or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel to deliver dual-core, hyper-threaded chips earlier than expected
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel to deliver dual-core, hyper-threaded chips earlier than expected

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
With development ahead of schedule, Intel Corporation today announced it is accelerating the availability of its dual-core, hyper-threaded Xeon and Xeon MP processors.

The new processors will help improve server responsiveness, speed and multi-tasking by allowing software to manage information from up to four brains per Intel processor. In addition, Intel said today that it has begun a broad evaluation program of thousands of dual-core platforms for software developers and enterprise customers.

As they did with dual-core PC processors earlier this year, Intel engineers have executed exquisitely, and because of that well bring our dual-core Intel Xeon processor platforms to the marketplace well ahead of schedule, said Kirk Skaugen, general manager of Intel's Server Platforms Group.

Originally due in 2006, Intel plans to introduce the dual-core Xeon processor MP, codenamed Paxville, for servers with four or more processors later in 2005. Paxville will provide more than 60 percent better performance over previous generations and will use the Intel E8500 chipset, which has been architected for dual-core performance and was introduced earlier this year.

For dual processor servers, the company in 2005 plans to ship a premium dual-core Xeon processor, codenamed Paxville DP. The processor will deliver up to 50 percent improved performance over previous generations through use the Intel E7520 chipset.

Paxville DP will be targeted at early adopters and evaluators of dual-core technology and is to be followed in 2006 by a broader family of dual-core Xeon processor-based platforms, codenamed Bensley for servers and Glidewell for workstations. Both processors are targeted to complete an extremely aggressive transition to dual-core top to bottom in Intels entire server and workstation line-up.

The 64-bit Paxville and Paxville DP processors will utilize Intel's Hyper-Threading Technology, allowing a single dual-core processor to run four threads simultaneously. The platforms will also include enhanced security features such as Execute Disable Bit and improved power management with Demand Based Switching.

Intel said it has 17 multi-core projects under development and expects more than 85 percent of its server volume exiting 2006 to be multi-core processors. In addition to the Xeon processors due in 2005, Intel began shipping the dual-core Intel Pentium D processor for uni-processor servers in July 2005 and remains on track to begin shipping dual-core Itanium processors by the end of the year, the company said.

Intels evaluation program, which began on Monday, will ultimately deliver thousands of dual-core platforms based on Pentium D processors, Xeon processors, Xeon MP processors and Itanium processors to early adopter customers and software developers through 2005 and into 2006.
post #2 of 36
That's what I'm talking about. PowerMac with 2x dual core XEONS with hyperthreading. Freaking Stellar. Imagine what a renderman for Maya, or renderman pro server could do if it were optimised to run on one of those. The day is comming. I hope Apple has all it's own software ready, and aware of all these features at launch.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #3 of 36
The new powerbook is coming... ITS COMING!
post #4 of 36
yo, Xeon does not equal Powerbook.
post #5 of 36
You won't see an Xeon on a PowerBook any time soon, unless you are wanting to go beyond melting your hands and having a battery life of two seconds. The xeon is a high performance processor, which just pulls the watts out of the mains at a ridiculous rate.

The chips that Apple is interested in is the Pentium-M. The only place that we are likely to see a Xeon is on a desktop, but there is very little info on what Apple's desktop plans are.
post #6 of 36
Ahhh, sorry I know, what I really meant to say was, if they're producing these chips faster than expected, then that means that there is a darn good chance the new powerbooks will hopefully be produced faster than expected.

Homies, I'm on the jonze for a new powerbook. I would wish on a friggin star if I thought it would help...
post #7 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by ajmas
You won't see an Xeon on a PowerBook any time soon, unless you are wanting to go beyond melting your hands and having a battery life of two seconds. The xeon is a high performance processor, which just pulls the watts out of the mains at a ridiculous rate.

The chips that Apple is interested in is the Pentium-M. The only place that we are likely to see a Xeon is on a desktop, but there is very little info on what Apple's desktop plans are.

Yep... more likely to see them in the PowerMac and the Xserve than anything else.

But thanks for clearing that up... I can wait till I get my hands a 1.8ghz Pentium M PB!
post #8 of 36
does this make it likelier that we'll see Intel based PowerMacs sooner?
post #9 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by popmetal
does this make it likelier that we'll see Intel based PowerMacs sooner?

Nah, not really. Intel hardware will have to follow the availability of ported/recompined software. Not the other way around. So I think it'll be the same waiting period.
post #10 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by nowayout11
Nah, not really. Intel hardware will have to follow the availability of ported/recompined software. Not the other way around. So I think it'll be the same waiting period.

In addition, Apple doesn't want this first generation of chips. Not as much of a performance swing as would be required to get decent performance out of Rosetta.

With portables, the MIPS/watts ratio won't be there until Yonah in 2006 sometime around the middle of the year. Esp. if they are looking for 64 bit PB's.

But I think Intel is waking up. AMD might not have much time left to move in if their lawsuits don't do Intel much damage.
post #11 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike Moscow
The new powerbook is coming... ITS COMING!

post #12 of 36
Crazy, i never would have thought that we would all be going towards dual core proccesors.
Would it really be worth living in a world without television - Krusty the Klown
Reply
Would it really be worth living in a world without television - Krusty the Klown
Reply
post #13 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Glamingo
Crazy, i never would have thought that we would all be going towards dual core proccesors.

Crazy? I never thought we'd have personal computers.
post #14 of 36
Anybody remember the last time a vendor of Apple processors delivered a chip early?
post #15 of 36
IBM Had been providing high power CPUs, just not the type Apple needed for it products.
post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by macFanDave
Anybody remember the last time a vendor of Apple processors delivered a chip early?


Uhmmmm that would be a uhm... a... uhm.... a [B A BIG FAT NO! NO! ]NO![/B]






Ike

Blogging with Ike
windows... nice gaming machines but I
would not want to do any real work on
one.
Reply
windows... nice gaming machines but I
would not want to do any real work on
one.
Reply
post #17 of 36
You know, people, Apple didn't have this problem until the G4's intro in 1999. Before that they were delivering ahead of Intel, both in speed and power.

I know it's fashionable to think otherwise these days.
post #18 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You know, people, Apple didn't have this problem until the G4's intro in 1999. Before that they were delivering ahead of Intel, both in speed and power.

I know it's fashionable to think otherwise these days.

It's fashionable because it's been like this for half of the PPC's lifetime.
post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You know, people, Apple didn't have this problem until the G4's intro in 1999. Before that they were delivering ahead of Intel, both in speed and power.

I know it's fashionable to think otherwise these days.

Actually it wasn't the G4 intro that was the problem, it was that the G4 stayed where it was introd for like 18 months.

And they might have been ahead of intel , but that doesn't mean any of those chips were on time. And some chips never came (wasn't there a partnership working on something called Taligent, or was that just an OS? And didn't some company proclaim that they could make the G3 better then before, better, stronger, faster, sort of a bionic G3 chip, only to have it turn out they could barely squeeze a couple of extra % in the speed category?)
post #20 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by nowayout11
Nah, not really. Intel hardware will have to follow the availability of ported/recompined software. Not the other way around. So I think it'll be the same waiting period.

Actually, I think it will be the other way around.. we'll have some Intel software out, but when Apple has Intel versions of their stuff ready, they'll release it.. essentially turning up the head on 3rd party software developers to get Intel native versions out the door.

I imagine if Apple has the chips, and has the motherboard/case designs, and then has their software done, you'll see them asap on apple.com
post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by ajmas
IBM Had been providing high power CPUs, just not the type Apple needed for it products.

The IBM PPC processor has seen the end of their day in mainstream computers. In 1999 it was apparent that the PPC was in trouble. The PPC obviously has it's place; which is to be engineered for specific purposes, and applications like high range GFLOP simulations, and such for scientific computing. They (IBM) are now harnessing that potential in another constrained specifically designed environment by producing processors for console gaming machines. They blew Apple away with the #'s they could achieve in certain controlled situations, but translating those #'s into something that isn't highly constrained, and controlled; like having a varying bunch of Applications under a ever changing environment is more than the PPC can handle. IBM would never admit that to Apple, but Apple finally realized it, and got the hell out of dodge. Better late than never I say.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
Actually it wasn't the G4 intro that was the problem, it was that the G4 stayed where it was introd for like 18 months.

And they might have been ahead of intel , but that doesn't mean any of those chips were on time. And some chips never came (wasn't there a partnership working on something called Taligent, or was that just an OS? And didn't some company proclaim that they could make the G3 better then before, better, stronger, faster, sort of a bionic G3 chip, only to have it turn out they could barely squeeze a couple of extra % in the speed category?)

I started to use Macs the end of '91 or so, when I bought my 950. Until Jobs announced that Apple was going to bring the speed of the G4 AGP series down by 50MHz because Moto couldn't meet the speeds promised, Apple didn't have a problem getting chips on time, or at speed. This was the first time this happened since I started with it.

Before that Moto always met its dates. It was Intel that had problems, and AMD was just a joke.

Taligent was just software. Yes there was a company that wanted to license the PPC design. They made a lot of claims. I read extensively about it at the time. They had some special technology where they were going to use bipolar transistors. It seemed strange because they use more power. I thought I still had the link but I don't

There was also another company that supposedly had a Mac running at much higher speeds using some new cooling technology. They had photos and demoed a unit, I think, but disappeared as well.
post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by popmetal
does this make it likelier that we'll see Intel based PowerMacs sooner?

Paxville is Pentium IV based.
It's unlikely Apple will use them at all.
Woodcrest is the name of the game
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike Moscow
The new powerbook is coming... ITS COMING!

XEON for the XServe maybe, but not the PowerBook.
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by kwsanders
XEON for the XServe maybe, but not the PowerBook.

It's already been said. He doesn't need it repeated I'm sure he can read.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wondering
yo, Xeon does not equal Powerbook.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
It's already been said. He doesn't need it repeated I'm sure he can read.

And we can grant him a little enthusiasm.
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
It's already been said. He doesn't need it repeated I'm sure he can read.

Thanks. I had not read the post of that before I replied. I am sure it will not hurt you if I post it again.
post #28 of 36
well at least intel ships things AHEAD of schedule! Welcome changed from some other cough cough processor manufactures
post #29 of 36
I'm sorry, it's just wrong - wrong I tell you - to see Intel CPU announcements on an Apple-oriented site.


- Jasen
post #30 of 36
Quote:
which has been architected for dual-core performance

architected is not a word!
post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I started to use Macs the end of '91 or so, when I bought my 950. Until Jobs announced that Apple was going to bring the speed of the G4 AGP series down by 50MHz because Moto couldn't meet the speeds promised, Apple didn't have a problem getting chips on time, or at speed. This was the first time this happened since I started with it.

They may have met their own schedule with the early G3's and the first G4, but Motorola was still already losing ground to Intel. The high water mark was the 604e, I think. I remember groaning when the much-ballyhooed G3 intro'd at a slower clock (266 v. 350) with only ideosyncratic per-clock gains. Heck, it had a slower clock even than its immediate ancestor, the 603e. Yeah, it was a better designed chip, the savior of portable Macs, and the beginning of the low-power trend that's now taken over; but it was also a sign that Mot was losing the fab wars to Intel. Intel would have been able to keep cranking out higher-clocked 604 derivatives; Mot couldn't. But the shit really hit the fan when Mot couldn't even scale the G3/G4. We went a big nowhere, performance-wise, from the time the 350MHz 604e's debuted to when Mot finally pushed the G4 past 400Mhz in any quantity. It was a long, long time in between.

Holy crap: I didn't even remember exactly how long: two-and-a-half years between the debut of the 350MHz 9600 in Aug '97 and of the (for-real) 450 and 500MHz PMG4's in Feb '00. Wow. Bad, bad times.
post #32 of 36
Yes,

I've been a reader for a long time here... And I really don't see Jobs steering Apple in the wrong direction but it certainly is WEIRD SQUARED talking about Intel hoo haa on here.

Next thing you know they'll be virus patches released for Tiger every 2 days \

Quote:
Originally posted by jasenj1
I'm sorry, it's just wrong - wrong I tell you - to see Intel CPU announcements on an Apple-oriented site.


- Jasen
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
They may have met their own schedule with the early G3's and the first G4, but Motorola was still already losing ground to Intel. The high water mark was the 604e, I think. I remember groaning when the much-ballyhooed G3 intro'd at a slower clock (266 v. 350) with only ideosyncratic per-clock gains. Heck, it had a slower clock even than its immediate ancestor, the 603e. Yeah, it was a better designed chip, the savior of portable Macs, and the beginning of the low-power trend that's now taken over; but it was also a sign that Mot was losing the fab wars to Intel. Intel would have been able to keep cranking out higher-clocked 604 derivatives; Mot couldn't. But the shit really hit the fan when Mot couldn't even scale the G3/G4. We went a big nowhere, performance-wise, from the time the 350MHz 604e's debuted to when Mot finally pushed the G4 past 400Mhz in any quantity. It was a long, long time in between.

Holy crap: I didn't even remember exactly how long: two-and-a-half years between the debut of the 350MHz 9600 in Aug '97 and of the (for-real) 450 and 500MHz PMG4's in Feb '00. Wow. Bad, bad times.

The G3 was a much more powerful chip than either the 603E or the 604E. The 9600 with the 350MHz chip had so many problems it didn't last for a very long time.

At the time I bought my daughter the G4 450 AGP machine in 1999, it was about 30-40% faster than Intel's fastest chips in integer, about 50-70% faster in floats, and several times faster in anything that could use Altivec. We got the original 450 because we had ordered it from TekServe under the imposed deadline, so Apple couldn't switch it to a 400.

It took Intel until almost the middle of 2001 until it caught up with it in performance, and the end of the year until it passed it in everything except vector. It took until the end of 2002 until it could be said that even Altivec was surpassed by the latest SSE.

I had bought almost every generation of machines for my company and am very familliar with the performance issues.
post #34 of 36
might be fast, but as far as I can tell not 64 bit.....anyone think that cold be a problem?
post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by timmy o'tool
might be fast, but as far as I can tell not 64 bit.....anyone think that cold be a problem?

Not so much for portables. With the limitations that now exist even in x86 implementations, 64 bits have a way to go. The first use to fall is the 4+GB limitation. Until memory can be supported above an even lower limit in a portable, the main reason to go 64 bit won't exist. 64 bits might also require more power. Unless the chip can turn off the high 32 bits it's just more heat being produced.
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally posted by guslg
architected is not a word!


Actualy I looked it up in Dictionary and found this


verb [ trans. ] (usu. be architected) Computing design and make : few software packages were architected with Ethernet access in mind. ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French architecte, from Italian architetto, via Latin from Greek arkhitekt?n, from arkhi- chief + tekt?n builder.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel to deliver dual-core, hyper-threaded chips earlier than expected