Slashdot Mirror
First Intel Yonah Laptop Announced
Lam1969 writes "IDG News Service reports NEC will release its first laptop based on Intel's Yonah dual-core processor in the first quarter of 2006, for just under $2,000. According to AnandTech, Yonah performance is comparable to AMD Athlon 64 X2, and is more efficient than the AMD chip in terms of power consumption."
Where can I get this without Windows preinstalled?
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Oh yeah ebonics. As in "Yonah need alot a dough to buy one."
What is clear is that even when AMD had the superior product, it didn't gain massive market share. So same shit different day. At the end all the oems flock to the company that can mass manufacture.
Other than the newfangled dual core processor everything else is kinda marginal. XP Home? 512 mb? Not for 2000 USD.
As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop? Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?
What about the memory controller, are they adding the power consumption of that to the CPU - to be properly compared to the integrated system that AMD X2 uses ?.
A dual-core laptop processor sounds overkill. For me a laptop is merely a shell terminal to log-in to some other box.
Anyway, good to see Intel go back to the original P3 designs with all this. P4 really sucks totally - hyperthreading or no hyperthreading.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
So when are these available on desktop machines? It's gonna be hard to pitch buying a laptop instead of a workstation to the IT manager.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"Reliable sources have further confirmed recently to Think Secret that new iBooks and Mac minis--as well as iPod shuffles--will debut at Macworld Expo San Francisco next month. Apple's new Mac mini and iBook are expected to be among the first--if not the first--systems to feature Intel's new mobile processor, code-named Yonah."
personal heating device?
Gotta love capitalism. AMD has been on top for awhile. Now it's time for Intel to re-take the lead. They beat each other's brains out and we, the consumers, get the benefits.
So we'll be buying some of these just about the instant they come out.
Come one guys. I sure wouldn't be flaunting the it consumes less power then the AMD X2 spec too much. You are compairing a "MOBILE" CPU core against a "DESKTOP" CPU core. The only reason Anandtech used the AMD X2 as the benchmark and not the mobile Turion CPU is because the dual core Turion CPU's are not out yet, so comparing the performance of the Yonah dual core system against a single core just didn't make sense. Its like saying that a cellphone CPU uses less power then a laptop CPU.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I can't wait till I Yonah one of these
So like a newbie I decided to click and read the article. I saw about 10 cookies try to set themselves, and about 6 ads, but for the life of me I cannot find the article. I am sure it was somewhere around there in the flash and car ad, but where? Do I go on a treasure hunt and look for it? Or do I decide that Anandtech is just another place that is not worthwhile to visit.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
What is clear is that even when AMD had the superior product, it didn't gain massive market share. So same shit different day. At the end all the oems flock to the company that can mass manufacture.
What it seems is that the OEMs will go with the company who can mass spin. "Yonah performance is comparable to AMD Athlon 64 X2, and is more efficient than the AMD chip in terms of power consumption.". Yeah right, please. Yonah is a 32 bit chip. There is no way in hell it can approach the performance of a 64 bit chip. It's just not going to happen in this universe or the next, not until you get to one where mathematics runs backwards.
The whole thing seems like crap to me, it's marginally better than the single core one due to a 40% more latency of the memory controller, and yes, it uses less power than the X2, hurray? To bad they aren't comparing to an AMD mobile cpu but a desktop one. A dual core Turion would probably own this one.
Yay Intel finally dropped the child like hanging 'e' in their logo; at least going by the one I see on that page. Thank god for that, it made them look unprofessional; to bad it won't get my custom back. After a horrid run of over priced underpowered cpu's in the 90's I've been an AMD man. (And if the pathetic performance of our two dual cpu Xeon servers here at work (the rest are AMD) is anything to go by I'll stay a loyal AMD fanboy.)
I ate your fish.
The notebook I'm really drooling over...and honestly wondering if there are going to be some huge power/heat issues with:
Sager NP9750 (@ powernotebooks.com)
-amd athlon64 x2 4800
-2 gig ram
-7800gtx (mobile of course)
-100gb 7200rpm sata drive
-dual layer dvd burner
-gigabit ethernet nic
http://tinyurl.com/afcqu
This laptop is really over the top. $3330 maxed out the way i want it...yikes.
I'm going to Law School this fall and will be looking to replace my G3 iBook. Dual core anything will be a little overkill, but I do a bit of hobby work in Blender 3D (www.blender.org) so that should help. You you imagine an Xgrid of these things? (no apologies to the Beowolf crowd)
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Talk about offtopic.
Why do you have to be such a lingam?
That reasoning only works if you assume that someone only buys a PC immediately after moving. Otherwise the next move is likely to be less than seven years away.
It's rumored that Intel is also including their Heat-Resistant Pants with the laptop so that while using your new Yonah your lap will not catch fire.
Not to mention that Yonah is a 65 nanonmeter part and doesn't offer 64 bit extensions. If you are looking at a laptop in the 2006 timeframe I'd strongly consider waiting for either the 2nd gen 65 nm Intel part (I forget the core name) or the 65 nm Turion dual core due later in 2006. Both will be seriously better than Yonah.
What you really need are multi-threaded zombie processes!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
What if the cellphone CPU is just as powerful as laptop CPU? The mobile chip is pretty stromg.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Maybe I am wrong, but shouldn't laptop CPU use less power than a desktop CPU? Why is this comparison being made?
The reason it's mentioned isn't because it's so remarkable that a laptop CPU would consume less power than a desktop CPU. The point is that it is comparable in performance to the desktop AMD X2 while still having the low power usage of a laptop chip.
Can I make a Beowulf cluster out of it? Wait a second...
I haven't looked up any specs on the Yonah.. Can someone fill me in? Is it a 64-bit machine?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Thank you for pointing that out - it should be clearly obvious, but to most who won't read the article, or even most of the article summary, well...
;) I'd be absolutely shocked if Intel comes out the winner - they've taken the crown of Space Heater Champion ever since the P4.
I'd love to see the power comparison between this and the dual core mobile chips from AMD.
Since when are 2kg and >4h battery time laptops desktop replacement parts?
Last time i looked, those used desktop cpus, were >3Kg and usually run about an hour...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Doesn't really matter assuming the claimed 4 hours of battery life for this Yonah laptop is true. That's not bad at all.
Read about the benefits Intel ascribes to 64-bit software here. "Processors with Intel EM64T support 64-bit capable operating systems from Microsoft, Red Hat and SuSE." And you won't be able to run them.
There are some applications where a 64-bit CPU can perform FOUR TIMES more work in 64-bit mode than 32-bit mode. One of these is big integer multiplication. Check out Is 32 bits really better than 64?": "If we instead would compare an Athlon XP and an Athlon 64, the latter would be almost 4 times faster. Why 4 times and not just 2 times? Because a 64x64=>128 bit integer multiplication actually performs 4 times more work than a 32x32=>64 bit integer multiplication!"
If you want a low power 64-bit CPU consider an AMD Turion based notebook. Check out this article and its conclusions. In particular, "A lot of people see Dothan's 27W TDP & Turion ML's 35W TDP and assume that Dothan is automatically lower power. Intel computes thermal design power as 75% of the maximum load on the chip, while AMD's TDP rating is derived from the absolute worst case power dissipation of the chip. Part of the total system power is also incorporated into AMD's TDP, as the memory controller is located on-chip. Intel's memory controller is built into the chipset and thus draws power not calculated as part of Dothan's TDP. Also while Turion 64 is at idle (800MHz clock speed), it's performance is likely to be higher due to the higher bandwidth data bus. All of these factors contribute to Turion 64 being more power efficient under low load circumstances."
And the -MT Turions have even lower power consumption: AMD Turion 64 specifications.
My next notebook will not be constrainted to only running x86-32 software.
Come one guys. I sure wouldn't be flaunting the it consumes less power then the AMD X2 spec too much
The flaunting isn't that it consumes less power -- it's that it consumes ~40% less power, but gives ~95% of the performance. That isn't a small feat, especially without an on-die memory controller.
You are compairing a "MOBILE" CPU core against a "DESKTOP" CPU core.
What difference does it make? AnandTech's test was of a desktop Yonah system.
Its like saying that a cellphone CPU uses less power then a laptop CPU.
Which would be quite impressive if the cellphone performed the same as the laptop.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
...would anyone read a book while eating kipper? Branding is easy, provided you stick the branding iron in the fire first.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why is this laptop using XP Home? I was under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that XP Home was a strictly uniprocessor OS.
The flaunting isn't that it consumes less power -- it's that it consumes ~40% less power, but gives ~95% of the performance. That isn't a small feat, especially without an on-die memory controller.
It consumes only 25% less, and more, is a 65nm part when Athlon64 X2 is a 90nm part, is a small feat in the power conumition.
A dual-core CPU with half the power consumption and nearly all the performance of an AMD offering? Now that's intelligent design.
What if the cellphone CPU is just as powerful as laptop CPU?
Then you own an Apple laptop.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
It is Indian for Cootch. Where do you think all of Intel's engineers are ?
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Let me lay it out for you: this is a desktop system that supports the Pentium M (Dothan). It has a 220W power supply, while my 8-year old Pentium 2 450MHz system has a 200W PSU. With that 220W and a 2GHz Pentium M, you could also run a 160GB 7200RPM hard drive, a Geforce 7800GT and an optical drive. Now imagine taking that to the next level; the Yonah is the basically a dual-core version of the Dothan. How many laptop CPUs can power a desktop workstation with half the energy requirements? Not many.
Anand's comparison is not only valid, but timely. CPU performance alone doesn't matter today, in an age when the video card can cost twice as much as the CPU. It's efficiency, instructions per cycle or per watt, that counts in the long run. This paves the way for smaller and more mobile computers, supercomputing clusters with a fraction of their current size and operating costs. The brute force megahertz wars ended years ago; Motorola/Freescale, IBM and now Intel realize this. Reducing the first room-sized digital computers to desktop towers was a revolution; in twenty years, as this power efficiency focus continues, it will happen again.
There really isn't much difference between Home and Professional versions of XP other than the server components and security features, basically they ARE the same OS with the same kernel.
A friend of mine has a AMD Athlon 64 X2 system and his copy of XP sees it as a dual processors. So Home, which is the same under the hood, will do the same.
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
It makes more sense to differentiate the two by giving PowerBooks the dual-core, with iBooks getting the upcoming single-core Yonah. And that'd certainly go a long ways towards keeping the iBooks cheap.
If this NEC is supposed to be $2k, that strongly suggests a dual-core mac notebook would be well out of the iBook price range, but right in line with PowerBook prices.
Powerbooks were upgraded recently, but it was a pretty meager bump.
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
It'll be cool if this is true. Though "better performance" is largely subjective. People only include the benchmarks they want to support their particular claims so you don't always get the full picture.
I am an AMD fanboy but only because so far the AMD processors have been better than the Intel choices [and any other e.g. PPC or MIPS have been way lagging]. So if this core is more efficient [e.g. higher IPC or good IPC and higher clock rate] then all the power to Intel.
All I'm trying to say is take the benchmark with a grain of salt.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Everyone knows those battery-life claims are total crap. After having the system for about 6 months, your battery life will shrink to the standard < 2 hours.
Anyways, what I do is get a second battery with the laptop - the smallest, cheapest one they've got. That's my daily battery for when I don't really care about duration because I'm just "traveling" from one room to another, or to a 1 hour meeting or whatever. This battery is ruined after a couple years, yet still meets daily needs. Then when I want extended runtime I take out my good battery.
It'll be nice when fuel cells allow for instant 50 cent "recharges," eh?
Laptop batteries are consumables, ya know.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
...Does anyone know whether these laptops will be crippled with Treacherous Computing or not?
The sample Anandtech had ran at 2.0 GHz and couldn't overclock very far. It's clock speed matches the LOW end of the Athlon 64 X2 line, and doesn't match the performance of all the X2s. From Anandtech's benchmarks, Yonah didn't beat the X2 in game benchmarks, and it's so close as far as the other benchmarks that it's not a huge win for Intel when compared to the X2 3800+.
From this, Intel has almost but not quite caught up to AMD's performance. If AMD can release 65nm versions of the X2 by July and can manufacture them decently, Intel will be back to playing catch-up. Just because AMD isn't planning a major change to the design of their chips doesn't mean they arn't going to be rolling out versions of current chips on the 65nm process which will let them compete well with the Yonah laptop they are talking about here.
So, I'll give credit to Intel, they have mostly caught up for now, but it remains to be seen if they can hold on to their current position as being CLOSE in performance to AMD's processors.
another platform without cpuids bites the dust.
Tell me again why you need 64bit extensions on a consumer laptop. 2GB memory not big enough for you?
I just wanted to point out that efficiency could be power over processing capabilities.
"More efficient in terms of power consumption" and "comparable to X" means it consumes less power but it does not necesarily beat X .
The flaunting isn't that it consumes less power -- it's that it consumes ~40% less power, but gives ~95% of the performance. That isn't a small feat, especially without an on-die memory controller.
It's also a $500 chip being compared against a $300 chip, and a next-generation, not-yet-available 65nm chip being compared against a previous-generation, available-for-months, 90nm chip. It is, to say the least, a matter of Apple's and oranges.
It's an interesting article, just to see what potential Intel's new chips have, but for either side to flaunt anything at this point is foolish.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
If you run amd64-compiled software, those 64-bit extensions are good for a nice 10-15% (free!) speed boost. There are some very good amd64 versions of some very good software (Matlab, for example).
:)
Not everyone is stuck in Windows x32 land
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
This is a flawed comparison in many ways. What about comparing the power consumption to the AMD Mobile processors which is where the target market is. Also the Intel chips will benefit from the faster ram which will make a difference in some benchmarks.
Haifa?
The reason I want dual core, is for smoother multitasking - no more tasks grinding everything to a halt. 64 bit? Yes, please. Not because the laptop needs it, but because when developing for 64 bit systems, I prefer to be running the same on my laptop.
Personally, I'd love to have a dual-core laptop as a portable development machine.
I work in the handheld space where most development is done with device emulators that run as a separate process and communicate with the debugger via a network socket. We also use emulators to test HotSync/ActiveSync. A dual core processor should be able to give the (already slow) emulator its own CPU, leaving the other CPU free to talk to me. :)
--Stuart
Here is a link to one of the reseller of this awesome 'desktop laptop'r s.php
2 31
http://www.pctorque.com/sager-9750-gaming-compute
I've ordered one, and can't wait to run Linux in 64bit on this dual-core system.
There is a full thread on the NotebookForum about this laptop at
http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=95
Shouldn't that be part of a lap DANCE instead of a lap TOP?
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
I would suggest that if you don't use the BPM field for storing actual BPMs that you sacrifice that field to store ratings. This is what I do, so that even when I copy sections of my library to different Macs I can easily restore my ratings (works well for backing up tracks to DVDs too). The process is pretty painless with smart playlists, just the wait for writing however many thousand ID3s.
Until iTunes has beat detection or a 'tap for BPM' feature I can garauntee that I won't be spending the effort to BPM every track in my library. In the meantime I just store BPM=5 for 5 stars, BPM=4 for 4 stars, etc. Now that it's attached to the file losing the xml that holds the extra metadata (checked or unchecked, rating, location on disk, etc) isn't a big deal.
Maybe this idea could save you some future hassle (restoring ratings from values stored in "BPM" would take you just minutes).
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
http://www.file1145y.com/