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."

Comments

Heat?

[Sir dies alot]

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?

4 CPU's

[Deliveranc3]

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?

Re:Linux support?

[G-funk]

Worst. Trol. Evar.

Because intel's always so reticent in giving out the instruction sets and specs for their processors. That'd be a really smart business move, and the #1 way to attract developers.

Stare of play in CPU design.

[funkytwig]

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).

Re:Start saving now, kids!

[BlackHawk-666]

Lot's of their old ones, all the ones I needed, are free and available in PDF format.

Re:Longhorn won't see 4

[TheRaven64]

Actually, this would be more in keeping with Intel's strategy with the x86 line. x86 chips take superscalar architectures to extremes, and the idea behind a superscalar chip it to implement parallelism without forcing the compiler to know about it. A logical extension of this would be to make a number of physical processors appear as one logical processor.

The Itanium goes in the opposite direction, requiring the compiler to explicitly parallelise instructions. While this approach has the potential to allow much more scalability, it requires a much cleverer compiler. The combination of EPIC/VLIW chips with JIT compilation and run-time profiling could create some very high speed applications.

Dual Core vs. Single core

[totoanihilation]

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!

Re:Linux support?

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Ask them for the specifics of their new EFI "BIOS" so you can work with it.

Re:Windows Licencing

[Sloppy]

Who needs 4 processors in a non server environment anyway?

I heard that nearly same question a few years back, but it was, "Who needs a 386 in a non server environment anyway?"