Slashdot Mirror
Intel and AMD's 2005 Plans Revealed
Takemedown writes "There's a good article on CTZ that talks about Intel and AMD's plans. Intel, continuing on their 18-month chipset refresh rate, will introduce their Glenwood and Lakeport chipsets for the Smithfield dual core desktop microprocessor in 2005. The chipsets will support SATA II, Matrix RAID and a higher system bus speed for the new Pentium 4 name holder.
As far as Intel's dual core strategies are concerned, they will most likely bring their dual core additions by the very end of Q2 or Q3 this year, so for those waiting for these next generation chips are better off with a due upgrade. Secondly, if you are hoping for a noticeable performance gain in regular computing tasks are in for a disappointment. Dual core microprocessors are for those who like to do multitasking or work on multithreaded applications. For example, if you are gaming and burning a DVD at the same time, dual core chips will come in handy and will definitely give a smooth computing experience."
Is it more efficient memory sharing amongst the different cores?
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
I hope Intel pulls off multi-core better than they did hyperthreading. The P4 netburst architecture simply weak, and hyperthreading is really just a patch to make it not suck quite so badly. I "upgraded" from a 1.6GHz AthlonXP to a 2.8GHz P4 Dell and was horribly disappointed with task switching performance. Tried throwing more RAM at it. The P4 with 1GB was still slower than the AthlonXP with 768MB. OTOH, I setup a friend's new Dell with the latest PCI express chipset and was really impressed with the speed, so maybe Intel is finally getting it together...
Question is: will the netburst architecture benefit more from dual core than it did from hyperthreading? Its essentially like having an SMP P4 system, so it ought to.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Oh will they? Consider what frequency these chips will be running at... You won't be getting dual cores featuring core frequencies along the lines of current top end CPU's anytime too soon. This should tell people that gamers would be much better off sticking to their single core guns... If they want to encode and game at the same time, there computing experience is most definetly going to have to be compromised.
There is no other way about this considering current limitations... As the fab processes are refined and application of technology is perfected, we will see dual cores running at higher frequencies, but there are considerable improvements which will need to be made before dual core can be referred to as a formiddable gaming option for new releases at the top end of the system spectrum. (they might not even be formidable until the unlikely circumstance when gaming authors start coding for multicore platforms on a large scale)
For MANY people with top end single core systems currently, the move to dual cores will not immediately present what would be considered a smooth computing experience - there will be noticeable deficincies in various areas, the severity of which will be determined by the specific way their system is utilized.
Overclockers
It is if you're making a "backup" which requires you to compress a dual-layer DVD onto a single-layer DVD-R. Otherwise, you're correct, the actual act of burning a DVD-R is not CPU-limited.
and I would really like to finally upgrade: I'd love to have an SMP box again but I'm really not sure if it's possible at all nowadays, what are my options (at a reasonable price point) for something in the 2xAthlon64/3500+ performance range (I know Athlon64s are not SMP-capable).
The option(s) seem to be Xeon and Opteron, but I'm not quite sure which mobos are best and most supported and/or which one of them is the most cost effective (also including RAM costs). My typical usage is linux (would vmware it in this case), win32 games (would prefer AGP to PCIe) and music (hauptwerk -> I need lots of RAM (2-3gigs) and CPU power).
I don't think I can wait another year for multicore CPUs to come out (already been waiting forever).
-- the cake is a lie
A multi-CPU system, maybe, but a dual-core chip has two cores sharing the same memory and io controllers, so it would be either servicing the NIC or the game engine, but not both.
Code will have to be rewritten to take advantage of it. The game engines themselves will have to be multithreaded, and in such a way that the threads aren't constantly fighting over the same chunk of memory.
There's not a lot of code out there (yet) that would make any real use of a dual core CPU. I've had SMP systems, and aside from a few specific tasks, they really don't have much use as far as modern software goes.
As for games, people constantly blow the demands that games place on the CPU out of proportion. A 3.6ghz P4 plays Doom 3 just as well as a 1.8ghz Celeron, all things being the same on both systems.
I've never seen a game push the CPU hard, as in >75% CPU utilization while playing.
Try running two or three Prime95 stress tests in the background, then run Doom 3. It'll play just fine, even with so little CPU headroom left.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
On the contrary I have found many x86 laptops to be as loud or louder than their desktop counterparts for two reasons
1) The smaller package means that its harder to dissapate head into the surrounding air.
2) The processor is physically closer to you, because its on your lap rather than across the desk or on your floor.
However, every mac laptop I've had (iBook 12" G3 700Mhz, Lombard 400Mhz, TiBook 15" 1Ghz, Al book 15" 1,25Ghz) rarely turns on its fan. Sometimes after playing a DVD, although the Aluminum PowerBook has yet to use its fan ever.
Shared cache maybe?
2 processors efficiently sharing a 2 MB cache will probably work better than 2 processors with independent 1 MB caches in most cases.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
SOI is not patented by IBM. Only certain components of IBM's SOI technique are patented. Their most important patented SOI component is their SOI FET Design to Reduce Transient Bipolar Current.
Intel will most likely use their own SOI technology without needing "permission" from IBM.
Tom's Hardware has some good information about thermal loss. Notice that an idle AMD Winchester (SOI Athlon 64) loses only 3.2 watts, while the more recent P4 chips are losing > 34 at idle.
Notice that you compared the "Cool 'n' Quiet" versions of the AMD Winchester to the older P4s (D0 stepping) without Enhanced Halt State. The same page you referenced shows a 3500+ Winchester without "Cool 'n' Quiet" technology losing 11.1 watts when idle and a "more recent" 3.4GHz P4 550 chip (E0 stepping with Enhanced Halt State) losing 13.4 watts.
This number changes at load to 30 watts for the Winchester and 100+ watts for the P4.
Only for the fastest (3.8GHz) P4. The previously-mentioned 3.4GHz P4 550 (E0 stepping) loses 73.6 watts and a slower Prescott (3.0GHz) loses 59.3 watts.
I know the new Winchesters are a lot cooler than the new P4s at load, but you seemed to be greatly exaggerating in your comparison (especially at idle).
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...