Slashdot Mirror

"Because a computer can't truly think of a random number" is correct only if you're referring to the "think" part. If you have a newer Intel chipset based PC, you probably can get a few random numbers out of it:
http://www.intel.com/design/security/rng/rng.htm

It sure doesn't seem like snake oil:
http://www.intel.com/design/security/rng/CRIwp.htm

"Because a computer can't truly think of a random number" is correct only if you're referring to the "think" part. If you have a newer Intel chipset based PC, you probably can get a few random numbers out of it:
http://www.intel.com/design/security/rng/rng.htm

It sure doesn't seem like snake oil:
http://www.intel.com/design/security/rng/CRIwp.htm

...wouldn't want to use this for any mission-critical computers...

Yea, but what about for home insulation? I mean, imagine a beowulf cluster of these keeping your house cool in summer, warm in winter (reverse the vent fans of course), and solving cancer-buster problems the whole year round.

I agree that the medical research might be more worthwhile to support, but AFAIK there are only Wintel clients available. (Case in point, United Devices and even your own link to Intel.)

That leaves an awful lot of non-intel boxes, and even non-windows intel boxes with spare cycles that can't participate. Until they have the option to do so, I anticipate a lot of cycles going to 'less worthy' causes...

If d.net did something interesting, like attempt to find an improved factoring algorithm, or to find a way to perform interesting analysis on ciphertext, then it would be useful. Right now though, it's a 100% useless application.

Think for a moment about what d.net truly does, and tell me with a straight face that it's interesting to either a cryptologist or a cryptanalyst.

If you want to help somebody with your spare cycles, you can help cure diseases or if you're so inclined, you can perform FFTs on random noise. Don't try to tell me that d.net helps anything though; you're kidding yourself if you think so.

I don't know about you, but to me medical research feels a somewhat more beneficial to humanity than search for aliens. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the work done by seti and distributed isn't important or shouldn't be done, just that there's other research that might be more worthwhile supporting.

That's just my opinion, but if you feel the same way, checkout this site.

a thin often tapered piece of material (as wood, metal, or stone) used to fill in space between things (as for support, leveling, or adjustment of fit)

It looks to be based on the folding@home project.

Apologies for off-topicness.

t.

We believe these activities should focus on three key matters concerning digital piracy: (1) establishing a "broadcast flag" to prevent unauthorized Internet redistribution of digital broadcast programming, the use of which will not affect consumers' "time shifting" of programming, (2) plugging the "analog hole" that exposes digital programming to potential widespread theft, and (3) limiting the rising tide of unauthorized peer-to-peer file distribution of copyrighted works.

while the Intel-AOL statement posted yesterday talks about:

...Significant progress has been made towards a technical solution that would involve a "broadcast flag" to signal that redistribution of digital broadcast content over the Internet is not authorized...

...Beyond digital broadcasting, additional issues exist that require serious private industry and public attention. One is the so-called "analog hole." Video content, even when delivered digitally in a protected manner, must be converted to an unprotected analog format to be viewed using legacy equipment (e.g., the millions of analog television sets already in consumers' homes). Once content is in an unprotected analog form, it may be converted back to a digital form and subjected to widespread, unauthorized redistribution via peer-to-peer as well as more traditional piracy channels. Private industry efforts are underway to select a watermark technology that can embed usage rules in content...

...An even more complicated problem is the phenomenon of unconstrained unauthorized copying and redistribution of copyrighted content over peer-to-peer networks. One contributing factor is the growing variety of increasingly decentralized peer-to-peer networks (e.g., Morpheus, Limewire, etc). Another is that content reaches peer to peer networks from a variety of sources including unprotected distribution, circumvention of protected content, camcording from theater screens, and diversion during production.

Does it worry anyone else that Hollywood is so confident they've figured out a way to protect their digital streams end-to-end that they are starting to focus the debate on preventing analog copies as a means of bypassing DRM?

Intel opposes the SSSCA, but they are still in favor of DRM and legislation mandating DRM. I don't know about you, but the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

The marketplace can and will arrive at a solution by itself.

Like the solution Intel and AOL Time Warner are working on? Notice how they keep saying things like "some narrowly focused government regulation will be necessary". Even an opponent of the SSSCA is still in favor of legislation, because they realize that the free market does not want and will not provide a good enough solution.

However the Maxtor presentation talks about using SATA as a replacement for SCSI, or at a minimum breaking into NAS and low end servers.

Cable length is up to 3M from the Intel presentation.

Also for the number of devices, since it's now PTP connections, it's relatively agnostic as to the number of devices since it no longer fits into the old model of channels. I still haven't found specific references for the number of devices, but the Maxtor presentation has a picture of a SATA drop-in PCI card with 6 SATA connectors.

From the Intel pdf from http://developer.intel.com/update/departments/init ech/it03012.pdf.

"By Contrast Serial ATA is a point to point interface where each device is directly connected to the host via a dedicated link. Each device, therefore, has the entire interface bandwidth dedicated to it, and there is no interaction between devices. This means that software can be streamlined, eliminating the overhead associated with coordinating accesses between the master and slave device sharing the same cable."

So this makes me wonder what the typical number of Serial ATA devices per mobo will be?

Other links for further information:

Cnet

SATA and ISCSI

Intel Dev paper

Maxtor Whitepaper

The best way to go is surf around on the net and find an intro-level T1 howto-- this is a good one. You'll also need some hardware to start up with--the small Intel routers are nice and easy to set up. Sangoma cards are great if you are comfortable with Linux. Unfortunately, though, the documentation that comes with both of these are less-than-helpful unless you have a basic understanding of T1 stuff, which is best reaped from the web.

Check it out here:

Not sure if this is the one they used for the LOOX but it's worth a .... come on you know you want me to say it: LOOX

OK I'm done now :(

Why not go directly to the source:

http://developer.intel.com/design/intelxscale/

Here is the info on the PXA250 CPU .

You will find specs, datasheets and all the goodies.

Why not go directly to the source:

http://developer.intel.com/design/intelxscale/

Here is the info on the PXA250 CPU .

You will find specs, datasheets and all the goodies.

Intel develops 5 ghz processor!
from the compile-a-kernel-in a minute department

Intel have
recently developed a new processor called the HEXIUM! It runs at 5 GHZ at LOW tempretures, tests show
that compiling linux kernel 2.4.19 takes only 57.4 seconds! So what are you waiting for! See the details

This Intel document, also available in PDF indeed states that the Intel compiler will not compile the Linux kernel, but I think the kernel could be modified to not use the GNU extensions that the Intel compiler does not support. I wouldn't be surprised it someone isn't already working on that.

Intel also claims to be interested in improving compatibility with GCC, so I think it's just a matter of time before it will work.

Intel develops 5 ghz processor!
from the compile 2-kernels in-a minute department

Intel have just released their new processor called the HEXIUM! It runs at 5 GHZ at LOW tempretures, tests show that compiling linux kernel 2.4.19 takes only 22.9 seconds! So what are you waiting
for! See the details

--Mike--

I belive that the "pre-boot environment" that is referred to, is also known as PXE (Preboot Execution Environment). It's really nothing more than a network boot process that many Intel NICs support. It supports authentication and such, so use of such counters isn't unreasonable.

Check out the Concept PC (flash required, alas)

A quick rummage on Intel's site for the '4004' that Ivan found reveals a tech specs sheet which shows that the 4004 had 640 bytes of addressable memory and a 4-bit bus. Since the number of bugs in code is broadly proportional to the size of the code, it is not unreasonable to achieve bug-free in 640 bytes (or at least, free of bugs that actually cause a problem that cannot be resolved without modifying the code).

Actually, I seem to remember reading that Pioneer 10 didn't have on-board computers[...]

Well, what do you know. According to Intel, the Pioneer 10 had a 4004 on board. Neat. So, as the old joke goes, in 1972 it took an Intel 4004 to operate a deep-space probe. In 2002, it takes a GHz PIII to run Windows. Things have gone terribly wrong.

Just a nit-pick, but Intel compilers actually cost: $500 for linux C/C++ compiler ($125 academic)

Intel does provide a number of free open source products, including an Intanium assembler, library routines, vision routines, and a network performance analyzer.

Just a nit-pick, but Intel compilers actually cost: $500 for linux C/C++ compiler ($125 academic)

Intel does provide a number of free open source products, including an Intanium assembler, library routines, vision routines, and a network performance analyzer.

Just a nit-pick, but Intel compilers actually cost: $500 for linux C/C++ compiler ($125 academic)

Intel does provide a number of free open source products, including an Intanium assembler, library routines, vision routines, and a network performance analyzer.

Just a nit-pick, but Intel compilers actually cost: $500 for linux C/C++ compiler ($125 academic)

Intel does provide a number of free open source products, including an Intanium assembler, library routines, vision routines, and a network performance analyzer.

Each CPU would have a public/private keypair with the private key sealed up forever in the chip and the public key readily available.

This sort of exists now -- Intel Pentium III CPUs have a 96-bit serial number that could be used as a public key in the way you describe. However, many BIOSes allow you to disable the CPU serial number, so a post-SSSCA fix could be as simple as a new BIOS without this feature.

The story was misleading because it implied that Intel would be dropping Rambus for all of their product lines. The shift was really just in the "workstation" (higher end desktop) space.

Nope, they have an entire line of network processors. The IXP series (now called IXA).

Intel has tons of Non-IA32 processors. Look at developer.intel.com

It has NOTHING to do with IA32 based servers.

The story was misleading because it implied that Intel would be dropping Rambus for all of their product lines. The shift was really just in the "workstation" (higher end desktop) space.

Nope, they have an entire line of network processors. The IXP series (now called IXA).

Intel has tons of Non-IA32 processors. Look at developer.intel.com

It has NOTHING to do with IA32 based servers.

Who say's Moore's law isn't just for Intel chips, after all he does work for intel.

Someone's already said something similar here, but I know that people just sit and wait on their own comments being replied to sometimes, so I'll say it. Moore's law is the one that talks about the speed of advances in computing power. You can read all about it on Moore's web page. If we were going by Moore's law (assuming that the speed of a processor can increase uniformly with the amount of transistors we can fit onto it) it would be 5 or 6 years until we hit 100GHz. Unfortunately it will be more difficult to get the required amount of transistors for a processor running at 100GHz that it is to make a NIC run at that speed. Also since Moore talks about the amount of transistors that can be used, who says we're not going to find a way to make it faster with less transistors before 10 years has passed? it's all just speculation.

KAI C++ compiler for linux

Actually, they should be ashamed to sell that as suitable for heavy duty. This is freaking 2002, not 1992. An UltraSparc III has 8 MB of L2 cache. A MIPS R12000 has (or can have) the same amount. IBM Power4s have similar amounts. (USIII has 32K instruction and 64K data L1 cache, and R12k has 32K of L1, for the sake of comparison.)

I admit I don't have any hard data to back this up, but it's my suspicion that it's in large part the large L2 cache that causes Sparcs to thrash Intels at some tasks. There's a good page on some processor design considerations at SETI@UNC.

ARM != StrongARM.

This is very similar to how Athlon != IA-32. Don't confuse an architecture with an implementation of that architecture.

ARM != StrongARM.

This is very similar to how Athlon != IA-32. Don't confuse an architecture with an implementation of that architecture.

The P4 is a Dell Precision Workstation 340.
The Itanium is what mentioned on the intel site.

So it isn't really worthwhile to use an Itanium to run compilers or similar things.

Go, do it now, I swear you'll feel all warm and fuzzy.

Itanium compilers have been around for quite a while already. The gcc back end for Itanium has reasonable integer performance for example (and very poor floating point performance).

If you run RedHat on Itanium you can pick up your optimizing compiler on Intel's site right now:

http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/c 50/linux/

However current Itanium performance with either of these compilers is not very good. It's hard to say
whether it is because of the poor hardware implementation or of the lack of optimization in the compiler.
Probably both.

A client needed some work done on a few of their Linux systems. They allow incoming traffic onto their LAN only through their Intel NetStructure VPN appliance. No problem, "send me the client software" I said, and they did. It was for Windows only!

So I undertook some research. Intel bought their NetStructure line from Shiva some time ago. After a few of their (Intel's) chip customers complained long and hard about competitive issues a la pre-packaged devices such as NetStructure, Intel decided to get out of the appliance biz. Then stopped making the NetStructure VPN appliance. They sold it to HP. Here's Intel's announcement and here's HP's announcement. Here's an IT World story about the same thing. They all tell how Intel's NetStructure 31xx VPN Gateway product line will still be available through HP as the HP VPN Server Appliance SA3xxx series. These are basically old Shiva products - hence their use of SST (Shiva Secure Tunnel) tunnels which are AFAIK unique to these products.

Here's the catch: while these server appliances run Linux (I know I saw that somewhere but I can't remember where) they have no Linux client software! Here's Intel's support page (look for their client software support) and HP's support page - don't have the URL handy but I'm sure of it - contains the same information.

The upshot of all this is that in order to work on Linux systems at a remote location from my local PC, I have to pass through a VPN Gateway which also runs Linux, but I have to use Windows on my end for the VPN client. What a crock! I looked into free/Swan but it doesn't do Shiva Secure Tunnels. Until HP gets serious about this one particular product line and gets some Linux client sotware into the picture, I'm steering clear of anything else they may trumpet as part of their "We do Linux" hype.

A client needed some work done on a few of their Linux systems. They allow incoming traffic onto their LAN only through their Intel NetStructure VPN appliance. No problem, "send me the client software" I said, and they did. It was for Windows only!

So I undertook some research. Intel bought their NetStructure line from Shiva some time ago. After a few of their (Intel's) chip customers complained long and hard about competitive issues a la pre-packaged devices such as NetStructure, Intel decided to get out of the appliance biz. Then stopped making the NetStructure VPN appliance. They sold it to HP. Here's Intel's announcement and here's HP's announcement. Here's an IT World story about the same thing. They all tell how Intel's NetStructure 31xx VPN Gateway product line will still be available through HP as the HP VPN Server Appliance SA3xxx series. These are basically old Shiva products - hence their use of SST (Shiva Secure Tunnel) tunnels which are AFAIK unique to these products.

Here's the catch: while these server appliances run Linux (I know I saw that somewhere but I can't remember where) they have no Linux client software! Here's Intel's support page (look for their client software support) and HP's support page - don't have the URL handy but I'm sure of it - contains the same information.

The upshot of all this is that in order to work on Linux systems at a remote location from my local PC, I have to pass through a VPN Gateway which also runs Linux, but I have to use Windows on my end for the VPN client. What a crock! I looked into free/Swan but it doesn't do Shiva Secure Tunnels. Until HP gets serious about this one particular product line and gets some Linux client sotware into the picture, I'm steering clear of anything else they may trumpet as part of their "We do Linux" hype.

It has some pretty interesting info regarding what goes on around Intel.

Did we really need a /. article on this?

I didn't. These are the numbers from official submissions to the spec organization. (If they can't bother to submit results then they don't count.) I took the machine from with the HIGHEST Int performance - as I said in my post. The FP is the result for the same machine - as I said in my post.
There is a >700 SpecFP machine claimed by Dell but there is no corresponding SpecInt submission. I think Intel claimed nearly 800 Spec2000FP for the Itanium but no one else has been able to re-create those results. That's why non-submitted results don't count.

Don't write off an entire architecture because you didn't like how the experimental implementation came out.

But it wasn't supposed to be a proof of concept chip. It was supposed to be the future of computing.

An exec actually admitted this in 2000.

Which is at least 3 years after they knew it. Intel instead spread FUD around while refusing to talk performance numbers.

From Intel Press Release:
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Oct. 4, 1999 - Intel Corporation today announced it has selected Itanium(TM) as the new brand name for the first product in its IA-64 family of processors, formerly code-named Merced. The Itanium brand extends Intel's reach into the highest level of computing enabling powerful servers and high-performance workstations which will address the increasing demands that the Internet economy places on e-Businesses. "The Intel Itanium processor represents a new level of processor capability that will be the driving force for the Internet economy,"

Ummmm... okay. I see, by "highest level of computing" and "new level of processor capability" they meant "proof-of-concept place-holder chip". It's all clear to me now...
The full text is here on Intel's site since you seem to think I make this stuff up.

Now McKinley is supposed to be the next, big thing.

From an article about McKinley previously on /.
"Applications will be about one and a half to two times faster than what you get on a (current) Itanium," said John Crawford, an Intel fellow in the enterprise platforms group.

The additional bus and processor speed and 3 megs of on-chip on speed cache should deliver nearly a 50% boost all by itself. If the "new" features of the McKinley don't add much more beyond that then where are they going?

Forgive me if I appear skeptical...

=tkk

have a look at openCV (stands for open computer vision), it was originally developed by intel, but was later open souced. runs on both linux and windows and is mainly used for real time motion tracking of live video sources. i'm sure there are some pretty nice algorithms in the source there somewhere. They have their stuff on sourceforge

and a yahoo groups support forum thing here

the original intel pages are here
cheers,
bjpirt

It will be a LONG time before the hardware is advanced enough to simulate a human

First see this

And the brain has 100 billion neurons.

first, i'm really not trying to slight you or your research in any manner. my questions are because i am curious. i will also state that it is not too hard for me to believe that macintosh can beat the windows/intel combination in many applications.

what OS / version were the systems running? especially to slashdotters, people are interested to see how linux stacks up against other operating systems. to mac enthusiasts, it seems more important to match up against windows as if it is the only platform. (given, it has the larger install base by far, and thus it is probably more practical to make that comparison)

also, if this was run anytime recently (used the june 2000 software for benchmarks, page last updated april 2001), why is the intel hardware noticeably older than the mac?

the g4 450 was not introduced until late 1999 and was the second fastest mac in 2000, second only to the g4 500. the pentium iii was running at 733 by the end of 1999 and was up to 1000 (and 866/850) by the end of Q1 2000.

i understand that the benchmarks were probably run on the equipment available, but i don't think it is completely fair to run new epuipment against old(er) equipment.

Very impressive!

But, will it continue to grow at that rate? Which will peter out first, computer power or bio data accumulation? Moore's Law has worked for 35 years so far, and Moore himself thinks we've got at least another 15 years from now.

My money is still on the computers.