quake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324098)

its your own stupid fault so stop blaming other for your faults

Re:Just Quake? (1)

ThatComputerGuy (123712) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323958)

Screw that, how about the obligatory Quake on a Beowulf cluster of these suckers?

It had to be said eventually...

Re:Just Quake? (1)

fod (266895) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324068)

Classic Quake + Software Mode + 4.4GHz = How many hundred fps?


"4.4GHz", first of all, Quake doesn't support SMP, and MHz has the exact same meaning as MIPS: Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed.

Just think of how bad the bottleneck would be at the video card. Heck, with a config like this, software mode would be better than hardware mode.


Well, PCI is running at 33MHz, giving a maximum potential transferrate of 133MB/secs, so if the processor didn't do anything else than pumping data to the graphicsboard, you would get 101.47 FPS in 1280*1024*8. But with hardware rendering, you only have to transfer a bunch of coordinates, enabling a much higher speed than with software rendering.

Re:Just Quake? (1)

led (3096) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324133)

"Accelerated Graphics Port (AGP) Pro slot boasting a maximum data transfer rate of over 1GB per second."

Most graphics cards nowadays are in a AGP slot, around here i can't even buy a PCI one... so those 133MB/s are way off... AGP X4 gives 1GB/s, of course you might just get x2 but it's still 512MB/s

Quake? (3, Funny)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323874)

Why quake...i wanna see pong on that beast!

Re:Quake? (2)

KarmaBlackballed (222917) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323883)

And space invaders.

That's not enough to run Pong... (2, Interesting)

Juju (1688) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324072)

Actually, this might not be enough power to emulate the game...
There was a discussion about this on the MAME discussion board (www.mame.net) saying that it would probably require 5Ghz machines to run a simulation of the circuits using the schematics of the game. Pong is an analog game, it's got no microprocessor nor ROM. So emulating it is mighty difficult!

4.4 ghz ? lame (1)

cfhx (144736) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323875)

heh, 4.4ghz.. i don't think so buddy

4.4 ghz marketing soundin phrase (2)

bwhalen (246170) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323881)

adding the speeds to get 4.4 ghz, cmon u sound like Cisco when they talk about 2 100bt lines in a vlan as a 400 meg connection..

Re:4.4 ghz marketing soundin phrase (1)

xophos (517934) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324038)

The real question is, what will they say, when they have to switch to clockless chips for performanze and heatefichiency? Maybe something like the pentium rating of the old k6... " Hey my nu Compy got 6g P-five rating!"

Uhhh... 4.4ghz... no. (1)

Drakin (415182) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323885)

Dual processor machines arn't working in series, they're working in parellel. So, the computeing power is not simply added together.

They do more work faster, but not twice as fast as a normal chip.

Re:Uhhh... 4.4ghz... no. (2)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323912)

Dual processor machines arn't working in series, they're working in parallel. So, the computeing power is not simply added together.

So they're like resistors (in that they add in series but not in parallel)?

Rt = (R1 * R2) / (R1 + R2), so it would run at (2.2 * 2.2) / (2.2 + 2.2) = 4.84 / 4.4 = 1.1 GHz. Damn.

Re:Uhhh... 4.4ghz... no. (2)

ASCIIMan (47627) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323937)

Umm... so because hard drives have large capacities nowadays, it is useless to buy newer faster processors, because when you have lots of capacity, "resistance is futile"... hehe.. nerd puns!

Re:Uhhh... 4.4ghz... no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323915)

Sometimes, on certain workloads, an SMP box can be FASTER than twice a box with only one of the same CPU.

2 CPUs == twice the cache.

Re:Uhhh... 4.4ghz... no. (1)

NNKK (218503) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323932)

this has been discussed at great length in the past, that is a highly theoretical and VERY conditional situation

Re:Uhhh... 4.4ghz... no. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324089)

I've certainly never seen it happen on real production code, but its easy to make it happen, so its not theoretical.

Recipe:
Write a program that operates on a dataset just smaller than 2x your CPU's L2 cache size. Time it on your single CPU box.

Add the second CPU, and break the program into two threads, one operates on the first half of the dataset, the other on the second half. Time it.

I'm sure a similar parallelization has just happened to occur at some point in the history of computing... =)

What's up with summing the processors speeds? (1)

mrpull (112590) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323886)

What's up with summing the processor's speeds? 2 processors at 2.2Ghz != 4.4Ghz.

mr

Re:What's up with summing the processors speeds? (1)

TheAlabamaKid (243687) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323988)

That's what IBM does for their supercomputers. But, I'd think that 1.5x speed up would be great for 2 CPUs.

what? (1)

scxw65d (50032) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323887)

Wow, you're doing processor addition, similar to how Atari made their Jaguar a "64 bit" machine.

2 * 2.2 GHz computers in parallel != 4.4 GHz. Dumbass.

Stupid Question (2)

David E. Smith (4570) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323888)

This article says the 2GHz processor for dual-processor servers has been cancelled, but then goes on to say that a 2GHz processor for dual-processor workstations is coming "in September" (though they don't say of which year). In this context, what's the difference? I'm assuming it's onboard cache or something similar, but I'd love to know.

Re:Stupid Question (3, Informative)

Dwain_Snyders (412284) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324086)

There are several advantages to a setup as described in this story ... a dual-processor Xeon can have benefits on the desktop. Of course, I'd never push a Xeon processor in this enviroment as I honestly don't think it will be the overall best solution in the near future. With dual-Athlons and Durons on the horizon, I'd take a closer look at them before considering a dual Xeon system, if only for the price aspect. However, I will attempt to explain why the Xeon architecture is superior to a standard Pentium III and why it potentially matters on the desktop.

Intel produces a version of the Pentium II and III called the "Xeon", which contains up to 2 megabytes of L2 cache. The Xeon is used frequently in servers as it supports 8-way multi-processing, but on the desktop the Xeon does offer considerable speed advantages over the standard Pentium III when large amounts of data are involved.

Basically, the larger the working set of an application, that is, the amount of code and data in use at any given time, the larger the L2 cache needs to be. To keep costs low, Intel and AMD have both actually DECREASED the sizes of their L2 caches in newer versions of the Pentium III and Athlon, which I believe is a mistake. (AMD is working on this in the new chips - new technology will be used to increase the size of the L2 cache while retaining the full data-shuttle flexibility).

The top level cache, the L1 cache, is the most crucial, since it is accessed first for any memory operation. The L1 cache uses extremely high speed memory (which has to keep up with the internal speed of the processor), so it is very expensive to put on chip and tends to be relatively small. Again, from 8K in the 486 to 128K in the Athlon.

The next step is the decoder, and this is one of the two major flaws of the P6 family. The 4-1-1 rule prevents more than one "complex" instruction from being decoded each clock cycle. Much like the U-V pairing rules for the original Pentium, Intel's documents contain tables showing how many micro-ops are required by every machine language instructions and they give guidelines on how to group instructions.

Unlike main memory, the decoder is always in use. Every clock cycle, it decodes 1, 2, or 3 instructions of machine language code. This limits the throughput of the processor to at most 3 times the clock speed. For example, a 1 GHz Pentium III can execute at most 3 billion instructions per second, or 3000 MIPS. In reality, most programmers and most compilers write code that is less than optimal, and which is usually grouped for the complex-simple-complex-simple pairing rules of the original Pentium. As a result, the typical throughput of a P6 family processor is more like double the clock speed. For example, 2000 MIPS for a 1 GHz processor. You'll notice that the Athlon outperfoms the P3 family in this regard by a large margin.

Intel, kiss my ass (-1)

ubertroll (153053) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323889)


* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g g
o / \ \ / \ o
a| | \ | | a
t| `. | | : t
s` | | \| | s
e \ | / / \\\ -- \\ : e
x \ \/ --~~ ~--| \ | x
* \ \-~ ~-\ | *
g \ \ .--------.__\| | g
o \ \_// ((> \ | o
a \ . C ) _ ((> | / a
t /\ | C )/ \ (> |/ t
s / /\| C) | (> / \ s
e | ( C__)\__/ // / / \ e
x | \ | \\__// (/ | x
* | \ \) `---- --' | *
g | \ \ / / | g
o | / | | \ | o
a | | / \ \ | a
t | / / | | \ |t
s | / / \/\/ | |s
e | / / | | | |e
x | | | | | |x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

in no way would it be "4.4GHz computer" (0, Troll)

2ms (232331) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323893)

Do we really need this kind of meaningless numbers shit/hype on Slashdot too?

Re:in no way would it be "4.4GHz computer" (1)

aka-ed (459608) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323966)

Do we really need this kind of meaningless numbers shit/hype on Slashdot too?

Without it, when could we say "Beowulf?"

"Xeon" sounds cool, but... (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323894)

Despite the high-end sounding name, this chip is nothing more than a crappy old Pentium 4 with some extra cache. When benchmarked against a 1.6 GHz desktop Palomino, you'll see that it not all that much faster.



If you want a multiprocessing server in Q1 2002, the chips to buy are AMD. By then 3 or 4 mobos that support dual processors will be online. Load up on DDR and you'll be able to host anything.

Re:"Xeon" sounds cool, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323982)

Intel Clones are collapsing in complete disarray.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict the future of Intel Clones. The hand writing is on the wall: Intel Clones faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Intel Clones because Intel Clones is dying. Things are looking very bad for Intel Clones. As many of us are already aware, Intel Clones continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. Cyrix is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Intel Clone leader AMD states that there are 700000 users of Athlon. How many users of Winchips are there? Let's see. The number of Athlon versus Winchip posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 700000/5 = 140000 Winchip users. IBM "Blue Lightning" posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Winchip posts. Therefore there are about 70000 users of Blue Lightning. Through the use of "Performance Rating" numbers, this is consistent with the number of Cyrix Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Cyrix, abysmal sales and so on, 6x86 went out of business and was taken over by SiS who sell another troubled Intel Clone. Now SiS is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that Intel Clones have steadily declined in market share. Intel Clones are very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Intel Clones are to survive at all it will be among ghetto hobbyists dabblers. Intel Clones continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Intel Clones are dead.

Dual Xeon 1.7 Vs Dual Athlon 1.2 link (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323999)

If you're not convinced that the newest Athlon MP will wipe the floor with the 2.2 GHz Xeon, check out the humiliation [aceshardware.com] that a dual 1.7 MHz Xeon system suffers at the hands of a lowly 1.2 GHz dual Athlon.

I know there will be some of you who'll say "Mah mama told me to not buy no AMD." But for the rest of us, this will be a no-brainer. For the difference in chip prices you will be able to pay for most of the 4 GB of DDR that AMD mobos will support. Or maybe yo' mama told you to send your money to Rambus...

just incase no-one else has posted this info (0)

tahpot (237053) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323900)

2.2 x 2 != 4.4 !!!!
OK?
GOT IT?
geeeezz i'm surprised no one else has pointed this out yet geeeezz

Re:just incase no-one else has posted this info (1)

Furry Ice (136126) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323934)

I'm surprised you didn't realize that everyone else was pointing this out while you were in the process of pointing it out.

Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of those.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323904)

Just try playing Quake when the monsters are running 500 times as fast as the original game. Bam! Grendel bites your arm off, and you're dead....

Forgetting something? (1)

brad3378 (155304) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323907)

I was hoping to hear the latest Beowolf cluster joke.

A camel, a red mozillasaur and a penguin walk into a bar...
ahhh.......nevermind

Re:Forgetting something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323913)

Funny thing is, there isn't much else to comment about on this topic.

At what point... (2)

Satai (111172) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323908)

...does the human eye stop noticing FPS increases? At some absurd speed, we have to stop being able to distinguish, right?

And besides, would Quake have the texture mapping to really utilize it? Or the polygon count?

Really, what I'd like to see is a 'make buildworld' or 'make bzImage' on it. That'd be a good dipstick to jam in the ol' engine.

Re:At what point... (1)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323940)

Heh, quake 3 already gets well above 150 fps on an athlon 1.4 with a geforce 3.. which is faster than the refresh rate of the monitor. So in that case, the bottleneck is the monitor. :) Anyway, after about 60, fps becomes a dicksizing thing (my box is better blah blah) and I really hate dicksizing contests.

And.. Yes, I have to say it.. Damn, I'd love to see a beowulf cluster of those!

Re:At what point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324049)

you may get 150fps on average, but what about when you increase your resolution, have tons of objects in motion on the screen at once, the objects are more detailed, etc? in order to achieve a decent frame rate while all that is going on, your average now becomes 300fps.

Re:At what point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324078)

>and I really hate dicksizing contests.

there there... its not about weather you win or lose...

Re:At what point... (1)

thehag (301979) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323942)

I have trouble distinguishing between anything above 20 FPS or so. I don't know of any normal video (exception: cameras for slow-motion) that does anything over 30 FPS.

Re:At what point... (2, Funny)

thehag (301979) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323949)

Looks like from everyone else's comments that I must be blind.

Oh well. At least I can't hear very well either.

Re:At what point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323969)

You must be, blind... Anything below 75Hz just screws with my eyes. (3D, and monitor refresh rates)

Re:At what point... (2, Insightful)

Osty (16825) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323964)

The difference here is that you're talking about a constant 24fps or 30fps (film vs. NTSC -- those numbers aren't exactly right, because most film projectors open the shutter 2-3 times per frame, making an apparent 48-72fps, while NTSC is interlaced, making an apparent 60fps) with motion blurring and other movement artifacts that make frames flow together. For a video game (quake, for instance), you're talking an average fps, meaning that if you're getting an average of 30fps, you're very likely going to drop down into the teens when you run into heavy action. 60fps is the "sweet spot", since you should still stay above 30fps even in heavy action. That said, there are no motion blur effects with video games (well, yet anyway -- when 3dfx tried to do that, they ended up getting an average of 3-4fps), which means that you need a higher fps just to see smooth motion. In other words, the point of having 100+fps in a video game, average case, is to make the worst case still look smooth.


Anyway, once you can achieve an average fps of 100+, it's time to start turning that detail level up. A GeForce 3 may scream with nearly 200fps in Q3A, in 640x480x16bpp with all the details turned down, and even get a decent 80fps or so with higher detail, but the next-gen games are going to be clocking in much lower, simply due to the fact that they are so graphically rich. What that means is that video accelerators will need to continue to improve, so that we can hit the 100+fps mark on these newer, higher-detail games, so that the generation after that can go back down to 30fps with even more detail, and so on.

Re:At what point... (1)

NNKK (218503) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323943)

the generally accepted level at which the human eye ON AVERAGE stops distinguishing FPS, is 60

some people claim they can't see the difference much past 30, and there are a select few people that can tell the difference above 60

and don't get me started on refresh rates :P

Re:At what point... (1)

BinaryAlchemy (521587) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323975)

It's around 36 FPS, that's why movies are done at 36 (Quality movies, cheap ones can get away with 24).

Re:At what point... (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324006)

Well if your running a large quake III server with over 32 connections, (on a very high speed line of course) your gonna start needing that speed.

Movies = 24 fps, NTSC TV = 30 fps, PAL TV = 25 fps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324028)

You don't need that many frames per second for motion picture quality.

Re:At what point... (1)

flok (24996) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324055)

They could instead (instead of increasing the FPS) improve the rendering. No more lightmaps but raytracing. Now that would be exciting!

(or radiosity)

Re:At what point... (2, Informative)

phil_was_here (520555) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324109)

brings back memories of school at the medical center. this probably goes under what is called the temporal sensitivity of the human visual system. if you gradually increase the frequency of a blinking light you reach what is called the CFF or critical flicker frequency (or FFF) where the system can no longer detect that the light is flashing (it appears continuous). we got to do all these fun experiments. central vision (foveal cones) has a CFF of 50-70 Hz depending on the lighting conditions (state of adaptation); whereas, peripheral vision (rods) has a CFF of only 15-20 Hz. another point is that the fovea is not that sensitive to changes in light amplitude (level); whereas, in the periphery small luminance changes can be detected. this accounts for being able to detect the flicker of fluorescent lights out of the corner of your eye... then when viewed fovealy it stops flickering because here it is less sensitive. in summary we can say that peripheral vision fuses at low frequency and that it can detect flicker with small modulation. becoming a doctor was a lot of fun :p.

Re:At what point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324122)

You could always have use for such computing power when it comes to games, a few come to mind:
* higher resolution (thinking 1600X1200X32bit)
* dual screens

Besides, you could always improve the scenery complexity within every single frame!

test (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323914)

will this comment be censored TOO?

Nice troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323916)

This article is a troll. Delete it immediately.

Re:Nice troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323929)

haha yes. moderators should be able to assign scores to stories posted. this story is definitely troll-worthy.

what is it good for? (3, Funny)

dido (9125) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323923)

For an ordinary PC consumer? And let's not talk about Quake for this. Everyone knows that nobody can really see the difference between 40fps and 100+fps, so 3D gaming really is a shuck. Between today's modern graphics cards and even mid-range CPU's there's enough computing power to do high-quality 3-D rendering at high frame rates. I haven't upgraded my system (AMD K6-2 450) in two years, mainly because I've never found a good reason to do so. It does everything I need to do.

What the hardware industry needs is a new killer app like DOOM was in the early 1990's. DOOM may have made Id software millions, but it made Intel and its cohorts billions in hardware upgrades. If all you want is word processing, spreadsheets, and a few games here and there, nobody in his right mind would use a gigahertz-class processor, unless MS and Intel are in cahoots in making Office XP the bloated monster it is! :)

Video editing is a killer app (2, Insightful)

yerricde (125198) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323952)

What the hardware industry needs is a new killer app like DOOM was in the early 1990's.

This new app is video editing. After Effects filters run slowly because they have to run 60 times to each second of video. The sheer amount of data involved still makes video compression a very tedious process, even after spatial and temporal downsampling (i.e. cutting res and fps).

For pc-emulation (3, Informative)

Baki (72515) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323954)

Such extremely fast computers might be good for virtual-PC environments such as vmware. You Windows-in-a-virtual-PC always takes a huge performance hit due to emulation, so much that it isn't even possible to emulate 3D graphics hardware acceleration (direct-x) in such products.


Having an obscenely fast PC might make it possible to run Windows under Linux, and still have Windows including direct-x run with enough performance to do some serious gaming.

Re:For pc-emulation (2, Interesting)

biglig2 (89374) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324036)

If you have a dual processor box, can you configure it to make VMware hog one processor and the host OS hog the other?

Re:what is it good for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323957)

hey i read that article to... infact i think it was posted here so please site your sources next time you have an original thought

Re:what is it good for? (3, Informative)

OmegaDan (101255) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324025)

Everyone knows that nobody can really see the difference between 40fps and 100+fps

This is true but you've missed the point ... FPS is a measurement of *average* framerate. Ultra fast cards are an attempt to raise the *worst case* performance of the card not the average case. A mere side-effect of this is raising the FPS.

Re:what is it good for? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324093)

. Everyone knows that nobody can really see the difference between 40fps and 100+fps

We should play a game of quake 3 and I'll set my fps to max and you can set your max fps to 40.

I like seeing my fps in quake above 100. Anything less and you can see a statistical drop in my accuracy. Theres a reason companies like ati and nvidia are in the business they are in: fps matter. Heck a tnt2 can pull 40fps, why do you think people like geforce3 cards so much?

Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323924)

The worst terrorist attack in recorded history happened just over a week ago, and you folks are talking about Intel's plans to debut a 2.2GHz chip codenamed "Prestonia"?

GET SOME PRIORITIES!

Have you pricks even bothered donating $500 to the Red Cross yet like I have?

Insensitive pricks. ;-(

Re:Let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323972)

I admit the twin towers incident was not pleasant at all but still I'd rather buy a dual AMD mobo with the $500.

you philantrophic... yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324059)

Sounds to me like you didn't donate $500 you instead bought $500 of bragging rights and a false sence of supperiority. I'm sure the receivers of these funds did great things with them but since you received something in return (other than the quiet satisfaction of doing something good) I wouldn't exactly call you a philanthropist.

What good does this do me? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323927)

I don't need 2.2 Ghz to check my e-mail, browse the web, and jack off to porn. Now, give me a computer that can help me out in the VR sex department and I'll be happy.

Prestonia??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323931)

What kind of name is Prestonia?

At least AMD comes up with names like Clawhammer...

Re:Prestonia??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324015)

True enough, but AMD can't even add thermal protection into their fucking chips (to wit: a recent Slashdot story showing what happens when cooling devices fail). So *FUCK* AMD and their piece of shit chips. I'm going with Genuine Intel(TM) and you're a fascist terrorist communist motherfucker if you buy AMD.

VAPOUR (-1)

Spootnik (518145) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323939)

That 2.2GHz dildo will not exist til 2002. Hemos you're a stupid half-brained monkey.

Re:VAPOUR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323991)

That 2.2GHz dildo will not exist til 2002. Hemos you're a stupid half-brained monkey.
A "half-brained monkey" ? I think what you meant to say is ``half-brained porch monkey''.

Hope this helps.

Speed is very nice, but.... (3, Interesting)

Splezunk (250168) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323948)

What about reducing the power required, or the heat. How about the cost etc. I have no idea what really needs that sort of power? I know the Xeon is more of a server chip, so speed is important, but this trend is happening on Desktop chips too.

All this speed is encouraging programmers to be lazy and not use good code that works fast, but rather rely on the hardware being fast.

Just a bit of a rant...

Re:Speed is very nice, but.... (-1)

Spootnik (518145) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323971)

The hardware isn't even fast. My old 50 MHz SuperSPARC processor run snapyer than all the latest Intel GHz junk for fuck sake.

Easy. UNDERclock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324134)

I'm seriously considering to buy a new motherboard and Athlon Tbird (1 gigahertz + ) and then have it underclocked so it does not produce that much heat.
That way, I can:
* disconnect all fans (and thus eliminate all that %$#@$ noise)
* put it in a smaller form-factor case
* get better performance at the same old clock rate.

If I'm not mistaken, an underclocked CPU is still much better at it's lower clock-rate than a low end CPU of the same clock rate.

Quake and CPUs (2)

Alan (347) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323951)

From what I've heard, after about 900Mhz or so there is really no point in throwing extra cpu cycles at a game like quake. Classic quake would probably look about the same as well. I think at a certain point you need to either throw more video power at it or just realize that you've got room to spare for when the next game comes out (quake5 @ 2G anyone?)

Spurred by AMD and IBM? (3, Interesting)

Zergwyn (514693) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323953)

I wonder if this delay to increase performance might also be to head off IBM and AMD. Intel says that they will release the new Xeon in the 1st part of 2002. This coincides with AMD's roadmap plans [amd.com] to release its own server .13 micron processor(the Thoroughbred). In addition, that is about the time that the G5 is supposed to be released. While obviously neither Apple nor Motorola do servers, the G5 will be the first fully Book E compliant chip to come out of the AIM alliance, and IBM has plans for Book E chips. From IBM's site:
Since 1991, IBM and Motorola have collaborated on the PowerPC architecture for personal computers, workstations, servers and embedded processor product lines, yet have developed and marketed separate implementations. Driven by the tremendous success of PowerPC microprocessors in the embedded marketplace, the companies announced in September 1997 the start of a joint effort to further enhance the PowerPC architecture to ensure greater consistency in their future embedded products. The Book E project and the new architecture it defines is the result of that effort.


With the chips being 64bit and fully capable of supporting multiple cores, it could give IBM servers and workstations a boost. The chip architecture wars are about to start to hit another exciting stretch, as long research programs begin to produce results for Intel, AMD, and AIM. 2002 should be a big year.

Re:Spurred by AMD and IBM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324004)

*yawn* - wake me when commodity priced G4 based ATX format motherboards are available - you know, to compete with what 99 of the real world uses, priced with the likes of Abit, Asus, Soyo, FIC Tyan, etc.

Re:Spurred by AMD and IBM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324021)

*yawn* - wake me when the market demands such a thing, and I'm sure it will be available.

IMHO... (1)

xiangpeng (324117) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323959)

With 2 * 2.2ghz processors, the most throughput u can get is around 80% of the total speed combined, the FSB of the motherboard is another important factor though. Getting 4.4 ghz is impossible IMHO.

4:20 tech reporter (2)

Perdo (151843) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323960)

Oh, thank god. What are we going to do without a 2.2ghz $2000 processor... Oh, get an athlon at 100 bucks a pop? ok! G5 anyone?

"This is more than likely about shortening the qualification cycle and saving the customers a bit of money"

That man is living a large at 4:20.

Saving us money? whatever. It's a damn corporation in trouble. The last thing they are thinking is saving us money. Hell with 4:20, the man's on crack.

not 4.4 GHz (1)

color (101577) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323962)

2 processors running at 2.2 GHz is not the same as 4.4 GHz prosessor

But still lots of people think it is the same...

Re:not 4.4 GHz (1)

Bollie (152363) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324003)

I can't wait for the pundits to start claming that their pipeline is *twice* as long as their competitors!

Maybe the public'll believe that a 20 stage pipeline is twice as fast as a 10 stage...

Your MHz may vary's gonna have a whole new meaning...

I like Xeon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2323983)

I like my computer to go fast. That is why I like Xeon 2.2 GHz. I hope to have a 2.2 GHz Xeon someday.

I'd like to see (2)

rho (6063) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323990)

I'd like to see Quake running on this turdly P-133 I've typing on right now. Now THAT would impress me.

Re:I'd like to see (0)

mnordstr (472213) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324033)

Then install it. Quake runs on a 486 so you wouldn't have "any" problems on a P133.

2 x 2.2 = 4.4? How about... (2)

green pizza (159161) | more than 13 years ago | (#2323996)

the machine my university has been working with. [home.sara.nl] 1024 x 500 MHz = 512 GHz ?

Of course now the machine has been partitoned, so it's not quite that large, but at least there is still a "256 GHz" partition.

Keep in mind that Origin [sgi.com] is not a cluster, but a huge mother of a single-image machine. No backplane, but instead a mesh of CrayLink/NUMAlink cables interconnecting the CPU, I/O, and Router modules. My favorite part, though, is that with the addition of a "Graphics Brick" it becomes an Onyx. Add up to 16 G-Bricks!

Newsflash! 2.2 Ghz Dildo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324005)

That's right this dildo boasts a 2.2 Ghz processor. The operating system is imbedded Linux, this variant is called Vibrus GNU(gigantic neurotic unit) Linux.

Quake + Dual Procs (1)

stevarooski (121971) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324013)

Well, 2x 2.2ghz procs doesn't exactly equal straight up 4.4ghz--and especially where quake is concerned. My main box for the longest time was a dual PIII 667 running on a Tyan Tiger 230 mainboard. I play Quake3 exclusively (what a great break from class. . .) and I didn't notice a huge increase in performance over my previous configuration, a single PIII 500. In fact, I got about the increase I'd expect from a single 667 processor box.

Now, from reading around, Quake3 was/is supposed to have support for SMP (read this slashdot article [slashdot.org] ). Is this confined to the linux version or is there something I was doing wrong?

Re:Quake + Dual Procs (1)

stevarooski (121971) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324018)

Well, to answer my own question and for anyone else who's interested, check out the following by Carmack:

John Carmack on dual CPU's [shugashack.com]

I guess the poster will have to wait a while for quake on a 4.4ghz computer. ;o)

Re:Quake + Dual Procs (1)

Urungus (161388) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324126)

Your video drivers must be SMP compatable as well.
Otherwise you'd just see the increase you got from a 500 to a 667.

News: (5, Funny)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324017)

I have heard that you *May* be able to run Windows XP on these machines..

Re:News: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324135)

And what are you implying? I work daily on a P3-450 with XP and it seems responsive enough for me.

Why would you need this system? (1)

vaxtor (520122) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324020)

Besides the lameness of that last sentence, what I'm curious about is what would your average user need a 2.2 GHz system besides running games and maybe getting your SETI workunits completed a little faster?

Re:Why would you need this system? (1)

Urungus (161388) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324123)

Not just SETI.
http://www.aspenleaf.com/distributed/distrib-pro je cts.html
Any one of those would be fine.

4.4GHz ?? (0)

mnordstr (472213) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324029)

I would love to see Quake running on a 4.4GHz computer.

I doubt Quake supports dual processoring. It will only use 2.2GHz. But you can use the other processor to render a movie or something else at the same time...
And 2.2GHz is plenty enough for Quake. My Amd K6-2 300MHz is just perfect :)

Not Quite that simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324042)

I dont think its quite that simple. Otherwise you could do the same today using 4 x 1.2 ghz chips.



Nonetheless, it would be a joy to behold, and imagine the seti results reaming out !



polyp records [polyprecords.com]

um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324054)



why is it that quake is the best use you can think of for this processor? with that much speed you could do something a lot more productive like crack encryption.

Estonia? (1)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324077)

I wonder if Prestonia will be the same disaster as Estonia (the passenger ferry)...

The naming of new products is getting more and more difficult, I read that Honda had launched a new compact car named Fitta. Nothing wrong with that, except it means 'cunt' in Swedish. :-)

Let's Misuse Langauge (2, Funny)

digital_freedom (453387) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324084)

From the article:
"The (130-nanometer) process is ramping like a hose," said Frank Spindler, vice president of Intel's mobile products group.

What the hell does that mean? How does a hose ramp?!!

This must be the same guy who decided Pentium II mad sense.

I tried to explain to my history teacher that King Henry the VIII is the same as King Henry Jr. the VI. She didn't buy it.

Prestonia!!?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2324100)

I bet the name "Prestonia" will make
the sales soar here... NOT.

Too close to the name of a passenger ship, "Estonia", that went down with 800 passengers
a few years ago.

What a stupid name (1)

CrazyJim0 (324487) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324117)

Prestonia....

Sounds like something from Flinstones 90210...

512KB Cache? (1)

nutbar (138893) | more than 13 years ago | (#2324121)

Doesn't the G4 have a 1MB cache? You'd think Intel would give a chip running at 2.2GHz at least that much...

I hope I'm wrong here and that this is 1MB L2 cache vs 512KB L1 cache.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?