Slashdot Mirror
Dual-Core Pentium 4 Slated For 2Q 2005
Quantrell writes "Today is the first full day of the International Solid-State Circuits Conference in San Francisco, and Intel has announced that dual-core Pentium 4s are
coming in the second quarter, one in the Extreme Edition line (no surprise there), and also the Smithfield
Pentium 4 800 series, which is the next so-called consumer desktop line. No word on pricing, yet."
Twice the inefficiency!
While dual processors is great and all, I'd rather see double the memory bandwidth then double the processing power. In the case of Intel processors (especially duals) memory bandwidth is severly lacking, and while DDR-2 should help a bit, I don't expect to be that impressed with the new dual cores.
Looks like the "Who is Winning the CPU War" line just shifted again.
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
you may come out with dual-cores before AMD, but since your dual-core is a kludge on top of a kludge, I'm guessing AMD will beat you again.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
What about P5? I will need it to play my copy of Duke Nukem Forever!
Now I can fry two eggs at once!
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
This sounds like HT on steroids. Speaking of which, is the HT technology run from the core? If so you can now have 1 processor acting as 4.
http://www.watacrackaz.com
Does anyone know how likely the forecast is? i.e. has Intel started production?
All your Sybase are belong to us.
"No word on pricing, yet."
Is that kind of like saying "if you have to ask, you can't afford it"?
P4 EE - $989
Gotta go; I have to sell a kidney or three to afford this thing...
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
I do see dual-Xeons working on an i875, though, so I wouldn't be shocked at all if there's an LGA775 dual-core CPU.
-David Ziegler
-
Motorola/IBM have had multi-core PPCs demonstrated ever since the very, very first G4 lab units all those years ago.
Yet no one has ever productized a multi-core PPC. (Unless you count the Cell, which you probably shouldn't.)
Why is this?
Is there something about multicore technology which caused IBM/Motorola to decide it was not worth the bother of putting in a box and selling?
Inversely, is there something about multicore technology that makes Intel think we'd actually start caring about the P4 again once it's included?
The notion of having a dual core processor is ridiculous. I mean, with just one processor I'm perpetually afraid that my computer will attain self-awareness, and with 350 watts or so at its disposal there's no telling what kind of havoc it'll wreak upon my tender organic tissues. Now with two processors in my computer box there's no telling what kind of trouble I'll be exposed to. Why don't you just embed a .357 Magnum revolver into the chipset? Processor designers are deranged.
I want to know when I can buy a toaster over with "Intel inside"
I'm a little leery of getting excited about having more juice squeezed out of the P4 line, and maybe it's because I'm not entirely clued into the extent of the benefits gained from dual-core P4s. Are they doing this just to gain time before they introduce a new architecture?
I'm looking to build a new AMD-based system this summer, even if they are a little later-to-the-dual-core-table. As far as I can tell, this news doesn't present any substantive reason for me to change that plan.
Can someone more knowledgeable help me get some perspective on this?
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
Which independant tests will confirm is slower than a broken 286.
If by that you mean "Faster than a single-core P4, but not quite as fast as expected", then you're probably right.
AMD has been providing working real dual-core samples to partners for months, whilst dual-core Intel processors are apparently in short supply.
This smells of Intel running to get there first before AMD, so they aren't second again with a technology.
HyperThreading is disabled in the Smithfield dual-core product too, so expect a mere 50% overall performance increase at the same clock speed (2.8GHz, 3GHz, 3.2GHz soon afterwards) for Intel. AMD stand to gain more from dual-cores, as they have no HyperThreading equivalent at the moment, and AMD have said that dual 2.4GHz will be possible, that's two 4000+ rated processors, probably overall performance of 6000-7000+. That's a bit better than the 5000+ performance from a dual core Smithfield.
Dual core AMD will likely perform a lot higher than dual core Intel therefore.
I don't think this is something that can be chanced. I suggest buying these computers by the rack!
But honey, they're to heat the house!
Pretty Pictures!
The jokes about the heat these puppies will pump out couldn't be more appropriate. An article at Tom's states that the Smithfield core has a thermal design power of 130W making it by far the hottest x86 CPU ever seen.
In contrast, AMD's dual core offering will offer no increase in TDP over their present single core designs.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
I mean, I assume that unless Windows is rewritten to take advantage of dual cores that you won't see much performance increase. And I assume that just getting OS support won't be enough for applications to really see much improvement either.
SO unless you're a reasonable l33t linux dude/dudette, or I've missed the boat (also possible I'm sure), where do I see the advantage of this system?
---
More craziness here too :-)
The question then becomes one of how well the existing motherboards would cope of course. The ideal would be for it to be entirely transparent and the dual cores are handled by the CPU in a similar manner to hyperthreading. If that's not possible then we'd be looking at a BIOS update at least, and even then it might not be possible to maximise the benefit of dual cores with out a motherboard designed for the purpose.
In any case, with AMD in a similar situation with its own upcoming dual core CPUs, it's going to interesting to see how the two companies approach it. There's going to be some unhappy customers if one company manages to enable upgrades to dual cores on current motherboards and the other doesn't, that's for sure...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
You get this whinging around every major industrial plant, and indeed every Intel plant
They're well within the EPA (Ireland) limits at their Irish plants. We still have whingers. Including one guy who insisted the yellow colour of the steam at night was in fact sulphur and not just the uplighters they have...
Previous story: NASA Proposes Warming Mars
It works exactly the same as an SMP system. Any OS capable of handling SMP will be able to handle this, including WinXP Pro (but not "Home").
As for app support, any time you're doing a task that is parallelizable, you may be able to benefit.
If you are running two totally different processes at once, then you get immediate benefits. (And immediate subtle bugs, if the processes share resources and weren't properly written for SMP).
If you are running a single multi-threaded app, you get immediate benefits. (And immediate subtle bugs, if the app wasn't properly written for SMP).
If you only run a single app, and that app has only a single thread, then you will not gain much at all.
Nere's a pic of the new form factor that they will be using for the case.
More
thanks for clarifying at the end there, you know, just in case anyone missed it.
Is Intel planning on developing a processor with that arquitecture to compete with actual AMD64? If not, I think they're missing one point before they go with anything else.
ajf
It will be interesting to see how much this baby will cost.
It will also be interesting to see what clock sped it runs at, and how much heat it throws out.
AMD fans, meanwhile, can still hope that their dual-core parts will run in Socket 939.
Kevin McGrath (AMD's chief architect of x86-64) gave a talk about dual cores at my school last month. I asked him if 939 would support dual cores, and he said it would, though he didn't have a timetable. He also reiterated that we'll be seeing dual cores coming on all product lines.
Part of the reason AMD can do this, I think, is their discipline in keeping a consistent power envelope, so the motherboard and heatsink manufacturers don't have to scramble to support a new incredibly hot processor. I anticipate that Smithfield will require massive cooling.
The other reason is the memory controller is built onto the processor, as opposed to Intel's traditional arrangement of it being on the North Bridge of the chipset. Thus no change of chipset is needed (in theory).
Can't wait to see what kind of numbers this produces... I'd like to get a unit for converting some legacy music / movies into a digital format so will be interesting to see how much of this turns out to be hype / fact.
/. so Intel == Bad, but since most of the comments I already read on this post were about the intense heat generated by Intel processors I have a question...
Got a question though. sorry if this is somewhat offtopic... as well I know this is
I currently run an intel 3.2 Extreme Edition (no... I did'nt buy it, I won it, I'm not that rich or crazy) that runs on average about 42 Celcius degrees... no the fan isn't stock, it's a $40 fan / heat sink I bought, but it isn't an amazing fan unit or anything like that... the last AMD I had was a 700, so I'm pretty "outa da loop" on AMD's, but it ran around 60 degrees Celcius on average and died in under a year. 42C doesn't seem that bad to me.
Does anyone have some articles showing how cool AMD's run? This isn't a troll or anything I'm seriously curious, as I am thinking of buying a secondary system but don't want to overheat my house.
Intel Pentium IV now with RSN Dual Core Technology!
And we'll have an operating system which takes advantage of it, as long as it's called Linux, right? Because Windows is still shuffling around with getting the 64 bit version done, yet.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think you'll be able to screw them into a standard light bulb socket. I don't know how much light they'll give off though. Maybe quite a bit for a brief instant as you flip the switch on.
The problem is not so much the OS (both Linux and XP should be able to make use of multiple CPUs/cores well enough) but the applications. If your main apps that really need that much CPU power cannot make good use of multiple cores it doesn't matter too much if the OS does.
Is there any advantage whatsoever to having a dual-core processor over just having two single-core processors?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
..to emulate multi-core CPU functionality using discrete boxes? Could it happen that these extra boxes we have laying around could eventually just act as extra-cores?
Honestly. The Dual Core Intel Pentium Processor Extreme Edition with Hyper-Threading Technology.
Am I the only one that thinks that sounds funny? Like someone took a steaming PR doodoo into the buzzword generator at Intel?
Personally, I think I'll hold off until they release the Dual Core Intel Pentium Processor Fusion Edition Titanium Pack PRO with Spastic-Threading Nano-Techno-Giga-Awesome Technology.
Please don't worship me, I'm a little geek like you. But I do have two Prestonia Xeons in my workstation in the office. XP Pro recognises 4 processors and schedules work accordingly: I don't have a "server" version of Windows.
Having heard Microsoft say that a dual-core processor will be dealt with as one chip in terms of licensing, it may be possible to use XP Home as the OS. However, I expect that anyone who pays enough for a dual-core proc will get XP Pro with their machine.
Hey, that makes me wonder ...
MS has already said they'll treat dual-cores as single CPUs for licensing purposes. It might be reasonable to assume dual-cores will bring SMP into the mainstream, and within a year be pretty standard in new mid-to-high-end systems.
So will there be a point pretty soon when MS unlocks "Home" -- maybe via a windows update -- to properly use these dual-cores? If it's willing to consider them single CPUs for licensing, hopefully it's also not going to maintain its artificial crippling of these systems for the home users likely to eventually buy them.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an update that allows for SMP with dual-core systems, but that still locks out SMP on traditional SMP machines.
AFAIK, normal Windows 2000 won't let you run more than 2 processors on any one box. But if you activate Hyperthreading on a dual core chip, you effectively have 4 processors--2 of which Windows will refuse to use. (I found this out when I got a dual Xeon Workstation at my job, but the doofi in IT wouldn't give me a Windows Server license because I had "no need".) Could this be the reason why Hyperthreading is turned off on the low-end dual cores? Because the average Joe won't want to spring for a Windows Server license to get the full potential out of his new box?
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Oh, so just because you don't like these people means they're wrong?
As for EPA limits, GW Bush, who stole the elections of 2000 and 2004, has quietly nullified all of the environmental regulations put in place over the past 20 years.
And we never heard about it on the evening news, because the US media is run by rightwingers.
Well, the main article that this discussion is attached to claims that it will require an all-new chipset, so I wouldn't get your hopes up too high.
i use linux and windows oh god how can i have an opinion
There is a good article on AMDZone that talks about how AMD is doing it's dual-core. They have put 2 cpus each with their own cache but they share the on-chip memory controller and the hypertransport links. According to AMD, there is only a 10% loss in performance by using the shared components.
Not bad considering you only have to have one socket on your motherboard to accomodate a dual processor system now. And it will even work in current motherboards, using the same 939 socket.
Don't count your messages before they ACK.
Did I say I meant the EPA in the US Just because the US government uses an acronym doesn't mean that others can't. Their IRISH plants meant IRISH EPA limits, is what I said.
Windows 2000 SP4 and Windows XP Pro both run fine on a Dual Xeon P4 w/ HT enabled. Task Manager sees 4 CPU's as expected. Pre-SP4 systems might complain because they are unaware of Hyperthreading, but I think MS had not really gone into the overkill mode that highlight XP. Prior to XP they were pretty trusting of folks, license limits were managed via trust. In other words is an 11th client tried to connect it worked, instead of rejecting you with a nasty message about how you need to upgrade to server edition.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
...about which chip is more energy efficient or which one runs hotter, but where is the truth? I am thinking of upgrading one of my RedHat 9 GNU/Linux systems to Fedora Core 3 (maybe the 64-bit distro) and I'm having a hard time trying to figure out which CPU to go with. Intel Xeon or P4 vs. AMD Opteron or Dual Athlon 64s. One of my main considerations is energy efficiency, but... I don't want an efficient PC at the cost of a slower PC. My past experience with AMD has been pretty dismal, but maybe they've changed. I had a DX4 120 AMD clone chip back in the 90s and it had all kinds of problems. I later got a K5 chip which was rated at 233MHz, but seemed slower than my Pentium 200 MMX. So these days, I hear people rave about AMD chips, the 64 bit chips from AMD and Asus mobos. I'm tempted, but... is it going to be more of the same? Is that 2.5 GHz AMD Athlon 64 going to really perform as well as a 2.5 GHz Intel P4? If I go dual (which I tend to prefer) will a Dual Athlon 64 system really rock compared to a dual Xeon? It's nuts!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Well, I didn't say I wanted one ;-)
Tell me when Intel gets a dual-core P-M to the desktop, or even when AMD gets their dual-core A64 out, and then I'll listen.
Considering the heat one of these will kick out, NASA could use a few of those to warm mars. Surely far simpler than all these global warming gas plans plus they could donate the space cycles to something worth while.
One point twenty-one Jiggawatts!!!???
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
So HT is in there, and they turn it off. I pay for a chip that has it (cost of a chip is rather proportional to its size), and they turn the d@mn thing off.
It's got to be a Marketing thing, rather than an Engineering thing, which is why I want the entire Marketing Department dumped into the same hole the Lawyers are going into.
A$$hole$ truly says it!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They should implement a 128 bit file system instead. And get some water over there.
emt 377 emt 4
No word on pricing yet
This news bit had been posted on anandtech a bit ago, and seems decently reliable and realistic. 2.8ghz for $241 isn't bad at all, pricing is right between today's prices for a 3.2 and 3.4. I personally though am waiting for AMD's dual cores which will supposedly work on my current motherboard, though it looks like at first the only dual core will be an FX processor, with the insane price that goes with that.
True true, but my post was about an American company perpetrating something in America which the American EPA will never do anything about because its run by a corporate polluter.
And that is thanks to little boy Bush, who stole the elections of 2000 and 2004 and whose Republican operatives committed felonies in order to put him in office, for which there is ample hard evidence.
Learn How Bush Rigged the 2004 Elections
I would probably hop back over to intel if they were to get a dual-core to the market before AMD does. I don't do too much gaming, but I do, however, do a lot of video conversion/etc, and that requires some more horsepower than my barton 2500 can put out.
i use linux and windows oh god how can i have an opinion
Need a dual core, ddr-2 compatible 64 bit processor with that skil saw?
And what kind of flame retardant they will put in their epoxy and PWB? Are they poisonous or potentially carcinogenic?
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
If you only run a single app, and that app has only a single thread, then you will not gain much at all.
Well, yeah, but I haven't used DOS for years!
But seriously. I'm currently running one Office app, one CAD program, one development environment, 3 web browser instances, an IM client, and a text editor, not to mention all the various other things Windows and I need to have running in the background.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
If you are running two totally different processes at once, then you get immediate benefits. (And immediate subtle bugs, if the processes share resources and weren't properly written for SMP).
So now all those users infected with Spyware won't notice as much slowdown! Har har har.
(Sorry, I just had to.)
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
You run windows? ewwww.... you deserve every limitation you've paid for.
grep -iw skynet
So much angst in you people, it really makes me smile.
Just look at the scaling graphs here for parallel bzip2. Note the almost linear scaling on proper SMP and NUMA architectures vs. the embarrassing curve on intel's old-fashioned bus architecture with dual pentium 4 xeons with hyperthreading. Also notice the high clock frequency on the intel processors compared with the performace achieved on the "slower" ones...
Stick Men
Because what other type of person would cheer that his party rigged the elections and thereby attacked the core of democracy? FYI, Democrats were also complicit in rigging the elections of 2004.
Old skool baby. You should get help. Seeing boogeymen around every corner isn't normal or healthy.
It's been proven, if facts matter to you. FAIR has shown an overwhelming rightwing bias. But I suppose you don't care for facts, you prefer to live a superficial life.
On the day Intel introduced its dual-core Pentium 4, IBM and Toshiba showed off their baby, Cell microprocessor, the so-called "Supercomputer on a Chip", which Sony intends to use for its PlayStation 3. But a Reuters news article raises this interesting point: "If history is any lesson, Cell is by no means guaranteed to encroach on the most successful microprocessor technology to date, the so-called x86 architecture that is the mainstay of the PC world and the profit center for both Intel and AMD...Intel itself once aimed at pushing the x86 technology to the side with a chip called Itanium...After a cool market reception, the Itanium project drifted away from those grand expectations. Today, Itanium remains a niche product marketed primarily at the relatively limited segment of supercomputers and high-end servers."
Sun and Fun
Shouldn't they release the dual core Xeon before the dual core "Extreme Edition" P4? Business and server apps are better designed to handle multi-processing than Half Life 2 would.
How is that a troll?
Reuters reports that the real news coming out of this conference is the I/S/T consortium's Cell microprocessor is ready to hit the market. The Cell will be what powers the Playstation 3.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Funny you should mention that: I just happened across this site, where a blog entry joking about selling your kidneys to buy a Hush "Quiet PC" ended up with a bunch of unfortunately serious replies.
If you are running two totally different processes at once, then you get immediate benefits.
Doesn't this require that you tell the system to use each processor independantly?
The answer is still the same;
You CANNOT use it in your existing system. You HAVE to buy new mobo even if it is the same socket.
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
There are other considerations. What about my water cooling system, will I need a new water block?