• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel Dual Core Processing

M

Molingrad

Gawd
Joined
Aug 28, 2004
Messages
706
I havent read all that much on dual core CPU's other than thats the next BIG thing. im wondering when it is slated to come out, is it for longhorn only and what exactly is it? I read that its like having 2 CPU's in one.
 
Intel and AMD have dual-core processors slated for mid-2005 release. Will this be pushed back? Most likely.

Dual-core processors aren't really that special. To vastly oversimplify, it's like having one core design and then copy+pasting to form, well, two cores!

In all seriousness, having two cores on one die increases processing density by only needing one socket instead of two, for instance. Desktop computer motherboards, which usually only have room for one socket, can now have the power of two physical processors and meet the sometimes demanding space constraints.

And no, you won't need 'Longhorn' to take advantage of dual-core. You will need an OS that supports multiprocessing though. Windows XP Home doesn't, but XP Professional does, for example.

This doesn't mean that the inherent multi-processor scaling characteristics of a processor architecture are thrown out the window. Intel's current Xeon family have pretty poor scaling abilities because of the shared memory bandwidth pool. This won't go away when dual-core processors arrive, unfortunately.
 
Amd allready has duel core its called Amd 64's anyways intel will release its duel core before the fat lady sings to the new presidental elections.
 
Shane said:
Amd allready has duel core its called Amd 64's anyways intel will release its duel core before the fat lady sings to the new presidental elections.
Click to expand...
Aer yuo durnk?

The AMD46s aernt' duel coree yeti adn we wll heav to wate tll teh fat ladee snigs on tat oen 2!!!1
 
xonik said:
Aer yuo durnk?

The AMD46s aernt' duel coree yeti adn we wll heav to wate tll teh fat ladee snigs on tat oen 2!!!1
Click to expand...

I know there is a message in there somewhere, I just can't see it. Damnit I knew I should of purchased those Secret Decoder Beer Goggles from the Swindle'n'Shaister pawn shop!

But my honest thoughts on dual-core, I think it's overhyped. It'll probably fair a bit better than most 2CPU SMP systems but all in all it's twice the core and probably twice the heat for and for what I do, maybe a 10% boost in performance (pulled that number outta my ass but I feel I'm being generous).

However I'm extremely curious as to how Intel plans to cool a dual core Prescott... Oh well I suppose more incredible things have happened in this world.
 
Eh, there won't be much a performance increase at all, except in applications that are especially sensitive to latency in the inter-processor communication process. It's just a great way to reduce board space and CPU production costs. Multi-core processors will be a boon for blade and thin rackmount servers, if they can handle the cooling, since it increases processing density by a good bit. It's also nice that a single die of two processors can sit on just one physical package, saving on this pesky cost. We could see quad-CPU servers in cases that previously could only accomodate duals, eight-CPU servers that could previously only take quad configurations, etc.
 
I don't really have any hard information about dual-core processors either, but my impressions are that it won't really be 2 prescotts on a die, they are going more toward the Pentium-M although slightly altered (less concerned about reducing power consumption and more concerned with performance). Its supposed to consume less power and produce less heat. As for performance gains, like everyone says that will depend upon software that takes advantage of dual processing probably, although with 2 instruction pipelines and some really funky branch prediction algorithms, I could see how you could make the dual processors transparent to the software and reap the benefits with out the special software. At any rate I don't think it will take game manufacturers long to take advantage of the dual cores once the hardware is out and on the market.
 
There is word about two processors, codenamed Paxville and Dempsey, that will apparently feature two NetBurst/P4 cores on one die. I think that they are the interim solutions before the dual core Pentium M/P6 processors are ready. Here is some information:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17906
 
Just F.Y.I there's a thread on AMD's dual core technologies here: AMD Dual Cores

After reading both articles, I'm looking forward to AMD's dual core solution much more then I am Intels. Intels seems to be more of 'Slap what we can together as long as it works' Meaning, as long as it works, screw the heat requirments and power consumption. AMD seems to be more focused on actually making a ... 'refined' dual core chip.
 
Once intel starts losing money they'll start getting their crap together and make better products. Their roadmap for next year doesn't look impressive. 2mb L2 cache. Thats nothing but a bandaid solution to compete with AMD. if you really consider P4 any real competition. heh.
 
xonik said:
And no, you won't need 'Longhorn' to take advantage of dual-core. You will need an OS that supports multiprocessing though. Windows XP Home doesn't, but XP Professional does, for example.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure on that one. I can't remember where I read it, but AMD is suppose to change the ID string so that the chip shows up as an SMT capable chip or some jazz... Not dual CPU license.

Of course, this is all rumors, so no one knows, just passing one of the rumors around. It would be pretty crappy to get a quad core processor only to have the system boot and recognize two processors... oops, XP Pro isn't good enough, you must buy Server now. As the industry seems to be going that way, I'm betting they'll have to attach the CPU licensing structure to the number of sockets and not the number of CPU cores.
 
Galvin said:
Once intel starts losing money they'll start getting their crap together and make better products. Their roadmap for next year doesn't look impressive. 2mb L2 cache. Thats nothing but a bandaid solution to compete with AMD. if you really consider P4 any real competition. heh.
Click to expand...

Haha, I can't find this but somewhat amusing. Intel is nowhere near losing money. Yes amd has made gains on the P4, and the opteron on the xeon, but everywhere else things are peachy. Plus you probably don't realize intel is kicking amd's ass in flash. So intel is nowhere near getting it handed to them by amd.

They made a few mistakes by making their pipe too long and now they are paying for it. However, don't think for one minute that intel is sitting around just trying to rehash old designs. They are definately persuing new technologies. However, these take a lot of time to implement. So in the short term they have a heat plate of a prescott.

Now on subject with the dual core idea. Dual cores will offer an advantage over dual processor. The cores can share cache and can directly communicate w/o using the bus. This greatly speeds up things. Also, people are starting to write better and more parallel code. Sure, games will be one of the last things to get converted over, but it will happen in due time.
 
I go where the performance is. Anyway in dual core if the OS runs on one core and the apps on another core think that will improve speed a lot?

I didn't say intel was losing money but they are just not really doing anything really inovative in the cpu market. After 10+ years of intel I just dont feel like they are making as a good of cpu product like they did in the earlier days.

Intel has so much money it dont matter if they have a slower product as long as people beleive in mhz is everything crap intel will sell well :)
 
I didn't say intel was losing money but they are just not really doing anything really inovative in the cpu market. After 10+ years of intel I just dont feel like they are making as a good of cpu product like they did in the earlier days.
Click to expand...

I agree. If Intel wants to kick AMD's ass, it could, that's why I don't understand why they aren't. Intel has made some of the best products to date, but with Prescott and AM64 Intel isn't as inovative. They're trying to just keep up to pace with AMD. It remindes me of when ATI released the 9700 and Nvidia luached the FX line. ATI=AMD Nvidia=Intel. Until Intel actually releases a new kind of core technology beyond NetBurst, they're not going to get anywhere.
 
To me, dual core chips are a big boon for servers. Not a big impact on home users. A 2GHz dual core chip isnt equal to one 4GHz chip, yea you could really rip a CD and play Doom 3 at the same time, but its not as big of a deal when you compare home-style usage to the impact dual cores could have on server-style usage patterns. Now the enthusiasts will want one of course, myself included, but my mom surely doesnt need one.
 
0ldman said:
I'm not sure on that one. I can't remember where I read it, but AMD is suppose to change the ID string so that the chip shows up as an SMT capable chip or some jazz... Not dual CPU license
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll buy that. It's a possibility. I guess it's even possible for the two core design to work transparently as far as the OS goes--you know, have only one processor show up, and a very powerful one at that.
 
The more I think about it the more the transparency idea makes sense, immediate impact without big software changes and perhaps with Hyper Threading technology under their belts Intel may have some advantage in this type of implementation.
 
doormat said:
To me, dual core chips are a big boon for servers. Not a big impact on home users. A 2GHz dual core chip isnt equal to one 4GHz chip, yea you could really rip a CD and play Doom 3 at the same time, but its not as big of a deal when you compare home-style usage to the impact dual cores could have on server-style usage patterns. Now the enthusiasts will want one of course, myself included, but my mom surely doesnt need one.
Click to expand...

If we were to use the home-usage argument, then no implementation of new ideas will be beneficial in any other respect over how fast Internet Exploder loads, I think that dual-core chips will be a strong selling pitch in modern OEM dealers, and even if it is a gimmick, it still would be some improvement over whats available now. And, it emphasises(sp) the multi-tasking workspace, which may (or may not) make home-users more effecient.*

*I'm probably talking out of my ass here, if I am, please let me know
:cool:
 
The time it takes to load IE is a mute point by now, and has been for quite a while. Now the point is, can I Decrypt a DVD movie, Rip a CD while playing DOOM3 ('cause, they both take some time to do)... How fast will IE load when I'm doing all that? I personally am the type of person who likes to do 5 things at once, play a game, talk on IM, surf the forums and listen to music. Right now, it's a pain in the ass to try to do all of those at the same time, expesialy when I try to open IE, or another program or twon. That's why i'm waiting for dual cores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top