Intel Unveils 'Sandy Bridge' Architecture

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Unveils 'Sandy Bridge' Architecture

Posted by Soulskill on Monday September 13, 2010 @04:13PM from the better-faster-something-something dept.

njkobie writes "Intel has officially unveiled Sandy Bridge, its latest platform architecture, at the first day of IDF in San Francisco. The platform is the successor to the Nehalem/Westmere architecture and integrates graphics directly onto the CPU die. It also upgrades the Turbo Mode already seen in Core i5 and i7 processors to achieve even greater speed improvements. Turbo Mode on Sandy Bridge processors can now draw more than the chip's nominal TDP where the system is cool enough to do so safely, enabling even greater boosts in core speeds than those seen in Westmere. No details of specific products have been made available, but Intel has confirmed that processors built on the new architecture will be referred to as 'second generation Core processors,' and are expected to go on sale in early 2011. In 2012 it is due to be shrunk to a 22nm process, under the name Ivy Bridge."

163 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I have first-ed this article... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 16:23 · Score: 0

pray I don't first anymore.
From the article:
"While the results were impressive, it was noticeable that as the workload on the graphics increased, the discrete processor pulled ahead in the framerates substantially. We’ll look forward to testing the new processors on our own benchmarks to see just how good the new integrated graphics really are."
So I guess discrete chips will still be around for a while...
I haven't been following AMD/ATI, what have they been up to in this area?
1. Re:I have first-ed this article... by DurendalMac · 2010-09-13 16:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The graphics have already been benched. Anand had early samples and showed that the Intel integrated SB video was actually faster than a Radeon 5450 in most cases. Yeah, that's not great, but for integrated graphics that's pretty damned impressive.
2. Re:I have first-ed this article... by hairyfeet · 2010-09-13 16:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  AMD has a new arch coming out which will go by Bulldozer for the mainstream and Bobcat for the low end netbook market. It looks to be pretty bad ass, as their hyperthreading will have an actual integer per thread with only the floating point being shared. Last I heard they were using the 5450 Radeon GPU for their integrated so it will definitely pump out the graphics. Next year should be an interesting time for us builders.
  Sadly I'll probably sit this round out as my AMD quad is already faster than I am and at 8Gb of RAM I don't see myself needing anything else for quite some time, but Bulldozer based rigs should be great and affordable for my customers and if Bobcat rocks as well as their AMD Neo + Radeon discrete it'll make a kick ass multimedia netbook chip. According to those I've sold Neo dual based netbooks to they are getting around 5 hours on a charge and the graphics and video performance is awesome, and Bobcat is supposed to cut the power by anywhere from 40-60%.
  So it looks like either way you go next year is gonna be a nice time for new gear. Faster and better graphics, cool. BTW, does anyone know if the Intel will support some sort of hybrid SLI? The AMD allows you to put a low end discrete with the onboard and bring it up to midrange GPU performance. Of course the way Intel has been trying to hamstring Nvidia lately it wouldn't surprise me if it don't. You'd think Intel would just accept they suck at GPUs and buy Nvidia already. And if Nvidia doesn't end up buying Via so they can offer an "all in one" solution like Intel and AMD I predict it's gonna be some bad times for them, with Intel trying to squeeze them out of their sandbox and AMD not needing them since buying ATI.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
3. Re:I have first-ed this article... by tepples · 2010-09-13 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Anand had early samples and showed that the Intel integrated SB video was actually faster than a Radeon 5450 in most cases.
  To put this in context for someone switching from console to PC gaming, is this equivalent to a Wii's Hollywood GPU, equivalent to an Xbox 360's Xenos GPU, or somewhere in between?
4. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Keen+Anthony · 2010-09-13 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  I've been out of the PC building rat race for several years now, and I'm diving back in. I don't know what AMD and ATI have to offer because Intel and NVIDIA are getting the stars with technologies like Turbo Mode, SLI, and low heat dissipation in the i7. All of I've been reading about with the new Geforce GT and GTS, has me very excited for all the graphics power I'll have, although the lack of support for Starcraft II on my 7600 GT based iMac has me pissed. Do you think AMD and ATI have something worthwhile now for me to consider, or do you think this next generation is enough that I should wait til 2011?
5. Re:I have first-ed this article... by WilliamGeorge · 2010-09-13 18:29 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I'm sure it is a typo, but if you really only have 8Gb (1GB) of RAM paired with a quad-core CPU then I feel bad for you :/
  
  --
  William George
6. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Manatra · 2010-09-13 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  I would suggest checking out ATI, for the last year and a half or so nVidia has been playing catch up to ATI, especially when it comes to the mainstream graphics cards. While Fermi is a decent video card it's about the same as ATIs 5xxx series cards in terms of performance only Fermi puts out more heat and take in more power. Right now the only card/price point that is considered solidly in nVidia's favour is the GTX 460. Coincidentally, upcoming Southern Islands series (or is it Northern Islands, the names keep changing) from ATI's first videocard will be targeted at the same price point as the GTX 460. Southern Islands should be releasing in the next month or two. I don't know what nVidia has in store really, but we'll see what happens. Both companies road maps got uppended when TSMC (their manufacturer) decided to suddenly dump the 32nm production process and go straight to 28nm. The www.anandtech.com is a pretty good place to do your research. Especially the video card forums, just try to avoid the flame wars in there :p
7. Re:I have first-ed this article... by hairyfeet · 2010-09-13 18:39 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Well I would say whether you are building this machine as an "ePeen" or not. By that I mean I have a couple of customers who spend frankly insane money just so they can brag they get some huge number on benchmarks. Now if you aren't building for an ePeen, I'd say go AMD as the lower price will allow you to put nicer gear in the rig. For example my PC is an AMD Phenom II Quad 925, with 8Gb of DDR2 800, 2 500Gb HDDs, a nice case with 500w PSU, and finally an HD 4650 (I'm not much of a gamer, so the 4650 is all I need, although it plays Wolfenstein and Bioshock II like a champ) and Windows 7 HP x64, all for $650 before MIR and around $570 after.
  If you don't want to wait you can buy AMD now and thanks to socket compatibility drop in a bigger CPU later. That's what I did, buying a cheap dual core kit and upgrading to the quad with some of my Xmas bonus. You can see they have real cheap quad kits and you can even get a 6 core kit for under $600. All you have to do is pick your favorite OS and whichever video card you like (I'm partial to ATI after the bumpgate fiasco, never had a bit of trouble from Gigabyte Radeon cards) and you are good to go. Most games now are just starting to hit dual cores, so a quad will last you quite awhile and a 6 core will be pretty future proof.
  So if you are just getting back into the game personally I'd go AMD. There is nothing wrong with the Intel but when you figure in the higher prices plus them getting caught paying off OEMs...well I believe in competition and a REAL free market. But of course your main reason will be performance and my AMD quad purrs like a kitten, with an idle of less than 96f and the hottest it ever got was 135f after hours of transcoding, and that is on a stock HSF. But I really torture my machines, audio and video recording and transcoding, audio and video editing, and my AMD takes everything I throw at it and then some. I can also tell you as a system builder I've not had a bit of trouble from any of my AMD builds, even those I have built for extreme conditions like construction trailers. They take a licking and keep on ticking. Let me know how it goes!
  Oh, a word of advice...Once your build is done use Autopatcher and Ninite. Just use Autopatcher to have the updates for whichever Windows you choose already downloaded and ready to go, and then use Ninite to get all the basics like Firefox, K-Lite Codec Pack (great for hardware acceleration) and Open Office. Using those two together will save you several hours on a build. Enjoy!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
8. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Keen+Anthony · 2010-09-13 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the encouragement. So far, I'm leaning on a laptop since I don't have space to house an iMac plus PC monitor, and in the laptop end, my options for NVIDIA seem limited to the Geforce GT 330M. I'm sure I can get a lower end GT 400 series NVIDIA in a laptop, but I'm guessing that would require I buy an Alienware or some other beastly looking laptop. I want sleek and Sony'ish like a proper laptop should be, so that's that. I haven't seen an ATI Radeon 5870 in normal looking laptop. Of course, I have been leaning heavily towards the i7 with its lower consumption and increased power. Being future proofed for the next generation of Diablo and Starcraft games is important to me, as is running Sim-anything at full power :D
9. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Keen+Anthony · 2010-09-13 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. As I just told one slashdotter, I've been leaning toward a laptop since maintaining an iMac (which I use for development and work) on my desk will be difficult if I have to add a new PC monitor. :D
  I've always loved AMDs, but even being out of the game, I've still heard major news coming out from Intel. AMD always seemed silent to me. Basically, my story is that I had had enough with my Pentium IV PCs leaving my computer room frying in winter, so I became more conscious to issues like heat dissipation and noise. I decided to go the iMac plus game console route, which proved to be a money and energy saver for me. I ended up staying Mac based through the Intel transition. Lessons learned: when you go Mac + game console, you save on chasing hardware upgrades, but you pay for it down the road by ending up years behind your fellow computer geeks on knowledge.
  Thanks for those suggestions. Ninite will definitely save me time!
10. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Manatra · 2010-09-13 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need to go Alienware. I am typing this on the Asus g73jh which I bought for $1500 + tax. Here is a review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3662/asus-g73jha2-affordable-xlsized-gaming The laptop is a few months old so it's cheaper now, I've seen some places selling it for $1000. That said, there's a version coming out soon with an nVidia graphics cards. I would recommend getting those since a large amount of the ones with Radeon 5870s have grey screen of death issues if you update the drivers. There are solutions, but they're a little weird. My solution to the grey screen of death was to install the 10.8 Catalyst drivers, overclock my videocard by 5 MHz, and then download a still in beta hotfix from Microsoft that had something to do with the framebuffer causing freezes. Come to think of it I don't even think I have to overclock my computer since downloading the update anymore but I digress. The Asus g73jh and its variants are some of the best bang for your buck gaming laptops around. In short, the screen on the laptop is good and it gets great performance. The only downside is that some have the GSOD, but since new laptops have nVidia cards that should be solved. The laptop is very large so it's more of a portable desktop but it will definitely fit into smaller space than an iMac + PC monitor.
11. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Keen+Anthony · 2010-09-13 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  Awesome, thanks a lot! I'm surprised to learn that the GT 330M is still a DirectX 10 processor whereas the current ATI is DirectX 11.
12. Re:I have first-ed this article... by hairyfeet · 2010-09-13 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well why didn't you say so? Let the old Hairyfeet point you in the right direction. Now if you want a bad ass laptop I'd go with this one as I've had good luck with Acer and this one is top notch on CPU and GPU. Or if you are looking for something light and cheap I'd go with this one which I've sold quite a few of and my customers love it. I liked it so much I got one for my dad, it has a great picture and the Radeon 3200 is great for video.
  But whether you go desktop or laptop the money you save by going AMD will allow you to have better hardware all around. That said I've always been a desktop man at heart because I like being able to pop the hood and hot rod it. Have you thought about a KVM switch? I currently have 2 desktops running on a 4 port KVM that cost a whole $20 and when I had my laptop (gave it away to my oldest when he started college) I just plugged it in and used it with the desktop monitor. Having a nice big screen to work just makes everything that much nicer IMHO. But either way you'll save serious cash over the i series which you can then use for nicer gear. Have fun!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
13. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Keen+Anthony · 2010-09-13 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  Hehe. That Acer does look good. I like that the 5650 in it is DirectX 11. The MSI looks good too, but I believe the 3200 is only DirectX 10. Of course, nothing I'm interested in that's here or on its way soon is DirectX 11, so perhaps DirectX 11 support early on is a bit unnecessary.
  KVM switch won't work with my setup. The iMac is an all-in-one from '06, so any desktop monitor would need to share desk space with my iMac which I use for work.
  Forget turbo mode, It's nearly 2011, the innovations we need are in the supply-chain assembly side. I want to be able to custom build an entire laptop, case included.
14. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 20:12 · Score: 0
  
  As a gamer I agree - Intel sucks at meeting my needs. As far as making GPUs for the market, Intel dominates in volume, so clearly they don't 'suck' as far as the market is concerned (price).
  Now when it comes to low end gaming, it seems that Intel is actually catching up. If AMD is targeting the Radeon 5450, then they are losing ground. As Anands latest data shows, SandyBridge IGP is about parity with the 5450.
  http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7
  That being said I am hopeful that AMDs Fusion/Neo future (Zacate/Ontario) provides decent performance at a netbook price. SandyBridge won't be cheap.
15. Re:I have first-ed this article... by rbarreira · 2010-09-13 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  It is not as good as the GPU in the Xbox 360.
  http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-geforce-gtx-480,2598-6.html
  In this chart, the Xbox 360's GPU is about the same as the X1900.
  
  --
  
  The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
16. Re:I have first-ed this article... by petermgreen · 2010-09-13 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  My question would be are those wanting a laptop that is too small for a discrete GPU and who care about graphics performance going to be better off staying with a core 2 duo with a nvidia chipset? or will they be better off with sandy bridge?
  Unfortunately anandtech ( http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7 ) didn't include nvidia integrated graphics in their comparison. Also they were using a desktop not a laptop chip afaict (though they don't seem to know for sure exactly what they had from reading the comments). Integrated graphics performance is far less relevant for desktops than for laptops since it's so easy to add dedicated graphics to a desktop.
  Further it seems anandtech can't seem to be consistent in their benchmarking. I found an article where they benchmarked a 320M ( http://www.anandtech.com/show/3762/apples-13inch-macbook-pro-early-2010-reviewed-shaking-the-cpugpu-balance/2 ) but WOW was at lower settings and the other games didn't match up at all. Still told me that sandy bridge was probablly better than the 320M at least for WOW.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
17. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Nerdfest · 2010-09-13 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  Neo dual based netbooks to they are getting around 5 hours on a charge and the graphics and video performance is awesome
  I have one, and only get about 3 hours out of a 6 cell battery. It does have good video and raw CPU performance for a netbook though.
18. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 22:56 · Score: 0
  
  It would probably be better then a Wii, and in theory on-par with a Xbox 360
  But drivers count for a lot... and intel have bad drivers... so it might look as good, but it would probably be glitchy and stutter.
19. Re:I have first-ed this article... by hairyfeet · 2010-09-13 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  Well I can tell you that even though the 3200 is DX10 it does excellent hardware video acceleration. Now if you are wanting to do hardcore gaming I wouldn't go for it, but games like Wolfenstein and Bioshock II play fine on it, although not with full bling. As for the Acer that bad boy comes with 4Gb and can hold 8Gb of RAM, so no matter what kind of apps you run you're good. And remember just because you don't need a DX11 card for gaming doesn't mean it won't be useful thanks to OpenCL and transcoding. The 5xxx series is also really good on power management, and that 3200MHz HT means the only possible bottleneck you have is the HDD. Add a SSD and that thing will put just about any desktop to shame.
  But either one will give you a decent machine that will do gaming (light for the 3200, heavy for the 5650) along with excellent multimedia. But for the price you really can't beat the new AMD lineup. The only time I build Intel anymore is for those customers that care only for having the biggest ePeen benchmark score. For real world apps I haven't a single complaint with the new duals and quads. And while I haven't had an Apple yet the people I've known with them are loathe to give them up so I can see why you'd want a portable. I may find out myself as I have a customer that is thinking about throwing in her old G3 with Panther in on a new desktop. I'll just add it to the KVM and have a new toy to play with. Yet another plus of KVMs ;-)
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
20. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Anpheus · 2010-09-14 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention that developers could spend days or weeks optimizing for the console's 3 graphics processors and have it pay off with a smooth experience. But with nearly a hundred desktop GPUs in varying usage, with varying levels of DirectX and OpengL support, there's not that "easy target" for optimization.
21. Re:I have first-ed this article... by GooberToo · 2010-09-14 01:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I would suggest checking out ATI, for the last year and a half or so nVidia has been playing catch up to ATI,
  Unfortunately, for the last decade, ATI has been playing catch up to nVidia for quality of drivers. While their quality has improve considerably over the last several years, they are still many years behind that of nVidia; especially for OpenGL drivers.
  And like it or not, for Linux, you still have exactly one high end 3D solution - nVidia.
  I'd rather be a few frames slower with nVidia than slightly faster and unstable or unplayable with ATI. ATI just has a horrible track record even on Microsoft platforms. Just recently, they went through three drivers releases trying to fix simple OpenGL core features. ATI + OpenGL = horrible user experience. If you only ever use a Microsoft platform, chances are you'll happy with ATI; though even then there tends to be some exceptions. But if any non-Microsoft platforms are important to you, anything but an nVidia solution is a really, really, really bad idea.
22. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Gilmoure · 2010-09-14 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  I think the newer iMacs can handle video in and work as a monitor. Might be something to look in to.
  D'oh! has to be Display port output from another system and then the 27" iMac will work as a monitor.
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
23. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Manatra · 2010-09-14 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  DirectX 11 doesn't mean anything really, it's all about performance since most games are still mostly DirectX 9 due to the fact they've been ported from consoles. As for the 5870 mobile, it's roughly equivalent to a desktop Radeon 4870 in terms of raw performance. I think the new mobile nVidia cards are a bit faster. Either way, Asus g73jh and their variants are where you want to look :P
24. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Manatra · 2010-09-14 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  This comment always comes up over at Anandtech and it gets shot down every single time. Ok, yes, ATI had bad drivers during their Radeon 8xxx series; that was about 9 years ago. Since then their drivers have vastly improved and for the past few years have been on par with nVidia. If we really want to get into it I can point out a whole bunch of reasons why nVidia's drivers suck, such as that one release where the driver would actually destroy your videocard because the fan wouldn't spin up.
  
  I know nothing of the Linux driver situation but outside of the statistically insignificant number of people who use Linux to game, nVidia and ATI are equivalent when it comes to drivers.
25. Re:I have first-ed this article... by GooberToo · 2010-09-14 06:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  gets shot down every single time
  If it gets shot down at all, ignorance is prevailing. Been reading on several forums on lessor known games (Spring RTS, for example) and ATI drivers frequently cause problems. The situation I depicted RECENTLY happened and if you search the archives, various problems are constantly pop up. To imagine this is not a problem is to be delusional. Seriously.
  Exactly as I said, if you don't care for OpenGL compatibility, ATI drivers will likely be a good experience for you. If OpenGL and/or alternate platforms are important, ATI is a choice of the ignorant and are fairly likely to experience problems; especially if you play games which are not part of ATI's test suite.
  Bluntly, ATI has shit support for OpenGL. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, pushing an agenda, or ignorantly pushing an agenda.
  Intel's drivers are frequently a problem too.
26. Re:I have first-ed this article... by StikyPad · 2010-09-14 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't want to wait you can buy AMD now and thanks to socket compatibility drop in a bigger CPU later.
  Bulldozer CPUs will require a new socket called AM3+.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
27. Re:I have first-ed this article... by hairyfeet · 2010-09-14 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  But are they backwards compatible? After all I'm running an AM3 CPU in my AM2+ rig and while I don't have DDR3 support otherwise it purrs like a kitten. From what I understand you can go as far back as AM2 with an AM3 CPU and it still works fine. So before I'd poo poo the idea I'd check into backwards compatibility. AMD has always been pretty good about long term socket support. Hell just look how long they supported socket 754, which one of these days I'll have to pick up a mobile Athlon for the old Sempron 754 PC I'm typing this on. Even with the loaded BS on the web today it actually runs quite nice.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
28. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Keen+Anthony · 2010-09-14 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Here's the thing about Apple, and it gets back to the recent Slashdot article about how good software makes us stupid; when you have an all-in-one computer that just works, you can easily grow complacent. I think back to my PC building days. Much of the knowledge I had, as well as the technical skills, were the product of me chasing necessary upgrades for parts that either failed or were not powerful enough for the next generation round of games or operating systems. By using a reliable all-in-one, I lost the need to chase upgrades, and so I feel I lost a valuable skill. Perhaps we can say the same about good cars. If your car never needs repairs, where's the incentive to learn how cars work?
  My iMac is a 4GB 667 MHz DDR2 and Core 2 Duo 2.16GHz with 24" screen that happily runs Snow Leopard and Windows 7, and which is also capable of running some versions of Linux (there are BIOS issues apparently). The graphics processor was the best one could get in an iMac at the time: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT. Unfortunately, it caps out at 256MB VRAM. Looking at the new line of Apple iMacs, you can get the ATI HD 5670, but you're limited to 512MB GDDR3. Seems to me that in the PC world, you can get more RAM. There is a 27" iMac that has an HD 5750 with 1GB of GDDR5 though. But can't I get more memory with a regular tower PC config? iMacs give you things like FireWire 800, multiple USB ports and even SDXC slots. I can't even get an old fashioned FireWire on the Sony VAIOs I'm interested in.
  Apple giveth and Apple taketh away. :D
29. Re:I have first-ed this article... by Keen+Anthony · 2010-09-14 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Previously this was a problematic issue. I think you had to find specific Belkin branded part to get the iMac to act as a monitor for a non-Macintosh computer. Maybe it's all smooth now.
30. Re:I have first-ed this article... by StikyPad · 2010-09-14 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  The AM3+ will be backwards compatible, yes, but they're not available yet, so it's a moot point. Backwards compatibility of a future socket doesn't do anything for forward compatibility of an existing socket. If you buy now, you *will not* be able to drop in a Bulldozer later.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
31. Re:I have first-ed this article... by hairyfeet · 2010-09-14 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhhh...I was talking about the CPU and NOT the socket. for example all AM3 CPUs can be dropped into any AM2 or AM2+ socket, albeit you of course won't have access to things like DDR3 support which of course the boards at the time didn't have. So at least for me it wouldn't matter if I couldn't have all the whizz bang features if I can get a multi-threaded quad Bulldozer with a kick ass ALU for doing hardware transcoding or hybrid crossfire, just as I didn't really care about DDR3 support when I dropped my AM3 quad into an AM2+ board, because I could get 8Gb of DDR2 for less than 4Gb of DDR3 at the time.
  So what you are talking about is dropping an AM2+ CPU into an AM3+ socket, and what I'm talking about is dropping an AM3+ CPU into an AM2+ socket. It doesn't really matter though, as one can get a nice business class ECS motherboard for around $70, and I'm sure that won't change when AM3+ comes out, and of course SATA is SATA, so the only things you'd need to change is motherboard and maybe RAM if you went DDR2 now. But if he went DDR3 now he could get a nice quad kit for $250 at Tigerdirect, then if the socket isn't compatible simply change the board and keep the rest. Seems like a cheap way to go either way, although considering how long it is taking software developers to support more than single threads any quad one buys today will probably be plenty for the next 5+ years.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Turbo Mode by clinko · 2010-09-13 16:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Old news. My 386 has turbo mode. Wake me when they add math coprocessors to this beast.
1. Re:Turbo Mode by Bacon+Bits · 2010-09-13 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  Don't we call those "graphics cards"?
  
  --
  The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
2. Re:Turbo Mode by toastar · 2010-09-13 16:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Don't we call those "graphics cards"?
  Has Intel ever made a quality graphics coprocessor?
3. Re:Turbo Mode by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 16:52 · Score: 0
  To expand on this, graphics cards are really where it's at now. The playstation 3 has the cell SPU's, many media players and cell phones have dedicated DSPs, and now graphics cards are becoming the equivalent mass number cruncher for PCs. While they certainly aren't suited for many tasks, they do have quite a few advantages over good old x86(_64):
  
  High level language. OpenCL is the dominant interface for programming GPUs, and it is much higher level than other systems, and especially the aging x86 instruction set. While this kills off hand optimization, it also increases portability, which leads to increased performance. Graphics card makers are free to implement any level of support into their graphics cards, and any architecture that they sit - OpenCL is surprisingly adaptable. It performs well on both nvidia's scalar architecture and ati's vector architecture, for example. It can even run decently on boring old x86 with SSE. The graphics card architecture can be changed drastically in the future without affecting backwards compatability.
  Optimized for a particular job. This one isn't so much a "benefit" but it does help out for many applications. GPU's are generally optimized for maximum throughput - hence they are often deeply pipelined, vectorized, and outfitted with very fast (and large) floating point units. This can be a disadvantage, as branching performance usually suffers (and can really screw up a vectorized implementation).
  Well, I guess that was only two items, but still - the emphasis is that for what most people want speed for, the CPU is not the place to get it. Video and image processing, game geometry, and 2d rendering really belong on a GPU-like architecture, not the CPU.
4. Re:Turbo Mode by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 16:56 · Score: 0
  
  yes but unfortunately they are on average 4 years too late so they look like ass
5. Re:Turbo Mode by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 16:58 · Score: 0
  
  portability does not lead to increased performance generally speaking.. it's usually the opposite.
6. Re:Turbo Mode by aztektum · 2010-09-13 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  Define quality. If you mean stable and get the job done for most people, then I'd say yes. If you mean blazing speed and can run the latest games at a framerate that would melt your face, then no. ATi and nVidia have it covered and Intel is sticking with what they do best, general computer processors.
  Also their Linux driver support is top-notch in this area.
  
  --
  :: aztek ::
  No sig for you!!
7. Re:Turbo Mode by toastar · 2010-09-13 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Define quality. If you mean stable and get the job done for most people, then I'd say yes. If you mean blazing speed and can run the latest games at a framerate that would melt your face, then no. ATi and nVidia have it covered and Intel is sticking with what they do best, general computer processors.
  Also their Linux driver support is top-notch in this area.
  By quality I mean it's comparable to a current $200 video card.
  
  I don't need to play crysis at 60fps, But I sure would like to at least not have OpenGL 3.3 games be stereoscopic.
8. Re:Turbo Mode by Henriok · 2010-09-13 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  That would be the integrated x87 FPU that's been present since the 486, now with with MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4 and AVX.
  
  --
  
  - Henrik
  
  - when the Shadows descend -
9. Re:Turbo Mode by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 23:00 · Score: 0
  
  Quality and "getting the job done": OpenGL 3 support or at least FBO's. Has Intel got that stuff right already?
  Someone reply this if they actually have. I don't know the answer:)
10. Re:Turbo Mode by timeOday · 2010-09-14 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Has Intel ever made a quality graphics coprocessor?
  Exactly - why isn't AMD doing this first? They already have ATI Radeon / Firepro GPUs that are actually decent. All they have to do is drag and drop one of those designs onto their next CPU layout with the next process shrink :) OK, probably not that easy, but surely it's a huge leg up for AMD.
11. Re:Turbo Mode by Sycraft-fu · 2010-09-14 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'll actually gave the Intel GPUs a lot of credit these days. They do not compete performance wise with dedicated cards, of course, but then I wouldn't expect them to. What they do is get you an entire graphics feature set, the new ones are fully DirectX 10 compatible, with reasonable speed, video acceleration, and so on in a tiny, tiny power budget. There's a reason why switchable graphics laptops are popular. The dedicated GPU is great, but gobbles up batter life even when throttled down. That integrated GPU can do everything you need for basic desktop type of stuff, including new stuff like all the DirectWrite/Direct2D stuff IE 9 will use, and do it on a very low power budget.
  That is something useful, that is quality. Quality isn't only being the biggest, baddest, GPU on the block. Don't get me wrong, I love my 5870, but it is impressive because it is a massive, power hungry chip backed by a dedicated bank of expensive high speed RAM (also fairly power hungry).
12. Re:Turbo Mode by The+boojum · 2010-09-14 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  You mean something like Fusion?
13. Re:Turbo Mode by TeknoHog · 2010-09-14 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Intel graphics also have opensource drivers, including the necessary kernel bits in the vanilla Linux tree. They have been this way for years, and have exposed most of the functionality, unlike the open ATI/AMD drivers. Though it must be said that the latter are improving a lot; I'm currently typing on a Powerbook with Radeon graphics running Gentoo. For some reason, binary Linux PPC drivers are hard to find ;)
  For my uses, Intel GPUs have been powerful enough for years, and this includes HD video playback (using OpenGL for video and subs on separate planes) and simple molecular modelling. An i855 laptop from 2005 had slight issues with HD video, but an i945 is doing fine, and even that is ancient today.
  Recently I have become interested in GPGPU, so I'm currently looking for a quiet Mini-ITX board with a full-size PCIe slot. So far only the VIA EPIA VB8001 has caught my attention, but newer versions of the Nano processor should be on their way.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
14. Re:Turbo Mode by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-14 08:54 · Score: 0
  
  By your definition, then -- no. Intel's graphics are squarely aimed at casual and professional users. They are great for running flashy UIs without devouring battery life like an AMD or NVidia chip, but they are not aimed at gamers and are not suitable for gaming.
  Great for Linux, though. Hands down the best open-source driver support of any graphics vendor.
second generation core? by seeker_1us · 2010-09-13 16:25 · Score: 1

"Core 2" chips were out years ago.
1. Re:second generation core? by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2010-09-13 16:48 · Score: 0
  
  The words core and chips are there, but you made no attempt at an obvious turd joke.
  
  --
  Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
2. Re:second generation core? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 17:01 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I think Intel wants to confuse the market even more with expressions like "Core 2 quad core 2nd gen".
3. Re:second generation core? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  How about Core i8 Quad 793g+ Turbo? ( Core trademark, me )
4. Re:second generation core? by IICV · 2010-09-13 17:46 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Yeah, I'm getting a pretty strong sense of deja-vu from this. Intel released their ill-considred 64-bit x86 extensions before AMD, but we all know what happened to the good ship Itanic.
  Now AMD acquires ATI and starts making noises about releasing integrated CPU/GPUs, and what do we see? Intel releasing the same class of thing, in a package that runs hotter and draws more power which is exactly the opposite of what you want in a mobile computer (which, I would imagine, is where you're most likely to see these chips being used).
  Seriously, Intel, what are you guys doing?
5. Re:second generation core? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 18:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Wow. The nonsense..it hurts my brain.
  First, IA64 is not a "64-bit x86 extension", it's a new ISA. AMD released x86_64 and Intel did very shortly after.
  Second, Intel has had integrated CPU/GPUs out for a while. And you're crazy if you think Intel chips (now, not back in the bad old P4 days) draw more power and run hotter than AMD chips.
  Basically everything you said is either wrong or backwards, and you confuse me because of this.
6. Re:second generation core? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 19:01 · Score: 0
  
  Let's see the TDP figures for the AMD products you claim are superior then.
7. Re:second generation core? by higuita · 2010-09-13 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  Dont forget that isnt just the CPU that eats power and gets hot...
  Intel standalone CPU figures are nice, but add the required external chipset and those will look bad against the AMD CPU+integrated northbridge
  its just a matter of oranges and apples, you need to see things as they really are, not marketing figures
  
  --
  Higuita
8. Re:second generation core? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  The recent Intel CPUs (i3, i5, i7) have the northbridge integrated, so it's apples and apples.
9. Re:second generation core? by HasHie · 2010-09-13 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  intel made IA64 instruction set for their itanium processors.
  AMD made the AMD64 (x86-64) instruction extensions and licenses it to intel in the same way intel licenses x86 to them.
  They now have a mutually dependant existence where each requires the others property to survive.
  Although, i think intel could potentially survive without amd64, whereas amd would die without x86.
10. Re:second generation core? by HasHie · 2010-09-13 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  btw, the intel chips that draw more power than their amd counterparts, are a shitload faster
  amd sucks ass
  on another note, intel should buy nvidia and should stop making halfassed gfx solutions
11. Re:second generation core? by HasHie · 2010-09-13 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  both have chipsets (northbridges)
  intel recently integrated the memory controller
  still uses the x58 chipset for socket1366 cpus
12. Re:second generation core? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-14 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  If your chip is twice as fast, costs ten times as much, and draws three times the power (thus venting three times the heat), you've failed. Consider why a Camry sells better than a Ferrari.
13. Re:second generation core? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-14 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  If your chip is twice as fast, costs ten times as much, and draws three times the power (thus venting three times the heat), you've failed. Consider why a Camry sells better than a Ferrari.
  Car analogy fail, because Intel doesn't just sell Ferraris.
  Also, nothing Intel makes is 2x faster / 10x price / 3x power. As a general rule, for chips of roughly equivalent performance, Intel uses less power (sometimes by a lot, though not by any ratio as large as 2x), and AMD is slightly cheaper (usually not by very much, since AMD needs to undercut to sell well, but also needs to preserve as much profit margin as it can).
14. Re:second generation core? by Haeleth · 2010-09-14 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Although, i think intel could potentially survive without amd64
  They'd be in trouble. They have strong competition from ARM derivatives in mobile and embedded markets, and the desktop and server markets are almost entirely x86_64 now. Nobody's interested in 32-bit servers, and IA64 is a niche platform whose fate was sealed when Microsoft stopped developing for it.
15. Re:second generation core? by Randle_Revar · 2010-09-14 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  "Core" chips where part of the "Pentium-M microarchitecture". "Core 2" was the first "Core microarchitecture". Penryn (still sold as Core 2) was the second in the "Core" microarch line (die shrink). Core i7 et al is not Core, it is the "Nehalem microarchitecture". Sandy-Bridge is, well, the "Sandy-Bridge microarchitecture". So who know what they really mean by that.
  
  --
  Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
This is after their announcement that by Centurix · 2010-09-13 16:26 · Score: 2, Funny

They're opening a new factory in Madison county.

--
Task Mangler
Intel needs to dump the DMI bus and go all QPI by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-09-13 16:26 · Score: 1

Intel needs to dump the DMI bus and go all QPI the last thing you want is Intel video lock in and only x16 pci-e lanes.
1. Re:Intel needs to dump the DMI bus and go all QPI by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  Why? For ultrathin laptops and small factor desktops without room for a full x16 PCI-E lane, that doesn't make any sense.
2. Re:Intel needs to dump the DMI bus and go all QPI by WarJolt · 2010-09-13 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Affordable QPI on notebooks would be a hit.
3. Re:Intel needs to dump the DMI bus and go all QPI by petermgreen · 2010-09-13 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ultimately for laptops and low end desktops moving all the high speed logic (graphics, CPU, memory controller) into one chip makes a lot of sense from both a cost and a power point of view.
  Yes it's annoying that the option of a nvidia chipset with integrated graphics that were better than intel's while being cheaper and lower power than a dedicated graphics chip with it's own memory has been frozen out by this change.
  Yes it's annoying that you can no longer use a low end CPU with a high end platform or vice versa like you could in the core 2 days.
  But while the former of those is annoying for laptop gamers and the latter is annoying for those whose CPU and IO requirements are mismatched that does NOT mean that the decision to go for greater integration was the wrong one for intel.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Time to buy all new chipsets! by assemblerex · 2010-09-13 16:27 · Score: 1

Because this is primary motivation as no one is even coming close to maxing out an i7.
1. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by 0123456 · 2010-09-13 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Because this is primary motivation as no one is even coming close to maxing out an i7.
  Maxing it out at what? Maxing out an i7's CPU performance is trivial on a server that's doing CPU-intensive work.
2. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by symbolset · 2010-09-13 17:09 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Yeah, but for virtualization workloads we're seeing that the processor really isn't being taxed at all. Basically the controlling factor is the amount of RAM and I/O latency. Speaking of which... Sandy Bridge is only two channels of RAM per socket instead of the current three.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
3. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by Cylix · 2010-09-13 17:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'm not sure about the desktop side, but on the server side it is certainly not two dimms.
  Each bank is composed of three dimms and there are multiple channels per proc.
  While I don't have the details on me it's pretty easy to see that both camps have significantly increased their memory footprint and it's quite easy to build a system with 256gb of ram or greater.
  In a few instances there are systems types which do tax the proc far more then others. For these types of systems and other instances where licensing per core is extremely costly there is another type of processor which has a significantly higher clock frequency, but the trade off is far fewer cores. (This is entirely a good thing when considering licensed applications).
  
  --
  "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
4. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  Because this is primary motivation as no one is even coming close to maxing out an i7.
  That's bullshit. Just launch make -j $number_of_cores on a mid-size project and you're maxed out. And it's still dog slow.
5. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by petermgreen · 2010-09-13 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  Currently with intel stuff (it's a while since i've looked at the AMD side) the laptop and low end desktop platforms have 2 channels and at least with the boards i've seen the max configuration supported is 4x4GB for a total of 16GB.
  The current intel high end desktop platform has 3 channels and at least with the boards i've seen the max configuration supported is 4x4GB for a total of 16GB
  Workstation/server platforms go much higher, with the right board and a big enough budget you can get 18x8GB (maybe more now if larger modules have appeared) on a dual socket platform and more on the 4/8 socket platform (though all the boards i've seen for that platform have not come even close to maxing out the chipsets memory capability)
  All the details i've seen about sandy bridge seem to reffer to a laptop/low end desktop platform. I've seen a mention of a high end variant but no real details of it.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
6. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by HasHie · 2010-09-13 23:15 · Score: 0
  
  Maxing out a i7 is very easy, just do some video encoding.
  As for virtualization, it depends wat the virtual machines are working on. if u do video encoding in virtual machines, it only takes 1 to max out an i7.
  amd doesnt even try to compete with intel in the high end market, its market niche is low prices, but in the end u get wat u pay for.
  id rather pay more and get a solid product, but thats just me
  infact i paid a shitload more and got a 980x
  
  The current intel high end desktop platform has 3 channels and at least with the boards i've seen the max configuration supported is 4x4GB for a total of 16GB
  the 3 channel configuration current max is 6x4gb for a total of 24gb
  thats wat i have :D
  the boards with 4 slots arent triple channel, those are the lower end socket1156 boards for the i5/lowend-i7 cpus which only support 2chans
  they shoulda labeled all their socket1156 processors as i5, its very confusing
  i3/i5/i7 how about 'iKill' the marketing genius lol
7. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by MrNemesis · 2010-09-14 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  On the whole I'd concur, but it does depend very much on your workload - YMMV. For most "enterprisey" setups, you'll probably be running a million and one individual utility servers that spend 99% of their time doing nothing and, if it anything like where I work, management will want every VM is overspecced and treated as if it was a physical machine - "the lowest-end hardware we can currently buy for a domain controller is a quad core box with 4GB of RAM... so all VMs must have at least four processors and at least 4GB of RAM!" even when most servers are more than happy with a single CPU and 1-2GB RAM.
  Anecdotally, we run two 16-node vSphere clusters at work, with about 200 production VMs and maybe 4-500 dev/test/uat VMs; All hosts are 2P quad core i7 setups with 96GB of RAM - we rarely see any of the hosts go over 25% overall CPU utilisation (and they've never gone above 50%), whereas host memory is usually fairly constant at 80% across the clusters - thankfully we're not having to overcommit yet (although most of the VMs have been massively overspecced for RAM because certain people with more political clout than me can't tell the difference between "the server does not have enough memory" and "the server is utilising all the memory it's allocated as efficiently as possible").
  There are certain VM workloads though, especially compute nodes or compile farms or anything else that typically runs the CPU high, that'll take any CPU you can throw at them - we run a handful at work that'll happily chew up eight virtual cores if you let them. I'm aware of a few places that do HPC running on VMware (it's only a ~5% performance overhead on CPU-intensive tasks at least as far as our own benchmarks tell us) and for workloads like this, you often really do need stupendously fast CPUs. I was able to do x264 encode across an 8P VM at 90% of the speed it ran on the physical 8P tin.
  Completely agree that memory bandwidth/latency (and quantity!) and I/O availability are the number one priorities for getting good performance out of ESX at least. Management let us splurge on the hosts but cheaped out on the storage side - they wouldn't let me use dedicated 10Gb fabric for the iSCSI cluster as they told me that VMware wouldn't be used for "high throughput" applications - and it's now biting them in the arse now that they want to transition more servers, including databases and exchange, onto the clusters... so they're spending a small fortune on a dedicated storage network whilst I get to look very smug. Payback's a bitch.
  TLDR: 95% of VM workloads I've seen don't tax the proc at all, but that doesn't mean VMs can't easily run CPU's at 100%; it's just that most servers, especially in this day and age of ultra-fast processors, have absolutely no way of utilising that much processing power, the bottlenecks are mostly all at the I/O level these days even with solid state storage.
  
  --
  Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
8. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-14 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  This sounds awfully familiar. Do you happen to work for a place that likes to abbreviate "New York City" using the letters NYK by any chance?
9. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by MrNemesis · 2010-09-14 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, no, I'm based in London. But incompetent management is as universal as shitty apps running in VMware because there's no other way to run nine hojillion 1U rackmounts :)
  
  --
  Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
10. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by symbolset · 2010-09-14 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I have both a Westmere and a Nehalem server on my desk with 144GB of RAM each. They go up to 192GB actually, using 16GB DIMMS. The AMD dual socket platforms go to 256GB with 4 channels per CPU, and the Nehalem-EX with 8 sockets go as high as 2TB of RAM per server.
  And still people want more RAM per box.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
11. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by Courageous · 2010-09-14 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  For virtualization workloads:
  I run a major virtualization operation (>1000 vms). Dell M600 blades loaded with 32GB of RAM and 2x4 Nehalems run at about 25% CPU utilization when fully loaded down. You can do the memory-cpu math from there. In our operation we'd likely run out of storage throughput first, actually, but the SAN is its own design issue.
  C//
12. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by petermgreen · 2010-09-14 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  and the Nehalem-EX with 8 sockets go as high as 2TB of RAM per server.
  IIRC in theory you get four memory buffers per processor each with two channels. With two modules per channel, two channels per expander, four expanders and 8 processors you would get 128 modules. With 16GB modules you would indeed have 2TB of ram.
  But does anyone actually sell a board that will take that much ram (the only nahelm ex board i've seen for sale was from supermicro and only had four CPUs and one module per channel so only supported 16 modules)? and how much would the bloody thing cost? (last I checked there was a huge premium on cost per gigabyte for 8GB modules, I dread to think what 16GB is like).
  And still people want more RAM per box.
  Some people do but for many workloads i'd think that beyond a certain point the TCO of adding more boxes would be lower than the TCO of trying to stuff more ram into one box (depending on how much your cost to admin and possiblly license an extra box is of course).
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
13. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by LWATCDR · 2010-09-14 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  But Sandy Bridge isn't really a server side chip.
  virtualization workloads are not really important for this CPU unless you are running a Mac and Parallels.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
14. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by LWATCDR · 2010-09-14 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  An i7 is a desktop chip.
  For a sever you should be using a Xeon or one of AMDs new G34 CPUs. AMD makes an 8 core G34 server GPU that is under $300.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
15. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by symbolset · 2010-09-14 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. It's a product. How much? About $250K list with eight X7560 processors (64 cores/128 threads) and the 2TB of RAM. Other vendors are pretty much in line with this I believe - I haven't done comparatives on this box yet. The premium on 8GB and 16GB DIMMs isn't as much as you might think any more. They were horrible recently though. I hear Samsung is sampling a 32GB DIMM. No word on if it'll slot into these servers.
  TCO is a different question - not my specialty.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
16. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by petermgreen · 2010-09-14 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  IF it's really as low as $250K that doesn't actually sound like too bad a deal. it's "only" $125 per gigabyte.
  Comparatively I built a 48GB dual quad box a while ago for about £3000 (including VAT but also including our discounts from the supplier) which at current exchange rates works out to just under $100 per gigabyte. I could have got that price lower with slower processors.
  Not as large a difference as I expected really but I still think in a ram dominated virtualisation situation the dual socket boxes are likely to win out.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
17. Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! by mczak · 2010-09-15 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like intel reduced the number of memory channels. This chip is for mainstream desktop platform, which is currently using LGA1156, and also "only" has 2 memory channels (I say "only" in parantheses because for desktop workloads, 16GB which this allows is plenty). When Sandy Bridge derived chips for the other platforms come out (I wouldn't know when), they will continue to have the same amount of memory channels as those platforms currently do (which is 3 for enthusiast/workstation).
Hehehe by squiggly12 · 2010-09-13 16:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Please let me push a button on the case to enable "turbo" mode.
1. Re:Hehehe by vertinox · 2010-09-13 16:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Please let me push a button on the case to enable "turbo" mode.
  Lol. Those were the days. I once worked in a computer shop in the mid 90's where we upgraded some guys 386 to one of the new 486 (DX i think) by swapping out the entire board but we kept the case to save him some money.
  He comes back in the shop and complains that the turbo mode doesn't work anymore and we tried to explain with the new models that it was way faster than the 386 even in turbo mode but he didn't seem to understand.
  So one of us takes it into the back rigs the button to simply light up the turbu LED when you press it. He seemed pretty happy with the results.
  
  --
  "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
  -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
2. Re:Hehehe by Megahard · 2010-09-13 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  Those old chips may have had a Turbo mode, but the new ones will go to 11.
  
  --
  I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
3. Re:Hehehe by syousef · 2010-09-13 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  He comes back in the shop and complains that the turbo mode doesn't work anymore and we tried to explain with the new models that it was way faster than the 386 even in turbo mode but he didn't seem to understand.
  So one of us takes it into the back rigs the button to simply light up the turbu LED when you press it. He seemed pretty happy with the results.
  You should have sold it as a 486 special edition. Would have been cool if you could rigged it up with a speaker to have an extra loud fan noise too ;-)
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
4. Re:Hehehe by Keen+Anthony · 2010-09-13 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  I loved that little light. I won't buy a PC that doesn't give me that little light and a little button to activate it with. Add the ability for me to set the color of the light programmatically, and I'll be brand loyal.
5. Re:Hehehe by sokoban · 2010-09-13 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  And in 2 years they'll go to 22.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
6. Re:Hehehe by DigiShaman · 2010-09-13 19:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The ironic thing is, that the "Turbo" speed was actually the native speed of the CPU. When you disabled turbo, you were actually underclocking it so that applications (games really), would run slower.
  Basically, the parent wants to use the turbo button to overclock the CPU. This is the opposite implementation of when used in the past.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
7. Re:Hehehe by Zoxed · 2010-09-13 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  > So one of us takes it into the back rigs the button to simply light up the turbu LED when you press it. He seemed pretty happy with the results.
  I bet his amp goes up to 11 as well !
8. Re:Hehehe by ricky-road-flats · 2010-09-13 20:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Reminds me of a story too...
  My Dad had a new-ish 386 PC which he loved, he especially loved how fast it was. One weekend I played some games on it, one of which (maybe Level 42?) needed the turbo off, as it was way too fast to play at the full nosebleed-speed of 33 MHz. I then went away for the week.
  When I came back that Saturday lunchtime, he was literally waiting on the driveway for em, purple with fury. He'd been struggling for the whole week with an unuseably slow PC, and he'd tried rebooting, and he'd tried lots of things, and it had ruined his week... basically he was ready to murder me, and woe betide me if I didn't fix it pronto.
  I was in a panic - what the hell had broken to make it so slow? Was it something I'd got from a BBS with a virus? Was it some TSR causing an issue?
  The panic ended when I walked into his study, and from across the room saw the Turbo light off. I walked over to it, pressed Turbo, and let him try again. Problem solved. It was years before he could laugh about it...
  That reminds me, I shoudl dig out Level 42 and try it on my 3.4 GHz machine... maybe running it in DOS in Bochs would slow it down enough?
9. Re:Hehehe by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  Fans... in a 486? Don't think so - most of the 486s (and a substantial number of early pentiums) I saw were passively cooled. I think the first HS+Fan combo I saw was on a P120 back in the day.
10. Re:Hehehe by Kjella · 2010-09-13 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  The ironic thing is, that the "Turbo" speed was actually the native speed of the CPU. When you disabled turbo, you were actually underclocking it so that applications (games really), would run slower.
  Yeah, what's crazier is that there was no particular "compatibility" speed, they were just slower by some random factor. The only time I ever functionally used turbo was on a 286 that would operate at 8088 speed - the CPU in the original IBM PC - when the turbo was off, everything since that just assumed it could be run on different CPUs of different speeds. It made no sense to make a 33 MHz 386 into a 25 MHz 386 or whatever it was for anything.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
11. Re:Hehehe by Marcika · 2010-09-13 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Fans... in a 486? Don't think so - most of the 486s (and a substantial number of early pentiums) I saw were passively cooled. I think the first HS+Fan combo I saw was on a P120 back in the day.
  The early original 486s (50/66/75MHz) ran passively without any problems, but the later i486DX4:100 and AMD 5x86:133 models needed the fans if I remember correctly (especially if you overclocked them, as everyone did)...
12. Re:Hehehe by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 23:26 · Score: 0
  
  Those were the days...
  To be honest, back in those days, how many people ever ran their computer with Turbo mode disabled?
  Not many. If any.
  But computers back then felt more..bare metal than today. At my age, i feel like the future has arrived. Its sweet.
Yay for heating my house! by TD-Linux · 2010-09-13 16:36 · Score: 0, Troll

For serious? Their leading feature is the ability to run even less efficiency than before? Extra speed at expense of power is great for desktops - too bad people hardly buy those anymore. Some of us actually want to run these things ON A BATTERY - can you imagine? Then again, being in Minnesota, I welcome the added heat.
1. Re:Yay for heating my house! by mirix · 2010-09-13 16:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah. No one ever buys a desktop, and they certainly don't ever want it to be faster.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
2. Re:Yay for heating my house! by keatonguy · 2010-09-13 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, what? People hardly buy desktops anymore? Are you posting from 2025 or something?
  
  --
  If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
3. Re:Yay for heating my house! by TD-Linux · 2010-09-13 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that might have been a bit on the extreme side - however, desktops are currently 32% of sales and falling.
  Meh, maybe I'm just an embedded person who treasures ARM above all else and thinks that 640k ought to be enough for anyone.
4. Re:Yay for heating my house! by antifoidulus · 2010-09-13 17:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You do realize that a) Intel makes mobile chips as well that take power saving into consideration and b) TFA doesn't say it, but this feature will almost certainly be configurable by the bios and/or OS.
  
  --
  Monstar L
5. Re:Yay for heating my house! by 0123456 · 2010-09-13 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that a) Intel makes mobile chips as well that take power saving into consideration and b) TFA doesn't say it, but this feature will almost certainly be configurable by the bios and/or OS.
  Indeed: in normal use while web-browsing and the like -- at least according to the Linux battery monitor -- my i5 laptop takes only slightly more power than my Atom netbook. But if I plug it into the wall I can play any modern game decently (with it's Nvidia GPU, not whatever's integrated with the CPU).
6. Re:Yay for heating my house! by IICV · 2010-09-13 17:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If I want to make my desktop faster, I can replace the graphics card or CPU independently - it's big enough that an integrated CPU/GPU solution doesn't really make that much sense yet.
  Mobile devices, on the other hand, make a lot more sense; if you can integrate the CPU and GPU on one chip with a reasonable max TDP, that's significantly less complexity in the design woth more computing power. You should see the heatsink arrangement in my HP laptop with a discrete CPU and GPU - it's insane, heat pipes and fans everywhere.
7. Re:Yay for heating my house! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 17:58 · Score: 0
  
  i agree, i put together a 980x/rIIIe/gtx480 for myself before the summer.
  this fookin biznitch ate more juice than my A/C.
  sent my elec bill thru the roof.
  plus it heated up the house so much, that my fridge and a/c had to work twice as hard lol
  again, elec bill was sky high
  -HasHie, nyc
8. Re:Yay for heating my house! by Vegemeister · 2010-09-13 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  The idea is to make the power consumption scale over a wider range proportional to the load. If you have a CPU that uses 13% of its TDP at 10% load, you can use a much beefier chip in the same application than if, say it consumed 80% of its TDP at 10% load. You can keep the power consumption the same but greatly increase the perceived responsiveness.
  I, for one, welcome the day when the battery life of my laptop is dominated by the load average instead of how long it's been running. My phone can play 720p video, and the battery is good for barely more than a single movie. However, it'll last for days on standby in my pocket. Imagine that dynamic range with your computer.
9. Re:Yay for heating my house! by Vegemeister · 2010-09-13 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
10. Re:Yay for heating my house! by HasHie · 2010-09-13 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  i agree, i put together a 980x/rIIIe/gtx480 for myself before the summer.
  this fookin biznitch ate more juice than my A/C.
  sent my elec bill thru the roof.
  plus it heated up the house so much, that my fridge and a/c had to work twice as hard lol
  again, elec bill was sky high
  -HasHie, nyc
  P.S just made a /. acct
11. Re:Yay for heating my house! by HasHie · 2010-09-13 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  monitor on lappy uses more batt than any other component
12. Re:Yay for heating my house! by HasHie · 2010-09-13 22:13 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  which part of 'my' english did you not understand?
Wow... by bennomatic · 2010-09-13 16:39 · Score: 3, Funny

...I just drove over the Sandy Bridge this evening. Coincidence? I don't think so!

--
The CB App. What's your 20?
1. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 17:57 · Score: 0
  
  And I just met a sandy vagina there. Double coincidence? You decide.
2. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 19:58 · Score: 0
  
  paging the 'good news bible' asshat here.
3. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 21:56 · Score: 0
  
  And I live in Sandy Lane - spooky or what? I think Intel is on to something with this name.
Any news for Apple in this by AHuxley · 2010-09-13 16:42 · Score: 1

Better/different selection of real gpu's? Or is this just all about a slow all in one Intel on one chip gpu option?

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1. Re:Any news for Apple in this by Wesley+Felter · 2010-09-13 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  The Sandy Bridge GPU is still weak by Apple's standards, but they can't keep using Core 2 forever. As long as OS X can compile OpenCL into AVX code I think Sandy Bridge will work OK in future MacBooks.
2. Re:Any news for Apple in this by AHuxley · 2010-09-13 17:00 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  weak by Apple's standards ... it must really suck.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
3. Re:Any news for Apple in this by Yvan256 · 2010-09-13 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  How is that new intel integrated GPU compared to the nVidia 320M currently used by Apple?
4. Re:Any news for Apple in this by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you need a screaming GPU for a Mac anyway? It's not like you're going to play games on it.
5. Re:Any news for Apple in this by Burnhard · 2010-09-14 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I would hope you could switch it off with the bios and use a real video card. If not, then this board is pretty useless.
6. Re:Any news for Apple in this by LWATCDR · 2010-09-14 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  I would say none.
  No support for OpenCL which I feel is really stupid.
  Maybe Apple can make a translator.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The important question is... by keatonguy · 2010-09-13 16:42 · Score: 1

...will it use a new socket? I just shelled out for a fresh build because my mobo's processor socket was deprecated, I really hope they don't turn around and change it again so soon.

--
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
1. Re:The important question is... by mirix · 2010-09-13 16:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm assuming that even if there are dead pins on the current socket, that can be used for the video portion, no existing boards will have this capability... so it wouldn't matter anyway, right?
  thinkin' new socket.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
2. Re:The important question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  The new socket is called LGA 1155, LGA 1356 and LGA 2011 from low to high-end markets. Yay! All new sockets!
3. Re:The important question is... by sdot1103 · 2010-09-13 17:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yup if you shelled out for a Socket 1366 (high end i7), you're going to be sticking with Nehalem until Socket R comes out down the line.
  If you went with 1156, which I did (P55 Classified + i7 860 @ 4.0 Ghz), then you're screwed, just earlier, since it's now Socket 1155, which isn't compatible even though it's just a 1 pin difference.
  I wasn't very happy with Intel when I found this out, since they've recently switched sockets after holding on to 775 for so long, but from my understanding AMD has also done something with the AM-2/3 socket where some motherboards are back/forwards compatible, but others aren't. I think there is a derivative socket, Am-2/3+, that is backward compatible but the Am2-3 standard version isn't forwards compatible. Don't take my word on it though, my builds have been Intel since the Q6600 came out. AMD has done a better job of backward compatibility but the sweet spot for price/performance + overclocking has been Intel chips whenever I've done my last few builds, and I only do builds every few years, usually after new architectures are released so my motehrboards are usually replaced as well.
  Anandtech covered upcoming socket changes in more detail in their writeup
4. Re:The important question is... by Osgeld · 2010-09-13 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it does, Intel farted, which automatically requires a new socket and 4 more power supply pins
5. Re:The important question is... by cheater512 · 2010-09-13 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  And that is why I go for AMD. Identical socket with extremely gradual incompatibilities.
6. Re:The important question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 18:22 · Score: 0
  
  AM2 procs won't work on AM3 mobos due to the lack of a DDR3 controller.
  The reverse DOES however, assuming proper voltage support (AM2+ is needed for the split pane power supply, although I'm not sure if that's REQUIRED, or just for stability.)
  Honestly if you look around there's *Socket 939* boards using the 785G chipset, and 690V boards using AM3, so AMD's current chipsets are pretty backward/forwards compatible.
  Mind you my current reason for siding with AMD this generation is the 890FX. The cheapest mobo available for IOMMU support as well as 2+ x16 PCIe slots.
7. Re:The important question is... by LWATCDR · 2010-09-14 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it will need a new socket.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
8. Re:The important question is... by StikyPad · 2010-09-14 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Meh.. you had do know that *someone* would be left holding the bag when the next cycle came. That much was obvious. I'd be more pissed if I had gone with the 1366, rationally expecting the higher-end to have the longer life. As it turns out, everyone who bought an i anything hoping for upgradeability is taking it in the socket.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
3th party chip sets also apple. They can't stay co by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-09-13 16:53 · Score: 1

3th party chip sets also apple. They can't stay core2 for ever on the mini / some of there laptops and intel video does not fit in there gpu api.
and they don't like to put full pci-e x16 video chips in there low end systems.
More coverage: videos of Intel demos by angry+tapir · 2010-09-13 17:31 · Score: 1

Videos of some of the Intel demos (GestureTek , Wi-Di)
and Intel 2nd Generation Core Processor to specialise in media processing
It looks like ass and still prints money by tepples · 2010-09-13 17:31 · Score: 0

yes but unfortunately they are on average 4 years too late so they look like ass
Looking like donkey compared to another product on the market never stopped Wii games from selling. Or what fundamental difference between the low-end PC gaming market and the low-end console gaming market am I missing?
1. Re:It looks like ass and still prints money by petermgreen · 2010-09-13 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  With consoles each console has a distinct pool of games. Most games are either released for a single console or for a group of consoles with similar capbilities. Sometimes with a PC release as well but the PC release is often either crap, late or both.
  If you want to play recent Mario games you have to buy a Wii (or maybe screw arround with emulation on a PC but most people won't bother to go to that much trouble). If you want to play GTA4 you have to buy a PS3, an xbox 360 or a high end gaming PC. If you want to play recent halo you have to buy an xbox 360. If you want to play recent ratchet and clank you have to buy a PS3.
  OTOH PCs all draw from the same pool of games. With a low end PC some games are unplayable and others require you to turn down the settings and/or tolerate slowdowns. With a high end PC you should be able to run all games well (other than driver bugs which can hit both low and high end systems :( ).
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Game geometry and branching by tepples · 2010-09-13 17:34 · Score: 1

branching performance usually suffers [...] Video and image processing, game geometry, and 2d rendering really belong on a GPU-like architecture, not the CPU.
I thought game geometry involved a lot of branching, especially in the cases of potentially visible set construction methods (e.g. portal casting or BSP), collision detection, and path finding. Or have these problems been solved?
Laptops still have a turbo mode by tepples · 2010-09-13 17:37 · Score: 1

Please let me push a button on the case to enable "turbo" mode.
It's not a button on the case, but several laptops give the user a taskbar control to change the power-management strategy. So you have a "turbo" setting and a "battery life" setting.
GBA by tepples · 2010-09-13 17:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Meh, maybe I'm just an embedded person who treasures ARM above all else and thinks that 640k ought to be enough for anyone.
Then go ahead and stick to your Game Boy Advance with its ARM7TDMI CPU and 384 KiB of RAM. If it's good enough for TOD, it might be good enough for you.
Not a single word on Intel killing overclocking? by Kartu · 2010-09-13 17:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not a single word on Intel killing overclocking, eh? According to anand's article majority of new CPU's won't allow ANY kind of overclocking.
dont expect a 980x killer just yet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 17:41 · Score: 0

i doubt intel is ready to cannabalize its existing 'i7 extreme' lineup just yet.
specially since no apps that the average douche uses come even close to fully utilizing a 980x.
expect a powerfriendly, i5 type chip at first.
wat i wonder, is if theyll finally use a decent chipset (x58 blows) with more lanes for pci express.
i would like to see motherboards capable of using 4 or more graphics cards in full x16 setups (not fractional crap like 16x/16x/8x or 8x/8x/8x/8x)
quad channel memory configs anyone?
also i would like the integrated memory controller to be able to handle a higher voltage load, allowing higher ram overclocks
btw, executing gfx api's using the vector instruction circuits on the cpu, wont be remotely as fast as a discrete chip made just for that (gfx card).
They wont have enough transistors set aside for vector circuits to entirely handle a modern commercial 3D game's requirements.
also the instructions theyve chosen for the avx set dont help the execution of 3d api's at all.
-HasHie
1. Re:dont expect a 980x killer just yet by HasHie · 2010-09-13 21:54 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  just made an acct
  trying not to be an anonpussy
  -HasHie
Re:3th party chip sets also apple. They can't stay by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-13 17:48 · Score: 0

drunk monkey teenager translation:
Apple also has 3rd party chipsets. Monkey want bannanas. They can't continue using Core 2 forever on the mini, because their graphics librarys are already too much of a bottleneck. Monkey like kittens. Apple doesn't like to put full fledged PCI-e x16 interfaces in their low end systems, for some mysterious reason. Kittens, tasty.
Really need to rationalise naming by Arimus · 2010-09-13 18:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thought the '2' in Core2 referred to the second generation already...
With the Core i3/5/7 being the third these are more like the fourth generation.
Might be time for people who make C(G)PUs to have a rethink on naming schemes... maybe even take a leaf out of the software industry, e.g
Core i .

--
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
1. Re:Really need to rationalise naming by Arimus · 2010-09-13 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hm. SNAFU something grabbed rest of my post. :-(
  Anyway
  Core i[number of cores] [major design].[revision] would ease confusion.... then just have list of major design to code name mappings (or even append the name when listing cpu's on your product pages if you are a vendor) and job is done; least in terms of stopping the naming confusion.
  
  --
  --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
2. Re:Really need to rationalise naming by dakameleon · 2010-09-13 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it'll be Core ii X ? The i is roman numeral lower case?
  Core ii9 here we come!
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
3. Re:Really need to rationalise naming by TeknoHog · 2010-09-14 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  The Core Duo processor was basically a dual Pentium M with SSE3 on a single die. The Core microarchitecture, on the other hand, was found in Core 2 processors.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_(microarchitecture)
  This naming scheme will probably continue as long as processors have cores. Makes you wonder how processors worked at all, before the Cores were introduced.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
4. Re:Really need to rationalise naming by CAIMLAS · 2010-09-14 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Thought the '2' in Core2 referred to the second generation already...
  With the Core i3/5/7 being the third these are more like the fourth generation.
  Not really. Sandy Bridge seems to share more architectural similarities with Core/Core2 than with Core i# chips - they were obviously made by different, albeit likely related, internal development teams. SB doesn't support triple channel RAM, for starters.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
5. Re:Really need to rationalise naming by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-14 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  CPU naming conventions have nothing to do with rational thought or common sense. They are the product of marketing. Look for the Core X36 Exterme - Kick Ass Edition (now with 30% more electrolytes) in the year 2015.
  I agree the rational system would work but countless MBAs would be without jobs.
6. Re:Really need to rationalise naming by StikyPad · 2010-09-14 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  maybe even take a leaf out of the software industry, e.g
  Core i .
  i++;
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
What is TDP? by clone53421 · 2010-09-13 18:22 · Score: 1

From TFA:

Of course, we are left wondering what TDP means now, if exceeding it is standard.
Ironically, I was already wondering that. It never told what TDP is, and a Google define: search wasn’t terribly enlightening.

--
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
1. Re:What is TDP? by totally+bogus+dude · 2010-09-13 18:44 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Thermal Design Power. Basically a measure of the amount of cooling required to prevent the chip frying.
Re:Not a single word on Intel killing overclocking by H0p313ss · 2010-09-13 18:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Not a single word on Intel killing overclocking, eh? According to anand's article majority of new CPU's won't allow ANY kind of overclocking.
And 128 nerds cried themselves to sleep... :)

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Wikipedia is your friend by dakameleon · 2010-09-13 18:49 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power
Just google for TDP to begin with.

--
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Intel buy nVidia? Replace Intel CEO Otellini? by Futurepower(R) · 2010-09-13 20:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

"You'd think Intel would just accept they suck at GPUs and buy Nvidia already."

Should Intel buy nVidia? Jen-Hsun Huang, who averages about $23.02 million per year, is not the sort of person who would easily integrate into Intel, and he is important to the leadership of nVidia. Intel's CEO, Paul Otellini, makes about $14 million.

Soon Intel's integrated graphics will have mid-range speed, leaving only the high range for nVidia. The high range of video adapters is mostly bought by teenagers who want to practice being violent with video games, instead of practicing being involved with other people. That means nVidia will be dependent on buyers who are being self-defeating; eventually there may be a backlash against that.

The high range of video performance will always be needed for architectural drawing and machine design, for example, but the total demand will drop, as the nVidia stock price seems to indicate. So, maybe nVidia is not a good purchase for any company.

Should Intel CEO Paul Otellini be replaced? Another reason Intel should not buy nVidia is that Intel is generally a failure at anything besides making new CPUs and support chips. For the success of Intel and AMD in making CPUs, the world can be extremely thankful; that's enough success for any company.

But Intel in other areas seems amazingly badly managed. Intel marketing seems completely out of control. Is the product confusion at Intel a deliberate, sneaky way to sell slow processors to technically challenged customers, or just stupid?

Quote from the article linked just above: "Sandy Bridge PC processors will keep the CORE-i3, i5, and i7 designations and will be rebranded the "new CORE-i3..." That approach is likely to create confusion among customers about exactly what they're buying, given that the average user likely wouldn't be able to pick a Nehalem i7 from a Westmere i7 or Sandy Bridge i7."

Either Intel's purchase of the inferior security software maker McAfee for a "lofty 60% premium" is a HUGE mistake, or the reasons why it is not a mistake should be explained by Intel marketing. No explanation was given, apparently. McAfee has a 21.9% market share selling software often pre-loaded on a computer to technically challenged buyers.

Quote from the article: " 'We believe security will be most effective when enabled in hardware,' Intel Chief Executive Paul Otellini said in a conference call." That seems a particularly wacky statement. "Security software" is needed only because, in my opinion, Microsoft deliberately allows its software to be insecure. Insecure software makes Microsoft more money because people with infected computers often buy another computer. For example, see the New York Times article, Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster. The Apple Mac OS, Linux, and BSD operating systems do not require "security software" because they are made to be secure.

Intel CEO Otellini does not seem to have the social sophistication necessary to running a big company. When he made an announcement in 2006 about the Intel Eduwise laptop, he seemed to be intending to have Intel compete with MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) charity program. However, Intel's intention seems to be just to make a market fo
My turbo button really worked! :) by higuita · 2010-09-13 21:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

i had a AMD 486 DX5 at 133MHz on a 386 case, after some upgrades...
i connected the turbo button to the Bus speed jumpers, so when i pressed, the bus jumped from 33Mhz to 40Mhz, overclocking the cpu to 160Mhz... i run at "full" speed when i was at home and put the normal speed when i left it idle
To my surprise, it worked really well, the PCI bus accepted that speed, the network and SCSI card never gave any error until i disconnect the computer about 6 years ago
i also tried to up the bus to 50Mhz and the CPU, RAM, the vesa local bus (for the graphic card) and the ISA bus (sound card) worked fine, but it was too much for the PCI bus and the network and scsi cards didnt work so gave up from having a 200MHz 486 CPU and fall back to the already "good" 160Mhz... relative power of the setup was about a Pentium 90-100Mhz... running at normal 133Mhz, the performance was a little lower than a Pentium 75Mhz

--
Higuita
Not worth upgrading really... by blahplusplus · 2010-09-13 22:43 · Score: 1

sandy bridge is only going to be like 20-30% faster then what's available right now, the last two generations after core 2 duo have only had modest games in the 20%-30 range. I've not been impressed at all lately, it seems technological leaps have slowed right down for cpu's at least.
1. Re:Not worth upgrading really... by HasHie · 2010-09-13 23:38 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  these days its harder and harder to achieve higher clock speeds due to the speed limits of current transistor technologies, so instead we just add more and more transistors.
  its easier to add extra flipflops than to make faster flipflops.
  for the most part, programs benefit more from clock speed than parallelism, but that mostly depends on the way the program was coded\compiled.
  some apps are able to take advantage of all 12 threads on a i7 980x, which is good since clock speed aint gonna go up much in the near future.
  so if more apps could be designed to take advantage of the increasing amount of cores, it would be a better computing environment.
  actually intel makes compilers for various different languages that come with parallelism toolkits, that help recompile existing code for parallel execution.
  nevertheless, its better to write code for parallel processing from the getgo.
2. Re:Not worth upgrading really... by ISoldat53 · 2010-09-14 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Wait until the next GUI comes out. Then you'll need the processing power.
3. Re:Not worth upgrading really... by CAIMLAS · 2010-09-14 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Are you serious?
  Core i5/i7 are significantly faster than the previous generations, even without the built-in overclocking. They're on par with AMD again (at least in terms of performance), and they're got triple channel memory support - a big win. They've also replaced the vastly inferior FSB, allowing for more system throughput that rivals what AMD has, again.
  If you're not seeing gains, then it is quite likely that you do not need the newer processors - that is, the ones with more than one or two cores. Very few common workloads actually need these newer CPUs, and most user workloads would be much better suited with only one or two fast cores (vs. 8 fast-but-not-3GHz cores). If you're dealing with servers, multiple cores is, simply, awesome.
  It's also possible that the lack of gains you're seeing are due to your graphics processor. Are you a gamer? Maybe that's why you're not seeing an improvement - you've got a slow video card.
  No, sir: your assessment is clearly wrong. Core i# stuff is easily 30% faster than the previous generation of Intel cards, never mind the generation before that. It's the first major architecture improvement Intel has made in about 8 years, for crying out loud.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:3th party chip sets also apple. They can't stay by petermgreen · 2010-09-14 00:13 · Score: 1

3th party chip sets
Less high power high speed chips means less power spent on interfacing between them and less complex system cooling. For most systems that is probablly worth sacrificing the ability to choose northbridges.
also apple. They can't stay core2 for ever on the mini / some of there laptops and intel video does not fit in there gpu api.
If true that sucks for them but ultimately I don't think in.
It appears (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1786182&cid=33570924 for caveats) that with sandy bridge intel is now beating the best nvidia chipsets for the C2D so it won't be a downgrade on general graphics performance for laptop builders to move from C2D+nvidia chipset to sandy bridge.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
minor correction: by petermgreen · 2010-09-14 02:53 · Score: 1

s/only supported 16 modules/only supported 32 modules/

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Not a single word on Intel killing overclocking by DragonWriter · 2010-09-16 12:01 · Score: 1

Not a single word on Intel killing overclocking, eh? According to anand's article majority of new CPU's won't allow ANY kind of overclocking.
Isn't the whole point that the chips essentially dynamically overclock themselves based on demand and current heat profile?