The Inq had a chat with someone from Intel, and they asked Intel if it was true that the Prescott will dissipate more than 100W in its current revision. Here is what the Inquirer had to say about it :
He said that Prescott does have high dissipation and that 100 watts was close to that number, while Intel is already working on a new core revision that could cut this dissipation.
We also saw a slide confirmsing 11 new instructions, an 800 MHz FSB mPGA478 package, 1MB of L2 cache, hyper threading enhancements, and that it used Netburst marchitecture. We also saw a picture of what appears to be the Prescott core.
Lets hope that Intel succeeds in making a cooler revision of the Prescott. Or will integrated central heating become a new feature of AMD and Intel CPUs?
They also write that Intel is ready to announce the Prescott CPUs in Q4 of this year, and that revision 1.5 of the Canterwood and Springdale chipset will be ready then. Some bad news now : they also write once again that currently avaible motherboards will not be able to handle the socket 478 Prescotts because of other voltage specifications and requirements.
Anyway I would not care too much about this, if you already have a Springdale or Canterwood now. I know that you might be a little bit disappointed to hear that your new motherboards will not be able to handle the first Prescotts, but together with an 800MHz FSB Pentium 4 they have more than enough power, unless you always want the hottest and fastest stuff avaible ofcourse.
A few months after the launch of the first Prescotts there will be the Socket 775 versions of the Prescott, and I think it is more interesting to upgrade to those, and not to the socket 478 Prescotts. I personally do not think it is very smart to spend money on a new motherboard, knowing that within a few months Intel will release new CPUs that are not compatible with your motherboard.
Use Disqus to post new comments, the old comments are listed below.
Re: Intel confirms 100W dissipation of the Prescott by CAG on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 15:58:19 CEST
Intel will also be launching the Grantsdale in Q2 '04 according to this article http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chipsets/print/20030415091834.html . Given the predicted specs for the Grantsdale (support for 4-5GHz cpu's and the next generation ATi and nVidia architectures, ICH6/RAID, etc.), you might want to skip the Prescott altogether and wait for the Grantsdale.
Reply by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 16:24:05 CEST
The Prescott is a CPU, the Grantsdale is a new chipset.
The first CPUs to be used with Grantsdale chipset will be Pentium 4 processors on Prescott core working at 3.6GHz core clock. They will be announced together with Grantsdale chipset family.
Reply by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 17:50:27 CEST
Thanks, LSDsmurf. Shows how much I know. But it all makes more sense to me now. Let's see if I've got this right: Canterwood, Springdale & Grantsdale are chipsets and Prescott will be the successor to the present P4.
Reply by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 18:11:28 CEST
By the way the first Prescott CPUs will be socket 478, and most likely range between 3,2 and 3,6 GHz. A half year later Intel will come with a Socket 775 version of the Prescott which will probably range between 3,6 and 4,4 GHz. Rumours go that the CPU code named Prescott with a socket 775 will be called Pentium 5.
Even later by the end of 2004 Intel plans to have their CPU code named Tejas ready. And in 2006/2007 we can expect a CPU code named Nehalem from Intel which will possibly break the 10GHz barrier.
This information comes from this roadmap. It is very possible that Intel will change their roadmap in future, so it is possible that not all of the information is correct.
Reply by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 09:17:27 CEST
I've got a machine in 1/03 with a P4 2.4 GHz 533 FSB and 1G of 1066 RDRAM. It'll be tough waiting until the middle-end of 2004 for the Tejas but I guess I can do it.
Thanks again, LSDsmurf.
Reply by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 17:52:46 CEST
The last post from "Anonymous" was mine. I forgot to log in.