Slashdot Mirror

Now what are we using that requires that much bandwidth? All together now: Uncompressed video and Gigabit Ethernet.

Networking on laptops are no longer done with PCMCIA... first ethernet, and now wireless, are usually delivered built in. Many laptops come with GbE too.

As for GbE filling the bus... chipsets often handle these outside the PCI bus. And servers use PCI-X (or now, PCI Express).

The processor serial number is passive. Thus, it does not transmit or broadcast itself. If a person chooses to enable the feature, then, when visiting a website that can utilize processor serial numbers, the website needs to send software to the PC to read the processor serial number.

Parent is right. Here is a white paper. Short on technical details, long on overview

Of course, the submitter's reference to the Celeron was a joke (Turion = Asparagus, Celeron = Celery). I mostly agree that AMD has kicked Intel's arse in budget CPUs in the past. But I don't think AMD currently beats Intel in every budget segment.

Consider Anandtech's conclusion from a Sempron vs. Celeron test they did last July

Also consider current pricing (from Newegg) for the Sempron and the Celeron D. In Anandtech's benchmark results, the Socket 754-based Sempron 3100+ did beat the Socket 478-based Celeron D 335 in most of the bechmarks that count. However, the Sempron 3100+ costs $123/$108 (retail/OEM) while the Celeron D 335 costs $109/$89. The benchmarks also showed that the Socket A-based Sempron 2800+ ($109/$99) was about even with the Celeron D 335, but would you choose an aging Socket A platform (PCI, AGP, IDE, 333MHz FSB) over a modern platform (PCI Express, SATA, 533/800MHz FSB) that you can get with the Celeron D?

Of course, we're talking about building our own desktops, which is very different from what the big-name computer makers offer. Us home builders would choose nForce or 915 chipsets for Sempron and Celeron D CPUs. HP and Dell are more likely to offer VIA/SiS/ALi chipsets for Semprons and 865/845 chipsets for Celeron D. Ugh.

If I was building a budget desktop, I would choose a Socket 775-based Celeron D over a Socket A or Socket 754-based Sempron. I value the whole platform just as much (if not more) than the CPU itself. If AMD made a Socket 939-based Sempron, I'd reconsider.

I'll be interested to see how this unfortunately named "Turion" chip compares to the PentiumM.

Back to the article's topic (notebook CPUs), it looks like AMD will not have an answer to Intel's Celeron M. The Celeron M is based on the Pentium M core and performs almost equivalently clock-for-clock in Tom's Hardware benchmarks. Also note that Intel's Sonoma platform (533MHz bus, PCI Express, DDR2, GMA900 graphics, HD Audio) is about to be lauched.

Of course, the submitter's reference to the Celeron was a joke (Turion = Asparagus, Celeron = Celery). I mostly agree that AMD has kicked Intel's arse in budget CPUs in the past. But I don't think AMD currently beats Intel in every budget segment.

Consider Anandtech's conclusion from a Sempron vs. Celeron test they did last July

Also consider current pricing (from Newegg) for the Sempron and the Celeron D. In Anandtech's benchmark results, the Socket 754-based Sempron 3100+ did beat the Socket 478-based Celeron D 335 in most of the bechmarks that count. However, the Sempron 3100+ costs $123/$108 (retail/OEM) while the Celeron D 335 costs $109/$89. The benchmarks also showed that the Socket A-based Sempron 2800+ ($109/$99) was about even with the Celeron D 335, but would you choose an aging Socket A platform (PCI, AGP, IDE, 333MHz FSB) over a modern platform (PCI Express, SATA, 533/800MHz FSB) that you can get with the Celeron D?

Of course, we're talking about building our own desktops, which is very different from what the big-name computer makers offer. Us home builders would choose nForce or 915 chipsets for Sempron and Celeron D CPUs. HP and Dell are more likely to offer VIA/SiS/ALi chipsets for Semprons and 865/845 chipsets for Celeron D. Ugh.

If I was building a budget desktop, I would choose a Socket 775-based Celeron D over a Socket A or Socket 754-based Sempron. I value the whole platform just as much (if not more) than the CPU itself. If AMD made a Socket 939-based Sempron, I'd reconsider.

I'll be interested to see how this unfortunately named "Turion" chip compares to the PentiumM.

Back to the article's topic (notebook CPUs), it looks like AMD will not have an answer to Intel's Celeron M. The Celeron M is based on the Pentium M core and performs almost equivalently clock-for-clock in Tom's Hardware benchmarks. Also note that Intel's Sonoma platform (533MHz bus, PCI Express, DDR2, GMA900 graphics, HD Audio) is about to be lauched.

Multi-processing is the way to go. We need to do that to help heat dissipation...

So, you think that using multiple iterations of an inherently power-hungry technology will somehow solve the power problem? While, certainly, we could back off clock speeds with multi-processing and reduce heat considerably, but, people always want the cutting edge so the demand to "crank it up" would still be a profitable venture, thus pressuring the price of the lower-end stuff.

Look at page 8. Processors are approaching the heat density of a nuclear reactor. Silicon is dead. We'll need something else if we want more clock cycles (or perhaps a new computing paradigm... something "non-Von Neumann).

Second paragraph: FreeBSD doesn't work well on hyperthreaded P4s, so using one as a benchmark is unfair.

Hyperthreading is, more or less, SMP (Intel has a fluffy introduction to it here). Sure, there are differences, but you're making exceptions for your exceptions. There's a point where fanboy-ness becomes obvious.

The really interesting question is: will Linux be able to carry Itanic, now that MS is starting to leave it behind?

Another question is: now that MS is dropping Windows for Itanium, will Intel contribute more free development tools for ia64 Linux and make more "investments" in Linux for Itanium? Since 1998, Intel has made many contributions to Linux for x86 and Itanium - I'm assuming much more than Alpha and MIPS have.

But even if they do, will enough Linux developers choose to develop for expensive Itanium workstations when cheap x86 workstations are "good enough." I think we'll see a lot more Itanium-specific Linux investments from Intel, but I don't know if Linux developers will invest more time in Itanium.

For the near future, it looks like Itanium workstations have Debian 3.0 and Red Hat Enterprise WS.

Compatibility wasn't dropped. Even Itanic systems are still more then capabale of running good 'ol DOS. Granted, you'd have to be a little peculiar to want to run IA-32 apps at Pentium-2 type speeds on such expensive systems, but you can hardly say they dropped compatibility. Perhaps if Itanium hadn't taken so long to appear we'd all be complementing it for it's speedy IA-32 execution.

Intel's got more information on Itanium IA-32 support at http://www.intel.com/design/itanium/downloads/2543 1803.pdf

So you're saying that Intel and Atheros are breaking the law?

Let's try not to lose sight of the fact that Linux has many times the hardware support of Windows.

Linux has many times the architecture support, not "hardware support". Sure, just about anything with a floating point unit (and even a lot without) can be made to run Linux. But that's not what we're talking about. I can't think of a single hardware device that will work with Linux but not Windows (though I'm sure some exist). I can easily think of countless devices that work with Windows but not Linux. In fact, I have to be careful to check compatibility of devices I'm interested in so I don't get an unpleasant surprise later.

Ever try running Windows on an Alpha? What about MIPS?

Personally I've run Windows on Alpha (an old NT server), MIPS (a P/PC and H/PC device) and ARM processors (my PPC2002 Jornada). The SHx family is also supported. Perhaps you're just not familiar with the full line of Windows products.

BS?

Same press release on a faster server.

35 bugs or more NOT TO BE FIXXED, a lot of awful flaws from Intel!!!
worst performance indicator!!! worst protection!!! worst of worst!!!

Y3. RDTSC Instruction May Report the Wrong Time Stamp Counter Value

Problem: The Time Stamp Counter is a 64-bit counter that is read in two 32-bit chunks. The counter incorrectly advances and therefore the two chunks may go out of synchronization causing the Read Time Stamp Counter (RDTSC) instruction to report the wrong time stamp counter value

Implication: This erratum may cause software to see the wrong representation of processor time and may result in unpredictable software operation.

Don't buy the EXPENSIVE & AWFUL CENTRINO's PENTIUM-M !!!

open4free ©

35 bugs or more NOT TO BE FIXXED, a lot of awful flaws from Intel!!!
worst performance indicator!!! worst protection!!! worst of worst!!!

Y3. RDTSC Instruction May Report the Wrong Time Stamp Counter Value

Problem: The Time Stamp Counter is a 64-bit counter that is read in two 32-bit chunks. The counter incorrectly advances and therefore the two chunks may go out of synchronization causing the Read Time Stamp Counter (RDTSC) instruction to report the wrong time stamp counter value

Implication: This erratum may cause software to see the wrong representation of processor time and may result in unpredictable software operation.

Don't buy the EXPENSIVE & AWFUL CENTRINO's PENTIUM-M !!!

open4free ©

35 bugs or more NOT TO BE FIXXED, a lot of awful flaws from Intel!!!
worst performance indicator!!! worst protection!!! worst of worst!!!

Y3. RDTSC Instruction May Report the Wrong Time Stamp Counter Value

Problem: The Time Stamp Counter is a 64-bit counter that is read in two 32-bit chunks. The counter incorrectly advances and therefore the two chunks may go out of synchronization causing the Read Time Stamp Counter (RDTSC) instruction to report the wrong time stamp counter value

Implication: This erratum may cause software to see the wrong representation of processor time and may result in unpredictable software operation.

Don't buy the EXPENSIVE & AWFUL CENTRINO's PENTIUM-M !!!

open4free ©

35 bugs or more NOT TO BE FIXXED, a lot of awful flaws from Intel!!!
worst performance indicator!!! worst protection!!! worst of worst!!!

Y3. RDTSC Instruction May Report the Wrong Time Stamp Counter Value

Problem: The Time Stamp Counter is a 64-bit counter that is read in two 32-bit chunks. The counter incorrectly advances and therefore the two chunks may go out of synchronization causing the Read Time Stamp Counter (RDTSC) instruction to report the wrong time stamp counter value

Implication: This erratum may cause software to see the wrong representation of processor time and may result in unpredictable software operation.

Don't buy the EXPENSIVE & AWFUL CENTRINO's PENTIUM-M !!!

open4free ©

Intel Pentium M Thermal Design Power [intel.com] is listed as 24.5 Watt at 1.7 GHz, a FAR cry from the 7 Watt you claim

The 900 MHz and 1GHz ones are the 7 Watt models, but how those perform compared to an Efficeon I was unable to find.

Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer - ayr

Nice try, but... Check the press release. Fab 12 is an existing plant that was on an earlier technology generation. If it were a new plant somewhere else, it would have to have a number in the high 20's.

Page 3 of Intel's pdf "The Microarchitecture of the Pentium 4 Processor" has a bar graph (Figure 2) that "shows the relative clock frequency of Intel's last six processor cores." According to Intel's graph, the last six cores are 286, 386, 486, P5, P6, and P4P.

The core that Intel calls "P5" is obviously the Pentium and Pentium MMX. The "P6" core is the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium 3. The "P4P" core (Pentium 4 Processor) is the next core after P6.

Intel Pentium M Thermal Design Power [intel.com] is listed as 24.5 Watt at 1.7 GHz, a FAR cry from the 7 Watt you claim

The 900 MHz and 1GHz ones are the 7 Watt models, but how those perform compared to an Efficeon I was unable to find.

Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer - zft

Intel Pentium M Thermal Design Power [intel.com] is listed as 24.5 Watt at 1.7 GHz, a FAR cry from the 7 Watt you claim

The 900 MHz and 1GHz ones are the 7 Watt models, but how those perform compared to an Efficeon I was unable to find.

Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer - vcx

After looking at Dell's current selection of Home & Home Desktops, do you mean the Dimention 2400 (not 4200)? Not only does the 2400 lack an AGP slot, but the chipset (and integrated graphics) is two generations old (Intel 845 chipset and Intel Extreme 3D graphics). In fact, they don't even offer a desktop with an AGP slot anymore (they've moved on to PCI Express 16x slots).

However, I mostly agree with your comment. Your supposedly Informative Parent comment claims "comparable" (in tech specs) Dell desktops are more expensive than Apple eMacs. It's not even close. The cheapest Dell desktop (on their Home & Home Office site) with a graphics slot is the Dimension 4700, which has a PCI Express 16x slot (much better than an AGP slot). Furthermore, the 4700 has Intel's new integrated graphics (GMA 900), which is DirectX 9 compatible (Radeon 9200 is only Direct X 8 compatible). Since the 4700 has PCI Express graphics and 16x slot (vs AGP non-upgradeable graphics), PCI Express 1x slots (vs no PCI slots), 800MHz front side bus (vs 167MHz bus), dual-channel 400MHz DDR2 memory (vs single-channel 333MHz DDR memory), and serial-ATA (vs IDE), I think the 4700 is way more advanced (in tech specs) than the ancient eMac architecture.

The cheapest eMac costs $800. A "comparable" Dimension 4700 (with 17" CRT) costs $787. And that's on a current architecture with expandability. I know Apple has OS X, good customer support, style, etc. But the grandparent comment said similarly configured Dells cost more than eMacs.

Here's the configuration I got for $787:

Pentium® 4 Processor 520 with HT Technology (2.80GHz, 800 FSB, 1MB L2 cache)
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
FREE UPGRADE! 512MB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 400MHz (2x256M)
4 DIMM slots
40GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
Single Drive: 48x CD-RW / DVD-ROM Combo Drive
17 in (16 in viewable,.27dp) E773c CRT Monitor
Integrated Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 900
Integrated 5.1 Channel Audio
IEEE 1394 Adapter
Dell A215 Speakers
Dell Quietkey® Keyboard
Dell 2-button scroll mouse
Microsoft® Works Suite - Includes Word 2002, Streets & Trips 2004
Dell Media Experience
Dell Jukebox - easy-to-use music player and CD burning software
56K PCI Data Fax Modem
Integrated Intel® PRO 10/100 Ethernet

Nobody's gonna read this comment anyway.

Yes - they're using "processor numbers" rather than just GHz ratings. See this page for more details. A list of processor numbers is available here.

Yes - they're using "processor numbers" rather than just GHz ratings. See this page for more details. A list of processor numbers is available here.

Does this mean less resiliency/redundancy in the chip?

Yes - this is the primary reason that Intel is moving to OUM after the 45nm node (slide #32). Do note that this is still years off. OUM is rad-hard.

Also note that the research which is poured into XY-addressable OUM/chalcogenide memory can be potentially useful for the seek and scan memory that is also mentioned in that Intel presentation. My guess is that they'll come out with at leaset one variation or possibly both. The chalgogenide material is the same stuff used for RW optical media - you can change the phase via the application of energy (electrical, optical or otherwise). The change in phase causes many of the properties of the material to change, delineating unique, detectable states.

The probe storage is similar to a CD-RW but, instead of spinning the media below a single optical read/write mechanism, they are moving the media beneath thousands of atomic resolution probes that read/write with electrical energy. It is quite the technology.

HP says to expect it by 2006. Wow!

Gordon Moore, the guy the "law" was named after, works for Intel. Intel puts a fair bit of weight behind the notion behind it, and they even have a page on their research section about it.

I think we still are, but I don't think this product is targeted at us. NVIDIA's web page for GeForce 6200 with TurboCache technology describes it as a product "for entry-level PCs." Also, I think this product (when paired with nForce4) might be NVIDIA's low-cost PCI Express answer to Intel's integrated GMA 900 graphics.

Ever since Intel's 810 chipset, almost all "entry-level" platforms have included integrated graphics with "shared" memory architectures. Intel has dominated this category (in sales) and this continues with their current PCI Express platforms with integrated GMA 900 graphics. Note that GMA 900 is (barely) DirectX 9 compatible.

NVIDIA's nForce4 chipsets with PCI Express, which are just starting appear in stores, don't have a version with integrated graphics. If NVIDIA can offer to OEMs an nForce4 (for Athlon 64 and Sempron) + NVIDIA 6200 w/TurboCache bundle that's competitively priced with Intel's 915G chipset, then we might see more big-name computer makers selling low-cost Athlon 64/Sempron systems.

I think we still are, but I don't think this product is targeted at us. NVIDIA's web page for GeForce 6200 with TurboCache technology describes it as a product "for entry-level PCs." Also, I think this product (when paired with nForce4) might be NVIDIA's low-cost PCI Express answer to Intel's integrated GMA 900 graphics.

Ever since Intel's 810 chipset, almost all "entry-level" platforms have included integrated graphics with "shared" memory architectures. Intel has dominated this category (in sales) and this continues with their current PCI Express platforms with integrated GMA 900 graphics. Note that GMA 900 is (barely) DirectX 9 compatible.

NVIDIA's nForce4 chipsets with PCI Express, which are just starting appear in stores, don't have a version with integrated graphics. If NVIDIA can offer to OEMs an nForce4 (for Athlon 64 and Sempron) + NVIDIA 6200 w/TurboCache bundle that's competitively priced with Intel's 915G chipset, then we might see more big-name computer makers selling low-cost Athlon 64/Sempron systems.

I think we still are, but I don't think this product is targeted at us. NVIDIA's web page for GeForce 6200 with TurboCache technology describes it as a product "for entry-level PCs." Also, I think this product (when paired with nForce4) might be NVIDIA's low-cost PCI Express answer to Intel's integrated GMA 900 graphics.

Ever since Intel's 810 chipset, almost all "entry-level" platforms have included integrated graphics with "shared" memory architectures. Intel has dominated this category (in sales) and this continues with their current PCI Express platforms with integrated GMA 900 graphics. Note that GMA 900 is (barely) DirectX 9 compatible.

NVIDIA's nForce4 chipsets with PCI Express, which are just starting appear in stores, don't have a version with integrated graphics. If NVIDIA can offer to OEMs an nForce4 (for Athlon 64 and Sempron) + NVIDIA 6200 w/TurboCache bundle that's competitively priced with Intel's 915G chipset, then we might see more big-name computer makers selling low-cost Athlon 64/Sempron systems.

Quite often the 'so slow' is because they've been sold a cheap year-old system with 256MB RAM & Windows XP and a video card that can't run games.

Right. I have two laptops with intel integrated graphics chipsets. I can play quite a few mainstream releases with no problems on either one. I doubt that a system equipped with a standalone graphics card, no matter how crappy, would fare worse. Maybe instead of calling your customers names and treating them like idiots for buying what is in your opinion the 'wrong' computer, maybe you should just try suggesting that people with speed problems should try tweaking graphical settings.

As a 'computer great for all uses. kids can even play games on it!'.

How is that a lie for a system with 256MB RAM that can run Windows XP? That system could play at least 90%+ of the PC games on the shelf in 'big name' retail chain stores. Do you ever look at the games sold in Target, Best Buy, etc.? The new-release hits are all in one small section and the rest of the PC games are stuff you would find in a bargain bin at a dedicated gamestore or in the PC section of Half-Price Books.

It isn't a coincidence those stores sell both low-end computers and low-end software. They aren't concerned with arrogant, presumptuous geeks or their haughty opinions on what constitutes cheapness or cluelessness, or the pseudonymous claims of some repairdroid posting on slashdot thinking he could've built the same system more cheaply. They have their niche, and judging by national sales figures - rather than negative tech-support anecdotes, which honestly are a dime a dozen - things are going reasonably well for stores like Circuit City and Wal-Mart.

If you want a computer for productivity apps, any builtin onboard video works just fine, and is cheaper to boot. A PCI-E 'turbocache' low end card is not going to change your windows desktop experience one iota. It's just a piece of junk 'low end gaming card' that underperforms for it's target use (gaming). Selling cheap crap cards using same brand name (GeForce) as their top end 500$ ubermonster cards is called 'milking the brand at all price points'. At least AMD has the decency to sell their low end stuff under another brand (Sempron). Videocard companies should do the exact same thing.

Thankfully it's noticeably faster than crap like Geforce 4 MX and GeForce FX5200.

I played Far Cry on an FX5200 system with no slowdown - and it was not even close to the same thing as playing using an integrated chipset.

Since it contradicts known facts in every area they are broached, your quixotic screed can be interpreted as little more than a manifestation of baseless anti-corporatism, puzzlingly combined with a technocrat's arrogant elitism. Instead of focusing your energies on how dumb and stupid customers are, or how immoral and unethical corporations are, I suggest you focus and heal thyself first.

http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.ht m

The amazing thing is how well Moore's law has stood up against repeated Malthusian forecasts of its demise. One still presumes that the fences of quantum uncertainty, relativistic delay, and heat production will prevent Moore's law from continuing number of device doubling indefinitely, without major paradigm shift (async to beat the clock?reversible to beat heat & entropy? optical? quantum?), but mere technological advances may continue far beyond my Malthusian imagination.

================
Cole's Law -- Finely Sliced Cabbage with dressing.

It's strained silicon which gets it's name from stretching the silicon.

http://www.intel.com/labs/features/si12031.htm

http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/press/strain edsilicon/

Intel and AMD both still run their own production facilities. In fact, Intel makes sure that the layout of the fabs is identical, so that production parameters are transferable from one fab to another. As a result, their fabs are designed for producing microprocessors, and making major changes in this general alignment would be rather difficult. IBM, on the other hand, runs a more diversified system of fabs.

You are probably confusing this with companies such as ARM. They are merely a chip design and intellectual property company now, however in spite of the "merely" this is still an enormous economic asset in today's tech arena.

This is merely more evidence supporting my theory that Microsoft are paying companies sizeable -- and very illegal -- cash bribes to actively not support other operating systems.

Riiight... AMD and Intel don't support Linux at all. I mean, just look at all the evidence! There's this and this, and this. All these developer tools and documents are just fakes! They secretly install Windows in the background!

This is merely more evidence supporting my theory that Microsoft are paying companies sizeable -- and very illegal -- cash bribes to actively not support other operating systems.

Riiight... AMD and Intel don't support Linux at all. I mean, just look at all the evidence! There's this and this, and this. All these developer tools and documents are just fakes! They secretly install Windows in the background!

According to information at http://developer.intel.com/design/intarch/pentiumi i/pentiumii.htm the current Pentium II's being manufactured are not the same beasts that used to run so hot. These P II's have 256k on die cache and disipate 9.8 and 11.3W @ 266MHz and 333MHz.

Now the page has been slashdotted, however I beleive they mean flash not Flash.

The original Press Release is still on the Intel website. Its hard to believe that this was cutting edge back in 1997.

They say 50.000 at the end of a human hair. Do anybody know the actual size of this cell?

First match on Google for diameter of human hair is:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/BrianLey.shtml

Quote: "In my research, I have found the diameter of human hair to range from 17 to 181 [micrometer/microns]."

Assume a circular hair of 100 microns diameter, and assume the end of it is a flat circle of area Pi*Rad^2, or 7854 micron^2, divide this by 50000 and you get 0.157 micron^2 per SRAM cell.

The article mentions how IBM's SRAM cell is 10 times smaller than the current smallest. A Google for smallest SRAM cell gets you the Intel press release in March 2002 (too old?) that claims a 1 micron^2 SRAM cell.

Sounds about right to me. Given the range of hair diameter from 17 micron to 181 micron, the corresponding SRAM sizes would range from 0.0045 micron^2 to 0.51 micron^2. For exactly 0.1 micron^2 (a tenth of Intel's 2002 record), the hair diameter should be 80 micron.

Also, looks like the hair width varies too much from person to person to make it a realiable metric!

Intel released a press release four years ago claiming to have built SRAM memory cells which (to my calculation) work out about three times as small as IBM's. IBM are clearly claiming to have invented the smallest commercially viable memory cells, but not the smallest outside of that context. Maybe /. should try to keep up a bit more.

Slow? The older Pentium M processor (400MHz bus, 1MB L2 cache) in an IBM T40 should be faster than any G4 processor in any Apple notebook.

If your not just bullshitting, then the T40 probably needs its memory upgraded from 256MB to 512MB. Enable your firewall, stop downloading/installing spyware, and don't run in Administrator mode all the time.

You probably mean AdvancedTCA... Potentially neat stuff at first glance, I'll need to read up on it, thanks for the pointer. Could be another Infiniband though...

IBM, the big blue company, decided a long time ago that Open Source isn't so bad.
Sun, the UltraSPARC Processors maker, decided that Open Source isn't so bad.
Intel, the 8086 Processor maker, decided that Open Source isn't so bad.
Munich, Germany's third-largest city, decided that Open Source isn't so bad.

"Microsoft decides Open Source isn't so bad" will be news.

<meta name =" last_check_date" content =" 17-Feb-04">

Their 64 bit architecture is Itanium, and that's not in desktops yet. Prescott & other EM64T-enabled chips are "32 bit chips with 64 bit extensions" - hence their terminology of IA-32e. It's just a normal 32 bit architecture with some 64 bit address & data registers bolted on and a few new instructions to access them, not a real 64 bit architecture.

So by that logic, I figure that Prescott is really a 4 bit CPU, with extensions...

You mean the "rumors" aren't officially "news" until they appear on /.? Forget what we've been reading since Febuary on http://www.anandtech.com, http://www.tomshardware.com, http://www.theinquirer.net, http://www.arstechnica.com, http://www.hardocp.com, http://www.aceshardware.com, and of course http://www.intel.com, it's not true until it appears on /. ...

PSSST!!! I've heard the rumor that Apple is planning on ditching Motorola's chips for IBM processors in their upcoming Macintoshes. Has anyone elseo heard about something called a "G5"? Some say it might also be 64 bit? Heavens-to-Betsy, let's post it to /.'s FP.

Not the newest Shuttle XPC (SB86i), which I think is the first PC built using the picoBTX standard. This new Shuttle XPC does not need the ICE liquid cooling heat pipe system because quiet cooling is built into the BTX standard. Slashdot covered the launch of Intel's BTX form factor last Monday (Intel's BTX Form Factor Launched Today).

I think the ICE cooling system is what made Shuttle's small PC's stand out from the competition, but the picoBTX standard will probably make it easy for competitors to make tiny, quiet PCs.

1. SLI graphics (2 graphics cards powering 1 monitor)
2. 3Gb/s SATA (Intel uses 1.5Gb/s SATA)
3. NVIDIA ActiveArmor (firewall)

Unfortunately, like you said, it seems like NVIDIA dumped SoundStorm. Meanwhile, Intel added Intel HD Audio, which apparently encodes Dolby Digital 5.1 in real time.

1. SLI graphics (2 graphics cards powering 1 monitor)
2. 3Gb/s SATA (Intel uses 1.5Gb/s SATA)
3. NVIDIA ActiveArmor (firewall)

Unfortunately, like you said, it seems like NVIDIA dumped SoundStorm. Meanwhile, Intel added Intel HD Audio, which apparently encodes Dolby Digital 5.1 in real time.

I'll give you a hint: There are zero on the market. The only possible contender is that new intel pro-audio onboard thing, but NO ONE has plans to impliment it yet.

I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but from the Product Brief (pdf) on the Intel Audio Studio page:

Dolby* Digital Live
This real-time interactive content encoder allows 5.1 audio streams to be transported over an optical connection to your digital speakers or entertainment center.

Real-time 5.1 digital encoding: Send Dolby Digital 5.1 (AC3) encoded content to your digital speakers or home theater over an optical connection.