Intel?s announcement last week that the P4 4 GHz would be delayed into 2005 may have been no surprise to those of us who follow the industry, but it can?t have improved the mood in Santa Clara.  It?s the latest in a recent set of hiccups and roadmap adjustments for Intel, whose had to recall early boards based on Grantsdale because of a problem with ICH6, delay next-generation Dothan chipsets, and now has been forced to scale back its P4 ramp.  With the Prescott 3.6 GHz CPU still in very tight supply, we?ve seen a fresh wave of doomsday predictions that we thought we?d address.  As tempting as it is to compare Intel?s recent trouble with the train wreck of 2000, there are major differences between the two. 

• Platform Issues Incomparable:  Its true, Intel?s recall of Grantsdale and the just-publicized Lindenhurst problems are black spots on the company?s record, but the i820 disaster was far, far worse.  Intel?s Grantsdale recall happened immediately after the chipset launch with few, if any, systems actually shipped to market.  The MTh-equipped i820, in contrast, shipped for months before Intel discovered (admitted) the problem.  Even the costs are vastly different?39 million (estimated) for the Grantsdale recall, over 250 million for MTH-i820.  Intel seems to have learned its lesson; a small chipset recall at the front-end may earn you a black eye, a recall after six months tends to give you a bad name.  One of them is much harder to shake than the other. 
  
• Prescott Isn?t at the Limits of its Process:  This may seem like an odd one to bring up since I?ve been vocal about the lack of high-end Prescott?s in the market place, but there?s a method to my madness.  The last time Intel had major availability problems was with the P3 1 GHz, but there?s a difference between the two.

The P3 1 GHz on .l8 micron was at the absolute limits of its design, and nothing anyone did could change that.  Not only was Intel unable to provide a 1.13 GHz chip, but even websites using high-end water cooling weren?t able to push a 1 GHz sample past 1050 stably.  Athlon?s from the same time period and at the same speed were pushing up to 1200 MHz. 

Prescott?s problem is different.  Unlike the CuMine P3, we?ve seen substantial evidence that Prescott can break the 5 GHz barrier today, if strong enough cooling solutions are used.  This implies that Intel?s problem is more an issue of keeping Prescott cool within their own desired thermal envelope using an OEM cooler.  A re-designed or heavier cooler is probably an option, but such coolers tend to be louder and inherently more expensive?and hence, not attractive. 

• Clockspeeds Less Important:  Not only are clockspeeds less important in today?s market than they were four years ago, but Intel has plenty of marketing fodder to keep advertisers happy.  Back in 2000 the Rambus fiasco(s) had killed any chance of using it as a successful advertising campaign, which left the entire program dependent on clockspeeds?which Intel couldn?t provide.  Today there?s a wealth of material to promote, from DDR2 and PCI-Express to new wireless capabilities and high-definition audio.  Intel can, in fact, whip out an entire suite of marketing material while barely mentioning Prescott?s clock. 

next >

---

• Continuation, Conclusion. (1 of 1)