OT: Intel's quad cpu shipping date moved up!

apit34356 wrote on 7/20/2006, 10:46 AM
For Intel users wanting more power!

Written by John Snow/Reg.

Intel's quad-core processors 'Kentsfield' and 'Clovertown' may debut sooner than expected. Originally roadmapped for an H1 2007 introduction, the chips will now appear in Q4 2006, the chip giant's CEO, Paul Otellini, indicated yesterday.

In March this year, it emerged that Kentsfield, Intel's four-core successor to its Core 2 Duo desktop processor, would ship Q1 2007, narrowing the launch window down from the first-half timeframe publicly stated by Intel.

Yesterday, after publishing disappointing Q2 FY2006 results, Otellini said: "We're pulling in both the desktop and server [launch] of the first quad-core processors into the fourth quarter of this year from the first half of 2007.

Clovertown is expected to be pin-compatible with the recently released 'Woodcrest' dual-core Xeon DP 5100 family of server chips. Clovertown is believed to have a TDP of 120W, more than Woodcrest's 85W, and it's been claimed server makers are designing their systems for the four-core chip. If Intel ships the chip early, their move will have proved a smart one.

Otellini also confirmed recent reports that 'Tulsa', Intel's upcoming Xeon MP 7100 series server processor, will ship in Q3. The CPUs are expected to be formally announced on 27 August, but Otellini said the company's was already shipping the chips - and accounting revenue for them - to server vendors in preparation for the launch.

Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/20/2006, 11:00 AM
that's wierd. They're releasing them so soon, why bother with a core 2 ifyou want something real fast when in 1-3 months you'll have a quad core?
Coursedesign wrote on 7/20/2006, 11:43 AM
There is always something new "coming soon," but this is not a true quad-core.

It is 2 dual-core CPUs in one capsule, with limited communication between the two dual-cores.

To get a real quad core, with 4 CPUs connected by a very efficient high speed on-chip bus, you have to wait for AMD's true quad announced for this spring (perhaps they will accelerate that now? :O).
Jayster wrote on 7/20/2006, 12:45 PM
that's wierd. They're releasing them so soon, why bother with a core 2 ifyou want something real fast when in 1-3 months you'll have a quad core?

Maybe the price points will be far enough apart that they won't hit the same market segments (much).
Yoyodyne wrote on 7/20/2006, 1:33 PM
I have heard that the AMD quad core will be a "better" design than the Intel stuff. Either way I like what I'm hearing - all this competition is great for us!
apit34356 wrote on 7/20/2006, 1:57 PM
Intel stock prices,(affects pension plans, the available to raise money) and the AMD market peneration into Dell's production line has force Intel to move quickly. This is to stop further market loss on the server side and market image damage control. Of course, if its vaporware, short term gains will be lost.

AMD design is cleaner and has the memory controller onboard, resulting in quicker access to the memory. Why AMD did not "up" the speed of the memory controller on the AM2 is a puzzle. Its probably a programmable flag, turned off, because the L2 cache currently in production is not stable(quessing) enought for the transfer rate.
JJKizak wrote on 7/20/2006, 2:17 PM
I'm going to have to use Lake Erie to cool these things down.
JJK
busterkeaton wrote on 7/20/2006, 2:25 PM
Anybody know if Dell is going to use AMD in their desktops?

I think it's only servers for now.
Jayster wrote on 7/20/2006, 3:24 PM
I wonder why Dell hasn't been providing AMD products all along!

Microsoft was very clever in giving PC manufacturers incentives to bundle MS Office and Internet Explorer (instead of Netscape) with new PCs. This helped squash the competition.

Of course there were a lot of other factors (the quality of MS Office is quite high, and I am happy with it). If Microsoft had bundled a terrible office product, it wouldn't have been accepted by the market. And Firefox has gained a lot of ground against IE. Thus it takes more than just clever, anti-competitive business practices.

But I am still inclined to wonder if Intel was putting some kind of a squeeze on Dell with incentives. But market pressures made the decision to add AMD to their line inevitable? Pure speculation on my part.
p@mast3rs wrote on 7/20/2006, 3:36 PM
From what I understand, Dell received their processors before any other OEM and that was part of the deal with Intel. If Dell carried AMD, then Intel wouldnt have exclusivity. Dell also had a larger profit margin with Intel because they got them at a lower cost than otehr OEMs. There is a reason Dell was number one sales. However, with Mactels now giving Intel some business, Intel isnt as adamant about exclusivity with Dell and with lower cost PCs everywhere you turn, Dell isnt getting the same profit margin from Intel and has started offering AMD to expand their business and profits.

IMO, Dell is the biggest ripoff company out of all the OEMs. Not one of the computers I had ever purchased from them has lasted longer than a year and thats with minimal usage. Gateway is definitely the next in line.
Coursedesign wrote on 7/20/2006, 4:12 PM
Amen to that.

A friend's company bought 40 Dell PCs, more than 30 of them were kaputt 18 months later.

Kinko's bought a ton of Dell PCs for their stores; I see them with repair tags in everyone of their stores, and not just once either.

Not recommended.
RalphM wrote on 7/20/2006, 4:21 PM
Interesting experience with Dell machines...

I've bought 5 of them over the past 5 or 6 years (desktops) and they are all going strong...

RalphM
apit34356 wrote on 7/20/2006, 4:23 PM
I have not owned a Dell for a couple of years, but P@mast3rs' expierence is similar to mine, neither laptops or desktops lasted long. Gateway not bad, but I usually will use IBM for laptops, never a failure and almost TSA proof. If not traveling, I like Sony but Alienware laptops are really nice for editing. Apple laptops also nice, makes a nice secondary system for moving files around between "AppleClients" and running "Apple apps".
TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/20/2006, 7:57 PM
intel, like microsoft, made deals that promise no competition. Contract renewal is here & AMD is a big bargining chip. I'm sure Dell/Gateway have lost sales to newer, smaller OEM makers that use AMD CPU's. Heck, I told my brother to get an Acer laptop that was ~1/2 the price of an equivilent dell. my dad said he should get a dell (like my dad has) because the dell's have the onsite warrenty, acer did not. My brother hasn't had any problems while the dell has needed serverice a time or two. :)
soaringrocks wrote on 7/21/2006, 9:33 PM
"It's not at true quad core"...

The way I see it it's still two chip packages and 8 total cores. WHO CARES, if it's a "true" quad??? The better questions are:

- Does Vegas utilize 8 cores (and if Intel adds hyper-threading) will Vegas support 16 cores during render?
- What is the cost versus other options (and AMD)?
- What is the performance versus other opions and AMD?

Read test reports... buy or don't buy. If you need to buy, you evaluate the options and decide. HOW Intel or AMD achieve the price/benefit results doesn't matter just as long at their products are reliable. (and let's face it, they both make terrific processors).

oops... I'm ranting. I think I've seen too many purists that bring up arguments that (to me anyway) are essentially pointless. It's late, I snapped. Sorry everyone.
Coursedesign wrote on 7/21/2006, 10:53 PM
Well I am sorry I was too busy to explain why a "pure" quad core with full speed communication between all four cores makes a difference.

Essence is that you end up with processes in one processor pair waiting for a communication line to the other pair to pass on or receive, i.e. doing nothing.

With a true 4-core architecture there is a free unimpeded flow of process results from one processor to another.

Increasing multi-threading is not easy, and if the software was originally designed without any thought given to it, it becomes a bit trickier even.

Designing software without multithreading often improves performance when only one core is used. That was 99.99% of the market just a few years ago, but now there's been a sudden shift to multicore everywhere.

Life is full of surprises, including Apple now having a 12% market share in notebook sales in the U.S.!

No doubt thanks to the excellent new MacBook Pros and MacBooks.
apit34356 wrote on 7/21/2006, 11:50 PM
"why a "pure" quad core with full speed communication between all four cores makes a different". The main difference is managing the cache and avoiding having the dual cache accessing the main memory at the same time, causing massive delays in memory access times. There are issues like writing back from cache to main memory and as well as reading from it,( writing to memory requires more "time" that reading).
AMD cache design, although it is an old design, manages reads/writes better that Intels ... and .... without a doubt, manages multi cores requests better than intels. Intel is improving their cache design a little, but they mainly just boosting the size of a poor design. AMD can boost their cache, but their has a lot of "smarts" overhead in the cache management, too big and the "smarts" logic power demand goes up plus "smarts" timing considersations start affecting cache response times.