If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New CPU's from Intel?
Hi all,
I want to buy a computer with a single cpu in it. The cpu must have the following characteristics: VT = virtualization technology in hardware EM64T = the 64 bit extensions MC = multi-core dual-core MT = multi threading I know that Intel has these in the works but I don't know when the release date is on them. Anyone out there have any ideas? probably not until next year? thanks, charles...... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New CPU's from Intel?
***** charles wrote:
I want to buy a computer with a single cpu in it. The cpu must have the following characteristics: VT = virtualization technology in hardware EM64T = the 64 bit extensions MC = multi-core dual-core MT = multi threading I know that Intel has these in the works but I don't know when the release date is on them. Anyone out there have any ideas? probably not until next year? No such processors are in the works; the only such that Intel is likely to make available are available now. Assuming you don't mean both two-socket and dual core, the following processors would appy: Pentium D 9xx Extreme edition (955 and 965, IIRC) Xeon 50xx-series dual core (also supports dual-socket) Possibly the earlier Xeon Dual-core, although I'm not sure if those support VT. Pentium D 840EE supports all but VT. -- Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/ "What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get 'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New CPU's from Intel?
.... At the earliest.
-- DaveW ---------------- "***** charles" wrote in message . com... Hi all, I want to buy a computer with a single cpu in it. The cpu must have the following characteristics: VT = virtualization technology in hardware EM64T = the 64 bit extensions MC = multi-core dual-core MT = multi threading I know that Intel has these in the works but I don't know when the release date is on them. Anyone out there have any ideas? probably not until next year? thanks, charles...... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New CPU's from Intel?
***** charles wrote:
Hi all, I want to buy a computer with a single cpu in it. The cpu must have the following characteristics: VT = virtualization technology in hardware EM64T = the 64 bit extensions MC = multi-core dual-core MT = multi threading I know that Intel has these in the works but I don't know when the release date is on them. Anyone out there have any ideas? probably not until next year? Well, if you can't find it all on the Intel side, then AMD already has these available right now in its recently released Rev. F Athlon 64 X2's. Virtualization, 64-bit, and dual-core. Multi-threading is implied by multi-cores. Unless you're talking about the simulated multi-threading as was available through the feature called Hyperthreading. Hyperthreading has been removed from all future Intel processors for the foreseeable future, as it's no longer necessary with true dual-cores available now. PC Plus - Intel Developer Forum 2005: Intel drops HyperThreading http://www.pcplus.co.uk/news/home_ne...perthread ing -- There is no failure, only delayed success |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New CPU's from Intel?
"Nate Edel" wrote in message
... ***** charles wrote: I want to buy a computer with a single cpu in it. The cpu must have the following characteristics: VT = virtualization technology in hardware EM64T = the 64 bit extensions MC = multi-core dual-core MT = multi threading I know that Intel has these in the works but I don't know when the release date is on them. Anyone out there have any ideas? probably not until next year? No such processors are in the works; the only such that Intel is likely to make available are available now. Assuming you don't mean both two-socket and dual core, the following processors would appy: Pentium D 9xx Extreme edition (955 and 965, IIRC) Xeon 50xx-series dual core (also supports dual-socket) Possibly the earlier Xeon Dual-core, although I'm not sure if those support VT. Pentium D 840EE supports all but VT. -- Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/ "What's the use of yearning for Elysian Fields when you know you can't get 'em, and would only let 'em out on building leases if you had 'em?" (WSG) I saw a presentation on supporting VT with code called the "Hypervisor" from a Microsoft employee who happened to be the head of the project. I have read that Intel will be putting VT in both the x86 side and the Itanium side in the not too distant future. The new T1 from Sun has up to 8 cores and 4 threads per core. I guess I could do without the multithreading if the chip had 2 cores/VT/64bit. The list I suggested would be a particular architecture that should "last for a while" from a programming/os standpoint. After that the industry should move to a true next generation arch, not just extensions on the old x86. The 3 big possibilities I think are Power/Sparc/IA64 not in any particular order. With Power being in the new XBox360 and the PS3 it may have a leg up. Even the smallest servers from IBM in the Power line support VT/64bit/multi-core in the cpu's. thanks..... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
New CPU's from Intel?
***** charles wrote:
I have read that Intel will be putting VT in both the x86 side and the Itanium side in the not too distant future. They might port it to the Itanium, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Itanium has more chance of being canceled than of getting much further development going on it, these days. The dual-core Itanium was supposed to be out two years ago, it's been delayed for two years now, and hardly anyone even cares. The new T1 from Sun has up to 8 cores and 4 threads per core. I guess I could do without the multithreading if the chip had 2 cores/VT/64bit. The list I suggested would be a particular architecture that should "last for a while" from a programming/os standpoint. After that the industry should move to a true next generation arch, not just extensions on the old x86. You see, the Itanium was supposed to be that architecture. It's now on its deathbed because extended x86 is killing it. The 3 big possibilities I think are Power/Sparc/IA64 not in any particular order. With Power being in the new XBox360 and the PS3 it may have a leg up. Even the smallest servers from IBM in the Power line support VT/64bit/multi-core in the cpu's. It looks like you're still stuck in 1990's or early 2000's think-mode right now. The days of arguing the superiority of RISC over CISC are over (or for that matter, any architecture over x86) -- it's now completely about getting your work done, no matter what the architecture. Even supercomputers are switching over the x86 architectures, and most movie animation studios have gotten rid of their SGI boxes and are running mostly x86 architectures now too. -- There is no failure, only delayed success |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
New CPU's from Intel?
"Nate Edel" wrote in message ... ***** charles wrote: I want to buy a computer with a single cpu in it. The cpu must have the following characteristics: VT = virtualization technology in hardware EM64T = the 64 bit extensions MC = multi-core dual-core MT = multi threading I know that Intel has these in the works but I don't know when the release date is on them. Anyone out there have any ideas? probably not until next year? No such processors are in the works; the only such that Intel is likely to make available are available now. Assuming you don't mean both two-socket and dual core, the following processors would appy: Pentium D 9xx Extreme edition (955 and 965, IIRC) Xeon 50xx-series dual core (also supports dual-socket) Possibly the earlier Xeon Dual-core, although I'm not sure if those support VT. Pentium D 840EE supports all but VT. Yep, only 9xx Extreme Edition and Xeon DP have these features (hyperthreading, dual core, VT, and EM64T). Intel is doing away with hyperthreading since it will be doing 4-true core CPUs in 2007. No purpose for hyperthreading when you can do 4 cores. For now, hyperthreading is the easiest way to 4 cores. Go for the Extreme Edition for now. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
New CPU's from Intel?
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
... ***** charles wrote: I have read that Intel will be putting VT in both the x86 side and the Itanium side in the not too distant future. They might port it to the Itanium, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Itanium has more chance of being canceled than of getting much further development going on it, these days. The dual-core Itanium was supposed to be out two years ago, it's been delayed for two years now, and hardly anyone even cares. The new T1 from Sun has up to 8 cores and 4 threads per core. I guess I could do without the multithreading if the chip had 2 cores/VT/64bit. The list I suggested would be a particular architecture that should "last for a while" from a programming/os standpoint. After that the industry should move to a true next generation arch, not just extensions on the old x86. You see, the Itanium was supposed to be that architecture. It's now on its deathbed because extended x86 is killing it. The 3 big possibilities I think are Power/Sparc/IA64 not in any particular order. With Power being in the new XBox360 and the PS3 it may have a leg up. Even the smallest servers from IBM in the Power line support VT/64bit/multi-core in the cpu's. It looks like you're still stuck in 1990's or early 2000's think-mode right now. The days of arguing the superiority of RISC over CISC are over (or for that matter, any architecture over x86) -- it's now completely about getting your work done, no matter what the architecture. Even supercomputers are switching over the x86 architectures, and most movie animation studios have gotten rid of their SGI boxes and are running mostly x86 architectures now too. -- There is no failure, only delayed success It would be sad to think that we are stuck with x86 for at least another 10 years. Hollywood has gone to x86 clusters because it is cheaper and faster. Everyone is price sensative. That's what will kill the Itanium sad to say. Sun is and will have a difficult time against x86 clone servers. running Linux especially at the lower end. IBM hated the pc market, it didn't like the low margins. It likes it where the profits are better (the server market). Even the server market will be affected by low priced clone servers getting more and more powerfull. Seems that HP is betting on Itanium for all its' servers except the cheapest ones. later...... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
New CPU's from Intel?
***** charles wrote:
It would be sad to think that we are stuck with x86 for at least another 10 years. Can't see why that would be sad in any way whatsoever. Hardly anyone is programming in assembler anymore, and for those who are, the architecture is quite a bit improved over the earliest 16-bit ones. Plus the x86 processors are quite often the highest performing processors these days in many fields. Hollywood has gone to x86 clusters because it is cheaper and faster. Of course, what other reasons could there be? But it's not just Hollywood, but also supercomputers from Cray, some IBM, HP, and Sun supercomputers too. Everyone is price sensative. That's what will kill the Itanium sad to say. It'll be Itanium's convoluted programming model that'll kill it. It's one of the most difficult architectures to program for. If people used to complain about x86's difficult programming model in the olden days, those were just crybaby tears -- Itanium is much worse. The programming model has prevented much software from being ported to it, which in turn has prevented much adoption of the architecture, which in turn has prevented even more software from being ported to it. If it was simply about cost of the processors, the proprietary RISC processors are usually as expensive, if not more expensive than Itanium, and a lot of them have huge existing software bases, such as Sparc, Power, and PA. Sun is and will have a difficult time against x86 clone servers. running Linux especially at the lower end. That's why it's joined the club. Big Opteron customer now. IBM hated the pc market, it didn't like the low margins. It likes it where the profits are better (the server market). Even the server market will be affected by low priced clone servers getting more and more powerfull. Well, IBM is an x86 server vendor too. Seems that HP is betting on Itanium for all its' servers except the cheapest ones. Hardly the way I'd put it; I'd call it HP is betting on x86 for all its servers except the most expensive. The majority of HP's revenues comes from its so-called Industry Standard Servers (ISS), i.e. x86 servers. Itanium is in its Business Critical Servers (BCS) group. BCS is both Itanium and PA-RISC still to some extent. BCS is only half the revenues of ISS. Yousuf Khan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
New CPU's from Intel?
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
... ***** charles wrote: It would be sad to think that we are stuck with x86 for at least another 10 years. Can't see why that would be sad in any way whatsoever. Hardly anyone is programming in assembler anymore, and for those who are, the architecture is quite a bit improved over the earliest 16-bit ones. Plus the x86 processors are quite often the highest performing processors these days in many fields. Hollywood has gone to x86 clusters because it is cheaper and faster. Of course, what other reasons could there be? But it's not just Hollywood, but also supercomputers from Cray, some IBM, HP, and Sun supercomputers too. Everyone is price sensative. That's what will kill the Itanium sad to say. It'll be Itanium's convoluted programming model that'll kill it. It's one of the most difficult architectures to program for. If people used to complain about x86's difficult programming model in the olden days, those were just crybaby tears -- Itanium is much worse. The programming model has prevented much software from being ported to it, which in turn has prevented much adoption of the architecture, which in turn has prevented even more software from being ported to it. I have heard that it does take a smart programmer to generate good code for the Itanium. There have been quite a few articles lately on how to modify the GCC so that it generates more efficient code for the IA64. Most programmers it seems who write code for the IA64 use the Intel C compiler. If it was simply about cost of the processors, the proprietary RISC processors are usually as expensive, if not more expensive than Itanium, and a lot of them have huge existing software bases, such as Sparc, Power, and PA. Sun is and will have a difficult time against x86 clone servers. running Linux especially at the lower end. That's why it's joined the club. Big Opteron customer now. IBM hated the pc market, it didn't like the low margins. It likes it where the profits are better (the server market). Even the server market will be affected by low priced clone servers getting more and more powerfull. Well, IBM is an x86 server vendor too. Seems that HP is betting on Itanium for all its' servers except the cheapest ones. Hardly the way I'd put it; I'd call it HP is betting on x86 for all its servers except the most expensive. The majority of HP's revenues comes from its so-called Industry Standard Servers (ISS), i.e. x86 servers. Itanium is in its Business Critical Servers (BCS) group. BCS is both Itanium and PA-RISC still to some extent. BCS is only half the revenues of ISS. Yousuf Khan I was interested in buying an Itanium once from HP. The beuracracy one must go through just to get to the person who has the ability to sell you one is horrendous. I didn't think the pricing was too out of line with Power and Sparc its' major competitors since they were all in the same ballpark. I finally lost interest. Until anyone can just go to a website and order one with several clicks of a mouse, the Itanium will stay a small very small player. HP thinks the product needs a lot of support. Not for people like me who would just buy the hardware and install Linux on it and run the apps I want. HP, IBM and SUN all want to sell you "solutions" for high margin prices. They don't really believe in the commodity markets. There used to be several companies a while back that advertised in Pricewatch 1U rack mount servers for $399. They were fully functional with Celerons or XP cpu's with 256M ram and small IDE hd's. All had Linux on them. Some how they didn't last, either the sellers couldn't make enough money or they couldn't get the parts at a reasonable enough cost. IBM, HP and SUN sell x86 because they have too. The customer would just go to another supplier if the big companies didn't have the products the customer wants/ed to buy. The big companies would much rather you buy a Power/IA64/Sparc system since it means more profit for them in the long run. Even Dell just gave in to selling AMD server systems and Dell doesn't have a major chip line to protect. later...... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel Timeline, Year 2005 | Mikhail Sidorin | Intel | 0 | December 27th 05 10:46 PM |
HELP: P4C800-E Deluxe, Intel RAID and Windows detection problems | Michail Pappas | Asus Motherboards | 2 | November 20th 04 03:18 AM |
VTune Event based sampling and Athlon XP | Shuttie | Intel | 14 | August 1st 03 09:04 AM |
Do you happen to know Intel roadmap for CPUs? | online | General | 3 | July 10th 03 01:32 PM |