Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware

Intel Readying Dual-Core Desktop Chip 280

Posted by Zonk from the incoming dept.
sunisha.shah4eva writes "CoolTechZone is reporting that Intel is planning on introducing a dual-core Dothan chip for desktop computers. According to the article, Intel has plans to turn the performance table around with AMD. From the article: 'Finally, it looks like Intel has learned from its mistake and secretly prepping a surprise for the rest of the industry. According to the information we received, Intel is currently working on a desktop, dual-core Dothan microprocessor with SSE3 instruction set that Intel plans to launch sometime in the future. Whether the launch will take place this year or in 2006 is currently unknown.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Readying Dual-Core Desktop Chip More

Intel Readying Dual-Core Desktop Chip

Comments Filter:

  • 2006? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:14PM (#12747801) Journal

    ...just in time for the Apple switch to Intel products?

    I'm still kind of miffed about that but if they run new dual-core chips it might not be so bad.
    • I still don't understand why Apple users care so much about which processor is in their system. Maybe it's because they spent so long trying to trick the world into thinking PPCs were better and now they are forced to either admit Apple is making a big mistake or they were wrong all along.

      News flash: Intel Apples will be faster than any G5. With dual core desktop chips they will also be able to multitask better than a dual G5 at a lower cost.

      • Re:2006? (Score:3, Informative)

        by nuggetman ( 242645 )
        I still don't understand why Apple users care so much about which processor is in their system.

        We're no better or worse than the Intel vs AMD crowd
        • I've been using AMD for the last 6-7 years or so now but I'd use Intel just the same if they were priced right. It just happens that AMD is half the cost for a comparable chip. Though Intel actually seems to be getting more in line with AMD these days as far as pricing goes.

          ~S
          • I totally agree. For most of the tech crowd I know, the choice of AMD vs. Intel is usually about price. Granted, we have some seriously hard-core gamers that want every OP they can squeeze from a proc, and their decisions on gear is usually based on what is out right now. Sometimes it's Intel, usually it's AMD.

            I know for myself, I'm a price junkie. If it costs less for the same power, I buy the cheaper which up until recently has been AMD. (Though I do have one system that's Intel, but I got the proc,

      • Re:2006? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tokerat ( 150341 )

        Because of intelligence-insulting comments fromthe PC peanut gallery, we've all become trained to want nothign to do with your crowd. Make sense now?

        You'll be the first to bitch when you can't run OS X on any x86 machine you want, too.
      • Apple bought into the AIM deal (Apple, IBM, Motorola) for producing the PowerPC, they let it slip for a few years but the G5 was supposed to remedy all of that. Nowe we know that the G5's problems were too great and to stay competitive they had to do something, even something as rash as a complete platform migration.

        So don't be too harsh on Apple, they tried.

        Damien
      • Actually, for anyone who cared about such things (chip geeks), the popular consensus WAS that PPC's WERE better than anything in the x86 camp. That is, during the G4 era. The instruction set was much saner (even Intel fans will complain about the bass-ackwards quirky x86 instruction set), it pushed more numbers with far less power, AltiVec showed a ton of promise (if you were willing to either wait for a good compiler or use the vector unit by hand).

        With the introduction of the G5 and the failure on the pr

      • Re:2006? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tokerat ( 150341 )

        Oh and something i forgot in my other reply: PowerPC was originally faster, much, much faster than comparable x86 technology of the time. Unfortunately, we left it in the hands of Motorola to develop it. After all, good old Moto had served us well with their 68k line of CPUs since the early days and now that it was time to bring in the new it seemed only right to give them the chance to accellerate their design, fabrication, and sales with this newfound holy grail of technology.

        Instead, they just kept doin

        • Re:2006? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Bedouin X ( 254404 )
          o this day, a Dual 2.5GHz G5 still pounds a 3+GHz P4/AMD whatev into the ground (unless you're gaming).

          I think that a dual 2.5 GHZ G5 would have all kinds of problems going against 2x AMD64s at 3+ GHz. Also, you probably need to take a look at some server benchmarks before you make comments like that.

    • Re:2006? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by BioCS.Nerd ( 847372 )
      Argh... you beat me to the punch.

      I was "miffed" at first too, but the more I think about the switch the more it makes sense. The largest fraction of hardware sales Apple has (excluding the iPod) is Powerbooks and iBookes. G4 chips haven't been getting better, but Intel's mobile chips have; IBM and Freescale do not have dedicated research going into laptop chips whereas Intel does. It only makes sense to switch with this line of thinking.

      Hopefully we'll see dual core Powerbooks soon.
    • ...just in time for the Apple switch to Intel products?

      I love it when a plan comes together.
      - Hannibal

      More seriously, maybe in time for the higher-end Apple desktops to come out. The low-end machines are scheduled first, remember? Like maybe some minis and laptops early on, using Celerons or Pentium Ms, then some of these dual-core chips in iMacs and/or PowerM... uh, they're not going to call it a PowerMac, are they now ? Although I guess they could...

    • Re:2006? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:28PM (#12747997)
      ...just in time for the Apple switch to Intel products?

      There is something curious in the Apple deal and it is big.

      Apple emphasized that they believed Intel's processor roadmap to be more impressive than any alternative. Now, Intel's current chips use boat loads of power because they haven't entered into a silicon-on-insulator deal with IBM, who owns the patent. AMD uses silicon-on-insulator to get their power consumption numbers wayy down relative to Intel's numbers.

      Without getting into the details on why Intel doesn't have silicon-on-insulator (IBM wants to "trade" instead of license...), one would think that AMD would have been a *much* better choice for Apple. But Apple's emphasis on the future processors leads me to believe that Intel has something *big* up their sleeve. Probably something to compete with the Cell processor, but on a much broader scale (i.e. - not focused so much on gaming performance).

      I know that Intel have been developing Ovonyx [ovonyx.com] memory technology for some time now (since 2000). It is interesting to note that in the process of developing the memory, they found that it has nonbinary processing capabilities [epcos.org].

      Is Intel going to drop a bomb?
      • Whoops - wrong link. Here's the correct [uspto.gov] nonbinary link (though the other one is somewhat related).

      • Re:2006? (Score:5, Informative)

        by masklinn ( 823351 ) <.slashdot.org. .at. .masklinn.net.> on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:36PM (#12748108)
        Apple emphasized that they believed Intel's processor roadmap to be more impressive than any alternative. Now, Intel's current chips use boat loads of power because they haven't entered into a silicon-on-insulator deal with IBM, who owns the patent. AMD uses silicon-on-insulator to get their power consumption numbers wayy down relative to Intel's numbers.
        You've failed to notice that TFA was about dual cores dothans (aka last Pentium-M core) haven't you?

        The power hungry shit processor is the regular Pentium using the Netburst architecture, high clock rates, low efficiency per cycle, fucking radiator, the dothan on the other hand is another story, much closer to AMD's approach: lower clock rates (and upper limit of the architecture) but better efficiency per cycle and MUCH LESS power hungry (while latest PIV crank out above 130W peak out of the box, dothan are rated under 27W)
      • Without getting into the details on why Intel doesn't have silicon-on-insulator (IBM wants to "trade" instead of license...), one would think that AMD would have been a *much* better choice for Apple.

        How about Silicon on Saphire (SoS)? [oki.com] SoS (assuming SoS!=SoI) is usually considered too expensive except for harsh environments and places where you really need it. However, since saphire can now be artifically created, it may have come down in price enough for them to integrate it into the assembly line.

      • Re:2006? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by soupdevil ( 587476 )
        Intel has one very important thing that AMD doesn't have -- excess production capacity.
      • Without getting into the details on why Intel doesn't have silicon-on-insulator

        Simple: SOI doesn't scale well for smaller geometries. In order to benefit, gate oxides have to be very small, and beyond a certain minL >100 nm, it becomes insanely difficult to make SOI work because you need to maintain angstrom-think gate oxides across a 300 mm wafer.

        That's why IBM is way behind Intel when it comes to device size.

        SOI is dead.

      • Re:2006? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:01PM (#12748478)
        While I'm sure there are hundreds of technologies Intel could possibly use to get a lead, they don't need to. Intel is refactoring for the Pentium M to take over the general computing market, the Xeon line to inheirit the Pentium 4 and all of its mess (hey, it's not too bad if you're gonna run it in an environmentally controlled room eh?), and the Itanium line is still continuing for the extreme high end (how the fuck??) and is soon to see its third iteration.

        Besides, I'm sure Intel has a great memory for trying rash proceedures. I'm sure the Pentium M was long on the table before they greenlighted the Pentium 4; it was the next logical progression of the P6 family tree. The Pentium 4 was probably someone's pet project used to drive the industry to a frenzy, feeding off of increased clock cycles. And it worked.

        Now that IPC is important again, Intel's baby P6 has grown up to a working man.
      • A curious fact about Apple's choice of Intel over AMD, as I learned over on the Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] forums -- AMD's CEO, Hector de Ruiz, was formerly the director of semiconductor products at Motorola.

        I think this is one big reason why Steve Jobs and Apple could not / did not consider AMD -- they notoriously burned their bridges with Motorola/FreeScale over the G4's lackluster performance and slow development. Thus, Jobs and de Ruiz probably don't have a particularly good relationship.

  • I've said it once... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LegendOfLink ( 574790 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:15PM (#12747811) Homepage
    I'll say it again, I LOVE competition. Ever since AMD became a threat to Intel, we've seen outrageous processor wars and benchmarking tribunals. I can buy a P4 3 gig processor for about $150 now.

    Most likely, Intel will take that performance throne with their "secret". They have a way of doing that (like HT); but, we'll see something better come from AMD. And so the cycle continues...and we all benefit!
    • I agree that competition rules - I'm just not sure Intel will take the lead again... unless they can also incorporate an on-die memory controller like AMD and they license Hyper Transport from AMD, or invent their own. All AMD has to do is shrink to 65 nm and start ramping clock speeds, and they are ensured great performance numbers.

      • Re:I've said it once... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by masklinn ( 823351 ) <.slashdot.org. .at. .masklinn.net.> on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:38PM (#12748138)
        All AMD has to do is shrink to 65 nm and start ramping clock speeds, and they are ensured great performance numbers.
        They barely can, they'd have to change the architecture to get significant improvements of their top frequency, the A64 architecture is at it's limit currently, and can barely be upgraded from time to time...

        This is the very reason why they're pumping more cores/processor

        • Re:I've said it once... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hawkbug ( 94280 ) <psxNO@SPAMfimble.com> on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:04PM (#12748512) Homepage
          I don't think you're correct - they don't have to push their cpus at all right now, they have the peformance crown - if they have to, they will increase clock speed. Intel can't move the P4 up to 4 GHZ like they wanted, while AMD can move up a bit. Why do a I say this you ask? Have you seen the power consumption and heat dissipation of the new A64s? I have one running right here - 2.0 GHZ, Athlon 64 3200+ and it's only running at 30 C. Under full load, it hits 40 C. That's with stock cooling. That's 90 nm, wait until 65 - AMD has PLENTY of head room right now. They just aren't being forced to use it because Intel can't ramp the P4 at all - the 90 nm P4 actually put out MORE heat than the 130.

          • Re:I've said it once... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by masklinn ( 823351 ) <.slashdot.org. .at. .masklinn.net.> on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:24PM (#12748814)
            Uh oh, no, temperature is not necessarily the issue. You can have your CPU running at 3C and still be unstable (try extreme cooling mods)...
            Fact is that every architecture has a maximum frequency limit, Netburst has a very high one (intel expected it to be much higher, but they got fucked up), A64 one has a much lower one. Proof is that OC world record is at 6.5GHz for Intel's and 4GHz for AMD's, and that's not with aircooling.

            Every architecture has a maximum frequency, and AMD is already at it's limit for mass production. No core including Winchester was able to reliably break the 2.6GHz frequency on mass market (out of the box), and only Venice core and SOI now allow AMD to plan for a 2.8GHz clocked processor (once again out of the box, not talking about overclocking here but about stable, mass-market ready reliable frequencies).

            Heat is not an issue for A64.
            Nor is it for Dothan processors, actually.

            If AMD could squeeze higher frequency out of their A64, they wouldn't even be considering Dual Core right now... AMD and Intel shifted to dual core because it's the only area of improvement save creating a completely new x86 architecture from scratch to replace the ones they currently have.
          • Have you seen the power consumption and heat dissipation of the new A64s?

            Yes, I have. Do you know how they got to that level? They got there by changing the type of transistor they use in manufacturing those processors. They switched from a fast/hot transistor to a slower/cooler transistor. If anything, that change lowered the speed ceiling, not raised it. They can't just shrink and speed it up the way you claim unless they go back to the faster/hotter gates.

      • Re:I've said it once... (Score:4, Informative)

        by bhtooefr ( 649901 ) <bhtooefr@bhtooefr. o r g> on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:50PM (#12748300) Homepage Journal
        Hmm...

        "The Consortium is led by founding members Advanced Micro Devices, Alliance Semiconductor, Apple Computer , Broadcom Corporation, Cisco Systems, NVIDIA, PMC-Sierra, Sun Microsystems, and Transmeta." (my emphasis)

        IBM wasn't a founding member. Sure, they're a member, but Apple is higher up in the hierarchy than IBM. If Apple wants HyperTransport on an Intel chip, they can get it, because they've got power to license it, AFAICT.

    • Re:I've said it once... (Score:5, Informative)

      by LehiNephi ( 695428 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:27PM (#12747975) Journal
      The funny thing is that AMD is planning [theinquirer.net] on releasing Quad Core chips in Q1 2006. Intel's DC Dothan may be too little, too late.
    • I'll say it again, I LOVE competition. Ever since AMD became a threat to Intel, we've seen outrageous processor wars and benchmarking tribunals. I can buy a P4 3 gig processor for about $150 now.

      Most likely, Intel will take that performance throne with their "secret". They have a way of doing that (like HT); but, we'll see something better come from AMD. And so the cycle continues...and we all benefit!

      Exactly. I love being a consumer ;-)

      I haven't seen anything interesting enough to think about re

      • "HT is a joke. Anybody who's spent any time with a real SMP workstation would be disgusted by the whole hyperthreading thing."

        I have to agree. HT in my opinion equates somewhat to MMX a while back. Lot's of hype, little to no improvements to performance. It's just another marketing tool to make people think they should buy Intel. (An average, uneducated user could think.. Hey! I am getting two processors for the price of one with Hyper-Threading)
      • I love being a consumer

        Scariest thing I've read in a while...

    • I remember reasong somewhere that one of the big problems with PowerPC emulation on the x86 was the fact that PPC chips had more registers than x86, thus forcing some of those registers to be used from RAM or swapped as appropriate, either of which caused a loss of all possible advantages of having registers.

      Looks likely then that this move is also being made to help the transition Apple will be making to Intel architecture, and it will largely benifit the PC world as well.
    • I'll say it again, I LOVE competition. Ever since AMD became a threat to Intel, we've seen outrageous processor wars and benchmarking tribunals. I can buy a P4 3 gig processor for about $150 now.
      Most likely, Intel will take that performance throne with their "secret". They have a way of doing that (like HT); but, we'll see something better come from AMD. And so the cycle continues...and we all benefit!

      Hey MS Windows users: He's talking to you! Would you rather sit at home pretending that XP's new i
  • From reading this article [geek.com], SSE3 doesn't look like too much of an improvement. More registers are always good, I suppose. Compile-time "hinting" might be kind of interesting to do some optimization research into.

    I do like that they are readying a dual-core chip; Intel's chips have always been really hot, particularly in an SMP rig.
    • Most likely this was an Apple request/terms of the deal.

      Apple's core infrastructure's been developed on Intel machines for quite a while, and I'm sure the developers have spent every waking moment for optimizing Mac OS X for the Pentium 4. Now that they have to move to the Pentium M (as it is a much more stable, longer lasting platform), they need the instruction set to be complete. Applications like CoreImage/QuickTime thrive off of vector code, and with Altivec out of the picture (*CRIES*), SSE3/2/1+MM

  • Yeah sure... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Walkiry ( 698192 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:15PM (#12747816) Homepage
    but will it run OS X?
    • I'd like to see a Unisys machine of these with octa-CPUs with DDR3 memory. Next I'd like to see games that were developed with heavy threading, so they can use different processors.

      And you suddenly have a PS3 killer.

  • Many Dothans... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MatrixCubed ( 583402 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:15PM (#12747818) Homepage
    Many dothans died to bring you this information...
  • I don't think so. It's no secret, it's known to all who care to investigate a bit. Their roadmaps point to it, and have in some form or other for the last 4 years. This is just hype that is being spread... what next, the MACs will have them exclusively?
    • Speaking of roadmaps and prepping...I'm wondering if the iBook might be the first Apple/Intel Mac. My thoughts are this. The current iBook is way overdue for a revision. MacWorld is coming up in July. A Centrino based iMac might just be the perfect ticket for showing how ready they were for a move...

      Just a thought I had.
  • I am posting this message in order to pre-empt and prevent any lame beowulf cluster cliches. Thank you, that is all.
  • ...what ever happened to Google? ;)

    • Google... (Score:2)

      by jd ( 1658 )
      ...has yet to release a statement about their new processor range, but many believe it to support a range of hard-drive-to-google-search-engine instructions, for easier indexing.

  • in the future? (Score:5, Funny)

    by digidave ( 259925 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:16PM (#12747842)
    "that Intel plans to launch sometime in the future"

    This just in: AMD has plans to launch their dual core desktop chip sometime in the past, thus beating Intel to the punch yet again.
  • Dothan microprocessor with SSE3 instruction set that Intel plans to launch sometime in the future.

    Do they have any other choice for timeframes?
    Maybe they'll release it in the past just to screw with us!

  • Wasn't that Gimili's older brother?
  • I'm currently running a Dothan on my desktop (ASUS CT-479 + P4P800-VM), it makes it very clear that Netburst has been dead for some time now. Intel has been milking a dead but very expensive cow, and will continue to do so for as long as they can.
    • Why would Intel do that? If Intel won't give up on Itanic, the processor that could..n't make it into enough server rooms to break even on its development, then why, why oh why would they drop a platform that's got such great market saturation????

      Not only will providing Pentium 4's for existing desktops produce some income for a couple of years to go, the Xeon line is still *dependent* on it. In environmentally controlled rooms, these machines can produce all the heat they want and nobody's gonna give a

  • Intel: "AMD, I challenge you to a Duel" (Score:4, Funny)

    by aapold ( 753705 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:21PM (#12747902) Homepage Journal
    best 2 out of 3?

  • Current Intel Dual Core DOA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:22PM (#12747904)
    Sounds like a good idea to me since I have already ruled out current Intel dual core designs because of their outrageous power consumption. AMD Athlon 64's are much better in this department except they are awfully expensive right now. A more economical dual core Dothan design would definitely be something I would be interested in.

  • Cue speculation about Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spyrral ( 162842 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:23PM (#12747940) Journal
    Before anyone beats me to it (surprise! I'm sure they already have) let's curb speculation about whether Apple will be able to leverage this technology in their upcoming products:
    • Apple switched to Intel for the explicit purpose of benefitting from advances like this
    • Apple will most likely be using a slightly different architechture than wintel(mobo, bios, firmware, etc), so not every hot new Intel chip will make it into an Apple system.
    • Apple will still be offering a limited selection of systems, so they will have to pick and choose what makes it into thier product line
    The first systems are more than a year away (not counting the dev system) so everybody take a deep breath.
    • The first systems are more than a year away (not counting the dev system)

      Less than a year. In the Keynote, Jobs said that they plan to have their first Mactel unit shipping June 2006 or before. As you alluded to, they said the first dev kits will ship in a couple weeks.

  • Dual-Core Hypervisor 64-bit Intel Macintosh (Score:3, Funny)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:24PM (#12747950) Homepage Journal
    That's what I want.

    Multiprocessor too. Gotta have more than one CPU.

    MacOS, various Linuxes, various non-Apple BSDs, and because I have to :(, various Windows flavors, all running on the same box at the same time. Sweet.

    Hmm, what else do I need, a few dozen GB HD per OS, a GB or two of RAM per OS, a core per OS, 10GHz networking, high-end sound and video, ... oh, and a super-sized power supply and liquid-metal cooling system to make it all work.

  • Open Opportunities (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:25PM (#12747963) Homepage Journal
    I bet Intel's people wish that all software could be recompiled on installation, to target the specific tweaks they put into a certain chip model. Instead of waiting for the OS or app vendor to recompile for an optimized binary distribution, which rarely happens. Of course, that depends on open source...
    • I bet Intel's people wish that all software could be recompiled on installation, to target the specific tweaks they put into a certain chip model. Instead of waiting for the OS or app vendor to recompile for an optimized binary distribution, which rarely happens.

      Given my experiences with Windows, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft does this when installing everything. Aside from some experiences I've had moving between Intel and AMD with the same install (very interesting blue screens). I often wonde
      • .CAB files are compressed. The files installed from them are uncompressed, for performance. There's no way MS is distributing source code in their installer CDs, or it would have been flying around the warez nets for years.
  • Last time i looked the P4 in my desktop at my feet now has dual core..

  • It seems that the processor manufacturers have been slowing down in the race to get more and more Ghz out of thier chips. I think AMD will respond with a triple-core processor, and we will see a new race to put more and more cores into the chips.
  • If Apple gained rights to some technology when Motorola and IBM didn't deliver, perhaps they could bring Altivec to Intel?

  • Err, ahh, hurray! (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:43PM (#12748198)
    Well, as an Apple user let me say this Intel dual core thing, it looks, ah, mighty good. Go.... Intel? Yes. Go Intel!

    Man this is going to be a rough transition.

  • Intel Already has Dual Core Processors (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hack Jandy ( 781503 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:46PM (#12748253) Homepage
    You can buy them now: http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=2437 3 [anandtech.com] HJ
  • stuff that might happen.
  • Sure the consumers don't know the diffrence and just keep buying intel but the people in purchasing must be saying.

    Hey Intel if they find out how shitty these things are, well they're gonna be pissed!

    It's increadible how long intel has gone without a serious update.

    This however is just an attempt to Jam up AMD, a new processor architecture THAT IS JUST AN EXISTING ARCHITECTURE GLUED TOGETHER and RELEASED IN A YEAR!

    Total Garbage.

  • ::pop:: (Score:5, Funny)

    by brickballs ( 839527 ) <brickballs@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:55PM (#12748377) Homepage

    "...secretly prepping a surprise for the rest of the industry"

    uh, hate to burst your bubble, but I got this nagging suspicion that somebody from AMD reads slashdot.

  • Benchmarks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by akuma(x86) ( 224898 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:04PM (#12748521)
    Tom's Hardware has some interesting benchmarks with a Dothan in a desktop system with a halfway decent memory system.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4- 21.html [tomshardware.com]
  • Funny that, I can already buy dual-core chips at Newegg. As a side note, dual core P4's are about one half to one third as expensive as dual core Opterons. In fact, dual core P4's start at a mere $311, whereas opterons start at $900+. Looks like AMD has some re-pricing to do.

    • Re:Funny that, I can already buy dual-core chips (Score:4, Insightful)

      by orderb13 ( 792382 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:22PM (#12748777)
      And if you actually looked at the performance for those chips you'd see that the pricing for the dual cores actually favors AMD on a performance basis. The difference is that Intel released their "dual core" chips for the low end, while AMD only released them for their high end chips.

      Also you're not comparing the same type of chip. Opteron is AMD's SERVER chipset, which are always more expensive than desktop chipsets.

    • NOT! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dcnjoe60 ( 682885 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:30PM (#12748904)
      Yes, you can buy what are called dual core P4s for a third the price of an actual dual-core Opteron, but that's because you get what you are paying for.

      Opterons have their own high-speed dedicated bus for core to core communication. Dual core P4s are really two separate P4s on a single chip and use the regular bus for communications (along with memory, i/o, etc.).

      The dual core P4 you mentioned is operationally no better than dual P4s (single core).
  • Intel: "Sure our current product isn't as good as the competition, but real soon now we're going to release a new super-duper processor. It'll be waaay better than the competition. Really."

    Isn't this the very definition of FUD?

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close