Y
Yousuf Khan
Looks like Intel's dual-core P4 processors will be codenamed Paxville and
Dempsey.
Yousuf Khan
-----
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Aug/bch20040817026514.htm
<quote>
Again, AMD is setting the bar for future processor technology, but this time
Intel is not going to be caught with their pants down. With the introduction
of 64-bit mainstream processors, Intel made two mistakes. First, they
underestimated the demand. And second, they weren't ready with a competing
product anywhere near the time of release. It seems that they take AMD and
its promises more seriously now, as they have proposed two dual-core Pentium
4 processors to compete with AMD's first dual-core processors in the middle
of 2005. The two processors, codenamed Paxville and Dempsey, will simply be
two Pentium 4 cores printed on one die, and neither will offer any
significant architectural improvement in the core. Paxville, which will be
released first, will be architecturally equivalent to a dual-Xeon setup,
which means it will have a relatively slow shared bus and a relatively
enormous cache. Given the size and thermal dissipation characteristics of
the Prescott, this dual-core behemoth will probably have reduced core and
bus clock rates, and will have little to boast about. On the other hand,
Dempsey brings an important feature to the table. Dempsey, which will be
released after Paxville, will sport a complex bus arbitration unit. This
will reduce the load on the bus and therefore allow Intel to scale the bus
clock frequency very high, which will still not solve the shared bus
problem, but will at least be an impressively efficient workaround. The
disadvantage to this method is that it will slightly increase the bus
latency, and that bus is used for all processor I/O and memory transactions
so there are millions of transactions per second, and even a small latency
can build up under those circumstances. Intel's biggest problem is that they
are sticking with the Pentium 4 core. They have learned that AMD is a force
to be reckoned with, and have prepared a response to AMD's initial dual-core
offering, but with the limitations imposed by the existing P4 architecture,
they will likely lag behind AMD performance.
</quote>
Dempsey.
Yousuf Khan
-----
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Aug/bch20040817026514.htm
<quote>
Again, AMD is setting the bar for future processor technology, but this time
Intel is not going to be caught with their pants down. With the introduction
of 64-bit mainstream processors, Intel made two mistakes. First, they
underestimated the demand. And second, they weren't ready with a competing
product anywhere near the time of release. It seems that they take AMD and
its promises more seriously now, as they have proposed two dual-core Pentium
4 processors to compete with AMD's first dual-core processors in the middle
of 2005. The two processors, codenamed Paxville and Dempsey, will simply be
two Pentium 4 cores printed on one die, and neither will offer any
significant architectural improvement in the core. Paxville, which will be
released first, will be architecturally equivalent to a dual-Xeon setup,
which means it will have a relatively slow shared bus and a relatively
enormous cache. Given the size and thermal dissipation characteristics of
the Prescott, this dual-core behemoth will probably have reduced core and
bus clock rates, and will have little to boast about. On the other hand,
Dempsey brings an important feature to the table. Dempsey, which will be
released after Paxville, will sport a complex bus arbitration unit. This
will reduce the load on the bus and therefore allow Intel to scale the bus
clock frequency very high, which will still not solve the shared bus
problem, but will at least be an impressively efficient workaround. The
disadvantage to this method is that it will slightly increase the bus
latency, and that bus is used for all processor I/O and memory transactions
so there are millions of transactions per second, and even a small latency
can build up under those circumstances. Intel's biggest problem is that they
are sticking with the Pentium 4 core. They have learned that AMD is a force
to be reckoned with, and have prepared a response to AMD's initial dual-core
offering, but with the limitations imposed by the existing P4 architecture,
they will likely lag behind AMD performance.
</quote>