• 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.

Quadcore - when?

P

perplex

Gawd
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
773
OK so when is Intel's quadcore CPUs hitting the market? Merom? Conroe? 2007?
 
Merom and Conroe are dual core.

Intel is supposed to have the "Tanglewood" Itanium next year with 8 to 16 cores. Whitefield is a 2-4 core Xeon, due in the 2nd half of 2006. Intel hasn't released >2 core desktop details yet. AMD mentioned 4 months ago that they were releasing quad core Opterons in 2007, but hasn't announced desktop quad core plans either.
 
Wow, if I were deciding on a name for my 4+ core processor, something indicating my incredible expertise at integrating 4 cores into a single chip, "Tanglewood" would not be my first choice... :p
 
insanarchist said:
Wow, if I were deciding on a name for my 4+ core processor, something indicating my incredible expertise at integrating 4 cores into a single chip, "Tanglewood" would not be my first choice... :p
Click to expand...

If the temperature continues like intel's current dual cores, carbonwoon might be a more suitable name.
 
insanarchist said:
"Tanglewood" would not be my first choice... :p
Click to expand...
It was Intel's first choice. I forgot that Intel renamed it Tukwila over a year ago. :eek:

----
Montecito, Intel's 90nm dual core Itanium 2 runs around 100W. Future multi-core CPUs doesn't necessarily mean far higher power. Look at Yonah (around 30W), Merom (around 35W) and Conroe (65W).
 
serbiaNem said:
If the temperature continues like intel's current dual cores, carbonwoon might be a more suitable name.
Click to expand...

Eh, as long as stock cooling can handle it, who cares how hot it runs? I don't care if my chip eats 500 watts and runs at 212 degrees, as long as intel packages it with a heat sink that works, and it is fast, I am down.

Then again, my apartment complex has electrical included with the rent, so I don't really need to care...
 
ChronicTrees said:
Hehe, that is funny 8-16 cores and they call it TANGLEwood.
Click to expand...
I think it's a pretty cool codename to describe a processor executing 16 threads per 8 core processor. Intel changed the name to Tukwila for copyright reasons. Tanglewood is the name of a music center, and many other things. Some people are too ligitation-threat-happy.
 
Hey, Tanglewood is the shit, I went there a couple summers, still, I wouldn't mind Intel naming a chip after us... I guess the administration might feel differently...
 
that's a bit disappointing. atleast we know 65nm is being sold beginning of 2006. it's just quadcore seems more exciting than dualcore because people had HT for a virtual second core before dualcore CPUs. we got 64bit too. i wonder when we start getting software that's actually going to use all this :)

multicored CPUs just seems so exciting. the multitasking capabilities wow!
 
perplex said:
that's a bit disappointing. atleast we know 65nm is being sold beginning of 2006. it's just quadcore seems more exciting than dualcore because people had HT for a virtual second core before dualcore CPUs. we got 64bit too. i wonder when we start getting software that's actually going to use all this :)

multicored CPUs just seems so exciting. the multitasking capabilities wow!
Click to expand...


Better question:

Will Intel have to create yet ANOTHER chipset to specifically support quadcore?
 
brycejones said:
Better question:

Will Intel have to create yet ANOTHER chipset to specifically support quadcore?
Click to expand...
yes. I would even bet money on that.
 
NulloModo said:
Then again, my apartment complex has electrical included with the rent, so I don't really need to care...
Click to expand...

Just because there is no financial incentive to conserve energy implies that wasting it is fine?
 
Wouldn't they wait until they get their implementation of hypertransport running before quad-core...can you see four cores all sharing the same memory bus and memory controller...NOT AN OPTION :D

I am looking forward to the Quad Core Xeons with embedded memory controllers and 8MB of cache (2MB each core) :eek: Of course I am guessing about the cache implementation...of course more would be better.
 
drizzt81 said:
Just because there is no financial incentive to conserve energy implies that wasting it is fine?
Click to expand...

It's not wasted if it makes the chip faster. As far as I am concerned, the primary duty of a processor is to be fast, not run cool or efficient.
 
hardwarephreak said:
Wouldn't they wait until they get their implementation of hypertransport running before quad-core...can you see four cores all sharing the same memory bus and memory controller...NOT AN OPTION :D
Click to expand...
The E8500 chipset finally adds dual FSBs for Xeon MP systems. It's compatible with Paxville (dual core Xeon MP) and will be the launch chipset for those systems later this year.

Dual front side busses at 667MHz (4-way Paxville Xeon MP) or 800MHz (2 way Paxville Xeon) plus 4 x 5.33GB/s memory interfaces adds a lot of system bandwidth (2.5x FSB bandwidth and up to 5x the memory bandwidth) over the slower E75xx MP chipsets. So, no you don't have to wait for Intel's point to point bus (CSI) to not share 1 FSB and 1 memory controller. :p

CSI isn't coming until 2007 for Itanium, and later for x86 servers and PCs anyways. You had to figure Intel would do something in the meantime. ;)
 
perplex said:
anymore news? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Welll, Intel killed Whitefield so no more CSI until a few more years down the road. They do have the team in Israel working on Tigerton (quad core, FSB) so all it not lost...
 
Duke3d87 said:
Welll, Intel killed Whitefield so no more CSI until a few more years down the road. They do have the team in Israel working on Tigerton (quad core, FSB) so all it not lost...
Click to expand...

but wasn't Whitefield just for servers?
 
Just a nitpick :

1. There was a Tukwilla 1 designed by Ex- DEC folks & Intel people which had 8 cores + 1 spare , multithreaded , CSI and 2-4 FBDIMM memory controllers on board , but it was canned in 2004 because it apparently didn't have enough muscle.

2.Tukwilla 2 is designed by HP's former server design team & Intel people and will have 4 cores but more potent and the rest.Problem is the CPU is due for late 2k7 or 2k8.

3.Whitefield , a quad core based on Merom cores with a 16MB shared L3 cache and CSI was also canned because the Indian design team failed to properly integrate CSI capability.

4.Tigerton replaced Whitefield and altough it still is a quad core it appears to be a MCM made of 2 Woodcrest dies.It would be very nice to be at least Whitefield-like but without CSI.
The other problem is that it lacks CSI and will use an independant bus/socket aproach.
 
i think the jump from dual core to quad core will be more dramatic than single core to dual core because there was already HT (which i've never tried). i'm just waiting for something really significant to upgrade to - from XP2400+ from circa 1999 :rolleyes: - i think my 75GB deathstar needs to be retired also ;) - same with my geforce 2 ULTRA, but I don't game anymore :eek: :D
 
perplex said:
i think the jump from dual core to quad core will be more dramatic than single core to dual core because there was already HT (which i've never tried). i'm just waiting for something really significant to upgrade to - from XP2400+ from circa 1999 :rolleyes: - i think my 75GB deathstar needs to be retired also ;) - same with my geforce 2 ULTRA, but I don't game anymore :eek: :D
Click to expand...


the XP2400(which was at 2000MHZ) came out in late 2001(if I am not mistaken). In 2000 AMD released the first 1000MHZ chip beating intel to the punch so in 1999 you were wishing you could have bought a 1000MHZ chip much less an XP2400. So I think you have your date really screwed up

edit once more the Geforce 2 ultra was also not around in 1999
 
Grazehell said:
the XP2400(which was at 2000MHZ) came out in late 2001(if I am not mistaken). In 2000 AMD released the first 1000MHZ chip beating intel to the punch so in 1999 you were wishing you could have bought a 1000MHZ chip much less an XP2400. So I think you have your date really screwed up

edit once more the Geforce 2 ultra was also not around in 1999
Click to expand...


sorry i meant i actually bought my computer around 1999 with AMD thunderbird 1.3ghz then upgraded to XP2400 about 2 years ago. was it 2000 for the graphics card then?
 
perplex said:
sorry i meant i actually bought my computer around 1999 with AMD thunderbird 1.3ghz then upgraded to XP2400 about 2 years ago. was it 2000 for the graphics card then?
Click to expand...
Still wrong on processor, Athlon 1.3GHZ didn't exist till March 2001, if you bought your computer in 1999, your looking at sub 1GHZ clockspeeds. The Geforce 2 Ultra was released in Q3 2000. Just to give a brief refresh, Athlon 1.2GHZ was released in Q4 2000, Athlon 1.1GHZ was released in Q3 2000, Athlon 850MHZ, 900MHZ, 950MHZ, 1 GHZ Q1 2000.

If you bought your computer anytime in 1999, you don't even have a 1GHZ Thunderbird. The highest speeds were Athlon 800MHZ and Pentium 3 800MHZ.

Please don't exagerate what was available and when you got it please. Progress takes time. Though we have come a mighty long way now with AMD's highest processor now at 2.8GHZ.
 
Grazehell said:
the XP2400(which was at 2000MHZ) came out in late 2001(if I am not mistaken). In 2000 AMD released the first 1000MHZ chip beating intel to the punch so in 1999 you were wishing you could have bought a 1000MHZ chip much less an XP2400. So I think you have your date really screwed up

edit once more the Geforce 2 ultra was also not around in 1999
Click to expand...
The Athlon XP 2400+ Throughbred wasn't released till 3rd Quarter 2002. So his dates are obviously quite off.
 
coldpower27 said:
The Athlon XP 2400+ Throughbred wasn't released till 3rd Quarter 2002. So his dates are obviously quite off.
Click to expand...

i got the 2400+ just over a year ago. i was talking about when i bought the whole thing with the Athlon 1.3Ghz but you already corrected me on the date of that too. keep it on topic.

-

It's amazing how Intel are already talking about 8 cores. Can someone clarify what the "multi-die" means? Does that mean some of the 4 and 8 core CPUs will come as a CPU that's twice as big as a single CPU (for all the cores), like a rectangular CPU and socket?
 
perplex said:
i got the 2400+ just over a year ago. i was talking about when i bought the whole thing with the Athlon 1.3Ghz but you already corrected me on the date of that too. keep it on topic.

-

It's amazing how Intel are already talking about 8 cores. Can someone clarify what the "multi-die" means? Does that mean some of the 4 and 8 core CPUs will come as a CPU that's twice as big as a single CPU (for all the cores), like a rectangular CPU and socket?
Click to expand...
Ok, as long as that has been clarified :), Multi-die is like a Presler core, it means having a product that is multi-core but the cores are seperated on the die itself, into more then 1 die vs a monolithic die product like, for instance Conroe/Merom/Allendale/Smithfield/Toledo etc etc etc.

For instance to make a 8 Core processor, you could have 4 Allendales on 1 CPU Package. Since Allendale itself is a Dual Core product.
 
coldpower27 said:
Ok, as long as that has been clarified :), Multi-die is like a Presler core, it means having a product that is multi-core but the cores are seperated on the die itself, into more then 1 die vs a monolithic die product like, for instance Conroe/Merom/Allendale/Smithfield/Toledo etc etc etc.

For instance to make a 8 Core processor, you could have 4 Allendales on 1 CPU Package. Since Allendale itself is a Dual Core product.
Click to expand...

So by the die, we are talking about that little nubbin that pops up in the top of the processor and the heat sink touched? So a dual core single die processor would look just like a regular single core processor, but there would be two actual cores on that single little nubbin?
 
If intel had the balls to call their retail part a tanglewood, I would buy it and frame it on my wall.
 
NulloModo said:
So by the die, we are talking about that little nubbin that pops up in the top of the processor and the heat sink touched? So a dual core single die processor would look just like a regular single core processor, but there would be two actual cores on that single little nubbin?
Click to expand...
You got the right idea. A single die Dual Core processor will look just like a Single core processor on the surface, but there will be 2 cores on the die itself.
 
Unless intel plans on going multi-die (piecemeal) on the 8-16 core chips, their yield will be near zero. Having zero major defects over tens of square centimeters is very very unlikely.
 
mwarps said:
Unless intel plans on going multi-die (piecemeal) on the 8-16 core chips, their yield will be near zero. Having zero major defects over tens of square centimeters is very very unlikely.
Click to expand...
They do, as the article points out :).
 
yonah is going to be 2 separate dice if i remember correctly? and Conroe is going to be 1 die right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top