Slashdot Mirror


Intel Launches New Chipset

mikemuch writes "The new P35 and G33 chipsets, codenamed 'Bear Lake' are now available. They have a new memory controller that supports DDR3 RAM at up to 1333MHz, a new southbridge, and will support the upcoming 45nm Penryn CPUs. They don't yet have an actually new and different GPU — their GMA 3100 is pretty much the same as the GMA 3000 of the G965 chipset." For a little more technical info you can also check out the Hot Hardware writeup.

16 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. What's Different by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    will support the upcoming 45nm Penryn CPUs.

    What does Penryn need that's new and different in the way of support? Is it just a bump in FSB speed?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:What's Different by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, for one, Intel's biggest instruction set change in 5 years: SSE4 extensions, an updated to Intel's SIMD instruction set.

      I know. I'm not all the excited, either. :)

    2. Re:What's Different by dgoldman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Voltage is lower. Existing (pre-P35) boards won't support the Penryn.

  2. Beer Lake? by Zwets · · Score: 3, Funny

    *hic* Best name evar!

    ..oh, wait.

    --
    One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. - Will Duran
  3. Or with actual performance testing by EconolineCrush · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Tech Report also has coverage, with full application and peripheral performance testing: http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/intel-p35/ind ex.x?pg=1

  4. When Do We Get Onchip DSPs? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Intel devastated the entire DSP industry in the late 1990s when they staked out the NSP ("Native Signal Processing") strategy of faster clockrates to run DSP in SW instead of in HW. But now they're up against new Cell chips from IBM which multiprocess with parallel DSPs onchip, and even GSPs ("Graphics Signal Processors") threaten new competition from first nVidia, then TI and other old surviving rivals, as GPGPU techiniques become more sophisticated and applicable.

    All because DSP is more parallelizable than true general purpose processing, as parallelization is the best solution to increasing CPU power, just as the data to be processed is inherently more parallel, and more simply streams of "signals", as multimedia convergence redefines computing.

    So when will Intel reverse its epoch of NSP, and deliver new uPs with embedded DSP in HW?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:When Do We Get Onchip DSPs? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In our universe, everything can be characterized as a signal. In our society, practically all signals can be usefully digitized. That doesn't mean DSPs are right for everything, because DSPs aren't good at all signal processing, just some - repeated loops of simple, if cumbersome, linear equations.

      DSP is fast math at the expense of fast logic. Web apps have at least as much logic as math, intractably intertwined. DSP of Web apps is inappropriate. DSPs on a chip with fast logic would be good for Web apps and everything else. Intel sells lots of CPUs to process Web apps. And IBM/Toshiba/Sony is planning to sell lots of Cells to do so.

      I know what you're talking about. And I know that you don't.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  5. Re:OT: External Intel(r) gfx? by awb131 · · Score: 3, Informative

    > You want Intel Graphics as a actual video card? (sic)

    Well, not really, no. But huge numbers of run-of-the-mill business PCs, plus the Apple "consumer" line (mini, imac and macbooks), use the standard Intel graphics hardware. It does OK for most people's purposes, and the install base is huge, and for those reasons, a bump in capabilities for the onboard graphics chip would be noteworthy.

    --
    "There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple
  6. Re:OT: External Intel(r) gfx? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wouldn't go redundant like this but both of the other replies are from ACs and many people will never read them/know they exist.

    So far, Intel is the only company with supported OSS drivers. AMD has "promised" to deliver them for ATI cards, but who knows how long that will take? And nVidia has made no such promise.

    In addition, if we could get them without shared memory, the performance would likely improve and it wouldn't drag down system performance. So that would be a great thing.

    When we get OSS drivers for ATI, it might become possible to use one under Linux (or any other OS but MacOS for which Apple participates in driver development) in a reliable fashion. But ATI's drivers are poop anyway. Regardless, those who want a 100% OSS system can not buy a current nVidia card, as they are unsupported; an older nVidia card still in production is likely to come from one of the least-reputable vendors, so a card supported by the 'nv' driver that's worth using will be hard to come by. Intel is currently the only credible choice for accelerated video with OSS drivers.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. DDR3 RAM at up to 1333MHz? ::Yawn:: by More_Cowbell · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks, but I think I will wait for the next chipset ... that can support ram to 1337MHz.

    --
    Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
  8. Re-state the question. by DrYak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A chip set is just supposed to talk to the CPU, and in case of Intel's architecture, talk to the memory.

    A new chipset for DDR3 is logical in this situation : the chipset has to handle a different and electrically incompatible memory.

    But why does a new CPU needs a newer Chipset ?!?!?

    Meanwhile, in AMD's land, there's a standard between the chipset and the CPU called Hypertransport.
    As long as both the CPU and the chipset follow the same protocol or compatible variation of (like AM2 being HT/2.0 and AM2+ and AM3 being HT/3.0) you can pretty much pair any thing you want.
    The only restriction for a mother board is to have compatible socket (the CPU has on-board memory controller and directly speaks to the RAM sticks. There are different sockets type for different memory combination : 794 is for single channel DDR, 939 is for dual channel DDR, AM2 is for DDR2, Opteron F is for DDR2 and much higher number of Hypertransport lanes), and even that is getting stabilised (future AM2+ and AM3 CPUs can plug in today's AM2 board).

    Why can't Intel guarantee the same kind of stability ?!?!?

    Oh, yes, I know : they make chipsets and earn money by selling more motherboard.
    Even back at the Pentium II/III era they have gone through the same cycle, releasing several incompatible chipsets and slot/socket formats in order to pump up motherboard sales, even if the same slot-1 PII motherboard could last until the last PIII only using adapted slotckets.

    Meanwhile AMD is getting recommended on various website (like Ars Technica) as preferred solution for entry-/middle- level machines, because of cheaper board and more stable (and upgradable) hardware.

    Stability of AM2/AM2+/AM3 is one of biggest AMD's advantage over LGA775 and should be put forward.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Re-state the question. by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Meanwhile, in AMD's land, there's a standard between the chipset and the CPU called Hypertransport.

      Note that that's not just "AMD land," that's IBM land, VIA land, Transmeta land, HP land, SUN land, and every-other-chip-manufacturer-except-Intel land.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Re-state the question. by meatpan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh, yes, I know : they make chipsets and earn money by selling more motherboard. As a former Intel employee, I can guarantee you that Intel does NOT make money from chipsets and motherboards. The entire purpose of Intel's server and desktop motherboard operation is to enable their new technology through early discovery and elimination of major processor bugs, and to help the actual motherboard/chipset manufacturers to better support Intel architecture.

      Why would Intel invest in chipsets and motherboards when the profit margins are slim (as compared to much higher profit margins for a cpu)? For one, the investment in chipsets and motherboards has saved the company from major disasters on several occasions by early detection of obscure bugs. Knowledge of internal problems can allow the company to delay or cancel a product (such as Timna), which is much less harmful to a stock price than shipping a broken product.

      By the way, divisions within a company that constitute a material portion of earnings are required to report their revenue. If you want to know whether or not Intel makes money from chipsets, you can look it up in public records.
  9. SSE 4 by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wikipedia has a more useful description of SSE4

    As far as I know, gcc only supports up to SSE3 intrinsics. Look in pmmintrin.h

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  10. Sleep States by lmnfrs · · Score: 3, Informative

    Penryn does C6. I don't know which, if any, requirements are satisfied in current boards.

    The subsystems of the board (buses, controllers, GPU, etc.) need to function by themselves while the processor is off. I'd imagine there are also certain hardware requirements to bring the CPU out of C6 that the new boards provide.
    The average enthusiast probably doesn't need outstanding battery life, it's just a nice extra. But for business/professional uses, this is a very welcome development.

  11. Re:OT: External Intel(r) gfx? by mczak · · Score: 3, Informative

    In addition, if we could get them without shared memory, the performance would likely improve and it wouldn't drag down system performance. So that would be a great thing.
    I don't know how much faster the "same" graphic chip would be if it just would get its own ram, but that igps drag down system performance is basically a myth nowadays. Used to be true when single-channel sdram was best you could get, but it's basically a non-issue with todays dual-channel ddr2 memory systems. (Bandwidth needed for scanout, which is basically what slows things down even if you don't do anything graphics related, hasn't increased that much - a 1920x1200x32 display at 60Hz would need roughly 500MB/s, if you have a chipset which provides 1066MB/s (single-channel 133Mhz sdr sdram) this is a lot but if you have a chipset which provides 12.8GB/s (dual-channel ddr2-800) it's just not that much.)