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......

***** 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)

.... 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......

***** 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

"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.....

***** 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

"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.

"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......

***** 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

"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......