"What you have seen is a public demonstration of 4 GHz silicon straight off our manufacturing line. We have positive indications to be able to take Netburst to the 10 GHz space."

"While architectural enhancements are important, Intel intends to continue its lead in raw speed. Otellini demonstrated a new high-frequency mark for processors, running a Pentium 4 processor at 4.7 GHz."

The first assertion was made at IDF Spring 2002, and the second press release was broadcasted after Fall IDF 2002. Fast forward to the beginning of 2004, and we read in the Prescott presentation: "2005-2010: the era of thread level parallelism and multi-core CPU technology. " What happened to "the 10 GHz space"?

Fig 1. "2005-2010: the era of thread level parallelism and multi-core CPU technology ".

The presentation of the new 6xx Prescott even states that Intel is now committed to " Adding value beyond GHz". This sounds like Intel is not interested in clock speeds anymore, let alone 10 GHz CPUs.

Already, the hype is spreading: Dual core CPUs offer a much smoother computing experience; processing power will increase quickly from about 5 Gigaflops to 50 gigaflops and so on. It is almost like higher clock speeds and extracting more ILP (Instruction Level parallelism), which has been researched for decades now, are not important anymore.

At the same time, we are hearing that "Netburst is dead, Tejas is cancelled and AMD's next-generation K9 project is pushed back." Designs built for high clock speeds and IPC (Instructions per Clock) are no longer highly regarded as heroes, but black sheep. They are held responsible for all the sins of the CPU world: exploding power dissipation, diminishing performance increases and exorbitant investments in state of the art fabs to produce these high clock speed chips. A Prescott or Athlon 64 CPU in your system is out of fashion. If you want to be trendy, get a quad core P-m, also known as Whitefield [2], made in India.

To the point

I am exaggerating, of course. A good friend of mine, Chris Rijk, said: "PR departments having no 'middle gears': they either hype something to great lengths, or not at all." Trying to understand what is really going on is the purpose of this article. We are going to take a critical look at what the future CPU architectures have to offer. Is the traditional approach of increasing IPC and clock speed to get better performance doomed? Does multi-core technology overcome the hurdles that were too high for the single-core CPUs? Are multi-core CPUs the best solution for all markets? Will multi-core CPUs make a difference in the desktop and workstation market?

In this first instalment, we explore the problems that the current CPU architectures face. The intention is to evaluate whether the solution proposed by Intel and other manufactures is a long-term solution, one that really solves those problems. We will also investigate one CPU in particular, the Intel Prescott. So, basically there are 4 chapters in this article that will discuss:

  • The problems that CPU architects face today: Wire Delay, Power and the Memory wall.
    Chapter 1 - The brakes on CPU power
  • The reason why Intel and others propose dual core as a solution to these problems.
    Chapter 2 - Why single core CPUs are no longer "cool"
  • Whether or not these problems can be solved without dual core.
    Chapter 3 - Containing the epidemic problems
  • A case study of the Intel Prescott.
    Chapter 4 - The Pentium 4 crash landing

Although Intel is undeniably the industry leader in the CPU market, this doesn't always mean that the solutions proposed are the right ones. For example, remember MMX, which was a technology that should have turned the (x86-based) PC into a multimedia monster. In hindsight, the critics were right. MMX was little more than a marketing stunt to make people upgrade.

The first implementation of hyperthreading on Intel's Foster Xeon (Willamette Xeon) was turned off by default by all OEMs. And hyperpipelined CPUs with 30+ stages turned out to be an impressive, but pretty bad idea.

In other words, not all hypes have turned out to be beneficial for the customer. Millions of customers are still waiting for the rich content on the Internet that is enabled by and runs so much faster on the Netburst architecture...

CHAPTER 1: The brakes on CPU power
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Cybercat - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link

    It's sad that software isn't moving in the direction of AMD's architectural emphasis, and instead heading toward a more media-oriented design. As said above, AMD is better at keeping in mind the future of their processors, by keeping up with low-leakage technologies (E0 stepping being a good example).

    I do think though that the whole dual-core thing is a gimmick. I certainly won't be buying into it any time soon.
  • fitten - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link

    Good read! I'm looking forward to the next installment.
  • reactor - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link

    Half of it went over my head, but was none the less very interesting. The prescott chapter was very informative.

    Well Done.
  • Rand - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link

    I'm still getting accustomed to seeing your byline on articles published on AnandTech, rather then AcesHardware :)

    As always, it's an excellent and fascinating read.

  • Regs - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link

    Pentium-M can't*
  • Regs - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link

    Thanks to this article I now know why the PM can reach faster clock cycles, and why AMD is still behind in multimedia tasks like video encoding.

    Awesome article! I see some one has been lurking the forums.
  • FinalFantasy - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link

    Nice article!
  • bersl2 - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link

    Yay! I get to use some of the stuff from my CS2110 class!
  • Gnoad - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link

    This is one hell of an in depth article! Great job!
  • WooDaddy - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link

    I have to say this is the most technical article from Anandtech I have read. Good thing I'm a hardware engineer... I think it could be a difficult read for someone with even average understand of microprocessor development.

    Good though.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now