Intel Ships Dual-Core Chips
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Apr 12, 2005 08:09 PM
from the good-for-everyone dept.
from the good-for-everyone dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Bleh... Mobile, please! (Score:5, Interesting)
At the rate that power consumption and heat dissipation are increasing on these chips, I consider Pentium-Ms to be the only processor worth using.
Re:Bleh... Mobile, please! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this one of those announce and only ship a teeny tiny volume to top OEMs or are these parts really going to be shipping in volume to -- for example -- New Egg.
I guess my question is: did Intel do this announcement just to trump AMD, as they so often do, and not actually have volume silicon?
My prediction is: These will be hard to get, and the AMD parts will be all over the world on the day they announce.
Raydude
Re:Bleh... Mobile, please! (Score:5, Insightful)
intel fanboy myth 1 AMD can't pump out the volume Dell needs Bzzt incorrect, AMD won't BEND Over, Kiss dell's shiny metal ass, and ship 95% of it's early production volume to dell so dell can 'trump' competitors. Intel has an entire devision dedicated to bending over backwards and kissing ass.
So AMD can't ship the amounts Dell wants without hurting other places, and Intel can? Intel may have a division dedicated to "kissing ass" as you say, but that means they can supply dell the chips they need when they want them and still supply other places as well. AMD can't do this, or simply won't, which still means they can't do it, just they willfully can't do it.
Intel fanboy myth 2 AMD processors are less stable Bzzt wrong again, AMD CPUs have had as clean or better a 'stability' track record as Intel. 'but my windows crashes more using amd' This isn't a CPU issue, it's a software vendor issue, usually related to 3rd party drivers for sound cards etc, although if you buy a cheap chipset, instead of a quality one, the chipset could bring stability issues into the system, but plenty of tiwanese intel chipsets can be had too, and can cause as much system instability.
So using AMD processors can cause more crashes than using Intel processors. It may be the fault of third party drivers, but that still means systems with AMD processors are more unstable than system with Intel processors, which is a bad thing. You may be willing to blow this off but the average user isn't. Just like people blame Windows for crahses caused by programs, spyware, viruses, and third party drivers, they blame AMD when a system with their processors crashes because it has the processor in it. Sure, it's Joe Blow Companies fault for the bad drivers, but they don't crash in an Intel machine.
Re:Bleh... Mobile, please! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been using AMD's for a few years now, and I've found them to be pretty darned stable. I haven't had any driver conflicts, or other major issues crop up. I don't overclock, but I do undervolt my fans, and the stability per volume of the AMDs are better than Intel's current crop (though the P3 line was great). I also change hardware configurations frequently, have multiple HDD's, etc.
I do have a pretty good MOBO, though. Cheap motherboards are criminally unstable, and many people who go to AMD do so to shave money off their system, leading them to buy substandard motherboards. The same is true of cheap Intel motherboards, however, with the same results. It's amazing how much better a 90 dollar motherboard is than a 50 dollar one. That's not true about many or even most things in computing, but it's very true in Motherboards.
Overall, I'd pay the same for an AMD processor as an Intel one. The AMD's are just as strong but run quieter. That they're a little cheaper is just icing on the cake.
And the best response to Myth 3: Your job is never safe. Get over it. You can do the right thing and get replaced by the Boss's nephew, or you can kiss up and get replaced by the Boss's nephew. Either way you might as well do the job as best you can so at least you can sleep with yourself at night.
So, how much are they really worth? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mind you, it depends on the heat specs.
Re:So, how much are they really worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
ie 4 or 8 dual core chips for 8 or 16 processors
That is not a fair comparison to a single chip dual core design. The 800 series is deigned to compete in the high end server arena, not the workstation arena.
Wait till the AMD dual cores that are designed for single processor motherboards hit then compare the prices.
Rush to market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rush to market? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Rush to market? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is Intel faxing something to market. This is another one of their paper launches.
I thought that AMD is slated to ship their dual core chip first?
They are. This "news item" is so full of pro-Intel baloney it has to be a paid placement. AMD started shipping their dual core Opterons to OEMs a couple months ago. HP will have a dual-core Opteron server available for immediate delivery on AMD's release date of April 21. Intel wanted really badly to be first with dual core processor release, mainly because their x64 processors are such turdburgers, but they didn't do it. Rushing out a few pilot-run processors to Dell is too little, too late - there will be not be any actual computers using Intel dual core processors available on April 21. There will be dual core Opteron servers and workstations available that day. AMD is first again.
Looks like intel rained on AMD's parade.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now all of a sudden -- out of nowhere -- they launch a surprise attack and shipped the cores early, even before AMD's announced launch date. Sounds like some VERY hefty competition for AMD. They had been claiming all along that they would be the first with dual cores an it was even used as an "excuse" for Dell to talk about starting to sell AMD chips specifically because of this feature.
AMD had better look out! Their stock price will probably take a plunge due to this surprise announcement.
May I propose... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:May I propose... (Score:5, Funny)
Can someone else bring some jam or marmalade too?
Why go for CMP and skip SMT? (Score:4, Interesting)
While CMP processors can give us rougly the same performance of a standard SMP system (somewhat faster due to interprocessor communication and shared memory, but also slower due to a larger memory bottleneck) I don't think that a CMP system would compete with a simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) solution.
While Intel's response to SMT (hyperthreading) has some benifits the performance of it is rather lackluster. The reason has more to do with their particular implementation. If you've read about the initial observations on SMT an 8-way SMT processor was shown to outperform a 4-way CMP processor. Now, I must note that the 8-way smt processor had more functional units then the cores in the 4-way CMP processor, but the overall area of the 8-way SMT processor would be much much smaller (far less structures need to be duplicated for SMT as opposed to CMP). For more information on this check out some of the papers at http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/smt/
What I don't understand is the insistance of the industry to use CMP first. From everything I've read, an 8-way SMT processor should take up less die space then a two way CMP processor. Even assuming that the 8 way processor contains more functional units. It kind of makes sense that a CMP processor is faster when there aren't enough threads to fully utilize a SMT processor (say only 2 or 3 threads that want full cpu usage). I guess SMT is a big chance in the model of programming and application development (I'm currently running research on the subject which is why I'm so interested in it). Is the reason to embrace CMPs simply because there's less new technology to add (they "just" have to interconnect two cores as opposed to adding the extra logic for SMT).
Does anyone else have any other opinions regarding this matter, or any idea why no one seems to be fully embracing SMT's potential?
Re:Why go for CMP and skip SMT? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Compatibility (Score:5, Funny)
My epiphany... (Score:5, Interesting)
Both Intel and AMD have decided upon dual-core as the future of desktop computing. There will be no more massive Mhz increases... instead the focus is now on parallel computing.... But, seriously, how many CPU intensive applications outside of the server arena take advantage of SMP?
As someone who has ran dual-cpu workstations for years, I can personally attest to the fact that 99% of CPU heavy tasks do not make use of SMP.
Think about it... That copy of Doom3 or Half-Life 2 that you just bought, that runs like shit on even top-of-the-line hardware, isn't going to run any better on Dual-Core, because these games are not designed to run multiple threads simultaneously. Neither do most archival programs (WinAce, WinRar, WinZip, SevenZip, etc etc). Nor do many of your encoding tools (though FlaskMPEG and GoGo-No-Coda are noteworthy exceptions).
As a geek, I can attest that the *nix arena isn't much better. Just because the source is open and available does NOT mean that the author(s) ever considered coding CPU intensive tasks for multiple processors. And "porting" tasks from single threaded to multiple threads is NOT a simple task. This is one of the reasons that there are Computer Science degrees -- writing good SMP code isn't something you learn at technical schools (or even half the full Universities out there).
Don't get me wrong... as someone who has ran SMP boxes for the past 10 years, I'm really excited about Dual-Core. But don't expect it to be worth a whole lot for the immediate future... as no one outside the server arena really codes for SMP.
Re:My epiphany... (Score:5, Interesting)
Due to their problems with Motorola 6-7 years ago, Apple was forced to go to dual CPUs for their desktop line, just for the marketing impact, even though it was mostly useless at the time. That effectively solved the chicken-and-egg problem, since almost every user who cared about performance on the mac has had dual processors for years (including developers). It also helps that Apple provides some good tools for debugging multithreaded programs.
The quantity and quality of multithreaded desktop software available for Mac OS X today is astounding, and far beyond what is available on windows or linux (I use linux on the desktop, full time, and Mac OS X part time). This includes both third party software, and Apple's own software (including their consumer stuff. iMovie's encoding engine loves SMP). As the focus shifts to parallel software, this is going to give Apple a really big advantage as the desktop software vendors on windows/linux try to shift gears (which will take years).
Admittedly, most of the ported games still do not use threads, or only do so for audio (as the parent poster said, retrofitting SMP support into an app is not easy. It's going to take a long time).
II ggoott oonnee...... (Score:5, Funny)
A little chip philosophy. (Score:5, Informative)
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"
Re:We should be worried (Score:5, Insightful)
dual core chips are just that - two cpu's in one packaging, if you somehow as a software manufacturer have come to the conclusion that it makes sense to sell your licenses based on number of cpu's used to run it then it makes also perfect sense that you would charge the same regardless of the cores being on different pieces of plastics or not. otherwise you could just glue the dual cpu's together with a strand of wire and call it dual core(and paint yourself yellow and run around pretending to be bananaman).
Re:We should be worried (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Double nothing still equals nothing.
Let Larry E and the like go ahead and try to gouge his loyal cusomers even more - All the more motivation to switch to FOSS alternatives.
Re:Dual core w/ hyperthreading? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but only for the Pentium Extreme Edition. The Pentium D, which should come out soon, won't have HyperThreading enabled.
Re:AMD Dual Core: Not flamebait, I swear! (Score:5, Informative)
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 [amd.com]
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
I prefered the original code name: Pentium Object Oriented Processor.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Funny)
But don't forget that this is the "extreme edition". Its name is the Pentium Object Oriented Processor Extreme Edition - or POOPEE