Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel And AMD's Dual-Core CPUs Investigated

Posted by timothy on from the smooshing-together dept.

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."

27 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Slow Gimpy CPU? by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Funny
    The idea of putting two cores, one fast and one slow, in a CPU has already been proposed numerous times

    Look Ma! I got a Ferrari that when you press a button becomes a Yugo!

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Slow Gimpy CPU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yay reintroduce the TURBO button then.

  2. Faster processors... by Anubis333 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would rather have faster processors than multiple cores, as it is not enough is multi-threaded. Even the highest end 3D apps, their render engines are SMP capable, but all geometry translation/deformation is not. That would be one core right? Unless multiple cores could show up as one single core/proc in the OS..

    1. Re:Faster processors... by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, most apps are only a single thread, but the underlying OS is multithreaded. So there is a large benefit to dual cores / processors, even on the desktop, if one multitasks. (It's also really cool to be rendering video, and be able to start up a game and play online while you wait for it to finish. :-) ) Think of your computer as being like a highway. Increasing the width of the road doesn't make a single car go any faster, but there's room for lots more cars.

    2. Re:Faster processors... by Xoro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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. I'm very curious to see how these dual cores stack up against dual processor systems in terms of cost and power consumption, as those are the factors keeping me from going back to a dual proc system.

      You are right that many individual applications would not benefit from the additional core but for overall system performance, the dual setup can't be beat.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    3. Re:Faster processors... by ceeam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, if you tried working on SMP machine it's quite a bit different feeling really. You can't quantify it but it flows smoother. Which is not too surprising IMHO. I wished sub-$150 SMP motherboards for AthlonXP become commonplace (even if now it's a bit too late, but maybe socket754 ones). As for single CPU at higher clock speed, well 2x mainstream frequency CPUs are often simply not available, even if they are, they cost much, much more than 2x.

    4. Re:Faster processors... by Monster+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The main benefit is not so much raw power, although cache coherency certainly benefits (so multiple threads & non-NUMA scheduling will benefit), as the fact that now I can have a 4 "CPU" system (2 dual-core chips) in a blade, or 4 CPUs in a 1U system. My work has already planned ahead for this by chosing a motherboard (in their newest 1U server based cluster) that will support the new AMD dual core chips due next year. We are going to upgrade as soon as they are available. The space/power/cooling benefits and the ratio of MPI tasks to CPUs to onboard interconnect is just too great to pass up.

    5. Re:Faster processors... by krumpet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why do people say that the "vast majority of applications on the desktop are still single threaded"? If I look at the most of the apps I am currently running they are all pretty much using multiple threads, right now firefox is using 10 and my bittorrent client is using 7. Or am I missing something here?

    6. Re:Faster processors... by Tim+Browse · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bear in mind that a lot of people run more than one program at a time, so apps don't have to be multi-threaded for you to see an advantage. I have a dual CPU system, and it always seems to me to be more responsive than a single CPU system - there just seem to be fewer lockups where the PC seems not to respond for a few seconds. It may only be a second or two, but it's what I find annoying.

      My system is only a dual 800MHz Pentium III system, but it usually feels more responsive than the single CPU 2GHz Pentium 4 system I use at work.

      I'm about to upgrade to a new PC, and it seems SMP is even harder to buy now - seems like I have to buy Xeons, get special (i.e. expensive) server motherboards and PSUs, etc., so I'll probably end up getting a single CPU system, but I'm kind of worried I'll end up with a system that feels slow, even if it's 3GHz. I can't really justify the extra expense of SMP with a new system. Oh well.

      I am a developer, so I do run CPU-intensive tasks like compilers/linkers, which may affect my findings. While building projects at work, it's pretty sluggish if I try to do anything else on my PC - whereas at home on the 'slower' system, I can browse the web, read email, etc, without noticing any real slowdown.

      One reliable way to speed up a system is to buy shedloads of RAM, of course. For the current cost of RAM, getting a gig or two of RAM makes a huge difference (for the stuff I do, anyway).

    7. Re:Faster processors... by jsebrech · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    8. Re: Faster processors... by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'd rather see chipmakers use new technology to improve thermal/power ratio of their chips.

      They are. They're throwing every last bit of power-saving they can at the chips. Intel's P4 can't go any faster because of heat, and they can't do anything about it. Doesn't that maybe tell you that they're on the very edge of the technology?

      If you look at processor power specs, you'll see that they are continually improving on a MHz/watts basis, and each new chip, if underclocked to it's predicessor's speed, would use up less power.

      I don't need a CPU that's 3 times as fast, upping power consumption once again. Give me a CPU that does twice the work using a smaller amount of energy.

      Those two theoretical chips are one in the same... Essentially just marketed diffently.

      when a CPU sits idle, does that mean a drastic drop in power consumption?

      With an Intel chip, hell yes. It drops down to nothing.
      With an AMD chip, no. They screwed the pooch with their S2K issues. If you're lucky, and your motherboard is supported, fvcool will get your AMD processor to drop to very little power when idle.

      Interesting note though. I bought a KT800 mobo to get the built-in S2K feature, but got screwed, because the mobo chipset uses up so much power, it still uses more power than my old mobo, even when the chip is idle. The KT133 is the only AMD mobo chipset I've found that works well.

      chipmakers like AMD or Intel would better focus on improved motherboard/chipset/BIOS support for these things (through co-operation with mobo makers), than just making their CPU's faster.

      Intel doesn't have any problems in this department. Their CPUs idle to low power just fine. It's AMD that really needs to kick some ass. Even with Cool n Quiet, many motherboard makers just aren't implimenting the feature.

      Also, the same features found in Cool-n-Quiet can be used on your x86 processors right now, through either a Windows program, or the 2.6 kernel's cpufreq drivers (hope you have an nforce mobo).

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Faster processors... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone multitasks nowadays anyway... most everyone has a firewall, a virus scanner and an instant messanger system and/or email program running on their desktop at all times, no? Laptop users usually have several applets running on top of these as well.

      Beyond those basics, most ppl I know that use a computer have a great deal more running in the background.

      The idea that "Joe Average" doesn't multitask might have been true at one point, but it isn't anymore.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    10. Re: Faster processors... by smartdreamer · · Score: 4, Informative
      I think you should revise your thoughts about mighty Intel. They just suck when it comes to power consumption and they always did. P4 always been power hungry CPU, approximativly 10 to 20% more than AMD for similar performance.

      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.

  3. Re:cool! by invisik · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  4. Whats gone wrong at Intel? by MeridianOnTheLake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Its seems that Intel have lost their technology edge. Early in Intel's life, the company direction was driven by the engineers, but it over the last few years, highlighted by the mhz race, all tech R&D has been driven by marketing managers. This was probably to be expected. Marketers and non-tech managers are usually very good with people, very good at playing politics, and hence very good at influencing company direction; far better than most engineers. Intel is now paying the price for their incompetence by loosing out to smaller, more hungry competitors.

    I don't know where the Itanic fits into this theory. I guess if it wasn't so late, and was made available during the tech bubble, Intel would now be on a fundamentally different track, rather than playing catch-up (poorly) with more innovative companies.

    Now, onto multi-core chips. This is actually a very exciting direction. Sun has already demonstrated an 8 core, quad-hyperthreading 32-way chip http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20040910 (Project Niagra). Intel certainly has much catching up to do, but its time for a new race and hopefully they'll get their arse into gear and show us some exciting things in the years to come, that is, if the marketoids can be somehow dethroned from their positions of power.

    1. Re:Whats gone wrong at Intel? by FireBook · · Score: 5, Interesting

      as per a previous post, bear in mind that this is not the route Intel wanted to take, but their hoped for 10ghz P4 AMD killer topped out unexpectedly, so they're having to try and find another way.

      --
      My other OS is also FreeBSD
  5. Re:Different operations by alanw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Moving processing out into special purpose processers, and then back into the main one again as Moore's Law takes effect has been known about since the term the wheel of reincarnation was coined back in 1968.

  6. Re:Different operations by Monster+Zero · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Sometimes I wonder why people even post.

    What is being referred to here is the possibility of having different cores, not just two identical cores on the same silicon. Similarly to how the PowerPC970 has two different branch prediction algorithms which "compete": each calculating which branches should be taken, with a central heuristic keeping track of how well each has been doing lately and chosing which will be used for the next series of branch predictions, a heterogeneously cored chip could offer several differing implementations of the same realestate. This could mean having one core with 4 FPU's/2 IU's and another with the reverse, or different length pipelines/branch predictors/L1 caches - thus opening up the possibility of CPU hierarchies, where set A is really good at certain tasks and set B is really good at another, and the OS is smart enough to schedule them appropriately. Think of a machine which is used for both compilations and running jobs, or think of the benefits in a virtual machine environment! The admin could partition the system along functional boundaries (intelligent hyperthreading).

    Another possibility is where the entire system is devoted to a single task (think HPC: fluid flow, weather simulations, etc) where you could have threads doing the intensive floating point calculations on one core, and the heavy integer arithmetic on the other, or maybe split up the cores based on memory accesses patterns, or cache use, or built-in ASICs!

    What I would love to see is a system where you have 2/4 cores with a large cache, plus an FPGA or two on die that each application can program - with OS cooperation this could be a "killer app" in silicon. Do a lot of "int*float*sqrt(int)?" - then program the FPGA to do it in one operation, as if the original chip design had it all along!

    Insanely cool stuff! "CPU and GPU", sheesh.

    I can't fucking wait.

  7. Re:Yeah, not my favorate idea. by Stalks · · Score: 5, Informative
    I think they should dynamicly change the clock speed based on heat content.

    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.

  8. Hrmm... by Arcanix · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is just me or does it seem odd they are using x20, x30, and x40 for names? I guess x20 + x30 + x40 does make an x90, slightly better than my x86.

  9. Re:Increased Linecing Fees ??? by Gurp · · Score: 4, Informative
    Oracle's current definition of processor is:

    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.

  10. I had one of these years ago by taxevader · · Score: 4, Funny



    My old PC had this, it was called a turbo button.

    --
    -Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
  11. Marketing : Sparc and PowerPC catch up by tekrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In terms of "marketing speak", this is a good opportunity for Sparc and PowerPC chips to catch up to the X86 architecture.

    Thanks to Intel's own marketing, most users are used to seeing that Mhz = power, and Apple suffers from the fact that the G5 tops out at 2.5Ghz, while Intel chips cruise along at 3+Ghz. Sun's SPARC architecture suffers from the same illusion, although comparably, both the Sparc and PPC architectures are quite close to X86 in terms of actual horsepower (not so much with Sparc, but Sun's true power is total throughput and reliablity and scalability, not flops).

    With Intel "stuck" at around 4Ghz, IBM/Apple could figure out how to ramp up the G5 (or it's successor) to 4+Ghz, and beat Intel at it's own marketing game.

    Similarly, this bump in the roadmap for Intel could be the opportunity for other/alternative CPU architectures to gain some marketshare.

    (Posted as someone very, very tired of the Wintel Monopoly)

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  12. AMD: Chipping Away at Intel by orlinius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a very interesting article in the last edition of Fortune. I think AMD got it right this time around.

    My favorite quote :
    AMD CFO Rivet explains
    "As hard as we tried to win the hearts and minds of CIOs, with the desktop as our focus we were going to fail. They made their decisions with the server on down. When Intel had 100% of the x86 server market, it could charge whatever it wanted and use that money to beat us on desktops. We had to be in the profit haven".

    Ruiz (CEO of AMD) calls the server-led approach "do or die" for AMD: "If we hadn't pulled this off I would have shut the door"

    From the Fortune article:
    AMD: Chipping Away at Intel
    CEO Hector Ruiz came from humble roots to propel AMD into the big leagues.
    http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles /0,15114,724543,00.html

    You need to be a subscriber to read the whole article :(

    --

    A hungry bear does not dance!
  13. Article is poorly researched and incorrect by hattig · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  14. Re:Yeah, not my favorate idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I remember that the older AMD proccessors would start smoking and then effectively stop working.

    An engineer I used to work with figured it all out (through much first hand experience). He deduced that chips were really just plastic capsules of compressed smoke, since when the smoke came out, they didn't work any more. He was planning a start-up company to re-inject the smoke and make them work again.

  15. Re:Multiple cores, to perform specific tasks by mhollis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The thing that irks me is that there is no general computing source any more. Things have pretty much descended into the various "camps" with pee cee people reading about those new processors and the Mac people reading about the Power PC processor.

    I used to be able to keep up with processor design in Byte Magazine. It also kept me apprised of each different computer that came out back when no one computer type and operating system had over 90% of the market and I think that Byte helped serve those who didn't want to see Microsoft-Intel become as dominant as they have become.

    The death of Byte is still a sore spot with me. I ran an Intel platofrm for many years and was able to keep up with what Motorola and Sun were doing with their designs. There were even columns on embedded applications. I felt like I had a really good handle on the microprocessor universe and the differences. Sadly, not so now (or should I use Jerry Pournelle's frequent "Alas...").

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.