Slashdot Mirror
Intel Details Nehalem CPU and Larrabee GPU
Vigile writes "Intel previewed the information set to be released at IDF next month including details on a wide array of technology for server, workstation, desktop and graphics chips. The upcoming Tukwila chip will replace the current Itanium lineup with about twice the performance at a cost of 2 billion transistors and Dunnington is a hexa-core processor using existing Core 2 architecture. Details of Nehalem, Intel's next desktop CPU core that includes an integrated memory controller, show a return of HyperThreading-like SMT, a new SSE 4.2 extension and modular design that features optional integrated graphics on the CPU as well. Could Intel beat AMD in its own "Fusion" plans? Finally, Larrabee, the GPU technology Intel is building, was verified to support OpenGL and DirectX upon release and Intel provided information on a new extension called Advanced Vector Extension (AVX) for SSE that would improve graphics performance on the many-core architecture."
Heck, I remember when "Pentium" came out and people laughed
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
They are code names, not product names.
Intel has a rich collection of silly code names.
Evil people are out to get you.
You can't trademark numbers. When AMD started releasing "x86" numbered processors, Intel filed suit and lost. The judge stated that you can't trademark numbers. It's such an old case, this is what I found in the last 10 minutes regarding Intel and trademarking numbers.
I'm tired and too lazy to find the actual lawsuit.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
I vote AMD hit back with "Orgo" and "Ftoomsh"
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
I dont understand your comment, I, like many other people dont like the idea of TPM, and from your post it seems you are sarcastically agreeing with me. (via the word slipped). You also, however say so we can get the advantage of owning an expensive cable box (which I could actually see as an advantage, if you already have one in your house).
Your post confuses me (or I'm being retarded, this has happened twice before in my life, along with the 3 times I've been wrong), and it forces me to conclude, that you, AC are in fact a woman and are using feminine wiles.
I got you an Andes mint, but it melted in my pocket
Heck, I remember when "Itanium" came out and people laughed...
But before they laughed, I remember a bunch of companies folded up their project tents (sun, mips, the remains of dec/alpha). I'm not so sure companies will do the same this time around... Not saying this time Intel doesn't have their ducks in a row, but certainly, the past is no indication of the future...
I vote for Skookumchuck.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
So, this Larrabee, will it be another example of integrated graphics that "supports" all the standards while being too slow to be useful in any practical situation, even basic desktop acceleration (Composite / Aero)? If so, I've gotta wonder why they even bother rather than saving some cash and just making a solid 2D accelerator that would be for all intents and purposes functionally identical.
Most of Intel's codenames are names of real places.
These are code names, not product names. They will probably all be Core 2(3?), Xeon, etc.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
"Also as noted, a return to SMT is going to follow Nehalem to the market with each core able to work on two software threads simultaneously. The SMT in Nehalem should be more efficient that the HyperThreading we saw in NetBurst thanks to the larger caches and lower latency memory system of the new architecture."
Gosh, I hope it is more effective, because in my implementations I actually saw a slowdown instead of an advantage. Even then I'm generally not happy with hyper-threading. The OS & Applications simply don't see the difference between two real cores and a hyperthreading core. If I run another thread on a hyperthreading core, I'll slowdown the other thread. This might not always be what you want to see happening. IMHO, the advantage should be over 10/20% for a desktop processor to even consider hyperthreading, and even then I want back that BIOS option so that disables hyperthreading again.
I've checked and both the Linux and Vista kernel support a large number of cores, so that should not be a problem.
Does anyone have any information on how well the multi-threading works on the multi-core Sun niagara based processors?
Well, it went from Core, to Core 2. I'd presume these new chips would get the "Core 3" moniker.
First off, new integrated Intel chipsets do just find for desktop acceleration. One of our professors got a laptop with an X3000 chip and it does quite well in Vista. All the eye candy works and is plenty snappy.
However, this will be much faster since it fixes a major problem with integrated graphics: Shared RAM. All integrated Intel chipsets nab system RAM to work. Makes sense, this keeps costs down and that is the whole idea behind them. The problem is it is slow. System RAM is much slower than video RAM. As an example, high end systems might have a theoretical max RAM bandwidth of 10GB/sec if they have the latest DDR3. In reality, it is going to be more along the lines of 5GB/sec in systems that have integrated graphics. A high end graphics card can have 10 TIMES that. The 8800 Ultra has a theoretical bandwidth over 100GB/sec.
Well, in addition to the RAM not being as fast, the GPU has to fight with the CPU for access to it. All in all, it means that RAM access is just not fast for the GPU. That is a major limiting factor in modern graphics. Pushing all those pixels with multiple passes of textures takes some serious memory bandwidth. No problem for a discrete card, of course, it'll have it's own RAM just like any other.
In addition to that, it looks like they are putting some real beefy processing power on this thing.
As such I expect this will perform quite well. Will it do as good as the offerings from nVidia or ATi? Who knows? But this clearly isn't just an integrated chip on a board.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
... because I simply _don't_ trust any company/companies with market share as vast as Intel (yeah, I know, the "Traitorous Eight"). Apparently, AMD has had a lot of legal beef with Intel in the past, in fact, they used to be best buds, until Intel snaked AMD from some business with IBM. I know it's only a matter of time before Intel outwits AMD in the mass sales of proc.'s (esp. in the desktop/laptop field... I personally LOVE the power-saving on my Dual-Core... 3.5 Hrs avg. on a battery is GREAT for the powerhorse that it is), but what can AMD do? Merge with ATI... oops, already been done. So is AMD restricted to GPU market for the rest of their (profitable) life?
I can see this going two ways:
1) Intel forces AMD outta business. AMD ends up liquidating its stock/technology to foreign companies (read: outside USA).
2) AMD Brings an Anti-Trust case against Intel for 'unfair practices' or some crap (IANAL).
However, there is ALWAYS the possibility that Intel pulls another Pentium Bug. Remember the mid-late 90's ? (God how _could_ we _forget_ the 90's!?) Either way, AMD needs to diversify their R&D and/or look for more lucrative business opportunities (whatever that means), or -the winner IMHO- work with IBM on this power saving crusade.
Was denken Sie, Slashdot Crowd?
This useless space for sale, inquire at front desk.
It took them a while to get that it was a joke.
I speak England very best
They typically (maybe all) come from various types of things (e.g. mountains [mckinley]) in the north west portion of North America. You'll notice many sound the same such as Tukwila and Willamette.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Because power generally increases at a rate of frequency^3 (that's cubed). Adding more cores generally increases power linearly.
For example. Let's start with a single-core Core 2 @ 2GHz. Let's say it uses 10 W (not sure what the actual number is).
Running it at twice the frequency results in a (2^3) = 8X power increase. So, we can either have a single-core 4 GHz Core 2 at 80W, or we can have a quad-core 2GHz Core 2 at 40W. Which one makes more sense?
Dan
1) We've hit the "Power Wall", power is expensive, but transistors are "free". That is, we can put more transistors on a chip than we have the power to turn on.
2) We also have hit the "Memory Wall", modern microprocessors can take 200 clocks to access DRAM, but even floating-point multiplies may take only four clock cycles.
3) Because of this, processor performance gain has slowed dramatically. In 2006, performance is a factor of three below the traditional doubling every 18 months that occurred between 1986 and 2002.
To understand where we are, and why the only way to go now is parallelism versus clock speed increase, see The Landscape of Parallel Computing ReseView from Berkeley.
I say this, as an admitted AMD fanboy, and in hopes that they can make a comeback, to once again force intel into a frenzy of research and development. I Can't help but imagine that AMD exec's are saying something along the lines of Isoroku Yamamota's famous WWII post pearl harbor quote, "I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant." It's all gravy for consumers so one can't help to be happy at the current developments. However to ensure future happiness for consumers, one must also hope for an AMD Comeback.
Effectively all of Intel's chipsets support dual digital outputs. Many mobile chipsets support 5+ unique outputs. Just take a look at the spec sheets available at developer.intel.com. It's a question of the motherboard manufacturers -- they need to put one or more sDVO transmitters on the motherboard to support the physical DVI connectors.
There is a standard called ADD+ that allows you too connect the transmitters via an AGP or PCIe card, however, given that drivers are validated with specific transmitters, it's unusual to find ADD+ cards outside of driver development groups or validation teams.
However, if you can find an ADD+ card with a pair of common transmitters such as the Chrontel CH7307, then you can get your dual DVI outputs.
(Not speaking as an official representative of Intel Corporation)
Most of Intel's codenames are names of real places.
How long until they release a chip named after Intercourse,PA,
Or my favourite, Wankers Corner,OR
AMD will join the fun and look to France for inspirational place names, such as Condom, Tampon and Herpes
Not to be outdone, poor old Amiga Inc finally release a new computer named after the village of Shittington,in the UK,with an update scheduled for 2025 named after Mount Buggery in Australia.
Now, please keep in mind my understanding of the law is next to "naive" but here is my understanding:
For something to be considered "trademarkable" there has to be some form of association with the trademark. For example: Mickey Mouse & the Walt Disney Castle are trademarks of Walt Disney since you see or hear these images, you conger the images of Disney and such. Now if Intel could prove such links with numbers, perhaps there is a chance. HOWEVER the reason this has been (and always will be) a total demonstration in futility is because numbers can't generate the same iconic images as words or pictures. Numbers are numbers and signify values, not property or anything tangible. Granted there are trademarks with numbers in them but usually they have a letter or two thrown in. That is where it goes from just numbers to a word - a word with numbers in them. That is when it can be trademarked.
What Intel is trying to do is go "If you use 10206 as a name for something, we will sue!" The problem is:
1) I will sue Intel because that is part of a story I have and have proof I beat them to. (Although that is totally off the real topic here & I would meet with their pit bull lawyers)
2) If you got 10206 as a math answer, how would the law differentiate between it and Intel's property?
3) If 10206 was part of a formula, bar code, serial number, part number, etc., how would the system know if it is a violation of trademark laws?
Think about this - The number 42 is a part of the Hitchhikers Guide story. I can safely use "42" in anything I want because its a number AS LONG AS I don't go and say "it's the meaning of life" BECAUSE then it would have an association. Now as far as Intel, they can't say "the number is associated with our chips" because there is such a weak (at best) association between a number and something physical (the chip).Mostly I think the law has told Intel "Whatever. The numbers look more like a serial number rather than a trademark worthy thing". That is why Intel can't get its wishes.
Anyways, that is my ten cents (my two cents is free...) and I could totally be wrong here. However that is my understanding.
They weren't even used in the Arab world until modern times -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hindu-Arabic_numeral_system In the Arab world - until modern times - the Arabic numeral system was used only by mathematicians. Muslim scientists used the Babylonian numeral system, and merchants used the Abjad numerals. It was not until Fibonacci that the Arabic numeral system was used by a large population.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I notice you've tried to sneak in the adjective "laptop" in there. I think it would be erring on your side to suggest that no more than half the chips Intel produces are for laptops, the remaining being for desktop and servers. If your figures are correct (which I seriously doubt), then that puts Apple down to buying a maximum of 5% of Intels overall chip production. (Even then, whilst I accept there are possibly a higher proportion of Apple users in the US, that is not the case here in Europe where Apple's penetration for computers is very low.)
And they don't buy any of the $50 low end chips that end up in your $399 PC.
Except that you're now (presumably) talking about $399 PCs in general, not just laptops - I detect some serious massaging of figures now on your part.
However, if you're talking about $399 (or in my case £399) laptops, then I call BS on you. Sure, a lot of home users buy a cheap laptop as a second home machine but the biggest buyers of laptops are corporates who do not buy the cheapest machines. Therefore, by supposition, higher grade chips also go into Dell's, HP's, Lenovo's, etc. mid- to high- end laptops which, because there are more of those than there are Macs sold, puts Apple into a much smaller minority than you are claiming.
So please do not exaggerate the Mac's penetration (outside of the US at least) - there really are not that many of them about. As I've said previously on Slashdot, having spent 25+ years as a technical person in telecomms and IT travelling quite regularly around Europe and parts of the Middle East, I have seen a total of 3 Mac machines ever - one was an American tutor on a course I did, one was a student posing in the local Starbucks with one, and a friend of mine has a surplus Mac given to him by his boss that he has no idea what to do with and is still in the box.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.