Slashdot Mirror
First Look At Intel Tejas & Socket 775
Anonymous Indian writes "The snoops at Anandtech have unearthed some details and photos of Intel's rumored Tejas 90nm CPU which draws 150 watts of power, a 50% jump compared to Prescott. It's also got an interesting locking mechanism instead of the traditional metal clip from hell for most processors." There's not much info beyond the photos, but it's still interesting to see what lies ahead for Intel.
Looks like a German dental tool.
So much power use from the first 90nm process cpu? There can be only one reason for this... the rumored twin core intel CPU. Let's see how hyperthreading run's on THIS baby!
The dominant CPU maker is releasing a new CPU and a new socket. That's news for nerds. It may not be the most exciting news for nerds ever, but it's still news. The 150 Watt consumption is somewhat interesting.
-B
Is that dissipated heat?
If so, ouch! that system is gonna need a huge heat sink or water cooling will be needed.
I would loves to see standardized water cooling parts for computers.
That way all you would need to do is buy the hosess and your favorite pump.
Regarding those metal clips from hell, I've always wondered why Intel and AMD never followed the examples of Alpha, Sun, SGI, etc. machines. They usually have bolt on heatsinks that either bolt the CPU and heatsink together or sandwich the CPU between the mainboard and the heatsink.
It takes care of the flat head screwdriver ruined mainboard, and there are no clips to break off the socket itself. I'm glad they are finally changing the way x86 sockets work.
Cthulhu Saves.
It's interesting to see how what was once consideres "high-end" eventually makes it's way into the consumer desktop stuff.
For example, this chip appears to use a "pinless" package design. Instead of little pins that fit into the socket, it has little ever-so-slightly raised 'nubs'. These 'nubs' simply sit on top of contact points in the socket.
This pinless design was being used by Compaq for the Alpha CPU as early as 2000, so this isn't a new packaging technology. The only problem Compaq had with it, was keeping all the little 'nubs' firmly in contact with the corresponding points on the socket. They used some sort of plastic clip design at first, which ended up with a high failure rate - not for the CPU, but for the plastic retaining mechanism itself. That's probably why intel is using that big beefy metal retaining clip.
I guess intel learned something from all those Compaq Alpha engineers they bought a few years ago.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
the "lack of metal clip", however, is so exciting that I am sure that we are to see perpetual world peace from its announcement any minute now.
The 150 Watt consumption is somewhat interesting.
The real question is how freaking big and loud is the cooler that has to deal with 150W???
He, that is the Spanish (as written on Spain) for Texas.
The Spaniards write Mexico as Mejico.
Just a tidbit for your amusement.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That's quite different from the standard today where the arm locks the pins of the cpu into the socket of the motherboard. I could be wrong, but that's what I think I see in the pictures.
That's about $10/month; similar to the cost of adding a movie channel or two to your cable subscription. Something to think about for those that will use this CPU to volunteer for distributed number crunching projects.
> Now, it seems like they've lost that advantage.
I think that depends what the tradeoff is. Why would the cpu have such a high power output from a 90nm process? Either it's a huge cache inside, or there is more than one core. That sounds exciting. It may be very hot running but it has the advantage of space.
Just which applications this finds use in, I cannot tell.
a macgirl web cam. live 24/7
that's my first thought when I saw the picture. Why the CPU is looking so... um.. dirty (looks like corrosion)? ;) I'm just curious.
;)
I'm not an overclocker specialist, or whatever, and really I don't want to be a troll here
perhaps answer to this question will be modded informative (as this question itself is not
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Hello, McFly! It may be hard for the Intel fanboiss\ to accept, but the Pentium IV has held the title of "hottest/most power hungry chip" for about a year. They "lost that advantage" (?) quite some time ago when they decided the mHz number was more important than efficiency. Besides, if you want actually cool chips, get a VIA/Cyrix.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
RTFA! Oh wait, this is SlahsDot.
Realize that this processor is a Prototype, fabbed on a process that doesn't reflect Intels true capabilities. So criticism as to it's heat dissipation is at best pre-mature and at worst, downright off topic.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
The only trouble is that power usage inside computers is skyrocketing lately.
150 Watts CPU, a 100 Watts graphics card and then you have all the fans to cool it, and you'll be lucky if you are under 300W and that doesn't even factor in storage, optical drives, motherboard, audio, communication devices.
I mean you will need a hell of a power supply unit to provide that sort of power reliably.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
Is it going to be 64-bit? If not, a new chip is really a waste of money.
By 2006, most everything will be 64-bit, and Intel needs to realize this and stop making 64-bit chips just for the server market.
1.21 jiggawatts?! Where am I going to find that much power!? It's not possible!!
Err, have you bothered to check the datasheets? The P4 is hardly a cool running chip by any stretch. It may have a wider power consumption range than the AthlonXP, but when the chips were running flat out they sure didn't run any cooler.
The only reason why P4's used to run cooler than Athlons was because people would stick a 60mm x 60mm heatsink on their Athlon and an 80mm x 80mm heatsink on their P4. Both of these chips consume a lot of power, and both drain laptop batteries like crazy if you use the highest powered parts (Intel actually produces some P4 "mobile" chips with a TDP of 70W!, while AMD's brand new "mobile" Athlon64 chips consume over 60W at full throttle).
Now, the Pentium M... well that's another story altogether.
ehm, it would actually drain quite quickly. A regular car battery supplies about 14.4 volts when it's full (even though it's called a 12 volt battery), and can supply about 40 Ah, when drained slowly (less when drained quickly). 150 / 14.4 ~= 10 Amps, so it would last only 4 hours, and that's only for the CPU.
150 W? What does that Tejas thing have, a Electric Chair Inside ?
You only seem to equate power wastage in terms of your personal $s.
Try and think a little bit bigger. Think in terms of global warming, energy depletion, entropy etc.
Using less power (whatever the application) can only be a good thing.
This is also at the heart of Apple's G5 strategy. When they announced the PowerMac G5 had 9 fans, many people were enormously excited because it appeared to mean Apple had found a way of making their machines pump out more heat than any PCs around today. As it turned out, Apple was fooling everyone! Their fans are very slow and they use careful venting to make it appear the machine needs more fans than anything else.
That's why you should be excited by this...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Mod parent as troll.
Why should it be modded as a 'troll'? just because it betrayed some lack of knowledge about CPU design? I think your post should be modded as troll.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I can see them trying, but I don't really see it. Hyperthreading as it is generates a lot of extra heat that isn't exactly proportional to the performance gain (I've noticed this on my own 2.8C). I know there are some dual Xeon systems that have hyperthreading enabled, so they must have partially addressed the problem the inquirer put as...
"An instruction thread might well favour one kind of execution unit, but who's to say the other threads, the ones that are running in parallel with the 'troublesome' one, won't be favouring the same execution units? Assume you've got two cores per die, and that's two threads running simultaneously. Chuck in Intel's much-touted HyperThreading technology and you'll have four threads being processed in parallel, two per core, all being 'hopped'. Chances are that at least two of them will be using the same execution units, so swapping them round isn't going to change anything."
But in a dual core system, heat is a much bigger problem, so it would make more sense to up the clock speed over enabling hyperthreading whereas the heat on a dual Xeon would be easier to eliminate because there are 2 processors with their own cooling solutions. There's also the issue that stardard operating systems don't support 4-way systems for residential computing. There's also the fact that Intel COO Paul Otellini said "We'll go from putting HyperThreading in our products to putting dual-core capability in our mainstream client processors over time." That implies that hyperthreading is used as a stepping stone for the consumer, as some programmers optimize their code to be run on hyperthreaded systems, it will also boost performance on future dual core systems. Anyone else have any ideas?
And it also may approach the heating capacity of an AMD chip
No. It's much higher. The 'super-hot Athlon' preconception is way way out of date. It was true comparing Athlon "Thunderbirds" with PIIIs, but hasn't been true since the P4 - the 2GHz Willamette and 3.2GHz Northwoods both dissipate more power than any Athlon.
The first Pentium was a stripped-together combination of 2 486-like CPUs
No. You're trying to describe superscalar-ness but not succeeding. The Pentium was the first superscalar x86, having two integer pipelines. All modern x86 CPUs are superscalar (except the VIA C3). Superscalar-ness is not CMT/multicore. CMT appears as multiple CPUs to software.
The first Pentium was a stripped-together combination of 2 486-like CPUs, with shared parts. To describe this as "two discreet Prescott cores on die... sharing data caches and maybe other units..." brings together this similarity.
The closest is the Pentium Pro and it had separate cache and core dies, NOT two separate cores, but that was converted later to cartridge (PII) and then later all on one die (later PIII). I doubt that Intel produced an original Pentium anything like this, or in a dual core manner.
Intel desktop and server processors. Have you looked at the Pentium M lately? By the way, I didn't think the Athlons ran exactly cool (cooler than any Intel desktop CPU nowadays, though).
2/27/2003:, 3973,900185, 00.asp/ cpu/display/200310110 84615.htmlt ag=Tejas
:)
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0
10/11/2003:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news
misc:
http://endian.net/details.asp?
So it looks like it will come in in 2005 instead of the original 2H 2004. It'll have 24k L1 instead of 8k or 16k like current and prescott have. When it is made at 65nm insteadof 90nm it'll have 2megs L2 instead of 1meg.
It should start eventually run as high as 5Ghz. Maybe that is on the 65nm process years from now? Bus speed should be 1066Mhz (266*4) or 1200.
It should have some new instructions in order to make life harder for AMD.
Fortunately for AMD Prescott was already supposed to be shipping at 3.8Ghz, but Intel is a bit behind on their road map too
Intel distributed ten samples of this CPU, probably under condition that you do not talk to the press. (The first rule about Tejas is that there is no Tejas.) This is likely enforced by lawyers and promises of future access to demo units. I'd guess that each CPU is marked with a number or some other unique identifier: if the ID were photographed, Intel would know who leaked the pictures of its top secret processor and could take action.
--All your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson