or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's Longhorn "dual-core" chip plans
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel's Longhorn "dual-core" chip plans

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Seems Intel is concerned about heat??? Since when...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ch_intel_dc_10
post #2 of 22
Intel has to keep up with MS's plan. Intel will have to produce a 4-6 Ghz processor for the requirements for long horn and the only way the can do it is a dual micro processor buitl into one processor to keep the machine from burning up. Intel may provide the processor. But, who is going to provide a 1 tb HD?
post #3 of 22
Thread Starter 
I wonder how Intel will market them, if they'll list as a 2X(core speed)GHz or if they double it and call it the M$ correct "4-6"GHz?
post #4 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by quagmire
Intel has to keep up with MS's plan. Intel will have to produce a 4-6 Ghz processor for the requirements for long horn and the only way the can do it is a dual micro processor buitl into one processor to keep the machine from burning up. Intel may provide the processor. But, who is going to provide a 1 tb HD?

HD will be easy. Hitachi already has a 5 Platter 400GB drive no. That's 80GB a platter.

I believe the highest arial density platters are around 120GB per platter.

Two years from now that might hit 200GB per platter making it fairly easy to have a Terabyte HD.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #5 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by opuscroakus
I wonder how Intel will market them, if they'll list as a 2X(core speed)GHz or if they double it and call it the M$ correct "4-6"GHz?

Intel uses a numbering system now. They'll market it as a number.

To be honest though from Apple and AMD's point of view this is much worse than if they had stuck with the PIV. the P-M is a very nice processor.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #6 of 22
1TB?

that shouldn't be a problem by then.....

the highest I know of today is 500GB

so I guess by the time longhorn starts shipping in the third quarter of 2010 that will be minimal requirement for any pc.
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
post #7 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by ~ufo~
1TB?

that shouldn't be a problem by then.....

the highest I know of today is 500GB

so I guess by the time longhorn starts shipping in the third quarter of 2010 that will be minimal requirement for any pc.

I don't know what in earth MS is planning do wih the 1 tb HD. What I have heard on microsoft news website's, they plan to do a a single 1 tb HD. I think what you guys are talking about a 2 HD's.
post #8 of 22
Why stop at dual-core? I wish that they would move to quad cores.
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
post #9 of 22
http://lacie.com/news/news.htm?id=10066

I know this is an external drive, but who knows, in 23.4 years when Longhorn actually comes out, maybe they'll have an internal version
post #10 of 22
Question: Does software automatically take advantage of dual core-chips? Do they appear to software as a single chip, or does software need to be written to take advantage of dual-core chips in the same way as it has to be written to take advantage of dual processor machines?
post #11 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Question: Does software automatically take advantage of dual core-chips? Do they appear to software as a single chip, or does software need to be written to take advantage of dual-core chips in the same way as it has to be written to take advantage of dual processor machines?

It has to be written for multiprocessors... it is two CPUs just on the same die. That way the connection between them can be really fast and thick allowing for increased SMP performance.

Oh and it depends on the software. Linux will do great on such a chip, so would Windows.
post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Question: Does software automatically take advantage of dual core-chips? Do they appear to software as a single chip, or does software need to be written to take advantage of dual-core chips in the same way as it has to be written to take advantage of dual processor machines?

Yes it does. The good news in the windoze world is that because of HyperThreading - which make a single proc look like a dual, there's been a lot of software written to take advantage of it, it would simply take advantage of the dual cores in the same way - in fact, I would imagine that they would also be hyperthreaded, so would appear as a quad.
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
The Mad Kiwi Winemaker
Reply
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes
Oh and it depends on the software. Linux will do great on such a chip, so would Windows.

You have to be kidding. Windows multi-threading is terrible in my opinion. There may be some specific apps that take good advantage of it, but the OS itself (Win2000, XP, 2003) sucks at it in my experience.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You have to be kidding. Windows multi-threading is terrible in my opinion. There may be some specific apps that take good advantage of it, but the OS itself (Win2000, XP, 2003) sucks at it in my experience.

I have only used a few hyper-threading enabled computers at my school with both Windows XP Pro and Linux (knoppix off a CD) and both did a great job at splitting up the various tasks to be done between the two "logical" CPUs. It ran smoother under Linux but Windows was fine.

Now mind you I am not a dual processer expert... having no experience using a true dual box of any sort. But I have built a Linux cluster using OpenMosix and have done a lot of reading about the subject. Well put it this way, Windows is not going to be hindered in anyway when used on a dual core system.
post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by quagmire
Intel has to keep up with MS's plan. Intel will have to produce a 4-6 Ghz processor for the requirements for long horn and the only way the can do it is a dual micro processor buitl into one processor to keep the machine from burning up. Intel may provide the processor. But, who is going to provide a 1 tb HD?


I don't think it said it required 1TB of space, did it?
And yes, a PC can be had cheaper but I want a MAC!
Reply
And yes, a PC can be had cheaper but I want a MAC!
Reply
post #16 of 22
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by AirSluf
"on average" Yes, 1TB!

No! I can't believe that one reads "requremets" into the Microsoft Watch article. She described what she thought would be a typical PC running Longhorn. She spoke nothing about requirements!

And in two years I actually expect myself to be upgading my current 2x2 G5 with a Mac having dual core PowerPC-processors @ 4 GHz or more, 1 TB storage and 2 GB RAM. Will that be the requirements of Mac OS X 10.6? I really hope not.

Quote:
Originally posted by ~ufo~
1TB?
the highest I know of today is 500GB

The LacCie Big Disk is actually two 250 MB harddrives RAID:ed together. It's the same with Bigger Disk, but it uses four drives.

But who cares? In two years would anyone be surprised if there'd be single drives with 1 TB capacity? And.. Longhorn will be Microsoft's primary operating system until 2010. So by then what do you thing the average PC running Longhorn would look like? Dual core @ 6 GHz, 1 TB HB, 2 GB RAM, GPUs three times as powerful as today. I'd say that be a low end computer by 2010.
post #18 of 22
Some more news on Intel's dual core ramp-up...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15915

A couple of interesting things Intel mentions:

"We'll add multicore products into the desktop, servers and notebooks in 2005, these will be distinctly different models. All of our microprocessor development going forward is now multicore," said Otellini.

Sixty four bit technology starts, he claims, next month, with the workstation and server product based on the Prescott die. He said Intel has the ability to turn 64-bit tech on as soon as Microsoft has finished the validation system.

Hmmm, they're ramping up quicker than I thought actually. I didn't really expect to see any multicore Pentiums until late 2006 - sometime around Longhorn's introduction.

Thoughts?

C.
post #19 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Concord

Hmmm, they're ramping up quicker than I thought actually. I didn't really expect to see any multicore Pentiums until late 2006 - sometime around Longhorn's introduction.

Thoughts?

C.

Intel is now a dual-core chip maker. Did they just thumb their noses at IBM? \

If this is based of the Prescott die will it start out at dual 3.X+GHz or will they have to lower the clock speed? If they start this at 90nm I'll be curious to see if the have any problems like IBM has had. I'll also be curious to see how much power one of these draws.

What's our dual-core outlook?
post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by opuscroakus:
Intel is now a dual-core chip maker. Did they just thumb their noses at IBM?

They were going that route eventually, the super-hot Prescotts just pushed them into doing it sooner.
Quote:
If this is based of the Prescott die will it start out at dual 3.X+GHz or will they have to lower the clock speed?

Their dual core efforts are, in part, based on the Pentium M and not the Prescott. More efficient, less power.
Quote:
If they start this at 90nm I'll be curious to see if the have any problems like IBM has had.

They are already selling 90nm Pentium Ms so that shouldn't be an issue for them. They are already talking 65nm...
Quote:
I'll also be curious to see how much power one of these draws.

One of the big reasons behind the dual core effort is to get the power consumption and heat down but it's too early to tell what kind of tolerances they'll accept for a desktop chip.
Quote:
What's our dual-core outlook?

Good question...

C.
post #21 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by Henriok
And.. Longhorn will be Microsoft's primary operating system until 2010.

Are you sure you wanted to say "until 2010"? Seems that it has to be "from 2010 on":

Link

--
My girlfriend thinks I'm curious - that's what I read in her diary
(Unknown)
Reply
--
My girlfriend thinks I'm curious - that's what I read in her diary
(Unknown)
Reply
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by opuscroakus
Intel is now a dual-core chip maker. Did they just thumb their noses at IBM?


Maybe they are responding ot IBM and Apple has dual core machines ready to go for WWDC. Pure fantasy on my part but hey you never know. The bigger issue as I se it is that IBM has potentially one more rev possible that would be single core, so Intel could beat them to market. In between all this is the reality that the CPU cores from both IBM and Motorola/Freescale are relatively small, it should not be difficult to move to dual cores in some manner relatively quickly.
Quote:

What's our dual-core outlook?

I think short term like to the end of the year not good, becomeing very good after that. As stated above there is always the possibility that Intel is responding to something we don't know that may be coming from Apple short term. As to long term the rational approach is more cores on chip, if clock rates can be kept up.

As to systems, the community (MAC, Windows, Liunx & whatever) is now to the point that SMP makes very good sense. All of the available OS's can make good use of it and it is recieved very well by the users of the hardware/software. So it has to be on the road map somewhere. The cost of OS support has been paid for, it is only a matter of lowering hardware cost to make SMP pervasive. Pervasive it will be too as there are to many benefits to ignore it. Everything from game stations to home robots will be making use of dual core SMP technology.

Thanks
Dave

Quote:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's Longhorn "dual-core" chip plans