“As of Intel’s launch on Monday, the dual-core Xeon’s are finally here. Can Dell start rejoicing, now that they can put out a dual-core offering to compete with Opteron-based systems? Not exactly. The dual-core Xeon is big, hot, and really expensive. It’s also, by Intel’s own admission, destined to have a really short tenure at the top of the Intel x86 processor heap.”
Dual-Core Xeons Are Here
About The Author
Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda
2005-10-11 5:39 pmBFGoodrich
Their next-gen chip (Merom) will not be two cores glued together, but a coherent and well thought out multi-core chip design that will definately give the Opteron a run for it’s money. But, in the meantime Opteron does have a nice performance lead.
2005-10-11 6:23 pmAnonymous
Let’s hope that AMD won’t waste that time sitting idly. Well, I am almost certian they won’t. They worked too long and hard to reach the current level of success to simply let it slip away.
2005-10-12 12:24 amAnonymous
These guys do: http://www.top500.org/sublist/stats/index.php?list=25&type=procgen&…
175 of the top 500 supercomputers in the world use Xeons. And if you factor in 64-bit Xeons that number rises to a whopping 251. That’s just over 50%, thank you very much.
Now I’m a big AMD fan and I wish them all the best, but don’t write off the power of Intel’s decade-old “Intel Inside” propaganda machine. IAnd it doesn’t hurt Intel that for the first few years (the pre-Athlon era) their claims to be the best in the x86 and compatible arena were true. Cyrix? NexGen? Oh please!
Intel’s NetBurst architecture is retarded. But the P4M, specially the Dothan core, is very very nice. Much better than anything I have seen from AMD. It has 2MB of L2 cache that runs in a low powered state until it is needed. Stuff like that is impressive.
Right now, running on a slower bus without a memory controller or 64-bit extensions, my laptop can still keep up with my desktop A64 and beat my AthlonXPs in every benchmark. The next generation of these chips will give the Athlon64 and X2 some very nice competition.
I think the only way AMD can keep their lead is to scale up to 4 or 8 cores before Intel. They can’t win on clock speed and it looks like they can’t keep winning overall performance without some more R&D. I hope they’re working on it, though. I prefer AMD.
2005-10-12 12:05 amAnonymous
Eeeh, you’re mixing up Pentium-M and Pentium-4M.
One is a modified P6 class hybrid (as in it uses some P4 technologies)…Banias, Dothan, Yonah, etc. Its NOT a P4.
While the other is a handpicked P4 that can operate at low voltage than a regular desktop one and can handle 100 deg/C. (Like all mobile CPUs).
2005-10-12 4:17 pmgilboa
Umm… You got it all wrong there.
First, P4M is a hand picked P4 that can run on lower voltage. It uses the same hot, slow, soon-to-die Net-Burst architecture that is being used by the new (?) Paxville core Xeon talked about above.
Dotan is a Pentium M core (which is a heavily modified P3 core designed for the mobile market.)
In short, two completely different CPUs.
Second, the current AMD Turion cores (ML-40, MT-40, 2.2Ghz 35w/25w) perform just as good as the fastest Pentium M CPU (2.26hz ?) being supplied today.
Mind you, part of AMD’s Q3 earning improvement comes from the Turion.
Better yet, when Intel *finally* releases their dual core, 64bit capable PM based on Yonah core, AMD will be fully ready with the dual core Turion. (Which, due to it’s unique design, should tear Intel a new one).
As one of the previous posters said, AMD has a long way to go. It’ll literally take decades to even up the playing field and kill the remainders of the Intel-Inside mindset.
But at least for now, AMD is on the right track.
(And who knows, maybe I’ll get the company I work for (A medium side enterprise) to go AMD only instead of buying 50%/50% and wasting money on slow-ugly Xeons…)
Ok, sure they are expensive for a home user but it’s not geared for us. What about some universities whiz-bang processor intensive experiment or Hollywood CGI which require render farms of say 50+ computers?
Why would Intel NOT want a product for this? IOW the news blurb makes it look like the proc is geared for our home use which is absurd.
Which is the better solution for a computing enviornment like this: 4 dual proc Xeon single core computers or 2 dual proc/dual core computers? And is the new computer with with dual core/dual proc’s less expensive and require less power overall than 4 dualies single core systems?
That’s what determines if there’s a market and a use for this proc. And if it can compete with IBM’s G5 type proc and Cell proc’s.
NextGen was taken over by AMD…
Cyrix and IDT-Winchip were bought by VIA (Samuel, Joshua, Nehemiah, etc.)
Sure the HUGE gap from Intels chips and Amd’s has been slightly closed. BUT from EVEN dells page the paxville shit… I mean chip looks to be ANOTHER weak contender… like all intel hardware… until millions of idiots optimize for that platform.. and then it STILL wont be as good as the Opteron!