Intel doesn't have Dual Core

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:19:07 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67.DeleteThis@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:
<font color=green>  >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=44932</font" target="_blank">http://forums.amd.com/index.php?showtopic=44932</font</a>>
  >>
  >> 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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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...
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:22:17 -0500, chrisv <chrisv.TakeThisOut@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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core 

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<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Intel doesn't have Dual Core