Slashdot Mirror
Intel Delays Dual-Core Processor, Plans New Server Chip
Kajakske writes "Intel said Thursday that it is pushing back the release of its first dual-core processor by a year to 2005 and adding a new microprocessor for servers to its Itanium II lineup. On the other hand, Intel is moving forward in the area of new technologies."
Interesting, especially given the lack-luster products produced by Motorola and the relative lack of success of AMD (I use an XP1800+ and think its great, the company just doesn't seem to do too well.) I wonder if this lack of competition is a major factor - Intel doesn't need to keep spending money researching new chips if it's current generation are so far ahead of its competitors.
I also wonder if the economy is a factor compounding that - ok you can research your way into new demand but why bother when you're that far ahead (see above) ?
All I can say is, hurry up IBM and get those new PPC chips out the door (and into my Mac ;-).
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
If AMD manages to stick to their schedule on the 64bit chips, they are going to have a big winner on their hands: systems that can address more than 4G in a single process and yet are backwards compatible.
At first, it bummed me out to read this headline, since I would *love* such a toy.
;-)
Then, following the link, I realized they only plan this dual core toy for the *Itanium* line, anyway. Bummer. I do like how the article says Intel hasn't sold as many of them as they planned, though... Can we say "DOA"? I thought they had all but abandoned the mega-flop (in the movie sense, not the CPU sense) Itanium.
Anyway, back to my point...
I don't want a CPU with 6MB of cache (the reason they give for pushing back their SMP-on-a-chip). I don't want an Itanium. I don't even want a P4.
I would *run* to the store, however, to buy a quad (since at their current fabs, they could fit four in the same space as a single P4, so why only go dual) P-III somewhere around 1.5Ghz (like the chip they plan to release with 6 or 9MB of cache). Not an inconsiderable amount of CPU power (My current machine has "only" a dual PIII/933, and I have yet to find my "killer app" reason to upgrade).
So, listen up, Intel - the server market may pay more per chip, but we "mere" home users buy a HELL of a lot more of them. So throw us a bone, 'kay?
Because if you don't, AMD will (eventually).
With a P4 killer on the way from IBM, who already has a 90nm/300mm plant in operation, I've been expecting Intel to announce that they have smaller, more efficient processes already in operation. But, what's this? Intel is *behind* IBM in the chip fabbing technology? This might bode well for my next Apple purchase. (Assuming my jobless, broke ass finds a job by the time Apple moves to this new CPU.)
Obviously, I don't keep up with this part of the computer world. Is IBM normally ahead of the game when it comes to new chip processes? It seems to me like Intel, whose main priority is processor manufacture and distribution, would be ahead of IBM, who have diversified to the point that I don't even know what their primary product is.
"The image is a dream. The beauty is real. Can you see the difference?" -- Richard Bach, Illusions
I think HP and Intel are putting all bets on their child Itanium.
First HP holds back on their alpha line, then Intel does this....
The important question is, Is it good for the consumer by letting others into the market (lesser competition, flatter market etc.) or does it harm him by slowing down technology?
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
How does Intel's Hyperthreading Technology differ from the dual core? I realize the obvious, such as one in in the Pentium line and the other in the Itanium, and the physical differences of packaging.
But how how different will the architecture of a dual-die chip differ from hyperthreading, such as which CPU components will be shared (like cache, instruction decode/scheduler, etc.)?
Also would the Linux kernel's logical processor abstraction used to enable hyperthreading support (see IBM developerWorks Article) also continue to work effectively with a dual-die chip?
"Intel said Thursday that it is pushing back the release of its first dual-core processor
So now instead of virtual processors (read hyperthreading) intel is going to release a chip that does hyperthreading for real?
Damn i'm confused.
(BTW tried hyperthreading, marginal increase for some apps, slowdowns for others)
For most home (and, indeed, server) applications, I would have thought that having a dual core processor won't make much of a difference, just as processor speed doesn't - rather, what is important is the speed you can get data in and out of the processor.
:-)
Overall CPU speed doesn't seem to make much of a difference when the bus speed is the same, certainly not in the systems I've tested. However, up the CPU bus speed, and you'll find your performance greatly improved, because you're getting data to the processor quicker.
Some years ago, I tested this theory with a couple of old 686 chips - one 200, one 233. I benchmarked the 200 and 233 both at 75MHz bus - virtually identical results. Then I ran them at the same CPU speed, but 83MHz bus, and the benchmark results improved by exactly 83/75. What does this tell you?
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
And the vaunted EV8 tech we've been guessing would be infused into later IA-64 products gets pushed farther away into the distance ...
... my P3 866 at home.) And. New Pentiums? Watch, as I leap for joy. Or don't, in fact, leap.
... hehe ... testing.) But are we non-server folk ever going to see something that's drastically different from the CPU in the computer we got a decade ago?
It's good to see at least they're on the road to 65-nm fabrication. But it'd be nice if they breathed some more life into their current architectures. IA-64 docs are interesting reads, but the hardware just isn't terribly impressive in practice yet. (At least, kernel compiles felt like they took forever on my professor's dual IA-64 research boxes compared to
I'd like to see Intel do something New[tm] and Exciting[tm] on the home market. IA-64 is that, I'm guessing they just need to tweak existing setups or something. I love the feeling of having a processor architecture before me to dig into. (That's why I picked up an old EV56 machine for
I was under the impression that there was competing "schools of thought" with regards to how extra preformance was to be gained as we start to hit the manufacturing "wall".
On one hand you have the VLIW type guys (or EPIC in intel speak) whereby you increase parallelism at the instruction level.. or the Multicore guys where you increase the number of number instructions executed by having multiple cores running different tasks.
Whilst in principle I've got no problems with merging the two, I get the impression that by going the dual core route Intel are admitting that they wont be-able to get the kind of performance out of EPIC that they where promising.
Just a thought to consider.
AFAIK, it is *the most proprietary* processor on the market.
When they began the IA64, Intel and HP set up a company to hold the IP related to the new architecture. That company owns the IP, Intel and HP get rights to use it. None of Intel's or HP's cross-licensing agreements apply to any of the IA64 IP.
AFAIK, every other major CPU ends up have some amount of cross-licensing, except the IA-64. They own it lock, stock, and barrel. The only chink in the armor seems to be Intergraph.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Humm, seems that the editor got it wrong...
From CNet News they are actually going to release it FASTER that the previous schedule.
The double core itanium deadline is now 2005 instead of 2007 and adding a new chip for 2004.
Maybe the confusion arise fromthe fact that "Originally, Montecito, due in 2004, wasn't a dual-core chip, but it was morphed after engineering and manufacturing teams concurred that a dual-processor chip could be mass-manufactured at Intel by 2005."
It would be a good idea to change the headline!