Intel Begins Shipments of 3.60GHz Processors

[Phantasm66]

"Intel Corporation has initiated shipments of its recently announced Pentium 4 3.60GHz processor also known as Intel Pentium 4 560. Intel Pentium 4 processor 560 operates at 3.60GHz, features HT and SSE3 technologies and comes in LGA775 form-factor."

 

[Unregistered]

I don't like their naming scheme. I mentioned Pentium 4 560 to a not so tech-minded friend today and he looked at me funny and said "You mean they make a 560MHz Pentium 4?" The naming scheme is stupid; are they just trying to copy AMD? What does 560 mean anyway? Stupid...

 

[Phantasm66]

Well, there is something to be said for "Why didn't they just call it an Intel Pentium 4 3.60GHz?"

Still (and I am sure I will get killed for saying this) I used to always buy AMD chips. I mean going back for year and years and years. But now I think Intel may just be superior. Sorry.

I recently bought a P4 about 6 months aboout (3.0 GHz) and I must say that even although I have other machines with AMD chips that run at similar speeds, the Intel Chip just wins hands down! And yes, that IS with most other factors being equal (RAM, etc..)

OK, I think AMD are nice for budget machines - multimedia servers with lots of disk space, Linux boxes and stuff like that.

But for the bad boy, you need an Intel.

OK, you may all flame me now....

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by Phantasm66
I recently bought a P4 about 6 months aboout (3.0 GHz) and I must say that even although I have other machines with AMD chips that run at similar speeds, the Intel Chip just wins hands down! And yes, that IS with most other factors being equal (RAM, etc..)

But for the bad boy, you need an Intel.

OK, you may all flame me now....

True, but you haven't factored AMD64 into the equation.

 

[Phantasm66]

The new Xeon is Intel's answer to AMD64.

"Ironically, the feature that users will probably find most interesting is the one Intel talks about least: The new 2.8GHz through 3.6GHz Xeon processors mark the debut of Intel's Extended Memory 64 Technology (EM64T), which enables 64-bit memory addressing -- ending what the chip giant's formerly nice, neat plans specified as a monopoly on 64-bit computing for its Itanium server CPUs, and a clear distinction between those chips and the Xeon family's venerable 32-bit x86 architecture. In other words, EM64T is Intel's grudging adoption of the AMD64 x86 extensions pioneered by its rival's Opteron processor in April 2003."

http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/reports/5468/1/

I think these new processors sound wonderful and the 4-6 GHz versions of them or something very like them are probably what's going to be running our Longhorn setups.

I won't be rushing out to buy the processors mentioned in the article, though. Maybe if you are upgrading right now (from some 1.33GHz machine or something) think about that, but anyone over 2.66 GHz already I think should wait and see what happens in second half of this year and first half 2005.

 

[Nic]

Xeons are for servers (in the past that was their market, maybe things are changing because of competition), unlike Athlon64, which targets both markets, and is also cheaper, and faster (though the gap is now narrowing).

Check out this review ...

64-Bit Battle : Intel’s Xeon 3.4 GHz vs. AMD’s Opteron 250

 

[agissi]

Originally posted by Phantasm66
Well, there is something to be said for "Why didn't they just call it an Intel Pentium 4 3.60GHz?"

Still (and I am sure I will get killed for saying this) I used to always buy AMD chips. I mean going back for year and years and years. But now I think Intel may just be superior. Sorry.

I recently bought a P4 about 6 months aboout (3.0 GHz) and I must say that even although I have other machines with AMD chips that run at similar speeds, the Intel Chip just wins hands down! And yes, that IS with most other factors being equal (RAM, etc..)

OK, I think AMD are nice for budget machines - multimedia servers with lots of disk space, Linux boxes and stuff like that.

But for the bad boy, you need an Intel.

OK, you may all flame me now....

Im an AMD "fanboy" but I must say, I agree with you. Tables have turned a bit, and it seems AMD just isnt keeping up with Intel! Intel keeps going.. and AMD comes out with a 64Bit CPU operating at 1.8GHz =\

Still with everything you said, I agree, that seems to be the case now.

 

[Nic]

Ah, ignorance is bliss :=). Intel isn't really ahead, not if you factor 64 bit CPUs into the equation.

Here's a quote from that link I posted ...

... Intel’s massive upgrades to the Xeon platforms will not go un-noticed by consumers or corporations. The Xeon is certainly revitalized, and AMD has reason to be concerned.

The “Nocona” based Xeon processor is an impressive chip, any way you slice it ...

... even more impressive is that with so much going against it, AMD’s fastest Opteron 250 processors still not only manage to fend off the Xeon, but in some benchmarks, still can crush the latest and greatest from Intel with ease ...

Both Intel and AMD have newer CPU's roadmapped than are in that review, but expect the battle to continue for some time to come. Intel still haven't caught up with AMD64, especially as far as desktop CPUs are concerned. They also generate more heat, and cost lots more.