A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Intel
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel's glued-together dual-cores



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 15th 04, 05:28 PM
YKhan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Intel's glued-together dual-cores

SiliconStrategies.com - Intel 'dual-core' could be two die glued
together, says report
http://www.siliconstrategies.com/art...cleId=55301654

Quote:
LONDON - The planned dual-core processor from Intel Corp.
known as Smithfield could start out as two Pentium 4 chips in a single
package, according to a report that appeared online Tuesday (Dec 14.).

According to the report in The Register, which appeared as Intel held a
telephone press conference to discuss its dual-core processor which is
expected to ship mid-2005, a company executive did not deny the
suggestion that Smithfield would be based on two Pentium 4 processors
glued together in a single package.

Smithfield would initially be fabbed using a 90-nanometer manufacturing
process, but would migrate to a 65-nm process in 2006, the report
quoted Steve Smith, vice president for Intel's desktop platforms group,
as saying.

By the end of 2006 Intel expects over 70 per cent of its desktop CPU
production to be dual-core chips, Smith also said, according to the
report.

The report said Smith declined to comment on whether Smithfield is one
ot more chips in a single package and would only say that Smithfield
contains two execution cores. Smithfiields is expected to operate at a
lower clock frequency than a single P4.
  #2  
Old December 16th 04, 01:33 PM
George Macdonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 15 Dec 2004 08:28:44 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:

SiliconStrategies.com - Intel 'dual-core' could be two die glued
together, says report
http://www.siliconstrategies.com/art...cleId=55301654

Quote:
LONDON - The planned dual-core processor from Intel Corp.
known as Smithfield could start out as two Pentium 4 chips in a single
package, according to a report that appeared online Tuesday (Dec 14.).

According to the report in The Register, which appeared as Intel held a
telephone press conference to discuss its dual-core processor which is
expected to ship mid-2005, a company executive did not deny the
suggestion that Smithfield would be based on two Pentium 4 processors
glued together in a single package.

Smithfield would initially be fabbed using a 90-nanometer manufacturing
process, but would migrate to a 65-nm process in 2006, the report
quoted Steve Smith, vice president for Intel's desktop platforms group,
as saying.

By the end of 2006 Intel expects over 70 per cent of its desktop CPU
production to be dual-core chips, Smith also said, according to the
report.

The report said Smith declined to comment on whether Smithfield is one
ot more chips in a single package and would only say that Smithfield
contains two execution cores. Smithfiields is expected to operate at a
lower clock frequency than a single P4.



Hmmm, VIA talked along similar lines a month or so ago... calling it "twin
core" IIRC.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
  #3  
Old December 16th 04, 02:33 PM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George Macdonald wrote:
Hmmm, VIA talked along similar lines a month or so ago... calling it "twin
core" IIRC.


Yup, Intel is racing to keep up against VIA. :-)

Yousuf Khan
  #4  
Old December 17th 04, 04:44 AM
keith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 08:33:20 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
Hmmm, VIA talked along similar lines a month or so ago... calling it "twin
core" IIRC.


Yup, Intel is racing to keep up against VIA. :-)


Ouch! You're cruel! ;-)

--
Keith
  #5  
Old December 17th 04, 05:23 AM
Bill Davidsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

YKhan wrote:
SiliconStrategies.com - Intel 'dual-core' could be two die glued
together, says report
http://www.siliconstrategies.com/art...cleId=55301654

Quote:
LONDON - The planned dual-core processor from Intel Corp.
known as Smithfield could start out as two Pentium 4 chips in a single
package, according to a report that appeared online Tuesday (Dec 14.).
Quote:

I believe the original PentiumPro was two chips in a single die carrier,
the CPU and the cache.

According to the report in The Register, which appeared as Intel held a
telephone press conference to discuss its dual-core processor which is
expected to ship mid-2005, a company executive did not deny the
suggestion that Smithfield would be based on two Pentium 4 processors
glued together in a single package.


To the point, are these current production compatible P4 (ie. HT
enabled)? And do they share L2 (or L3) cache?

Smithfield would initially be fabbed using a 90-nanometer manufacturing
process, but would migrate to a 65-nm process in 2006, the report
quoted Steve Smith, vice president for Intel's desktop platforms group,
as saying.

By the end of 2006 Intel expects over 70 per cent of its desktop CPU
production to be dual-core chips, Smith also said, according to the
report.

The report said Smith declined to comment on whether Smithfield is one
ot more chips in a single package and would only say that Smithfield
contains two execution cores. Smithfiields is expected to operate at a
lower clock frequency than a single P4.



There are a lot of interesting questions about this coming technology,
it could be really neat or it could be a true cob job.

--
bill davidsen )
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
  #6  
Old December 17th 04, 05:30 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 15 Dec 2004 08:28:44 -0800, "YKhan" wrote:

SiliconStrategies.com - Intel 'dual-core' could be two die glued
together, says report
http://www.siliconstrategies.com/art...cleId=55301654

[quote]LONDON - The planned dual-core processor from Intel Corp.
known as Smithfield could start out as two Pentium 4 chips in a single
package, according to a report that appeared online Tuesday (Dec 14.).

According to the report in The Register, which appeared as Intel held a
telephone press conference to discuss its dual-core processor which is
expected to ship mid-2005, a company executive did not deny the
suggestion that Smithfield would be based on two Pentium 4 processors
glued together in a single package.

....snip...
I already have an oil-filled electric heater that has dual (600 W and
900W) core. The cores can be turned on separately or together, thus
providing 3 heating levels. Is Intel-branded dual-core P4 space
heater going to have the same feature, i.e. could one of the cores be
turned off when it gets too hot in the room?
;-)

  #7  
Old December 18th 04, 06:20 PM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Davidsen wrote:
I believe the original PentiumPro was two chips in a single die carrier,
the CPU and the cache.


Yes, and I would guess that the current production Xeons with L3 caches
are also similar, with the L3 being a separate chip?

To the point, are these current production compatible P4 (ie. HT
enabled)? And do they share L2 (or L3) cache?


No, they don't share any of their caches with each other. Actually, the
AMD dual-cores are going to be similar to this too, with no shared
cache. You lose a lot of cost savings at the very least, by not
integrating the L2 caches. But you might get slightly better performance
by having the dedicated L2's.

There are a lot of interesting questions about this coming technology,
it could be really neat or it could be a true cob job.


I think the main question is whether the internal CPU-CPU communications
mechanism is properly designed or just cobbled together. A properly
designed one would reduce if not eliminate entirely the amount of
cache-snoop traffic going over the FSB.

Yousuf Khan
  #8  
Old December 18th 04, 10:11 PM
Carlo Razzeto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
No, they don't share any of their caches with each other. Actually, the
AMD dual-cores are going to be similar to this too, with no shared cache.
You lose a lot of cost savings at the very least, by not integrating the
L2 caches. But you might get slightly better performance by having the
dedicated L2's.

Yousuf Khan


Interesting, I thought that the DC Opterons were going to share their L2. I
could have sworn I saw that in one of their presentations.

Carlo


  #9  
Old December 19th 04, 10:11 AM
Tony Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:20:53 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

Bill Davidsen wrote:
I believe the original PentiumPro was two chips in a single die carrier,
the CPU and the cache.


Yes, and I would guess that the current production Xeons with L3 caches
are also similar, with the L3 being a separate chip?


Actually no, all integrated on-die. The L3 just has a narrower
(64-bit vs. 256-bit) connection to the processor core and higher
latency when compared to the L2 cache. Same goes for Itaniums.

To the point, are these current production compatible P4 (ie. HT
enabled)? And do they share L2 (or L3) cache?


No, they don't share any of their caches with each other. Actually, the
AMD dual-cores are going to be similar to this too, with no shared
cache. You lose a lot of cost savings at the very least, by not
integrating the L2 caches. But you might get slightly better performance
by having the dedicated L2's.


It probably also simplifies design by a fair bit. A shared cache is
going to be trickier to design than a separate one. By no means an
insurmountable problem, but it would probably just compound add to the
performance hit, making it not worthwhile.

Besides which we seem to be quickly getting to a point where designers
have more transistors than they can figure out what to do with.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca
  #10  
Old December 19th 04, 08:56 PM
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Carlo Razzeto wrote:
Interesting, I thought that the DC Opterons were going to share their L2. I
could have sworn I saw that in one of their presentations.


Nope, and you'll notice that DC Opterons are almost exactly twice the
size of their SC versions. That's cause they not only add an extra core,
they also added the whole L2 cache too.

From what I've heard, AMD did indeed make their Opterons DC-capable
right from the beginning, but what that actually meant was that they had
simply designed the core so that if they cut two cores side-to-side,
they would see communications channels directly aligned up on each die.
So they were actually ever planning on sharing caches with each other.

Yousuf Khan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS PRINTER PARTS trays fusers drums printheads -- oki fujitsu hp genicom epson ibm dec jetdirect laserjet lexnmark qms okidata ml320 mannesmann tally printonix tektronix qms toshiba zebra otc ibm lexmark intermec dec compaq montreal canada toronto o [email protected] Printers 1 March 15th 05 06:50 AM
dual g5 vs dual opteron vs dual xeon for video encoding the augur General Hardware 12 September 2nd 04 12:21 AM
Need Help To Identify Maker of DDR400 DIMM card gmv Homebuilt PC's 6 August 28th 04 05:48 PM
Dual channel question Augustus Overclocking 2 July 2nd 04 09:03 AM
Mushkin PC3200 1Gb Dual Packs from Fry's DW General 3 September 24th 03 10:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.