Slashdot Mirror


Intel Devises Chip Speed Breakthrough

Chad Wood writes "According to the New York Times (free reg. req.), Intel has demonstrated a research breakthrough, making silicon chips that can switch light like electricity. The article explains:''This opens up whole new areas for Intel,' said Mario Paniccia, a an Intel physicist, who started the previously secret Intel research program to explore the possibility of using standard semiconductor parts to build optical networks. 'We're trying to siliconize photonics.' The invention demonstrates for the first time, Intel researchers said, that ultrahigh-speed fiberoptic equipment can be produced at personal computer industry prices. As the costs of communicating between computers and chips falls, the barrier to building fundamentally new kinds of computers not limited by physical distance should become a reality, experts say.'"

5 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. Re:NYTimes Reg by Drantin · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It's actually easier to google for the URL then click the link to it so you have google.com as a referrer...

    --
    Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
  2. Re:EMP by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    But now what are we going to use against the "squiddies" when they come for our hovercrafts?

    180mm smoothbore cannons and armour-piercing rounds.

  3. Re:Still binary.. by eht · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Actually base-10 is a terrible base to use, 12 or 60 makes much more sense, with the ideal being base-120, many more factors making math of all sorts much easier, one reason I highly dislike the metric system.

  4. Re:Still binary.. by fredrikj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I highly dislike the metric system

    Yeah, base 12/7.33/3.762/15.9 (it depends on what you're measuring and the position of the digit) is so much better.

  5. Intel compilers lower AMD CPU performance? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I found the following little study here. Read on:

    As part of my study of Operating Systems and embedded systems, one of
    the things I've been looking at is compilers. I'm interested in
    analyzing how different compilers optimize code for different
    platforms. As part of this comparison, I was looking at the Intel
    Compiler and how it optimizes code. The Intel Compilers have a free
    evaluation download from here:
    http://www.intel.com/products/software/inde x.htm?i id=Corporate+Header_prod_softwr&#compilers

    One of the things that the version 8.0 of the Intel compiler included
    was an "Intel-specific" flag. According to the documentation, binaries
    compiled with this flag would only run on Intel processors and would
    include Intel-specific optimizations to make them run faster. The
    documentation was unfortunately lacking in explaining what these
    optimizations were, so I decided to do some investigating.

    First I wanted to pick a primarily CPU-bound test to run, so I chose
    SPEC CPU2000. The test system was a P4 3.2G Extreme Edition with 1 gig
    of ram running WIndows XP Pro. First I compiled and ran spec with the
    "generic x86 flag" (-QxW), which compiles code to run on any x86
    processor. After running the generic version, I recompiled and ran
    spec with the "Intel-specific flag" (-QxN) to see what kind of
    difference that would make. For most benchmarks, there was not very
    much change, but for 181.mcf, there was a win of almost 22% !

    Curious as to what sort of optimizations the compiler was doing to
    allow the Intel-specific version to run 22% faster, I tried running
    the same binary on my friend's computer. His computer, the second test
    machine, was an AMD FX51, also with 1 gig of ram, running Windows XP
    Pro. First I ran the "generic x86" binaries on the FX51, and then
    tried to run the "Intel-only" binaries. The Intel-specific ones
    printed out an error message saying that the processor was not
    supported and exited. This wasn't very helpful, was it true that only
    Intel processors could take advantage of this performance boost?

    I started mucking around with a dissassembly of the Intel-specific
    binary and found one particular call (proc_init_N) that appeared to be
    performing this check. As far as I can tell, this call is supposed to
    verify that the CPU supports SSE and SSE2 and it checks the CPUID to
    ensure that its an Intel processor. I wrote a quick utility which I
    call iccOut, to go through a binary that has been compiled with this
    Intel-only flag and remove that check.

    Once I ran the binary that was compiled with the Intel-specific flag
    (-QxN) through iccOut, it was able to run on the FX51. Much to my
    surprise, it ran fine and did not miscompare. On top of that, it got
    the same 22% performance boost that I saw on the Pentium4 with an
    actual Intel processor. This is very interesting to me, since it
    appears that in fact no Intel-specific optimization has been done if
    the AMD processor is also capable to taking advantage of these same
    optimizations. If I'm missing something, I'd love for someone to point
    it out for me. From the way it looks right now, it appears that Intel
    is simply "cheating" to make their processors look better against
    competitor's processors.

    Links:
    Intel Compiler:http://www.intel.com/products/software/in dex.htm?iid=Corporate+Header_prod_softwr&#compiler s

    Here is the text: /*
    * iccOut 1.0
    *
    * This program enables programs compiled with the intel compiler
    using the
    * -xN flag to run on non-intel processors. This can sometimes result
    in
    * large performance increases, depending on the application. Note
    that even
    * though the check will be removed, the CPU runni