Priming the Intel Pump
Not that I'm up to here in Mactrogen after these last 10 days, but I am. I haven't read anything about Intel's dual/multi core processors in a while so I figured it was about time I wrote something definitive. Here's the deal...

The second half of 2005 will see the ramp-up of Intel's family of dual core (and multi-core, Intel suggests), processors. The buzz here is called "thread level parallelism" and you can run that through the crapometer if you want because it's much easier to say that Intel wants to get two (or more) things done at the same time. Intel hasn't laid down the nitty or the gritty yet so while HyperThreading will also be part of the multicore equation, they can't (so far) say whether or not it will be implemented on each core but it will be there. More news on that as it becomes available.

Why do you want that? A while ago (and by that I mean we were standing in the shade under the belly of a Brontosaurus), an old friend, Bob Hotto, and I were contemplating the properties one needed to make a computer most excellent. Although we had a variety of ancillary thoughts, multiple processors was the one quick and sure point of agreement. Whatever you wanted the computer to do, you had a CPU to handle that operation. In those days it was very simple: the vast majority of PC stuff was internally I/O derived with graphics the hold out. GPUs took the latter problem away.

These days, we're still I/O dependent to some degree, especially with WiFi, but there's a lot more overhead involved -managing the WiFi connection, running anti-spam/spyware software, indexing files on your hard drives, etc., etc. Even with HT, trying to get all of that done at once in a single processor environment is a drag, literally. (IBM's big claim for OS/2 as a multitasking operating system was that you could format a floppy disk while downloading your e-mail... I was impressed.) But imagine if you had a CPU core dedicated to each of those tasks? Assuming the memory management is handled correctly, you'd never know about those background tasks.

If you believe Intel's claims for HT operations (and you shouldn't, they're wildly optimistic even though there are noticeable gains with HT v. non-HT systems), adding the physicality of multicores would create an environment even Apple's Mini Mac could boast about --without all the disadvantages of on-die cross-talk and boodles of heat. If you apply it to Intel's Digital Home concept, you could be ripping CDs, burning DVDs, checking your mail, paying your bills electronically --all while doing whatever it is you'd be doing in a Digital Home. Parallelism in the Digital Home is a hoot. (As much as the Digital Home concept itself might honestly end up as a hoot....)

As I said, if you believe Intel's timeline, both mobile and desktop dual core processors should be out this year (90nm). Think about it... Finally buying a portable computer that performs like its (single core) desktop cousin! Volume production is expected to hit 70+% by 2006 (65nm).

# Permalink   Posted at 5:14 PM        10 comments       Email this Link