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?
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe I am wrong, but shouldn't laptop CPU use less power than a desktop CPU? Why is this comparison being made?
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?
You must have a 32 bit brain or something...
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.
It's still one cpu (ie not a dual xeon). Although the article is unclear whether it will come with the dual core or single yonah.
The human race is artificial intelligence created using object orientated programming.
Not exactly like that, although there is a lot of truth in what you said. Where you where wrong? Nowhere. Better question is "What you forgot to mention".
A lot of code consists with memory block moving (and those are the most time cunsuming parts usualy too). This happens a lot faster on 64-bit (register is larger and you move larger block in one cycle). Every time you move or reallocate memory. For example, string functions are mostly this kind of logic. Then another one it is mapping one bitmap over another (or a simple cpy) for example. Even searches can be optimized for 64-bit pattern (Larger pattern, less steps, less cycles).
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
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.
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
When Adobe releases a 64-bit version of Photoshop (which will supposedly happen with the next release), then we'll see a lot of things happen.
Right now, the only things that *most* pc users don't have any apps that can take advantage of the 64-bitness, aside from the extra registers that you get when you run in 64-bit mode. However, Photoshop lives and dies on memory size, and there are a LOT of people that already buy 3 or 4 gigs of memory for Photoshop right now, and will happily buy more when they can actually use it - and since you're talking about people that already drop several grand on the computer, nearly another grand on Photoshop, and often thousands more on related scanning and printing equipment, manufacturers are more likely to take their needs into consideration than someone who blows $90 on a printer and $60 on a video game.
Yes, I know, Adobe talks about improved memory usage on a 64-bit OS, but that's because of the OS' memory advantages, not Photoshop's. CS2 is still a 32-bit application, and even on a 64-bit OS, can't use more than about 3 gigs. Look in up on Adobe's site.
Not that I'd have the money for it, but 8 or 16 gigs of RAM would let me work on some of my 200+ megapixel, images (16-bit colors, not 8-bit) with a useful number of history and cache states, even if I used a few layers. If that much memory seems excessive, 200 million pixels, 6 bytes/pixel, that's 1.2 gigabytes just to hold a single image in memory. Add that much more for each layer, and then throw in history and cache states.
Now, back to the topic at hand... I don't imagine that many people will deck out their laptop with 4+ gigs of memory.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Microsoft licenses based on how many processors, not how many cores there are. So even though we are talking about a dual-core CPU, it's still a single CPU and Windows XP home will support it.
Windows XP Pro would support two dual core chips(these days), and would support two quad core processors as well. XP Home should in theory support a single quad core processor.
The Microsoft official stance is that they will not penalize the enthusiasts who want to use the high end parts.