| Author |
Message |
keith
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:06 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:44:05 -0700, YKhan wrote:
| Quote: | Rob Stow wrote:
More anecdotal evidence: I build a few custom systems every
month for friends, friends-of-friends, etc. 37 so far this year.
A year ago about one third of the people wanted me to build P4 or
Xeon systems for them. In the last 5 or 6 months I have not had
one person ask for a P4 or Xeon box: everyone wanted Opterons
or Athlon64s, except for one Pentium M and one AthlonFX.
Opterons & Xeons? Are you building servers for friends of friends?
|
....and what is wrong with Opterons? Had one here for well over a year.
Amazingly the price hasn't dropped.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Felger Carbon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:dem3dv$cs6$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
| Quote: |
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.26.02.02.30.696372@att.bizzzz...
big snip |
| Quote: | I can post dozens of other references that show that the
phrase
"dual
core" can be used to refer to two CPUs in a single package,
rather than
on a single die.
Oh, wow! You can post all sorts of Intel propaganda. I'm truely
amazed.
Ahh yes, it must be a conspiracy. It can't be that you're wrong
and
everyone else is right. It must be that you're right and everyone
else is
stupid.
|
It was just reported that the earth has a solid core that rotates
inside a second, molten core at a different rate. That means the
earth has a dual core in a single package, and (since our glorious
leader believes in creationism) has had two cores for several thousand
years before either Intel or AMD got around to it. ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Schwartz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:15 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.26.02.02.30.696372@att.bizzzz...
| Quote: | On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:54:31 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Only because they couldn't. They *were* going to do an MCM.
Which means that "dual core" must include an MCM.
Horse-hockey. "Two processors in a package" == dual core, must include
the IBM 3168 of thirty years ago, then. One package (as big as a
box-car), two processors. You Intel apologists are truely amazing.
|
Why would you waste everyone's time with that type of stupidity. No
definition is sufficiently precise to state, with no ambiguity, precisely
what is and isn't covered by that definition.
| Quote: | Second of all, a "dual core" is two processors in one physical
package.
Are you always this stupid?
Are you always this rude?
Rude? Perhaps. I prefer to think of it as terse. You *are* stupid, if
you buy into Intel's garbage.
|
I have no idea what you're talking about.
| Quote: | http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5589445.html
I can post dozens of other references that show that the phrase
"dual
core" can be used to refer to two CPUs in a single package, rather than
on a single die.
Oh, wow! You can post all sorts of Intel propaganda. I'm truely amazed.
|
Ahh yes, it must be a conspiracy. It can't be that you're wrong and
everyone else is right. It must be that you're right and everyone else is
stupid.
DS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jack
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
Felger Carbon <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote:
: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
: news:dem3dv$cs6$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
<snip>
:: Ahh yes, it must be a conspiracy. It can't be that you're
:: wrong and everyone else is right. It must be that you're right and
:: everyone else is stupid.
:
: It was just reported that the earth has a solid core that rotates
: inside a second, molten core at a different rate. That means the
: earth has a dual core in a single package, and (since our glorious
: leader believes in creationism) has had two cores for several
: thousand years before either Intel or AMD got around to it. ;-)
Oh, now that is just tooooo funny! LOL! :-O
j. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob Stow
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
keith wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:44:05 -0700, YKhan wrote:
Rob Stow wrote:
More anecdotal evidence: I build a few custom systems every
month for friends, friends-of-friends, etc. 37 so far this year.
A year ago about one third of the people wanted me to build P4 or
Xeon systems for them. In the last 5 or 6 months I have not had
one person ask for a P4 or Xeon box: everyone wanted Opterons
or Athlon64s, except for one Pentium M and one AthlonFX.
Opterons & Xeons? Are you building servers for friends of friends?
...and what is wrong with Opterons? Had one here for well over a year.
Amazingly the price hasn't dropped.
|
A year already? Jesus! Seems like just yesterday you were
talking about buying the parts and putting it all together. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Redelmeier
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Felger Carbon <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote:
| Quote: | It was just reported that the earth has a solid core that
rotates inside a second, molten core at a different rate.
|
The dual core has been known for 30+ years. The differing
rate (degrees per year) is the new discovery inferred from
inner (solid) core non-uniformities.
| Quote: | That means the earth has a dual core in a single package,
and (since our glorious leader believes in creationism)
|
Hmm ... I think you're stretching the bounds of sarcasm
to breaking. Who you consider your leader and what you consider
glory are personal matters. You ought not to presume "our".
-- Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:02 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:03:07 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:
| Quote: | "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:dem3dv$cs6$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.26.02.02.30.696372@att.bizzzz...
big snip
I can post dozens of other references that show that the
phrase
"dual
core" can be used to refer to two CPUs in a single package,
rather than
on a single die.
Oh, wow! You can post all sorts of Intel propaganda. I'm truely
amazed.
Ahh yes, it must be a conspiracy. It can't be that you're wrong
and
everyone else is right. It must be that you're right and everyone
else is
stupid.
It was just reported that the earth has a solid core that rotates
inside a second, molten core at a different rate. That means the
earth has a dual core in a single package, and (since our glorious
leader believes in creationism) has had two cores for several thousand
years before either Intel or AMD got around to it. ;-)
|
Perhaps, but even the almighty Felger Carbon can't detect a .3-.5 degree
rise per year in a processor. Maybe you ought to go compare that with
your global-warming chickens. ;-)
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:05 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:10:42 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
| Quote: | keith wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:44:05 -0700, YKhan wrote:
Rob Stow wrote:
More anecdotal evidence: I build a few custom systems every
month for friends, friends-of-friends, etc. 37 so far this year.
A year ago about one third of the people wanted me to build P4 or
Xeon systems for them. In the last 5 or 6 months I have not had
one person ask for a P4 or Xeon box: everyone wanted Opterons
or Athlon64s, except for one Pentium M and one AthlonFX.
Opterons & Xeons? Are you building servers for friends of friends?
...and what is wrong with Opterons? Had one here for well over a year.
Amazingly the price hasn't dropped.
A year already? Jesus! Seems like just yesterday you were
talking about buying the parts and putting it all together.
|
Yep, Time flies when you're having fun! ;-) It was all together in June
of last year. I still haven't gotten the SATA controller working under
Linux though, so have a 160GB drive sitting there warming the room.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nate Edel
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:53 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Here's a more interesting question: Intel built the D/C chips on P4
rather than P-M, presumably so they could offer the ht model at a huge
premium.
|
Or because they had all the existing cache/bus arbitration logic designed
for the Netburst Xeon/Nocona which was not far off in design from the
P4/Prescott, whereas no such logic had yet been designed for the P-M.
| Quote: | Given the low power and far better performance of the P-M in terms of
work/watt and work/clock, why not a dual core Pentium-M? Then when the
better P4 D/C chip is ready they could offer that?
Just curious as to the logic for the decision if anyone has any insight.
|
Because it was much less design work and validation to do it with a
P4/Netburst core, I'd imagine.
--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
"I do have a cause, though. It is Obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Davidsen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:22 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
| Quote: | My question then is:
(1) The readers of this group are probably more tech savvy than average,
so would you say that you have followed my downward opinion of Sony over
the past 10 yrs?
|
Having had the chance to try a fair number of digital cameras over tha
last few years, in the $700-1200 range, including the top rated
Konica-Minolta, I will stick with Sony. My daughter does professional
photography as part of her job, and gets to use equipment bought with a
government budget (30 inch monitor type budget). She bought a Sony with
her own money, too.
Did a lot of shopping and wound up with a Sony camcorder as well, after
deciding on something else from specs and then trying both.
| Quote: | (2) Now, going into the wider population, do you think Sony has fallen
from a premium brand to just one among many?
|
That's harder to say, I get the impression that most people still
percieve them as one of the better brands.
--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Davidsen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
| Quote: | Yep, Time flies when you're having fun! ;-) It was all together in June
of last year. I still haven't gotten the SATA controller working under
Linux though, so have a 160GB drive sitting there warming the room.
I assume you're running a recent kernel, but 2.6.13 probes the PCI bus |
itself instead of trusting the BIOS to do it (may be an option, it's
just out yesterday). Whatever came with FC4 found the controller in my
ASUS board, but I haven't put a drive on it, having a stock of fast PATA
left.
To address the original point YK raised, Intel still has the clear lead
in low power for mobile. And they spend more on research, so the
technical lead may be due to choosing a better direction than having
better people. Intel is likely to play a top game of catchup.
As for Intel offering a big discount to vendors who sell only Intel
CPUs, how is that different from Microsoft doing the same thing. I can't
buy a brand name laptop with Linux, and worse I have to pay for Windows
I never use. Nice that there are a few vendors who don't follow that
path, but they do cater to a niche market.
My next system will almost definitely be Intel dualie, but I have used a
fair number of AMD CPUs in the last few years, so it's not a brand
loyalty decision, just where I think I should go first.
--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Davidsen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
keith wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:28:58 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
keith wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine months
in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!
If these cores are the desktop versions rather than Xeon, they were not
planned to be used in SMP, much less in dual core. I'd be interested to
get your spin on why they *would* test the desktop chip SMP.
Spin? Like to load them words, eh? One reason to do SMP testing is that
it's "easy" to test cache coherence with two processors. Two processors
can bang the caches pretty hard against each other.
|
Not really, "spin" usually refers to how facts look from another
viewpoint, which is just what I was after. But if the chip has no SMP
logic, such testing would not be possible.
| Quote: |
Do you really think Intel has no SMP verification capabilities? Do they
not "borrow" tools from one organization to another? There's more here
than meets the eye. Someone dropped the ball, big time!
|
I really think the desktop P4 has no SMP capabilities, because they
would take real estate and need to be tested. Not features you want in
production.
| Quote: |
Here's a more interesting question: Intel built the D/C chips on P4
rather than P-M, presumably so they could offer the ht model at a huge
premium. Given the low power and far better performance of the P-M in
terms of work/watt and work/clock, why not a dual core Pentium-M? Then
when the better P4 D/C chip is ready they could offer that?
Absolutely. ...which makes the SMP verification issue even more
strange.
Just curious as to the logic for the decision if anyone has any insight.
Search me. I've given up trying to explain Intel's moves; too bizare.
In rethinking my question, I can see from a marketing point both HT and |
64 bit are needed.
--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Macdonald
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:38:11 GMT, Bill Davidsen
<davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Yep, Time flies when you're having fun! ;-) It was all together in June
of last year. I still haven't gotten the SATA controller working under
Linux though, so have a 160GB drive sitting there warming the room.
I assume you're running a recent kernel, but 2.6.13 probes the PCI bus
itself instead of trusting the BIOS to do it (may be an option, it's
just out yesterday). Whatever came with FC4 found the controller in my
ASUS board, but I haven't put a drive on it, having a stock of fast PATA
left.
To address the original point YK raised, Intel still has the clear lead
in low power for mobile. And they spend more on research, so the
technical lead may be due to choosing a better direction than having
better people. Intel is likely to play a top game of catchup.
|
I think that point has been made ad nauseum here: Intel has allowed
marketroids to dictate technical directions & policy. Recent events would
indicate that Intel is determined to continue with "spin" as their
strategy.
| Quote: | As for Intel offering a big discount to vendors who sell only Intel
CPUs, how is that different from Microsoft doing the same thing.
|
Have you not read the AMD complaint? It's much more than volume discounts:
demands to OEMs for exclusivity with threats of non-delivery of product
already contracted; same thing for large distributors; stealing AMD systems
from a promotional event; bribing retailers, with whom they have no direct
business relationship, to exclude any AMD systems from shelf space.
There's a long list - sounds more like the Mob than an honest business.
--
Rgds, George Macdonald |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:56 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:38:11 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
| Quote: | Yep, Time flies when you're having fun! ;-) It was all together in June
of last year. I still haven't gotten the SATA controller working under
Linux though, so have a 160GB drive sitting there warming the room.
I assume you're running a recent kernel, > but 2.6.13 probes the PCI bus
|
2.65-7.155.29, according to "uname -a"
| Quote: | itself instead of trusting the BIOS to do it (may be an option, it's
just out yesterday). Whatever came with FC4 found the controller in my
ASUS board, but I haven't put a drive on it, having a stock of fast PATA
left.
|
I was quite dissapointed by SIL's lack of *working* SATA drivers, not to
mention Tyan's disinterest. I gave up and bought another 160GB PATA
drive.
| Quote: | To address the original point YK raised, Intel still has the clear lead
in low power for mobile. And they spend more on research, so the
technical lead may be due to choosing a better direction than having
better people. Intel is likely to play a top game of catchup.
|
They're focusing on mobile, there's no doubt there. At the same time
Intel is leaving the high performance market to AMD. I could kinda
figure that strategy, until it was quite clear taht Itanic hit the berg.
They've forfeited that market. ...to AMD from below, and IBM from above.
| Quote: | As for Intel offering a big discount to vendors who sell only Intel
CPUs, how is that different from Microsoft doing the same thing. I can't
buy a brand name laptop with Linux, and worse I have to pay for Windows
I never use. Nice that there are a few vendors who don't follow that
path, but they do cater to a niche market.
|
1) It's not a discount. It's an exclusive deal. "Either you sell mine
*exclusively* or you get no deal." "Even if you sell only mine, you take
second banana to Mikey."
2) It's no different, in fact. That doesn't excuse Intel from strong-arm
tactics. BTW, the major reason I only went one generation (Win2K) with M$.
| Quote: | My next system will almost definitely be Intel dualie, but I have used a
fair number of AMD CPUs in the last few years, so it's not a brand
loyalty decision, just where I think I should go first.
|
This makes no sense at all.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:03 am Post subject:
Re: Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:02:51 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
| Quote: | keith wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:28:58 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
keith wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:48:25 -0700, YKhan wrote:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/17/dualcore/index.php
I simply found it an admission of how far (and for how long) their
technological head is (and has been) up their corporate ass. Nine months
in development isn't that big of a deal, given that the "cores" are
already there. Years? Please! They don't simulate/verify in
multi-processor environments? *Amazing*!
If these cores are the desktop versions rather than Xeon, they were not
planned to be used in SMP, much less in dual core. I'd be interested to
get your spin on why they *would* test the desktop chip SMP.
Spin? Like to load them words, eh? One reason to do SMP testing is that
it's "easy" to test cache coherence with two processors. Two processors
can bang the caches pretty hard against each other.
Not really, "spin" usually refers to how facts look from another
viewpoint, which is just what I was after. But if the chip has no SMP
logic, such testing would not be possible.
|
The logic *is* there, though perhaps not brought out to the user.
Regardless, Intel *has* SMP verification capability. The only
excuse for such a stupid statement is that Intel has NIH burried so far
up their ass that even the exec's can't wiff the nonsense. They *have*
the test-cases.
| Quote: | Do you really think Intel has no SMP verification capabilities? Do
they not "borrow" tools from one organization to another? There's more
here than meets the eye. Someone dropped the ball, big time!
I really think the desktop P4 has no SMP capabilities, because they
would take real estate and need to be tested. Not features you want in
production.
|
Irrelevant. They have SMP test and verification capability. If they
needed it for dual-core, they didn't have to invent new material. To
suggest such is simply silly.
| Quote: |
Here's a more interesting question: Intel built the D/C chips on P4
rather than P-M, presumably so they could offer the ht model at a huge
premium. Given the low power and far better performance of the P-M in
terms of work/watt and work/clock, why not a dual core Pentium-M? Then
when the better P4 D/C chip is ready they could offer that?
Absolutely. ...which makes the SMP verification issue even more
strange.
Just curious as to the logic for the decision if anyone has any
insight.
Search me. I've given up trying to explain Intel's moves; too bizare.
In rethinking my question, I can see from a marketing point both HT and
64 bit are needed.
|
HT is a bust. Everyone knew 64bits was needed five years ago. Intel
tried to derail x86 and go with Itanic only. AMD decided otherwise.
Where is Itanic?
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in