[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference ricks::dechips

Title:Hudson VLSI
Notice:For Digital Chip Data - CHIPBZ::PRODUCTION$:[DS_INFO...]
Moderator:RICKS::PHIPPS
Created:Wed Feb 12 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:701
Total number of notes:4658

678.0. "Pentium II news" by GEMGRP::PIEPER () Fri Apr 11 1997 17:29

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
678.1500 MHz Pentium II Demo - Real or Hype?NPSS::NEWTONThomas NewtonFri Apr 11 1997 19:349
>   ... expected to reach clock rates beyond 500 MHz by the year 2000 ...
>   demonstrations included ... real-time 3D rendering on both a 300 MHz and
>   500 MHz Pentium II processor-based workstation

So does that mean Intel has 500 MHz Pentium IIs running in their labs?

Or did the demonstrations merely simulate the expected performance of such a
beast?
678.2300 mhzROM01::OLD_CIPOLLABruno CipollaTue Apr 22 1997 13:448
    
    
    +                INTEL READIES 300MHZ PENTIUM II
    
    Intel Corp will include a 300MHz Pentium II in the announcement
    early next month, Computer Reseller News Online hears - at a
    price that will be as hot as the part: $1,980.
                                                     
678.3pricesROM01::OLD_CIPOLLABruno CipollaTue Apr 22 1997 13:4518
    +                INTEL PLANS PENTIUM PRICE CUTS
    
    Intel Corp announced Friday that all Pentium chips on the
    market by the end of 1998 would include MMX instructions.
    Separately, the Pentium II with MMX arrives on May 6, but
    according to PC Week, the company will make its cuts on the
    present its Pentium and Pentium Pro lines and Pentiums with MMX
    ahead of the news. It hears that the price of the Pentium Pro
    will barely move, falling to $415 from $428. The 200MHz Pro
    with 256KB cache will be $515, off just $10; the 166MHz and
    200MHz non-MMX parts will be cut about 30% and about 38%
    respectively, so a 200MHz processor falls to about $295, a
    166MHz to $195. Cuts on 166MHz and 200MHz MMX- enabled
    processors are seen at 25% and 8% so the 166MHz falls to $255,
    and the 200MHz at about $465. The 233MHz Pentium II are
    expected to be priced at about $590, and the 266MHz at about
    $725, and all prices are for orders of 1,000-up.
    
678.4Real!BSS::F_BLANDOJe suis grand, beau, et fort!Tue Apr 29 1997 21:145
I was at Andy's presentation in Houston.  He showed a dual processor Pentium II
300MHz workstation.  He also showed a 450MHz single processor Pentium II
workstation (The Intel press release is wrong, it was 450MHz, not 500MHz).

Both were extremmly impressive and very real.
678.5the juggernaut rolls on ...TROOA::MSCHNEIDERmartin.schneider@tro.mts.dec.comWed Apr 30 1997 04:062
    Yes we should never underestimate Intel and what they are capable of
    delivering.
678.6ironic, isn't it?CUJO::SAMPSONWed Apr 30 1997 04:112
	Yes, especially with plenty of 64-bit AlphaServers
as development platforms!
678.7COMICS::CORNEJWhat's an Architect?Wed Apr 30 1997 07:446
    re .6,
    
    This would be a nice story to leak out :-)
    
    Jc
    
678.8MOVIES::WIDDOWSONRod OpenVMS Engineering. Project RockWed Apr 30 1997 09:232
    ...Of course their Fabs all run Vax/VMS.  I always thought we should
    get `VAX inside' engraved onto each Intel chip !!!...
678.9YIELD::HARRISWed Apr 30 1997 11:466
>    Yes we should never underestimate Intel and what they are capable of
>    delivering.
    
    Is any vendor currently delivering systems with anything better than 
    200Mhz Pentium Pro chips in them?
    
678.10SUTRA::16.36.2.107::BatsSpeeding, speeding, I'm always speedingWed Apr 30 1997 12:1313

	No.

	Only 200Mhz Pentium Pro can be had.
	
	Beginning of next month you will see the Pentium II 233MHz and
	266Mhz ones. (At least from us, being PCBU)

	233MHz Pentium Pro ones (with 1MB cache) should be around June
	if I remember correctly.

	Pjotrr
678.11I have no Intel inside knowledgeCUJO::SAMPSONWed Apr 30 1997 13:113
    I should hasten to add that I don't know what platform(s) Intel
    actually uses for development.  AlphaServers would be a good
    (unofficial) rumor, though.  Intel can certainly afford the best.
678.12rumors...FORBIN::WILKINSONWed Apr 30 1997 13:5724
    Reports on the usenet suggested that some Pentium II inventory had 
    make it to Japan already and are available in retail stores.
    
    Can anyone confirm the following:
    
    Pentium II in the speed range 233MHz to 300MHz is 0.28u CMOS.
    Above 300MHz is 0.25u CMOS.
    
    The L2 cache accesses are double tick accesses for Pentium II
    as compared to single tick accesses Pentium Pro.  So, for
    a given clock speed, Pentium II has half the L2 cache bandwidth
    of the Pentium Pro.
    
    Can anyone answer the following questions:
    
    Does the Pentium II L2 cache use the same SRAM as the Pentium Pro?
    Or is it commodity SRAM in a custom package?  If proprietary, what is the
    process technology roll out for the SRAM?
    
    Hugh
    
    
    
    
678.13on caches....PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Apr 30 1997 16:121117
678.14re: .9 by Yield::HarrisPERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed Apr 30 1997 16:2626
|>   Yes we should never underestimate Intel and what they are capable of
|>   delivering.
|    
|   Is any vendor currently delivering systems with anything better than 
|   200Mhz Pentium Pro chips in them?
    
    Except for a few folks playing overclocking games, no.
    
    Yes the rumors about a 266MHz Pentium Pro last summer were greatly
    exagerated.
    
    BUT!
    
    Intel claims that they still are following Moore's Law (which they
    now define as doubling performance every 18-24 months, a subtle
    change showing up in a recent visual computing white paper).
    
    That means that a 400(+?) MHz Pentium II might be expected any
    day now (for the very paranoid) or by the end of the 1997 (for
    the just paranoid).
    
    
    Or, to put it another way.  That image in the mirror is only
    12 months behind at integer performance.  (But way way behind
    at floating point.)
    								-mr. bill
678.15PCBUOA::KRATZWed Apr 30 1997 17:093
    You should read about DIGITAL's Celebris GL-2 (dual 266 P2) in
    an upcoming (possibly next Monday's) PC Week.
    K
678.16NT SPEC numbers for Digital w/ Pentium IIFORBIN::WILKINSONThu May 01 1997 13:303
    Will we be releasing NT SPEC numbers for the Celebris GL-2/1?
    
    Hugh
678.17PCBUOA::KRATZThu May 01 1997 15:386
    The relabelled SBU box, PWS 266i2, may.  The CSG group is currently
    trying to figure out of they want to publish numbers with Intel
    Reference compiler (good), or Microsoft compiler (not so good).
    SPEC doesn't mean a lot to the PC/NT (desktop Celebris) market...
    having long since moved on to real application benchmarks.
    K
678.18SPEC is composed of *real* benchmarks tooNPSS::WATERSI need an egg-laying woolmilkpig.Thu May 01 1997 16:386
>    having long since moved on to real application benchmarks.

  Many people in DIGITAL and elsewhere are familiar with a majority of the
  SPEC component benchmarks as real applications, used to develop our
  products or run our business.  I think you meant "desktop office
  application", not "real application".
678.19PCBUOA::KRATZThu May 01 1997 17:135
    Well, even in the desktop hi-end NT market, real application benchmarks
    (AutoCAD, CADbench, ProE, Photoshop,...) have pretty much supplanted
    the synthetic loop-unrolled/KAPed "application" benchmarks in terms
    of representing realistic system performance.
    K 
678.20SPEC's have their placeSUBPAC::FARICELLIThu May 01 1997 18:3920
   Oh boy, another p*ssing contest with Kratz!

   OK, I'll bite. The SPEC benchmarks help measure performance across
   a variety of computers/operating systems. They include, if I'm not
   mistaken, SPICE 2G6 (the circuit simulator), a C compiler,
   image compression, etc. We can quibble about whether these are
   "applications" -- they are certainly better than things like
   whetstones and that ilk that proceeded them. Until Alpha,
   HP-PA, MIPS, PowerPC all get crushed by Intel, we'll still need
   processor and OS independent benchmarking.

   SPEC's give you an overview of a system. If you are
   primarily concerned with Wintel apps, then by all means,
   benchmark using those apps. Ditto for databases.

   -- John Faricelli


   
678.21QUARK::LIONELFree advice is worth every centThu May 01 1997 19:416
I've seen some SPEC numbers from John Henning using DIGITAL Visual Fortran
which are quite good.  The SPECbase numbers, in fact, were on a par with or
even better than UNIX.  He hadn't run the "all out" SPECfp tests - NT doesn't
have all the post-optimization tools that UNIX does.

				Steve
678.22Both are useful.TALLIS::GORTONFri May 02 1997 12:2848
    
    Re: .19
    
    Get real.  SPEC has _never_ pretended to have it's benchmark programs
    be representative of entire systems.  EVER.  Unlike the plethora of
    "real application benchmarks" that you mention, SPEC very carefully
    measures specific characteristics of a system.  SPECint9x and SPECfp9x
    measure CPU, memory, and compiler performance.  The "system" benchmarks
    that you talk about all have a very significant graphics component to
    them, which means that poor general CPU performance can be hidden
    behind a snappy graphics card.  Benchmarks are intended to be methods
    for customers to choose systems that are appropriate for them.
    They (benchmarks) simply happen to be used as marketing tools, which
    is why they are hyped a lot.
    
    The history of SPEC is that it comes from a world where people wanted
    to be able to very carefully measure specific attributes of systems
    that they were evaluating for purchase.  The PC marketplace is a
    marketplace for the masses, with customers that often don't really
    understand (for whatever reason) the performance characteristics of
    what they are buying.  And so the benchmarks are of the 'one app to fit
    them all' variety.  A complete synthesis of a lot of components boiled
    down into a single measurement.
    
    As an example, I don't particular depend upon graphics in my day-to-day
    work, so a high-end graphics card would be wasted.  But I can, and do
    frequently use all of the computes and memory in my system.  So when
    my system was upgraded, it went from a Jensen to a 500Mhz PC164 with a
    TGA graphics card, and a full load of memory.  The applications I
    typically use are compilers, and other low-level systems tools. 
    
    How many PC buyers use these "system" and "real application" benchmarks
    but don't really understand how much their particular workloads are
    influenced by the CPU speed, the graphics card, the memory subsystem,
    or the disks?  I would guess upwards of 30%.
    
    The _really_ good thing about seeing SPEC95 performance numbers for
    both a UNIX and an NT system means that for the very first time,
    there is a way to have _some_ comparison (beyond clock speed) of the
    compilers/OSs, and to see that the compilers for Alpha/NT don't suck.
    Frankly, I think these numbers will go a long way to helping the
    credibility of NT as a viable development platform for compute-hungry
    users.
    
    There is a place for SPEC, and there is a place for the "real
    application benchmarks".  SPEC is interesting for customers that
    need to understand the computational characteristics of systems,
    while BAPco, et. al. are useful for less sophisticated end-users.
678.23PCBUOA::KRATZFri May 02 1997 15:008
    If you want volume, you'll push application performance first
    and foremost in the hi-end desktop NT market (and Alpha does
    absolutely magnificent where ported; ProE, etc).
    
    If you want to continue with what you're doing, SPEC has, and
    will continue to, serve you fine.
    regards,
    Kratz
678.24Intel doesn't bash SPEC, why does Kratz?PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftFri May 02 1997 16:5430
    Oddly enough I suspect that Intel will publish another performance
    brief next week.
    
    Even more oddly, it will certainly contain SPEC CINT95 AND CFP95
    results.
    
    Actually, not oddly at all.
    
    Intel categorizes CINT95 and CFP95 as COMPONENT APPLICATION BENCHMARKS.
    
    
    They are indeed application benchmarks that measure a subsystem
    of a computer.
    
    
    And last I checked, Intel also publishes seven specific system-level
    application benchmarks such as ProE.
    
    For those seven applications, the application benchmarks are indeed
    critical.
    
    Certainly a ProE user might strongly consider the results of the
    ProE benchmark.  But winning the ProE benchmark probably isn't in
    the mind of a Bryce 2 user when they are selecting a system to purchase.
    
    (Winning ZD benchmarks, either application or synthetic, probably
    does matter to more than a few Bryce 2 users.  Same thing with
    Byte benchmarks.)
    
    								-mr. bill
678.25I'm pro-growth, not anti-SPECPCBUOA::KRATZFri May 02 1997 17:116
    Alpha sales are absolutely pathetic (0.1 market share) and stagnant
    for the last year, Bill.  You seem to have no bashfulness in blaming
    sales and marketing... whaddaya say they try pushing something
    different and see what happens?
    Kratz
    
678.26Pentium II - May 7, 1997PERFOM::LICEA_KANEwhen it's comin' from the leftWed May 07 1997 15:4911
    The Pentium II 233, 266 and 300MHz are announced today.
    
    			233	266	300
    SPECint95		9.49	10.8	11.6
    SPECint_base95	9.49	10.8	11.6
    SPECfp95		6.43	6.89	7.20
    SPECfp_base95	5.84	6.36	6.78
    price (Q1000)	$636	$775	$1,981
    Available		now	now	Q3CY1997
    
    								-mr. bill
678.27RLTIME::COOKWed May 07 1997 18:394

Any specification about the system this was produced in?  

678.28configPCBUOA::KRATZWed May 07 1997 19:5014
    The Pentium II Performance Brief is up on Intel's web site.
    The SPEC95/Unix machine was kind of bland:
    	440FX
    	Pentium II with 512k
    	64Mb EDO
    	Matrox Millennium
    	IDE Quantum Fireball 1080 (curiously not that fast)
    	Unixware V2.0 and the Intel reference compilers. 
    
    Dell is selling pretty much the same hardware for $3899:
    266, 512k, 64Mb EDO, 6.4Gb, 17", 8Mb Matrox, 16x CD,
    wave table sound + Altec speakers, Iomega zip drive,
    33.6k modem. Office97 small business edition, Windows95
    Kratz 
678.29HELIX::SONTAKKEFri May 09 1997 13:375
    What's the timeframe on the availability of 21164PC motherboards?  I
    would like to see apple to apple (with the availability date, prices
    and performance data) comparison.
    
    - Vikas
678.30From Electronics Weekly - 7-May-1997WOTVAX::16.194.64.143::16.195.0.183::bellMartin Bell @BBPFri May 09 1997 14:5328
There is a nice article in this weeks Electronics Weekly, detailing
the "Pentium II debut".

The first half of the article compared the processors with those from
AMD and Cyrix. It says that the prices are $636 and $775 for the 233MHz
and 266MHz respectively (in 1,000 unit quantities).

However, it is the SECOND half of the article that is really interesting!

"The Pentium II fares less well when compared to Digital's recently
announced stripped down Alpha, the 21164PC. The Alpha for desktop PCs is
priced at $495 for a 533MHz part. Digital claims a SPECint95 of 14.3 and
a SPECfp95 of 17. In contrast the Pentium II manages only 10.8 and 6.9
respectively.

Intel plans to release a 300MHz workstation version of the Pentium II
in the second half of the year, priced at $1,981. This is believed to
be codenamed Deschutes, a 0.25um five layer metal shrink of Pentium II.

The current leading workstation processor, Digital's Alpha 21164, costs
under $2000 for a 400MHz part. Intel's 300MHz Pentium II has a SPECint95
of 11.6, compared to 11.7 for the Alpha. Floating point, however, is a
different story. Intel estimates 7.2 for SPECfp95, while the Alpha more
than doubles that at 15.9."

If only we got more press like this!

mb
678.31present vs future comparison...SMURF::STRANGESteve Strange, UNIX FilesystemsFri May 09 1997 17:5311
    > The current leading workstation processor, Digital's Alpha 21164, costs
    > under $2000 for a 400MHz part. Intel's 300MHz Pentium II has a
    > SPECint95 of 11.6, compared to 11.7 for the Alpha.
    
    It's a bit annoying that they're making a comparison between the 21164
    that has been out for a while, and the 300Mhz Pentium II which won't be
    out for a few months.  It would make more sense to compare with 600Mhz
    21164, at the very least.  But better press than we usually get (i.e.,
    better than none)!
    
    	Steve
678.32PCBUOA::KRATZFri May 09 1997 19:034
    And the 400Mhz part was announced at $1913 ("under $2000") last
    *March*... before the December price reductions.  Hopefully
    it's well under $1k now (or, if not, perhaps that helps explain
    things...). K
678.33Apples and OrangesAWECIM::SEGALFri May 09 1997 20:543
They weren't event close. I don't know how much a 400 mhz 21164 goes for, but,
I saw a note that the current price for a 500Mhz EV56 21164 is $995, so one 
would hope/assume that the 400 (or 433) mhz chips are significantly cheaper.
678.34But Which `DECchip 21164'?XDELTA::HOFFMANSteve, OpenVMS EngineeringMon May 12 1997 14:049
   At the risk of harping on this, *which* DECchip 21164? 

	The `DECchip 21164', or the `DECchip 21164'? 

   The more recent -- often incorrectly called the 21164A -- has a
   different internal code-name, EV56, and runs rather faster than
   400 MHz, and has different instruction support, etc.

678.35I'd assume it's EV56WRKSYS::INGRAHAMAndyMon May 12 1997 15:325
I don't think the first `DECchip 21164' (aka EV5) runs as fast as 400 MHz.
Its upper limit had been 300 MHz, which I think was later upped to 333 MHz.

Even where EV5 and EV56 overlap (300-333 MHz), the EV56 is preferred for
new designs because of lower power (among others).
678.36Missing A is really quite dumbDECC::OUELLETTEmudseason into blackfly seasonMon May 12 1997 15:374
TurboLaser cranked the EV5 to 350 MHz (with a bit more power).
At least one of the 3rd party Alpha hardware houses clocked
EV5 at 400 MHz.  And then there was the company with the
refrigerator like cold plate...
678.37.35, .28, or .25?TBLADE::GEEHANOpenVMS and NT; Perfect Together!Tue May 13 1997 20:0018
    
    The Pentium II fact sheet in Intel's home page says that all three
    speeds; 233, 266, & 300MHz are done with .35 micron. The info also
    doesn't mention that the 300 won't be available until Q3CY97 (see reply
    .30).
    
    The speculation was that 'Klamath' 233 & 266 would be .28; and that
    'Deschutes' would be a .25 shrink, 300MHz, possibly 333MHz.
    
    Did Intel get 300MHz with .35, or is the speculation in .30 correct?
    Would that make the 450MHz part the 'Deschutes' at .25? Or is the Intel
    fact sheet wrong? Or maybe just creative marketing?
    
    
    
    							Thanks,
    							djg...