Slashdot Mirror
Intel Ships Dual-Core Chips
Torrey Clark writes "Intel seems to be the first to ship a batch of dual core x86 64-bit processors to OEMs.
Intel's first dual-core chip is the Intel Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 840. The new processor runs at 3.2 GHz, backs Intel's Hyper-Threading and is supported by the company's 955X Express chipsets, formerly code-named Glenwood.
Dell also announced that it would be one of the first PC makers to ship Intel's new dual core Pentium Extreme." Reader wyckedone adds "AMD is set to ship their dual core Opteron processor, designed for servers, next week."
I think these are the "phony" dual cores. Two dice bonded together in the same package.
SMT is only needed if your execution units are having trouble remaining filled up, which was the problem with the NetBurst architecture due to the huge hits that it takes with a branch mis-prediction penalty. When a mis-predict happens the execution unit has to sit idling away and wait for the proper info to go be re-fetched. With SMT, the unit simply switches over to one of the other threads waiting in the wings which keeps the processor doing useful work instead of wasting cycles. This is why the software has to be re-written to take advantage of it so that the processor knows which threads to give priority to.
Intel stuck SMT into the Pentium in order to balance out the some of the negative effects the go hand-in-hand with a processor that has a LONG pipeline. AMD has a much shorter pipeline (especially when compared to the new Prescott) and therefore they don't suffer much of a penalty when a mis-predict happens. Also, if I remember correctly the Athlon was already known being extremely efficient in terms of resource allocation within the processor since AMD can't afford to just dump tons of extra cache onto the chip.
Both of these things taken together means that using up extra real estate on the die of the Athlon in order to get SMT isn't really worth it in terms of the performance it would bring. Even on the Pentium the benefits aren't all that hot and it's only in specific types of code that you see any impresive speed gains.
I tried to look through the article, but couldn't find it... does this mean that you will have 4 "virtual cores" on one single chip now?
Yes, but only for the Pentium Extreme Edition. The Pentium D, which should come out soon, won't have HyperThreading enabled.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
it has been speculated that they might just place two normal cores under one heatspreader.. can't know sure untill the reviews hit that open them up.
also.. it could be a paper launch for most parts(paper launch= you launch the product, ship it to reviewers.. but are unable to provide the product in significant numbers to any resellers). they're getting way too popular.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The two processors are going to have seperate L2 cache, but share the memory controllers and HT links. So it will work just like todays chips except for it will have two cores.
Read more about it http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_11787,00.html?red ir=CPPA65
mnewberg.com
You can also put 4 dual core processors in a normal 4 socket motherboard to make a 8-way computer. AMD has tons of information on this stuffhttp://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPre ssRoom/0,,51_104_543~94936,00.html
mnewberg.com
Are AMD's and/or Intel's processors supposed to work in existing motherboards?
AMD: Yes
Intel: No
Before everyone gets excited about Intel's dual core - you should review some of the benchmarks at tomshardware or anandtech. The speed improvements are not that great. In fact performance in a gaming environment is not as good as their high end single core chips.
Intel is currently pandering to the gamer/workstation market. Given the Dell XPS announcement - clearly a target is the gamer. Is it really though? Would any self respecting gamer buy a Dell as their "l33t boXor"? Would they not already know that the nVidia + ATI + AMD64 platform represents the pinnacle of performance in the gamer world? Probably. I'm not sure that dell is going to see the boost to their XPS line that they'd like from the addition of this chip. Intel does get points for getting their earlier but it's not nearly the lead that AMD took a year ago with the deployment of the AMD64 3X00+ desktop processors. The bottom line however is that if you are planning to buy a new machine and actually do a little research you'll find that the Intel chips are not as fast dual core or not - as the AMD chips.
As far as workstation performance goes - the chip seems to hold it's own with some decent performance gains. The real issue with this chip and the architecture as a whole is memory bandwidth. For truly intensive processing tasks, video, audio, data processing, computationally intensive tasks, a fast memory bus makes a world of difference. Intel doesn't seem to have the architecture to support these types of task as well as it should. However, this may be the only area that AMD doesn't have covered well primarily due to the cost of their dual core offering. If you are looking for a workstation that can be programmed to handle multiple threads the Intel offering might be for you.
And then there is AMD - totally ignoring the desktop market. Instead they are going after the high end server market. Why? Itanic is dead - and there is a need, and a void for high density, but "cheap" machines. The dual core AMD provides high performance, low heat and competitive performance especially in situations where high memory bandwidth is needed. It also scales 2x further than the competing Xeon servers (The 8XX series could be called the 16XX series). Since the launch of the Opteron two years ago AMD has established the proper channels to deliver these chips to customers. Sun and HP both offer servers with these chips and will also be offering the dual core chips as well.
Pricing - which I think is most telling. AMD's products are priced at the high-end. They are the leader in 64 bit computing (Intels 64-bit approach is architecturally inferior). They will provide organizations who need this technology an upgrade path to the 64-bit world if they are not already in it. AMD chips scale better than the competing Intel technologies. Thus AMD will continue to consolidate their lead in the high end server market. Also, AMD appears confident that their customers will pay for their high end CPUs. In the workstation/gamer market Intel is trying to stoke adoption through lower prices. In some ways this is a contradiction - low priced chip in a high end segment. I'd argue it's the wrong strategy for stemming their loss of market share to AMD. Why go with an Intel dual core when you can get a dual Opteron? They are faster after all.
Though it comes down to the fact that Intel and AMD are after different things. The Opteron platform is a high-end platform. It's clear that AMD is making it a priority. A sound strategy, as Intel's blunder with the Itanium is still continuing to cause a slip in market share. Second is the AMD64 platform which offers great performance at a reasonable price. No doubt, when dual core hits the AMD64 their will be a bit of a premium to pay - it is a sound architecture which is just starting to hit it's stride. Conversely, Intel is trying to stem the bleeding on their desktop lines - clearly they see the high end gaming and workstation segment suffering. How desperate does a company need to be to tack on "Extreme Edition"
The Xeon parts to come are SIP, but it looks like the EE is a single die. Though, with no on-chip interconnect, it seems a distinction without a difference. EETimes.com - Potholes seen in latest Intel road map
Free login required. Messy to reach the article if not already logged in. The login dumps you at the the main page, not the page you wanted. Click on the link again after logging in.
I've always wondered why software companies are allowed to get away with charging more money for multi-CPU systems anyway. I mean, there's still only one copy of the software on the system, so where's the justification in charging for more than one CPU?
Afterall, you don't have to pay twice as much to run the software on a system that has a CPU with twice the clockspeed...
A good question. I've supported and tested and used per-cpu licensed software, so here's the theory:
it's how much use you get out of the software.
For example: If I have a render farm of 6 computers, I may have 6 licenses. (This example is OBSOLETE - most render-only licenses are free now).
If I upgrade my hardware so i need only new workstation to do the same amount of work, I lost 5 sales units.
So the trick is to keep sales income flat with the hardware curve.
I'm not advocating this -- just pointing out the why behind the what.