Interesting info from the Anand article:
1. "Classic" Coppermine has CPUID=681
2. "New" Celeron has CPUID=683
At the same time, the Intel's PCN #904 says
that the new revised Coppermines,
Core stepping B-0, all have CPUID=683.
Coincidence? Not!
BTW, what has happened with CPUID=682 parts?
Massive dumpsterisation under ProsessBoy
supervision?
BTW, according to my personal experience,
all current Coppermines (681) seems to remain
very buggy and cannot execute some legacy
code at all, while previous "0.25u" did it
perfectly. In addition, the cheap plastic
package seems to have poor thermal conductivity
(as all plastics do), so frequent jumps in chip
temperature (due to thermal management under
OSes like NT and Win2000) causes huge thermal
and therefore mechanical gradients inside the
package body. I do not think the Cumines can
last long. Tony Viola, how about RAS?
One word - Floppermines.
Throw in such pearls of other fine engineering as
bad SMbus timing on all Intel's boards with MTH
(hence recall of CC820 boards), and it makes
one to wonder for how longer this cardhouse with
stand. Never expected such flops from a $25B company
with huge R&D budget. Funny. Actually, I did some
predictions few years ago, but did not really
believed in them myself. Now it seems it is moving
towards reality.
Regards,
- Ali |
