NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › Will the XPS 2 Support Intels new Yonah?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will the XPS 2 Support Intels new Yonah?

post #1 of 18
9/24/05 at 10:19am
Thread Starter 
HI there guys, I am deciding on whether to get a XPS 2 or the new Clevo D900K coming out with possible dual core AMD support.

I was wondering if the new Yonah cpu from Intel due out ealry next year will be able to run on the XPS2 /9300 notebooks? Will the mobos chipset possibly support this new cpu with a bios update, as it would mean great future upgradeability if you could run the new dual core Yonah in a XPS 2
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 18
9/24/05 at 10:34am
Only Intel would know but most likely NO, Intel will be much happier to sell you new board instead of making some BIOS update for free.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 18
9/24/05 at 4:07pm
Dual core will almost not at all run on a current XPS2. All Intel chipsets had to be changed when they moved from single to dual cores, lappies should be no different. There will be (though it sounds like this isn't where you are headed) a single core version of Yonah later on in 2006 after the initial dual core release. That "might" run on current platforms but thats a slim "might".

If you want dual core (Jan-Mar) Yonah, D900 (soon). Those are the options atm.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 18
9/24/05 at 4:16pm
In true Intel fashion, Yonah requires a brand new platform to run, i.e. the Napa platform (successor to Sonoma) with the Calistoga chipset (successor to Alviso). So, no, there is almost no hope at all.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 18
9/24/05 at 10:10pm
as I have said many times now, there is currently little or no advantage to having a dual core, kind of like having a car powered by natural gas..........where you gonna get a refilL?? my point is, theres nothing designed to take advantage of that extra core, kind of like hyperthreading, how useful has that been? benchmarks show no improvement over single cores at this time, eccept a boost in encoding, thats all so I woulndt throw my xps gen 2 to the scrap yard just yet.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 18
9/24/05 at 10:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutters
as I have said many times now, there is currently little or no advantage to having a dual core, kind of like having a car powered by natural gas..........where you gonna get a refilL?? my point is, theres nothing designed to take advantage of that extra core, kind of like hyperthreading, how useful has that been? benchmarks show no improvement over single cores at this time, eccept a boost in encoding, thats all so I woulndt throw my xps gen 2 to the scrap yard just yet.
They do show that you can play CS:S with little or no drop in frames while encoding at the same time. Let's see a single core do that .

I do a lot of encoding on my laptop, more than I had expected. It would be nice to be able to do it while playing a game in windowed mode and letting azureus run in the background. Dual core would be welcomed by me, but I'll be going the deskktop route for it I guess.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 18
9/25/05 at 1:26am
Thread Starter 
Truly sad news!
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 18
9/25/05 at 2:33am
well if you look at intel's laptop roadmap, they really dont have anything new planned until June of 2006...

CLICKY HERE

see, until june of '06 they dont have much going, but if you wait until jan/feb of 06 and go back to that web page, they'll probably update the rest of the 2006 year, in which case we will see if they will officialy release the yonah chip set.


So if ya get one ur porcessor will be fine until june of 06, or maybe more


Hope this helps man
Gary
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 18
9/25/05 at 3:19pm
Dual core helps in encoding, 3d modeling, and online gaming (offloading comm and comm maintenance to second cpu). More uses for it keep coming down the pike, so while I agree, the Gen2 is NO slouch, and good for a while as a machine, don't make the reasoning of it being a good machine be based upon dual cpu's having no use.

Reply
Reply
post #10 of 18
9/25/05 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutters
as I have said many times now, there is currently little or no advantage to having a dual core, kind of like having a car powered by natural gas..........where you gonna get a refilL?? my point is, theres nothing designed to take advantage of that extra core, kind of like hyperthreading, how useful has that been? benchmarks show no improvement over single cores at this time, eccept a boost in encoding, thats all so I woulndt throw my xps gen 2 to the scrap yard just yet.
Umm...multitasking?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 18
9/25/05 at 10:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by petri
They do show that you can play CS:S with little or no drop in frames while encoding at the same time. Let's see a single core do that .
lets see any normal human being do encoding at the same time that they play a video game.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 18
9/26/05 at 2:18am
Dual core is of absolutely no advantage until and unless the software being used is capable of taking advantage of it. Games are definitely a no-no at least...right now they may get a boost of a few fps to absolutely none...in fact there is a higher chance for a lack of performance because the OS right now cannot take advantage of delegating the tasks required to have a game run perfectly to the different cores. A rewrite or an upgrade of the OS is required...and also the most important fact of it all is that game engines are linear..they are not multithreaded applications. Unreal Engine 3.0 is prob going to be the first multithreaded game engine...it is already working on PS3 adn XBOX 360 and they have multiple procs. We have to wait around 5 years for the entire industry to shift to multithreaded highly efficient software IMHO. Games will start running multithreaded from next year.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 18
9/26/05 at 3:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by suryad
Dual core is of absolutely no advantage until and unless the software being used is capable of taking advantage of it. Games are definitely a no-no at least...right now they may get a boost of a few fps to absolutely none...in fact there is a higher chance for a lack of performance because the OS right now cannot take advantage of delegating the tasks required to have a game run perfectly to the different cores. A rewrite or an upgrade of the OS is required...and also the most important fact of it all is that game engines are linear..they are not multithreaded applications. Unreal Engine 3.0 is prob going to be the first multithreaded game engine...it is already working on PS3 adn XBOX 360 and they have multiple procs. We have to wait around 5 years for the entire industry to shift to multithreaded highly efficient software IMHO. Games will start running multithreaded from next year.
Have you actually seen any benchmarks of the x2 or any multicore cpu? They run games fine while encoding in the background. XP is a multi-cpu ready OS and has no problems delegating the workload.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 18
9/26/05 at 3:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by suryad
Dual core is of absolutely no advantage until and unless the software being used is capable of taking advantage of it. Games are definitely a no-no at least...right now they may get a boost of a few fps to absolutely none...in fact there is a higher chance for a lack of performance because the OS right now cannot take advantage of delegating the tasks required to have a game run perfectly to the different cores. A rewrite or an upgrade of the OS is required...and also the most important fact of it all is that game engines are linear..they are not multithreaded applications. Unreal Engine 3.0 is prob going to be the first multithreaded game engine...it is already working on PS3 adn XBOX 360 and they have multiple procs. We have to wait around 5 years for the entire industry to shift to multithreaded highly efficient software IMHO. Games will start running multithreaded from next year.
Again I must ask, MULTITASKING????!!!!!!!

There are many times I have files transfering or torrents running or media encoding, and I want to play a game. Can u do that safely and effectively with a single core processor?
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 18
9/26/05 at 3:26pm
My response was targetted towards shedding light on the belief that current gen games are going to perform better...way better on dual procs and not multitasking. I can still transfer files and so on while gaming...in fact I have had instances where by accident I have had 2 different games running at the same time because I clicked 2 different game icons...and frankly while there was a slight bit of lag which led me to check the taskbar, it still was playable. That multitasking will be better there is no doubt but really how many consumers do you know are going to be gaming and doing something else at the same time?! While your computer may tackle multitasking tasks a lot better with multicore procs, you as a human will still wont be as efficient hehe. Sure you can start a massive file transfer and start gaming and then check on it occasionally but you can do that right now already. In fact I can do that...the only bottleneck being the hard drive...the hard drive perf drops tremendously because the file transfer is accessing the hdd and so is the game.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 18
9/26/05 at 3:32pm
Current games may not take advantage of the dual-core, but did anything take advantage of 64-bit or MMX etc... when those first came out? Yes it will take time for the industry to start using/making programs that take full advantage of it, but they WILL come. Until then, the current generation of machines will have a useful life.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 18
9/26/05 at 4:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by suryad
My response was targetted towards shedding light on the belief that current gen games are going to perform better...way better on dual procs and not multitasking. I can still transfer files and so on while gaming...in fact I have had instances where by accident I have had 2 different games running at the same time because I clicked 2 different game icons...and frankly while there was a slight bit of lag which led me to check the taskbar, it still was playable. That multitasking will be better there is no doubt but really how many consumers do you know are going to be gaming and doing something else at the same time?! While your computer may tackle multitasking tasks a lot better with multicore procs, you as a human will still wont be as efficient hehe. Sure you can start a massive file transfer and start gaming and then check on it occasionally but you can do that right now already. In fact I can do that...the only bottleneck being the hard drive...the hard drive perf drops tremendously because the file transfer is accessing the hdd and so is the game.
Look at some benchmarks. There are some multitasking that you can do with a single core proc and some that slows it down to excruciatingly slow speeds. The same tasks done on a dual core proc shows nearly no slowdowns. And these are practical tasks as well. Of course if you use your PC for nothing but gaming there is no need for it. You will never run 2 games at the same time. But there are plenty of content creators and amateur designers out there who needs this. I understand you admit to some advantages of dual core procs, but your post is not specific enough, because it began with "Dual core is of absolutely no advantage..." That leads others to believe you thought dual cores have no advantages whatsoever.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 18
9/26/05 at 5:15pm
For the practical user, currently duel core is not worth it. We have yet to see what gaming improvements could be possible if the game is multi threaded.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Dell Forums › Dell Home (Inspiron, XPS, Studio) › Will the XPS 2 Support Intels new Yonah?