2005: A Dual-Core Odyssey

[Alexvrb]

Looks like both Intel and AMD are readying dual-core solutions for next year. Those chips are going to be smokin fast. Anyway, here's a little article on AMD's plans. I find this part especially interesting:

The dual-core chips will work with current socket technology in motherboards that are rated for the specifications of the dual-core chips, Weber says. A BIOS change will be required, but otherwise the chips will work in the same sockets as single-core Opterons, he says.

 

[racketboy]

excited about the prospects -- looks to be timed perfectly for when I'll be in the market for a new mobo/cpu -- along with the BTX standard and some other new stuff

 

[ExCyber]

"They already had a multiprocessing design, they're just changing the physical location of where the processors are,"

Yeah, except for the part where multiprocessor Opteron systems have memory bandwidth that scales with the number of processors. I can't help but wonder if it would have done more to stick a huge cache on there instead of a second core...

Those chips are going to be smokin fast.

I had a joke ready for this, but it's not worth it. <_<

 

[Curtis]

Ignoring the fact that there is practically no consumer software that seriuosly takes advantage of SMP for the moment, I'm not so sure the dualcores coming from Intel will be so great. Firstly they're based on Prescott cores which a) are the fastest way to heat up a room short of a mild nuclear reaction and b) clock for clock perform worse than older generation cores. If Intel want to squeeze two of these things onto one chip with anything less than liquid nitrogen cooling, they're going to have to reduce clockspeed. I assume AMD will have similar problems, although probably less so.

There's my uninformed opinion - how'd I do?

 

[MasterAkumaMatata]

:huh But I thought everyone was using watercooling these days. :lol:

 

[racketboy]

I thought dual core was supposed to be cooler for comparative performance since they need less Ghz for equal performance?

 

[ExCyber]

I thought dual core was supposed to be cooler for comparative performance since they need less Ghz for equal performance?

Why would they need lower clock speed for equal performance, apart from the extra cache?

 

[it290]

Is SMP even going to matter, though? Isn't that being handled on the chip level?

 

[gameboy900]

The assumption is that dual core cpus will run at or near current single core cpu speeds. This will in effect give you two very fast cpus. Of course memory bandwidth will be a problem with some applications but in general it shouldn't be. You gotta remember that this is different from the hyperthreading intel is using now. That simply fools the system into thinking there are two cpus...but in fact it's two pipelines sharing the resources. So when one isn't using a certain part of the core the other can. With dual core they each get their own full set of instructions that can run independently of each other. If you have WinXP Pro (home doesn't support it) you will notice significant speed boosts if you use multiple applications or single applications with several threads.

 

[Curtis]

So how are they planning to safely dissipate 200+ watts of heat? I seem to recall the 3.2Ghz Prescott generating in excess of 70C on stock HSF. I don't believe there is anything of the maket today that will do this, with the possible exception of this 1kg monster and a couple of 5000RPM fans.

 

[Alexvrb]

More cache is what Intel has been doing, and making the pipeline incredibly long forces them to do this (chips with long pipes and small caches SUCK - modern Celerons are complete trash this time). The second core (especially in hypertransport-linked AMD64 chips) will make a much larger difference.

They said that they are going to be producing dual-core solutions with the same TDP levels. AMD can probably pull this off, they've done some amazing work with the new mobile Athlon 64 cores. Intel could do very well with a dual-core Dothan, but Prescott IS pretty hot. However, nobody is saying that putting two cores is going to immediately result in twice the watts dissipated.

Edit: To elaborate, I am saying that they (both companies) have skilled engineers and aren't as stupid as some people may make them out to be. So I find it unlikely that they are going to have a 200 watt chip, not just yet.

I haven't heard anything about SMP being handled on-chip. I mean, how do you take a single thread and break it into two? As gameboy said, it is going to be great for 2k/XP pro systems that run either multithreaded programs or multiple programs at once. It may not give a lone consumer program a big boost, but it isn't meant to, not in the immediate future (not like said software generally needs that kind of power, excepting multitasking, which DOES benefit from multiple processors). This stuff is going to be geared towards very high-end machines and servers, so that isn't an issue for the short term. But from a technology standpoint, it is still impressive, and hopefully the increasing availability of dual-core chips will result in new software being able to take advantage of SMP.