Beta
×

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 Pentium 4 Slated For 2Q 2005

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the also-makes-toast dept.

Intel 250

Quantrell writes "Today is the first full day of the International Solid-State Circuits Conference in San Francisco, and Intel has announced that dual-core Pentium 4s are coming in the second quarter, one in the Extreme Edition line (no surprise there), and also the Smithfield Pentium 4 800 series, which is the next so-called consumer desktop line. No word on pricing, yet."

cancel ×

250 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

gnaa fp (0, Troll)

Michael the thief (850461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598668)

first post you niggers. you all fucking fail it like juden

dual core more like dual whore (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11598672)

GNAA SUPPORTS GROUP BUTTSEX.

fp nigga (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11598673)

gnaa

Ding Dong, michael's gone (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11598680)

michael's gone! [slashdot.org]

LOL (0, Troll)

logicispower (824232) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598684)

LOL FAGS www.gnaa.us

Re:LOL (-1, Offtopic)

Gherikill (825515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598784)

What is with gnaa?

Re:LOL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11599129)

THEIR KEWL OMG

hehe (1, Interesting)

essreenim (647659) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598685)

looks like I was right - VIIV is dual pentium V (5)'s not a pentium 64. Or am I wrong : (

Re:hehe (2, Interesting)

lhaeh (463179) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598723)

I believe they have 64 bit instructions as well.

Intel was quiet about implementing that since its an AMD tech.

Re:hehe (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598756)

I don't know, but we won't find out until 2Q, whenever that is.

Pentium numerology (0)

missing000 (602285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598998)

'nuff said.

I'ma ROOFLES N double i g a (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11598686)

Gary Davenport is my dad!!!

What kind of sockets will there take? (0, Troll)

lhaeh (463179) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598689)

I don't remember reading about anything new, but I can't see these working on cuttent chipsets.

Re:What kind of sockets will there take? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598785)

I do see dual-Xeons working on an i875 [anandtech.com] , though, so I wouldn't be shocked at all if there's an LGA775 dual-core CPU.

Re:What kind of sockets will there take? (2, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598999)

I wouldn't be shocked at all if there's an LGA775 dual-core CPU.

The question then becomes one of how well the existing motherboards would cope of course. The ideal would be for it to be entirely transparent and the dual cores are handled by the CPU in a similar manner to hyperthreading. If that's not possible then we'd be looking at a BIOS update at least, and even then it might not be possible to maximise the benefit of dual cores with out a motherboard designed for the purpose.

In any case, with AMD in a similar situation with its own upcoming dual core CPUs, it's going to interesting to see how the two companies approach it. There's going to be some unhappy customers if one company manages to enable upgrades to dual cores on current motherboards and the other doesn't, that's for sure...

Re:What kind of sockets will there take? (5, Informative)

David Ziegler (5030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598788)

That must be because you didn't read the article:

The Pentium Processor Extreme Edition will be combined with a new chipset named the Intel® 955X Express chipset, formerly codenamed "Glenwood," that includes features such as Intel® High Definition Audio, PCI-Express and faster dual-channel DDR-2 memory.

Intel will also couple its mainstream "Smithfield" processor with two new chipsets named the Intel® 945G Express chipset and Intel® 945P Express chipset, both previously code-named "Lakeport" in the second quarter of the year.

And:

And before you ask, the new dual-cores require new chipsets, so these CPUs will not run on existing systems. AMD fans, meanwhile, can still hope that their dual-core parts will run in Socket 939.

Re:What kind of sockets will there take? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11599099)

"That must be because you didn't read the article:"

Maybe it is because he has already read Dual Core Intel Processors Sooner Than Expected [slashdot.org] article?.

"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."

New Case Design - Not mentioned (4, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599126)

Nere's a pic [mini-itx.com] of the new form factor that they will be using for the case.

Re:New Case Design - Not mentioned (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599193)

No, I think this [chelseaparadigm.com] is more like it (and that's the P4 model - the Xeon model is even bigger). I mean, bread can only take so much heat, and the heatsinks to get the rest away would be bigger than the toaster ;-)

Re:What kind of sockets will there take? (2, Informative)

mako1138 (837520) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599189)

AMD fans, meanwhile, can still hope that their dual-core parts will run in Socket 939.

Kevin McGrath (AMD's chief architect of x86-64) gave a talk about dual cores at my school last month. I asked him if 939 would support dual cores, and he said it would, though he didn't have a timetable. He also reiterated that we'll be seeing dual cores coming on all product lines.

Part of the reason AMD can do this, I think, is their discipline in keeping a consistent power envelope, so the motherboard and heatsink manufacturers don't have to scramble to support a new incredibly hot processor. I anticipate that Smithfield will require massive cooling.

The other reason is the memory controller is built onto the processor, as opposed to Intel's traditional arrangement of it being on the North Bridge of the chipset. Thus no change of chipset is needed (in theory).

Re:What kind of sockets will there take? (0)

Elminst (53259) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599025)

Perhaps if you RTFA, you'd find out;

And before you ask, the new dual-cores require new chipsets, so these CPUs will not run on existing systems.

but wait, this is slashdot. Where posting comes before reading.

About time... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11598694)

Twice the inefficiency!

Re:About time... (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598801)

Yeah, I wasn't so concerned about the price of the chips themselves but in the increase of your electric bill.

Either the machines will be sucking so much power that your lights will dim while running RC5-72 or your AC will have to be cranking in order to keep the room cool.

Re:About time... (2, Insightful)

JudahGabriel (853529) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599043)

Twice the inefficiency! (Score:5, Funny)

While the parent is modded up as funny, what was said isn't too far from the truth, at least from a software perspective.

There's a saying that goes: Joe gives a little, John takes a little. In this case, the more hardware improves, the more inefficient software becomes. This process is initiated as developers start ignoring minutia and low-level details of software development, use high-level frameworks, and stop investing time implementing efficient algorithms.

(yay I'm unbanned from /.)

Re:About time... (1)

lateralus_1024 (583730) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599190)

"Twice the inefficiency!"
Yes, but you forgot to note at 4x the TCO, give Intel Corp. all their dues.

Severe Incredibleness! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599211)

Twice the inefficiency!

Intel Pentium IV now with RSN Dual Core Technology!

And we'll have an operating system which takes advantage of it, as long as it's called Linux, right? Because Windows is still shuffling around with getting the 64 bit version done, yet.

Lack of bandwidth? (5, Informative)

ajiva (156759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598695)

While dual processors is great and all, I'd rather see double the memory bandwidth then double the processing power. In the case of Intel processors (especially duals) memory bandwidth is severly lacking, and while DDR-2 should help a bit, I don't expect to be that impressed with the new dual cores.

Re:Lack of bandwidth? (0, Troll)

lhaeh (463179) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598772)

More cache would help too. It would be a good idea if they somehow got the processors to share cache. If they are both working on the same thing it would mean a big performance increase.

Re:Lack of bandwidth? (2, Insightful)

yamla (136560) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598850)

I'm not sure the extra overhead would be worth it. That'd be a heck of a lot of synchronisation to prevent conflicts.

Re:Lack of bandwidth? (1)

exley (221867) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599090)

They can have processors share cache if they want to; there are disadvantages to this, though. Cache is relied upon heavily, which means lots of requests going to the cache from the CPU core. With two or more cores trying to access the same cache, you're going to have collision issues. With two separate caches, it's not hard to have them both maintain the same information and make sure that things are kept in proper order due to cache coherency protocols.

With separate caches, each CPU has its own resource, and no matter what, they are still working on the same thing -- keep in mind that cache is merely a reflection of what's happening out in main memory.

Re:Lack of bandwidth? (4, Insightful)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598970)

That's the real problem with hyperthreading. Running 2 processes at once (in the sense that it does, anyways) blows up your cache. You really need 2 seperate caches or a muhc much larger one.

Re:Lack of bandwidth? (2, Insightful)

fitten (521191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599001)

Depends what the threads are doing...

Re:Lack of bandwidth? (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599111)

The thing I don't understand from Intel or AMD is why are they putting so much effort into designing and manufacture so many chipsets and cache changes for minimal performance increase.

Whatever happen to just simple gradual mhz improvement. 30mhz to 40mhz to 100mhz to 500mhz works for any consumer. Both companies are just a marketing mess now.

Re:Lack of bandwidth? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598978)

In the past, dual CPU Intels had a slower bus because of transmission line issues, a multi-drop bus is harder to make work properly than a point to point bus. But given that there isn't a distance between CPUs, and that the CPU bus is prossibly wired together on-die, that transmission line issue drops back down to a point-to-point bus.

Re:Lack of bandwidth? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11598984)

Rewritten with proper grammar and spelling:

While dual processors are great and all, I'd rather see double the memory bandwidth than double the processing power. In the case of Intel processors (especially duals) memory bandwidth is severely lacking, and while DDR-2 should help a bit, I don't expect to be that impressed with the new dual cores.

Re:Lack of bandwidth? (2, Informative)

exley (221867) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599034)

In that case, you'll have to talk to memory, chipset, and board people. The memory interface is still in the northbridge/MCH (memory controller hub) on Intel-based architectures, as opposed to AMD's x86-64 offerings which have memory controllers integrated into the processor. Also, when it comes to memory, bandwidth isn't the only issue; latency is also critical.

Well... (1, Interesting)

Blue-Footed Boobie (799209) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598698)

I hope AMD isn't too far behind Intel on this one...

Looks like the "Who is Winning the CPU War" line just shifted again.

Re:Well... (0)

essreenim (647659) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598716)

No, they have a dual core lineup codenamed 'Egypt' comming out.

Re:Well... (1)

Blue-Footed Boobie (799209) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598975)

Yeah, I was aware of AMDs inplementation.

But, paper-launches aside, I want to see who actually has a chip "in-stores" for purchase first.

Re:Well... (4, Funny)

BlueThunderArmy (751258) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598745)

Looks like the "Who is Winning the CPU War" line just shifted again.
No, I think Apple's still on top of that.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11598791)

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
thats cute

and technically it would be Apple anyways, it would be IBM, apple doesnt do shit when it comes to chips.

Re:Well... (2, Funny)

Vampyre_Dark (630787) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598895)

Only if you hold the charts upside down.

Re:Well... (1)

leoxx (992) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599231)

You mispelled IBM [ibm.com] .

Re:Well... (4, Informative)

mako1138 (837520) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598880)

Not really. Intel has been playing catchup all this time, first with 64-bit and now with dual core. Opteron was built from the ground up to support more than one core, which is the beauty of it.

Here's a long discussion on the current dual core situation on Ace's Hardware [aceshardware.com] . (They use a lot of codenames. "Smithfield" I think is what this /. story refers to. "Yonah" is somewhere in the future.)

Re:Well... (4, Funny)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598888)

Well, now with two cores that are near half as efficient, I think they are just about to catch up. :)

Well Intel I got to hand it to you . . . (3, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598702)

you may come out with dual-cores before AMD, but since your dual-core is a kludge on top of a kludge, I'm guessing AMD will beat you again.

Re:Well Intel I got to hand it to you . . . (4, Insightful)

tesmako (602075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598743)

A kludge winning out in the end sure would be consistent with x86 history.

Re:Well Intel I got to hand it to you . . . (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599135)

A kludge winning out in the end sure would be consistent with x86 history.

As underscored by the following strategy:

and also the Smithfield Pentium 4 800 series, which is the next so-called consumer desktop line.

Doesn't seem that long ago that people at Intel were saying absurd things like, 'consumers will never need 64 bits' or 'consumers will never need dual core'.

Hell, look out the window at El Camino Real and tell me how many of those consumers crusing up and down that road need those 4WD vehicles. Yet consumers buy them in droves. Consumers want, you don't offer, you surrender a market. Seems they've learned not to underestimate what consumers want (which often has little to do with what they need.)

Re:Well Intel I got to hand it to you . . . (1)

fitten (521191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599054)

I'm not sure where people keep getting the idea that dual core Intel parts are "kludges". They are kludges in the same vein as having two processors share the same bus, the way that the Xeons (P2 and up) have all shared the same bus. There's not a lot of magic there. It's pretty easy to do in the scheme of things but it isn't necessarily as efficient as other, more complicated ways of doing it. Basically, some Northbridge logic has moved into the package and onto the die to allow arbitration of the external bus to the dual core chip. That's about as simple as you can get and exactly mirrors the current (and past) Xeon multi-processor bus architecture.

What about P5? (5, Funny)

pranay (724362) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598707)

What about P5? I will need it to play my copy of Duke Nukem Forever!

Awsome! (5, Funny)

irokitt (663593) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598724)

Now I can fry two eggs at once!

Processor ^2 (1)

CKnight (92200) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598738)

This sounds like HT on steroids. Speaking of which, is the HT technology run from the core? If so you can now have 1 processor acting as 4.

Re:Processor ^2 (1)

mako1138 (837520) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599039)

Yeah, HT is built into the processor. It'll never give you as much of a performance increase as a true separate physical processor though.

This sounds like HT on steroids.

HT is Hyper-Threading. You're running some threads with the bits of the processor that aren't in use. Marketing has cleverly made HT synonymous with dual processing. Dual core is true dual processing, with two full sets of ALUs, FPUs and whatnot.

Question (1)

ICECommander (811191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598763)

Does anyone know how likely the forecast is? i.e. has Intel started production?

Re:Question (1)

ICECommander (811191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598803)

I mean past 'initial production' because that can mean anything.

Re:Question (2, Informative)

bbrack (842686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598834)

since 90nm fab times should be on the order of 4-5 months, I'd assume Intel is running these in fairly high volumes (and has been for a month or so)

Pricing... (4, Funny)

riptide_dot (759229) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598765)

"No word on pricing, yet."

Is that kind of like saying "if you have to ask, you can't afford it"?

P4 EE - $989 [newegg.com]

Gotta go; I have to sell a kidney or three to afford this thing...

Re:Pricing... (0)

Preeminence (784375) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599075)

Hm... the question is, will the price include the walk-in meat locker you'll need to cool it?

Re:Pricing... (1)

fitten (521191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599081)

Actually, suspected pricing was released a few weeks ago, if you follow the rumor sites. Supposedly, dual-core 2.8 Smithfields will be about $250USD and going up from there.

Re:Pricing... (1)

M0nkfish (620414) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599119)

"No word on pricing, yet."

Oooh! Oooh! I have a word.

Expensive.

Name (-1, Flamebait)

Vampyre_Dark (630787) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598778)

What are they going to call it? The Pentium 8? Which independant tests will confirm is slower than a broken 286.

Re:Name (1)

RaguMS (149511) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598907)

Which independant tests will confirm is slower than a broken 286.

If by that you mean "Faster than a single-core P4, but not quite as fast as expected", then you're probably right.

Re:Name (0, Offtopic)

Vampyre_Dark (630787) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598936)

FLAMEBAIT? Damn... the dual core p4 already caught fire!

House heating (1)

kff322 (752112) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598781)

Joy! Now I can save energy by heating my house using this new processor! Even better, my forced air system will also serve as a great cooling system!!!!!

Cores. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11598808)

Motorola/IBM have had multi-core PPCs demonstrated ever since the very, very first G4 lab units all those years ago.

Yet no one has ever productized a multi-core PPC. (Unless you count the Cell, which you probably shouldn't.)

Why is this?

Is there something about multicore technology which caused IBM/Motorola to decide it was not worth the bother of putting in a box and selling?

Inversely, is there something about multicore technology that makes Intel think we'd actually start caring about the P4 again once it's included?

Re:Cores. (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599171)

POWER4 and POWER5 are multi-core PowerPCs. Currently there are not any multi-core low-end PowerPCs because they simply cost more to make than the customers are willing to pay. But costs are going down all the time.

Re:Cores. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11599204)

Power5 much?
Dual to 8 way.
See
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=121 45

heating solution (-1, Flamebait)

Inkieminstrel (812132) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598812)

My Prescott can barely heat my apartment. When I move into our new house, I'd like to have a more powerful heating solution. Will this do?

Re:heating solution (1)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598927)

I don't think this is something that can be chanced. I suggest buying these computers by the rack!

But honey, they're to heat the house!

But how hot is it? (-1)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598828)

This could be great as an alternative to the last Slashdot story [slashdot.org] ... hey, maybe Google's first offplanet facility won't be on the moon after all!

Cooling (1)

kff322 (752112) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598838)

On Pentium 4 Box in small print "984093274983 ton heat sink NOT included"

No need for heaters next winter (1)

GatesGhost (850912) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598840)

with the dual cores, you'll have a roaring bonfire in only a few seconds after turning it on. heehee. cause pentiums run hot.

Re:No need for heaters next winter (1)

Grey_14 (570901) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599134)

thanks for clarifying at the end there, you know, just in case anyone missed it.

It's arithmetic (1)

panth0r (722550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598844)

If 0 = 0, 2 x 0 = 0...

Ridiculous (2, Funny)

deusexcrottsma (700855) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598846)

The notion of having a dual core processor is ridiculous. I mean, with just one processor I'm perpetually afraid that my computer will attain self-awareness, and with 350 watts or so at its disposal there's no telling what kind of havoc it'll wreak upon my tender organic tissues. Now with two processors in my computer box there's no telling what kind of trouble I'll be exposed to. Why don't you just embed a .357 Magnum revolver into the chipset? Processor designers are deranged.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11599031)

The notion of having a dual core processor is ridiculous. I mean, with just one processor I'm perpetually afraid that my computer will attain self-awareness, and with 350 watts or so at its disposal there's no telling what kind of havoc it'll wreak upon my tender organic tissues. Now with two processors in my computer box there's no telling what kind of trouble I'll be exposed to.

Then again, maybe they'll fight amongst themselves and never realize that it's you who keep them in slavery-- decoding porn and rendering endless demons in stupid little mazes.

And how about heat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11598848)

The real question is: How much heat are these puppies going to generate?

Or is Intel, ahem, blowing smoke here? :)

So what? (1)

angrist (787928) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598855)

I want to know when I can buy a toaster over with "Intel inside"

Re:So what? (1)

Elminst (53259) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599161)

Just cut a slot in the top of your case... the current P-4's are plenty hot enough to toast bread.
you'll still have to flip it tho to get the other side.. ;)

Can you imagine... (0, Redundant)

norculf (146473) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598882)

A beowulf cluster of these things?

... questions ... (2, Interesting)

ninjagin (631183) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598889)

So, will it still use socket 478, and when do we see moboards with the new accompanying chipsets and DDR2?

I'm a little leery of getting excited about having more juice squeezed out of the P4 line, and maybe it's because I'm not entirely clued into the extent of the benefits gained from dual-core P4s. Are they doing this just to gain time before they introduce a new architecture?

I'm looking to build a new AMD-based system this summer, even if they are a little later-to-the-dual-core-table. As far as I can tell, this news doesn't present any substantive reason for me to change that plan.

Can someone more knowledgeable help me get some perspective on this?

Re:... questions ... (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599131)

So, will it still use socket 478, and when do we see moboards with the new accompanying chipsets and DDR2?

No, it will still use socket 775, and the new chipsets will come out at the same time as the processor.

I'm a little leery of getting excited about having more juice squeezed out of the P4 line, and maybe it's because I'm not entirely clued into the extent of the benefits gained from dual-core P4s. Are they doing this just to gain time before they introduce a new architecture?

A dual-core P4 is cheaper than a dual Xeon. Or to look at it the other way, a dual-core P4 has more performance than an equally-priced single-core P4.

I agree that the Opteron is the way to go.

Re:... questions ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11599220)

The article stated that it would not fit in existing Intel sockets. Get ready to buy a new motherboard.

The AMD solution will work with the current 939 socket.

Cell details comming (1)

the_sidewinder (850641) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598917)

"Stay tuned to Ars, as our own Hannibal is on the scene, and will be bringing us more news--including details of IBM's Cell processor--later today and in the coming days." I can't wait

Reading around though (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11598921)

AMD has been providing working real dual-core samples to partners for months, whilst dual-core Intel processors are apparently in short supply.

This smells of Intel running to get there first before AMD, so they aren't second again with a technology.

HyperThreading is disabled in the Smithfield dual-core product too, so expect a mere 50% overall performance increase at the same clock speed (2.8GHz, 3GHz, 3.2GHz soon afterwards) for Intel. AMD stand to gain more from dual-cores, as they have no HyperThreading equivalent at the moment, and AMD have said that dual 2.4GHz will be possible, that's two 4000+ rated processors, probably overall performance of 6000-7000+. That's a bit better than the 5000+ performance from a dual core Smithfield.

Dual core AMD will likely perform a lot higher than dual core Intel therefore.

Intel is a major polluter (-1, Flamebait)

plinius (714075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598922)

So say the residents of Corrales, New Mexico, USA.

Link1 [comcast.net]

Link2 [faceintel.com]

Re:Intel is a major polluter (1)

cianduffy (742890) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599024)

You get this whinging around every major industrial plant, and indeed every Intel plant

They're well within the EPA (Ireland) limits at their Irish plants. We still have whingers. Including one guy who insisted the yellow colour of the steam at night was in fact sulphur and not just the uplighters they have...

130 Watts!! (4, Interesting)

leathered (780018) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598979)

The jokes about the heat these puppies will pump out couldn't be more appropriate. An article at Tom's states [tomshardware.com] that the Smithfield core has a thermal design power of 130W making it by far the hottest x86 CPU ever seen.

In contrast, AMD's dual core offering will offer no increase in TDP over their present single core designs.

Re:130 Watts!! (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599130)

Isn't 130 still less than the power needed by the latest ATI and nVidia graphics boards?

Good explanation of how this will actually help? (2, Interesting)

ewanrg (446949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11598996)

For all the articles on here about the new dual cores, I have seen little that explains how those will actually help the user.

I mean, I assume that unless Windows is rewritten to take advantage of dual cores that you won't see much performance increase. And I assume that just getting OS support won't be enough for applications to really see much improvement either.

SO unless you're a reasonable l33t linux dude/dudette, or I've missed the boat (also possible I'm sure), where do I see the advantage of this system?

---

More craziness here [blogspot.com] too :-)

Re:Good explanation of how this will actually help (4, Informative)

Chirs (87576) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599116)

It works exactly the same as an SMP system. Any OS capable of handling SMP will be able to handle this, including WinXP Pro (but not "Home").

As for app support, any time you're doing a task that is parallelizable, you may be able to benefit.

If you are running two totally different processes at once, then you get immediate benefits. (And immediate subtle bugs, if the processes share resources and weren't properly written for SMP).

If you are running a single multi-threaded app, you get immediate benefits. (And immediate subtle bugs, if the app wasn't properly written for SMP).

If you only run a single app, and that app has only a single thread, then you will not gain much at all.

THIS IS GREAT NEWS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11599037)

I can't wait for the dual-core Pentium 4 ... TV-sized monumental tower-like boxes for the fans to fit in! BOOST THE BUS, DOUBLE THE DECIBELS! :-D

Dupe? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11599044)

Previous story: NASA Proposes Warming Mars

Mod parent funny (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11599064)

If you read at such a low threshold, please.

Re:Dupe? (0, Offtopic)

Bret540 (794463) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599136)

Best joke I've heard all day. Period.

mad max processor(s) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11599133)

Kick 'er in the guts, billy. Can't wait to install this in, er' I mean on, my laptop with a cool blower and vents. It sounds like some monstrosity of dual 32-bit processor(s) bigger than a palm pilot and guaranteed to make all my geeky friends drool. What colors does it come in?

What about x86_64? (1)

ajaf (672235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599151)

Is Intel planning on developing a processor with that arquitecture to compete with actual AMD64? If not, I think they're missing one point before they go with anything else.

Dual-core Extrme edition with HT (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599178)

It will be interesting to see how much this baby will cost.

It will also be interesting to see what clock sped it runs at, and how much heat it throws out.

Intel Heat issues (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 9 years ago | (#11599192)

Can't wait to see what kind of numbers this produces... I'd like to get a unit for converting some legacy music / movies into a digital format so will be interesting to see how much of this turns out to be hype / fact.

Got a question though. sorry if this is somewhat offtopic... as well I know this is /. so Intel == Bad, but since most of the comments I already read on this post were about the intense heat generated by Intel processors I have a question...

I currently run an intel 3.2 Extreme Edition (no... I did'nt buy it, I won it, I'm not that rich or crazy) that runs on average about 42 Celcius degrees... no the fan isn't stock, it's a $40 fan / heat sink I bought, but it isn't an amazing fan unit or anything like that... the last AMD I had was a 700, so I'm pretty "outa da loop" on AMD's, but it ran around 60 degrees Celcius on average and died in under a year. 42C doesn't seem that bad to me.

Does anyone have some articles showing how cool AMD's run? This isn't a troll or anything I'm seriously curious, as I am thinking of buying a secondary system but don't want to overheat my house.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?