Slashdot Mirror

In shock new intel says the PII is the best overall choice for the majority of PC users and applications

So who's gonna stuff a PII into a MAC Classic or an i-Mac

This sounds a lot like DSL/ADSL in that it sends the data down the line at frequencies outside the normal hearing range. British telecomm use a similar system in their Home-highway and cheap second line products (I don't know if there is equivalent technology being used in the US). Does anyone know if the HP system will interfere with these other technologies, besides am I thought all you guys had wired your houses for Ethernet as well. :-)

HPNA, POTS, and DSL all use different "channels" of your phone line, so they don't interfere with eachother. Intel's "AnyPoint" home networking thing uses HPNA as well. They have a reasonably good FAQ which explains a bit about how it works, and it says that it works fine with DSL.

The big problem with chess is that the tree is VERY large- how big isn't known but estimates vary over a large range (see netchess and wolfram mathworld). There are certainly more chess positions than there are atoms in the universe, but the lines that lead to them are mostly worthless, so they don't matter and can be pruned away. Let's pick a tree size of 10^60-10^70 for arguments sake.

This is way beyond the scope of even distributed computing like SETI. It's usually reckoned that chess is unsolvable by brute force.

Normal computer techniques can handle about trees with about 10^20 positions or so, depending on how much hardware you can throw at it, and how long you wait.

However there are a couple of approaches that can reduce the exponent by a factor of 2 each in chess:

• Quantum computing
• Alpha-Beta pruning

As another poster noted, the current state of the art is 7 bits. You would need probably need 100s of thousands of bits to do chess. And the cycle time for current computers are measured in seconds rather than nanoseconds, but then again no optimisation for speed has been done AFAIK.

Finally it depends on the actual size of the chess tree. It may very well be there is a forced checkmate at say, move 40, in which case we would find it. But if there are only draws by repetition, under perfect play, the tree probably becomes impossibly large even with quantum computers.

Still, a search that said that there were no forced wins in say, the first 40 moves would be suggestive of a draw.

Intel is proud to announce it's newest line of processors, created to combine the speed of AMD with the iMac style of computer, The MD 20/20/86. The MD will come in grape, banana and fruit punch.

Warning! Use of these processors in multiple cpu combinations, especially if flavors are mixed may cause your computer to be blurry-eyed, slow, late-rising and generally hungover in the morning.

See Rambus's RIMM design guide, section 8.2.1 "Mechanical Components - Heatspreader/Cover Reference Design". More info can be found on Intel's developer site, on the RIMM Module Reference Design page, under the section "Production Heat Spreader Reference Design".

Basically, RDRAM RIMMs give off a lot of heat, plus the heat is produced in a very small area. The aluminum covers are necessary to prevent hot spots. If you look at the figure 8-1 "Double-Sided RIMM Module Assembly-Exploded View", you'll see that the reference design calls for a thermal pad (Or thermal grease) between the heat spreader and the RDRAM chips.

Anyway, I went to google for some links.

Here is a fairly general overview of EMI in computers. It talks about various strategies for dealing with it.

Here is an article mostly about SDRAM, but which says the following: "Spread Spectrum Clocking (SSC) is a frequency modulation technique for EMI reduction. In the latest motherboards, the master clock generator chip does not maintain a constant frequency." Anyone know if that is true? I didn't know that...

Finally, an article showing Intel is concerned about the problems of EMI in modern computers.

All in all, interesting stuff (I love absurb overclocking articles!) but I would like to have found some evidence that shielding memory like they did has any real benefit.

Here are some example power figures I found. They all assume that power is supplied at 3.3V; the actual voltage will be lower than this.

(Whatever happened to <pre>?)

I hope the StrongARM has good power management...

Dear AC, get some clues: StrongARM SA-1110 Linecard.

Hint: ARM is king of power-efficiency in the (high-end) embedded world.

ARM used to be owned/manufactured by DEC, but when they were bought by Compaq, the ARM division went to Intel. See Intel's product page on them here.

Advances like this first get used on 'real' computers - serious SMP servers like IBM's SP series of RS6000s, Suns high-end servers (Starfire), Compaq's WildFire Alpha boxes (drool) and, soon, servers based on AMD Sledgehammer and Intel Merced (Itanium) / Willamette chips.

Machines like this are used for *serious* numbercrunching. They predict the weather, model the economy, help design planes and spacecraft and find oil. These are tasks for which there is still a serious demand for MIPS.

Because of the astounding cost of developing these technologies, it takes years for them to trickle through to the desktop.

I admit that when decent processors get to the desktop, they are wasted. I did some low-level monitoring of my mother's PIII 450 recently. She runs Win98 and MS Word. The processor spends 99.2% of it's time idle, and 60% of it's active time it's waiting for cache misses. The cache miss problem isn't going away any time soon, because memory is still not getting faster at a high enough rate. The only realistic cure is for compiler writers to continue developing *very* clever optimisers. This is happening, but optimisations like this are deep magic.

I/O in modern servers using proprietary technology is awesome. Check out the IBM SP servers for more info. (Can't find the link - I have it on CD). Unfortunately, PCs are hampered by 'legacy' technologies like PCI. There is at least one serious attempt to address this - the Next Generation I/O project

Book PC's Intel 810i Video support under Linux or XFCom Intel 810i drivers

BookPC's Davicom LAN support under Linux

Here is someone selling it with RedHat:

TWINSON COMPUTER SERVICES - Book PC

I can't find anything on the PCNet Winmodem... not that drivers are likely outside of Win9x.

Hotrail have had an SMP chipset for the Athlon available for some time

Is their chipset really done? I have heard of it many times, but never as anything else than a future product. A PC chipset isn't exactly an easy thing to make... hey, even Intel screws up at times.

-

Intel's web site is at www.intel.com

Late.

Transmeta would be great, but Pentiums are not as bad as some people believe here. To give an example: a 166Mhz mobile MMX runs at about 2.3 Watt.

I know that's not the 1 Watt Transmeta talks about, but they are talking about 5 Watts for their newer CPU's. However, the Mobile Pentium you can buy right now, at least less vapor as Transmeta.

Breace.

(As usual, because I have the bad luck of reading Slashdot in my time zone, my comment is hardly going to get read, let alone moderated. Oh well.)

I'm surprised nobody seems to remember Ken Thompson's ACM A. M. Turing Award reception speech, “Reflections on Trusting Trust”. If you haven't read that classic essay, you definitely should.

As mentioned in the Jargon File (which ESR surely knows about because he's the current editor of the Jargon File), Ken Thompson planted a Back Door in the login program of the first versions of Unix by planting another back door in the compiler itself. The back door was visible nowhere, neither in the sources of the compiler nor in those of the login program, and yet it was there all the same.

The moral of this is not that it might happen, but that it is possible. You've got to start trusting someone, somewhere. How do you know, after all, that Intel has not planted back doors in your microchip's microcode? Even if you could see the chip's complete source code (and you certainly cannot), the back door may be in the software that compiles the source code to the actual plans. (And even if you can see the complete plans and have a mammoth brain that can understand them, you can never be sure that there is no back door in the laws of physics.:-)

It would be quite possible, in Ken Thompson style, for a Linux distribution, say, RedHat, to put a back door in the version of gcc they use so that, even though they redistribute all the source, and pristine source at that, and even though the compiler bootstraps correctly, yet various binary programs are compiled with back doors in them. (Note that I'm not suggesting they could tamper with the binaries: that would be noticed sooner or later. Ken Thompson's trick is far more devious.)

You cannot bootstrap everything down to the hardware level, not even to the assembler level. And even if you do bootstrap everything, detecting the presence of a back door in the source is equivalent to the halting problem. Consequently, there is plenty of room for back doors even in an Open Source world.

The last thing I want to do is defend Microsoft. I don't use their products, so I frankly don't care how many back doors they might have planted. Nor do I want to advocate security through obfuscation, because that is the one thing that has never wored and never will. But I just want to say that security will never work if you don't start trusting at some point. Microsoft may have failed this trust, now or in other numerous occasions. But for ESR to say that there is no such need in the case of Open Source software is simply wrong.

For proof of my above post, the webpage lists "Power Output: 13.8 watts (regulated to proper voltage)". Proper voltage would be 12v, btw. Referring to Intel's PII power consumption charts we can derive that 11.8 watts is used for a typical laptop processor at 1.6v. This excludes things like harddrive, LCD, motherboard, fans, and the other miscellany of what's connected. In short, under ideal conditions this thing STILL won't give you enough power. Calculation of the exact amount of additional time is left as an excercise for the reader...

1. ZDNet are clueless, but most of us knew that already. They refer to "releasing it to open source", which is a clunky phrase of ambiguous meaning. It could mean, releasing it to run on an open source platform like Linux, without actually being open source.

2. Most importantly, because it's cryptography, there will be restrictions on which countries you can export it to. But I don't see any difference between the inability to enforce that rule on licensees, whether it's open source or just free of charge. So I don't think that should be a problem.

3. "As an open source technology, CDSA can now be exported with greatly reduced restrictions**." (see point 2 for caveat). It may be that the only reason they're providing it as source code is to get around idiotic US export laws. That would be a very cynical claim though...

4. From Intel: "Companies can view the source code to verify for themselves that no backdoors or security holes exist in the software." This is pretty black-and-white. It's a step forward.

5. From Intel again: "Experience with open source technology such as Linux reveals that companies can often resolve problems by examining and modifying the working code, or by collaborating with open source developers on a fix." This strongly suggests that they will allow you to distribute your fixes - otherwise how could you collaborate? OTOH, it might turn out like the SCSL, where you can share code in theory, but only by posting it to a moderated, licensees-only site (this is what happens with Java platform source code).

The article linked to didn't really do much to explain CDSA... I'm curious. What does it do?

The whole Celeron range of CPUs seems to be deliberately crippled, unless you think Intel actually wants you to overclock them.

Intels website is at www.intel.com and more information on hardware can be found at tomshardware.com

thank you

dmg

According to Intel press release, Intel actually owns the Alpha semiconductor production.

The alpha/x86 competition is fictional; these processors just serve different markets today.
If memory serves, Intel manufactures the alphas that Compaq designs.

See the old intel press release.

Check out Intel's Developer Site for info.

Here is the site with the apple benchmarks.
And here is the site with the intel benchmarks.
As you can see, Apple took intel's own benchmarks and ran them on a G4. The G4 averaged 3.52 times faster than a PIII. Adjusting for MHz from a 500MHz G4 to a 1GHz PIII makes a G4 1.76 times faster.

I'm not quite sure where the new PowerPC processors fall. They're more expensive than Intel Coppermine chips,...

This interested me

see...

Motorola's press release for the G4's

versus

Intel's press release for the PIII 866

The top of the line G4's are a lot cheaper than the top of the line Pentiums.

of course, I'm ignoring performance here. just price.

On the low end, however, the PIII seems to have the low end G4 beat. for one PIII you'd have to buy a thounsand low end g4's to get the same price. (see here versus the Mot press release above. [although mot's press release is quite old, I don't think the prices have changed much.]).

interesting. Too bad Mot and IBM aren't competing for the PowerPC G4 market, like AMD and Intel have been. Hopefully this will change when someone fabs IBM's PPC mobo design.

still, it'd be nice to be able to bench PPC architectures versus Intel architectures to see which on is faster. how about redhat versus it's ppc derivative,linux ppc?

IP may or may not live forever. Efficient overlays and active networks help abstract away the lower levels, so it won't matter. Hardware is fast enough to still perform well, and advanced software techniques help reduce the overhead... Keep your eyes open...

isn't the Westinghouse competition older?

Nope, they're exactly the same age...

...because they're the same competition. Here's an Intel press release saying:

The Intel Science Talent Search (STS) is in the business of making dreams come true and opening new doors for young scientists. This nationwide competition - America's oldest and most highly regarded pre-college science contest -- has for the last 58 years helped the nation find and encourage talented high school seniors to pursue careers in science, math, engineering and medicine. The competition was previously sponsored by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. For 57 years the Science Talent Search has been administered by Science Service, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C.

Could it be AMR? (=Audio/Modem Riser)

It is a standard endorsed by Intel and based on an AC-97 serial interface to the codec.

If this is the case it means that something else on the board is doing the actual DSP work and presenting the result to the CPU as a standard modem.

ZZ
----

W inchip Specs

Another site, the Indiana University Knowledge Base had some decent, general information, but nothing on bus speeds and voltages.

The short answer is that this is a 60MHz bus box, probably 3.3v. If the chip was running at 200MHz, the bus would be 66MHz. The 3.3v will be fine for my Pentium 166-MMX, and the 60MHz bus should run okay with my chip (according to Intel's documentation. Whee! I'll have to check the documentation on my AMD K6 233MHz later.

Chris

I am as concerned as you about the ever-advancing march of closed-source graphics drivers. I currently make my living writing graphics drivers for BeOS and, even with a signed NDA, a lot of times it is like pulling the eye teeth of a moose on PCP to get any kind of documentation out of these guys (assuming they'll talk to you at all (HEY! NeoMagic!! You trying to get left out of the Internet Appliance market? Answer your email!! )).

However, I think this is a prime opportunity for the community to establish a guideline concerning hardware purchases: If there aren't Open Source drivers for it, don't buy it.

I'm currently parts shopping for a firewall. I've already decided that the motherboard is going to be based on the Intel 810 chipset. I could probably get a board based on a different chipset for cheaper. My decision was based not on price, but on the fact that Intel released complete programming docs for the I810. And they're good docs, not just a list of registers with terse descriptions. This made my job writing a BeOS driver for it a lot easier.

I wish to support this behavior with my dollars, so I'm getting an I810-based board. I would encourage others to consider such a philosophy. You may have to forego a few FPS in Quake[123], at least until the guilty vendors choose to see things differently. But by that time, the card will be cheaper, anyway, so you'll save a few bucks in the bargain :-).

Schwab

First, this is not a web-only service. We do like to provide web interfaces to as much as possible, but we do realize that for some things, program compliation and testing included, nothing can substitute for shell access.

A lot of people are asking about other hardware architectures and OS's. For now, the Compile Farm is i386 based, and contains several Linux distributions and FreeBSD. This does not mean that we have ruled out other possibilities. This is just another step in what we hope can be an expanding feature set for Open Source developers on SourceForge.

There is a lot of setup involved in something like this Compile Farm, not the least of which is having thousands of skilled Open Source developers with shell accounts on a set of boxes. We're attempting to keep things as secure as possible while also offering enough features to make this thing useful. One reason for the limited number of distributions/architectures/OS's now is the limitation of variables in a very complex system. Hopefully, we can work out the kinks in this system soon so that it can become a valuable resource to developers who might not otherwise have the capability of getting their hands on so many different machines.

Please be patient as we test this new system. We're definately open to criticism, but please also be constructive with it so that we can continue to improve these services. Thanks to all of the SourceForge users who have contributed patches, criticism, and helpful suggestions. Every day my confidence in the Open Source model increases...

First, this is not a web-only service. We do like to provide web interfaces to as much as possible, but we do realize that for some things, program compliation and testing included, nothing can substitute for shell access.

A lot of people are asking about other hardware architectures and OS's. For now, the Compile Farm is i386 based, and contains several Linux distributions and FreeBSD. This does not mean that we have ruled out other possibilities. This is just another step in what we hope can be an expanding feature set for Open Source developers on SourceForge.

There is a lot of setup involved in something like this Compile Farm, not the least of which is having thousands of skilled Open Source developers with shell accounts on a set of boxes. We're attempting to keep things as secure as possible while also offering enough features to make this thing useful. One reason for the limited number of distributions/architectures/OS's now is the limitation of variables in a very complex system. Hopefully, we can work out the kinks in this system soon so that it can become a valuable resource to developers who might not otherwise have the capability of getting their hands on so many different machines.

Please be patient as we test this new system. We're definately open to criticism, but please also be constructive with it so that we can continue to improve these services. Thanks to all of the SourceForge users who have contributed patches, criticism, and helpful suggestions. Every day my confidence in the Open Source model increases...

First, as an earlier poster pointed out, it's ISA only, not PCI (and server-class motherboards supporting ISA are quickly becoming extinct).

Intel's C440GX+ motherboard has a single ISA slot...

Third, the last thing many of us who are maintaining machines with 1 or 2 rack unit heights is another card to try to fit in there. Some of us would like to use what little room we have for things like Gigabit Ethernet cards.

Get a bigger rack. :P

However, even serial console support isn't perfect. After all, how do you send the three-finger salute over a serial line?

This is actually possible! No, really. Back in the days when I was a BBS sysop (about 10 years ago), I ran a little TSR program (gawd, remember those? :) called watchcat or watchdog or something like that ... and what it would do is sit in the background, waiting for your modem to ring. If your modem rang a set number of times (I set mine to 4 rings), then it would reboot the computer. And since the modem, is after all, connected to a serial line, voila! three finger salute via serial line. :) (Ok, so I'm a smart ass :)

I'd be willing to bet, though, that it would not be difficult at all to write a program such as this as say, a Linux/BSD/whatever daemon. Perhaps such a program even exists already (I never thought to look). Any takers? :)

I'm glad more people are beginning to realize that headless operation capability is a great asset to people who have to manage UNIX systems, and that having hardware support for such management is critical. Most UNIX systems vendors (such as Sun) have had this for years now.

However, my first impression of this card is "too little, too late."

First, as an earlier poster pointed out, it's ISA only, not PCI (and server-class motherboards supporting ISA are quickly becoming extinct).

Second, look at that card! It's frigging huge! It looks more like a FPGA prototype; I'm sure the designers could have it converted to a single chip ASIC and make the card 75% smaller.

Third, the last thing many of us who are maintaining machines with 1 or 2 rack unit heights is another card to try to fit in there. Some of us would like to use what little room we have for things like Gigabit Ethernet cards.

Finally, I'm not sure there will be much need for this in a few months. Award (now Phoenix) has a gorgeous ServerBIOS (which Intel is using on all of its new server motherboards) which supports serial console support. We're using one of their motherboards in all our new systems (I believe that VA Linux Systems uses them too) and we think they kick ass.

However, even serial console support isn't perfect. After all, how do you send the three-finger salute over a serial line?

On a comparative level, I used to have both a p133 and a p150, both which burnt your finger if you dared to touch them after a cpu-intensive job, but which never had any issues.

Actually, this is not the only technology that promisses to bring lithography to even lower scales... There's also Lucent's Scalpel, Intel's Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) and an X-Ray technology from IBM. There all saying they're stuff is better that all other technologies... let's see which on comes first

Why don't they try improving the core processor (like Compaq did with the 21264 vs 21164) instead of just upping the clock speed?

It's called Willamette. Brand spanking new core.

_________________

Intel will soon (mid 2000) release their "Italium" processor. This will be a rather big reworking of the chipset. As far as I can see they have built the chip from scratch. It still has the ability to run programs for IA32, but I guess they have to in order to sell them.

For more information see the Intel Itanium site.

FireWire supports both synchronous stream data, like video, and block data, like disk drives. Most of the action is in synchronous stream data, primarily video. Block devices for FireWire are rare, but they do exist. I just saw a Zip drive, of all things, for FireWire. The big problem isn't Apple, it's Intel and Microsoft. Intel has backed away from block-device FireWire support and is now pushing USB 2 for that purpose. Microsoft was late with FireWire support in the OS.

The crinkly bits compared to a palm are:

• 235 MIPS @ 206 MHz (Palm is 2.7 MIPS @ 16MHz)
• 2.5 million transistors in 0.35 micron technology (image if they made it in 0.18 mircron!)
• IO = USB, IrDA, serial, audio/telecom CODECs, PCMCIA, CompactFlash
• Color/grey scales LCD at 1024x1024. However, the only touchscreens it advertises that it works with are 320x240 pixel screens.

The pictures on the original page indicate that Linux will run out of 32-megs of ROM and 32-megs of RAM. It also looks like SAMSUNG is going to try to take advantage of all the chip's features (the disappointing thing about Palm is that they didn't take advantage of all the Dragonball's features).

The thing to remember is that Samsung is like only putting together a reference design from Intel with a reference implementation of Linux (probably from Lineo) and standard off-the-shelf apps (like MP3 players) with minor modifications. The PDA-style apps are probably the Lineo PDA suite. Getting all this to work well in a limitted power budget will be tough enough. The first version will probably not contain any wizbang features beyond this.

The burning questions I have:

• Does it come with a TCP/IP stack?
• Does it use X Windows?

You know, sometimes people amaze me.

Exactly where are you getting these figures from? It's not Intel's or AMD's websites...
>To wit, SPECcpu95:
>Coppermine 800 MHz: SPECint - 38.9, SPECfp - 32.4

Taking a look at Intel's own posted benchmarks of the 800mhz Coppermine running on a 133mhz bus gives:

SPECINT - 38.4 SPECfp - 28.9
Source:
Intel's own website and benchmarks

Now, I'd compare these to AMD's benchmarks, but AMD hasn't published SPECINT results, and only publishes the base SPECfp results. (Which, by the way, show the Athlon soundly thrashing the Coppermine

In any event, comparing SPEC scores is a rather _bad_ way to judge system performance. If you know enough to extrapolate new benchmark scores from current ones, you should also know that there are much better real world tests available.

If you like, you can watch a 700mhz Athlon kick the snot out of a 733mhz PIII Coppermine running on a 133mhz bus over at Ace's Hardware

So next time, please take your results somwhere else or provide a real source for them.

But there's much new stuff. This Intel page explains a lot of the history behind Bluetooth.

Basically, (the Intel page doesn't say this) some engineers at Ericsson thought about designing a new protocol for communication between their (Ericsson's) devices in 1994, and started developing it. The project wasn't initially called Bluetooth, but "MC link" (MC = Multi-Communicator). But somewhere during the development, they started to realize that the chips needed for this would be much cheaper if it was a widely adopted standard, so they started talking with their arch rival Nokia about sharing the technology and making it a common standard. They formed a Special Interest Group (SIG) in 1998, together with some other well-known companies (amongst others IBM, Intel, Motorola, 3Com, Casio, Cirrus Logic, TDK, Compaq, Dell, Xircom, Lucent, Toshiba, Psion, Qualcomm and Axis).
Last year they released the specification for version 1.0 of the standard. And experimental Bluetooth devices have been built using the standard and shown on various expos last year, and real devices are under development now. I think we'll see many of these devices released this year. That's the brief history of Bluetooth.

Here is also Ericsson's Bluetooth site. Here's the specs.

... the harder they fall. It would be nice to see Intel taken down several notches, IMNSHO. While Intel's stuff generally works (unlike the computer industry's other monopoly), it is over-priced, and Intel has a record of engaging in anti-competitive practices. I don't want to see them fail, but I think their grip on the PC industry needs to be loosened up a bit.

Intel tried to design a system that would be expensive to clone, and would corner them the market. It's failed.

Sure looks that way, although I would be warry of counting my chickens before they are hatched.

Back in the late 1980s, IBM tried a similar tactic, with a closed, proprietary, and expensive system bus called MCA. It completely flopped. People never learn.

Rule #1 of the Hardware Industry: Don't Try to Make Money Licensing Your Design. It is too easy for someone else to make their own design without paying you.

Intel's best hope of survival, never mind market domination, is to open the RAMBUS specs completely.

I wouldn't go that far. They haven't bet the farm on RAMBUS. Intel has other products outside of the world of memory. Perhaps you've heard of their Pentium line? :-) The failure of RAMBUS won't exactly feel good, but it won't kill Chipzilla.

They did. It's called SSE2. You don't have to use it for SIMD, there are instructions that just treat it like a flat floating point register file with 8 registers. Very much compiler-targetable as far as I can see.

Check out the PDF file from Intel about Willamette.

Well, if I'm correct, the Williamette is in the Iltanium/Merced family

Well, you're not correct; see the Willamette Processor Software Developer's Guide, which says "Willamette is the code name for the next generation of 32-bit Intel® Intel Architecture (IA-32) processors".

Merced is the code name for the first IA-64 (Itanium) chip, and McKinley is apparently the code name for its successor (Itanium II, or some other lame name?).

It should be noticed that Intel also increased the instruction pipeline's length from 15 to 20.

That must be the "Hyper Pipelined Technology" to which the Willamette Processor Software Developer's Guide refers.

I guess "Hyper Pipelined Technology" is what you use when superpipelining just isn't enough; I'm waiting for UltraSuperHyperMegaDeathPipelining, myself....

This also makes higher clocking frequencies possible, however trading performance for it.

Well, ceteris paribus, higher clock frequencies do boost performance, but I guess the deeper the pipeline, the more pain you suffer if, say, you mispredict a branch and have to throw out a bunch of stuff you've sucked up into said pipeline. (The Willamette document in question speaks of better branch prediction by "effectively combining all current branch prediction schemes".)

C|net has no data in that URL. A better URL is ...
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/cn 021500a.htm
-ak

Take a look at the Intel Press Release

"... demonstrating the company's fastest microprocessor: a chip running at 1.5 gigahertz (GHz), or 1.5 billion clock cycles per second, at room temperature."

I just looked through my archives and I don't have the schematics. But the thing is really easy to use. They have a development kit that includes a fully built system using all the peripherals and they documented the design completely. We just copied their design leaving off the pieces we didn't need.

Here is a link to Intel's hardware development tools

Here is a link to build your Linux cross-development tools

-tim

I just looked through my archives and I don't have the schematics. But the thing is really easy to use. They have a development kit that includes a fully built system using all the peripherals and they documented the design completely. We just copied their design leaving off the pieces we didn't need.

Here is a link to Intel's hardware development tools

Here is a link to build your Linux cross-development tools

-tim