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!

Intel Dual-Core Systems Begin Shipping Monday

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the see-pee-youse dept.

Intel 231

ThinSkin writes "The wait for Intel's dual-core processor is over, that is if you're willing to fork over some dough for a Dell or Alienware system bundled with the chip. Intel just announced that Monday marks the first day dual-core systems hit the market with Dell's Precision 380 workstation and its next generation Dimension XPS desktop, which start at $2,999. PC Magazine got a chance to play with the XPS system and came away quite impressed."

cancel ×

231 comments

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

First post, dickheads! (0, Troll)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254426)

Now listen to me whine. My 1987 Jeep Wrangler Laredo is the shit. Really, it is. It WAS in mint condition until a few months ago when some prick from Jersey slammed his piece of shit le baron into my passenger side door. 2 new shocks, springs, and re-allignment were necessary - not a horrid price though, a mere $500. So anyway there's still some cosmetic damage on the fucker (jeep, not jerseydouche) but I don't really give a shit. It's turned into a fucking curse now, this morning the Jeep wouldn't start. It ain't the fucking battery, it ain't the fucking starter, and it ain't any fucknig filter or fuse. I was late for work. Fuckin a. So now what the fuck? Carbuerator? Fuckin a. I had it towed a few hours ago. Sons of bitches. May they all rot in hell. Autobody shops are fucking gold mines dude.

Re:First post, dickheads! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254484)

You should have bought a Land Rover

frist post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254432)

frist post!

Perfect system for that North Pole Wifi Hotspot (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254433)

At least cooling won't be a problem.

Re:Perfect system for that North Pole Wifi Hotspot (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254581)

And here we thought it was global warming that was melting the polar ice caps...

Don't forget! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254926)

Heating for the rest of the tent won't be a problem either!

Re:Perfect system for that North Pole Wifi Hotspot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254938)

My question is can I get a non-fugly edition? Man, it makes my eyes bleed.

XPS review (5, Informative)

shreevatsa (845645) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254440)

Is just that -- a review of Dell's XPS Gen 5, rather than a review of Intel's dual core, actually. Still,I guess there's a bit about dualcore.

HP taking orders for dualcore opterons already (5, Informative)

Ledskof (169553) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254443)

HP was, and still is taking orders for Dualcore Opterons systems:
http://theinquirer.net/?article=22553 [theinquirer.net]

No thanks (4, Insightful)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254448)

I still haven't found anything that truely taxes my existing 3.2ghz P4. Games push the video card, not the CPU... I'm sure servers could benefit, but I don't see a major improvement in end user experience for these gaming systems.

Re:No thanks (1)

grennis (344262) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254468)

So says the guy who can't afford it...

Re:No thanks (4, Insightful)

selectspec (74651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254476)

Don't forget memory bandwidth and disk I/O as bottlenecks for most desktop apps. Obviously network bottlenecks are the most obvious, but disk I/O is a big pain (think about boot time and launching apps). For games and such, increasing memory bandwidth and system bus speeds would greatly improve performance over adding additional cores.

Dual cores are great for servers and embedded systems, but not sure about typical desktops.

Multitasking would be great for my desktop! (3, Insightful)

3770 (560838) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254661)

Oh man,

I can't wait to get dual cores on my desktop. And to me the biggest advantages are responsiveness and better multitasking.

I really dislike how unresponsive my computer gets when I'm doing something computationally intensive, such as maybe ripping a CD.

I would also love it if my firewall and antivirus protection could be offloaded to another processor.

Re:Multitasking would be great for my desktop! (2, Insightful)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254760)

I seriously hope this post was intended to be "+5 Funny" but got modded wrong! Ripping a CD is CPU intensive? Crap, using error correction (slows down the pull from the cd) I can rip in real time to AAC (I use iTunes) and still have AVG running and still browse the web and still have OpenOffice Writer up and still have Gaim running too. All of this on a 1.83ghz single core Athlon XP-mobile.

Re:Multitasking would be great for my desktop! (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254830)

Ripping a CD isn't overly taxing, but on my home system I often run two concurrent Windows 2000 Pro virtual machines on a Windows XP host (see also : VMware) and have one instance decrypting the files off of a DVD onto the hard drive, while the other instance compressing 4G~8G of data in DVD format down to 700M of .avi format.

That is CPU intensive.
Not sure the system would even be responsive enough to open a browser if it didn't have HyperThreading.

Re:Multitasking would be great for my desktop! (1)

golgotha007 (62687) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255015)

Wow, it takes two seperate windows virtual machines to do that?

And people are here crying about their anti-virus and firewall sucking up all their cpu power in their windows machines?

I use winxp to play a game here and there, but for productivity, what the hell, does windows really suck that bad?

Well, maybe a bad example (1)

3770 (560838) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254891)

It wasn't meant to be +5 funny, but maybe it deserved a +5 clueless. I was just trying to make a point about multitasking.

A more accurate example for me would be that I enjoy playing EQ2 and at the same time I'd like to have the following programs running:

1) Teamspeak
2) Symantec Antivirus (not because I really need it while gaming, but because I don't want to turn it on and off).
3) iTunes (I like music)
4) My software firewall
5) I've got two screens and in one screen I browse for quest stuff and read the guild boards.

In some of these cases I don't want the other programs to ruin my gaming experience.

In some cases I don't want EQ2 to make my program unusable (such as maybe my browser on the second screen).

Re:Multitasking would be great for my desktop! (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254803)

If ripping a CD is computationally intensive, I'd suggest making sure DMA mode is on. Being serious now, I think you might be better served by reducing the priority of the encoding program.

If firewall and antivirus protection take a noticible dent in performance, then maybe it's time to look for more efficient programs.

I want dual core, but not for just wasting CPU on inefficient programs or to make up for a bad scheduler. I had a dual CPU system a couple years ago, it was very nice despite being five years old then. I think part of the difference is that it was one of the earliest dual channel memory systems to be found on an x86, it was a ServerWorks II chipset with 500MHz Xeon CPUs. My dad needed a new computer so I bought a faster system for video encoding, only to find out that it was the software that was crap and very inefficient.

Re:Multitasking would be great for my desktop! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254870)

I can't wait to get dual cores on my desktop. And to me the biggest advantages are responsiveness and better multitasking.

I would also love it if my firewall and antivirus protection could be offloaded to another processor.

I'm not taking the piss here, and I'm going to get flamed to fuck, but have you tried Linux? For normal desktop use it's a hell of a lot more responsive than XP, if that's what you're after.

Re:No thanks (0, Flamebait)

Dragoon412 (648209) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254742)

If I had points, I'd mod you up.

There is absolutely no reason any gamer should even be considering a dual-core CPU. I can understand Dell selling these things in workstations, but Alienware? Don't they sell excessively overpriced gaming systems full of gimmicky garbage to woefully underinformed consumers? ...on second thought, dual-core is a perfect fit for Alienware. ;)

Seriously, though, some of these reviewers, especially the one linked the the article, need a good, swift kick to the groin. Games are almost universally single threaded these days. Spending $1000 or so on a dual-core P4EE is going to lead to drastically worse performance in gaming than a run-of-the-mill, say, 3.2ghz P4. ...not like any self-respecting gamers are buying Intel these days, anyways. ;)

Anyways, good post - dual-core can have some solid benefits on the workstation end of things, but as far as gaming goes, they should be avoided. I mean, if you're a gamer and you need to go for a gimmick, get SLI. At least you get a benefit to spending all that money, then.

Re:No thanks (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254851)

Actually, a 3.2GHz dual core P4 (the P4EE dual core) should perform just as well or slightly better on single threaded apps as a 3.2GHz single core chip does. The reason I say it might perform better is that there are OS and I/O threads that can be assigned to the second CPU.

The benchmarks look pretty impressive, the 3.2GHz dual core compares reasonably favorably against the 3.72GHz single core computer they tested it against. I didn't scrutinize the results yet though.

Re:No thanks (1)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254872)

Spending $1000 or so on a dual-core P4EE is going to lead to drastically worse performance in gaming than a run-of-the-mill, say, 3.2ghz P4. ...not like any self-respecting gamers are buying Intel these days, anyways.

Drastically worse ?, I guess it depends on the speed of cores in the DC (Dual Core) chip, if they are individually slower than 3.2 GHz then yeah you probably would see worse performance. However it is worth bearing in mind that most OS's can make use of two processors by using one to run the OS and another to run an application.

So if the cores in the DC chip are both 3.2 GHz (I know there not at the moment but hypothetically) then performance would actually increase slightly because you have a core dedicated to the system and a core dedicated to game.

I agree with you that no serious gamer should be thinking of running out and buying a DC chip right now. However the only reason that games are single threaded is because almost all PC's use a single core CPU, once they start becoming a bit more common developers will start taking advantage of it.

Also others have pointed out that 3.2 GHz chips are rarely stretched at the moment anyway so it could be possible to see a slower DC chip coupled with increased IO and Memory bandwidth outperform an existing single core CPU.

Basically what I am saying is that like all bleeding edge technologies this does have the potential to make games faster/prettier/sound better/etc.

Re:No thanks (3, Insightful)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254490)

burn many dvd's?

Every try to play a game while encoding a dvd?

watch a different video while encoding a dvd?

I look forward to it like you can't believe.

Re:No thanks (2, Insightful)

rpozz (249652) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254725)

So it's worth buying an insanely expensive CPU so you can encode DVDs while doing something else? Unless you do an awful lot of DVD encoding it seems like a waste of money to me. Better spending that money elsewhere.

The original poster was correct. A >= 3GHz P4 or any AMD64 will be more than enough for normal games as long as you have a decent graphics card. And yes, that includes Doom 3.

Re:No thanks (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254855)

Well, I was giving what I thought would be more common tasks..

Yes, I'm transcoding video 99% of the time I'm not sitting in front of my computer..

I'd prefer to transcode 99% of the time.-- i spend a lot of time in front of my computer.

Re:No thanks (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254888)

sorry- and I don't intend to buy a firstgen cpu for this purpose, at this time. I'll wait a couple of iterations- today I would buy a 2.4 pIV instead of a 3.6 EE I don't have that kinda budget-

but I look forward to the development, and buying a first gen dual core after a few more series are out..

Re:No thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12255282)

Sorry, I transcode just fine on a AMD 2200 while using it...if u need it to be faster, it would be cheaper to build a new system just for transcoding....buying a dell for this shows you are a newbie with no idea what you are doing.

Re:No thanks (2, Insightful)

fshalor (133678) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254511)

PLay a game while burning Mp3's... That will *kill* your single core.

Do it with the dual core 3.2's and you'll better game performance witlh encoding. Though sliughtly less than with the single core and single task.

IMO, these aren't a sub for dual procs yet. But there' promising enough to give them a cost challange soon. And ther'e obviously better than single procs for any intensive cpu tasks that a user needs to do (not just wants for the money) while still having their computer usable.

I just m$ doesn't take advantage of this for more eye candy crap.

Re:No thanks (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254660)

"PLay a game while burning Mp3's... That will *kill* your single core."

Could somebody explain why burning takes so much CPU power? When you are burning, you are just copying data to the CD at very low speed (for example 16x burning speed corresponds to 2.4MB/s). Why would this require a fast CPU?

No it won't (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254741)

PLay a game while burning Mp3's... That will *kill* your single core.

That's completely wrong, I've played MMOs for years, all with sound off and winamp in the background.

Re:No thanks (1)

Ziviyr (95582) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254985)

PLay a game while burning Mp3's... That will *kill* your single core.

Make sure DMA is enabled on your burner/harddrives.

*kill* is the proper word too...

Don't Worry (3, Funny)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254586)

MS already has plans for your second core.

HP Printer Drivers (1, Offtopic)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254601)

I just bought an HP-4250. It's a laser printer that, when the planets align, can pump out 45 pages/minute. The driver for it can bring any machine to its knees though. I've got an A64/3200+ with half a gig of RAM and when I fire off a large print task, I may as well go do something else - there aren't any cpu cycles left to speak of.

I suppose they gave the task of upgrading the driver to a summer intern or outsourced it to someone who didn't give a damn about HP's reputation. I've considered getting a dual core box but the idea of upgrading the hardware because some idiot didn't know how to write a printer driver properly just doesn't sit too well.

Re:No thanks (3, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254702)

I still haven't found anything that truely taxes my existing 3.2ghz P4.

They said the same thing about the 386/25 way back when. Don't worry, the software will catch up.

Re:No thanks (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254904)

"I still haven't found anything that truely taxes my existing 3.2ghz P4. Games push the video card, not the CPU... I'm sure servers could benefit, but I don't see a major improvement in end user experience for these gaming systems."

Indeed. I've found that loading up on memory is far more effective at increasing system responsiveness. I've noticed that Windows is a bit worse at dealing with CPU hogs than Linux, so it probably benefits from dual cores more, but my Linux system is quite modest (P4 2.4 ghz, 1 gb memory) and it does everything I want simultaneously without responsiveness problems.

It would encode stuff faster, but my encoding needs are modest and I don't sit there watching it when it's going. I do something else because it doesn't make the computer unresponsive...

Of course... I'm not saying these things are useless. Some people do need very fast computers for whatever reason, and they're generally prepared to pay for that.

So much for the AMD threats (4, Insightful)

hazee (728152) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254452)

What a massive co-incidence that Dell threatened (again) to look at supplying AMD chips just days ago. Not.

I wonder if the threats did them any good, or if Intel have now got so used to the cries of wolf that they called Dell's bluff? Intel probably told Dell to shut the hell up or miss out on the launch.

Re:So much for the AMD threats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254599)

What a massive co-incidence that Dell threatened (again) to look at supplying AMD chips just days ago. Not.

I wonder if the threats did them any good, or if Intel have now got so used to the cries of wolf that they called Dell's bluff? Intel probably told Dell to shut the hell up or miss out on the launch.


yo, dell was fronting. if they hadn't said that, then today they'd look even more like they was just one of intel's b*tches.

intresting looking on the inside.. (2, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254454)

pic [pcmag.com] .

but 4000 bucks.. well, it SHOULD be impressing.

but seriously though.. it seems like a "thank you mates! were so happy we actually GOT this thing and not having to just do a paper review on your paper launch".
just check these:
"
Subratings (out of 100):
Video: 100
Gaming: 100
Music: 100
Photo: 100
"
ok.

Re:intresting looking on the inside.. (2, Insightful)

Slack3r78 (596506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254548)

Actually, if I were spending $4000 on a computer, I'd be annoyed to see IDE cables. For that price, I'd *expect* Plextor SATA optical drives, but that's just me. :-P

Same casing as the PowerEdge SC1420 (1)

Erik_ (183203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254842)

That picture of the Dell XPS Gen5 uses the same casing as the PowerEdge SC1420.

100% for Gaming? NOT! (5, Insightful)

Brian Stretch (5304) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254458)

The system doesn't quite hit the perfect 60+ frames per second score in Doom 3 at 1,600-by-1,200, but no single graphics card solution has so far, and 40 fps is still quite playable.

Yeah, but Athlon 64 SLI graphics card solutions have. Oddly enough, PCMag only directly compares this Intel Pentium EE 840 box with an Intel Pentium 4 EE 3.73GHz box. Any hard-core gamer who buys an Intel dual-core machine to play his SINGLE-THREADED GAMES instead of an Athlon 64 dual video card SLI box is beyond hope. Torch your money responsibly, kids.

Dell and Intel get 100% from PCMag for "Best Bribes Paid". Geeze.

Re:100% for Gaming? NOT! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254489)

Yeah, but Athlon 64 SLI graphics card solutions have

Oddly enough, Pentium 4 SLI graphics card solutions have too!

Gee, what does the chip have to do with the capability of the fact that this was a single video card box?

Re:100% for Gaming? NOT! (1)

rpozz (249652) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254933)

To get SLI on an Intel CPU, you need an nVidia chipset. Given Dell's relationship with Intel it could be that Dell are either forced to use Intel chipsets, or gets them very cheaply.

Re:100% for Gaming? NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254526)

Yeah, but Athlon 64 SLI graphics card solutions have. Oddly enough, PCMag only directly compares this Intel Pentium EE 840 box with an Intel Pentium 4 EE 3.73GHz box. Any hard-core gamer who buys an Intel dual-core machine to play his SINGLE-THREADED GAMES instead of an Athlon 64 dual video card SLI box is beyond hope. Torch your money responsibly, kids.

I thought a version of nForce4 was available for pentium now. So won't it be possible to use SLI with Pentium EE 840?

(If this is a naive question, sorry... I've never seriously considered wasting [$$$] on dual graphics cards, let alone a Pentium EE!)

Re:100% for Gaming? NOT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254663)

why go 64 for 32-BIT GAMES

An improvement (3, Interesting)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254464)

over their regular single CPU offerings for those of us that run multiple apps, but I truly would like to see the real heat/performance numbers, and whether the rumored performance throttling is enabled on these. If not, how bad is the heat generation?

From what I've read up to now, AMD's solution will outperform Intel's offering with significantly lower heat dissappation, making it a double winner. However, testing shipping units will finally quantify these processors. Can't wait for AMD's unit to ship and get compared.

Re:An improvement (1)

dynamol (867859) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254638)

In many setting we don't care abuot the heat....just raw performance. The heat issue is of concern of course..just that when it comes to serious computation you only care about the processing performance....now for home users heat/electrcity becomes a much bigger concern...also I guess if you are building a 2000 node cluster...then the extra heat would translate into significant costs... just my worthless 0.025431343 cents worth.

Re:An improvement (2, Insightful)

Homology (639438) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254718)

In many setting we don't care abuot the heat....just raw performance. The heat issue is of concern of course..just that when it comes to serious computation you only care about the processing performance....now for home users heat/electrcity becomes a much bigger concern...also I guess if you are building a 2000 node cluster...then the extra heat would translate into significant costs... just my worthless 0.025431343 cents worth.

for the rest...of us...that care about stability...heat is an issue...as well...as...the required...cooling...does makes it sound...like my vacuum cleaner...only louder...This translate into....considerable costs...due to reduced concentration while...actually....trying...to do some...work.

Re:An improvement (1)

gnuLNX (410742) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255020)

I guess I have gotten used to the hum. So much so that it is almost meditative to me.

I don't understand what you mean by stability issues. We run a small 16 node cluster of P4 3.2's pretty much non stop and they never seem to go down. Cooling is certainly an issue in the cluster room (aka my office). However it just means that the rest of the office is cooler from the AC.

BTW. You should work on the art of ... placement. your comment read like you were retarded.

Re:An improvement (1)

Homology (639438) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255184)

BTW. You should work on the art of ... placement. your comment read like you were retarded.

BTW, it's common to quote a parent post by using italics. Once you've aware of that you may try read my post once again. Perhaps you'll understand why I used "..." excessively. But then you are just a troll [slashdot.org]

Hit the Market... It's so meaningless (5, Insightful)

SuperficialRhyme (731757) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254493)

These are hitting the market but won't be shipped for a few weeks - or so I gather from what I read in TFAs. By "Hit the market" they seem to mean "vendors are taking orders" which - to me - seems meaningless.

AMD claims not to do this in one of the articles:
""'t is important to note that AMD only announces products when we are able to immediately begin shipping for revenue and that we have been shipping dual-core AMD Opteron processor production samples to customers and partners since January,' the statement added."

I guess we'll just have to see if AMD actually has products available at their release or if they're just doing the same thing Intel seems to be doing here.

HP already is selling dual core Opterons (2, Interesting)

charnov (183495) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254611)

HP has dual core Opterons in blade servers. You really have to dig through their website, but availibility was listed as 4/14...now shipping dates could months from now, so who knows.

Re:HP already is selling dual core Opterons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254782)

Shipping is expected within two weeks. The Inq linq [theinquirer.net] .

Can't wait for the Intel dual-core vs AMD dual-core server benchmarks and comparisons. How about a dual dual-core opteron machine vs a quad xeon... haha... man, this is going to get hilarious.

AMD IS TEH ROX0RS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254504)

INTEL SI FOR RICH FAGGORTS who donut play games
amd is teh best evar for games, even jerry has oen!

ok, enough jeffk.

all those biased amd benchmarks you see are not indicative of real world gameplay. EVERYONE has multiple apps open in the background working away while playing a game or multitasking, not a stripped down version of windows only used for benchmarking.

Buy AMD if you want inflated benchmark numbers. Buy Intel if you want a real world multitasking capable CPU.

XBox (0, Offtopic)

0kComputer (872064) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254591)

Is this the same "Dual Core" that will be featured in the XBox? If so I wonder what percentage of the "millions" of chips anticipated to ship will go into the XBox 360 or whatever its called.

Re:XBox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254647)

I was under the impression the xbox 360 was going to be using PPC970 derrivatives. The rumors I've heard were 3x 3ghz chips although I do find that hard to believe.

Re:XBox (3, Informative)

rpozz (249652) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254791)

Yes. The next Nintendo console will be PowerPC-based, and the PS3 will use the Cell, which is PowerPC-based (I think). The PS3 also claims to be using multiple CPUs.

What I can't understand is how these companies are planning to deal with the enormous amount of heat that will be dissipated from a multi-CPU system, and not make the console sound like a jet engine at the same time. Anyone able to shed any light on that?

Re:XBox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12255268)

3x3GHz SMT PPC derivatives, to be exact.

Those things will be demons. Cell is all hype. Those are proven monsters...

Re:XBox (3, Informative)

taskforce (866056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254749)

No, the Xbox uses POWER based cores.

CPU - Xenon's CPU has three 3.0 GHz PowerPC cores. Each core is capable of two instructions per cycle and has an L1 cache with 32 KB for data and 32 KB for instructions. The three cores share 1 MB of L2 cache. Alpha 2 developer kits currently have two cores instead of three.

Here are the other specs. GPU - Xenon's GPU is a generation beyond the ATI X800. Its clock speed is 500 MHz and it supports Shader 3.0. Developers are currently working with an alpha 2 GPU. Beta GPU units are expected by May and the final GPU is slated for a summer release. The final GPU will be more powerful than anything on the market today; in game terms, it would handle a game like Half-Life 2 with ease. System Memory - Xenon will have 256 MB of system RAM. Keep in mind that this number should not be equated to typical PC RAM. The Xbox has 64 MB of system RAM and is a very capable machine. Optical Drive - As many have speculated, Xenon will not use Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Games will come on dual-layer DVD-9 discs. While the media is the same as that of the current Xbox, the usable space on each disc is up to 7 GB. The drive is slated to run at 12X. Memory Units - Xenon will use 64 MB to 1,024 MB memory cards. 8 MB is reserved for system use, leaving a 56 MB to 1,016 MB for user data. Hard Drive - As many have speculated, Xenon's hard drive is optional. 2 GB of the drive will be used as game cache. The final drive size is still being determined. Camera - Xenon will have a USB 2.0 camera. It's capable of 1.2 megapixel still shots and VGA video. Photos can be used in-game and for gamer profiles. The camera can also be used for video chat. It's unknown if the Xenon camera will allow for EyeToy-like gameplay. Developers are currently using a simulated camera driver. Sound Chip - Xenon does not have an audio chip in the traditional sense. Decompression is handled by hardware, while the rest of the chores are handled by software. DirectSound3D has been dropped in favor of X3DAudio. The former was deemed too inflexible.

If anything these will be more like the DualCore G5s comming up in the the future for the PowerMac G5s.

Re:XBox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12255191)

Sounds nice and all, but unless this thing isn't coming out until 2008, then I don't see how they can offer this at a decent price.

Have you seen the price of an X800 card alone? It's like $450CDN. So this thing is gonna be a gen beyond that, plus have THREE Power cores, AND be in a console gamer's budget?

This all sounds like a gamer's fantasy, not reality.

Apple is already there (1, Interesting)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254610)

Dimension XPS desktop, which start at $2,999

Now Apple already has a dual processor system in the marketplace. Just took a look at a dual 2.5GHz G5 model the other day. It was obvious it is a quality machine as it was quiet and smoking hot fast. And runs a stable OS with all the features one could want.

Nothing wrong with Dell systems, but they are over priced... The Apple has an OS designed for MP and is RISC based, and I suspect much faster than say a dual Intel Xeon at twice the price.

Imagine what a dual core, dual processor (G5 970MP) systems will be like!!! You might want to keep any eye on Apple for this.

Re:Apple is already there (1)

taskforce (866056) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254708)

Dual Processors are not new, Dual Core on the same die is, and that is what's being raved about. Apple only recently moved into Dual CPUs with the G5, whereas dual CPUs on home computers have been around since the days of the Pentium II. Apple has yet to release a G5 with dual cores on the same die, probably because of heat issues. (The G5 is the one home CPU which is actually worse heatwise than a Presc-hot)

Re:Apple is already there (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254820)

I've been talking with a friend of mine's dad who worked for a major chip manufacturer for a long time. Multi-core processors were being expiremented with back in the late 80's. Peecee users just wouldn't have bought it back then.

Re:Apple is already there (1)

Wingsy (761354) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254893)

"Apple only recently moved into Dual CPUs with the G5, whereas dual CPUs on home computers have been around since the days of the Pentium II." Pardon me, but Apple had a dual 604e (the PowerMac 9600) way way back in Feb 1997. Like 8 years ago. And they have been doing dualies ever since. And, btw, "verified" rumors (if there is such a thing) have it that Apple will be shipping dual-core G5s in the next PM upgrade, to be announced sometime this month. Personally, I fully expect dual duals to be on their roster by Sept.

Dual Pentium & Dual PentiumPro... (1)

Erik_ (183203) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254912)

And I was playing Descent on Dual PentriumPro in 1995... so ? There where even Dual Pentium I motherboards then...

Re:Apple is already there (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255116)

I had a Dell dual Pentium desktop long before that.

Apple got into duals because the PPC line couldn't keep up with Intel's offerings. It didn't really matter at the time because Apple's OS couldn't actually support MP just like it didn't offer protected memory, virtual memory or preemptive multitasking. The only thing that could use it was Photoshop (thus the famous lies-err-benchmarks).

You really shouldn't brag about Apple's MP capability. It's more of an embarrassment than anything---current OSX/G5 solutions excluded. The Windows and Unix worlds have been far ahead of Apple on that until recently.

Re:Apple is already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254721)

Why would I have to keep "any [sic] eye on Apple" if they're "already there"?

What's so interesting about this post? Intel comes out with dual-core processors, and it's interesting that Apple has dual-PROCESSOR systems?

Talk about halo effect.

Apple irrelevant. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254800)

He's an apple zealot. You can't expect too much from those.

Re:Apple is already there (1, Informative)

SuperQ (431) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254726)

Are you slow or something?

Dual core != Dual Processor

Besides, there have been dual core Power4 systems, dual core mips chips for a while now.. this is only new for x86 desktop systems.

Re:Apple is already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254849)

Yeah! Half-Life 2 will play really well!

Re:Apple is already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254871)

Now Apple already has a dual processor system in the marketplace

And.... Intel has had one since at least 1992. I remember seeing a dual-processor 486DX/2 66mhz on sale for around $10k. What this article is about is dual-core processors, not dual-processor computers.

Re:Apple is already there (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254991)

"The Apple has an OS designed for MP..."

WinXP isn't designed for MP? At least MS has had some practice with MP, preemptive multitasking and virtual memory. BSD isn't famous for its MP support.

"and is RISC based..."

So what? It's the performance that matters.

"...and I suspect much faster than say a dual Intel Xeon at twice the price."

You can't read the benchmarks for yourself? It's not as though the G5 is a secret. The dual G5 performs well---comparable but not superior to Intel and AMD DP machines. Your pricing is out of line as well.

Re:Apple is already there (-1, Flamebait)

NonAnonymousCoward78 (785634) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254993)

You complain that Dell is over priced while singing the praises of Apple in the same breath? How very amusing! I can't believe you even presume to be serious about this.

Re:Apple is already there (4, Informative)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255153)

You complain that Dell is over priced while singing the praises of Apple in the same breath? How very amusing! I can't believe you even presume to be serious about this.

At $2999 for the Dell, and $2999 for a dual G5 2.5GHz from Apple, I would say Apple has the value here. But if you rather, you can buy the Dell... I am saving my pennies for the Apple.

Re:Apple is already there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12255237)

Ok, you're trying to equate speed with "RISC". That comparison and argument stopped being relevent since sometime during the mid-90's.

If Apple is still feeding that lie to people in order to sell machines, their marketing dept is even scummier than I thought.

Sun's been shipping dual-cores for a while now... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254612)

The UltraSparcIV is a dual-core chip. Been shipping for quite a while now - maybe even more than a year.

And just like the first UltraSparcs from about a decade ago, it's also fully 64-bit....

Re:Sun's been shipping dual-cores for a while now. (1)

platypus (18156) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254879)

The ironic thing is though that the Sparc IV gets destroyed by the single core AMD and Intel offerings, not to mention the IBM POWER (dual core) CPUs. For Sun, going dual core was just limitation of damage.

The biggest benefit of dual core... (2, Insightful)

JollyFinn (267972) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254639)

Is not the single thread performance or how fast can you finish task X.
Its responsiveness of the system. I'm using A64 3000 and I get annoying stalls on system level.
The CPU spends time with the backside thread, while I would love it working on UI, there is annoying stall. Multiple CPU:s according to reviews remove those issues. And don't say having 20% higher processor clock speed is going to help, its by simple fact that CPU was just doing something else at a time I would of loved it to handle UI events. Having 2 cores means, that responsiveness of a system is greatly improved, atleast until people write most of their applications to tie up more than one core ;)

Very true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254894)

And it's the reason why I only buy dual processor motherboards.

It's not about speed, it's about your work not stalling every time that the system needs attention.

I tend to think of it as the kernel being "slippery" on dual processor (and now, dual core) machines ... it sort of slides around and stays out of the way.

Another way of looking at it is that the operating system really needs its own processor ... anything else is a compromise, and suboptimal.

Re:The biggest benefit of dual core... (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254925)

It is responsiveness of the system, and scalability of tasks.
Granted, a SMP box doesn't run any faster than a single CPU machine, but run two tasks in parallel and that's where the difference happens.

Honestly I could care less about comparing this to single CPU machines (because HyperThreading already solves that issue) - the real difference I am interested in is comparing the performance of identical setups, one with a HyperThreaded CPU and the other with one of these new dual core chips.

use "nice" & "chrt" to modify scheduling prio (2, Informative)

free2 (851653) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255005)

"nice" was meant for this.

With Linux you can also use "chrt" to specify that some task is "realtime": it will always get as much scheduling as it wants (make sure it will not loop endlessly though).

Pfft (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254672)

This Article lacks a lot of detail, and sounds more like a "advert" than a benchmark/test article.

Now if I were to spend $3,999US on a new computer, I would bloody expect one that PERFORMS remarkebly.

His mentioning of how a anti-virus and firewall can bring your computer the " slow their computers to a crawl" I can't say I have had that problem in years. And usally a good system tuneup/clean out/tuneup fixes the problem.

Your computer will run all your trojans/malware/virus's on one cpu while leaving enough "oomph" to play doom 3 or halo.

Re:Pfft (1)

mnemotronic (586021) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254865)

His mentioning of how a anti-virus and firewall can bring your computer the " slow their computers to a crawl" I can't say I have had that problem in years. And usally a good system tuneup/clean out/tuneup fixes the problem.
Well, not all of us can afford the latest multi-giga-hurts processor upgrade every few months. Since you can, rock on. My 2.4Ghz system at work is noticably slower running McAfee Enterprise (the AV required by our I.T. department for any computer plugged into the network). I really hate the concept that I need an entire friggin' processor (and support electronics) just to run AV. And why? Because I'm using Windoze. Someday Linux may run all my apps, but not yet. Someday Win2095 may be secure, but not yet. Someday the virus writers may turn their energies and intellect to something more constructive, like a cure for AIDS or cancer, but not yet.

Re:Pfft (1)

birder (61402) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254923)

Trying using ProcessTamer to stop apps from hogging the cpu.

http://www.donationcoder.com/Software/Mouser/pro ct amer/index.html

Re:Pfft (1)

mnemotronic (586021) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255079)

Ok, I checked it out (I found it at snapfiles [snapfiles.com] ) I don't know what good a process "balancer" will do. Let's take the case where I click on an EXE, which may or may not be infected. The Anti-Virus needs to scan the file after the system opens it, but before the app itself initializes and runs. If the load balancer drops the priority of the AV down, because it's busy scanning, then that will just delay when the app begins. Am I missing something here????

So what?? (2, Interesting)

jarich (733129) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254717)

I've got a dual processor system. They don't cost that much more than a single... you won't pay a premium for a new "dual core" box, but you'll still get all the advantages of a fast responsive system. p. In my opinion, dual cores are for businesses whose rack space is at a premium and gamers with spare money to burn.

Re:So what?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254732)

You stink of slaughtered grannies full of old poo.

Re:So what?? (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255018)

Dual core is a way for processor manufacturers to get the most performance out of a given die size and power/heat budget. The race to market with the first dual cores, OTOH, is about the hype. It really has nothing to do with rack machines and gamers. When transistor counts double in future processes, do you want 10% more computing capability or 2 processors worth of what you have now? The reason for multicore going forward is very clear. Whether it's compelling to buy one now is not.

I can just see the problem (5, Funny)

stewwy (687854) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254735)

winxp to processor1 : please open this window.
P1 to winxp: No I'm busy, ask P2
winxp to P2: open this window
P2 to winxp: ask the other lazy sod
winxp to all: please or I'll BOS
P1 and P2: go on then, we don't care
user: ?

$4k Computing (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12254739)

For four grand, I would rather go pick up a dual 2.5 ghz G5 Powermac and then buy a nice $1k LCD screen...

Re:$4k Computing (1)

Wingsy (761354) | more than 9 years ago | (#12254935)

I second that. At least my 2nd G5 will be doing something productive rather than running a virus checker.

now $5k Computing (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255065)

According to the article, the Dell includes a 20" LCD, a high performance graphics card, a DVD-ROM and a dual layer DVD+-RW, 500GB of disk and 1GB of ram. It may also include the speaker system and has the dual TV tuners. An Apple dual G5 configured that way, though not possible through the Apple store, would cost over $5000. $5K at Apple gets you the memory, disk, monitor, video card and base system without the speakers, TV tuners or similar optical drives. The Apple G5 is 30-35% more money than the Dell.

Re:now $5k Computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12255276)

If you buy 1000 G5's or 1000 Dell's, you'll see the difference.

Within a year 25% to 33% of the Dell's will have a hardware failure of some sort, but the almost 100% of the G5's will be running strong.

That money goes for something, you just have to be smart enough to know what it is (hint, reliability). Blindly taking the lowest bid, like the government, is just stupid.

I don't get it (1, Interesting)

Dolda2000 (759023) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255081)

What all this "news" about Intel suddenly doing dual-core? Isn't that what HyperThreading has been doing for, what is it, a year now?

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12255157)

Nope. Get a clue.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Beatlebum (213957) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255185)

No, hyperthreading only replicates the CPU Architectural State, which is the registers but not the processing pipeline. With hyper-threading the context switch between threads is speeded up, but no parallel processing occurs. In a dual-core chip instructions are executed in parallel by the cores.

For some applications hyper-threading slows down processing, and that is why Dell ships HT machines with HT turned off.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Zebadias (861722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255202)

HT has to share out the resorses of one CPU eg the cashe. Dual core means 2X the resorses for 2 CPU's

Re:I don't get it (3, Informative)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255206)

I don't get it

Yes, you obviously don't. Hyperthreading is not in any way like a dual processor or dualcore processor. On a HT processor you still can have threads waiting and not doing anything because another thread which is using e.g. the single FPU that the system has. If two computationally heavy threads want to run, they have to wait for their turn on the single FPU. And that is just one example for HT. On dualcore and dual processor systems you have everything doubled, which is a Good Thing.

Dedicated CPU for spyware processing (5, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255138)

With all the spyware running on boxen these days, it's finally nice to have a CPU dedicated to spyware thread processing.

Why should users prevent and remove the stuff when they can just throw more CPU cycles at it just to keep the PC responsive?

And yes, the whole premise behind this is absurd. But people often have and do throw money at a solution out of acts of being lazy/responsible when it comes to system maintenence.

these are desktop systems (1)

little alfalfa (21334) | more than 9 years ago | (#12255250)

Remember, these are desktop processors that Intel is releasing. AMD is slated to release dual core OPTERONS. Those are server cpus, much more important than the puny stuff Intel is putting out.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?