Intel engineer discusses their dual-core design

[Guest]

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

anonymous wrote:
> anonymous wrote:
> > Bill Todd wrote:
> > > David Schwartz wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > a "dual core" is two
> > > > processors in one physical package.
> > >
> > > Not by any current definition that I'm aware of: it is, rather, two
> > > cores on a single chip.
> > >
> > > Do you call POWER an '8-core' processor because that's how many cores
> > > its high-end systems have in one physical package?
> > >
> > > - bill
> >
> > You might also consider an argument of ARM 32-bit Standard Model VS
> > 16-bit THUMB mode VS an entirely different VLIW with a 16-bit/5-bit
> > architecture as a potential performance differance.
> >
> > Why is Intel so secretive about it's research of using registers as
> > stacks outside of Pentium's microcode engine? ( access more data thru
> > stacks with a similar ( or less!) amount of chip masking and a more
> > efficient fabrication ( I have seen very few stack architecture
> > refrences for Intel, for example the IPX multi micro puter engine ,
> > http:A//www.intel.com/design/network/products/npfamily/ixp2800.htm&ei=fR4NQ7OrCIfK-QG8_LHGCQ
> > , ))
> >
> > Although, Mr. Moore's 25x model is an asychronous parallel processor,
> > VLIW SMP MPP sychronization is unspecified.
> >
> > URL:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.machine/msg/b400d03ddc0f5a4f?hl=en
> >
> > If they would have used sixteen 16-bit/5-bit instead of sixteen
> > 32-bit/16-bit maybe Intel would have won. Thank you IBM for Nirvana.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > President Clinton is a jerk
>
>
> www.intel.com/technology/itj/2002/volume06issue03/art01_nextgenixp/vol6iss3_art01.pdf
>
> The type of CAM mentioned in this article is NOT the same as my usage
> of the term CAM. In my usage CAM is automatically executed as a
> machine intruction , re-mapping back from 5-bit fedback into 16-like,
> similar to Inmos Transputer type F instruction except my usage of CAM
> permits 15 such mappings.
>
> EITHER a sixteen ( actully fifteen with zero reserved for an
> instruction type safety fault) 5-bit CAM instructs ( as described
> previously) OR a simpler ( and faster) hardwire-ed 5-bit is referenced
> in VLIM SMP MPP here, url ,
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.machine/msg/38236e7c4267bb08?dmode=source&hl=en
> ( , since 1999 )
>
> ---
>
> President Clinton is a jerk

Too short of a day, I guess, thirty one CAM or hardwired mappings, not
fifteen.

---

President Clinton is a jerk

 

[Trex]

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

>
>
>>Intel's mistakes have all resulted from allowing marketing depts the power
>>to guide product technical direction - I don't see that changing much and
>>in fact they're girding up to do it again; we'll see if AMD suffers from
>>the same hubris but so far it still looks pretty good.
>
>
> Yep, but to hear Intel talk of their new leadership direction - you'd
> think it was the other way around ie they were too engineering oriented
> and focused too much on performance. I did get a giggle reading this in an
> article about their new CEO in some business mag while waiting at the
> hospital.
>

Intel's & Sony's problems are the same. Engineering hubris. Neither
company has strong "product marketing". However, they both have strong
"brand marketing", etc. You may be confusing the two. If they had good
product management (with executive support), they'd probably not be
having the troubles they have now.

Remember, the job of engineering is documentation.

 

[keith]

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:00:53 +0200, Niels Jørgen Kruse wrote:

> keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>> Intel's stacking two cores in an MCM and calling it a "dual core" tells
>> all. They were caught with their pants down, even after *knowing* what
>> the score was for a couple of years.
>
> No, the package wasn't ready so they had to put both on the same die.

The fact is that they *were* going to do an MCM because they had their
head so far up their ass that they ignored the obvious.
>
> Why don't you read the article?

I did. I've read more than one article. Go figure.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:02:57 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

>
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.08.23.02.04.28.134199@att.bizzzz...
>
>> Intel's stacking two cores in an MCM and calling it a "dual core" tells
>> all. They were caught with their pants down, even after *knowing* what
>> the score was for a couple of years.
>
> First of all, they didn't do that.

Only because they couldn't. They *were* going to do an MCM.

> Second of all, a "dual core" is two processors in one physical package.

Are you always this stupid?

--
Keith
> DS

 

[Guest]

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

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.08.25.00.58.57.5983@att.bizzzz...
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:02:57 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>>
>> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
>> news😛an.2005.08.23.02.04.28.134199@att.bizzzz...
>>
>>> Intel's stacking two cores in an MCM and calling it a "dual core" tells
>>> all. They were caught with their pants down, even after *knowing* what
>>> the score was for a couple of years.
>>
>> First of all, they didn't do that.
>
> Only because they couldn't. They *were* going to do an MCM.

Which means that "dual core" must include an MCM.

>> Second of all, a "dual core" is two processors in one physical package.
>
> Are you always this stupid?

Are you always this rude?

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5589445.html

I can post dozens of other references that show that the phrase "dual
core" can be used to refer to two CPUs in a single package, rather than on a
single die.

DS

 

[Guest]

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

> (1) The readers of this group are probably more tech savvy than
> average, so would you say that you have followed my downward opinion
> of Sony over the past 10 yrs?
> (2) Now, going into the wider population, do you think Sony has fallen
> from a premium brand to just one among many?
>
>

I may still go with Sony for a tube, but nothing else. They still make a
better tube than anyone I have seen. I'm also of the sort that still
wouldn't by a plasma or other flat panel junk as the image still blows
compared to a tube. I have the 34'' XBR 16:9 sitting downstairs, that
picture rocks.

Other than the tube TV's, yeah there are a lot better companies out there.
But I wouldn't say that is any different then its been in years. Sure, Sony
was better than most other "Best Buy" or Circuit City, type brands. But
then, for the same price, or a little more you could always buy some really
great products from the higher end compaines. Denon is really putting out
some great stuff on the low end for A/V gear.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:00:53 +0200, nospam@ab-katrinedal.dk (Niels
Jørgen Kruse) wrote:

>keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>> Intel's stacking two cores in an MCM and calling it a "dual core" tells
>> all. They were caught with their pants down, even after *knowing* what
>> the score was for a couple of years.
>
>No, the package wasn't ready so they had to put both on the same die.

Exactly, it WASN'T READY! Why wasn't it ready?

AMD had their package ready with the very first Opteron shipped over
two years ago (and they demonstrated their intent to go to dual-core
when the Opteron was first demonstrated back in like 2001 or
thereabouts). Sun, IBM and HP were already well on their way towards
dual-core. Pretty much everyone knew that this was the way of the
future, yet Intel still hasn't arrived to the party.

Keith is right, Intel got caught with their pants down... AGAIN!

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

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:30:49 GMT, Maynard Handley <name99@name99.org>
wrote:
>My question then is:
>(1) The readers of this group are probably more tech savvy than average,
>so would you say that you have followed my downward opinion of Sony over
>the past 10 yrs?

Definitely. I remember the whole time I was growing up my family and
I bought almost exclusively Sony equipment, whether it be TVs,
stereos, walkmans, etc. If Sony sold a product we were interested in,
chances are that we would have bought from them.

Now I would say that they're just one of many in the "decent quality"
sector. I would definitely still class them above the multitude of
bottom-feeder companies, a-la Apex, Konica, Mintek, etc.

However in recent years I haven't seen their quality as being at all
better than many other "decent quality" brands such as Toshiba,
Samsung, Pioneer, etc. For any given product where these companies
compete any one of them might have the best solution for a particular
person, but usually they're all pretty close. The problem here is
that Sony is the most expensive more often than not.

>(2) Now, going into the wider population, do you think Sony has fallen
>from a premium brand to just one among many?

Well, they are still able to charge a bit of a premium over a lot of
other companies, so that tends to suggest that their name hasn't been
tarnished TOO badly. However I do think that it has taken at least a
bit of a beating.

>(Oh, I suspect that Disney, in a different demographic, has undergone
>the same sort of slide as Sony over about the same period.)

Perhaps so. I don't know how profits play out, but it would seem that
they are no longer THE name for kids movies anymore. Now Pixar seems
to be putting out as many hits for the young-uns as Disney, and other
smaller players are getting in on the action too.

>As for improvement of a brand, it's obviously possible. Apple has
>certainly done so in the last few years, and before them I think IBM did

Improvement of brand is only one piece of the puzzle. For example,
with Apple their iMac did quite a bit to generate renewed interest in
the company, but it didn't really translate into dramatically
increased market share. It stopped and reversed the slide somewhat,
but they've been hovering down in the 2% range for a while now.

>so. So I think Intel probably could improve their brand quality, but
>also that they have reached the point where it won't happen with a
>louder volume of ads, that it will actually require a period of
>sustained products that are actually better than AMD in some way, to do
>so.

Intel's brand name is still rather surprisingly strong IMO, given the
fact that their products have been lagging for about 6 years now. For
this reason I would say that they are doing a pretty good job on the
advertising front.

However advertising will only get them so far with something that most
users aren't actually buying directly. The vast bulk of Intel's (and
AMD's) customer do not buy an Intel or AMD CPU, they buy an HP or Dell
or Lenovo computer. The CPU is just one of many specs that go along
with that computer. Intel's marketing money can get them some play
here, but a lot of customers just aren't willing to pay a premium just
for an Intel CPU in their HP/Dell/whoever if AMD can do a better job
for less.

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

 

[Guest]

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

YKhan wrote:
> Dean Kent wrote:
>
>>"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1124891033.268120.244040@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Throughout most cities, it's
>>
>>>looking like there's been an increase in the number of AMD PCs,
>>>especially laptops, something that was rarely ever seen prior to the
>>>lawsuit.
>>
>>Got a link or reference for that?
>
>
> Well obviously how many AMD based systems are showing up in local
> stores is entirely anecdotal, being reported by individuals dropping by
> their local Best Buys, Circuit Cities, Future Shops, whatnot. People
> are seeing more laptop systems showing up on display with AMD
> processors than they used to. It's not hard picking out an increase in
> AMD laptops; whereas previously there might have been none, but now
> there might be some -- easy to notice.
>
> But the AMD boss also announced that they recently had 60 design wins
> for the Turion. So one would assume that those design wins would be
> showing up for sale too.
>
> X-bit labs - Hardware news - AMD Turion 64 Is Gaining Market Acceptance
> - Company.
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20050715215841.html
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

More anecdotal evidence: I build a few custom systems every
month for friends, friends-of-friends, etc. 37 so far this year.

A year ago about one third of the people wanted me to build P4 or
Xeon systems for them. In the last 5 or 6 months I have not had
one person ask for a P4 or Xeon box: everyone wanted Opterons
or Athlon64s, except for one Pentium M and one AthlonFX.

 

[Guest]

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

Rob Stow wrote:
> More anecdotal evidence: I build a few custom systems every
> month for friends, friends-of-friends, etc. 37 so far this year.
>
> A year ago about one third of the people wanted me to build P4 or
> Xeon systems for them. In the last 5 or 6 months I have not had
> one person ask for a P4 or Xeon box: everyone wanted Opterons
> or Athlon64s, except for one Pentium M and one AthlonFX.

Opterons & Xeons? Are you building servers for friends of friends?

Yousuf Khan

 

[dannysdailys]

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

Quite frankly, it sounds like anyone stupid enough to buy a dual core
processor from Intel, will find themselves to be orphaned very soon.
No where near enough development has gone into this. Still using
single off board memory controllers? LOL Talk about a mess. It's a
miracle it works. Maybe after they're out a while, we'll find out
they can't do simple arithmatic, like the pentium couldn't when it
first came out.

It's fairly obvious they dropped a very large ball to AMD. So much
so, even Redmond, dragging it's butt to release a 64 bit Windows
still can't bail Intel out.

Did you hear the latest? AMD has challenged Intel to a face off. Bet
Intel won't be anywhere near a face to face show down.

 

[Guest]

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

"AD." <me@privacy.net> writes:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:51:49 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

>>> But by the time it really starts to bite, Intel will probably have
>>> some nice Pentium M based stuff to offer and past mistakes will
>>> soon be forgotten.

>> "Probably"?... maybe?🙂

> Well it's got to be better than their current stuff

I don't know about forgetting, but if I want a quiet (fanless even?)
living room PC, Pentium M still seems to hold an edge over anything
AMD (too much heat) or VIA (too feeble) have to offer. Even if
somewhat expensive (local prices of ~ USD 250 each for MB and CPU).

Or is it possible to buy a Turion and a MB that will take it?

-k
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

 

[Guest]

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

"Ketil Malde" <ketil+news@ii.uib.no> wrote in message
news:egslwy1kef.fsf@polarvier.ii.uib.no...
>
> I don't know about forgetting, but if I want a quiet (fanless even?)
> living room PC, Pentium M still seems to hold an edge over anything
> AMD (too much heat) or VIA (too feeble) have to offer. Even if
> somewhat expensive (local prices of ~ USD 250 each for MB and CPU).

Intel, in their Prescott line, understates the design power and gets
away with it because of thermal throttling. AMD, in their 90nm line,
_understates_ the design power (by a _considerable_ margin in my
Sempron 754 2600+ CPUs) because they're still selling .13u parts for
big bucks. Now, the slow Sempron 754 parts are even available in
AMD64. I recommend them strongly. I know AMD sez 62W "design power",
but you'd need a downhill run and a tailwind and a 40W light bulb
helping to get anywhere near 62W.

 

[Guest]

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

"Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net> wrote in message
news:WQjPe.167$4P5.40@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Ketil Malde" <ketil+news@ii.uib.no> wrote in message
> news:egslwy1kef.fsf@polarvier.ii.uib.no...
> >
> > I don't know about forgetting, but if I want a quiet (fanless
even?)
> > living room PC, Pentium M still seems to hold an edge over
anything
> > AMD (too much heat) or VIA (too feeble) have to offer. Even if
> > somewhat expensive (local prices of ~ USD 250 each for MB and
CPU).
>
> Intel, in their Prescott line, understates the design power and gets
> away with it because of thermal throttling. AMD, in their 90nm
line,
> _understates_ the design power (by a _considerable_ margin in my
> Sempron 754 2600+ CPUs) because they're still selling .13u parts for
> big bucks. Now, the slow Sempron 754 parts are even available in
> AMD64. I recommend them strongly. I know AMD sez 62W "design
power",
> but you'd need a downhill run and a tailwind and a 40W light bulb
> helping to get anywhere near 62W.

Whoops. I meant AMD _overstates_. Sorry!

 

[Guest]

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

Felger Carbon wrote:
> Intel, in their Prescott line, understates the design power and gets
> away with it because of thermal throttling. AMD, in their 90nm line,
> _understates_ the design power (by a _considerable_ margin in my
overstates

> Sempron 754 2600+ CPUs) because they're still selling .13u parts for
> big bucks. Now, the slow Sempron 754 parts are even available in
> AMD64. I recommend them strongly. I know AMD sez 62W "design power",
> but you'd need a downhill run and a tailwind and a 40W light bulb
> helping to get anywhere near 62W.

"Thermal Design Power" (TDP) is defined as the maximum amount of heat a
cooler has to take away under defined conditions (given die temperature and
air temperature). I.e. you define a temperature difference delta T, and a
power P, and the cooler has to make sure that for a given P the delta T is
met.

AFAIK, AMD didn't change the TDP definition when going to 90nm, but they
lowered the maximum temperature rating for their dies. So in reality, you
have a lower delta T to reach, but with the given TDP (for cooler
designers), they simply overstate the TDP, with the same effect. AMD also
doesn't have thermal throttling, so the TDP really must fit into a
worst-case szenario, while Intel allows programs like CPUburn to exceed the
power - the idea is that in typical use, power bursts like that are short,
and you can prevent damage by throttling.

If you really need the CPU power to run long simulations/encodings/game
sessions/whatever, and you buy Intel, then you also need a cooler that can
handle more than Intel asks.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

 

[Guest]

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

YKhan wrote:
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>>More anecdotal evidence: I build a few custom systems every
>>month for friends, friends-of-friends, etc. 37 so far this year.
>>
>>A year ago about one third of the people wanted me to build P4 or
>>Xeon systems for them. In the last 5 or 6 months I have not had
>>one person ask for a P4 or Xeon box: everyone wanted Opterons
>>or Athlon64s, except for one Pentium M and one AthlonFX.
>
>
> Opterons & Xeons? Are you building servers for friends of friends?

No: dualie workstations. Some are in the video business and
they love their dual Opteron boxes. Dual Xeon boxes are no
longer wanted - the additional heat (with lower performance) is
really noticeable when you have half a dozen in a crowded office.

And some are home users with no real need for that kind of power 🙂

>
> Yousuf Khan
>

 

[Guest]

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

Grant Schoep wrote:
> Denon is really putting out
> some great stuff on the low end for A/V gear.

I am pretty disillusioned with the whole A/V scene to
tell the truth. The fact that Bose are still in business
and are even sought after speaks volumes for the state
of the market.

The pillocks trying to make content impossible to read
without hugely expensive licenses are not helping either.
They are pushing the small players out of the market and
those guys are the ones who tend to make the better
quality and better sounding gear.

Cheers,
Rupert

 

[Guest]

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

On 25 Aug 2005 08:01:48 -0700, "Pankaj" <psingh6@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Maynard Handley wrote:

>> As for improvement of a brand, it's obviously possible. Apple has
>> certainly done so in the last few years, and before them I think IBM did
>> so. So I think Intel probably could improve their brand quality, but
>> also that they have reached the point where it won't happen with a
>> louder volume of ads, that it will actually require a period of
>> sustained products that are actually better than AMD in some way, to do
>> so.
>
>>From a marketing point of view, I dont know what does it take to create
>a brand name, but a lot of advertisement is a part of it. For intel,
>its not difficult at all, as AMD has virtualy no ads for consumers. To
>create an Intel brand, they dont have to prove them better than AMD.
>Brand name is generally the awareness of a name in public and not just
>a very narrow select group of people, no matter how much better
>informed they may be. M$ hired a VP from P&G to improve the Microsoft
>brand name (~10 ? yrs ago) and it still is one of the best brand names
>despite the bloody antitrust suit.

AMD's approach recently has been to target collaboration and sponsorship
with high tech activities, mostly in some form of sports. I wonder how
this is panning out: e.g. has the Lance Armstrong/Discovery Team connection
been worth anything to them? How about the Sauber & Ferrari F1 connection?
I don't watch NASCAR but that might be a more worthwhile avenue for their
collaboration/sponsorship efforts in the U.S. market??

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

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

Ketil Malde <ketil+news@ii.uib.no> writes:
>I don't know about forgetting, but if I want a quiet (fanless even?)
>living room PC, Pentium M still seems to hold an edge over anything
>AMD (too much heat) or VIA (too feeble) have to offer.

Well, my ancient Athlon 64 (Clawhammer C0 stepping, newer steppings
have a faster and cooler low-power mode) is currently idling along
with 800MHz at 44.5 Degrees Celsius, with the fan at a quiet and
leisurely 1300rpm (once the fan reaches about 2000rpm, it starts
contributing audibly to the noise produced by the machine; the machine
is relatively quiet, although probably still too loud for a living
room PC).

When watching DVDs with xine, it stays at 800MHz (about 80% load at
that speed) and the temperature and fan speed is hardly higher.
Playing ogg files produces very little load. Why do you need a
powerful CPU for a living room PC?

The CPU cooler does get loud at full load at full speed, however.

A friend of mine has a Winchester Athlon 64, and that machine uses
somewhat less power (and should produce less noise with the same
cooling) than mine, much less at full load. For more data see
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/computer-power-consumption.html>.

Followups to comp.arch.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

 

[cjt]

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

Ketil Malde wrote:

> "AD." <me@privacy.net> writes:
>
>
>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:51:49 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>
>>>>But by the time it really starts to bite, Intel will probably have
>>>>some nice Pentium M based stuff to offer and past mistakes will
>>>>soon be forgotten.
>
>
>>>"Probably"?... maybe?🙂
>
>
>>Well it's got to be better than their current stuff
>
>
> I don't know about forgetting, but if I want a quiet (fanless even?)
> living room PC, Pentium M still seems to hold an edge over anything
> AMD (too much heat) or VIA (too feeble) have to offer. Even if
> somewhat expensive (local prices of ~ USD 250 each for MB and CPU).
>
> Or is it possible to buy a Turion and a MB that will take it?
>
> -k

I use fanless Sun Rays and a Sun server tucked away out of earshot for
that kind of thing.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

 

[keith]

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

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:54:31 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

>
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.08.25.00.58.57.5983@att.bizzzz...
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:02:57 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
>>> news😛an.2005.08.23.02.04.28.134199@att.bizzzz...
>>>
>>>> Intel's stacking two cores in an MCM and calling it a "dual core" tells
>>>> all. They were caught with their pants down, even after *knowing* what
>>>> the score was for a couple of years.
>>>
>>> First of all, they didn't do that.
>>
>> Only because they couldn't. They *were* going to do an MCM.
>
> Which means that "dual core" must include an MCM.

Horse-hockey. "Two processors in a package" == dual core, must include
the IBM 3168 of thirty years ago, then. One package (as big as a
box-car), two processors. You Intel apologists are truely amazing.
>
>>> Second of all, a "dual core" is two processors in one physical
>>> package.
>>
>> Are you always this stupid?
>
> Are you always this rude?

Rude? Perhaps. I prefer to think of it as terse. You *are* stupid, if
you buy into Intel's garbage.
>
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5589445.html
>
> I can post dozens of other references that show that the phrase
> "dual
> core" can be used to refer to two CPUs in a single package, rather than
> on a single die.

Oh, wow! You can post all sorts of Intel propaganda. I'm truely amazed.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.08.26.02.02.30.696372@att.bizzzz...

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:54:31 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

>>> Only because they couldn't. They *were* going to do an MCM.

>> Which means that "dual core" must include an MCM.

> Horse-hockey. "Two processors in a package" == dual core, must include
> the IBM 3168 of thirty years ago, then. One package (as big as a
> box-car), two processors. You Intel apologists are truely amazing.

Why would you waste everyone's time with that type of stupidity. No
definition is sufficiently precise to state, with no ambiguity, precisely
what is and isn't covered by that definition.

>>>> Second of all, a "dual core" is two processors in one physical
>>>> package.

>>> Are you always this stupid?

>> Are you always this rude?

> Rude? Perhaps. I prefer to think of it as terse. You *are* stupid, if
> you buy into Intel's garbage.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5589445.html
>>
>> I can post dozens of other references that show that the phrase
>> "dual
>> core" can be used to refer to two CPUs in a single package, rather than
>> on a single die.

> Oh, wow! You can post all sorts of Intel propaganda. I'm truely amazed.

Ahh yes, it must be a conspiracy. It can't be that you're wrong and
everyone else is right. It must be that you're right and everyone else is
stupid.

DS

 

[keith]

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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:03:57 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

<snip>

> AMD's approach recently has been to target collaboration and sponsorship
> with high tech activities, mostly in some form of sports. I wonder how
> this is panning out: e.g. has the Lance Armstrong/Discovery Team connection
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think Intel is backing the Frogs. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[keith]

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

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:44:05 -0700, YKhan wrote:

> Rob Stow wrote:
>> More anecdotal evidence: I build a few custom systems every
>> month for friends, friends-of-friends, etc. 37 so far this year.
>>
>> A year ago about one third of the people wanted me to build P4 or
>> Xeon systems for them. In the last 5 or 6 months I have not had
>> one person ask for a P4 or Xeon box: everyone wanted Opterons
>> or Athlon64s, except for one Pentium M and one AthlonFX.
>
> Opterons & Xeons? Are you building servers for friends of friends?


....and what is wrong with Opterons? Had one here for well over a year.
Amazingly the price hasn't dropped.

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

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

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:dem3dv$cs6$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
>
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.08.26.02.02.30.696372@att.bizzzz...
>
<big snip>

> >> I can post dozens of other references that show that the
phrase
> >> "dual
> >> core" can be used to refer to two CPUs in a single package,
rather than
> >> on a single die.
>
> > Oh, wow! You can post all sorts of Intel propaganda. I'm truely
amazed.
>
> Ahh yes, it must be a conspiracy. It can't be that you're wrong
and
> everyone else is right. It must be that you're right and everyone
else is
> stupid.

It was just reported that the earth has a solid core that rotates
inside a second, molten core at a different rate. That means the
earth has a dual core in a single package, and (since our glorious
leader believes in creationism) has had two cores for several thousand
years before either Intel or AMD got around to it. ;-)