65nm news from Intel

mas

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2004
43
0
18,530
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message news:<24zYc.102338$UTP.50876@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp?type=technologyNews&localeKey=en_IN&storyID=6098883
>
> Yousuf Khan

official press release,

http://crew.tweakers.net/Wouter/Press65nm804a.pdf

more publicity,

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1640647,00.asp
http://news.com.com/Intel+to+throttle+power+by+enhancing+silicon/2100-1006_3-5327521.html?tag=nefd.top
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BE706E5AF-C144-4A19-936D-1943CB16A394%

Looks damn good on paper.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:24zYc.102338$UTP.50876@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp?type=technologyNews&localeKey=en_IN&storyID=6098883
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>

I don't know, maybe it's just me but it seems like this article puts way to
much importance on the manufacturing process a CPU is made on.. Not that
these things aren't important at all... But the fact that my Athlon64 3000+
is still made on a .13 process really didn't discourage me at all.. My
system still performs extremely well despite being a "generation behind"
Intel's Prescott.

Carlo
 

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

It looks like AMD is progressing nicely with .09
This website shows the Athlon 64 4000+ and 3800+ as
well as the FX-55 as scheduled for release in October.

http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/

Mobile Athlon 64 chips for thin and light notebooks are
being made now on .09

Carlo Razzeto wrote:

> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> news:24zYc.102338$UTP.50876@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp?type=technologyNews&localeKey=en_IN&storyID=6098883
> >
> > Yousuf Khan
> >
> >
>
> I don't know, maybe it's just me but it seems like this article puts way to
> much importance on the manufacturing process a CPU is made on.. Not that
> these things aren't important at all... But the fact that my Athlon64 3000+
> is still made on a .13 process really didn't discourage me at all.. My
> system still performs extremely well despite being a "generation behind"
> Intel's Prescott.
>
> Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:54:23 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
<crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
>news:24zYc.102338$UTP.50876@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp?type=technologyNews&localeKey=en_IN&storyID=6098883
>>
>
>I don't know, maybe it's just me but it seems like this article puts way to
>much importance on the manufacturing process a CPU is made on.. Not that
>these things aren't important at all... But the fact that my Athlon64 3000+
>is still made on a .13 process really didn't discourage me at all.. My
>system still performs extremely well despite being a "generation behind"
>Intel's Prescott.

The important difference is that Athlon64 3000+ costs AMD more to
build than Intel's Prescott 3.0GHz chips, yet sells for less. New
process generation is equally one part technology, one part financial
these days (case-in-point, Intel is very aggressively moving the
low-end Celeron to the newest manufacturing product rather than just
focusing on high-end chips first).

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 

jk

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
652
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

JK wrote:

> It looks like AMD is progressing nicely with .09
> This website shows the Athlon 64 4000+ and 3800+

The 3800+ on .09 that is. The 3800+ on .13 was released earlier.

> as
> well as the FX-55 as scheduled for release in October.
>
> http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/
>
> Mobile Athlon 64 chips for thin and light notebooks are
> being made now on .09
>
> Carlo Razzeto wrote:
>
> > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
> > news:24zYc.102338$UTP.50876@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp?type=technologyNews&localeKey=en_IN&storyID=6098883
> > >
> > > Yousuf Khan
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I don't know, maybe it's just me but it seems like this article puts way to
> > much importance on the manufacturing process a CPU is made on.. Not that
> > these things aren't important at all... But the fact that my Athlon64 3000+
> > is still made on a .13 process really didn't discourage me at all.. My
> > system still performs extremely well despite being a "generation behind"
> > Intel's Prescott.
> >
> > Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:r5n7j0ljl4vhlnr2t1nmfmdklpbgf62f6p@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:54:23 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
> <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The important difference is that Athlon64 3000+ costs AMD more to
> build than Intel's Prescott 3.0GHz chips, yet sells for less. New
> process generation is equally one part technology, one part financial
> these days (case-in-point, Intel is very aggressively moving the
> low-end Celeron to the newest manufacturing product rather than just
> focusing on high-end chips first).
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

This I realize and I'm not trying to take that away... I'm just saying that
if I didn't know any better and I were to read the article I might tend to
automatically assume that a .13 chip is worse than a .09 chip etc.... When
the truth is the manufacturing process is not really going to have a huge
impact in performance (unless of course it means they can get more MHz out
of it).

Carlo
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Carlo Razzeto wrote:
> I don't know, maybe it's just me but it seems like this article puts
> way to much importance on the manufacturing process a CPU is made
> on.. Not that these things aren't important at all... But the fact
> that my Athlon64 3000+ is still made on a .13 process really didn't
> discourage me at all.. My system still performs extremely well
> despite being a "generation behind" Intel's Prescott.

Shhh! Intel needs a little bit of a pick-me-up. Let it enjoy its usual
fawning coverage, like from yesteryear. :)

Yousuf Khan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:55:47 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
<crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:r5n7j0ljl4vhlnr2t1nmfmdklpbgf62f6p@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:54:23 -0400, "Carlo Razzeto"
>> <crazzeto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The important difference is that Athlon64 3000+ costs AMD more to
>> build than Intel's Prescott 3.0GHz chips, yet sells for less. New
>> process generation is equally one part technology, one part financial
>> these days (case-in-point, Intel is very aggressively moving the
>> low-end Celeron to the newest manufacturing product rather than just
>> focusing on high-end chips first).
>
>This I realize and I'm not trying to take that away... I'm just saying that
>if I didn't know any better and I were to read the article I might tend to
>automatically assume that a .13 chip is worse than a .09 chip etc.... When
>the truth is the manufacturing process is not really going to have a huge
>impact in performance (unless of course it means they can get more MHz out
>of it).

Well, until very recently a new manufacturing processes DID mean that
they could get more MHz out of it, usually quite a bit more MHz. On
the old 180nm process the P4 struggled to reach 2.0GHz, while on the
130nm process Intel has managed to push the chip up to 3.4GHz.
Previously the gains were even larger, with the 250nm PIII topping out
at 600MHz and the 180nm eventually managing 1.13GHz.

However the new 90nm fab process has maybe thrown this automatic
assumption of much higher clock speeds into question, at least for the
time being. Intel's still having trouble getting the "Prescott" P4 up
to 3.6GHz and have pushed back the release date of their 3.8 and
4.0GHz P4 chips multiple times. This might just be a specific
situation, as the Prescott is a VERY different chip from the
Northwood, beyond simply the process shrink, however IBM doesn't seem
to be too much better with their PowerPC chips. The PPC 970 (130nm)
made it to 2.0GHz and might have had some headroom left, while
currently IBM is struggling to get decent production on the 2.5GHz PPC
970FX (90nm).


So... err.. what was the point I was trying to get at here again?!
Ohh yeah, I think I'm basically agreeing with you :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

This is just extra publicity for what has already been
known for months, ie the drive to 65nm is on a fast
pace, things are looking good, much more straining of
silicon, better internal power management, etc. The really
exciting transistor designs will happen at 45nm, using the high-k
interconnects. Though that's still three years away. And there
is interesting research going on at 15nm, for the next decade.

What's not known is exactly how Intel is going to design
the silicon. How are the multiple cores going to work, especially
with the one bus? Even more significantly, how are applications going
to benefit from the 2+ cores; are they going to have to explicitly
code multiple-threading to benefit, which afterall ain't easy to pull off,
or will the feeding of the multiple cores be handled effectively by the
compilers,
or may be even the OS? I see that Intel has released a thread checking
tool, hopefully MS incorporates something like it in their next Studio.

So far, looks like the new upcoming multi-core chip designs will depend heavily
on how applications are developed, more so than ever before. We
already saw some of this with the branch-predictors, the results
weren't impressive at all. If the thread related logic issues can't somehow be
handled at the tool, OS, compiler, or chip level, then it's going to be a long
day reaping the full potential of 2+ cores. 2+ cores may end up like the
386, full of potential but not enough software support.



"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:24zYc.102338$UTP.50876@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
http://www.reuters.com/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp?type=technologyNews&localeKey=en_IN&storyID=6098883
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <g9WYc.3239$OQ6.1732@trnddc09>, "Raymond" <no@all.net> writes:
|> This is just extra publicity for what has already been
|> known for months, ie the drive to 65nm is on a fast
|> pace, things are looking good, much more straining of
|> silicon, better internal power management, etc. The really
|> exciting transistor designs will happen at 45nm, using the high-k
|> interconnects. Though that's still three years away. And there
|> is interesting research going on at 15nm, for the next decade.

Oh, really? I did a quick Web search, but couldn't find when
the comparable announcement was made for 90 nm. I vaguely
remember mid-2001, which was a little matter of 3 years before
90 nm hit the streets in quantity.

If my recollection is correct, it isn't looking good at all for
65 nm, as the passive leakage problems are even worse. Mid-2007
for mass production isn't what Intel are hoping for (or claiming),
but IS what ITRS are predicting ....

I shall not be holding my breath for 65 nm; you are welcome to
hold yours for it :)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> If my recollection is correct, it isn't looking good at all for
> 65 nm, as the passive leakage problems are even worse. Mid-2007
> for mass production isn't what Intel are hoping for (or claiming),
> but IS what ITRS are predicting ....

If you read the article, the statement is that leakage is dealt with to
a degree by straining the silicon lattice. I don't know how much that
changes things, but they want us to think it solves the problem (which
it probably doesn't).

I thought 2005 was too soon for 65nm, but that's what I read. That
Pentium 4 will be shipping in 2005 on 65nm. Which, thankfully, gives
that embarrassment that is Prescott just one year of life.

Alex
--
My words are my own. They represent no other; they belong to no other.
Don't read anything into them or you may be required to compensate me
for violation of copyright. (I do not speak for my employer.)
 

rush

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
214
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Raymond" <no@all.net> wrote :

[cut]

> reaping the full potential of 2+ cores. 2+ cores may end up like
> the 386, full of potential but not enough software support.

yes, like all the rest of SMP boxes, obsolete and unsupported ...

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <ch1rtu$4hc$1@news01.intel.com>,
Alex Johnson <compuwiz@jhu.edu> writes:
|>
|> If you read the article, the statement is that leakage is dealt with to
|> a degree by straining the silicon lattice. I don't know how much that
|> changes things, but they want us to think it solves the problem (which
|> it probably doesn't).

One of the most reliable sources in the industry has told me that
it doesn't. Yes, it helps, but only somewhat.

|> I thought 2005 was too soon for 65nm, but that's what I read. That
|> Pentium 4 will be shipping in 2005 on 65nm. Which, thankfully, gives
|> that embarrassment that is Prescott just one year of life.

If you believe that ordinary customers will be able to buy 65 nm
Pentium 4s at commodity prices in mid-2005, I have this bridge for
sale ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:41:55 -0400, Tony Hill
<hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>However the new 90nm fab process has maybe thrown this automatic
>assumption of much higher clock speeds into question, at least for the
>time being. Intel's still having trouble getting the "Prescott" P4 up
>to 3.6GHz and have pushed back the release date of their 3.8 and
>4.0GHz P4 chips multiple times.

As I understand it, you could indeed hit, say, 5 GHz with a 90 nm
process (and Prescott's design - longer pipeline, etc - indicates
Intel were hoping to do just that), except that the chip would melt?

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <4134a157.322981650@news.eircom.net>,
wallacethinmintr@eircom.net (Russell Wallace) writes:
|> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:41:55 -0400, Tony Hill
|> <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
|>
|> >However the new 90nm fab process has maybe thrown this automatic
|> >assumption of much higher clock speeds into question, at least for the
|> >time being. Intel's still having trouble getting the "Prescott" P4 up
|> >to 3.6GHz and have pushed back the release date of their 3.8 and
|> >4.0GHz P4 chips multiple times.
|>
|> As I understand it, you could indeed hit, say, 5 GHz with a 90 nm
|> process (and Prescott's design - longer pipeline, etc - indicates
|> Intel were hoping to do just that), except that the chip would melt?

I am pretty sure that Intel could cool the chip, even at that speed.
A factory-fitted silver heatsink, with high-speed water-cooling to
a heat exchanger in front of a large and fast fan, bolted into a
heavy chassis, should do the job.

As a demonstration of virtuosity, it would be excellent. As a
system to sell in large numbers, perhaps not.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ch1fnu$9vv$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <g9WYc.3239$OQ6.1732@trnddc09>, "Raymond" <no@all.net> writes:
> |> This is just extra publicity for what has already been
> |> known for months, ie the drive to 65nm is on a fast
> |> pace, things are looking good, much more straining of
> |> silicon, better internal power management, etc. The really
> |> exciting transistor designs will happen at 45nm, using the high-k
> |> interconnects. Though that's still three years away. And there
> |> is interesting research going on at 15nm, for the next decade.
>
> Oh, really? I did a quick Web search, but couldn't find when
> the comparable announcement was made for 90 nm. I vaguely
> remember mid-2001, which was a little matter of 3 years before
> 90 nm hit the streets in quantity.

If you read exactly what Intel said after they achieved 90nm
SRAM, they weren't anywhere as rosy as they are now with
65nm.

> If my recollection is correct, it isn't looking good at all for
> 65 nm, as the passive leakage problems are even worse. Mid-2007
> for mass production isn't what Intel are hoping for (or claiming),
> but IS what ITRS are predicting ....
>
> I shall not be holding my breath for 65 nm; you are welcome to
> hold yours for it :)

I am holding my breath! :)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ch22ep$qkl$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> In article <ch1rtu$4hc$1@news01.intel.com>,
> Alex Johnson <compuwiz@jhu.edu> writes:
> |>
> |> If you read the article, the statement is that leakage is dealt with to
> |> a degree by straining the silicon lattice. I don't know how much that
> |> changes things, but they want us to think it solves the problem (which
> |> it probably doesn't).
>
> One of the most reliable sources in the industry has told me that
> it doesn't. Yes, it helps, but only somewhat.
>
> |> I thought 2005 was too soon for 65nm, but that's what I read. That
> |> Pentium 4 will be shipping in 2005 on 65nm. Which, thankfully, gives
> |> that embarrassment that is Prescott just one year of life.
>
> If you believe that ordinary customers will be able to buy 65 nm
> Pentium 4s at commodity prices in mid-2005, I have this bridge for
> sale ....

What they're saying is first production in 2005, and high volume by
2006, perhaps even high enough to overtake that of 90nm.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <XQbZc.44$A63.6@trnddc09>, Raymond <no@all.net> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, really? I did a quick Web search, but couldn't find when
>> the comparable announcement was made for 90 nm. I vaguely
>> remember mid-2001, which was a little matter of 3 years before
>> 90 nm hit the streets in quantity.
>
>If you read exactly what Intel said after they achieved 90nm
>SRAM, they weren't anywhere as rosy as they are now with
>65nm.

I need to correct what I said - it was 2 years. March 2002.

Actually, I remember them being every bit as optimistic. Anyway,
such claims are worth almost as much as the hot air that carries
them.

>> I shall not be holding my breath for 65 nm; you are welcome to
>> hold yours for it :)
>
>I am holding my breath! :)

You have better lungs than I do :)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <XQbZc.45$A63.43@trnddc09>, Raymond <no@all.net> wrote:
>"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:ch22ep$qkl$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>> In article <ch1rtu$4hc$1@news01.intel.com>,
>> Alex Johnson <compuwiz@jhu.edu> writes:
>> |>
>> |> I thought 2005 was too soon for 65nm, but that's what I read. That
>> |> Pentium 4 will be shipping in 2005 on 65nm. Which, thankfully, gives
>> |> that embarrassment that is Prescott just one year of life.
>>
>> If you believe that ordinary customers will be able to buy 65 nm
>> Pentium 4s at commodity prices in mid-2005, I have this bridge for
>> sale ....
>
>What they're saying is first production in 2005, and high volume by
>2006, perhaps even high enough to overtake that of 90nm.

Even if that were so, it would give Prescott a lot more than a year
to hold the fort.

Anyway, once upon a time when knights were bold and press statements
were intended to convey information, "production" meant the delivery
of products, and "products" meant goods sold to ordinary customers.
At least in this context.

Yes, I believe that Intel (and IBM) will be able to make 65 nm CPUs
in early 2005, perhaps even late 2004. But small numbers of ones
made for testing does not constitute production in any meaningful
sense.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

gaf1234567890@hotmail.com (G) writes:
> Every version of Windows based on NT (NT, 2000, XP, Server 2k3,
> Longhorn, etc) has gotten progressively better at utilizing multiple
> CPU's. MS keeps tweaking things to a finer level of granularity. So
> minimally, a single threaded application could still hog 1 CPU, but
> at least the OS underneath will do it's best to make use of the
> other CPU.

long ago and far away i was told that the people in beaverton had done
quite a bit of the NT smp work ... since all they had was smp (while
redmond concentrated on their primary customer base ... which was
mostly all non-smp).

--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

> I am pretty sure that Intel could cool the chip, even at that speed.
> A factory-fitted silver heatsink, with high-speed water-cooling to
> a heat exchanger in front of a large and fast fan, bolted into a
> heavy chassis, should do the job.

A heat pipe is better at moving heat than any solid material, and quite
easy to use.

Dumping all those watts in the environment, absent water cooling, is more
of a problem. I'd rather not have several hundred watts heating the air in
my office, thank you.

Jan
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <2plg70Fm26psU1@uni-berlin.de>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen-not@mediasec.de> wrote:
>> I am pretty sure that Intel could cool the chip, even at that speed.
>> A factory-fitted silver heatsink, with high-speed water-cooling to
>> a heat exchanger in front of a large and fast fan, bolted into a
>> heavy chassis, should do the job.
>
>A heat pipe is better at moving heat than any solid material, and quite
>easy to use.

Hang on - I never said that the silver heatsink was solid! It should
be silver for the conductivity and resistance to corrosion, but I was
assuming circulating water inside it. Sorry about omitting that
critical point :-(

>Dumping all those watts in the environment, absent water cooling, is more
>of a problem. I'd rather not have several hundred watts heating the air in
>my office, thank you.

Or 1,000 of them dumping heat in my machine room ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> But your last remark is correct. It isn't hard to separate GUIs
> into multiple components, separated by message passing (whether
> using thread primitives or not), and those are a doddle to schedule
> on multi-core systems. And that is the way that things are going.
>

I'm not sure that the gui by itself is enough to justify a multi-core
cpu. And there are problems enough in multi-threaded gui, even apart
from deadlocks caused by inexperienced programmer mixing threads and OO
callbacks. Consider mouse events queued before but received after a
resize operation. The mouse coordinates are in the wrong frame of reference
and all wrong. Gui designers design as if the event queue was <= 1 at all
times.

What would more likely to utilize concurrency would be the database like
Longhorm filesystem that MS is supposed to be doing. Except that I don't
think MS has the expertise to do lock-free concurrent programming like that.
If they have, they've been keeping a low profile.

Joe Seigh
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

G wrote:
>
> Every version of Windows based on NT (NT, 2000, XP, Server 2k3,
> Longhorn, etc) has gotten progressively better at utilizing multiple
> CPU's. MS keeps tweaking things to a finer level of granularity. So
> minimally, a single threaded application could still hog 1 CPU, but at
> least the OS underneath will do it's best to make use of the other
> CPU.

A data point. I'm doing nothing much except reading this group and yet
the XP performance monitor shows a queue of 7 or 8 threads ready to run.

I think applications like WORD and Excel already do things like spell-
checking and recalculation in worker threads. I don't find it hard to
believe that a typical Windows box would benefit from 4+ "processors".