Thank-you for sharing the link emulators.com where the Pentium 4 is discussed. Although it’s both deep and long, I found the article very much worth the time to study. I also recognise that some people may not wish to commit the time and effort to a topic that lies some distance beyond the focus of the majority of Computer Learning participants.
I’d like to highlight some passages from that link…
Admittedly, a little off topic for this thread, but another real-world example of truth in the common saying that “Intel gives and Microsoft takes away.” Today, the observation that new software always expands its demands on new hardware continues.
“The 386 chip is famous for unseating IBM as the leading PC developer and for causing the breakup with Microsoft. IBM looked at the 386, decided it was too powerful for the average user, and decided not to use it in PCs and not to write operating systems for it. Instead it chose to keep using the 286 and to support the 286 in OS/2. Microsoft on the other hand developed Windows/386 with improved multitasking, Compaq and other clone makers did use the 386 to deliver the horsepower needed to run such a graphical operating system, and the rest is history. By the time IBM woke up, it was too late. Microsoft won. Compaq DELL and Gateway won.”
Again, maybe a little off topic for this thread, but addressing a long and hotly contested dispute between the RISC vs. CISC processor camps, the link contains this gem.
The theory with RISC processors, which has long since proven to be bullshit, was that by making the instructions simpler the chip could be clocked at a higher clock speed. But this in turn only made up for the fact that more instructions were now required to implement any particular algorithm, and worse, the code grew bigger and thus used up more memory. In reality a RISC processor is no more or less powerful than a CISC processor.
Finally, a topic that gets considerable attention on Computer Learning. How fast does everyday software run on a typical PC? What factors determine performance and what control do we have over them.
Once again, let me repeat: CLOCK SPEED IS NOT EVERYTHING! So many people stupidly go out and buy a new computer every year expecting faster clock speed to solve their problems, when the main problem is not clock speed. The problem is poorly written code, uneducated programmers, and out of date compilers (that's YOU Microsoft) that target obsolete processors. How many people still run Microsoft Office 95? … That product was written in an old version of Visual C++ which targets now obsolete 486 processors. … The newer the compiler tools, the better optimised the code is for today's processors.
The author gives a detailed explanation and examples, before concluding with…
Until every single Windows application out there gets re-compiled with Visual C++ 7.0, or gets hand coded in assembly language, your brand spanking new Pentium III processor will not run as fast as it can.
About half way through, the author makes this pronouncement on the Pentium 4.
In what can only be considered a monumental lapse in judgement, Intel went ahead and threw out the many tried and tested ideas implemented in both the PowerPC and AMD Athlon processor families and literally took a step back 5 years to the days of the 486.
He supports this assertion with pages of argument and examples. I won’t include the detail here because much of it would only interest developers; however, it was sprinkled with interesting bits such as follows…
My advice is don't stock up on too much more PC100 or PC133 RAM as next time you go to buy a computer they'll be obsolete.
When the second processor in the 670 MHz and 1.0 GHz systems was disabled, the speed actually increased.
And since Microsoft's C++ compiler is known to not produce Pentium 4 optimised code, I can't possibly imagine Windows XP being tuned for the Pentium 4!
The Pentium III-M, despite the fact that Intel hobbled the larger 512K L2 cache down to 256K, still delivers a solid 20% speed increase over the 1.0 GHz chip, and does so using the slowest and most common PC133 memory … The Pentium III architecture, as old as it is, scales very nicely and keeps right up with the Athlon.
I cannot imagine him expressing his opinion of the current processor offerings any clearer than he does here…
If someone were to buy me a computer this Christmas and it didn't have a AMD Athlon XP processor inside of it, I think I would throw it right back at the idiot who wasted his money on it.
Overall, I think the link made an interesting read. If I were considering a new machine, I would take the time to read the article as well as explore the links he provided in support of his assertions.
Again, thank-you for posting it to Computer Learning.
Cheers, PW.
P.S. For a general overview, just read the History section. |
