Slashdot Mirror
Intel And AMD's Dual-Core CPUs Investigated
Hack Jandy writes "Anandtech has a bunch of insider information concerning Intel and AMD's move to dual-core CPUs. The article has lots of great information on how the move to dual-core processors affects modern computing - in particular, Anand sees more promise in multiple CPU cores that perform different operations, rather than just stamping two identical cores on the same processor like AMD and Intel are doing now."
And let's call it, say, the x87 math co-processor? :)
Naw, you really need two of the same chips in there. Too much steering of processes and whatnot otherwise.
-m
http://www.invisik.com
The P4 already does this. It will turn down the speed and even disable individual cpu components in order to save its life if it begins to overheat.
TomsHardware produced this video a while ago, detailing what happens when the heatsink and fan is removed during workload. They test both AMD and Intel processors from back then.
Processor: shall be defined as all processors where the Oracle programs are installed and/or running. Programs licensed on a Processor basis may be accessed by your internal users (including agents and contractors) and by third party users. For the purposes of counting the number of processors which require licensing, a multicore chip with "n" processor cores shall be counted as "n" processors.
This is from Oracle's "Licensing Definitions Document," the emphasis is mine. I found it on the partner web site, which I'm pretty sure is inaccessible to the general public.Of course, I expect this to change (esp. on Windows) p.d.q. given Microsoft's recent announcement.
Certainly about how AMD do dual-core, which as it has been detailed since 2001 (and talked about since 1999) I think is extremely poor for a large website like Anandtech to get wrong.
See comments 50, 51 and 54 that go with the story to see how AMD actually do dual-core (they don't 'fuse' hypertransport links together, like the article says they do)
What is sadder is that they haven't corrected the story even though the incorrectness has been pointed out to them in the feedback, and presumably via e-mail as well. Nothing in the article can be trusted in any way because if basic facts are ignored, then what about the rest?
I certainly do not think that such poor articles should be linked from Slashdot. Why should AnandTech get rewarded for such shoddy work?
I would rather have multiple cores than a faster processor. The combined clocks of my old dual processor system ran just over half that of my current (similar core) processor, yet the feel of it on the desktop was far better. None of the little hitches, glitches and rogue processes that plague me on the uniprocessor system.
Usually dual-cpu systems have better bandwidth on the motherboard, which impacts performance in any but the most cpu-bound tasks a lot more than a faster cpu does. For years the bottlenecks on most systems have been the hard disk, the motherboard/memory bandwidth, and the video card. A fast cpu just does not matter that much if you don't spend all your time compiling or rendering 3D art.
They mention in the article specifically how intel's design foolishly decreases bandwidth per cpu to make the dual-core magic happen. Since the xeon's will arrive so much later that leads me to conclude they know performance is going to be abysmal, but they're going for the "dual" buzzword because amd is, and at the same time they're re-engineering their bus tech for the xeon line to improve bandwidth so the dual core nature actually becomes useful.
I can testify to this... This summer I built a new gaming desktop and wanted to try out SMP. So I decided on a dual opteron setup. Finding dual opteron boards is not a problem. What is a problem, unfortunately, is finding a desktop class board, ie. one that doesn't have 64-bit pci, onboard SCSI, 8 banks of RAM, and a price tag of $400...
Ultimately, I only found 2 boards in the $200 range that were dual capable and had AGP: MSI and Tyan. And both were fairly difficult to get ahold of. But it was worth the hassle in the end, as I'm extremely happy with the new system.
It's OK! I'm a limo driver!
You can refer to recent story on Slashdot Particuly Anandtech comparison. If you want to compare performance : AnandTech (same article) or ExtremeTech.
So don't think Intel had any interest in low power consuption, they were for the gagihertz race. Now tings are changing, they canceled everything (think of 4Ghz) to work "around" the CPU. They surrender to AMD. Race for Gigahertz is over. Dual core is the way to go, particularly specialysed ones.
If you want to reduce your CPU temperature about 20deg C try Athcool on GNU/Linux. It shuts down northbridge went idle. Obviously, you lose 5% performance, but it's your choice. It can be activated at will!
By the way, I'm talking about desktop.