Intel’s code-named Smithfield dual-core desktop processors will be clocked at around 3.00GHz clock-speed and will support 64-bit capability, claims report at AnandTech web-site, however, the chips will not sport Hyper-Threading technology along with high-speed processor system bus.
Future dual-core microprocessors for desktops from Intel Corp. that are projected to emerge in the third quarter, 2005, will run at 2.80GHz, 3.00GHz and 3.20GHz, integrate 2MB of unified cache, utilize 800MHz processor system bus and feature LGA775 form-factor. The dual-core desktop processor internally called Smithfield will be made using 90nm process technology, each processing engine will use the same architecture with the current Pentium 4 “Prescott” chip, however, the new central processing unit will feature “arbitration logic that will balance bus transactions between the two CPUs”.
For some reason Intel has reportedly decided to disable the Hyper-Threading technology with its dual-core desktop chips. This will allow the processors to handle two threads independently more efficiently than current chips do, however, if the chips feature HT tech, they would be able to handle up to four threads of code. The Smithfield will also sport EM64T, XD bit as well as Enhanced Intel SpeedStep technologies.
Intel Corp.’s dual-core chips will be branded as x20, x30 and x40. The main difference between these three chips is clock-speed: the x20 runs at 2.8GHz, the x30 operates at 3.00GHz and the x40 functions 3.20GHz.
It is unclear whether Intel’s dual-core Pentium 4 processors will be compatible with existing infrastructure, such as i915- and i925-series chipsets based mainboards, but AnandTech claims that Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology will allow the new products to maintain more or less reasonable thermal envelope.
The web-site also claims that Intel’s dual-core Xeon slated for release in 2006 is basically a bit more mature flavour of the Smithfield, but it does not suggest any in-depth additional details about the platform it will be intended for. The company’s dual-core mobile chips Yonah will not be similar to currently shipping Pentium M “Dothan” chips and will be made using 65nm process technology.
Even though dual-core microprocessor is a significant breakthrough for desktop computers, software still have to learn how to take advantage of additional computing power. Given that current software is still single-threaded, dual-core chips may show up under fire from analyst, as typical benchmark scores by dual-core chips may be lower compared to high-speed single-core microprocessors.
Intel representatives did not comment on the news-story.
Comments currently:
3
Discussion started: 10/23/04 10:47:37 PM
Latest comment: 10/25/04 09:35:35 AM
Expand all threads |
Collapse all threads
[1-2]
1.
Why would you need HT when you have two cores doing the same thing? (and better)
10:1 that WinXP Home can use dual-core. (It'll probably think its HT).
Its not surprising that they won't sell them as clocked like their single core brothers.
I think Smithfield is gonna be as fast as today's Xeon setups...Hmmm, its not worth investing in Smithfield...Maybe the 2nd gen? When Intel have had time to step back and start on something fresh? Something like a Pentium-M variant for the desktop/workstation. :)
[
Posted by: 22
|
Date: 10/23/04 10:47:37 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
Well... why NOT include HT? It helps to keep the pipeline full... the pipeline hasn't gotten any shorter. Sure dual cores will be faster than 1 core, even 1 core with HT... but dual cores with HT will be faster than just 2 cores.
My guess as to why they didn't include it is not all operating systems can support 4 logical processors. I imagine they will probably enable it later on as an awesome new feature to increase sales.
The more important question I would think is why use the Prescott core? It's already pushing the limits of practical cooling solutions. Now they're going to double up on the heat output, and sure the surface area will be larger to dissipate hear through... but that still doesn't change the fact that you'll have up to 200 watts of heat being dissipated.
I've been saying this for a while and I'll say it again... I sure hope Intel has something up their sleeve because it looks pretty bad from this side of the table.
[
Posted by: Jeff7181
|
Date: 10/25/04 09:06:51 AM]
2.
Not including HT might be a sign they've shortened the pipeline... there is nothing to say they haven't.
Cancelling HT though would place support of it into "orphan" status however, and that wouldn't be good.
The heat is still a serious issue, and there are no promises from Intel that it's changing that tune. Worse, cooling solution manufacturers are saying there is nothing but upside on the heat output future as well. This is truly not good, as that heat also lowers the lifetime of other components, like the motherboard, which typically used to be a strength of Intel solutions. Intel durability crumbling? And worse, they are silent on all of this, either because they don't know, or being honest with their consumer base isn't in their best interest. That just makes things worse.
Anand's article conflicts with a lot of rumours and that's indicative of it being right, so fyi, but the news looks grim.
And top it off, LGA775 packaging is secure, but 925 support is not. THAT is totally awful, for those who spent serious $$ on 925 boards.
I guess the only counter is that the 105W limit on AMD motherboards doesn't seem very forward looking so they might have to be changed in the future as well. AND top that off that there are reports of bugs, non working boards going to reviewers, all adding up to basic issues with the NF4 products. So its not like the other side is offering a great solution either, if you feel PCI-express is a must have going forward. However, its easier to fix boards with BIOS updates than CPU's that don't function and harm the lifetime of your system.
Not good on all fronts!
$.02
[
Posted by: Anemone
|
Date: 10/25/04 09:35:35 AM]
[1-2]
Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
