Intel admits dual-core P4 was rushed

Nom Chompsky

Nom Chompsky

High Tory
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
54,582
Reaction score
39,431
Location
Cape Town
We suspected as much, and Intel has confirmed it: the dual-core Pentium 4 was a hack. Speaking at the Hot Chips conference in advance of next week's Intel Developers Forum, Intel engineer Jonathan Douglas said that the dual-core Smithfield was rushed out the door because of competitive pressures from AMD. "We were behind," and Intel needed a "competitive response" to the dual-core CPUs in development by its rival.

Smithfield made it through testing and out the door in about nine months, which is remarkably quick by Intel standards. The need to get a dual-core CPU into the market as a response to AMD meant that Smithfield lacked features of the dual-core Opteron and Athlon 64 like independent memory buses for each core. In addition, the need to put two Pentium 4 cores on a single die led to additional signaling problems as the transistors were even closer together on the new dual-core CPUs.

Since the release of Smithfield, Intel has been working hard on its next generation of dual-core CPUs. The company has moved up the debut of the dual-core Xeon (Paxville) from early 2006 to the fourth quarter of this year (which will allow Dell to finally offer an alternative to the dual-core Opterons). Unlike Smithfield, Paxville will feature a dedicated memory controller for each core on the CPU.

At the IDF next week, Intel is expected to provide an update on the progress of its next-generation CPUs. Merom and its brethren are all departures from the Pentium 4's Netburst architecture, based on the Pentium M instead. Fabbed at 65nm, those CPUs are expected to start shipping in 2Q/3Q 2006, and may very well power the first generation of Apple's Intel machines.
Click to expand...

Source: ArsTechnica

Intel lost the single-core battle and have already lost the dual-core battle...yet n00bs will still buy Intel CPU's no doubt.
 
rburley said:
ahhh AMD you beauty
Click to expand...

Er what? If anything the article suggests that AMD needs to pull another rabbit out the hat to stay ahead. Now that Intel are firmly in the dual-core playground things are going to heat up a lot for AMD.
 
AMD ArE busy with a new dual core also. What do you think they are busy doing? sitting on their hands waiting for intel to catch up. dont be thick;)
 
Intel don't even have a real dual-core chip yet. AMD is way ahead of this game. They're giving Intel a beating when it comes to performance.
 
rburley said:
AMD ArE busy with a new dual core also. What do you think they are busy doing? sitting on their hands waiting for intel to catch up. dont be thick;)
Click to expand...

They aren't waiting but I haven't read anything other than a process shrink and increased clock speed on AMD's side, they're going to have to do more.
 
yes we know that, we are talking about a NEW dual core cpu.
 
here in Nigeria, we have not heards of athlon x2, am still behind on technologies..

Shebo
Nigeria

ps. we are in SA, we definitely not that far behind ;-)
 
sa is very good when it comes to technology

our adsl is world class albeit expensive

i just ppl would buy amd, they always buy what they know p4 grrrr,
 
the masses do i think, but not the technical people, they know better...
 
Um - I rushed my omelette tis morning coz I was late.
It passed my taste tests fine and was a good omelette.
It was cooked too fast and the texture was not quite right, but it did the job.

It's a dual core processor that does what it's supposed to do, so now where exaktlee is the problem ? I still have not seen proof of an AMD dual-core processor wiping out an Intel dual-core when doing normal stuff like playing BF2.

So - you AMD pushers - show me the proof or shuddap.
 
the proof is in the tests that anand and tom to on their websites just to name a few...

rather go for what a gamer knows is best than the mass people who just buy on marketing bliss...
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/200508011/index.html

AMD uses less power then the Intel: i.e. less heat, less money spent on power bill ( not a huge dif, but something )
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050603/stresstest-01.html#power_consumption_and_costs

Running single applications AMD beats Intel
AMD and Intel are fairly even when running multiple applications.

Have you got a 939 socket AMD motherboard? If so chances are that it is Dual Core compatible and you won't have to buy a brand new motherboard unlike Intel.
AMD DualCore is more expensive then the Intel DualCore. AMD X2 4400+ sells at R5000, haven't seen the Intel prices yet.

If I want a gaming machine I'll go for AMD. If I want a game server I'll go with Intel.

Perdition, I only have Tomshardware here. Do you have links to comparisons done by other sites?
 
Ya seez what i'm saying ?
I spent the money I would've wasted on the AMD DualCore on realllllly fast DDR2 memoree.
I'm not sorry at all - well - so far, and my CPU's performance is killing every AMD owner I know - well - not exaktlee killing, but not loosing.
 
well... sorrriieee... but for the money i bought my AMD rig almost a year ago its lasting me quite well with most of the latest demanding titles like BF2, FEAR demo, etc... i honestly doubt an Intel system similar to mine would have been stable for OC'ing and performance... but maybe its just me? :P
 
stoke said:
when doing normal stuff like playing BF2.
Click to expand...
Neither of the dual core chips (AMD or Intel) will help with games. They're currently not written to take advantage of dual cores (or multi processors), and are not likely to in the near future ... seem incredibly hard to write multi-threaded games.

What dual cores will allow you to do is, while playing a heavy game, burn DVD or encode MP4 or do large downloads in the backround without affecting game performace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X