News

Meanwhile Intel continues to keep the wraps on the already demonstrated system that was said to be based on a desktop chip with two processing engines, the analyst, who laid down assumptions that Intel had not really showcased any dual-core desktop central processing unit, has issued a yet another commentary explaining one more possibility of Intel’s shady demonstration.

“Since I published the report, some of my readers have suggested that I used too broad a definition of “engineering prototype.” They argue that a dual-core prototype must, at a minimum, include two processor cores on a single piece of silicon, and that Intel would be misleading its audience if it tried to fit any other implementation under the “dual-core” label. They argue further that Intel would not be willing to risk its reputation for high integrity, just for the sake of a product demo at a conference,” principal analyst for Insight 64, Nathan Brookwood, said.

In order to find out another explanation of what had happened during the presentation in early September Mr. Brookwood questioned other experts at Insight 64 and came up with the idea that Intel did not “dice” two processing cores used in today’s Intel Pentium 4 processors after they were made, but placed them onto a special package that allowed them to work in pair.

“Intel manufactures its processors on large (300mm diameter) wafers that hold approximately 500 individual processors. After it completes some basic tests on each processor on the wafer, Intel separates the individual dice (a process known as singulation), and packages those chips that it believes will operate properly. […] On any wafer, there will be many instances where two, four or even eight contiguous processors are all defect free. Intel needs only to keep these pairs of known good die together, dividing the wafer into 250 dyadic chips, rather than 500 individual die. It would need a new package that to accommodate this large chip (just a little more than 2x the size of the single core processor shipping today). The modified package would have the same footprint and “pinout” as the current chip, but would have internal connections that distribute bus signals and power to both cores. The package would work with Intel’s standard Pentium 4 motherboards,” Mr. Brookwood explained.

Insight 64 believes Intel could have used the described approach, or something similar, to create the chips it used for the demo, and still legitimately claim that it had displayed an “engineering prototype of a dual-core processor”.

At the same time, when asked whether the demonstration of the desktop dual-core chip involved a single-die dual-core product, Intel declined to comment.

“We will disclose more details later. We cannot do it before official launch,” an Intel’s representative said.

Discussion

Comments currently: 9
Discussion started: 09/23/04 02:34:38 PM
Latest comment: 09/25/04 05:49:10 PM

[1-9]

1. 
Mr. Brookwood ...
"On any wafer, there will be many instances where two, four or even eight contiguous processors are all defect free. Intel needs only to keep these pairs of known good die together, dividing the wafer into 250 dyadic chips" etc.

This idea of Mr. Brookwood on how Intel could have demoed a non existing single chip dual core CPU is a bit dumb and reveals a large helping of ignorance about what CPUs are and how they are designed and manufactured.

As a way to get 2 or even 4 cores on the same piece of silicom of course it would work, but the resulting piece of silicom would be totally useless because it could not function.

Why? Because there would be no way to interconnect the cores to each other, to the arbitration logic (non existing) and to the external bus.

The only way this could work would be for the cores to be designed as complementary adjacent pairs, allready interconnected to each other, to an included arbitration logic and with a global external interface compatible with some CPU socket.

But then we would be in the presence of a true dual core solution. Wouldnt we?

Regards
Santos Costa
[Posted by: S.Costa  | Date: 09/23/04 02:34:38 PM]

2. 
I am sick of Intel and their marketing constantly giving us the run-a-round
[Posted by: Flappy A*s  | Date: 09/24/04 12:32:09 AM]

3. 
INTEL IS SO FULL OF BS
[Posted by: aNOnOMYOus  | Date: 09/24/04 12:42:39 AM]

4. 
at least AMD does not give us a good performance, value, and 'innovation' for our $ compaired to Intel
[Posted by: aNOnOMYOus  | Date: 09/24/04 12:44:18 AM]

5. 
Greeeeeeeedy INTEL
[Posted by: aNOnOMYOus  | Date: 09/24/04 12:44:50 AM]

6. 
s
[Posted by: s  | Date: 09/25/04 12:39:23 PM]

7. 
Intel kicks assssssssssssssssssssssssssss
[Posted by: s  | Date: 09/25/04 12:40:53 PM]

8. 
Intel probably does have a dual core processor going. I mean, as long as you have 2 core, its dual-core right?
[Posted by: smok3  | Date: 09/25/04 12:45:03 PM]

9. 
Intel and Windows are lying to the AMERICANS and to the world.

Every time they release something they want volume but charge the customer end to make them pay more for a small and little or almost no technical or performance advancement.

GO WITH AMD forget ABOUT BILL GATES AND HIS BUNCH OF IDIOTS
[Posted by: Simon Yee  | Date: 09/25/04 05:49:10 PM]

[1-9]

You must log in to add comments.

Forgot password? Registration

remember me



Related news

Latest News

Saturday, November 7, 2009

3:28 pm | Electronic Book Industry Set to Explode in 2010 – Analysts. E-Book Industry Set to Raise – MIC

1:31 pm | Intel Plans “Fast” Transition to Next-Generation Atom Platform. Intel to Reveal More Details About Pine Trail Platform on December 21

11:27 am | Prices of SSDs Will Get Closer to Hard Drives in Three to Five Years – Chief Executive of OCZ. SSDs Set to Become Much More Affordable in the Future

Friday, November 6, 2009

11:56 am | Microsoft Windows 7 Appears to Be More Popular in Retail than Vista Back in 2007. First Week Windows 7 Sales Surpass Sales of Windows Vista in First Week – Research Firm

9:30 am | Elpida and ProMOS Sign “Technology-for-Capacity” Pact. Elpida to Outsource Production of DRAM to ProMOS