Intel doesn't have Dual Core

[Ed]

Intel doesn't have a Dual Core CPU. Its what is called MCP (multiple
core package) Here's an example:
http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=44932

I'd like to upgrade in about 6 months, will the Athlon 64 (not opteron)
dual cores be out by then?

Cheers,
Ed

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Intel doesn't have a Dual Core CPU. Its what is called MCP (multiple
core package) Here's an example:
http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=44932

I'd like to upgrade in about 6 months, will the Athlon 64 (not opteron)
dual cores be out by then?

More than likely they'll be out by May. Each is introducing their
primary dual-core processors this month: in the case of Intel, that's a
gaming desktop chip; in the case of AMD, that's a server chip.

Over the course of next month and subsequent months, they're going to
introduce dual cores for their other markets: primarily desktops and
laptops for AMD; primarily servers and secondarily laptops for Intel.
Intel is probably going to have some trouble introducing the dual-core
laptop chips as it's going to require they bring out a Pentium-M version
of dual-core, not as simple as getting Pentium 4-based dual-cores.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

More than likely they'll be out by May. Each is introducing their
primary dual-core processors this month: in the case of Intel, that's a
gaming desktop chip; in the case of AMD, that's a server chip.

Over the course of next month and subsequent months, they're going to
introduce dual cores for their other markets: primarily desktops and
laptops for AMD; primarily servers and secondarily laptops for Intel.
Intel is probably going to have some trouble introducing the dual-core
laptop chips as it's going to require they bring out a Pentium-M version
of dual-core, not as simple as getting Pentium 4-based dual-cores.

This is all so *lame*. Although I have to admit that intel is a
little more lame than AMD on this round, it's all lame, at least as
far as general users are concerned. Couple of years, after the
applications are sorted out, maybe.

Meanwhilst, the server guys can use it all right away. Good thing we
got those marketeers to keep people buying, right Yousuf?

I think it was a link on slashdot that suggested that now our machines
won't be slowed down so much by security software running in the
background. Microsoft->Buggy, vulnerable software->Security
software->Slow machines->Need dual CPU. Everybody wins! What a
country!

RM

 

[Yousuf Khan]

This is all so *lame*. Although I have to admit that intel is a
little more lame than AMD on this round, it's all lame, at least as
far as general users are concerned. Couple of years, after the
applications are sorted out, maybe.

It was just so much slapstick, like a 1920's silent movie, where some
Keystone cops trip over each other trying to chase Charlie Chaplin or
Laurel & Hardy or somebody. One side's (AMD) introduction date gets
leaked and then the comedy starts.

AMD: We're going to introduce it at the 2nd anniversary of the
introduction of Opteron.

Intel: well we're going to announce it today at IDF in Japan, and start
shipping it tomorrow.

AMD: Oh yeah, well we've been shipping ours to our partners since
January. Pbffft.

Intel: Well, we've been planning on shipping it on this date all along,
because ... because ... well here, because it's the 40th anniversary of
Moore's Law. See here's a $10,000 contest to rob libraries of the most
pristine copy of the original magazine it was printed on.

AMD: Oh yeah? Well HP's already /accidently/ put up their dual-core
Opteron blade offerings for sale on their website, and took it down
already. Shows that they're ready to offer it right now.

Intel: Well, Alienware and Dell are going to offer the dual-core Extreme
Edition systems on Monday!

AMD: Well, your dual-core isn't even really a dual-core it's two
processors glued together. You're trying to claim a hollow victory.

Intel: Well, we'll leave the debate about architectural elegance to
others. Pbffft.

Intel & AMD (together): BTW, there's no contest to introduce the first
dual-cores. We repeat, there is no contest.

I think it was a link on slashdot that suggested that now our machines
won't be slowed down so much by security software running in the
background. Microsoft->Buggy, vulnerable software->Security
software->Slow machines->Need dual CPU. Everybody wins! What a
country!

Isn't that just like slashdot, always seeing the bright side of things?

Yousuf Khan

 

[chrisv]

I think it was a link on slashdot that suggested that now our machines
won't be slowed down so much by security software running in the
background. Microsoft->Buggy, vulnerable software->Security
software->Slow machines->Need dual CPU. Everybody wins! What a
country!

Heh. I like that - a separate CPU just to defend against
Internet-bourne trojans and virii. (Viri Vidi Vici?) Alternatively,
we could track-down the idiots who start the attacks, put them against
the wall, and have them die in a hail of bullets. That might cut it
down, some...

 

[Rob Stow]

Robert Myers wrote:




Heh. I like that - a separate CPU just to defend against
Internet-bourne trojans and virii.

A lot of people already effectively have that. Its called a
firewall.

 

[keith]

A lot of people already effectively have that. Its called a
firewall.

You beat me to it! ...and they're a tad cheaper than an x86 SMP processor
too (a simple embedded processor with no direct access to the rest of the
system). Note that I think duals are a good idea. ...but this ain't one of
'em!

 

[Yousuf Khan]

You beat me to it! ...and they're a tad cheaper than an x86 SMP processor
too (a simple embedded processor with no direct access to the rest of the
system). Note that I think duals are a good idea. ...but this ain't one of
'em!

It's starting to look like some of these cheap firewalls would probably
benefit from a pretty powerful x86 processor, I'm starting to see some
of these firewalls can't keep up with the traffic of such common tasks
as P2P networks.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Keith R. Williams]

It's starting to look like some of these cheap firewalls would probably
benefit from a pretty powerful x86 processor, I'm starting to see some
of these firewalls can't keep up with the traffic of such common tasks
as P2P networks.

Perhaps, but there is no need for an embedded processor like this to
run WinBlows in any form, thus there's no reason to be x86. There are
other processors that fit into the embedded space better than the x86
offerings. Throw off the Win-cruft and run on the metal.

 

[chrisv]

It's starting to look like some of these cheap firewalls would probably
benefit from a pretty powerful x86 processor, I'm starting to see some
of these firewalls can't keep up with the traffic of such common tasks
as P2P networks.

Hmm... I wonder if that's why my inaugural experience with Bit
Torrent was so very disappointing...

 

[Henry Nettles]

Hmm... I wonder if that's why my inaugural experience with Bit
Torrent was so very disappointing...

Very interesting you should bring this up. I am as we speak trying
out Bit Torrent for the first time. I have been downloading the
Mandrake 2005 DVD image for the past 3 days, and I still have 18 hours
to go. This is on a 3 mbit DSL connection, which will download around
1 gigabyte per hour from a good source.

I have a home network behind a Belkin F5D5230-4 router. This router
has served me very well for the past 13 months, running for months at
a time without a reboot. Searching for answers as to why the Bit
Torrent download was so slow, I found information indicating that I
needed to "port forward" ports 6881 thru 6889, and did so. Since
doing so, the speeds have not increased, and the router has hung up
twice in the last 8 hours, requiring a hard reboot.

I have in the closet an SMC Barricade 7004, a Dlink 704, and a Dlink
604 router. Anyone care to offer an opinion on one of those? Or
perhaps a dedicated computer running Smoothwall or Coyote or Redwall?
I have several old junk PII/PIII computers in the garage.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Yousuf Khan wrote:




Hmm... I wonder if that's why my inaugural experience with Bit
Torrent was so very disappointing...

The only way to find out is to try it. If you get a chance, attach the
computer that you're doing the Bittorents from directly into the
broadband modem (with appropriate software firewalls, of course). You'll
find that the routers are getting in the way these days, more than they
are helping.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I have in the closet an SMC Barricade 7004, a Dlink 704, and a Dlink
604 router. Anyone care to offer an opinion on one of those? Or
perhaps a dedicated computer running Smoothwall or Coyote or Redwall?
I have several old junk PII/PIII computers in the garage.

Take that old junk P2/P3 out of the garage and put Linux with IPChains
on it.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Perhaps, but there is no need for an embedded processor like this to
run WinBlows in any form, thus there's no reason to be x86. There are
other processors that fit into the embedded space better than the x86
offerings. Throw off the Win-cruft and run on the metal.

I was hardly even thinking of Windows for this purpose. There's Linux of
course, but more appropriately for this purposes would be a real-time OS
like QNX.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Keith R. Williams]

I was hardly even thinking of Windows for this purpose. There's Linux of
course, but more appropriately for this purposes would be a real-time OS
like QNX.

Right, then there's no need for the second processor to be an x86.

 

[YKhan]

Right, then there's no need for the second processor to be an x86.

Wasn't thinking of using an x86 as a second processor, but as the
primary processor inside these routers. One of the first routers that I
had was an old Dlink 4-port ethernet. I opened it up, and found inside
it was an AMD 186 embedded chip. So x86 has been used inside these
things before. Imagine an Opteron embedded chip instead?

Yousuf Khan

 

[Keith R. Williams]

Wasn't thinking of using an x86 as a second processor, but as the
primary processor inside these routers. One of the first routers that I
had was an old Dlink 4-port ethernet.

Oh, I thought we were talking about a "router" being a use for the
second processor in a dual-core system (see subject).

I opened it up, and found inside
it was an AMD 186 embedded chip. So x86 has been used inside these
things before. Imagine an Opteron embedded chip instead?

Sure, the 80186 has been in the embedded space since it came out. It's
not "IBM compatible" so it never made it to the desktop (well it did,
sorta, but wasn't "compatible"). Why waste a perfectly good Opteron?
There are cheaper embedded processors.

 

[Gnu_Raiz]

The only way to find out is to try it. If you get a chance, attach the
computer that you're doing the Bittorents from directly into the
broadband modem (with appropriate software firewalls, of course). You'll
find that the routers are getting in the way these days, more than they
are helping.

Yousuf Khan

I find Bittorent to be a little spotty, at times it works great, all
depending on how many seeders you have, and if they leave open the client
after downloading. It also depends on what you download, if its TV shows
then Bittorent is an excellent way to go as well as music, anything else
your better off with Usenet, and a paid server such as NewsHosting, or
EasyNews. In fact I won't touch Bittorent nowadays as its infested with
**AA looking for john doe law suites. At least with Usenet you can choose
your poison, the **AA are still looking, but at least its not a problem
unless you upload on your regular ISP.

One thing that I am still amazed with is no matter what router you buy,
your still stuck by your less than 10 mbit cable, or DSL connection. Try
this if you have cable, wait until about 4-5 at night and then download a
big harry file from any source? I keep my systems on all the time,
durning peak times you can see the traffic add up and slow down your
connection. I have a hard time checking e-mail at those peak times, I try
to avoid downloading anything as well. DSL in my experience is better in
this regard, as you do not have to fuss with all your neighbors going to
the local hub. If you have cable try some sniffing programs sometime, and
see just how much traffic passes over the WAN. I can't wait until fibre
to the home is a reality it seems that everyone is over selling
connections. I once was considering a business account for better
service, but the salesperson could not promise better connection speeds
and would not say so in writing. So I would end up paying more for the
connection just to get better customer service, and maybe a dedicated IP
address, I about fell off my chair laughing.

I also thought it was funny as I searched the local cable site and did not
see any reference to Usenet news servers, but when I put in the old
address I still get connected, and other goodness. I guess the unlimited
internet connection is no longer unlimited, but has limits, imagine that.

Gnu_Raiz

 

[chrisv]

In fact I won't touch Bittorent nowadays as its infested with
**AA looking for john doe law suites. At least with Usenet you can choose
your poison, the **AA are still looking, but at least its not a problem
unless you upload on your regular ISP.

What are you talking about?

 

[Tony Hill]

I find Bittorent to be a little spotty, at times it works great, all
depending on how many seeders you have, and if they leave open the client
after downloading. It also depends on what you download, if its TV shows
then Bittorent is an excellent way to go as well as music, anything else
your better off with Usenet, and a paid server such as NewsHosting, or
EasyNews. In fact I won't touch Bittorent nowadays as its infested with
**AA looking for john doe law suites. At least with Usenet you can choose
your poison, the **AA are still looking, but at least its not a problem
unless you upload on your regular ISP.

With BitTorrent you are ONLY going to be uploading the files you are
either currently downloading or have just recently downloaded and are
still left as sources for others. Given that the original poster was
using Bittorrent for it's intended purpose (ie distribution of
software he has full legal rights to be downloading), there is
absolutely no RIAA, MPAA or any other **AA organization that could say
anything against him for any reason. It would actually be rather
funny if they tried to bring such a suit to trial since it would
likely result in a whole slew of cases getting thrown out even when
the defendant really was downloading material to which they didn't
have a legal license.

One thing that I am still amazed with is no matter what router you buy,
your still stuck by your less than 10 mbit cable, or DSL connection. Try
this if you have cable, wait until about 4-5 at night and then download a
big harry file from any source? I keep my systems on all the time,
durning peak times you can see the traffic add up and slow down your
connection. I have a hard time checking e-mail at those peak times, I try
to avoid downloading anything as well. DSL in my experience is better in
this regard, as you do not have to fuss with all your neighbors going to
the local hub.

In my experience the real bottleneck is when you get to the internet
providers office and are trying to get to ANY other site. It doesn't
matter if you've got cable or DSL, you end up sharing the same
bandwidth with thousands of other people VERY soon after the
connection leaves your computer.

If you have cable try some sniffing programs sometime, and
see just how much traffic passes over the WAN. I can't wait until fibre
to the home is a reality it seems that everyone is over selling
connections.

They're overselling it because otherwise it would cost a fortune.
Besides, fiber to home won't do you one bit of good unless your ISPs
upstream pipe is greatly increased, not to mention any other jumps
along the way. I find it VERY rare that the last-mile service is your
limiting factor regardless of what sort of broadband service you use
(dial-up, of course, is another story altogether... but really, who
cares about dial-up in this day and age?!? :> )

I once was considering a business account for better
service, but the salesperson could not promise better connection speeds
and would not say so in writing. So I would end up paying more for the
connection just to get better customer service, and maybe a dedicated IP
address, I about fell off my chair laughing.

Have you actually looked at the cost to get dedicated bandwidth? It's
just obscene how much you have to pay, and that just gets you the
bandwidth to some form of backbone. There are still plenty of hops
along the way that could slow things down.

I also thought it was funny as I searched the local cable site and did not
see any reference to Usenet news servers, but when I put in the old
address I still get connected, and other goodness. I guess the unlimited
internet connection is no longer unlimited, but has limits, imagine that.

Our local cable internet company (Rogers, known primarily for their
crappy service) has recently decided to put a 60GB up/60GB down cap on
their "unlimited" service. Of course, even before then I know of
several people, myself included, who received e-mailed warnings saying
that our service would be cut off due to excessive bandwidth use on
their "unlimited" service. They justified it by saying the only way
we could use so much bandwidth was by running a server (which I was
not running at the time, I had just downloaded several different Linux
distributions that month to test out). Not surprisingly, I am no
longer I customer of their (either for internet or TV). The ISP I
have now has limits, but they are very definite, upfront and
professional about stating what those limits are and when they apply.