Intel Pentium D – A Rush Job, Intel Admits.

[zippyjuan]

Intel Pentium D – A Rush Job, Intel Admits.
Intel Pentium D – Two Intel Pentium 4 Cores, Says Company

Category: CPU

by Anton Shilov

[ 08/19/2005 | 11:43 PM ]


Intel Corp. recently confirmed that its Intel Pentium D processor is actually two Intel Pentium 4 cores on the same package. The firm claimed that it had to quickly create a dual-core processor in order to stay competitive, which conditioned the design of the product Intel has chosen.

“We’re putting two cores in one package; it’s like trying to fit into the pair of pants you saved from college,” said Jonathan Douglas, a principal engineer in Intel’s Digital Enterprise Group, which makes chips for office desktops and servers, reports PCWorld.

Intel first announced intention to deliver dual-core processors for various markets in May, 2005. It is now revealed that the company began to work on the project around the same time, which gave the firm a very short time to complete the development and launch the product in mass production. That said, Intel had to use existing technologies and not develop a new processor system bus, integrate memory controller into the central processing unit or perform any other enhancements.

Intel first demonstrated its dual-core processor up and running in September, 2004, at its semi-annual Intel Developer Forum. After that an analyst expressed doubts whether a “real” dual-core microprocessor was demonstrated, or two existing Pentium 4 chips were placed on the same piece of substrate. Intel opposed the analyst, but now it had confirmed the assumption: the Intel Pentium D is basically two Intel Pentium 4 processors. Still, dual-core processor means there are two processing engines plugged into a socket, which is exactly what Intel supplies.

“We faced many challenges from taking a design team focused on making the highest-performing processors possible to one focused on multi-core designs,” Mr. Douglas added during Hot Chips conference.

Intel has over 17 dual-core and multi-core projects in development

[Bires]

What's the point? I thought that was the point of a dual-core cpu?

[shocky123]

Anyone else here not surprised at all?

~Kyle

[Kevster]

Anyone else here not surprised at all?

~Kyle

I'm not surprised in the least. This is one of the reasons why I won't buy Intel. You're paying a premium for a dual-core processor that is literally thrown together. I won't be surprised either when one of these rush-projects gets recalled because they pushed it to market to early.

[modena]

Yea, I hear that, I would be pissed if I bought a pent d only to determine later it was a crappy throw together

[LegendKiller]

Intel has been getting itself into a lot of trouble with this slapdash crap. They seem to have fallen behind in their strategic thinking. The whole P4 fiasco with lengthening the pipelines and throwing voltage at it caused more than 50% power leakage. Then slapping the D processors together at the last minute...HORRIBLE strategic planning.

Not to mention, why the hell do I need dual processors? Unless you are going to be downloading, ripping, playing a dvd while playing Doom3, it is marginally better. There are extremely few games that support SMP and only higher end users will make use of it outside that. "normal" people just don't need it. They need efficency, not dual cores.

[nate el bueno]

well, they had to do something!
(AMD fan here too)
i read an article in maximumpc about the dual core wars. there were 5 awards for things like features, speed, availability, ect. the only award the dual core won was the availabiliy, because they shipped first. the funny thing is, the athlon x2 4800 was tested against the p4 dual core EE, which is a dual core gaming cpu, and the x2 whopped it on gaming tests, even though it is not a gaming cpu. AMD will release their dual core gaming cpu's in june or so according to pc magazine. also, the p4 was tested with ddr2 667 mhz ram, which is the only reason it won any of the 4 out of 20 tests that it did. can you say "unfair?" i know that the EE motherboards are only compatable with ddr2, but you could have at least tried to match the speeds! anyway, legendkiller is right, unless you're running a lot of stuff at the same time, it may not be worth it. even so, i plan to buy one eventually, probably 6-8 months or so when the prices drop.

[Grimm]

Not to mention, why the hell do I need dual processors? Unless you are going to be downloading, ripping, playing a dvd while playing Doom3, it is marginally better. There are extremely few games that support SMP and only higher end users will make use of it outside that. "normal" people just don't need it. They need efficency, not dual cores.
As processor Mhz has pretty much capped out for the present materials and processes used to make them, the only way to go for the moment is to use multiple processors.
Software will follow the hardware, as it always has. Sharp developers will design their software for multi-core systems, not dual-core. So as processors grow they are positioned to take advantage of it. Normal people will be using the full capacity of dual-core processors very soon. Software companies that don't develop for 64-bit multi-cores are going to go away, as their competitors products start working 2x or 4x as fast. SMP is the only way to go forward at this point.



AMD just owned Intel here. AMD has already established a speed system that differs from Ghz, Intel just started marketing a system no one understands. With multi-processor systems the Ghz system will no longer be valid. AMD has significantly closed Intel's marketing advantage. As AMD has well intergrated dual-core chips, and Intel does not, the Dual-Athlon line will gain against the Dual-Pentium line. AMD will also have a better position to introduce Quad-core chips.
The direction processors will be taking is more, but simpler, cores.

[Bires]

so, the dual-core pentium4's don't work, then?

[DarkFury]

so, the dual-core pentium4's don't work, then?
They never said that... they just said that they were "rushed". :shrug:

[LegendKiller]

As processor Mhz has pretty much capped out for the present materials and processes used to make them, the only way to go for the moment is to use multiple processors.
Software will follow the hardware, as it always has. Sharp developers will design their software for multi-core systems, not dual-core. So as processors grow they are positioned to take advantage of it. Normal people will be using the full capacity of dual-core processors very soon. Software companies that don't develop for 64-bit multi-cores are going to go away, as their competitors products start working 2x or 4x as fast. SMP is the only way to go forward at this point.



AMD just owned Intel here. AMD has already established a speed system that differs from Ghz, Intel just started marketing a system no one understands. With multi-processor systems the Ghz system will no longer be valid. AMD has significantly closed Intel's marketing advantage. As AMD has well intergrated dual-core chips, and Intel does not, the Dual-Athlon line will gain against the Dual-Pentium line. AMD will also have a better position to introduce Quad-core chips.
The direction processors will be taking is more, but simpler, cores.

I don't buy the "software will catch up" argument. Software never really caught up to "MMX" or "SSE" or any of the other BS trash Intel tried to market. In essence, they didn't do a whole heap other than create buzzwords.

When the software did catch up it wasn't until year+ later and even then it was half arsed. Now, you have to compile all of your programs to take advantage of SMP, something I am sure which isn't that easy. Even then, how much is that going to help anybody but hardcore users? Will outlook run faster? AOL run smoother? No.

Even for performance users SMP has only been enabled in 1 game AFAIK, Quake3 Arena, and even then it didn't help much, when you had one of the best programming teams ever assembled.

This comes down to RAID 0, SSE, MMX or any other idiocy FUD spread by companies to eek the next dollar.

Where do you need to go? SMP ain't going to get there, at least not any time soon. Especially SMP based upon a crappy processor design to begin with. FIFTY PERCENT of all power in the P4 is LOST due to piss-poor engineering.

The P4 is a patch upon a patch upon a patch upon a sladash patch and Intel keeps going with it until something based upon the P-M comes around, but that is still a while off for decent desktop use. Until then they will use all of the gimmickery availible to sucker people.

[ribitch]

I don't buy the "software will catch up" argument. Software never really caught up to "MMX" or "SSE" or any of the other BS trash Intel tried to market. In essence, they didn't do a whole heap other than create buzzwords.

When the software did catch up it wasn't until year+ later and even then it was half arsed. Now, you have to compile all of your programs to take advantage of SMP, something I am sure which isn't that easy. Even then, how much is that going to help anybody but hardcore users? Will outlook run faster? AOL run smoother? No.

Even for performance users SMP has only been enabled in 1 game AFAIK, Quake3 Arena, and even then it didn't help much, when you had one of the best programming teams ever assembled.

This comes down to RAID 0, SSE, MMX or any other idiocy FUD spread by companies to eek the next dollar.

Where do you need to go? SMP ain't going to get there, at least not any time soon. Especially SMP based upon a crappy processor design to begin with. FIFTY PERCENT of all power in the P4 is LOST due to piss-poor engineering.

The P4 is a patch upon a patch upon a patch upon a sladash patch and Intel keeps going with it until something based upon the P-M comes around, but that is still a while off for decent desktop use. Until then they will use all of the gimmickery availible to sucker people.


you forgot to mention "long live windows 95!"...

SMP is a viable solution for the future, and nonwindows operating systems and applications have been using it for years. Sure, AOL and outlook will never utilize the potential, but do you think those apps can utilize the latest and greatest single core CPU's on the market today? They can get by with a PIII.

multicore cpu's are yet another tool a developer can use to innovate. Software nnovation causes the hardware developers to have to come up with something faster than what was previously available. its an ongoing cycle, and without it, you wouldnt be sitting in front of your computer right now, instead you would be reading from lynx.

You may not see a speed increase from a RAID 0 or a multicire cpu for what you do, but you are not everyone else. 1080i HD video for exam requires tons of bandwidth. With todays disk technology, internal drives are not an option. Fast RAID arrays make this possible. Innovation is what allowed RAID 0 to become RAID 1, 3, and 5. This innovation then allowed video edittors handle much content with much much higher bandwidth requirements. These bandwidth requires have spurred the need for SMP and multicore CPU's.

Again, todays games will need some time to take advantage of this new technology, but in a few years, you will be wondering how you got by without it. Kinda like when everyone thought they were set for life with their 6.4GB Hard drive.

Oh yeah, clocks on a computer will never have to go past 1999...

[LegendKiller]

you forgot to mention "long live windows 95!"...

SMP is a viable solution for the future, and nonwindows operating systems and applications have been using it for years. Sure, AOL and outlook will never utilize the potential, but do you think those apps can utilize the latest and greatest single core CPU's on the market today? They can get by with a PIII.

multicore cpu's are yet another tool a developer can use to innovate. Software nnovation causes the hardware developers to have to come up with something faster than what was previously available. its an ongoing cycle, and without it, you wouldnt be sitting in front of your computer right now, instead you would be reading from lynx.

You may not see a speed increase from a RAID 0 or a multicire cpu for what you do, but you are not everyone else. 1080i HD video for exam requires tons of bandwidth. With todays disk technology, internal drives are not an option. Fast RAID arrays make this possible. Innovation is what allowed RAID 0 to become RAID 1, 3, and 5. This innovation then allowed video edittors handle much content with much much higher bandwidth requirements. These bandwidth requires have spurred the need for SMP and multicore CPU's.

Again, todays games will need some time to take advantage of this new technology, but in a few years, you will be wondering how you got by without it. Kinda like when everyone thought they were set for life with their 6.4GB Hard drive.

Oh yeah, clocks on a computer will never have to go past 1999...


So, all of the above accounts for...15% of the market while Intel markets it to 90%? Much like 200GB drives in HPs at BestBuy, because you know, everybody is going to need 200GB, especially grandma buying the P4-D.

Sure, SMP is the future. However, slapdash trash isn't the way to get there. Intel is desperate and they threw together their crappiest core into one package to try and match AMD.

In the end, SMP will be useless for the next year or so, perhaps two, until SMP OS' are more prevelent and utilities start using it more, especially mainstream ones.

[ribitch]

So, all of the above accounts for...15% of the market while Intel markets it to 90%? Much like 200GB drives in HPs at BestBuy, because you know, everybody is going to need 200GB, especially grandma buying the P4-D.

Sure, SMP is the future. However, slapdash trash isn't the way to get there. Intel is desperate and they threw together their crappiest core into one package to try and match AMD.

In the end, SMP will be useless for the next year or so, perhaps two, until SMP OS' are more prevelent and utilities start using it more, especially mainstream ones.

i never said it wasnt a hackjob.

not everyone needs a 200GB HD, but families with kids tend to use up tons of space between games, digital imaging, and digital music.

Megapixels in cameras keep increasing, so space requirements keep jumping. I myself take everything in RAW. The file size is roughly 6MB, plus the adobe digital negative and the PSD files i create when editting the pictures. Not every family does this, but the tools to do so are becoming more common. The average family takes their images in JPEG, probably at or near their cameras highest resolution.

Theres only one OS thats mainstream that ISN'T using SMP....

[LegendKiller]

i never said it wasnt a hackjob.

not everyone needs a 200GB HD, but families with kids tend to use up tons of space between games, digital imaging, and digital music.

Megapixels in cameras keep increasing, so space requirements keep jumping. I myself take everything in RAW. The file size is roughly 6MB, plus the adobe digital negative and the PSD files i create when editting the pictures. Not every family does this, but the tools to do so are becoming more common. The average family takes their images in JPEG, probably at or near their cameras highest resolution.

Theres only one OS thats mainstream that ISN'T using SMP....


Again, mainstream for you and mainstream for 90% of the world is a *HUGE* difference. 90% of the world doesn't need dual cores, they need one efficient processor.

So, you store 33,333 pictures on your 200GB HDD? All raw?

[shocky123]

*coughs* efficient? *coughs*



*snicker*

meh, thought I'd kick this thread up again lol

~Kyle

[Jeffbx]

OK, I'll jump in too, then.

I think the whole notion of dual core for general computing is stupid & a waste of money.

Heck, dual processing on Windows PCs has been around for 10+ years, and STILL is not necessary for mainstream, and general app developers STILL are not developing apps for it.

With processor development advancing as rapidly as it has been, I don't think there will ever be a need for dual core/dual procs in a home PC. It's got the gee whiz factor, but unless you're doing video rendering or CAD is a hobby of yours, a single fast processor will be just as good (and cheaper) than a dual core.

[ribitch]

OK, I'll jump in too, then.

I think the whole notion of dual core for general computing is stupid & a waste of money.

Heck, dual processing on Windows PCs has been around for 10+ years, and STILL is not necessary for mainstream, and general app developers STILL are not developing apps for it.

With processor development advancing as rapidly as it has been, I don't think there will ever be a need for dual core/dual procs in a home PC. It's got the gee whiz factor, but unless you're doing video rendering or CAD is a hobby of yours, a single fast processor will be just as good (and cheaper) than a dual core.

correct me if i am wrong, but didnt 2 CPU systems need a special OS license up until late windows 2000 releases or XP?

The MS tax is what hurt things like that.

A CPU can only only go so fast. Once it hits the theoretical maximum for copper, optical based solutions must be produced. This is costly, and very unlikely. Instead, a multicore chip can do similar achievements at a fraction of the cost.

Again, the typical home user doesnt need all the power available today, but 10 years ago, when win 95 was released, nobody needed a 2GB HD in their home. Times and technology change, and so do the uses of the typical home user.

[Jeffbx]

correct me if i am wrong, but didnt 2 CPU systems need a special OS license up until late windows 2000 releases or XP?


Dual procs are supported natively on NT4, W2K & XP. If you want to use 4 or more, you need to move into a Server license.



A CPU can only only go so fast. Once it hits the theoretical maximum for copper, optical based solutions must be produced. This is costly, and very unlikely. Instead, a multicore chip can do similar achievements at a fraction of the cost.

Yes, but this is only true if your apps are written to take advantage of that. Most apps out there are not, and *no* 'typical home user' app is.


Again, the typical home user doesnt need all the power available today, but 10 years ago, when win 95 was released, nobody needed a 2GB HD in their home. Times and technology change, and so do the uses of the typical home user.

True, and this will always be the case. However, proc manufacturers seem to have kept up with the demands of the home user easily without the necessity of multiple cores. In a server or a graphic workstation, where the OS & apps are designed to take advantage of multiple cores, it's a great thing. When a home user buys one, it's just a waste of $$$.

[Markel]

DEC had SMP on VAX systems something like 20 years (or more ago) - VMS did a great job of utilizing multiple CPUs. Yet you'd think this is something just invented.... :rolleyes:

[hapoo]

Just wait, you'll all be eating your words in a couple years once you all start switching to multicore processors. Not sure why everyone always pushes back new technologies. The reason you don't think we need it is because you think your still going to be running winXP and the same applications in 10 years. But all i can say is wait.

[LegendKiller]

Just wait, you'll all be eating your words in a couple years once you all start switching to multicore processors. Not sure why everyone always pushes back new technologies. The reason you don't think we need it is because you think your still going to be running winXP and the same applications in 10 years. But all i can say is wait.


I don't have a problem with these systems "in a few years". However, you go to BestBuy's weekly ad and they SIX systems out of 11 with Celeron or P4-D processors. More than HALF of all systems being marketed now are Dual processors WITH NO USE!!!! Mom and Dad don't need a processor *THEY WILL NEVER USE*, they need ONE faster and more efficient processor.

I don't care if Intel markets these to workstations, high-end users, or gamers because yes, eventually they will be used and might even be now. However, to market USELESS processors based upon CRAP cores is asinine.

You can use all of the "just wait until XXXXXX comes out" all you want, but until it does come out Intel is not doing anything more than selling snake oil to users.

[ribitch]

Jeffbx, let me rephrase my question. I know NT4 had 4+ cpu support, but didnt one need to purchase a multiprocessor license in order to utilize more than one CPU?

[Kevster]

Jeffbx, let me rephrase my question. I know NT4 had 4+ cpu support, but didnt one need to purchase a multiprocessor license in order to utilize more than one CPU?

No. I had an NT4 server using an Abit BP6 Dual Celeron motherboard with both processors running for almost 5 years. You did not need a multiprocessor license for it to run two processors (I never tried it with three on a quad-system). It was built into the OS for both NT4 Server and Workstation. The OS recognized both processors, but if I wanted to have an application run on both, the application had to be written to take advantage of it specifically. Otherwise, I had to modify the execution of the application to run on the second processor. It worked alright for what I was doing (mail, file hosting, SQL databases, etc).

[Markel]

Jeffbx, let me rephrase my question. I know NT4 had 4+ cpu support, but didnt one need to purchase a multiprocessor license in order to utilize more than one CPU?
The standard NT (and XP Pro for that matter, maybe Home as well) license is for 1 or 2 processor systems.

[Jeffbx]

Jeffbx, let me rephrase my question. I know NT4 had 4+ cpu support, but didnt one need to purchase a multiprocessor license in order to utilize more than one CPU?


What Kev & Markel said. You might be thinking of the fact that if you are running a single proc & wanted to upgrade to a dual, it was a tricky OS change for NT4. MS had a process to go from single to dual by changing/patching the OS, but it was a buggy step up & didn't always work, so you were better off just formatting & reloading with the 2nd proc installed up front.

They corrected this in more recent OSs & now they're automatically detected & used. But the licenses always allowed up to 2 procs for the non-server OS.