I was in Austin visiting AMD when I saw the email - Intel was prepping a dual core system to be sent out my way for a preview.  That was last Wednesday, the machine arrived on Friday, and today's Monday; needless to say, it's been a busy weekend.

This type of a review is a first for Intel. For the most part, doing an officially sanctioned preview with performance benchmarks isn't in the Intel vocabulary.  Don't take this opportunity lightly - this is a huge change in the thinking and execution at Intel. 

Make no mistake, Intel isn't officially releasing their dual core desktop processors today; this is merely a preview. Intel's dual core line is still on track to be released sometime in the April - June timeframe.  Intel will beat AMD to bringing dual core to the desktop first, while AMD will do the same to Intel in the server/workstation world.  We still have no idea of actual availability when these chips are officially launched. Remember that all of the first generation dual core chips are basically twice the size of their single core counterparts - meaning that they put twice the strain on manufacturing.  Intel, with 11 total fabs, is in a better position to absorb this impact than AMD, but both have paper-launched products in the past, so there's no telling which way the dual core wars will go initially.  All we can say at this point is that we've seen dual core parts from both AMD and Intel running at full shipping speeds, and Intel was the first to get us a review sample for this preview. 

The clock speed race is over, both AMD and Intel have thrown in their towels, and now it's time to shift to dual core.  Intel has been extremely forthcoming with their dual core roadmap, and for those who aren't intimately familiar with it, here's a look at the next 24 months from Intel:

The green bars are dual core, the blue is single core.  Enough said.

The Chip: Pentium Extreme Edition
POST A COMMENT

142 Comments

View All Comments

  • nserra - Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - link

    Amd dualcore platform is right here today, the processor is not. And i dont see that a bad thing, upgradable as always been a good thing.

    #65 "Yes, same will also apply to the AMD's solution. Both CPU cores in dual core Opteron will share same bus and memory controller."

    I am not really sure about that, amd always said the processor was being done dualcore since day one that must mean something. Dont forget that socket 939 is dual channel it could be possible to give one memory channel for one processor and the other channel for the other.
    Reply
  • matthewfoley - Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - link

    You people screaming for the gaming benchmarks, RTFA. Gaming or any other single threaded application will have identical results to a similarly clocked single core proc. Reply
  • ceefka - Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - link

    #62 I read the article and think it's a rant, just a rant, no facts, just implications. I can sympathise with the feeling that Intel is let off the hook, for now.

    I do hope that games will be a substantial part of the benchies once the traditional AMD vs Intel dual core tournament takes place. Remember the pre-release benchies of the Opteron (that Italian thing)?

    I also think that shrinking DVD's while typing in MS Word and listening to mp3 is about the maximum of things to do simultaneously. I have to get my head around it as well, you know ;-). It does however open a way to have someting like a home server or HTPC for everything but the most extreme stuff. It could record a TV-show, while watching a DVD and the wife chatting away on another screen.

    Some say that dual core will have more benefit in servers because of the typical threaded applications. That's a good point. Can we look forward to a comparison of a 2 and 4-way dual core Opteron vs Xeon on typical server applications, workstation apps and maybe a few games just for fun.
    Reply
  • smn198 - Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - link

    lol @ #11 "now Intel is going to start eating AMD's lunch"

    Do you mean eating AMD for lunch? I think I prefer it your way.
    Reply
  • RLandon - Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - link

    The multitasking benchmarks clearly shows that Windows doesn't deserve to be refered to as an operating system. Reply
  • ceefka - Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - link

    The price-difference between a dual and single core might not be too big on an Intel CPU, but you MUST get a new board. So the actual price difference when upgrading is $80 + brand new 955x motherboard. Nice one, Intel. A new board will cost you around $ 100 at least: actual difference $ 180. If AMD can stay under that difference they're at least competitive in pricing.

    Benchies are promising/impressive though. Wonder what the 64-bit benchies would be. Too bad that the introduction of dual-cores is in different segments (desktop vs server). Can't wait for some traditional Intel vs AMD benching ;)

    #2
    Read this article
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... page 3, last paragraph.
    AMD's Fred Weber finds Hyperthreading a "misuse of resources". AMD have always said two cores are better than a single core acting like one.
    Reply
  • defter - Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - link

    "INTEL's dual core isn't really dual-core, it's just two CPUs stick together"

    dual consisting of or involving two parts or components usually in pairs; "an egg with a double yolk"; "a double (binary) star"; "double doors"; "dual controls for pilot and copilot"; "duple (or double) time consists of two (or a multiple of two) beats to a measure": http://dict.die.net/dual/

    Yes, two CPU stuck together can be called "dual core".


    "the two cpus share the same bus, without any logic in between."

    Yes, same will also apply to the AMD's solution. Both CPU cores in dual core Opteron will share same bus and memory controller.
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - link

    130W isn't actually bad. The Xeon MP Potomac had TDP of 125W and max power of 136W, saying probably due to EIST, the difference is much less now. Plus, you aren't running two cores all the time, so if you are playing games only, then you would have 65W power consumption.

    Hmm... I wonder if the reason 1066MHz is not supported by any of the dual core processors is to dedicate more bandwidth of the Dual-DDRII-667 to integrated graphics. Or maybe we would see Yonah with 1066MHz bus as desktop?
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - link

    Reply
  • falcc - Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - link

    No games tested at all? Since when does this happen? Intel doesn't want dual core to look bad so Anandtech doesn't bench ANY games at all.

    Come on guys, judging by the article below on the Inquirer I'm not the only one who is suspicious.

    http://theinquirer.net/?article=22332
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now