Intel to Introduce Dual-Core Microprocessors in 2005

7 May, 2004 at 2:17pm ET Article published in Tech

Intel to produce Dual-Core CPUs for all market segments in 2005

Intel claims that it will have top-to-bottom families of dual-core microprocessors next year. The plans now include Itanium 2 chip “Montecito” for mission-critical enterprise servers as well as dual-core products for mobile computers, desktop computers and typical mainstream servers.

Dual-core processors can process two times more data per clock and handle more than one threads at once. This allows the whole system to perform a lot better under high load when running multiply processors.

The new chips for desktops will fit into the platform guidance submitted by Intel for its 2005 products before. Therefore, on the chipset level the new desktop dual-core processors are expected to be compatible with Grantsdale (i915), Alderwood (i925X) and Lakeport chipsets that are anticipated to roll out in 2004 and 2005. It is not clear whether the chips will fit into Socket T infrastructure.

The Prescott and Tejas run too hot and use too much power. So a Dual core Pentium-M derivative is being pulled forward from 2006 into 2005 to take over for the Pentium 4

Source: Xbitlabs

Comments

7 May 2004 ~ 6:40pm MJO That is a good initiative from Intel.
The Pentium-M is the best processor they have produced since the P3.

I understand why they are giving up on Netburst as well.
Imagine the amount of heat a dual core PresHot system would dissipate?
/me thinks it's getting hot in here.

/me wonders if Intel can mess up the desktop Pentium-M?
7 May 2004 ~ 9:34pm drasnor

MJO wrote:

* MJO wonders if Intel can mess up the desktop Pentium-M?

For their sake, they'd better not. I totally agree about the Pentium III: it's the only Intel processor besides the Pentium M I'm in the market for right now.

-drasnor
8 May 2004 ~ 2:02am Omega65

MJO wrote:

That is a good initiative from Intel.
The Pentium-M is the best processor they have produced since the P3.

I understand why they are giving up on Netburst as well.
[/color]

The Pentium-M is basically an enhanced Pentium3 with an 800mhz interface. Intel not giving up on Netburst, just the P4's long pipeline/high mhz/low IPC design
8 May 2004 ~ 6:36am MJO

Omega65 wrote:

The Pentium-M is basically an enhanced Pentium3 with an 800mhz interface. Intel not giving up on Netburst, just the P4's long pipeline/high mhz/low IPC design

I see, I thought that they would put Netburst in the grave along with the PIV.
That is what a lot of hardware sites have been reporting during a couple of months.

Hmm it sounds like a serious competitor then, a P3 on steroids with an internal quadpumped FSB. That should put out some serious bandwith along with performance.
8 May 2004 ~ 8:12am Leonardo Dual Channel Heatsink, anyone?
8 May 2004 ~ 11:49am Omega65

Leonardo wrote:

Dual Channel Heatsink, anyone?

P3's run cool, but that's only because they top out at 1.4ghz.

I'd rather downclock a Barton XP-M and have an even cooler running, but more powerful CPU
8 May 2004 ~ 11:56am Gobbles semi off subject... anyone notice that xbit really needs some English lit. students to proof thier articles before posting them...

handle more than one threads at once

handle more than one thread at a time

system to perform a lot better under high load when running multiply processors.

system to perform better under high load when running multiple processors.

just an observation...

Gobbles
8 May 2004 ~ 1:43pm drasnor

Omega65 wrote:

P3's run cool, but that's only because they top out at 1.4ghz.

Ahem.

-drasnor
8 May 2004 ~ 2:00pm Thrax

Gobbles wrote:

semi off subject... anyone notice that xbit really needs some English lit. students to proof thier articles before posting them...

handle more than one thread at a time

system to perform better under high load when running multiple processors.

just an observation...

Gobbles

They're Russian, Gobbles. English isn't their native language.
8 May 2004 ~ 11:04pm mmonnin P-Ms are not enhanced P3s. Read arstechnica.com's article on the P-M. Good read.