Slashdot Mirror
Intel Drops Tejas, Xeon To Focus On Dual-Core Chips
PunkerTFC writes "Reuters has an article about Intel dropping the fourth-generation P4 chip (codenamed "Tejas") and the Xeon server processor. Intel says they want to concentrate on their new 'dual-core' technology for desktop and notebook systems. This is essentially putting two processors on one chip, allowing for a doubling of performance with less energy use. The introduction of this technology was not expected for another year and a half. Rival chip maker AMD says they have the capability to produce dual-core chips and will introduce the technology when they "feel there is a market need.""
but might this have something to do with the recently-announced Longhorn specs?
But multi-cpu system sales figures do not justify abandoning the single-cpu market in any way. This is a serious mistake or an admission that they just cant keep up with AMD anymore.
sold more chips than Intel during a two week period (52% to 47%). I wonder if Intel is finally feeling the heat from AMD? Maybe Dell (who only sells Intel) is pushing on them too.
There is a rage in me to defy the order of the stars, despite their pretty patterns.
Well weekends are for dupes it seems
I mean this was interesting a couple days ago, but now it is old news...
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
How many people do you know with dual procs. anywho? the only one I know is a mac friend. What kind of heat sink are we going to need for dualies? Its gotta weigh in round 5lbs. And have the noise output of a harley
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Here's the real impact many of us will be feeling. Software vendors that license by the CPU have already in fair part indicated that they consider "dual core" chips to be two CPU's for licensing purposes.
In other words, people are going to find themselves having to pay higher licensing fees with regular desktop computers as well as servers. Small workgroup servers could be really hard hit by this from some vendors.
I wonder how this will play out with XP Home which only supports one CPU? AMD has the technology so they may well respond in kind when Intel does (dammit lead AMD, lead), which could have a fair impact in weaning the masses of XP Home. I dont think MS will let this go the route of hyperthreading with the "logical processor" support.
Intel, like Microsoft, Dell and Sony, is a favored company.
AMD, like Nokia, Apple and Nintendo, is not.
AMD's strategy (Opteron instead of dual-core?) will therefore be called "a significant risk given the current market reality" while Intel's strategy (dual-core instead of Itanium?) will be called "a savvy decision for the technology giant," even though the media wouldn't know an Opteron or a dual-core CPU if one jumped up on their desk and did the tap number from 42nd street.
All of the general stories will make repeated and redundant references to the effect of Intel's strategy on the "tech-heavy Nasdaq."
This is no different than the Sony vs. Nintendo console competition. The media doesn't like competition. Neither do the markets. (There is only room for three companies in any given market) It's so much easier to be a sycophant when your favored company has 80% of the market.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
You'd think they wouldn't be so calm. If AMD lags behind Intel on this, they'll miss the whole wave of early-adopting nerds. These nerds will more than likely be very pleased with their purchase, and turn into fanboys. Fanboys, as we all (unfortunately) know, like to evangelize about their manufacturer of choice to other nerds (which creates more fanboys), and anyone who asks them for advice on a computer. Even if AMD comes out with something better afterwards, the damage will have already been done.
See also: Playstation 2.
Is this a parallel implementation then? In that case performance is only doubled for processes that can be performed in parallel.
This is only accurate if you're describing single-task performance. System-wide performance may be *more* than doubled, if you're dealing with loads that are causing a lot of switching overhead.
And I don't think it's just a server thing. When my old dual cpu system finally died, I replaced it with a single cpu setup that ran nearly twice as fast (by MHz) as the two chips in the old system combined. Yet the feel of the system under load was substantially worse. I'm pretty stoked about this. I think it could improve the average user's desktop experience a great deal.
Kill, Tux, kill!
This sig left unintentionally blank.
I wouldn't be so quick to characterize the Pentium-M as a low end chip. From what I've read of it's inception, they took the P3 core, added some advancements gleaned from the development of the P4, and optimized it for power efficiency. A while back, while googling about, I found that others have wondered about PM's in an SMP configuration. That's not possible (perhaps not even in the way ABIT made the dual P3 VP6 -- i.e. with a hardware hack), but interest in this chip as a performer has at least created a market for PM based blades. This chip isn't a P4EE, but it's hardly a Celeron.