×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dual Core Intel Processors Sooner Than Expected

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the rolling-out-like-autobots dept.

Intel 257

Hack Jandy writes "AnandTech reports that Intel's Smithfield processors are going to get here sooner than they originally predicted; most likely within the next few months. Apparently, the Intel roadmaps reveal that the launch dates for next generation desktop chipsets, 2MB L2 Prescotts and Dual Core Smithfield processors (operating at 3.2GHz per core) are almost upon us - way ahead of the original Q4'05 roadmap estimates. Hopefully, that means Intel will actually start shipping the new technology instead of waiting four months after the announcement for retail products."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

257 comments

Bleh... (4, Interesting)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514120)

I want to see dual-core Pentium-Ms.

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... (4, Informative)

DrLZRDMN (728996) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514143)

RTFA
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2329&p=4

Re:Bleh... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514683)

RTFA
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2329&p=4
Oh come on, you call that a link? THIS, my friend, is a link:

http://www.hugeurl.com/?ZTlkODQ4ZWE5MzM2Y2E2ZjhlND AxMGI0NTcxMTQxZjEmOSZWbTB3ZUdReFNYaGlSbVJZVjBkNFZW WXdaRzlYUmxsM1drWk9WVTFXY0hwWGEyTTFWakpLU0dWR1dsWm lXRkYzVmpCYVMyTXlTa1ZVYkhCWFZteHdVVlp0TVhwbFJsbDVW R3RrV0dKR2NIQldNR1J2WlZaYWNsVnJaRnBXTURFMFYydG9SMV Z0U2tsUmJUbFZWbTFvUkZscVJtdFhSMUpJVW14d1YwMUVWWGRX YTJRd1ZqRlZlVk5yYUdoU2VteFdWbTE0WVUweFdsZFhiWFJYVF ZaYWVWcEZXbXRVYkZwMVVXeHNWMkZyYTNoV1ZFWlhVakZrZFZa c1NtbGhNSEJaVjFaU1IxbFhSa2RXV0doWVlsaFNjVmxyWkZOTl JsWjBUVlJDVldKR2NGWldiWGh6VmpKS1ZWRllhRmRXUlhCTVZX cEdUMlJXV25OVGJXaHNZbGhvYjFZeFpEQmhNVlY0Vmxob2FsSn NjRmxaYTJoRFl6RldkR1ZIUm14V2JYUXpWbXhTVjFZd01VVlNi R1JhVFVaYWRsWXdXbUZTYkU1MFlVWmthR0V4Y0c5V1ZFSmhVek ZrV0ZOclpGaGlWM2hZVm0wMVExZEdXblJOVkVKWFRWVXhORlpH YUc5aGJFcHpZMFpzV21KSGFGUldNRnBoWkVkT05sSnJOVk5pUl Zrd1ZqSjBiMkV4V25KTlZWWlRZVEZ3V0Zsc2FGSmtNVnB4VTJ0 YWJGWnNTbmhXVjNoWFlVVXhjMU5yYUZoaVJscG9WbFJLVDJNeG NFbFRhemxYWWxkb1ZWWnRkR0ZaVm1SSFYyNVNUbGRIVWxaVVZs cFhUbFpXZEdSSGRHaGlSWEF3V1ZWVk5WWXlTa2hWYkZKWFlrWn dXRmw2Umxka1ZsSnpXa2RzVTJKclNrdFdhMXBoVmpKRmVGZHVT azVYUlRWWldWZDBTMkZHV25OYVJ6bHJZa1p3ZUZWdGREQlhSa3 B6VTI1b1YxWXphR2haVldSR1pXeEdjMkpHYUdoTlZuQnZWbXhT UzFReVVrZFVia3BvVW1zMWIxcFhlR0ZrTVdSWVpVZDBhVTFXV2 xoV01qVkxWMGRLU0ZWdFJsZGhhMFkwVkd4YVlXUkhWa2hrUjJo WFlUTkJkMVpzWkRSWlZtUjBVbGhvYWxKRk5XRmFWM1JoWld4cm VXVkhSbXRXYmtKSVZrY3hjMVV5U2tkaE0yUlhUVlp3V0ZscVNr WmxSbVJ6WVVaU2FWSnVRbHBYVm1Rd1V6SkdSMVp1VG1GU2VteF hWVzE0ZDJWc1dYbGxTR1JwVWpCd1IxWXljRU5YYkZwWVZXdG9W MVpGV2t4V2JURktaVzFPUjFwSGJGaFNNbWgyVm0xNFUxTXhVWG xVV0doaFUwWmFWVmxyVmt0WFJteFZWR3RPV0Zac2NGbGFSVnBy VlRKR05sSnNUbFpTYkVZelZVWkZPVkJSUFQwPQ== [hugeurl.com]

Re:Bleh... (1)

Kegetys (659066) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514391)

I wonder if it would be possible to have both a P-M and a P4 (or P4 like) core in a dual-core processor. This way you could get the benefits of both architectures on the same chip (P4 is fast in mp3/divx encoding for example, and P-M is fast in gaming). It would propably require some special scheduling from the OS though...

I really like this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514464)

"I wonder if it would be possible to have both a P-M and a P4 (or P4 like) core in a dual-core processor. This way you could get the benefits of both architectures on the same chip (P4 is fast in mp3/divx encoding for example, and P-M is fast in gaming). It would propably require some special scheduling from the OS though..."

I wondered the same thing about the G5 and the G4, like a portable with power when you need it!

Re:Bleh... (1)

gnuLNX (410742) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514447)

Jesus do you people ever get tired of re-hashing the power consumption issue? As someone who needs the power at what ever cost I welcome these bad boys. Pentium M is a great desktop core, but I need pure speed.

Re:Bleh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514729)

Jesus do you people ever get tired of re-hashing the power consumption issue? As someone who needs the power at what ever cost I welcome these bad boys. Pentium M is a great desktop core, but I need pure speed.

Since power consumption is the most significant hold up on making these faster chips you want, you'll have to for give us for talking about it.

Somehow I think you're not actually using the faster CPUs out there or you'd know how big a deal heat is.

Great news (5, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514122)

This means I can shut my furnace off this winter, instead of waiting until the end of 05.

Re:Great news (1)

Man in Spandex (775950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514159)

Well I hope they improved the prescott cores or did something about the heat cause the temps of the previous Northwoods were perfect.

Re:Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514493)

If you warm your home with electric heat, you shouldn't see any difference in the heating bill. The thermostat on the wall can't tell the difference between heat from your CPU or your HVAC system.

Re:Great news (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514561)

Of course if you air condition then during the summer you have a double hit - the consumption of the chip, and the consumption of the AC to remove that heat energy from the air. Loss/loss.

But will they be 64-bit? (4, Interesting)

agraupe (769778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514128)

As I see it, the smart step to take would be to start with consumer-level 64-bit chips, make them as fast as they can be, and then move on to dual-core. The only way dual-core could be better at this point is if it is given to the server market, where 64-bit Intel processors already exist.

Re:But will they be 64-bit? (4, Funny)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514140)

But will they be 64-bit?

Sure. 2 cores x 32 bits/core = 64 bits. Duh.

Re:But will they be 64-bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514174)

You've made me think of the Atari Jaguar.... fond memories.

Actually I'm very impressed with what Intel has been able to do w/x86.
Wasn't Prescott going to be 64, or was it Itanium?
Heat issues aside, how fast do they expect to get them by release?

Re:But will they be 64-bit? (1)

sirgallihad (846850) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514171)

two 64 bit cores on one chip would make the chip faster than 32-bit. But I don't expect that intel will be releasing this on the first model. They will most likely wait until everyone has one, then release the 64-bit model. This is their main buisness model, remember the p4 2.6 Ghz?

Re:But will they be 64-bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514182)

Prescott is 64 bit, and the dual core is 2 of them slapped together.

Re:But will they be 64-bit? (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514180)

You mean the Itanic (Itanium)chip? That one never lived up to it's promise, way overpriced, too hot, and with problems. I tried to order a HP box with that chip as a server for a company I worked with as they wanted cutting edge performance. The HP Sales guy said he would wouldn't take it if they gave it away! Perhaps things are better now, that was about a year ago, an eon in the processor chip market and the chip was brand new.

No, he means Nocona cores. (3, Informative)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514224)

Intel added the x86-64 instructions to the Xeon line and called it EM64T.

Read up!

http://www.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/ [intel.com]

Re:No, he means Nocona cores. (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514368)

It's still a 32 bit core Xeon architecture. It's not runing full 64 bit instructions, what they did was a interesting tweak(kludge) and some marketing. They added special 64-bit instructions and ability to handle 64 bit memory addresses. Everything else is 32 bit, so it likely requires 2 clock cycles to execute a 64 bit instruction. I don't have time right now to dig into how it works.

Re:But will they be 64-bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514267)

Think your missing the big picture here. It involves money. Basically you have various levels of dual core processors and you'll have people who want a dual-core (even if they don't know why), but can't afford the top of the line. Thus you have slower dual-core processors to gouge people at the correct ammount of money. It also gives them another selling point. "Look, 2 cores!" whee.

Re:But will they be 64-bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514357)

64-bits doesn't give the performance boost that AMD claims.

Re:But will they be 64-bit? (1)

ImpTech (549794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514709)

But that would be following AMD's footsteps. I think what they're trying to do here is one-up the Athlon. "Oh you've got 64bit? Well *we've* got dual-core, so ha!"

Admittedly, I don't know what the roadmap is for AMD dual core chips, so maybe Intel's just trying to keep up by pretending the whole 64-bit thing never happened.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514135)

first post

As hinted at... (-1, Offtopic)

eddy (18759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514145)

... this has the potential to become the mother of all paper-launches.

Hope not.

I really hope WE can see this. (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514153)

Consumers like me are usually stuck with one-core, one-processor 'boards. It doesn't help with boot times, whether Windows or Linux. I wouldn't mind a 3.2GHz/core dual proc at all, no matter how toasty it gets...

Re:I really hope WE can see this. (1)

zackeller (653801) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514249)

Dual procs don't help with anything they aren't coded for; sorry, your boot times will have to wait, at least in Windows.

Just to be clear... (2, Interesting)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514157)

...these are the 130 watts power-hungry dual P4s mentioned in a previous article right? No thankie.

Re:Just to be clear... (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514490)

Ever since AMD became the definitive number 1 in the market, I seriously lost interest in Intel stuff.

Re:Just to be clear... (3, Insightful)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514584)

I wouldn't write Intel off that quickly, but yes, AMD offerings are much interesting from every conceviable point of view: performance, price and power consumption. You can get yourself a dual AMD Athlon64 system for the price of a single DC Intel Smithfield. It will run cooler aswell and most likely perform better.

I don't know what's up with Intel lately. They're giving too much away in the x86 market to AMD, and they can make good processors (P-M, for example).

Who really cares what Intel does anymore? (-1, Troll)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514173)

They've come close to consigning themselves to the dustbin of technological history by being arrogant and relying on marketing instead of actual good tech to sell their products. Why does anybody wait breathlessly for their product announcements anymore?

Re:Who really cares what Intel does anymore? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514228)

People wait because they are dumb morons who love being told everything just so they can believe it. Take into account the last election, at least a quarter of voters still believed that Iraq had WMDs and ties to Al-Queda.

Some of us want to know how we will be fooled next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514429)

What's the next marketing scheme? The only way to find out is to closely follow the events. By the time most people grokked DMCA, it was too late.

Also, here is your chance to speak out against any possible ripoffs you can already detect... at least if someone doesn't mod you down :( But then maybe that's because you're stating the obvious :P

For all we know, the reason they are coming so much sooner is because they are simply relabeling their HT cores.

Interesting to see how these develop (1)

spoodie (641820) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514181)

I read about multicore processor in American Scientist a few months but I didn't expect to hear of production units for at least a year.

Office use? (3, Interesting)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514215)

I can see how this is good for gamers, but normal office use? The biggest waiting time I have on my centrino is network. (In a big company, network by Siemens, it can take 15 seconds between O and a complete list of network drives. Go figure.) Servers will opt for the 64 bit thingies, your secretary doesn't need one; is gamers a big enough market share to make money on this shit?

Re:Office use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514244)

your secretary doesn't need one
Yeah, 640k is enough for anyone.

Re:Office use? (1)

zackeller (653801) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514266)

Does your secretary need the latest and greatest video card, sound card, fastest memory? Gamers are a big enough market to justify the newest procs; the processors will become used by the rest of us in a few years.

Re:Office use? (2, Interesting)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514321)

I can see how this is good for gamers, but normal office use?

I'm not even sure gamers will notice the difference at the moment, how many games are multithreaded these days ?. Iam sure some games do take adavantage of it if its there but only to a small degree. The vast majority of games today are designed to be played on single cpu computers (this includes the current consoles).

Of course both the ps3 and xbox next make use of parrellism so in another year or two almost all games will probaby run better on dual core/cpu machines.

Re:Office use? (2, Insightful)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514462)

You do know that when playing a game, it is not the only executing process on the system. The graphics and sound subsystems are all heavily used and take cycles away from the game.

Sure, the speed-up isn't nearly as large, but having a spare core sure would prevent many slowdowns.

Re:Office use? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514611)

Yeah, especially if you use an affinity tool and assign your game its very own CPU... That means the only slowdowns will come from drivers blocking one another, or random processes spawning on your windows box :)

Re:Office use? (1)

Omniscientist (806841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514670)

I think this is something that can benefit gamers. If you use a NVIDIA 6800 GT, the card's performance is severely bottlenecked by just about any CPU today. Faster processors will definitely aid high end graphics cards, especially setups involving SLI dual cards, which will be bottlenecked by just about any CPU around today. Presently, graphic cards are leaving CPU's in the dust, and CPU's need to catch up.

Re:Office use? (2, Informative)

cillasri (844440) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514354)

Well, 15 seconds isn't too much time if you are using Windows. Windows networks are sluggish per se, and you won't benefit from dual core CPU. You won't benefit even from a 10Gigabit Ethernet trunk as Windows networking is very noisy.

Re:Office use? (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514361)

There are more uses for computers besides games and spreadsheets. It's not hard to imagine, just try and look beyond your own navel.

Me, I'd really want it for quicker compiles. Think quick 3d rendering of models, etc.

Re:Office use? (1)

gnuLNX (410742) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514491)

I am with ya on the quick compiles...a make -j2 with these processors outta be smoking fast. I still do a lot of my compiling on a daul pentium III 1G machine...and it is really stating to be noticable when my lap top with a 2G pentium M processor is slightly faster!

Re:Office use? (1)

deltagreen (522610) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514486)

Wouldn't dual cores be useful for those who frequently have to compile large programs or perform simulations/calculations on their machines? (Yes, I'm assuming there is no mainframe to do that last point on.) In that way it would be possible to do other stuff at the same time, without the system feeling sluggish.

Re:Office use? (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514601)

I can see how this is good for gamers, but normal office use?

You're gonna need these to run Longhorn... ;) They're planning for the future...

Re:Office use? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514629)

I can see how this is good for gamers, but normal office use?


I can't see today's processors being much of a challenge to 'normal office use'. Modern processors are exceedingly fast -- throw RAM at 'em and I bet they're good for a long while to come.

There will always be a market for faster CPUs. Someone needs 'em. But I think processors are beginning to out strip consumer needs by a long shot.

Think of all the people who probably never really use more than a few percent of their CPU power -- and we're talking quite a bit with a 'low end' 2GHz CPU.

Apps like video and audio pushed the need up, but if you can do video editing (and I have no idea how well) on a Mac Mini, do you really need a gazigahertz(tm) chip anymore? Certainly not for the home user.

Though, as usual, I'm sure someone will invent some eye-candy or otherwise CPU intensive goodies and make everyone need one. They always do. :-P

Programs (4, Insightful)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514239)

I ran dual P3s for a while last year. While I loved the responsiveness of the system, I hated the lack of programs avalible to take advantage of SMP.

How is this year going to be different?

Even if you *could* get SMP aware versions of your software, would it be worth it? Lots of problems are harder to solve when you add SMP to the mix.

Gamers will be put off by the fact that games can't take advantage of SMP.

Home users will be put off by the fact that their $500 Dell surfs the world-wide e-mail just fine.

Buisness user may take advantage of this in servers, but there's only so much cooling and power you can provide to a 1-U server.

So, how is dual core going to ever be anything bigger than Itanium, Xeon, or any of the other technologies that fail to meet customer expectations?

The 80s called about "multi-tasking". (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514286)

You don't generally run one application at a time, right? So I don't see the problem.

Re:Programs (1)

freralqqvba (854326) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514318)

I think you have to take into account that these chips are made expressly for "performance desktops." So they're basically just aiming at the ultra high-end market of people with money to burn.

At this point it doesn't matter if the market picks up on them, just if they can get a few out there, get some good reviews and then start selling them high-end and midline a few months later.

However, from a practical point of view you definitely do have a point - why get all the speed? To be honest (and IANAID - I am not an Intel dev), I don't have a good reason.

Though, on the other hand, why not? This jumps forward in CPU technology are making computers faster and in the long run even cheaper. So I'm not going to complain.

Re:Programs (1)

richcoder (539438) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514320)

Lucky for you that Windows(and Linux) can already take advantage of SMP.

This is the old chicken and egg delima. Get one and wait for the software to start rolling in.

And stop being so damn negative whouldya?

-rich

Re:Programs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514324)

It also says they don't support HyperThreading

Is the performance increase going to be considerably higher compared to HT?

Re:Programs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514573)

HT makes 1 chip act like 2, this literally is two chips in one. So yes, this should be faster than ht.

Re:Programs (3, Informative)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514341)

ffmpeg/libavcodec takes advantage of SMP now so I can encode videos almost twice as fast as before. Quake III kind of uses it, not very much to be noticeable.

I also run more than one program at a time so the entire system is faster.

Two dual core processors would rock hard (when my AthlonMP 2800+ system stop being usable I'm going to get dual dua-core Opterons, or PPC64s if they exist).

Re:Programs (1)

cillasri (844440) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514373)

Gamers will be put off by the fact that games can't take advantage of SMP.

It seems absurd to me why a *gamer* would ever want something but a Playstation. Neither multicore CPUs nor 64-bit CPUs are intended for the gaming market.

Multicore and 64-bit CPUs are targeted to the high-end server market, not for a teenager wanting to kill off some zombies.

Re:Programs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514693)

Guess you're not a gamer then. Or if you are, you're one that's not very insightful.

Games push technology. CPU is always a limited resource. As soon as multi-processing is 'common', games will use it up, to the last cycle.

(PS. Consoles cater to a limited demography, mostly due to the way they explore limited genres in a limited way. Ask Blizzard why they haven't ported World of Warcract to the Playstation. Guffaw!)

Re:Programs (1)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514377)

We have at the moment we have kind of reached a plateau where everyday office desktop use rarely stretches the fastest cpu's.

The cpus in question are being developed for the areas of computing where more power is needed, primarly servers, games, and media work (video in particular). These are areas where people are willing to throw in multithreading if it increases performance despite the complexity it also brings.

We might not see these cpus in desktops any time soon, it depends on how proccessor intensive longhorn is.

Re:Programs (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514419)

"Even if you *could* get SMP aware versions of your software, would it be worth it? Lots of problems are harder to solve when you add SMP to the mix."

For the time being, dual-core chips will be primarily for people that stand to benefit. Video, graphics, compiling, servers that have multiple processes or threads, etc.

"Gamers will be put off by the fact that games can't take advantage of SMP."

Games have been updated to take advantage of hyperthreading. Not only does that allow some games to benefit immediately, but it also implies that games will be updated in the future.

"Buisness user may take advantage of this in servers, but there's only so much cooling and power you can provide to a 1-U server."

There's dual-processor 1U servers...

Also, I can't speak for Intel, but AMD has committed to keeping their dual-processor chips under 100 watts.

"So, how is dual core going to ever be anything bigger than Itanium, Xeon, or any of the other technologies that fail to meet customer expectations?"

What, like Opterons?

Yeah, nothing new ever works out.

Every single manufacturer of server or workstations or desktop chips is moving towards multi-core designs. The ones that I specifically know are going to use multi-core designs include Intel (Itanium and x86), AMD, IBM, Freescale (aka Motorola), Sun, and Fujitsu.

Software vendors had better optimize for SMP. Because that's all there's going to be in a few years.

Re:Programs (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514421)

Well, you don't need multi-threaded apps to benefit from smp.

I've been running dual p3's for a while in Linux, and it's nice being able to compile, check slashdot, stream music, etc. without a problem.

Re:Programs (1)

wolf31o2 (778801) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514444)

Consider that 5 years ago, the amount of software capable of running SMP was even smaller. As more and more systems become SMP or SMT, more applications are written to take advantage of this.

Also, consider that when one multitasks, the loads are split between processors. Also, these new chips aren't even marketed towards consumers just yet. Instead, they will be going into the server market and the high-end workstation market. These markets are usually the first to receive any major changes to the way computing works, as they are the first to take advantage of it.

This is not being marketed to gamers or normal home users. This is being marketed to people that need massive amounts of CPU power and need it now. This is being marketed to graphics artists and developers.

Personally, I cannot wait for dual-core chips. I run SMP currently and would love to have dual dul-core chips. The main advantage to this over simply getting a quad-CPU capable system is cost. Having dual-core chips moves more of the complexity to the chip itself, and keeps the traces on the motherboard down. This keeps the cost and size of the motherboard into a manageable range and suitable for the high-end workstation market.

As these systems become more common, software which utilizes them fully will become more common. Today's operating systems are already quite capable of using the multiple processors quite efficiently. Also, Apple has shown us that SMP systems can do very well in the mainstream desktop market. After all, almost every PowerMac being sold today is a dual-CPU system.

make -j2 (1)

joss (1346) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514471)

You get a lot of value even using non-multithreaded apps, eg make -j2 almost doubles compile speed on largish projects on a dual processor system even though the compiler is not multithreaded.

Until multiprocessor systems are more widespread, its barely worth the effort. Writing multithreaded apps is a royal pain, and the development tools don't help either. For instance std::string in VC6 is not thread-safe - you dont even find these things out until trying to do multithreaded stuff.

Re:Programs (1)

gnuLNX (410742) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514506)

"So, how is dual core going to ever be anything bigger than Itanium, Xeon, or any of the other technologies that fail to meet customer expectations?"

Science. In the Computational Chemistry field we have all but shifted from SGI and SUN workstations to desktop/workstation machines running linux. I can almost promise you that we will be buying some of these machines. I can't hardly wait....compiling will be so much faster.

Re:Programs (1)

ImpTech (549794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514728)

Well I think the idea was to introduce HT to get app developers thinking about it, the hope being that by the time dual-core comes out applications will be (nearly) ready to take advantage. Theres no reason games or really any app can't take advantage of SMP, they just don't generally get written for it.

Pork Products (4, Funny)

jackalope (99754) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514242)

I find it interesting that Intel has code named these chips using the same name as one of the world's largest pork processors, Smithfield Foods.

I expect that these chips will be large power hungry pigs.

Re:Pork Products (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514375)

And for those who are going to ask: But does it run Linux? The answer is: Linux == communism; Systems run by large powerhungry pigs [online-literature.com] == communism --> Smithfield will be Linux only. Or maybe it will come bundled with GNU Hurd and Duke Nukem Forever.

(And for large powerhungry pigs with modpoints: This comment is meant as an attempt at humour)

Re:Pork Products (1)

haluness (219661) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514537)

> And for large powerhungry pigs with modpoints

I'm just curious - is karma so important that you (and others) have to add disclaimers to comments? I realize that the karma system makes for (hopefully) good comments but it always seems a little desperate when people add disclaimers/plead regarding modpoints

Listen fuckstick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514632)

You wasted ten seconds of my time when I read your bullshit pseudo-rant and attempt at niche sarcasm. I hope you die. I have just become stupider for having read it. Fuck you.

Hold on (1)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514245)

Let me get this straight..... Intel(or most any other company).... getting something out earlier than expected ... I felt a great disturbance in the force. The earth has stopped moving.

Re:Hold on (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514264)

Let me get this straight..... Intel(or most any other company).... getting something out earlier than expected ... I felt a great disturbance in the force. The earth has stopped moving.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.... Now where's the latest mac ad - It's been over 24 hours since the last slashdot front page sighting....

Here you go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514524)

http://www.redlightrunner.com/lib/redlightrunner/c rowdcontrol.mov

sorry, don't kow how to fix the link

"Yeah, yeah, yeah.... Now where's the latest mac ad - It's been over 24 hours since the last slashdot front page sighting...."

Re:Hold on (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514668)

Let me get this straight..... Intel(or most any other company).... getting something out earlier than expected ... I felt a great disturbance in the force. The earth has stopped moving.


Guess Duke Nuke'Em Forever must be due soon. :-P

Space heater? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514250)

-1 Redundant, but how can they possibly do this? Their heat issues are so out of control that I can't imagine, BTX or not, how this is feasible without liquid cooling...

Manual for the Modern Slashdotter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514269)

Manual for the Modern Slashdotter

Golden Rule: You must base your worldview entirely on Slashdot headlines. You must ignore the innaccuracy and editorial shortcomings of the Slashdot staff. You must buy into the groupthink of the comment threads. This is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE.

- Post the lamest, most obvious, and most unfunny jokes imaginable. They will be modded up "+5 Funny." Even Malda couldn't stand it any longer and made Funny mods not count toward karma.

- Everything involving Linux is flawless and perfect.

- Anything involving Mozilla is flawless and perfect. Ignore that Mozilla marks security flaws as "confidential" and keeps them secret. Ignore that this is something Microsoft is endlessly bashed for. Ignore that Firefox has had several severe security flaws, especially for a browser used by so little of the market (1% according to Google Zeitgeist).

- Whenever someone has a criticism of the current moderation system, refer to Taco's "future moderation system."

- You must lean left. You must obsess over George W. Bush and make Bush jokes whenever possible, no matter how irrelevant to the topic. In political articles, you must upmod anti-Bush comments and downmod independent or pro-Bush comments. Use the "Overrated" moderator whenever possible. Remember, Taco is going to fix this in "the future moderation system."

- Use the term "FUD" religiously in everyday conversation. When someone puts out something that disagrees with your worldview, call it FUD matter-of-factly as a way to dismiss the points it raises. Demonization is far easier than debating the issues.

- Whenever Linux Torvalds says anything, it is newsworthy and infallible. Linus does not make mistakes. When he says he doesn't bother looking at the source code of competitors like Solaris [slashdot.org] because he's not interested, herald it as the "wonderful attitude of Linus" even though such a comment coming from a Microsoft employee would get flamed as an example of their arrogance and closed-minded attitude.

- Believe articles like "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China," based entirely on the idea that Microsoft is evil because Windows is used by the government there. Ignore the fact that China has its own custom Linux distribution called Red Flag Linux. Slashdot is unbiased and holy.

- Ignore that Slashdot is corporate-owned, by a company called OSTG that employs Rob Malda and makes money off selling OSS products. Ignore the conflict of interests in running a "tech news" site that coincidentally posts articles critical of competitors. Ignore that if Microsoft owned a tech news site that did the same, it would be criticized for it.

- Pretend that Linux is ready for the desktop, even though it took you two hours to set up your soundcard, mouse scroll wheel, and 3D card. Ignore that the real reason you refuse to acknowledge that Linux sucks on the desktop is because you don't want to diminish your sense of accomplishment in getting it up and running. Make sure to confuse this sense of accomplishment with the feeling that you have "more control" in a Linux system compared to a Windows system.

- Pretend there's nothing wrong with endless submissions accepted from Roland Piquepaille, who makes several thousand thanks to Slashdot linking to his blog that links to the original article, rather than Slashdot just linking to the original article and cutting out the pointless middle-man. It's okay for Malda to shrug it off as though Slashdot should never consider ethics or morals.

Please redistribute this at will.

Obviously Pentium VIIV Trademark related (1)

nxtr (813179) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514330)

Anybody recall how many months passed between the Pentium IV trademark registration and the release of Pentium IV processors?

It's about time. (2, Interesting)

tu_holmes (744001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514353)

I would have thought Dual core chips would have already been available by Intel already.

People complain a lot about Sun Microsystems, but the Dual Core in Sun's SPARC IV has been out since last April or May I believe.

Doesn't AMD already have dual core cpu's shipping as well? IBM is working on a dual core G5 as well aren't they?

Heck, is this even news?

Shouldn't we be talking about 4 core cpus that are already working in development labs around the world. Sun and IBM both have those... I would bet money that AMD and Intel both have them running as well, and if they don't they better get moving!

Don't print useless press releases! (2, Insightful)

fuzzy12345 (745891) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514413)

Hopefully, that means Intel will actually start shipping the new technology instead of waiting four months after the announcement for retail products.

Want to change Intel's behaviour? Don't give them any press when they announce "real soon now" stuff, only when they actually ship. But if /. (and other media) print every press release, the press releases will keep coming.

YUO FVAIL IT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514426)

whether to repea7 and distra3tion rotting corpse for a moment and

my epiphany... (5, Insightful)

ltwally (313043) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514453)

Has anyone stopped to look at modern software while thinking about Dual-Core?

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... (2, Insightful)

bconway (63464) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514541)

I don't know what decade you're living in, but no modern game runs single-thread, single-process. Try opening up top or task manager. They all take advantage of SMP or HyperThreading to some degree, and the added responsiveness is priceless.

Re:my epiphany... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514568)

CPUs are fast enough for most home user type purposes now. The only major exceptions besides gaming (important) are 3D graphics for video, and video encoding. Video processing and 3d graphics are already aggressively multithreaded applications in most instances. Having multiple CPUs means users will be able to watch a dvd and unzip a file at the same time without either one slowing down, so from that standpoint, it's worth it today. If multiprocessor systems become common, so will multithreaded applications.

Re:my epiphany... (5, Funny)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514579)

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.

CPU-heavy tasks aren't the target. Intel and AMD have picked up on a very important trend in computing that you are overlooking. While one core runs your word processor, web browser, spreadsheet, etc., the other core handes the 100 spyware programs that are running on your computer. Sure, a few years ago one core would have been enough, but not for the modern Windows user.

Re:my epiphany... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514669)

That copy of Doom3 or Half-Life 2 [..] isn't going to run any better on Dual-Core

Will it help when I run them both at the same time?

Re:my epiphany... (1)

DreadPiratePizz (803402) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514734)

iTunes encodes faster on a dual processor mac. Photoshop is faster. FCP is faster. Compressor is faster. Most of those apps I use every day, and are DEFINATELY ouside of the server arena.

As far as games go, they certainly CAN take advantage or multiprocessor machines. Giants, Citizen Kabuto for OS X speeds up around 80% on a dual processor mac. The game wasn't even designed with SMP in mind of the PC side. If they can do it, why can't future games?

It doesn't take much imagination to think of even more examples where SMP speeds things up. Of course, things on the mac side may be a little different, as apple's DP machines "forced" the switch. The same will be done eventually in x86 land.

Re:my epiphany... (1)

fish waffle (179067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514743)

I can personally attest to the fact that 99% of CPU heavy tasks do not make use of SMP

Would you ever want to run more than one of these at the same time? Or for that fact run any application at the same as one of these CPU-intensive apps? If so you could still see a real-time benefit.

There is also continuing research in automatic parallelization, so even your legacy single threaded apps can take advantage of some of that extra cpu. For the most part the speedups attained this way are quite modest, but even if it doesn't reach linear speedup it can still result in some improvement.

The Apple Example... (1)

totoanihilation (782326) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514751)

Take a look at what happened on Apple's side of the fence in the last couple of years. The G4 was lagging in speed. So they started offering out-of-the-box SMP offerings. This brought SMP into the hands of any mere mortal who could afford one (i.e. no special home-built config. You want the fastest mac? get a PowerMac)

Now, software developers had no choice but to build their apps multithreaded if they wanted to keep their clientele coming. But even more interesting is that the OS became more and more SMP-aware, to the level that many single-threaded apps could profit from this (sound, graphics, interface, etc offloaded to another CPU).

What dual-core CPUs will do is help more software be SMP aware. Developers usually want their apps to perform well. If the MHz stop climbing, they'll have no choice but to optimize their apps. So the OS will be multithreaded, the apps will be multithreaded. Soon enough, computers with a single-CPU will be considered outdated. And thus the chicken-egg problem will be solved :)

Nice for some apps. (2, Insightful)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514480)

Im a software developer and REALLY hate the movement towards dual-cores. While dual-cores will be great for some things (I tend to write everything using threads where its easy to leverage performance) there are many apps (many of which I have no control over, no source access or the cost of re-writing (legacy apps) to be multi-threaded is too high) which need pure-raw processing power and this means its going to take far longer for that power to be available.

Its a bad move IMO on AMDs and Intels part - personally rather than head to dual cores I'll be looking more and more towards how to get the maximum (i.e. overclock) out of the higher rated single core processors - and this is from someone who normally upgrades every 12-18 months.

That said if the dual-cores overclock well my stance may change....

Re:Nice for some apps. (1)

tu_holmes (744001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514592)

One issue is that with the current CPU designs in the x86 arena, you can't get much more out of clock speeds.

I read somewhere, and I really don't remember where, (It may have been a presentation somewhere by a CPU vendor) that the difference in perfromance of a 2.6Ghz P4 and a 3.2 Ghz P4 in real world is actually like 1 percent.

There comes a point where the clocking can't equate to a performance increase with enough punch for it to even matter.

I think it goes along with the Mhz or now Ghz Myth we know to be true.

Clock Speed does not equate to performance in all instances.

That's why most of the other CPU vendors out there are looking into dual core designs.

Now, I agree that most code that person uses on the desktop is not there, and most likely won't be there for a bit, but it will have to come eventually as the requirements of users change.

If Oracle or whoever and code their databases for SMP, then why can't OS vendors or game manufacturers?

I don't really think they are going to have much choice in the matter unless some company can come up with a way to actually get Ghz to scale in a linear fashion, which at this point in time, they have not.

Re:Nice for some apps. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514612)

If you would have coded your apps to run well multi-threaded, we wouldn't be in this predicament anyway.

Understanding Dual core processors (1)

Climber625 (854486) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514618)

I don't completely understand how dual core processors and dual processor systems work. I'm wondering if there could maybe be a way that Intel, through certain hardware advancements, could have allowed the full power of dual core processors to be used on all applications. I'm thinking not, since this has not been mentioned. Could anyone help explain this to me?

Re:Understanding Dual core processors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11514741)

Programs run on one processor or the other unless they're explicity written to use multiple threads and use symmetric multiprocessing.

Using both processors is currently a software problem that encompasses a lot of ongoing research in parallel computing. A hardware solution would is incomprehensible. It would have to dynamically analyze arbitrary code and derive an algorithm that can be parallelized to split off to the other processors.

Uh... if they had that they'd probably have let us know by now because it would revolutionize computing and make them even stupid filthy richer than they already are.

not a peep about G5 heat and power issues (0, Flamebait)

raxrat (776937) | more than 9 years ago | (#11514697)

after reading the previous post about the new pentium-M chips and this one, I'm a little surprised that no one seems to be complaining about the heat and power problems with the G5 CPU. As it is, my G4 1.5 GHz powerbook heats up to beyond comfortable temperatures (while on my lap) and delivers a sad 2 hours of battery life (w/ screen as dim as it can be). Maybe apple should take a page from the Intel centrino book when designing new G5 powerbooks
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...