Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Plans for Dual-Core Prescott CPUs in 2005

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the hot-stuff-coming-through dept.

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."

13 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Windows Licencing by Neophytus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Windows Licencing by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

      XP Pro understands hyperthreading fine, and in fact will work with a machine with dual hyperthreading CPU's. What won't work is 2k Pro. Also note that 2k3 server standard reduced the max number of physical CPU's to two for standard edition whereas it had been 4 in previous iterations of NT. Btw don't use hyperthreading on win2k even if you have enough processor licenses because it will balance evenly across the hyperthreading CPU's not realizing that they are really there for spare capacity and hence trash the instruction cache.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Windows Licencing by qodfathr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Licensing is for physical processors only. So, even today, if you have 2 physical CPUs with hyperthreading, you are compliant. Task Manager will show 4 CPUs, but the OS can determine that only 2 are physical.

      I suspect, however, that a dual-core CPU will be treated as 2 physical cpus...(+2 virtual CPUs)

      --
      Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
  2. It's not even real?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  3. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Two core dumps for each segmentation fault.

  4. Heat? by Sir+dies+alot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Longhorn won't see 4 by frs_rbl · · Score: 5, Funny
    Thanks to patented HyperSlowing(TM) technology, Longhorn won't see 4 processors but 1.

    ''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
  6. Ars by ViceClown · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  7. Prescott? by lachlan76 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Dancing Techs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What happened to the days of the intel dudes dancing around in bunny suits?

  9. But you should see the heatsinks by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)

  10. 200 Watts? by ahfoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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. Re:200 Watts? by NubKnacker · · Score: 5, Informative

      You seem to be forgetting the fact that your CPU takes that much power only when it's actually working, and not when it's sitting idle. So unless you got SETI running, your power bill shouldn't be that high. Ofcourse if you have SETI running, then it could also be the aliens drawing power from your computer.