Intel doesn't have Dual Core

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Ed wrote:
> Intel doesn't have a Dual Core CPU. Its what is called MCP (multiple
> core package) Here's an example:
> http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=44932
>
> I'd like to upgrade in about 6 months, will the Athlon 64 (not opteron)
> dual cores be out by then?

More than likely they'll be out by May. Each is introducing their
primary dual-core processors this month: in the case of Intel, that's a
gaming desktop chip; in the case of AMD, that's a server chip.

Over the course of next month and subsequent months, they're going to
introduce dual cores for their other markets: primarily desktops and
laptops for AMD; primarily servers and secondarily laptops for Intel.
Intel is probably going to have some trouble introducing the dual-core
laptop chips as it's going to require they bring out a Pentium-M version
of dual-core, not as simple as getting Pentium 4-based dual-cores.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:19:07 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>Ed wrote:
>> Intel doesn't have a Dual Core CPU. Its what is called MCP (multiple
>> core package) Here's an example:
>> http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=44932
>>
>> I'd like to upgrade in about 6 months, will the Athlon 64 (not opteron)
>> dual cores be out by then?
>
>More than likely they'll be out by May. Each is introducing their
>primary dual-core processors this month: in the case of Intel, that's a
>gaming desktop chip; in the case of AMD, that's a server chip.
>
>Over the course of next month and subsequent months, they're going to
>introduce dual cores for their other markets: primarily desktops and
>laptops for AMD; primarily servers and secondarily laptops for Intel.
>Intel is probably going to have some trouble introducing the dual-core
>laptop chips as it's going to require they bring out a Pentium-M version
>of dual-core, not as simple as getting Pentium 4-based dual-cores.
>

This is all so *lame*. Although I have to admit that intel is a
little more lame than AMD on this round, it's all lame, at least as
far as general users are concerned. Couple of years, after the
applications are sorted out, maybe.

Meanwhilst, the server guys can use it all right away. Good thing we
got those marketeers to keep people buying, right Yousuf?

I think it was a link on slashdot that suggested that now our machines
won't be slowed down so much by security software running in the
background. Microsoft->Buggy, vulnerable software->Security
software->Slow machines->Need dual CPU. Everybody wins! What a
country!

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> This is all so *lame*. Although I have to admit that intel is a
> little more lame than AMD on this round, it's all lame, at least as
> far as general users are concerned. Couple of years, after the
> applications are sorted out, maybe.

It was just so much slapstick, like a 1920's silent movie, where some
Keystone cops trip over each other trying to chase Charlie Chaplin or
Laurel & Hardy or somebody. One side's (AMD) introduction date gets
leaked and then the comedy starts.

AMD: We're going to introduce it at the 2nd anniversary of the
introduction of Opteron.

Intel: well we're going to announce it today at IDF in Japan, and start
shipping it tomorrow.

AMD: Oh yeah, well we've been shipping ours to our partners since
January. Pbffft.

Intel: Well, we've been planning on shipping it on this date all along,
because ... because ... well here, because it's the 40th anniversary of
Moore's Law. See here's a $10,000 contest to rob libraries of the most
pristine copy of the original magazine it was printed on.

AMD: Oh yeah? Well HP's already /accidently/ put up their dual-core
Opteron blade offerings for sale on their website, and took it down
already. Shows that they're ready to offer it right now.

Intel: Well, Alienware and Dell are going to offer the dual-core Extreme
Edition systems on Monday!

AMD: Well, your dual-core isn't even really a dual-core it's two
processors glued together. You're trying to claim a hollow victory.

Intel: Well, we'll leave the debate about architectural elegance to
others. Pbffft.

Intel & AMD (together): BTW, there's no contest to introduce the first
dual-cores. We repeat, there is no contest.

> I think it was a link on slashdot that suggested that now our machines
> won't be slowed down so much by security software running in the
> background. Microsoft->Buggy, vulnerable software->Security
> software->Slow machines->Need dual CPU. Everybody wins! What a
> country!

Isn't that just like slashdot, always seeing the bright side of things? :)

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

>I think it was a link on slashdot that suggested that now our machines
>won't be slowed down so much by security software running in the
>background. Microsoft->Buggy, vulnerable software->Security
>software->Slow machines->Need dual CPU. Everybody wins! What a
>country!

Heh. I like that - a separate CPU just to defend against
Internet-bourne trojans and virii. (Viri Vidi Vici?) Alternatively,
we could track-down the idiots who start the attacks, put them against
the wall, and have them die in a hail of bullets. That might cut it
down, some...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

chrisv wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
>
>>I think it was a link on slashdot that suggested that now our machines
>>won't be slowed down so much by security software running in the
>>background. Microsoft->Buggy, vulnerable software->Security
>>software->Slow machines->Need dual CPU. Everybody wins! What a
>>country!
>
>
> Heh. I like that - a separate CPU just to defend against
> Internet-bourne trojans and virii.

A lot of people already effectively have that. Its called a
firewall.

> (Viri Vidi Vici?) Alternatively,
> we could track-down the idiots who start the attacks, put them against
> the wall, and have them die in a hail of bullets. That might cut it
> down, some...
>
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
0
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:20:25 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think it was a link on slashdot that suggested that now our machines
>>>won't be slowed down so much by security software running in the
>>>background. Microsoft->Buggy, vulnerable software->Security
>>>software->Slow machines->Need dual CPU. Everybody wins! What a
>>>country!
>>
>>
>> Heh. I like that - a separate CPU just to defend against
>> Internet-bourne trojans and virii.
>
> A lot of people already effectively have that. Its called a
> firewall.

You beat me to it! ...and they're a tad cheaper than an x86 SMP processor
too (a simple embedded processor with no direct access to the rest of the
system). Note that I think duals are a good idea. ...but this ain't one of
'em!

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
>>A lot of people already effectively have that. Its called a
>>firewall.
>
>
> You beat me to it! ...and they're a tad cheaper than an x86 SMP processor
> too (a simple embedded processor with no direct access to the rest of the
> system). Note that I think duals are a good idea. ...but this ain't one of
> 'em!
>

It's starting to look like some of these cheap firewalls would probably
benefit from a pretty powerful x86 processor, I'm starting to see some
of these firewalls can't keep up with the traffic of such common tasks
as P2P networks.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:

>It's starting to look like some of these cheap firewalls would probably
>benefit from a pretty powerful x86 processor, I'm starting to see some
>of these firewalls can't keep up with the traffic of such common tasks
>as P2P networks.

Hmm... I wonder if that's why my inaugural experience with Bit
Torrent was so very disappointing...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <X2r9e.4308$9G.424063@news20.bellglobal.com>, bbbl67
@ezrs.com says...
> keith wrote:
> >>A lot of people already effectively have that. Its called a
> >>firewall.
> >
> >
> > You beat me to it! ...and they're a tad cheaper than an x86 SMP processor
> > too (a simple embedded processor with no direct access to the rest of the
> > system). Note that I think duals are a good idea. ...but this ain't one of
> > 'em!
> >
>
> It's starting to look like some of these cheap firewalls would probably
> benefit from a pretty powerful x86 processor, I'm starting to see some
> of these firewalls can't keep up with the traffic of such common tasks
> as P2P networks.

Perhaps, but there is no need for an embedded processor like this to
run WinBlows in any form, thus there's no reason to be x86. There are
other processors that fit into the embedded space better than the x86
offerings. Throw off the Win-cruft and run on the metal.

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:22:17 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>>It's starting to look like some of these cheap firewalls would probably
>>benefit from a pretty powerful x86 processor, I'm starting to see some
>>of these firewalls can't keep up with the traffic of such common tasks
>>as P2P networks.
>
>Hmm... I wonder if that's why my inaugural experience with Bit
>Torrent was so very disappointing...

Very interesting you should bring this up. I am as we speak trying
out Bit Torrent for the first time. I have been downloading the
Mandrake 2005 DVD image for the past 3 days, and I still have 18 hours
to go. This is on a 3 mbit DSL connection, which will download around
1 gigabyte per hour from a good source.

I have a home network behind a Belkin F5D5230-4 router. This router
has served me very well for the past 13 months, running for months at
a time without a reboot. Searching for answers as to why the Bit
Torrent download was so slow, I found information indicating that I
needed to "port forward" ports 6881 thru 6889, and did so. Since
doing so, the speeds have not increased, and the router has hung up
twice in the last 8 hours, requiring a hard reboot.

I have in the closet an SMC Barricade 7004, a Dlink 704, and a Dlink
604 router. Anyone care to offer an opinion on one of those? Or
perhaps a dedicated computer running Smoothwall or Coyote or Redwall?
I have several old junk PII/PIII computers in the garage.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

chrisv wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>
>>It's starting to look like some of these cheap firewalls would probably
>>benefit from a pretty powerful x86 processor, I'm starting to see some
>>of these firewalls can't keep up with the traffic of such common tasks
>>as P2P networks.
>
>
> Hmm... I wonder if that's why my inaugural experience with Bit
> Torrent was so very disappointing...
>

The only way to find out is to try it. If you get a chance, attach the
computer that you're doing the Bittorents from directly into the
broadband modem (with appropriate software firewalls, of course). You'll
find that the routers are getting in the way these days, more than they
are helping.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Henry Nettles wrote:
> I have in the closet an SMC Barricade 7004, a Dlink 704, and a Dlink
> 604 router. Anyone care to offer an opinion on one of those? Or
> perhaps a dedicated computer running Smoothwall or Coyote or Redwall?
> I have several old junk PII/PIII computers in the garage.

Take that old junk P2/P3 out of the garage and put Linux with IPChains
on it.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Keith R. Williams wrote:
> Perhaps, but there is no need for an embedded processor like this to
> run WinBlows in any form, thus there's no reason to be x86. There are
> other processors that fit into the embedded space better than the x86
> offerings. Throw off the Win-cruft and run on the metal.

I was hardly even thinking of Windows for this purpose. There's Linux of
course, but more appropriately for this purposes would be a real-time OS
like QNX.

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Keith R. Williams wrote:
> > I was hardly even thinking of Windows for this purpose. There's
Linux of
> > course, but more appropriately for this purposes would be a
real-time OS
> > like QNX.
>
> Right, then there's no need for the second processor to be an x86.

Wasn't thinking of using an x86 as a second processor, but as the
primary processor inside these routers. One of the first routers that I
had was an old Dlink 4-port ethernet. I opened it up, and found inside
it was an AMD 186 embedded chip. So x86 has been used inside these
things before. Imagine an Opteron embedded chip instead?

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <gdG9e.11408$Jg5.875086@news20.bellglobal.com>, bbbl67
@ezrs.com says...
> Keith R. Williams wrote:
> > Perhaps, but there is no need for an embedded processor like this to
> > run WinBlows in any form, thus there's no reason to be x86. There are
> > other processors that fit into the embedded space better than the x86
> > offerings. Throw off the Win-cruft and run on the metal.
>
> I was hardly even thinking of Windows for this purpose. There's Linux of
> course, but more appropriately for this purposes would be a real-time OS
> like QNX.

Right, then there's no need for the second processor to be an x86.

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:25:29 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's starting to look like some of these cheap firewalls would probably
>>>benefit from a pretty powerful x86 processor, I'm starting to see some
>>>of these firewalls can't keep up with the traffic of such common tasks
>>>as P2P networks.
>>
>>
>> Hmm... I wonder if that's why my inaugural experience with Bit
>> Torrent was so very disappointing...
>>
>
> The only way to find out is to try it. If you get a chance, attach the
> computer that you're doing the Bittorents from directly into the
> broadband modem (with appropriate software firewalls, of course). You'll
> find that the routers are getting in the way these days, more than they
> are helping.
>
> Yousuf Khan

I find Bittorent to be a little spotty, at times it works great, all
depending on how many seeders you have, and if they leave open the client
after downloading. It also depends on what you download, if its TV shows
then Bittorent is an excellent way to go as well as music, anything else
your better off with Usenet, and a paid server such as NewsHosting, or
EasyNews. In fact I won't touch Bittorent nowadays as its infested with
**AA looking for john doe law suites. At least with Usenet you can choose
your poison, the **AA are still looking, but at least its not a problem
unless you upload on your regular ISP.

One thing that I am still amazed with is no matter what router you buy,
your still stuck by your less than 10 mbit cable, or DSL connection. Try
this if you have cable, wait until about 4-5 at night and then download a
big harry file from any source? I keep my systems on all the time,
durning peak times you can see the traffic add up and slow down your
connection. I have a hard time checking e-mail at those peak times, I try
to avoid downloading anything as well. DSL in my experience is better in
this regard, as you do not have to fuss with all your neighbors going to
the local hub. If you have cable try some sniffing programs sometime, and
see just how much traffic passes over the WAN. I can't wait until fibre
to the home is a reality it seems that everyone is over selling
connections. I once was considering a business account for better
service, but the salesperson could not promise better connection speeds
and would not say so in writing. So I would end up paying more for the
connection just to get better customer service, and maybe a dedicated IP
address, I about fell off my chair laughing.

I also thought it was funny as I searched the local cable site and did not
see any reference to Usenet news servers, but when I put in the old
address I still get connected, and other goodness. I guess the unlimited
internet connection is no longer unlimited, but has limits, imagine that.

Gnu_Raiz
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <1114095329.110102.245030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
yjkhan@gmail.com says...
> Keith R. Williams wrote:
> > > I was hardly even thinking of Windows for this purpose. There's
> Linux of
> > > course, but more appropriately for this purposes would be a
> real-time OS
> > > like QNX.
> >
> > Right, then there's no need for the second processor to be an x86.
>
> Wasn't thinking of using an x86 as a second processor, but as the
> primary processor inside these routers. One of the first routers that I
> had was an old Dlink 4-port ethernet.

Oh, I thought we were talking about a "router" being a use for the
second processor in a dual-core system (see subject).

> I opened it up, and found inside
> it was an AMD 186 embedded chip. So x86 has been used inside these
> things before. Imagine an Opteron embedded chip instead?

Sure, the 80186 has been in the embedded space since it came out. It's
not "IBM compatible" so it never made it to the desktop (well it did,
sorta, but wasn't "compatible"). Why waste a perfectly good Opteron?
There are cheaper embedded processors.

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:

> In fact I won't touch Bittorent nowadays as its infested with
>**AA looking for john doe law suites. At least with Usenet you can choose
>your poison, the **AA are still looking, but at least its not a problem
>unless you upload on your regular ISP.

What are you talking about?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:44:57 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>Keith R. Williams wrote:
>> Perhaps, but there is no need for an embedded processor like this to
>> run WinBlows in any form, thus there's no reason to be x86. There are
>> other processors that fit into the embedded space better than the x86
>> offerings. Throw off the Win-cruft and run on the metal.
>
>I was hardly even thinking of Windows for this purpose. There's Linux of
>course, but more appropriately for this purposes would be a real-time OS
>like QNX.

My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
code for this very purpose. I'm not quite sure how much of it is
handled by a dedicated ASIC though and how much is just handled by the
host processor...

Hmm... a Winfirewall anyone? :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 21 Apr 2005 07:55:29 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Wasn't thinking of using an x86 as a second processor, but as the
>primary processor inside these routers. One of the first routers that I
>had was an old Dlink 4-port ethernet. I opened it up, and found inside
>it was an AMD 186 embedded chip. So x86 has been used inside these
>things before. Imagine an Opteron embedded chip instead?

Huh? Why bother with a $100+ Opteron embedded chip when a $2 ARM chip
will do just as well with a fraction of the power consumption? There
really isn't much processor required for most of these firewalls, you
could probably even pull it off without too much trouble on a 16-bit
microcontroller, though a 32-bit one might be preferable. Probably
all you would need could be handled through ucLinux, so software and
development time shouldn't take too much. Something like QNX is
probably overkill (cost wise at least) for such a setup.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:21:59 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>
>> In fact I won't touch Bittorent nowadays as its infested with
>>**AA looking for john doe law suites. At least with Usenet you can choose
>>your poison, the **AA are still looking, but at least its not a problem
>>unless you upload on your regular ISP.
>
> What are you talking about?

I have it from good sources that the **AA are putting up fake torrents,
like they sometimes do with MP3's so the person who downloads the torrent
thinks they are getting the file which turns out to be a whole lot of
filler. Ok its a slashdot post, which points to an inquirer article, but I
think its a valid statement.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/1831256&from=rss

When I am talking about Usenet, I am talking about alt.binaries
newsgroups, not just our discussion groups, but the other end of the
spectrum.

In a lot of those groups they post samples of movies, and music that you
can download to determine the quality of the product. If the sample looks
bad you can not download it, thus saving you all the bandwidth, and time.
But with torrents you really do not know the quality until you have the
file in front of you. You don't know if its little johnny in the
backyard, or the material you thought it was. If your curious about what
is being posted on Usenet alt.binaries news groups you might want to
wander over here.

http://www.newzbin.com/

Gnu_Raiz
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:21:59 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>
>>> In fact I won't touch Bittorent nowadays as its infested with
>>>**AA looking for john doe law suites. At least with Usenet you can choose
>>>your poison, the **AA are still looking, but at least its not a problem
>>>unless you upload on your regular ISP.
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>
>I have it from good sources that the **AA are putting up fake torrents,
>like they sometimes do with MP3's so the person who downloads the torrent
>thinks they are getting the file which turns out to be a whole lot of
>filler. Ok its a slashdot post, which points to an inquirer article, but I
>think its a valid statement.

If people wouldn't steal, they wouldn't have to worry about getting
caught stealing.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> My understanding is that nVidia's "hardware" firewall on their latest
> nForce chipsets uses a very stripped down part of the Linux firewall
> code for this very purpose.

That means they would have to release source code with the firewall
drivers. Is it the case? Where have you seen mention of Linux?

I don't think nVidia has released any specs.
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-42202.html
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:
> Huh? Why bother with a $100+ Opteron embedded chip when a $2 ARM chip
> will do just as well with a fraction of the power consumption? There
> really isn't much processor required for most of these firewalls, you
> could probably even pull it off without too much trouble on a 16-bit
> microcontroller, though a 32-bit one might be preferable. Probably
> all you would need could be handled through ucLinux, so software and
> development time shouldn't take too much. Something like QNX is
> probably overkill (cost wise at least) for such a setup.

Because as I've said before in this thread, I don't believe the "$2 ARM
chip" is even close to adequate for the job. I don't believe any of the
current generation of embedded processors and/or DSPs are adequate for
the job anymore. If you look at the array of tasks that's being foisted
upon them, they are quite obviously overloaded. Used to be a time when a
broadband router was just an ethernet router, now it's Ethernet and
WiFi. On top of that, the WiFi requires encrypting. The Ethernet
connection now uses a switching function that is done at the speed of
100Mbps. Let's not forget the most important function of the broadband
router, the NAT firewall. Is it a wonder that we see these routers drop
packets left-right and centre.

yousuf Khan
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY