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."

Comments

Not much competition ?

[CountBrass]

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 ;-).

Re:Not much competition ?

[kahei]

Intel doesn't need to keep spending money researching new chips if it's current generation are so far ahead of its competitors.

The thing is, this isn't a chip technology race. It's a chip fabrication/distribution/pricing race.

Intel's chips are not technologically superior to AMDs (I know Intel has some major technology assets, but they mostly don't affect the chips in production now). On the other hand, Intel's capital, fabrication capacity, distribution, and market clout are far superior to AMDs. Intel is concentrating on the areas where it has the advantage, which are also the decisive areas.

If only this *was* a technology race. But that's market forces for you.

Re:Not much competition ?

[nehril]

I think they will continue to spend just as much money on research. they just wont *release* new tech unless competition forces them to.

they may have the technology right now that doubles or triples current performance, but why play that card now? keep the tech in reserve, and let it roll out at a "natural" moore's law rate in order to keep the investors happy.

if motorola should happen to shock the world and release a 4 ghz multicore G5 running with 800mhz DDR RAM (we can dream, can't we??), then intel can roll out whatever they have in reserve a bit earlier.

Remember, Intel is run by businessmen, for businessmen. Technology to them is only a means to generate cash.

Re:Not much competition ?

[Kourino]

Remember, Intel is run by businessmen, for businessmen. Technology to them is only a means to generate cash.

Sigh. I suspect that's exactly it. And that's what pisses me off.

Because, as a paying customer, technology to me is a whole hell of a lot more than a way to generate cash. It's a way to do interesting things, and also an end of its own, in a way - exploring the technology is really fun. Anyone remember sitting down with 16/32-bit assemblers and triple-faulting your processor until you got "protected mode" down?

I haven't had that much fun directly with a CPU in years. When I get time to play with my EV56 machine, I'll have some of it again; it'll be my first architecture after IA-32 (I haven't done that much interesting low-level on IA-64 besides performance counters).

And ... waxing philosophical here, so feel free to ignore the rest of this comment. But someone in a different thread recently (don't remember which ... ) commented on the mishandling of the Alpha IP by Compaq, then HP, then its more or less non-use by Intel. And basically said "these people are keeping the market down with their competition, and limiting our future technological growth as a society." I'm not sure how accurate or fair that is (I suspect I'm just getting bitchy now) ... but it's really fscking creepy to think about.

Although really, this is partially because DEC couldn't market the Alpha to save its life. In fact, it didn't.

My uninformed opinion...

[iNub]

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.

Re:My uninformed opinion...

[CountBrass]

IBM ($81.19billion FY 2002) is four times the size of Intel ($26.76billion FY 2002) in revenue terms.

How does hyperthreading differ?

[dmeranda]

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?

Re:How does hyperthreading differ?

[iNub]

A CPU with hyperthreading enabled will never complete a task faster than two of the same CPUs running parallel with hyperthreading disabled.

Well, of course 2 processors will outperform a single one. Processors have a finite pool of resources. The point of HT is not to perform like dual processor, rather to act like them, increasing the performance of a single CPU at a negligible cost.

Buying 2 processors would cost you twice as much as a single processor, even more when you consider the cost of a motherboard and enough memory to make dual processors a worthwhile investment. You would get roughly double (OK, 1.6x) the performance at double the cost.

Buying a single HT-enabled processor, however, would only cost you 10 or 15% more, and you would be seeing a 20-30% performance increase across the board. I think that's a better deal.

From the article..

[grub]

The Santa Clara, California-based company is the leading maker of processors, which serve as the brains of computers.

Ah, so that's what those things do..