Y
G
Grumble
Yousuf said:
Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
(Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)
AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?
A
Alex Johnson
Grumble said:
the dual core clocked at 3.2GHz that Inq lists would be the one they've
been talking about for months--two prescotts stitched together at the
pins. Intel has announced Prescott based, Prescott's successor-based,
Pentium-M-based, and Itanium 2-based dual cores for 2005. That's just
the one most people will care about--the first desktop model.
Alex
R
Robert Myers
Yousuf said:
Newsflash: The Inquirer floats down out of geek hyperspace and
acknowledges some everyday reality:
"Intel's aggressive marketing of the kitemark and the Centrino brand has
paid dividends for it. To many folk, wi-fi notebooks and Centrino means
the same."
Staff probably needs a hit of something or other to regain altitude.
RM
T
Tony Hill
Err, 3.2GHz is their planned top speed for this dual-core chip when it
arrives in early 2006. Given that they are already at 3.6GHz now and
plan on getting to 3.8GHz before the end of the year, I would say that
they are indeed downclocking their dual-core chips relative to the
single core ones!
R
Rob Stow
Tony said:
Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?
G
Greg Lindahl
Rob Stow said:
Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds. Multiple cpus
on a die is one of many things they're trying. The reason people are
wondering about how low the clock will be is that they hate
sacrificing too much single-thread performance to get better total
performance. Also, they want to know how much improvement in total
performance that they're going to get.
-- greg
R
Rob Stow
Greg said:
Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example.
Multi-core would be the first significant change to
the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were
released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime
is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is
nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months.
The situation has been much the same for the P4 since
it first came out. Many small changes have been made
to allow Intel to keep jacking up clock speeds, but
the basic chip design has stayed the same.
You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.
S
Stefan Monnier
Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
pipelining, OOO execution, bigger caches, faster caches, higher
associativity in caches, fewer cycles for some operations, on-board memory
controller, wider busses, better compilers, SMT, more registers, new
instructions, more reservation stations, more ALUs, better branch
predictors, ...
Only Ghz can be changed without some significant redesign, so it's no wonder
that within a short time span nothing else than Ghz will change.
Stefan
pipelining, OOO execution, bigger caches, faster caches, higher
associativity in caches, fewer cycles for some operations, on-board memory
controller, wider busses, better compilers, SMT, more registers, new
instructions, more reservation stations, more ALUs, better branch
predictors, ...
Only Ghz can be changed without some significant redesign, so it's no wonder
that within a short time span nothing else than Ghz will change.
Stefan
R
RusH
Rob Stow said:
yes You can, in Japan
)Pozdrawiam.
R
Rob Stow
RusH said:yes You can, in Japan
Pozdrawiam.
Can you get me anything more detailed ?
Brand/Model ? URL ?
Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
and could perhaps ship something to me.
B
Bill Davidsen
Rob said:
Given that the M/B vendors have done other things Intel didn't like,
such as dual Celeron boards and BIOS support for overclock for examples,
I have to think that this is because the M/B vendors don't see the
demand, rather than because there's some conspiracy.
I'm open to another explanation, I just have faith in greed providing me
with toys ;-)
M
Mike Smith
Rob said:
Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.
D
Douglas Siebert
R
RusH
Y
Yousuf Khan
Grumble said:
The initial ones are going to be based on Prescott, should be here by 2006.
Then probably a year later, they'll probably have ones based off of
Pentium-M.
It's likely that all of the dual cores whether from AMD or Intel will be a
couple frequency steps behind their single-core cousins. I think the only
question is how many frequency steps behind they will be, and whether one
mfg or the other will be able to keep the percentage of the drop lower than
the other (eg. one might only be one step behind their own single-core,
while the other one might be two steps behind).
Yousuf Khan
Y
Yousuf Khan
Rob said:
Well, I think Greg was referring to the overall evolution of the
microprocessors over the last several years. You could say the increase in
cache sizes, better branch-prediction, prefetch tweaking, etc. that's been
done over the last several years has been done to improve instruction
efficiency without needing to jack up clockrates. Of course another one of
the performance tweaks that's been done over the years is the jacking up of
the number of instruction pipeline stages, which was done mainly to
facilitate jacking up the clockrates. But both mfgs have tried a number of
techniques to increase performance in several areas.
Of course it looks like AMD has done much more in the last little while to
increase performance, with the integrated RAM controllers, and
Hypertransport I/O links.
You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may
be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
Yousuf Khan
R
Rob Stow
RusH said:
In the section you snipped you missed the part about
wanting an ATX motherboard.
The AOpen one is just another one of those
less-than-full-featured micros. Only 2 DIMM
slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it -
particularly when it costs twice as much as a
full-featured ATX board. A lot of people - but
not me - would also be disappointed by no AGP 3.0.
R
Rob Stow
Yousuf said:Well, I think Greg was referring to the overall evolution of the
microprocessors over the last several years. You could say the increase in
cache sizes, better branch-prediction, prefetch tweaking, etc. that's been
done over the last several years has been done to improve instruction
efficiency without needing to jack up clockrates. Of course another one of
the performance tweaks that's been done over the years is the jacking up of
the number of instruction pipeline stages, which was done mainly to
facilitate jacking up the clockrates. But both mfgs have tried a number of
techniques to increase performance in several areas.
Of course it looks like AMD has done much more in the last little while to
increase performance, with the integrated RAM controllers, and
Hypertransport I/O links.
You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may
be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
Reet petite and awesome neat
What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.
I
Israel Raj T
Yousuf Khan said:
The Digitino Cometh !