Intels Dual Core Processors

Azza

Just in case you missed Intel has been showing off there new processors slated for Q2 2005 release.

Ditching the 4 we have the New Pentium D's which are dual core (Smithfield).

There is 3 of them all of which are effectively two Prescotts glued together
They all have an FSB of 800mhz and (2x1MB)2MB Cache.
They clock in at 2.8Ghz (820) 3.0Ghz (830) and 3.2Ghz (840)
No Hyper Threading on these guys.

Also showing was Pentium Extreme Edition which has hyper threading (2 threads per core 4 in total) and a FSB of 1066Mhz. It will appear in 3.2Ghz form.
All of the obove chips are 90nm.

The successor to these chips is also doing the rounds. Its called Pressler and its got two physical seperated cores and a total of 4MB cache 2MB per core. Its 65nm. It also supports hyper threading like the the extreme edition. It was only running at 2.0Ghz but its still a year from release.

About that time should see the new mobile chip from intel appear to. The Yonah/Jonah which is a 65nm dual core cpu slated for release next year.

padraigf

I'm quite sure that they do have Hyperthreading.... Read it numerous times. Gives a total of 4 logical CPU's.

secret_squirrel

No hyperthreading on the Pentium D's according to this

jesus_thats_gre

There is going to be Hyper Threading on the Xeon versions..

Azza

From what I've heard Hyper Threading is abit of a white elephant anyway. Very few applications make use of it.

BloodBath

Very few apps make use of it. It's main purpose is for improved multi-tasking which is why the p4's are better at muti tasking than a64's.


BloodBath

Azza

Hmmm I'm not following. I thought was HT designed to improve multitasking? If an app does not use HT then how could it benefit from it. I though the Intels where better at mutitasking for some other reason?

How can it in general improve mutitasking unless apps designed for it are being used?

OfflerCrocGod

Multitasking surely you all mean multithreading?

Azza

Now you just confused me

Someone want to clarify that?

gline

BloodBath wrote:

Very few apps make use of it. It's main purpose is for improved multi-tasking which is why the p4's are better at muti tasking than a64's.


BloodBath

since when are p4's known for being better at multitasking???i though they were pretty even. Only apps that support hyperthreading will benifit from a p4 with hyperthreading.

jessy

Azza wrote:

Now you just confused me

Someone want to clarify that?

Should Help

dubdvd

amd may have beaten intel to the 1 ghz CPU,and the 64 bit desktop cpu and the first demonstraitions of dual-core processors ,but intel has made damn sure that it was first to get the latter off the production line .On the 7th of feb ,intel announced that it had completed initial production runs of dual-core processors.
intel also chose this time to announce that there will be a dual-core standard "smithfeild "pentium (note that the 4 has been dropped)and the extreme edition .the latter will also feature HT ,whichn intel comfrimed will have the ability to process 4 software threads simultaneously.this will be great news for any serious folders out there but only in the unlikely event that it costs less than two decent xeons.
the extreme ed will be supported by a new mother bard chipset called (previously known as glenwood)called the 955xe express,which will feature intel high definition audio ,pci-e and dual channel ddr2 memory.(so whats the difference between this and the 925 ?)there will also be two new chipsets for the standard dual-core pentium called 945g express and 945p express

this was from this months custom pc mag hope it makes some sence to those who have lost in this thread

gline

so are the dual cores in any shops in the usa or anything yet???

Capt'n Midnight

dubdvd wrote:

whichn intel comfrimed will have the ability to process 4 software threads simultaneously.this will be great news for any serious folders out there but only in the unlikely event that it costs less than two decent xeons.

Might also be of use for apps which can have PER PROCESSOR licenses, like MSSQL , but that just means Intel could get away with charging more. This sort of stuff could also be of use for people with Win9x / Windows 2000 Home and XP home as just about everything else will make use of two pocessors - but then again the pricing would rule this out for windows Home users.

dubdvd

Q2 of the year so ill say it will be state side in around june july and here maybe in august so im going to lay of the idea of upgrading till then as youll see the first nvidea p4 chipsets around the same time ...so you can gave dual core cpu and dual GPU an and dual channel ddr2 all rolled into the one rig sounds nice as will be the price i,d say

gline

dubdvd wrote:

Q2 of the year so ill say it will be state side in around june july and here maybe in august so im going to lay of the idea of upgrading till then as youll see the first nvidea p4 chipsets around the same time ...so you can gave dual core cpu and dual GPU an and dual channel ddr2 all rolled into the one rig sounds nice as will be the price i,d say

Yeh id say it will cost heaps and then u have to get a decent phasechange system for it for it to be that extra special

BloodBath

Hmmm I'm not following. I thought was HT designed to improve multitasking? If an app does not use HT then how could it benefit from it. I though the Intels where better at mutitasking for some other reason?

How can it in general improve mutitasking unless apps designed for it are being used?

Quoted from Intels site.

Hyper-Threading Technology also delivers faster response times for multi-tasking workload environments. By allowing the processor to use on-die resources that would otherwise have been idle, Hyper-Threading Technology provides a performance boost on multi-threading and multi-tasking operations for the Intel NetBurst® microarchitecture.

http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/



BloodBath

astrofool

dual core >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hyperthreading

licensing is going to be per socket

Azza

Well when you compare the current processors from Intel and AMD none really lag far behind the other in any area except when it comes to gaming only there is there a significant gap in favour of AMD.

Also I know microsoft are using single licensing for dual core cpus.


Intrestingly AMD are stating that there dual cores will not need new motherboards. How do you interupt that. Does that mean are current socket 939 boards will run them (ie the dual core only has a single socket) or does it mean that current boards can be very easily change to include a second socket.
If you do not need to upgrade your motherboard to run these dual cores then surely thats a huge advantage to AMD.

AMD 64's dual core chip the Toledo looks like coming in with 3 chip coming in at 2.0Ghz, 2.2Ghz and 2.4Ghz supporting a total of 2MB cache per dual core cpu. All of those with 90nm. If these specs are correct and they are performing the same as the single core CPU's then AMD will maintain a performance gap over Intel. AMD have seem to plan this better. There chips where designed with dual core in mind wheres Intel seem to be patching there cpus (like the inclusion of 64bit) to do things they where not really designed to do. AMD should shortly have Venice (single) core out soon which is suppose to be 24% faster at the same clock speed and also include SSE3 instruction set. There is also the possibilty of single core chips from AMD reaching 3.0GHz.

However intel will have there desktop dual cores out well before AMD as AMD are concentrating on releasing there dual cores on servers first.

padraigf

Multi-tasking means having more application than one running at a time. So they dont need to be optimised for hyper-threading.

2 applications that arent optimised = 1 application that is.

All it is is pseudo-multiprocessing. Each application takes a virtual CPU each. No optimisations needed...... Although for a single app (eg a game) to benefit, then yes, u would need optimisations.

gline

go go amd. Ah no serious it will be interesting to see how this pans out, AMD seem to have better plans alrite, being able to use the same mobo is a massive advantage, also intel have recently just released 775 range of cpus (single core) and will be reeasing duals soon, seems like too many products in a short space of time

jessy

thought the 775 will support dual cores
http://www4.tomshardware.com/business/20040910/idf2004-1-03.html

Gone West

i heard that Intel are trying to have 90% of new desktops sold using dualcore chips by december

gline

jessy wrote:

thought the 775 will support dual cores
http://www4.tomshardware.com/business/20040910/idf2004-1-03.html

I kno but theve only just brought out the single core 775's not so long ago

Azza

ATI could be accussed of the same thing with too many graphics cards crammed all over the place and prices all over there (9800pro dear the 6600GT X800XT cheaper than the 6800GT).

Hehe AMD crashed Intel Developers Forum in San Francisco by organising a sky display of there upcoming mobile chip.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21550

Gone West

hey! my dad was at that

gline

FuzzyLogic wrote:

hey! my dad was at that

cool

Azza

hey! my dad was at that

LMAO!!!

BloodBath

Well when you compare the current processors from Intel and AMD none really lag far behind the other in any area except when it comes to gaming only there is there a significant gap in favour of AMD.

Also I know microsoft are using single licensing for dual core cpus.


Intrestingly AMD are stating that there dual cores will not need new motherboards. How do you interupt that. Does that mean are current socket 939 boards will run them (ie the dual core only has a single socket) or does it mean that current boards can be very easily change to include a second socket.
If you do not need to upgrade your motherboard to run these dual cores then surely thats a huge advantage to AMD.

AMD 64's dual core chip the Toledo looks like coming in with 3 chip coming in at 2.0Ghz, 2.2Ghz and 2.4Ghz supporting a total of 2MB cache per dual core cpu. All of those with 90nm. If these specs are correct and they are performing the same as the single core CPU's then AMD will maintain a performance gap over Intel. AMD have seem to plan this better. There chips where designed with dual core in mind wheres Intel seem to be patching there cpus (like the inclusion of 64bit) to do things they where not really designed to do. AMD should shortly have Venice (single) core out soon which is suppose to be 24% faster at the same clock speed and also include SSE3 instruction set. There is also the possibilty of single core chips from AMD reaching 3.0GHz.

Intels dual cores will be on socket 775. I the smithfield a variation of the Prescott core? Where did you see this?


BloodBath

astrofool

current 939 motherboards will be able to run dual core chips with a bios update.

from Azza:
Also I know microsoft are using single licensing for dual core cpus.

What are you trying to say there?

In simple terms:

XP home will fully support one dual core processor, as it supports a single hyperthreaded processor, and as it supports one single core processor.

XP pro will fully support 2 of any of them. If intel released a 512core processor, then XP pro would support 2 of them.

Current intel boards will NOT support dual core. New boards WILL be needed.

jessy

astrofool wrote:

Current intel boards will NOT support dual core. New boards WILL be needed.

where did you get this info from?

Azza

Smithfield I believe is essentially 2 precott cores.

www.anandtech.com for the articles.

More good news for AMD looks like 2.4Ghz is the lowest spec speed that the dual cores will be released (leaving a possibilty that over 2.6Ghz dual cores will be released in the first wave). AMD does not seem to mind going high end first and then release lower spec cpu's. Only thing if this is true then there going be pricer. There bound to be there almost certainly going have FX tag atatched to them.

I'm not sure about Intel neeeding new boards for dual core. I have been hearing confilicting stories.

gline

Azza wrote:

Smithfield I believe is essentially 2 precott cores.

www.anandtech.com for the articles.

More good news for AMD looks like 2.4Ghz is the lowest spec speed that the dual cores will be released (leaving a possibilty that over 2.6Ghz dual cores will be released in the first wave). AMD does not seem to mind going high end first and then release lower spec cpu's. Only thing if this is true then there going be pricer. There bound to be there almost certainly going have FX tag atatched to them.

I'm not sure about Intel neeeding new boards for dual core. I have been hearing confilicting stories.

cant wait for cpu kits for the new amd ones for the mach II, mite be time for an upgrade again. Time to start buying in the states in think again, i can imagine prices in europe will be crazy

BloodBath

Current intel boards will NOT support dual core. New boards WILL be needed.

Well from what i've been reading the s775 boards will be used for dual cores.


BloodBath

astrofool

it appears that glenwood and lakeport will be tailor made for the dual core processors.

And yea, it isn't really that clear over whether older boards will support it or not, both will use lga775 on an 800mhz bus (1066mhz for the EE). Could it be another prescott where some boards do and some boards don't support it? Guess it'll be wait and see.

At least I KNOW that my s939 will support dual core.

BloodBath

At least I KNOW that my s939 will support dual core.

No you don't. Amd haven't released any detailed information the same as intel. Both have claimed existing sockets will be used.


BloodBath

Azza

AMD just recently said that it won't need new motherboards for its dual cores and in the context they said it they implied it was to there advantage so I assume they thought that Intel to some extent will need new motherboards for dual core. The articles I read saying Intel will run dual cores on 775 are quite old . I don't if things have changed.

I honestly don't know what the situation is nothing is set in stone although it does seem likely that 939 boards will work with AMD's dual cores whenever that maybe.

BloodBath

Doesn't matter to me anyway as I'll have to switch mobo regardless. If amd come out tops I will be getting an amd processor. How long will we have to wait for desktop amd dual cores though?


BloodBath

Azza

The dual core AMD I believe are going appear around Q3 2005. They where moved foward but Intel I believe has moved foward twice. AMD will win the race with dual cores in the server area I think there out Q2 this year.

Its all very well going dual core if you have the money but your gonna need alot of it regardless of buying Intel or AMD.

jessy

Azza wrote:

Its all very well going dual core if you have the money but your gonna need alot of it regardless of buying Intel or AMD.

Anyone got any estimate's on a price yet?

secret_squirrel

astrofool wrote:

What are you trying to say there?

In simple terms:

XP home will fully support one dual core processor, as it supports a single hyperthreaded processor, and as it supports one single core processor.

XP pro will fully support 2 of any of them. If intel released a 512core processor, then XP pro would support 2 of them.

Microsoft have said that they will treat dual core processors in 1 phyisical package as 1 processor for licensing purposes on XP, SQL server and most of their other major packages. To my knowledge they havent said how/if they will modify their existing packages to do this. Either their CPU detection routines wont be able to distinguish between a dual core processor and a single core processor OR they will have to update the code with a fix from windows update.

To all those getting excited about dual core - bear in mind that most app's and games will have to be recoded/compiled to take full advantage of 2 cores, just like when the Pentium was first released and the MMX and SSE additions, and the A64. Dont expect huge performance gains just by dropping in a dual core.

In fact since dual cores will tend to have lower clock speeds than the single core chips you may even see performance drop on everything but the newest Games!

padraigf

Nobody is saying that dual core will be faster for single apps, squirrel. In fact everybody is sayingthat it won't be.

Everyone is however saying that it will be faster for MULTIPLE apps, where there will be undeniable benefit.

secret_squirrel

padraigf wrote:

Nobody is saying that dual core will be faster for single apps, squirrel. In fact everybody is sayingthat it won't be.

Everyone is however saying that it will be faster for MULTIPLE apps, where there will be undeniable benefit.

Absolutely - I wasnt out to correct anyone - just to mention that although a dualie core is more technically advanced than a single core - most of us will probably be better off with the high end single core chips - figuring that most of us will be heavy single application/game users.

ie lets not get too carried away by the hype just yet

On that very subject how many next gen games have announced dual core/ multi cpu support? And how many games currently support SMP?

dave oc

Have a question.

Im thinking of getting an Athlon 64 4000 chip over the summer but having second thoughts now after reading about the dual core chips. Which would be better to get?

secret_squirrel

Firstly - wait a little while -the 4200 is due out in the next coupla months which will cause a price drop on the 4000.

Secondly there is still some confusion over whether our existing motherboards will support the dualies.

Thirdly AMD will be concentrating on getting their Dual core Opterons (server)out of the door first. Intel are a better bet for the first desktop dualies - but they are going to be putting out enough heat to melt the ice caps - Up to 135 watts.

Fourthly I would get a socket 939 Winchester (90nm) core Amd 64 3000 & 3200, those little puppies overclock really well.

Azza

All AMD 64's single core chips will be released by April 4th. What numbers they be available in is another question.

AMD have speed up work on the dual core desktops. Will only be a month or so behind Intels.

gline

Azza wrote:

All AMD 64's single core chips will be released by April 4th. What numbers they be available in is another question.

AMD have speed up work on the dual core desktops. Will only be a month or so behind Intels.

Yeh go for one of the new babies, but then again the current chips do overclock very nicely. Its hard to know what to go for to upgrade.

astrofool

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21793

about how current intel boards won't support dual chips