Wow! What a reponse from the forum! I never thought alot of people feel about the P6 architecture the same way I do!
Now to answer some responses...(from what I know)
goheels said : "i don't think dual cores are really going to be that great. i mean, microsoft definitely doesn't want to write for dual core support, that'd mean practically starting longhorn over. not that i care, since i've gone linux.
and even if microsoft manages to support it, very few apps will be written to utilize it"
The approach to dual-core is to have denser, more efficient computing. Its no longer about brute speed with slapstick features to improve an inefficient architecture. (ie : HT)
MS's Longhorn DOES support Dual-Core CPUs, if you look around, you'll now see information regarding the new power management support for this kind of setup.
AMD obviously encouraged MS about this when they told everyone Opteron was designed with dual-core from the start.
Dual-core will be identical to today's dual-CPU setups...But with a few advantages:
(1) One less heatsink is needed. Physical advantage of having dual core in one package.
(2) In Longhorn, if the PC is idle, One core will be switched OFF, while the other will switch to low-power mode to maintain the system. This dynamic power adjusting (depending if the apps need it) is identical to the power saving features to today's notebook CPUs...Except the response of the system is much better. (like current dual CPU setups).
(3) If the OS can see the dual-core and the apps are multi-threaded, you have no issues. If the app is single threaded, you can multi-task far more than single core. This is based on my experience with dual CPU. (assuming Dual-core is similar)...One special thing...Don't expect 100% faster with two CPUs. It'll depend on OS and apps, and how they're written and optimised. In the most ideal case, you'll see a 80% at best.
AMD has a clear advantage in dual-core CPUs since they designed the Opteron with dual-core in its beginning.
Chowdy says : If the next opterons are to be dual-core with same pin compatability as the old opterons, that's awesome. But remember, the FX is basically an opteron for the desktop. Does that mean dual-core FX?
This will depend on AMD, if they see a market for this, then expect a dual-core FX. If not, you're stuck in "single life".
Gregory_WE : Apparently, there's some inherent issue (power leakage) with the process going from 130nm to 90nm which no one has been able to correct.
That's about right, as mentioned, all CPU manufacturing companies are facing a bit of a brick wall when moving from 130nm to 90nm process. From what I gather, its basically because as you shrink, you need to pump in more current. In the case 90nm, you have to pump in quite a bit to maintain signal integrity compared to 130nm process.
So now, you got a fair amount of wasted heat being produced from the extra current needed to maintain signal integrity...This is what is known as "leakage".
Many will attempt to reduce this as best as possible...But as we all have seen, the Prescott is an example of quite significant leakage. (I hear about 1/3 of heat produced is leakage...Very inefficient).
Obviously, Intel realises it can't keep doing this and still be competitive. (especially against the AMD64 CPUs).
BTW, you can buy desktop Pentium-M mobos from Commell and Lippert. They both supply Mini-ITX mobos for Pentium-M. In the Commell one, there's a Mini-AGP version that allows you to install a ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 Pro. The catch is that its extremely expensive to setup such a system.
Its best to wait until Intel pushes this kind of setup to maintstream, so it is more affordable.
