Intel to Introduce Dual-Core Microprocessors in 2005

Advertisement (Why?)

Intel confirmed Friday that it cancelled the Tejas, Jayhawk and Tulsa microprocessors originally scheduled for the year 2005 launch. Now the company promises to deliver dual-core chips across all market segments next year. Intel claims that it will have top-to-bottom families of dual-core microprocessors next year. The plans now include Itanium 2 chip “Montecito” for mission-critical enterprise servers as well as dual-core products for mobile computers, desktop computers and typical mainstream servers. Dual-core processors can process two times more data per clock and handle more than one threads at once. This allows the whole system to perform a lot better under high load when running multiply processors.

The new chips for desktops will fit into the platform guidance submitted by Intel for its 2005 products before. Therefore, on the chipset level the new desktop dual-core processors are expected to be compatible with Grantsdale (i915), Alderwood (i925X) and Lakeport chipsets that are anticipated to roll out in 2004 and 2005. It is not clear whether the chips will fit into Socket T infrastructure. An Intel spokesman emphasized that the changes in plans are done in order to offer better solutions for customers, as dual-core chips typically perform better than single-core microprocessors. There were no issues with Tejas, Jayhawk and Tulsa, he said. The representatives declined to comment on actual performance and estimated benchmark results for the dual-core chips.

News source: X-bit labs

"Getting wider buy-in for the project wasn't just about ROI, it was about fitting in with the values we seek to embody as an HR consultancy. Having said that we've seen a 10% increase in billable hours with our consultants, as they have been able to utilise that dead time that traditionally existed when travelling."

Nigel said that the technology had personally benefited him recently. He explained: "I flew from London to Manchester and spent an hour catching up on all of my correspondence. This meant that when I arrived at the meeting I was up to speed with all the developments. We're now developing profiling tools that will see staff issued with Windows Mobile-based devices or laptops depending on how they work."

#1 Mav Phoenix on 07 May 2004 - 20:27

OHHH BABY!

#2 Panorama on 07 May 2004 - 20:28

Sweet! This is something I want to see!

#3 xStainDx on 07 May 2004 - 20:55

Finally someone at the huge company got a wake up call

Pentium M and Dual Core = Futua!

(2 replies) #4 Monkey Man on 07 May 2004 - 20:58

wicked cant wait lol when abouts in 2005 ?

#4.1 lexor on 07 May 2004 - 21:06

the article says about the same time Tejas was supposed to come out, now who know when that was?

#4.2 123_kid on 07 May 2004 - 23:34

2H 2005 I believe

(5 replies) #5 Breach on 07 May 2004 - 21:28

Hats off to AMD, that's what competitive market is all about...

#5.1 Mav Phoenix on 07 May 2004 - 21:53

Err Intel?

#5.2 Mashiki on 07 May 2004 - 23:07

Nah 5.1 he's got it right. AMD, this is Intel's reponse to AMD's 64bit proc line. Looks like the proc wars are going to start heating up again.

#5.3 Oserus on 07 May 2004 - 23:32

I'm probably wrong about this, but didn't Intel have a 64 bit processors long before AMD? Not to mention that they have 64bit code within the Prescott and Nocona ready to ship. Seems more like they just matched AMD's bet and upped the pot for AMD by trying to conform to dual core with low power consumption.

#5.4 lexor on 07 May 2004 - 23:36

@5.3 you talking Itanium and that's a high end server chip, but if you want to start whose first game, then 64bit servers were around for more than a decade, DEC, then Alpha, then Sparc (AltaVista was created as a showcase for Alpha btw) to name a few.

Last edited by 11894 on 07 May 2004 - 23:42

#5.5 Radium on 08 May 2004 - 01:05

1992 - 64-bit Alpha (RISC) was introduced.
1995 - 64-bit UltraSPARC (RISC) was introduced.
1997 - DEC sold the chip business to Intel.
1998 - Compaq bought DEC.
2001 - IA-64 (EPIC) was introduced under the name Itanium.
2002 - Compaq merged with HP.
2003 - AMD64 (CISC) was introduced.

HP slowly phased out their PA-RISC architecture in favor for Intel's IA-64 (EPIC).

[edit]
Also, keep in mind that AMD64 is just an extension for the 16/32-bit x86, but Alpha, UltraSPARC and IA-64 are pure 64-bit architectures.
[/edit]

Last edited by 52221 on 08 May 2004 - 12:17

#6 christracy on 07 May 2004 - 21:32

great news. makes some of the clout that the higher end p4 technology that intel boasted about, ht and the sort, look like b.s. not for the fact that it was, but for the fact that they couldnt further it without severe consequences. i look forward to the more realistic approach that intel MAY take when it comes to processing.

#7 lexor on 07 May 2004 - 21:39

erm, I just thought of something, will it impact the LGA socket design? i.e will the socket change right after Presscott is through? 'couse all that SocketT, BTX stuff was about the Presscott, Tejas etc. now that they are gone will they rewrite the specs again?

(1 reply) #8 aleck79 on 07 May 2004 - 22:15

so is this intel's responce to the current AMD64 line?

#8.1 VikingStorm on 08 May 2004 - 13:07

Actually it's more of a "response" to AMD's future dual-core products. (They were probably planning it for a while, so I doubt it was an actual "response to"

(2 replies) #9 Coolme on 07 May 2004 - 22:40

Imagine what would happen if one of these dual-core babes were OC'ed!!

#9.1 lexor on 07 May 2004 - 23:26

OC'ing would actually become more difficult as it is an intricate process to keep both cores synched, even more difficult than in older and more developed dual cpu setup.

#9.2 ev0| on 08 May 2004 - 01:45

I would imagine it would be easier since they're in the same package and latency is reduced. Especially if they both get the clock signal from the same place.

(3 replies) #10 linsook on 07 May 2004 - 23:54

i wonder how hot it is

#10.1 xStainDx on 08 May 2004 - 02:57

Banias is 23.5watts. If they keep the architecture the same. Don't expect it to get any hotter.

#10.2 Knight' on 08 May 2004 - 08:55

mmm, increased clock speed, FSB and level 2 cache.... with dual core. It's bound to get hotter, but nowhere near the 100W Prescott.

#10.3 Radium on 08 May 2004 - 19:20

Mobile processors are always cooler... so a desktop process will automaticly get hotter because it's easier to cool.

(6 replies) #11 rocks1985 on 08 May 2004 - 03:55

This is a Longhorn System Requirement.

#11.1 Mav Phoenix on 08 May 2004 - 07:17

But who wouldn't want one of these babies regardless of system reqs?

#11.2 rocks1985 on 08 May 2004 - 14:59

tru dat

#11.3 rocks1985 on 08 May 2004 - 15:02

jeez, if you got a computer with a dual core dual processor, Longhorn would think you have FOUR processors. but maybe each core multi-threads, so it might even think you have 8! distinct processors meaning that you could run 64 applications at the same time without a hitch

#11.4 rocks1985 on 08 May 2004 - 15:04

but i could be wrong. basically i decided (without anything to back it up) that a good processor at 2ghz could run about 8 apps before the user started to notice a slowdown. but i could be completely wrong. can anyone back this up or correct it?

#11.5 ev0| on 08 May 2004 - 17:20

yes, you are making it all up. I don't think that crappy hyperthreading will be needed any more to "multi thread" as you put it when you can have 2 real processors in each socket doing it.

#11.6 Mav Phoenix on 08 May 2004 - 18:54

But with HT it can only help.

#12 Jugalator on 08 May 2004 - 22:23

QUOTE

basically i decided (without anything to back it up) that a good processor at 2ghz could run about 8 apps before the user started to notice a slowdown. but i could be completely wrong. can anyone back this up or correct it?

Ehh... *What* 8 apps? 8 copies of Solitaire? 8 copies of Doom III Alpha? 8 copies of a screen saver?

An operating system distributes the CPU's available processing time depending on a large number of factors including process priorities, but regardless what these factors are, it has 100% CPU power to distribute. If two apps needs 80% each of your CPU's processing power to run at the speed they were designed for, the CPU will of course struggle as soon as you run both these two simultaneously, since you haven't got 160% CPU power and you can't magically make one or another faster. (well, you might by increasing its priority, but then the other will suffer of course)

Also, even in multi-processor systems, HyperThreading should give advantages for exactly the same reasons it does in single-processor systems. It gives better throughput in each of the CPU's, at least on CPU's using the P4's architecture. I'm sure the OS will attempt to process more data in parallell if it has processors (faked or not) ready to get cracking and waiting.

Last edited by 21023 on 08 May 2004 - 22:32

(1 reply) #13 Dayon on 09 May 2004 - 04:33

Will each physical processor be split into two logical processors, giving 4 logical processors total? (What will MS do?)

#13.1 xStainDx on 10 May 2004 - 04:38

require you to have The Professional Version of the Operating System.

Professinal Supports 2 CPUs. If they both HT'd thats 4 logical. so you'd be fine.

XP Professional supports this now.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net