Y
YKhan
Techworld.com - Intel's dual-core Xeon opens a new chapter
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/features/index.cfm?featureid=1854&inkc=0
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/features/index.cfm?featureid=1854&inkc=0
Techworld.com - Intel's dual-core Xeon opens a new chapter
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/features/index.cfm?featureid=1854&inkc=0
EdG said:Are these like the DC Pentium 4's, just 2 chips slapped together?
Worse, they're just two seperate chips sitting side by side a few
microns apart inside the same package.
For some reason this is a higher performance option for Intel than its
Pentium D Smithfield method of two fused Pentium 4 cores. For everyone
else, having the two cores on the same die usually works out faster,
but not for Intel.
As opposed to what? What else would a dual core be other than two coresEdG said:Are these like the DC Pentium 4's, just 2 chips slapped together?
EdG said:Are these like the DC Pentium 4's, just 2 chips slapped together?
YKhan said:Worse, they're just two seperate chips sitting side by side a few
microns apart inside the same package.
For some reason this is a higher performance option for Intel than its
Pentium D Smithfield method of two fused Pentium 4 cores. For everyone
else, having the two cores on the same die usually works out faster,
but not for Intel.
As opposed to what? What else would a dual core be other than two cores
joined in a single carrier?
You can make cases for several ways to joind them, and various cache
sharing (or not) methods, but in the long run you still have two cores
slapped together.
If Intel wanted to impress me, they could release a CPU which would drop
in place of the one I have, and with only a BIOS flash I could be
running faster. They didn't impress me, clearly there are reasons both
technical and financial why that isn't happening.
I wonder how Intel differentiates the Xeon from the DC-EE?
Techworld.com - Intel's dual-core Xeon opens a new chapter
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/features/index.cfm?featureid=1854&inkc=0
Worse, they're just two seperate chips sitting side by side a few
microns apart inside the same package.
For some reason this is a higher performance option for Intel than its
Pentium D Smithfield method of two fused Pentium 4 cores. For everyone
else, having the two cores on the same die usually works out faster,
but not for Intel.
Yousuf Khan
YKhan said:Worse, they're just two seperate chips sitting side by side a few
microns apart inside the same package.
For some reason this is a higher performance option for Intel than its
Pentium D Smithfield method of two fused Pentium 4 cores. For everyone
else, having the two cores on the same die usually works out faster,
but not for Intel.
Um, it's in fact ALWAYS higher clockspeed. If you go the 1 die for 2
CPUs, then the clockspeed will be the minimum of the two.
If you go two dice on a package, then you can bin the dice
independently and mix & match the appropriate clockspeed ones. Of
course, it isn't quite as good at dealing with CC issues as if you
shared the caches...
Yousuf said:Oh and here's some hilarity, this article takes the stance that Intel
dual-core will now "leapfrog" AMD. Of course they take a very liberal
definition of "leapfrog". To them, leapfrog means that Intel will come
into parity with today's AMD offerings, in about a year's time.
Intel Could 'Leapfrog' AMD With New Processors - Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/10/11/intel-amd-processors-1011markets02.html?partner=yahootix
Yousuf Khan
As opposed to what? What else would a dual core be other than two cores
joined in a single carrier?
You can make cases for several ways to joind them, and various cache
sharing (or not) methods, but in the long run you still have two cores
slapped together.
If Intel wanted to impress me, they could release a CPU which would drop
in place of the one I have, and with only a BIOS flash I could be
running faster. They didn't impress me, clearly there are reasons both
technical and financial why that isn't happening.
I wonder how Intel differentiates the Xeon from the DC-EE?
Yousuf said:Oh and here's some hilarity, this article takes the stance that Intel
dual-core will now "leapfrog" AMD. Of course they take a very liberal
definition of "leapfrog". To them, leapfrog means that Intel will come
into parity with today's AMD offerings, in about a year's time.
Intel Could 'Leapfrog' AMD With New Processors - Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/10/11/intel-amd-processors-1011markets02.html?partner=yahootix
Yousuf Khan
Boy is that bad reporting! These three quotes came from the same
article above.
Intel Could 'Leapfrog' AMD With New Processors
UBS said that Intel's next-generation 65nm processors "provide a major
leap in performance" and that even after AMD migrates to 65nm
processors, "we expect Intel to have a performance lead in DP
[dual-processor] servers."
Keith said:Two cores - one chip.
One chip is not "slapped together", in as much as "two chips on a
single carrier" is.
You mean like AMD? ;-)
Many $$. ;-)
Bill said:As noted below in my first post, there are several ways to do this,
sharing substrate or not, sharing some level of cache, the differences
being in how well some subset of applications runs due to the choice. At
the end user level I think it just boils down to two CPU operation from
one package, the details are not part of the buying choice, not do they
need to be.
As opposed to slapped together at the mask. I take your point, but I'm
still lacking a great argument that one method is better than the other.
Both matching chip speed before bonding the the substrate and cache
sharing have been mentioned, the problem is that they're exclusive
advantages. And no one has shipped a chip with bonded multi-core and a
separate cache, L2 or L3, also bonded. Intel did CPU and cache as two
bonded chips, so there's some prior art.
Is there really a motherboard vendor who has shipped a dual-core BIOS
fix for a board designed and sold for single core operation?
The question was serious, why would anyone buy a Xeon at this point?
As noted below in my first post, there are several ways to do this,
sharing substrate or not, sharing some level of cache, the differences
being in how well some subset of applications runs due to the choice. At
the end user level I think it just boils down to two CPU operation from
one package, the details are not part of the buying choice, not do they
need to be.
As opposed to slapped together at the mask. I take your point, but I'm
still lacking a great argument that one method is better than the other.
Both matching chip speed before bonding the the substrate and cache
sharing have been mentioned, the problem is that they're exclusive
advantages. And no one has shipped a chip with bonded multi-core and a
separate cache, L2 or L3, also bonded.
Intel did CPU and cache as two bonded chips, so there's some prior art.
Is there really a motherboard vendor who has shipped a dual-core BIOS
fix for a board designed and sold for single core operation?
I'm told that a dual core Intel EE chip can be dropped into a recent HT
aware motherboard and that the voltages are compatible. Since I can't
get a BIOS which will work, I'm not motivated to investigate.
The question was serious, why would anyone buy a Xeon at this point?
I am too. Indeed, why would anyone buy Intel?
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.