Gigger Hertz

Pentium Pro-blems Redux

Recommended Posts

What's important:

-efficiency per clock cycle

-efficiency per time unit

PPro will be horribly inefficient per time unit compared to any modern CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I grew up, efficiency counted for something. Getting work done the best way possible mattered. We liked to take thing a little slower and  knew how to handle anything. One thing we didn't know how to do was go and run to the latest gizmo just because it was new. We stuck my trusted technology.

What happened to that? Mindless consumerism, whipping up brainless dunderheads with slick advertising, that's what. That and the influx of people not tech-savvy into the technical world.

I can't guarantee that you are younger than I am, but I bought MY first PC in 1981 - see my sig. I was once proficient at 6502, Z-80, and PDP-11 assemblers, and had taken a class in IBM 360 ASM...

I own an original copy of Ted Nelson's Computer Lib.

I once thought as you do about the P4s, because the high clock speed drives up the cost of RAM needed to support it in a system, and because those extra cycles require that it generate more heat at a given fabrication size.

But in my mind, HyperThreading has outweighed such negatives - it is the only sensible compromise between having an actual dual processor system, and eliminating the cost and upgrade inefficiencies of actually owning a dual processor system. And HT works BEST with high clock rates - they help eliminate the latency of the task/IP switch.

So in the end, the P4 ends up standing well...due mostly to HT.

Future Shock

N.B. - Oh, yeah, I do think it's silly to put $700 into ANY PPro machine, unless it is certifiably collectable. Better off putting that money towards buying an IMSAI or used NeXT machine which is truely collectable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know about Pentium Pro's being considered zippy anymore, also I see no reason for someone to produce Pentium Pro motherboards/chipsets that support DDR, it would cost them an arm and a leg to design and the demand is so small that they would have to charge an arm and a leg for it (supply and demand rules apply) and that would run off the small customer base that would have some interest. :)

But as we know sometimes older technology comes back because it is better.

I speak of the Pentium 3 versus the Pentium 4. The late Pentium 3's already walked all over the early Pentium 4's and then the Pentium M started appearing in even gaming rigs because its based on Pentium 3 technology was faster then the Pentium 4, now the next generation of Intel processors seem to be based on Pentium 3's as well, good-bye Pentium 4 nice knowing you, we should have all kept the PIII's and skipped P4 altogether, who knew. :lol:

So since sometimes backtracking is required to move forward its not impossible to consider new chips based on Pentium Pro's, its just not likely. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should get all the highlights from this thread summarized into a single new post and start a new thread, really this one is getting a tad long, and it seems to get resuscitated often. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too bad.... a few years ago they were blowing out ALR 6x6 revolution mainboards and parts on e-bay for next to nothing. You could have made a 6 processor system and possibly even gotten the Pentium Pro's that have 2 megs of cache. I saw quite a few of those.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a comment here; TrintonAzaleth is not the original Trinton Azaleth at all. I don't know who it is, and don't feel like figuring out who it is.

I know these things because I am the original. If possible I'll interact once more with the community then I will. I doubt that is possible though. I just wanted it to be clear who is and is not me. (despite that it was obviously not me)

There is one obvious thing I would never say: that the Pentium Pro was a good chip. It was a bad chip, and I think that is almost fact. It had floating point errors right from the start. Plus; I'll never been a fan of intel chips in general as people who remember me will remember. I was always an AMD fan. (or Cyrix before AMD)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since posts cannot be edited... TrintonAzaleth is jtr. This is evident by looking at another posted jtr posted where he was causing trouble and I also responded saying it wasn't me.

Oh one interesting thing: as I recall the long crazy philosophy post is a direct quote of my past writings (I think from when I was 16 or so) I am unsure where it came from; it looks to be from my diary. It is certainly not meant to tie into thinking about computer chips as some of my philosophical ramblings do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now