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."

22 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. My dual core machine helped me... by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...chat on AIM and refresh Slashdot fast enough to get a first post!

    --
    http://brandonbloom.name
  2. Please... by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Can someone sum up the benefits of multi-core processors over SMP for me?

    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.
    1. Re:Please... by Thagg · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's exactly the same as SMP, except for two things:

      1) Far less 'glue' circuitry is required on the motherboard. This allows cheaper multi-processor systems.

      2) Potentially, communication between the processors could be faster.

      Mostly, though, the advantage will be social -- if a large fraction of systems have multiple processors, as they will soon, then more and more applications will be written to take advantage of them.

      Thad Beier

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    2. Re:Please... by webmosher · · Score: 3, Informative

      Memory as in on-die cache... yes, RAM... no:

      1) Core based processors have more internal/embedded synchronization built in, especially related to on chip caching. SMP relies more heavily on the O/S for maintaining concurrency.
      2) Connection between processors is shorter and theoretically faster. The big gain here is that the MB components for SMP are all integrated on the CPU, so everything is simplified and compressed.
      3) Cache in SMP is separate to each processor, core-processors share the cache between the processors. SMP must maintain cache concurrency... this the basis of threading headaches and this takes process cycles to do so. However, sharing the cache in a core processor is often a problem (Intel) if the cache isn't big enough. AMD currently does this better.
      4) SMP means higher license costs for multiple processors, core based processors are considered one processing unit (at least to MS).

      That last one tends to be the most important to alot of people.

    3. Re:Please... by GileadGreene · · Score: 4, Informative
      Still wondering if these cores will support something that many supercomputing chips have for a long time. That is the ability for both cores to run the exact same instructions, thus eliminating overhead in error checks as the error check is the comparison between the two cores.

      This can be achieved on a commodity single-core processor using pure software techniques. The technique is known as Error-Detection through Duplicated Instructions (EDDI), and is implemented as a compilation step between assmbly code generation and object file generation. Stanford has done a bunch of work on this at their Center for Reliable Computing. I don't have any links readily available, but I'm sure that if you Google on EDDI and the ARGOS project you'll find some good info.

      Note that IIRC experiments at Stanford showed that when using EDDI on a modern super-scalar processor the EDDI instructions can take advantage of unused portions of the pipeline, resulting in a significant reduction in overhead. You might still experience a slight performance hit, but on the other hand you don't need to add a whole new processor or core.

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

    Only thieves burn dvds, so I see the MPAA stepping top stop this.

  4. A Plea by teiresias · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A plea to both Intel and AMD. Please make a nonexpensive SILENT cooling system.

    Yeah fans are pretty good but let's be honest, they wear down and become noisy.

    Water cooling is great but I've already got one aquarium in my room.

    One core was bad. Two? Three? Twenty! Passive heat sinks, huge slabs of copper, whatever, just please, I can't hear myself think.

    --
    -Teiresias
    1. Re:A Plea by sallgeud · · Score: 5, Informative

      AMD is using a technology patented by IBM called SOI (Silicon on Insulator)... IBM is very unwilling to allow Intel to use this technology to solve their heat problems....

      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.

      This number changes at load to 30 watts for the Winchester and 100+ watts for the P4.

      Looking back and comparing it to a P2-450 I once owned... the Winchester numbers are close.... and that machine had no fan (just a very large heatsink).

      I'm not sure you could have a fully-loaded Winchester without at least some type of active cooling... but certainly the CFM required across a good heatsink would allow you for an almost silent fan.

    2. Re:A Plea by eander315 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Silent PC Review has a good review of the Zalman Reserator 1, the only product I know of that even comes close to qualifying. It's nearly silent, more or less easy to install (if you built your computer, you can put this together, but I wouldn't recommend it for my mom), and can cool even the hottest processors and videocards simultaneously. It is not cheap, however, at around $240 shipped. I just installed mine, and it's the quietest, coolest-looking computer cooling part I've bought in years. Unfortunately, there really isn't another silent/easy/cheap option available. Seems like it's a "pick any two of three" situation.

  5. Booth tagline by nizo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I liked the photo of the Intel booth, which had the tagline "Upgrade your senses". For the life of me I can't figure out what that means. Are they planning on offering upgrades to give me better vision and sight? Perhaps a socket for the back of my head too? Or maybe their new cpu can now smell me and indicate when I need to shower?

  6. Overrated by Manan+Shah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Processor power has been overrated for quite some time. A lot of people don't realize that other components, especially RAM matter just as much, if not more in most every day tasks than pure CPU power. If I had a choice between 2GHZ and 1GB ram, vs. a 4GHZ and 512mb ram, I would definatly recommend the former. So although this technology will help some people, most people should stay away from it if you are just doing day to day. Does grandma really need dual core processors for sending email and browsing the web anytime soon? Hell, a 500mhz and 256mb is more than enough for a lot of people to write documents and browse the web, but you will never see such a system on Dell website for $120 :).

  7. blech by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful


    ...computing experience

    When did using computers or the internet become an "experience"? They're tools, nothing more.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  8. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The real bottleneck for gaming these days is hard drive access. If you are burning a CD while you are playing a game, there is a good chance that the game will need to load something like textures while you are burning the CD (presumably from an ISO on your hard drive). On the other hand, with a 52X CD-R burning a full CD takes less than 3 minutes, so it won't kill your game. Unless you have two hard drives, in which case the above is irrelevant.

  9. Bad example? by RovingSlug · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    Burning a DVD is IO-bound given all the traffic on the PCI bus from the harddrive and to the DVD. Burning a DVD is not CPU-bound, so it doesn't seem like a dual core CPU would actually help that situation.

  10. Intel's dual-core lie by twfry · · Score: 4, Informative
    Intel likes to say they are going to have dual-core processors for both the desktop and server segments in 2005, but this is very misleading. They are only planning dual-core Intaniums for 2005 and use this to say they have the server segment covered.

    The reality is most of the server market is their Xeon line and the dual-core Xeons are currently planned for 2006 and maybe even later.

    1. Re:Intel's dual-core lie by mapmaker · · Score: 5, Informative
      Absolutely true. And the lie goes even farther than that:

      Thier initial desktop "dual core" processor is really a dual processor kludge. It's just two Prescott P4s side by side with a bit of extra wiring between them. They are essentially going to make half as many wafer cuts and call the resulting double-wide processors "dual core".

      AMD really has got Intel by the short hairs lately. First AMD released x86-64 and Intel had to clumsily pkay catch-up, now AMD will be releasing dual core processors and Intel is again clumsily trying not to be left in the dust.

  11. Burn me a DVD while you play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    Why, of course, doesn't everyone burn DVDs and play games at the same time? I usually burn DVDs when I'm playing GTA: San Andreas, so by the time the DVD is done I've forgotten all about it and the tray opening scares the living shit out of me, so I pull out my penknife and stab the DVD to its rightful death! So with this new dual system you're telling me the DVD will be done so quickly that I won't forget about it? Or will the tray slide out more slowly in a smooth and controlled manner as not to provoke me?

  12. Re:Dual Core almost = dual processor? by 787style · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dual core shares a memory controller, whereas dual processors have seperate memory controllers. AMD's Athlon 64 and Opterons have memory controllers on die, and were originally designed to be dual core. What this means is now two cores on die with one memory controller, communicating through a crossbar (think SGI) architechture. On a side not, imagine where AMD would be if they scrapped 64-bit from the start and released the Athlon 64/Opteron as a dual core from the get go.

  13. Already game and burn DVDs on a single core system by aardwolf204 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can already game and burn a dvd on a single core system. I'm using an Athlon XP 2500+ with a Plextor 8x DVD-RW drive and I've never seen a drop in FPS while playing SOL.EXE, Ever

    On a more serious note my old roommate, the SCSI lover, could play Quake 3 while burning a CD because he was burning from SCSI HDD to SCSI CDR while playing the game off a seperate SCSI HDD. He claimed that the only thing making my machine slow while burning a CD was the CPU overhead involved in IDE.

    --
    Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
  14. The conclusion of the starting post is off base... by I.M.O.G. · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "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"

    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.

  15. Re:The one reason I went intel by l3v1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Via has been offering very - if not the most - stable chipset drivers for Linux for ages. There were many occasions in the past when I specifically chose via chipset brand boards with amd cpus because good experience in the past with Linux. And I never had any bad experience. That doesn't mean I don't have and/or use other chipsets/boards/cpus with Linux on them, I do - but mostly @ work. It's just I never see much sane reason in arguing like I-went-intel-because-of-better-linux-drivers.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  16. Smoother? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    I doubt it. Today's personal computers are already like those 60s muscle cars from Detroit (a 400 horsepower engine bolted into a car with narrow bias-ply tires, drum brakes and a solid axle).

    I was burning DVDs a couple of days ago. The system was mildly sluggish. The CPU meter was pegged at about 2% usage. Then I ran an md5sum to verify the whole disk, and the system ground to a crawl. The CPU meter indicated about 10% load. In both cases the sluggishness was caused entirely by I/O latency and/or all of the working set being flushed out of memory to make room for disk buffering. Dual-cores aren't going to do anything for that.