View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 13th October, 2005, 05:19 PM
Gizmo's Avatar
Gizmo Gizmo is offline
Chief BBS Administrator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Webb City, Mo
Posts: 16,178
Send a message via ICQ to Gizmo Send a message via AIM to Gizmo Send a message via MSN to Gizmo Send a message via Yahoo to Gizmo Send a message via Skype™ to Gizmo

Originally Posted by keithwalton
the 800 series p4's (dual core) are selling well because they are competitively priced. unlike the x2 which in some cases costs more than two chips of the same speed .. intel are also moving towards double core rather than dual core with the 65nm presler cpu which are allready up and running alot cooler than smithfields and will be shipping late this year early next. double core as its being dubbed is different to dual core in that double core is any two fully working dies put on one package -> cheaper than dual core which is one piece of silicon containing two physical cpu's.
amd better have some things up there sleeves as its appearing that 65nm for intel isnt proving to be as much of a headache as 90nm was.

As for the new xeons, they run on the same boards as the noccona's but may require a larger mounting hole for heavier heatsinks.

oh and these chips are by no means the first to dual cores to ship by intel. the smithfields (dual prescott) have been shipping for months now, they were on the shelves before amd made there anouncement

Hate to disagree with you Keith, but I think you've been smokin' too much of Intel's PR machine.

First, if memory serves, AMD had the dual core Opterons out before Intel had dual core anything, although Intel did get the dual core desktop chips out before AMD.

Second, saying that the new xeons run on the same board but may require larger mounting holes for the heatsink is like saying saying that my Mercury Sable 3.0 Liter engine can be replaced by a larger 3.8 Liter engine by just pulling the old one out and putting the new one in. While technically accurate, it is misleading, because the fact is that it is more practical to simply buy a car with the larger engine if in fact you need the larger engine.

Third double core is NOT cheaper to manufacture than dual core, unless your yeilds are sucking swamp water. Think about it for a minute. With dual core, you are dealing with two chips, cut from the same wafer in one operation side by side and mounted on the same die. Because of their positions on the wafer, they are already guaranteed to be as closely matched parametrically as it is going to be possible to get; you could test every chip in the wafer and almost certainly not come up with a better matched pair of chips. With double core, you cut every chip up individually, TEST every chip individually (well, ok, you have to do that anyway), MOUNT every chip individually, then try to MATCH chips with similar parametric characteristics and then mount those on a multichip module. Explain how that is cheaper?! It only works out if your process yeild sucketh so badly that you can't stand a reasonable chance of having two side-by-side chips on the same wafer actually work, or so it would seem to me. The only thing that is saving Intel's bacon out of this whole deal is that it's able to get a lot more chips per wafer at 65nM than at 90nM, so that even with a low yield, their manufacturing costs are probably still lower than they were with Prescott.

Fourth, these chips are still pulling MASSIVE amounts of power. Toms measured the power consumption at 252 watts peak load. While that is a definite improvement over two Prescotts, that is still a long ways from what AMD is getting with their dual core chips, and this is with Intel doing some pretty nifty stuff with power management.

Now, having said all that, Intel is definitely making steps in the right direction, and it will be interesting to see what their next gen effort looks like. But right now, we need to be realistic and call this for what it is; nothing more than a stop-gap measure by Intel to at least be able to talk about dual core CPUs and be taken halfway seriously without breaking the bank in the process.
Reply With Quote