Intel Core 2 'Penryn' and Linux

An anonymous reader writes "Linux Hardware has posted a look at the new Intel "Penryn" processor and how the new processor will work with Linux. Intel recently released the new "Penryn" Core 2 processor with many new features. So what are these features and how will they equate into benefits to Linux users? The article covers all the high points of the new "Penryn" core and talks to a couple Linux projects about end-user performance of the chip."

Comments

Perspective

[explosivejared]

"There are some new instructions that could be more convenient to use in some special cases (like the new pmin/pmax instructions). But these will have no real performance benefit."

"So we do not plan on adding SSE4 optimizations. We may use SSE4 instructions in the future for convenience once SSE4 has become really widely supported. But I personally don't see that anytime soon..."

I think that puts the hype over penryn into perspective. There are some nice improvements energy leaks and such, but it's nothing revolutionary.

Re:Perspective

[DaveWick79]

I believe that by the time Quad core becomes mainstream, i.e. every piece of junk computer at Buy More has them, that 64 bit apps will also be the mainstream. By 2010 every computer sold will come with a 64bit OS, that will emulate for 32 bit programs but all the new software being developed will be transitioning to 64 bit.
Can CPU performance hit a threshold? Sure it can. But maybe by then they will be integrating specialty processors for video encoding/decoding, data encryption, or for file system/flash write optimization, onto the CPU die. At some point nothing more will be required for corporate america to run word processors and spreadsheets, and tech spending and development will shift to smaller, virtual reality type applications rather than the traditional desktop. I think we have already reached the point where the desktop computer fulfills the needs of the typical office worker. The focus shifts to management & security over raw performance.

Re:If video encoding/decoding is the bottleneck...

[644bd346996]

The place for hardware decoders is on the graphics card. Hence the reason why Linux needs to use the CPU.

More Useless Options

[hattable]

"So we do not plan on adding SSE4 optimizations. We may use SSE4 instructions in the future for convenience once SSE4 has become really widely supported. But I personally don't see that anytime soon..."

This just reminds me of CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP. About 2 times a month I am staring at this option wondering if I will ever get to use it. Some things just are not worth developer time to implement.

Being an Early Adopter Sucks

[ocirs]

These guys are pretty much saying that they don't really intent to optimize the code for penryn because very few processors will have SSE4, and even then they don't expect much performance improvement. I'm still waiting for decent 64-bit drivers for half of my hardware........ most early adopters pay a premium for features that aren't really utilized at first, and by the time the software catches up the hardware is dirt cheap. However penryn(except for the extreme edition) is an exception since it is priced at a point where it is worth it to pay the extra buck or two for the extra features that are not going to have much impact till years later when the software catches up. I'm really looking forward to Nehalem though, the architecture update is going to bring significant improvement in performance without much to do with software optimization.

Re:If Intel had a better bus then they would not n

[Predius]

Unless the bus and ram start running faster than the cpu, cache will have place in the design. And when die space is as cheap as it is for Intel now, why NOT use it for more cache?

Via has it for years: AES, SHA, and much more...

[rpp3po]

My 1,2 Ghz (C7) Epia Board runs a 28Mbyte/s file server over Gigabit LAN - with transparent AES decryption (dm-crypt).... :)

Re:If video encoding/decoding is the bottleneck...

[jibjibjib]

How many people really care about encoding video? 5% of the market? Less?

I don't know why you seem to think video encoding is some sort of niche technical application that no one uses. A huge number of people record video on digital cameras and want to email it or upload it without taking too long. Many people now use Skype and other VOIP software supporting real-time video communication. Many people rip DVDs. Many people (although not a huge number) have "media center" PCs which can record video from TV broadcasts.

Re:If video encoding/decoding is the bottleneck...

[Anonymous Coward]

>How many people really care about encoding video? 5% of the market? Less?

Anyone who wants to video conference and doesn't have tons of bandwidth.

Who gives a shit?

[Sycraft-fu]

Seriously, I get tired of the AMD fanboy "Well if Intel did this they wouldn't have to do that," or "Intel is cheating by doing processors this way instead of that way." So understand this: None of that shit matters. The only thing that matters to the end user is performance for the dollars. That's it. You can bitch and scream all you like about how doing things a different way is theoretically better, what matter is actual, real performance. In that category, the Core 2 is very good. It's a damn fast chip for a good price. That's all it needs to be. I don't care about pissing matches over how it is done, only that in the end it works well for the things I do. Doesn't matter if there's a theoretical situation it's bad at, if that's not one I encounter, I don't care.

Also as for bus speed, you might note that the real limiting factor is RAM speed. It is pricey to get faster RAM, and that's ultimately where you've got to go for non-cached data. You can build as fast a bus as you like, if you are waiting on the RAM it gains you little.