Slashdot Mirror
Intel Plans for Dual-Core Prescott CPUs in 2005
scapermoya writes "X-Bit Labs is reporting that Intel is planning to step up their introduction of dual-core processors, with the first chips to hit the market in late 2005. Intel announced this plan at the Technology for Business Today seminar, held in Washington, D.C. Looks like NetBurst is sticking around, despite what we have heard lately about a move toward the 'M' architecture. Supposedly, thanks to HyperThreading, the OS will see 4 installed processors. Snazzy."
The sticker on the bottom of this here laptop says Microsoft Windows XP Professional 1-2 CPUs. Will this mean that Microsoft will have to reconsider their licencing policy for CPUs if people are going to have "four" from one chip? I've never needed to run more than two (through hyperthreading) so if someone could shed some light on what happens if you give a "2-licence" four processors it would be appreciated.
UPDATE: A representative for Intel Corporation told X-bit labs the company had never released any precise details in regards the dual-core strategy. The information published herein should not be considered as based on official statements.
WTF?
Two core dumps for each segmentation fault.
Isn't it a llittle soon to claim to put 4 processors in one chip by 2005, especially sinse last I had heard, one processor was causing a heat concern. Have they fixed this or is this Intel making predictions and setting dates that will only get pushed back anyway?
The stupidity of your average American is just about the same as the average European, we simply show it off better.
''And not a very fast one'' a company exec was quoted saying
This is not my opinion. Actually, it's not even an opinion. And I'm nowhere to be seen near it
Ars is covering this too. Ken Fisher makes it a point to mention that the person who made the claims is in marketing. He also speculates, quite logically, that bringing out dual core Prescotts in '05 would be a feat even for Intel. Worth reading for a more sobering take on the situation.
Have a Happy.
Will Intel actively support Linux on these chips? Or will the specs be "secret" and left to DMCA-baiting reverse engineering?
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I'm sure they are going to be eSpensive
Blarf.
These dual core processors are needed for Longhorn which is going to released in 2006.
The article doesn't actually say that Prescott will be a very promising architecture to use for a dual core configuration...imagine 200W of heat coming from a single dual-core processor.
Having multiple cores will make the already-present high heat requirements increase, while the processors in laptops get faster and faster, but not necessarily much hotter. The P6 architecture is the way to go, I think.
What happened to the days of the intel dudes dancing around in bunny suits?
I remember when Hyperthreading came out there were serious performance problems in many apps. This lead many reviews and I must assume educated consumers to disable this feature.
Other than tollerance for spyware does this have any real advantages?
Didn't we hear some rumblings on this count from AMD? When does their roadmap state this stuff'll be ready to go?
I mean, Hot !
Will it come with the Prescott Survival kit ?
I need a Sino-Logic 16. Sogo-7 data-gloves, a GPL stealth module...
I've heard that IBM already has ridiculous 8-core POWER5 prototypes. You'd think by late 2005 they'd have knocked out an Altivec-enhanced, dual-core POWER5 derivative for Apple. Though, given their troubles at 90nm on the PPC970, maybe we should be waiting until early to mid 2006 to see that.
I caught a pic of the heatsink for this beast at Computex, so it must be real.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16426
-Charlie
(for the humor impared, think humor - haha, not humor - I don't get it)
Well clearly this demonstrates that Intel really does get the best smoke on the market today. That shit has got to be pricey, because the whole joint is stoned out of their heads.
Let's do some math for them. If we leave our PCs on all day --and that is why we have 24/7 broadband connections isn't it-- that's 5KW/Hrs a day.
At 15cents KW/Hr it now costs seventy five cents a day to have an Intel CPU. That's twenty bucks a month.
But do you get 15cents per KW/Hr lately? Check your bill, you might be closer to twenty cents. A buck a day. Hey, I running the Intel PC costs almost as much as broadband. Perhaps they should include free broadband connections with these things.
1 processor core technology is causing heat consernes in thin core. The point is as the core gets thinner the power required to stop lekage across a ever thinner insulation layer increses. A couple of jumps thinner and we would have chips that require the power of a houshold iron. Multi-core is a solution to this problem, maybe Intel are not using very thin core technology to reduce heat in there multi-core processors. There was a very interesting article about this in New Scientist but I dont think it was one they put on the web for free ;-(. (sorry I posted this as a reply to someone elses article but am hanging it of the original post as it seems relevent).
Troll or joke, that's really a subjective matter, but the guy who modded this "Informative" should give up moderating priveleges ASAP.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
I am curious what the maximum number of processors that WinXP supports is, or for that matter Longhorn. The reason I ask is because, with this technology, seeing 1 proc as 4, then logically it would see 2 proc's as 8. 8 processors? Sounds a little rediculous, but how exactly would XP handle it? Will we have to wait until SP3 or something? Would it see only 4? Would you have to turn of hyperthreading? Will there be boards built to support multiple processors with this new chip type? The more and more I think about this, the more I think this is a distributed computing project in the works. And please, no jokes about Beowulf clusters...
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
those blue icy cool looking dudes?
They MELTED!!
486 = 386 X 2 586 = 486 X 2 686 = 586 X 2 ...
The current prescotts already dissipate over 100 watts of heat over about a square inch. Something tells me that making a dual core prescott would at least double the number of house fires across the world... ;)
Part of the problem is Intel's new 90 nm process, which reportedly has been fixed. As an aside, IBM is having issues with its 90 nm process as well. Still, as you say, the demand for higher clock speeds means that heat production is going up, just not as much as the first Pentium 4 Prescott chips seemed to indicate.
As for two slower cores instead of one faster one, that definitely can save power and increase speed. The problem is that most consumer software is single threaded, so will run slower than the single high speed core alternative.
I'd take a DUAL dual-core 2.5GHz G5 powermac over a dual single-core 3GHz anytime.
It would probably be less of a technical challenge as well, and would follow the "GHz doesn't matter" philosophy the POWER(tm) manager said a few days ago.
The 90nm process encounters problems at high clock speeds. So, bring on more efficiency at lower clock speeds!
I prefer Ars Technica's Understanding Pipelining and Superscalar Execution...
Besides, I feel HT exploits the fact that the processor is pipelined more than its superscalar nature.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Be careful with HT. These fake CPU's can actually drag down overall throughput due to the fact that they can't do everything a "real" CPU can. My theory is that I/O is one of them. Caution databases servers.
Hopefully the OS will be hyper threading aware such that it schedules processes like so:
Processor 1 - Hyper Thread 1
Processor 2 - Hyper Thread 1
Processor 1 - Hyper Thread 2
Processor 2 - Hyper Thread 2
I would not want my 2 processes to be scheduled to only one processor and 2nd processor doing nothing.
The cheaper AthlonXP3800+ 2.6 GHz ThroughBred core can outperform Prescott at half power consumption!!!
multithreading, paralleling, and scheduling keeping up with the hardware, or is it just marketing hype?
Intel reportedly said that with the HyperThreading technology enabled operating systems will report availability of four microprocessors into the system when a single dual-core Prescott is installed. Representatives also confirmed that future Prescott products will feature 64-bit capability.
Didn't intel say previously they weren't going to make 64-bit desktop chips?
Actually, the big jump in heat for the Prescott cores is from Intel use of only starined silicon in manufacturing. By creating a strained lattice for the silicon, you increase the likelyhood of current leakage (hence more heat). This is why AMD and IBM went with silicon on insulator and added strained silicon later (the SOI process helps to mitigate the leakage in strained silicon).
Here's a simple primer
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
The chip all by itself is $20,000 and is about the size of ones hand. It is 4 physical, 8 logical with 144 MB (that's right...megabytes) of cache.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Parent deserves to be moded up for slick moves on a multiprocessor system :D
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
4 Nuclear cores perhaps....
Anyone know where I can pick up a good car radiator? I have to start building a prototype heatsink so Intel will give me the processor for free.....
I read this on Ars last night, so i would take it with a grain of salt....
Ars Technica: The PC enthusiast's resource: "Now, your guess is as good as mine, but it sounds like this 'Intel employee,' whom the report identifies as a marketing manager, was talking out the rear, as we say in Beantown. HyperThreading, for what it's worth, might 'take off' in the future but right now what's taking off is the competition. Now, Intel may have some mojo up its sleeve that hasn't made its way through my sources, but I'll be rather surprised to see dual core Prescotts in a year's time unless Intel has managed to patent a dry ice freezer for cooling purposes. The future is quite clearly the Pentium M, unless Intel has solved power leakage problems and not told anyone about it (which is possible, but unlikely). My best guess with the information at hand is that this is Intel marketing speaking, and Intel marketing isn't going to tell you that Prescott doesn't have a future. Designing a dual-core, HT-enabled CPU that won't scale just doesn't make sense, and I can't imagine Intel doing it. "
Sounds more like someone needs their medication !
So is this
"Prescott" as in "our only president's alleged nazi-financier grandfather"
or
"Prescott" as in "if we keep naming chips and OSs after stuff in the southwest then the moldy bunch in rain-soaked Washington will keep writing whatever we tell them to on the lure of actually getting dry socks"?
Just wondering.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
IBM's PPC is going to crush them and there's no denying the continued growth of AMD in the market. Intel is on shaking ground and will be for quite some time if they do not react in an intelligent and proactive way.
Let's do some math for them. If we leave our PCs on all day --and that is why we have 24/7 broadband connections isn't it-- that's 5KW/Hrs a day.
.15, that is .075 a hour...
Ummm 5000w (5KW) an hour, not many computers pull that. That would be a 5000w power supply under full load.
At 15cents KW/Hr it now costs seventy five cents a day to have an Intel CPU. That's twenty bucks a month. But do you get 15cents per KW/Hr lately?
HUH? there is NO CPU that pulls that much, that I know of. Try 500w at your rate of
I read on amdmb.com that AMD was doing dual core processers in 2005. In fact they had an interview with someone from the company and had a picture, though I cannot remember if it was of the dual cores. Then about a month after that I read Intel wanted to do it. Now this info surfaces.
End of Advertisement
TZ
I see that Intel keeps increasing the number of "virtual processors" on their chip. But with a 512kB
cache they will only wait a lot for the data to become available. Has any of you wondered why a PowerPC is better than a Pentium(TM) at the same clock ?
Because MHz=bullshit when the memory runs at [2-4]00 MHz.
Increasing the number of processor per chip without increasing the cache is marketing bullshit.
-- Segmentation fault. Core dumped
5KW/Hrs a day.
See, that last word. That's day. Not hour. Any further questions Miss?
...thanks to HyperThreading...
:| :| :| !!!
yeah thanks hyperthreading for making my games unstable.
has anyone else encountered this? i've seen two computers with lots of strange bugs and system instabilities; untill you disable hyperthreading and then blam! no crashes since...
(two different motherboards, one asus, and one intel)
-judging another only defines yourself
... will still only use one cpu. ;p
Heh, thanks; very interesting mod tag :)
:(
Unfortunately, it doesn't really have a happy ending - originally I installed VMware (and the virtual servers) on Linux. However, turned out our FM [1] (Facility Management provider) doesn't support Linux.
So I had to reinstall the OS and VMware and run the whole bunch on Windows [2] instead
[1] FM provider is kinda like a co-lo company - you give your servers to them, and they'll take care of them for you. Except that they're much more expensive...
[2] From my experience, it seems that VMware 4.x workstation is more stable on Linux than on Windows. I've experienced several quirks when running VMware on Windows, so I try to avoid Windows for this whenever possible.
A side note: Contrary to some believe/comments, VMware 4.x workstation is quite powerful.
I've heard people saying that it won't run on more than 1 GB of RAM / multiple processors - well, one of our server is a dual-Xeon and have 3 GB of RAM, and VMware 4.x is running happily on it.
Pretty soon, they'll start making chips with water ducts built in. You put the processor on the MB, attach water pipes directly to the in and out nozzels on the processor itself, and start up the water cooling pump *BEFORE* you turn on the CPU power.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
IBM got POWER5 with two processors cores on one
physical chip; with each core SMT enabled.
So POWER5 have four "processors" on one chip.
DisClaimer: My comments do not reflect nor represent anyone else nor my current employer's views or attitudes.
meditation even.
(so is an individual core a Jaguar?)
That makes 4 'virtual' CPUs. Anyway, as most PC users are running NT (or one of its successors), and as locking is anything but fine-grained on NT, while one thread running on one CPU will call some NT kernel function which locks a CRITICAL_SECTION, three other threads running on the remaining three CPUs, who call some other kernel function, will wait for the same CRITICAL_SECTION; effectively, only one CPU gets any real work done.
That's why some other OSs may perform similar on uniprocessor hardware, but may substantially outperform NT on multiprocessor hardware. For example, if you take a look at the SunOS kernel, you'll find much more efficient locking techniques (faster mutexes, lots of rw-locks, more fine-grained structures == better parallellization).
Multiprocessor hardware performs well with technologically sophisticated software only; I mean: it doesn't make sense to increase the number of processors if you don't use all of them simultaneously.
"UPDATE: A representative for Intel Corporation told X-bit labs the company had never released any precise details in regards the dual-core strategy. The information published herein should not be considered as based on official statements."
1 01 51158.html
Article mentioned in the story, top most....
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/200406