I think I have gotten a hold of the true reason behind the cancellation of the 4 Ghz Pentium 4. For at least now, there are some serious issues resulting after extended use of Pentium 4s that are clocked at 4 Ghz+. I E-mailed an Intel Engineer and asked why they dont use FSB increases instead of higher multipliers (as the Pentium 4s tend to like that). When you drive the processor that hard, there is electron polarization that occurs in the processor. Over the course of a few years, this permanent electron polarization (As a result of the electron density in such a small area) results in an open circuit-and an un-bootable CPU. Evidently, this is the average net effect, and in the Intel Guy's own words, "We would rather sell an underclocked processor than one that will fail in a couple of years." So potentially, there you have it people; the reason behind Intel's (possibly temporary?) reason for the cancellation of the Pentium 4 4Ghz.
#20: Personally, I won't be surprised to see the dual-core "x" chips slip into Q4 or possibly even '06. Actually, Intel will probably ship limited samples in Q3'05, which may allow them to claim that they have "shipped". Yonah/Jonah is not yet on the roadmaps, which is what this article is about. See Kristopher's recent look at code names, chipsets, and features for an overview of other stuff coming down the pipe from Intel.
Oops.... my bad. I thought that the 5xxJ actually included EDB as well as EIST, but on closer inspection this is not the case. Urg... So I removed it from the 5xx chips. A new inspection of the roadmap reveals that EIST is apparently enabled on all "Prescott" core Xeons (really Nocona, Cranford and Potomac), and any 775-LGA chips with EM64T also have it. So for now that means the 5xx series is without speedstep. The x.xxF revision Xeons are the same as the 5xxJ revision Prescotts, but EIST and EM64T are not enables for the desktop parts (yet?).
For official 1066 FSB support, you will need the 925XE chipset, which is not yet available. EM64T support should still work in older chipsets - a BIOS update might be required, however.
As for EIST and unlocked lower multipliers, I read something somewhere (yeah, I know - highly specific information) about some mod that could be done to unlock lower multipliers on new P4 chips. I don't even recall if it was a software mod or a hardware mod, or maybe just something that needed to be enabled in the BIOS. If I find out more information, I'll let you know, but for now that's about as specific as I can get. :|
Pumpkin (happy halloween!): The roadmap I have has no mention of any new socket 478 parts other than a Celeron D 345. There have been rumors on and off that Intel may introduce a faster socket 478 part, but to my knowledge Intel has said nothing official about this.
Danidentity (no relation to Bourne?): "Q1" is as specific as the roadmap gets in relation to the 6xx series right now. Typically, Intel will narrow that down to an actual month (and day even) a couple months prior to launch. We'll update the roadmaps with this information when we get it. I'll take the middle ground right now and guess at February - that way I can't be more than 30 days off. :)
You are correct, IntelUser, that the Itanium 9M is not shipping until November. In fact, all of the Itanium parts I listed as available are actually shipping in November with the exception of 1.6 GHz 3M DP chip. Stuff like that happens when you're trying to wade through large PDF files detailing the latest roadmap. Sorry - no one is perfect.
As for the Dual Core versions being 24 MB of L3 cache, that is certainly one possible configuration. Since Itaniums currently ship with varying cache sizes (not to mention the redundancy build into the L3), "TDB" is always safer than specifying an exact value. When the roadmaps add a specific clock speed and cache size for Millington, we will update the charts. I would not be at all surprised to see more than one model of Millington come out late next year.
There seems to be both 479-pin and 478-pin parts for the Dothan and Banias. I doubt you can fit the chips at Socket 478 since the notches for the Pentium M chips are different from the Pentium 4 chips. It was said at Anandtech's Dothan review couple of weeks ago. I have a feeling some people just post here without any knowledge about what they are talking about.
By the way, Madison 9M is not available, man just go to the Intel site. Madison 9M comes at November. It seems the reviewers are also flawed here, just like the readers.
L3's for the Itanium Dual-core is definitely 24MB(except maybe for the low-end or low voltage parts). There is no article I have seen that says its not 24MB except Anandtech.
I noted that the title bar for the Dothan/Banias mobile parts chart shows '479M'. Is that a typo, or do the Dothan/Banias chips have an extra pin that prevents their use in a regular socket 478? I had thought that Dothan/Banias chips and Netburst chips were interchangeable with the proper mobile chipset and BIOS.
I was at Intel's web site a few days ago. The only 5xx processors that has data sheet or detail informations are step E-0 and M. Step D-0 for 550 or below are no longer listed.
Regarding the "5xxJ" series being unavailable in the US, my *guess* would be that it's a combination of several factors. First, many sites may simply neglect to note the added support for XD and EIST. It was enabled on later steppings (E-0 for the Xeons, although I'm not sure if the stepping is the same on the desktop side).
The other possibility is that Intel (and/or their retail partners) are still trying to clear out the old inventory of non-J processors before they begin offering the newer model. That would also explain why they're showing up in OEM systems before retail: OEMs sell the majority of Pentium 4 systems, as most people that buy parts for their own PCs are going with AMD right now.
That's all speculation on my part, but it would make sense. According to Intel, the XD/EIST P4 started shipping over a month ago. They *should* be available now, but they are difficult to find.
I'm also looking for 5xxJ series all over the web. It seems Intel releases these chips only to OEM , not retail, in US. But the retail 5xxJ processors seems readily available outside US for the same price as current 5xxE processors.
Personally I hope they keep the x20-x30-x40 etc naming scheme, but only because I want to see a processor called the x86 (fat chance, I know, but one can hope) ;).
I just browsed through our local shop's flyer and their usage of Intel's numbering scheme is crazy. Sometimes they don't even mention the GHz but just say Pentium 4 540. I'm pretty sure that many will think this runs at 540 MHz, the salesmen are gonna have a hard time explaining all this to the customer.
I don't think the customer will even see there are different series (3xx, 5xx, 6xx, 7xx) but will just go for the higher number, or the easy to understand AMD alternative (3000+ sounds good afterall)
The dualcore makes things even worse.
Let's hope the x20, x30 and x40 names are temporary; the names suggest a x40 has double the performance of the x20 while it'll be about 10% faster at most.Although i can see Intel pulling that off.
You say the 500 series 'J' processors are already available, but I haven't seen them for sale at a single online store. Why do you list them as already available?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
22 Comments
Back to Article
RotoSequence - Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - link
I think I have gotten a hold of the true reason behind the cancellation of the 4 Ghz Pentium 4. For at least now, there are some serious issues resulting after extended use of Pentium 4s that are clocked at 4 Ghz+. I E-mailed an Intel Engineer and asked why they dont use FSB increases instead of higher multipliers (as the Pentium 4s tend to like that). When you drive the processor that hard, there is electron polarization that occurs in the processor. Over the course of a few years, this permanent electron polarization (As a result of the electron density in such a small area) results in an open circuit-and an un-bootable CPU. Evidently, this is the average net effect, and in the Intel Guy's own words, "We would rather sell an underclocked processor than one that will fail in a couple of years." So potentially, there you have it people; the reason behind Intel's (possibly temporary?) reason for the cancellation of the Pentium 4 4Ghz.JarredWalton - Saturday, November 6, 2004 - link
#20: Personally, I won't be surprised to see the dual-core "x" chips slip into Q4 or possibly even '06. Actually, Intel will probably ship limited samples in Q3'05, which may allow them to claim that they have "shipped". Yonah/Jonah is not yet on the roadmaps, which is what this article is about. See Kristopher's recent look at code names, chipsets, and features for an overview of other stuff coming down the pipe from Intel.knitecrow - Thursday, November 4, 2004 - link
Does anyone seriously expect intel to keep the q3 2005 timeline for x** chips?Do they even have working engineering samples?
---
why isn't there anything said about dual-cored pentium M chips?
I guess we won't seem then untill 2006
JarredWalton - Thursday, November 4, 2004 - link
Oops.... my bad. I thought that the 5xxJ actually included EDB as well as EIST, but on closer inspection this is not the case. Urg... So I removed it from the 5xx chips. A new inspection of the roadmap reveals that EIST is apparently enabled on all "Prescott" core Xeons (really Nocona, Cranford and Potomac), and any 775-LGA chips with EM64T also have it. So for now that means the 5xx series is without speedstep. The x.xxF revision Xeons are the same as the 5xxJ revision Prescotts, but EIST and EM64T are not enables for the desktop parts (yet?).jarthel - Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - link
A member of an Australian computer forums mentioned that the Intel channel roadmap does not mentioned EIST in the J CPUs.Also this publicly available page (http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/inf... does not discuss EIST with J CPUs.
Can you clarify?
JarredWalton - Saturday, October 30, 2004 - link
For official 1066 FSB support, you will need the 925XE chipset, which is not yet available. EM64T support should still work in older chipsets - a BIOS update might be required, however.As for EIST and unlocked lower multipliers, I read something somewhere (yeah, I know - highly specific information) about some mod that could be done to unlock lower multipliers on new P4 chips. I don't even recall if it was a software mod or a hardware mod, or maybe just something that needed to be enabled in the BIOS. If I find out more information, I'll let you know, but for now that's about as specific as I can get. :|
danidentity - Saturday, October 30, 2004 - link
Thanks Jarrad...about my question in post 8, the 5xxJ CPUs include EIST. Does that mean they'll have unlocked downward multipliers like Athlon 64's?Foxbat121 - Friday, October 29, 2004 - link
Current Intel chipset (915 and 925) does not support 1066 FSB, IIRC.MIDIman - Friday, October 29, 2004 - link
Is it safe to say that everything here will be compatible with current LGA775-based chipsets and motherboards, including 1066mhz FSB?Does 925x and 915p support EM64T and dual-core CPUs?
Just curious if its too early to buy into LGA775.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 29, 2004 - link
Pumpkin (happy halloween!): The roadmap I have has no mention of any new socket 478 parts other than a Celeron D 345. There have been rumors on and off that Intel may introduce a faster socket 478 part, but to my knowledge Intel has said nothing official about this.Danidentity (no relation to Bourne?): "Q1" is as specific as the roadmap gets in relation to the 6xx series right now. Typically, Intel will narrow that down to an actual month (and day even) a couple months prior to launch. We'll update the roadmaps with this information when we get it. I'll take the middle ground right now and guess at February - that way I can't be more than 30 days off. :)
danidentity - Friday, October 29, 2004 - link
So the 6xx series is launching Q1 '05.Is that Jan, Feb, or March...or do we not know?
Pumpkinierre - Friday, October 29, 2004 - link
What about Sckt 478 P4s? There was some hint on X-bit that a 3.6 or 3.8 would be released?!JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
You are correct, IntelUser, that the Itanium 9M is not shipping until November. In fact, all of the Itanium parts I listed as available are actually shipping in November with the exception of 1.6 GHz 3M DP chip. Stuff like that happens when you're trying to wade through large PDF files detailing the latest roadmap. Sorry - no one is perfect.As for the Dual Core versions being 24 MB of L3 cache, that is certainly one possible configuration. Since Itaniums currently ship with varying cache sizes (not to mention the redundancy build into the L3), "TDB" is always safer than specifying an exact value. When the roadmaps add a specific clock speed and cache size for Millington, we will update the charts. I would not be at all surprised to see more than one model of Millington come out late next year.
IntelUser2000 - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/list.asp?...There seems to be both 479-pin and 478-pin parts for the Dothan and Banias. I doubt you can fit the chips at Socket 478 since the notches for the Pentium M chips are different from the Pentium 4 chips. It was said at Anandtech's Dothan review couple of weeks ago. I have a feeling some people just post here without any knowledge about what they are talking about.
By the way, Madison 9M is not available, man just go to the Intel site. Madison 9M comes at November. It seems the reviewers are also flawed here, just like the readers.
L3's for the Itanium Dual-core is definitely 24MB(except maybe for the low-end or low voltage parts). There is no article I have seen that says its not 24MB except Anandtech.
danidentity - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
The 5xxJ CPUs include EIST. Does that mean they'll have unlocked downward multipliers like Athlon 64's?johnsonx - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
I noted that the title bar for the Dothan/Banias mobile parts chart shows '479M'. Is that a typo, or do the Dothan/Banias chips have an extra pin that prevents their use in a regular socket 478? I had thought that Dothan/Banias chips and Netburst chips were interchangeable with the proper mobile chipset and BIOS.Foxbat121 - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
I was at Intel's web site a few days ago. The only 5xx processors that has data sheet or detail informations are step E-0 and M. Step D-0 for 550 or below are no longer listed.JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
Regarding the "5xxJ" series being unavailable in the US, my *guess* would be that it's a combination of several factors. First, many sites may simply neglect to note the added support for XD and EIST. It was enabled on later steppings (E-0 for the Xeons, although I'm not sure if the stepping is the same on the desktop side).The other possibility is that Intel (and/or their retail partners) are still trying to clear out the old inventory of non-J processors before they begin offering the newer model. That would also explain why they're showing up in OEM systems before retail: OEMs sell the majority of Pentium 4 systems, as most people that buy parts for their own PCs are going with AMD right now.
That's all speculation on my part, but it would make sense. According to Intel, the XD/EIST P4 started shipping over a month ago. They *should* be available now, but they are difficult to find.
Foxbat121 - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
I'm also looking for 5xxJ series all over the web. It seems Intel releases these chips only to OEM , not retail, in US. But the retail 5xxJ processors seems readily available outside US for the same price as current 5xxE processors.Illissius - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
Personally I hope they keep the x20-x30-x40 etc naming scheme, but only because I want to see a processor called the x86 (fat chance, I know, but one can hope) ;).Da DvD - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
I just browsed through our local shop's flyer and their usage of Intel's numbering scheme is crazy. Sometimes they don't even mention the GHz but just say Pentium 4 540. I'm pretty sure that many will think this runs at 540 MHz, the salesmen are gonna have a hard time explaining all this to the customer.I don't think the customer will even see there are different series (3xx, 5xx, 6xx, 7xx) but will just go for the higher number, or the easy to understand AMD alternative (3000+ sounds good afterall)
The dualcore makes things even worse.
Let's hope the x20, x30 and x40 names are temporary; the names suggest a x40 has double the performance of the x20 while it'll be about 10% faster at most.Although i can see Intel pulling that off.
danidentity - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - link
You say the 500 series 'J' processors are already available, but I haven't seen them for sale at a single online store. Why do you list them as already available?