Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Speculations Intel's Next Generation

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the boldy-go-somewhere-slightly-different dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Inquirer speculates about the next generation Intel chip. It's low power, 64 bit, multi core (up to 16?) and the real reason for the Apple switch."

11 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. Intel: The Next Generation by burtdub · · Score: 5, Funny

    Probably will feature an android, a Klingon, and a balding captain.

    1. Re:Intel: The Next Generation by vertinox · · Score: 5, Funny

      Geordi: "Captain! The Borg have installed themselves and are taking up all available CPU cycles on decks 5 through 18! I recommend rebooting!"

      Picard: "Damn those Borg! Worf! Assemble a security to format the drives!"

      Worf: "Aye sir!"

      Data: "Captain we have a message from the Borg Ship."

      Picard: "On screen!" *gasps* "It's you!"

      Bill: "Lower your shields! Resistance is futile! Superior processors is futile! Multi-core threading is futile! You will be bloated! Res..."

      Picard: *motions to Data to turn the screen off* "Number 1, what you would recommend?!"

      Riker: "What was that ancient Vulcan saying 'What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away'..."

      Data: *ligh bulb expression* "Perhaps we could turn the Intel processors on the borg... Perhaps if we installed OS X for the X86"

      Geordi: "...if we couple the SSE3 with our current intel processor, download the torrent, and reverse the polarity... *pauses* it just might work!"

      Picard: "Make it so!"

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  2. Re:Speculation is useless by WTBF · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does that make me slashdot-worthy?

    Only if you make a beowulf cluster out of them.

  3. Speculation based on Itanium by team99parody · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Based on Itanium, I'd say it's a bluff to move Apple away from IBM.

    This is the same thing Intel did to HP who walked away from PA/RISC, and to SGI who walked away from MIPS, and to Compaq/DEC who walked away from Alpha --- so they turned from the leaders in 64-bit computing to resellers of wintel.

    Hey, if it worked last time, let's try it again; and maybe the rest of the 64-bit competitors'll give up.

  4. All just speculation... by doormat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We'll know more when IDF arrives. Until then its just stuff written to try and hit a bullseye in the dark. Which seems to be everywhere nowadays, Dvorak, The Inq, even my fateful Ars is getting bit by the bug that says every action by anyone in the tech industry must be expounded on in a multipage article worth of /. and the ad revenue it brings..

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  5. Re:Speculation is useless by jazzman251 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does that make me slashdot-worthy?

    maybe if you said 'megafauna' instead of turtles...

  6. Rosetta by shmlco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If a VLIW X86 processor had a "native" mode, one would have to wonder if Apple's Rosetta technology could compile directly to it instead of X86. I mean, it would seem dumb to JIT-compile to X86, which in turn is translated to VLIW.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    1. Re:Rosetta by interiot · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Or, the alternative you're missing...

      At one point, Transmeta was promising to be able to change the CPU on-the-fly from an x86 to other things (eg. ARM, MIPS), which is no problem, since it was doing the x86=>native translation anyway, all it has to do is change to a different translation.

      So, all Intel needs to do is make the CPU be able to be switched from x86 to PPC at runtime. That's why Apple claims they can run old apps so quickly.

  7. Apple didn't switch over for a chip by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect Apple's switch wasn't because of any cool chip (it'd be ridiculous to think they are getting intel chips that no PC maker will have access to) but simply because it's one less defensive front - they don't have to worry about getting chips that are competitive anymore, which was getting a problem with PPC as well as the all important Notebook chips - IBM simply wasn't offering anymore competitive PPC solutions.

    It's one less thing to defend.

    Back when Apple first introduced PPC (1994?), they were hyping it throughout because that was one of the few real tangible differences they could tout - pre-OSX Mac was buggy and unstable single-threaded OS while Microsoft had at least NT technology.

    Now OS X pretty much rocks and they still have their excellent hardware integration - they don't need a different chip to differentiate them - OSX is their added value.

  8. Re:Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    To be pedantic, it would actually be just a bit faster, not twice as fast.

  9. Same fool, same laughs by swissmonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article was written by Nicholas Blachford, the same fool who tried to analyze the Cell processor of the PS3 and described it as a supercomputer on a desk while not understanding a single thing about it.

    Seriously, it's worth a read for the laugh, but there's nothing worth believing in it, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.