Dual Core Intel Processors Sooner Than Expected

Hack Jandy writes "AnandTech reports that Intel's Smithfield processors are going to get here sooner than they originally predicted; most likely within the next few months. Apparently, the Intel roadmaps reveal that the launch dates for next generation desktop chipsets, 2MB L2 Prescotts and Dual Core Smithfield processors (operating at 3.2GHz per core) are almost upon us - way ahead of the original Q4'05 roadmap estimates. Hopefully, that means Intel will actually start shipping the new technology instead of waiting four months after the announcement for retail products."

Bleh...

[GreyWolf3000]

I want to see dual-core Pentium-Ms.

At the rate that power consumption and heat dissipation are increasing on these chips, I consider Pentium-Ms to be the only processor worth using.

But will they be 64-bit?

[agraupe]

As I see it, the smart step to take would be to start with consumer-level 64-bit chips, make them as fast as they can be, and then move on to dual-core. The only way dual-core could be better at this point is if it is given to the server market, where 64-bit Intel processors already exist.

Just to be clear...

[Lisandro]

...these are the 130 watts power-hungry dual P4s mentioned in a previous article right? No thankie.

Office use?

[spectrokid]

I can see how this is good for gamers, but normal office use? The biggest waiting time I have on my centrino is network. (In a big company, network by Siemens, it can take 15 seconds between O and a complete list of network drives. Go figure.) Servers will opt for the 64 bit thingies, your secretary doesn't need one; is gamers a big enough market share to make money on this shit?

Re:Office use?

[EpsCylonB]

I can see how this is good for gamers, but normal office use?

I'm not even sure gamers will notice the difference at the moment, how many games are multithreaded these days ?. Iam sure some games do take adavantage of it if its there but only to a small degree. The vast majority of games today are designed to be played on single cpu computers (this includes the current consoles).

Of course both the ps3 and xbox next make use of parrellism so in another year or two almost all games will probaby run better on dual core/cpu machines.

It's about time.

[tu_holmes]

I would have thought Dual core chips would have already been available by Intel already.

People complain a lot about Sun Microsystems, but the Dual Core in Sun's SPARC IV has been out since last April or May I believe.

Doesn't AMD already have dual core cpu's shipping as well? IBM is working on a dual core G5 as well aren't they?

Heck, is this even news?

Shouldn't we be talking about 4 core cpus that are already working in development labs around the world. Sun and IBM both have those... I would bet money that AMD and Intel both have them running as well, and if they don't they better get moving!

Funny thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just reading that most people here don't like the idea of multi core processors because their games like Quake won't run any better.

Lately I have been doing a lot of work on distributing software to the internal network and RARing files. I would like the option of just RARing and not have my system turn to mud. Having one core running flat out giving me a chance to still do work is a great idea! Besides I'm sure a better balance with all of those 50 processes on my Windows box would be nice.

Dual core cpus that will lag behind consoles..

[Anonymous Coward]

With how much wattage the Intel dual cores will eat and using the same tired design I can see Next Gen console cpus beating them up.

Picture This

[MOMOCROME]

Today's CPUs are, in the final analysis, little different than the 386 launched in 1985. Notable exceptions are in details like feature size and operating frequency. Other significant differences are in the pipelining logic, crufted on instruction sets (mmx anyone?) that are rarely called into action, cache and pinouts.

Now, take a step back and imagine what a classic 386 would look like on a .09 micron process... consider that the 386 had 275,000 transistors- compared to the P4s 42 million. You could fit around 150 386s in the space (on the die) of a single P4.

Now, of course there are many advances to consider over the 386, but fundamentally, that processor logic is capable of handling 99% of 32 bit computing tasks. They may have done so slowly, but there you are.

My thinking is, they could use some of this old logic, buff it up a little to accomodate some modern techniques and carve it all into a single die. Imagine a CPU with 64 simple processors, 4Mb of cache and some controlling logic running at 3-5 Ghz. All this in the space of and at the (manufacturing) cost of a single P4.

This chip could be used in clusters like nobody's business. An array of 128 of these processors could simultaneously handle 8,192 active threads.

What use would it be? Off the top of my head, this would be perfect for real-time monitoring, transaction processing, switching and so forth. There would also be serious advantages in the desktop space as compilers and kernels were built to adapt to the new distribution of resources. Image processing could be handled using the same techniques as SLI cards use to split the tasks up over two or more video cards, and any other large body of data could be simlarly broken up. Compilers would be designed to break a program up not into a paltry 2 or 3 threads, but into dozens. Speed and responsiveness would skyrocket, while fab costs and board speeds remained stable.

This might be the logical outcome of the current drift towards multiple CPUs per die, and it could also unite and surpass the schools of CISC vs RISC, as strategies from both would benefit the endeavor.

Re:Bleh...

[Short Circuit]

I'm still waiting for motherboards to have enough PCIe slots to build clusters that use PCIe as a networking method.

Imagine having four to eight high-end Pentium Ms, with cooling fans out the back. Noisy monster, sure. But fast. Add in kernel-level support for treating them as CPUs, and you can build an extensible machine limited by your expansion slots, not by your DIMM slots and CPU sockets.