Company says chip is 50 percent more powerful than single-core version.
Tom Krazit, IDG News Service
San Francisco--Intel's first dual-core Xeon server processor is about 50 percent more powerful than its single-core predecessor, but it will cost around 40 percent more than that chip, company executives said today.
Intel unveiled its first dual-core Xeon chips for two-processor and four-processor servers, previously known by the Paxville code name. The version for two-chip servers is available immediately at 2.8 GHz, says Kirk Skaugen, general manager of Intel's server platforms group. The Dual-Core Xeon 2.8 GHz for two-chip servers costs $1043 in quantities of 1000 units, compared with the $690 Intel is charging for its 3.8-GHz single-core Xeon processors.
Pricing details about the Dual-Core Xeon 7000 processor--a version for multichip servers--will be released in the next 60 days. This chip will run at up to 3 GHz and will incorporate advanced reliability features such as Intel's Pellston technology, which repairs data errors in cache memory.
Power Management Feature
The Dual-Core Xeon 2.8 GHz uses 2MB of Level 2 cache memory per core. From an architectural standpoint, it is very similar to the dual-core Pentium D processor unveiled earlier this year for desktop PCs. However, the Dual-Core Xeon comes with a power-management feature called demand-based switching, which turns off portions of the chip that are not in use, Skaugen says. It also comes with Intel's hyperthreading technology, allowing each core to process two independent software threads at the same time.
Intel had originally planned to introduce its first dual-core Xeon server processor in the first quarter of next year. However, the company has faced increased competition this year from Advanced Micro Devices' Opteron processor, which has been available in a dual-core version since May. Intel announced plans in August to accelerate the launch of Paxville and build two versions, one for two-way servers and one for four-way servers.
Even though it is Intel's first dual-core processor for two-chip servers--the largest segment of the server market--the company does not expect the Dual-Core Xeon to ship in heavy volumes, says Boyd Davis, general manager of server platforms group marketing at Intel. The Dempsey processor will carry the dual-core load for Intel starting in the first quarter of next year when it debuts as part of the Bensley platform, the umbrella code name for a system with the Dempsey processor and the Blackford chip set.
New Technologies
Bensley will introduce several new technologies to Intel's server customers. It will have hardware support for virtualization technologies delivered by companies like VMware and XenSource, and will speed up the transfer of data from the network to the processor with Intel's I/O Acceleration Technology. The processor and chip set will also make use of a faster 1066-MHz dual-independent bus that has individual connections to the processor core, rather than forcing the two cores to share a single connection to the memory.
Bensley will account for the vast majority of Intel's dual-core server processor shipments next year, Skaugen says. It will also cost the same amount as Intel's current single-core Xeon chips, unlike the $353 premium Intel is charging for the Dual-Core Xeon 2.8 GHz.
"If you absolutely, positively need a dual-core Xeon today, they'll sell it to you. But it won't be cheap," says Kevin Krewell, editor in chief of The Microprocessor Report in San Jose, California. Most server customers will wait for Bensley-based products, but delivering a product ahead of schedule is always a good move for a chip vendor, he says.
Intel needed a dual-core response to the momentum generated by AMD's dual-core Opteron, Krewell says. "It's clearly recognition that they are under pressure and that the dual-core Opteron had them under the gun," he says.
Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM have all announced support for the new Dual-Core Xeon, and customers interested in the product can now order systems from all three vendors.
No comments:
Post a Comment