Intel quad-core chips arriving sooner than expected
Posted by Hurmoth on 20 July 2006 - 02:32 · 25 comments & 12167 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Hurmoth
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: Hurmoth
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
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by Omega Prime on 20 Jul 2006 - 02:42
- Intel sure is back in the game, aren't they? Maybe they really are gonna be releasing a 32-core CPU by decade's end
-
#1.1 Posted by Hurmoth on 20 Jul 2006 - 02:46
- I personally don't see how that's possible. That's only four years away and we're just at two cores now, four by the end of the year, I don't see how we can get 32 cores. But that's just me.
-
#1.2 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 20 Jul 2006 - 03:55
- They are predicting 32-core for the 2009/2010 timeframe but the advantage won't be as much as people think - the cores won't be able to communicate quickly enough with the memory or each other, though they'll still be pretty damn fast. They may be able to overtake Moore's law in the short term but after the initial flurry I think they'll hit a plateau. Still, 32-cores is pretty impressive.
-
#2 Posted by slimy on 20 Jul 2006 - 02:48
- Hah. I expect there to be a new entry about a delay any times soon
-
(2 replies)
#3 Posted by Deathray on 20 Jul 2006 - 02:55
- I hope Microsoft is taking notes. This is how it's done.
-
#3.1 Posted by Brandon Live on 20 Jul 2006 - 05:15
- Get your ass whooped for 4 years and lose your marketshare advantage before finally waking up and delivering something decent?
-
(4 replies)
#4 Posted by virtorio on 20 Jul 2006 - 03:16
- Good, now all we need is some software developers to start writing multi-threaded code.
-
#4.1 Posted by Brandon Live on 20 Jul 2006 - 05:16
- You do realize that virtually any app you run these days is multi-threaded, right?
-
#4.2 Posted by Spec8472 on 20 Jul 2006 - 06:10
- Quote - Brandon Live said @ #4.1You do realize that virtually any app you run these days is multi-threaded, right?
A bunch of people seem to take shortcuts which result in all sorts of problems -- most notably games. (see Starwars Battlefront 2 for a good example of what can happen).
Writing multithreaded applications which communicate and/or share data can add a lot more work, and it's extrodinarily difficult to debug, adding more cores/processors makes it even more difficult again (because even more stuff is happening at once, in an unpredictable order) -
#4.3 Posted by Stunna on 20 Jul 2006 - 06:30
- Quote - Brandon Live said @ #4.1You do realize that virtually any app you run these days is multi-threaded, right?
If you don't mind can you go into it a little bit more.
I've always hear "when applications are mutli threaded" this and this will happen comments. -
#4.4 Posted by unkle stu on 20 Jul 2006 - 06:39
- Quote - Brandon Live said @ #1.1You do realize that virtually any app you run these days is multi-threaded, right?
yes and no. first, i wouldn't say virtually any app uses multiple threads, however there are a good number that do. the problem is that virtually all of them are designed with single-core cpus in mind. if the application doesn't mention dual-core then it's trivial to discuss the fact that is uses multiple threads.
as for the dual-core apps, Spec8472 is correct, for a software developer it's not as easy as flipping a switch. the programmer has to intelligently divide the code into equal tasks in order to max out all cores. i've yet to see quality dual-core programs reach mainstream, let alone four. it's a matter of marketing. the really nice cpu would be the one amd is working on, which is a dual-core cpu that acts as a single-core one.
-
#5 Posted by TheGriffin on 20 Jul 2006 - 03:31
- Wow, Intel, you're back in the game.
Seriously though, Intel seems pretty ****ed that AMD is taking a lead now, and it looks like a good thing for us
.
-
#6 Posted by Trong on 20 Jul 2006 - 03:32
- I'm all for Intel but it's 2 dual cores? Why not just one quad core.
-
#7 Posted by cooljerk_dv on 20 Jul 2006 - 03:34
- sounds good . . I would love a nice 4-core cpu in my next laptop
-
#8 Posted by [bear] on 20 Jul 2006 - 03:43
- Quad-Core Intel Mac Pros anyone?
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 20 Jul 2006 - 04:00
- Quad-cores and DirectX10 graphics... boy am I gonna need an upgrade. Still, games like Crysis will look and run stunning thanks to them.
-
#9.1 Posted by Xavien on 20 Jul 2006 - 10:44
- Games are one of the things nortiously difficult to utilize multiple cores/CPU's so dont hold your breath, i wouldn't expect effective dual core use in games till atleast 2008 if not further. Plus DirectX 10 is merely a graphics API, the developers code itself is what manages the multi-threading for dual cores.
What we need is a new programming langauage that has an easy-to-use inbult support for multi-threading, either that or for someone to create an engine that generates a thread of the least used core to perform certain processes (like lets say AI for certain creatures), but the threads generated would be completely automatic and merely depend on which core is being utilized the least.
Until that happens, im afraid quad core (or even dual core right now) is going to be useless for gaming applications.
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by Brandon on 20 Jul 2006 - 04:04
- I'm fine with my single core'd PC and tri core xbox 360 -
-
#11 Posted by kyosuken on 20 Jul 2006 - 06:19
- Competition is very good but even if Intel has been kicked in the a** by AMD for 4 years it took some times for AMD to actually get market shares and shows their true potential it didn't happen over night. What i fear now is that AMD could be in a very dangerous position and Intel taking over it's monopolistic position again (not that it hasn't been the case anyway) it's like comparing Apple and Microsoft, Intel is still the giant. Now they have a very good product (thanks god) but so damn cheap i don't see AMD in good shape after that. So yeah competition is always good but if it kills AMD in the end we could have Intel coming back to what it did before : It leads the market and put high price again, sure the CPUs are good but we consomer will suffer in the end.
So form a technical standpoint it's all groovy, but i fear if AMD comes to fail... it may end up no good...
My 2 cents
-
#12 Posted by ishtar on 20 Jul 2006 - 09:47
- This definatly sounds like a move of desperation to get these out at all cost.
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by Chew on 20 Jul 2006 - 12:47
- You guys need to remember that the Conroe chips were designed with multi core processors in mind.
The conroe unlike the X2 series of chips from amd do not need to send information along the FSB from one core to another. Making transit times extremely quick.
It's also been said by some people that already have quad core Intel's in their hands that each core on the new Kentsfield's are about as quick as an FX-62. So we'll just wait and see. If this is the case, I'm holding off on getting an E67 and just going to wait for the quad cores. -
#13.1 Posted by xxdesmus on 20 Jul 2006 - 19:17
- I've seen a couple of people with Kentsfield prototypes running benchmarks and overclocks ...they are around if you look hard enough.
There is quite a lot concern over the memory bandwidth with Kentsfield vs. AMD's 4x4 though. We'll have to wait and see I suppose. -
#13.2 Posted by Coolme on 21 Jul 2006 - 00:58
- First off, the x2 does not have an 'FSB' it uses HTT. (HyperTransport) And second of all the x2 series chips do not need to send information along the HTT from one core to another, because there is a dedicated communications line that runs at the processor's speed. (More information here: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Produc...^13043,00.html)Quote -actually are packages consisting of two dual-core chips, but each package plugs into a single processor socket.
lol, that sounds ghetto.
Intel has been bruised financially in recent quarters, but is fighting to reverse market share losses. Both Intel and AMD now sell dual-core chips--those with two processing engines on a single slice of silicon--and are racing to bring multicore successors to market.
Intel's quad-core chips, Xeon server processor code-named Clovertown and desktop processor code-named Kentsfield, actually are packages consisting of two dual-core chips, but each package plugs into a single processor socket. AMD, whose quad-core chips are due in mid-2007, uses a more refined design with all the cores on a single slice of silicon.
Intel has advanced several schedules recently. Its "Woodcrest" Xeonchip for dual-processor servers went on sale in the second quarterinstead of the fourth, and its "Tulsa" Xeon for four-processor serversalso is arriving sooner. "We pulled in the Tulsa processor launch bytwo quarters to the third quarter and have begun shipping that productfor revenue," Otellini said.