Intel dual-core 840 CPU and 955X chipset due this month
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 11 April 2005 - 14:46 · 34 comments & 3324 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(10 replies)
#1 Posted by Max™ on 11 Apr 2005 - 14:52
- Whoa, I assume thats 3.2Ghz we are talking about here....high price!
-
#1.1 Posted by ev0| on 11 Apr 2005 - 14:54
- ummm, when are people gonna get it ? It's NOT ALL ABOUT THE CLOCK FREQUENCY !
There are 2x as many cores in this chip as previous chips, after all
-
#1.2 Posted by Max™ on 11 Apr 2005 - 14:58
- Don't treat me like a dumb bat - I know the clock frequency doesn't matter nowadays. If applications don't make use of the two cores then its effectively a standard 3.2Ghz processor. After all, all this does is replace the HyperThreading technology with a physical core instead of a virtual one.
-
#1.3 Posted by ps2rules27 on 11 Apr 2005 - 15:10
- uh, no i dont think you understand, each core will have hyperthreading. So in fact it will be like having 4 proccessors.
-
#1.4 Posted by VikingStorm on 11 Apr 2005 - 15:15
- Roughly speaking. You won't get speed remotely close to 4 processors, but more like on average 2.5 instead of 2.0.
-
#1.5 Posted by Max™ on 11 Apr 2005 - 15:20
- http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/03/0...ntel_pentium_d/
QUOTE It also said that the part will not support HyperThreading, a key feature of the most recent generations of the Pentium 4.
Do your homework. -
#1.6 Posted by ps2rules27 on 11 Apr 2005 - 15:25
- The neowin article says "The dual-core 840 CPU that supports Hyper-Threading will be priced at US$999" this one is the EE?
-
#1.8 Posted by Max™ on 11 Apr 2005 - 15:30
- Please accept my apologies for not reading the article right
I thought we were talking about the standard processors.
So the new dual core CPU's will be the 7xx range, with the EE's being 8xx? -
#1.9 Posted by Knight' on 11 Apr 2005 - 15:42
- Max, sounds like you didn't read the article. Anyway, the analogy of a "virtual processor" is a bit of a myth really. Even if Windows detects it as another CPU, in reality it is just the ability of the processor to execute two threads instead of one. But this isn't anywhere close to being a whole new CPU. Dual core is the way to go for sure, the problem is - in my mind; is that Netburst and Dual Core sounds like a bodge to me
-
#1.10 Posted by threedaysdwn on 11 Apr 2005 - 20:57
- HyperThreading is nothing like having two processors. Yes, on a basic level is uses the OSes SMP functionality to feed threads to different "Virtual Processors," but it all ends up in the same place.
The main reason for HyperThreading is that the NetBurst architecture is extremely inefficient, especially when it comes to keeping its execution units fed (mostly because of the ridiculously long pipeline).
HyperThreading doesn't really give you an advantage over other processors, and certainly doesn't make the P4 a better "multi-tasking" CPU than its competitors. It just means that an HT Pentium 4 is slightly less inefficient than a non-HT P4... in some situations (in others, HT has actually been shown to degrade system performance).
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by ev0| on 11 Apr 2005 - 15:39
- dumb bat j/k
-
#3 Posted by Tech001101 on 11 Apr 2005 - 15:59
- cool.
so when will the laptops come? can't wait....arrrrrrrahgaggg.....gluc gluc gluc....dong.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by tiwaris on 11 Apr 2005 - 16:24
- Hyper-threading should be renamed to hyped-threading.
-
#5 Posted by nic on 11 Apr 2005 - 16:59
- hmmm....i'll take two of those.
-
(3 replies)
#6 Posted by TwoTailedFox on 11 Apr 2005 - 17:09
- You now have a major issue with upgrading to Dual-Core.
Most applications are Single-Threaded, so only one Core will get used. You need to have single-threaded programs coded to be multi-threaded (Mozilla Firefox, with multiple tabs, could be programmed like that. Microsoft Windows and Linux, too.)
Video Editing, Audio Conversion, and Photo Manipulation are all Multi-Threaded naturally, so they can be easily used with Dual Core processors, on an OS that supports them.
Until you get more Multi-Threaded Applications, put off buying a DC processor for now. Wait until AMD offer their Desktop Dual-Core offerings, then make a decision after seeing how both compete in benchmarks. -
#6.1 Posted by sphbecker on 11 Apr 2005 - 18:09
- Windows XP (as well as 2000 and NT) has always supported multi-threaded applications and will work just fine with dual core processors.
As for everything else; DC will help single-threaded apps indirectly when users start multi-tasking. A single-threaded app that is pegging the computer will not be interrupted by the system or other applications trying to use the processor.
Games are just about the only thing that will not directly or indirectly benefit until they are written to be multi-threaded.
PS: Anything with Intel’s “Runs Great with HT” logo (Battle for Middle Earth for example) is already designed to use a multi-threading processor. -
#6.2 Posted by threedaysdwn on 11 Apr 2005 - 21:06
- As was said above, everything in Windows is threaded. NT was built for threading and multiple processors WILL show a marked improvement in performance.
NT allows you to set processor affinity by process, so you can specify that one program gets an entire CPU to work on while the rest of the system and applications use the other. In general, Windows does an excellent job of load-balancing between two (or more) CPUs. You can easily see how your processors are being used in Task Manager.
Linux systems will show far less of a benefit from a dual core setup. Threading is relatively new to Linux and while 2.6 did make large progress here, it still has a long way to go before threading is as refined on Linux as it is on NT. -
#6.3 Posted by sphbecker on 12 Apr 2005 - 13:39
- The statement that NT is better then Linux on multi-processors system may have been true a few years ago, but it really is not true anymore. There are differences in the ways those two systems handle it, but it doesn’t seem far to say one is better then another.
-
#7 Posted by tom5 on 11 Apr 2005 - 17:21
- WoW, AMD's pressure is high
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by hardgiant on 11 Apr 2005 - 17:27
- The Athlon 64 dual core only needs a BIOS upgrade and since only the EE series will have dual core and hyperthreading that makes it easier for AMD to compete.
So it wll mainly be dual core versus dual core for most people in the market a new machine. -
#8.1 Posted by vaximily on 12 Apr 2005 - 08:20
- While it is true that the Dual Core Athlon 64 *as well as the Dual Core Opterons* will only need a motherboard Bios upgrade to support the new dual-core chips, that really isn't that primary factor in AMD being able to 'compete'. In my book there is no competition between AMD and Intel, AMD has proven to have the better, more efficient chips since the Pentium 2 was launched years back.
A primary factor in what WILL help AMD pull far ahead of Intel in the marketplace is the new HyperTransport technology they've standerdising *NO, it's nothing like HyperThreading*.
So it won't be "dual core versus dual core"... it will be "dual core versus dual core with HyperTransport". For more info on HyperTransport, visit www.HyperTransport.com
-
(3 replies)
#9 Posted by xMorpheousx416 on 11 Apr 2005 - 17:35
- Doesn't it just grind the heck outta ya, when you just spent the past few months saving $1,000 for the 3.8EE, then BAMMM.....dual cores popup at the exact same price!! Just like those that bought the X800XT for $500, then BAMMMMMM, the X850XT pops up just a couple of months later with just a tad higher performance, and the same $500 price tag.
I love the thought of new technology just like all of you....but do yourselves a favor...don't be so quick to continually hop on the super expensive, just came out...slightly faster then the last gen new products until you're fully supported to do so.
There are already dual CPU boards out there, and have been since the Pentium 166. Ask yourself, what programs fully utilized the dual CPU feature? What programs do now? Two separate CPUs is no different than dual core...if you didn't jump on the dual CPU bandwagon, don't be so quick to jump now. Wait a bit until the software you use most, is re-compiled to truly use the benefit of a dual core system. -
#9.1 Posted by sphbecker on 11 Apr 2005 - 17:54
- I agree. You are offer much better off buying the product just below the top of the line. It is normally only a fraction slower but about half the price.
When I buy a computer I get the highest model, but set the processor, graphics card and memory at their lowest options. I figure that I save about $1,000 or so; then a year to 18 months later I can get the best stuff that motherboard can support for MUCH less then $1,000 and probably end up with a faster computer then what was available when it was new. -
#9.2 Posted by Co_Co on 12 Apr 2005 - 00:54
- People have been slow to adopt dual processor because you have to buy additonal licenses for windows based on the number of CPUs you have. although dual core is still being consider 1 CPU by microsoft so you only will need 1 license.
-
#9.3 Posted by sphbecker on 12 Apr 2005 - 13:44
- XP Pro is licensed for 2 processors and the price increase to order a computer with Pro ($60-$100) is far offset by the price of dual Xeon processors. I don't buy that argument.
I think the bigger reason is that Intel no longer support the Pentium in a dual processor configuration (the P3 was the last you could dual). Very few applications justify the cost of a single Xeon processors on a home computer or workstation, let alone two of them.
-
#10 Posted by sphbecker on 11 Apr 2005 - 17:49
- For those who are looking for a good processor at a low cost, go for the Pentium D 820. It will only cost about $240 and will have dual-core and all the other features the high priced processors have (except Hyper-threading) and is only about 20% slower!
-
#11 Posted by Tech001101 on 12 Apr 2005 - 01:00
- competition pays off.
-
(2 replies)
#12 Posted by xMorpheousx416 on 12 Apr 2005 - 01:02
QUOTE People have been slow to adopt dual processor because you have to buy additonal licenses for windows based on the number of CPUs you have. although dual core is still being consider 1 CPU by microsoft so you only will need 1 license.
Read your Windows XP EULA again. Here it is at the top of the agreement.
* Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Product on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
( "Workstation Computer" ). The Product may not be used
by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
single Workstation Computer.
You can install XP/2000/2003 on a 2 processor machine with a single license.-
#12.1 Posted by Co_Co on 12 Apr 2005 - 02:10
- just because it says you are legaly allowed to use 2 processors, you are not in XP Home Ed. doesn't mean you didn't pay for it.
QUOTE Licensing Microsoft Software on Multicore Processors
On October 19, 2004, Microsoft announced that its server software that is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be licensed on a per-processor, and not on a per-core, model. This policy will allow customers to recognize more performance and power from Microsoft software on a multicore processor system without incurring additional software licensing fees.
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
edit: oops only for server software, i fail -
#12.2 Posted by sphbecker on 12 Apr 2005 - 13:53
- Windows licenses:
XP Home - 1 Processors
XP Pro - 2 Processors
2003 Web Server - 2 Processors
2003 Standard Server - 4 Processors
2003 Advanced Server - 8 Processors
2003 Datacenter Server - 64 Processors
These are real processors, TH and DC processors will be counted as a single processor on XP and higher computers (Windows 2000 and NT counted each vertual processor as a processor).
Last edited by 74534 on 12 Apr 2005 - 15:43
-
#13 Posted by Quick Reply on 12 Apr 2005 - 06:00
- More processors/cores would be more benificial in server applications such as Databases and the like. That is why I think that AMD are making the right move to focus on the Server Market when Intel isn't. Games don't really make use for Multi-processors/Cores so I don't think these Intel Extreme Edition chips would benifit anyone but creative professionals (video editing/multimedia creation). And if AMD would Win the Enterprise Server market with Dual Core Opteron, it would build corporate confidence in AMD and the confidence to affect sales for AMD-based workstations in the Enterprise.
Intel’s 955X chipset is expected to hit the Japan market next week at the earliest, the makers noted. The dual-core 840 CPU that supports Hyper-Threading will be priced at US$999, said the makers, adding that quotes for the 955X chipset should be US$50
Cont...
2KGames
Activision Inc.
Atari Inc.
Bandai Co. Ltd.
Bethesda Softworks LLC
Buena Vista Games Inc.
Capcom Co. Ltd.
Codemasters Software Company Ltd.
Eidos Inc.
Electronic Arts Inc.
FromSoftware Inc.
InterServ International
KOEI Co. Ltd.
Konami Corp.
LucasArts
Majesco Entertainment
Midway Games Inc.
Namco Ltd.
Phantagram Co. Ltd.
Rockstar Games
SCi Games Ltd.
SEGA
Tecmo Ltd.
THQ Inc.
TWP Corp.
Ubisoft Entertainment
Vivendi Universal Games Inc.
In addition to listing the publishers, Microsoft also listed the high-profile developers currently working on games for the next Xbox. Curiously missing from the developer list is Valve Software, which is widely believed to be working on current- and/or next-generation Xbox versions of its PC smash hit, Half-Life 2. The full list, which was also in the GNN story, contained the following companies:
BioWare Corp.
Bizarre Creations Ltd.
Bungie Studios
Epic Games Inc.
FASA Studio
Lionhead Studios Ltd.
Rare Ltd.
Game Republic Inc. (Yoshiki Okamoto)
Mistwalker (Hironobu Sakaguchi)
Q Entertainment Inc.(Tetsuya Mizuguchi)
Microsoft's release also reiterated the message delivered by corporate vice president and chief XNA architect J Allard at his GDC keynote in March. Namely, the next-generation Xbox will usher in the "HD Era" of gaming with its "high-definition graphics, extraordinary benefits of constant connectedness, and exceptional personalization abilities." Without getting specific, Microsoft also said the next Xbox will feature "multichannel audio fidelity," "richer online communication" (most likely the video messaging shown at last year's E3), and an "abundance of on-demand content delivered by the Microsoft Xbox Live service."
For readers who still had not gotten its point, Micorsoft also featured a passel of quotes from publishing executives. To a person, they praised the forthcoming platform, and divulged a few details in the process. Among them were:
--Activision, Atari, Bandai, Buena Vista, Capcom, Codemasters, EA, Konami, and Midway are all working on multiple titles for the console.
--Sega is bringing Sonic the Hedgehog and other games from its "stable of popular franchises" to the platform.
--One or more of Rockstar Games' internal studios--either Rockstar San Diego (Midnight Club), Rockstar North (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas), or Rockstar Vancouver (currently working on "original action titles")--is developing games for the platform. (Rockstar Leeds is a developer for handheld platforms.)
--Massively multiplayer online role-playing game developer/publisher Webzen is working on a game that will take advantage of the next version of Xbox Live's "stable service and online capabilities." Recently, the company announced APB, a crime-based MMORPG from Grand Theft Auto creator David Jones.
Also Tucked away in Microsoft's announcement was word of Microsoft's plans for forthcoming titles for the current-generation Xbox. Near the end of the statement, Microsoft states that it is "fully committed to this generation," and that Xbox owners can expect new titles into 2007.