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."
Oh yeah ebonics. As in "Yonah need alot a dough to buy one."
From Apple after MacWorld San Francisco
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
"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?
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'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.
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.
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.
Take this for instance. The NEC machine is 2000, with 512Mb, 100 Gig, 14 inch screen, and the other bells a whistles n would expect. The only real weakness is that it priced with XP toy, so it will cost $150 to get the pro version. Why anyone would sell a $2000 machine with XP home is beyond me.
OTOH, a current mac with similar specs is also $2000. When Apple moves to intel, we can assume that they will stay with these similar specs and similar price. Therefore we can expect to get a Mac, possible with a bigger screen, but smaller hard disk, not to mention built in Airport, for the same money. To make matters better, the extra $150 goes a long way to putting 1 gig RAM in slot A, which leaves the other slot free for an additional gig. And of course lets not forget that XCode and WebObjects are now free.
I am sure we will see Dell undercut the price with tricks such as rebates and the XP Home maneuver, but in the end list prices for the MS Window machines are sure to continue to be higher.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
"and AMD isn't exactly innovative, it's just the underdog"
While other companies put the memory controller on the CPU and gave the CPUs low-latency, high-bandwidth interconnects, you *do* have to hand it to AMD for actually bringing that to commodity-level hardware. And you have to shake your head at the fact that Intel, who traditionally has enjoyed smaller, better manufacturing capabilities, *could* have done it significantly earlier than AMD, but just didn't care to try anything new. I can't fathom why they would sink billions into R&D on the Itanium, when there were plenty of options of real, proven advances that would have been much easier, faster, and cheaper.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.