"Pentium 4" brandname ready to be dropped

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

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187

Yousuf Khan

--
Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)
72 answers Last reply
More about pentium brandname ready dropped
  1. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187

    Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
    article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
    (Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)

    AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
    looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  2. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Grumble wrote:
    > Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
    >
    >
    > Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
    > article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
    > (Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)
    >
    > AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
    > looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?
    >

    the dual core clocked at 3.2GHz that Inq lists would be the one they've
    been talking about for months--two prescotts stitched together at the
    pins. Intel has announced Prescott based, Prescott's successor-based,
    Pentium-M-based, and Itanium 2-based dual cores for 2005. That's just
    the one most people will care about--the first desktop model.

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

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:07:55 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
    wrote:
    >
    >Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
    >
    >Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
    >article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
    >(Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)
    >
    >AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
    >looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?

    Err, 3.2GHz is their planned top speed for this dual-core chip when it
    arrives in early 2006. Given that they are already at 3.6GHz now and
    plan on getting to 3.8GHz before the end of the year, I would say that
    they are indeed downclocking their dual-core chips relative to the
    single core ones!

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >

    Newsflash: The Inquirer floats down out of geek hyperspace and
    acknowledges some everyday reality:

    "Intel's aggressive marketing of the kitemark and the Centrino brand has
    paid dividends for it. To many folk, wi-fi notebooks and Centrino means
    the same."

    Staff probably needs a hit of something or other to regain altitude.

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

    Tony Hill wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:07:55 +0200, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
    >>
    >>Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
    >>article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
    >>(Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)
    >>
    >>AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
    >>looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?
    >
    >
    > Err, 3.2GHz is their planned top speed for this dual-core chip when it
    > arrives in early 2006. Given that they are already at 3.6GHz now and
    > plan on getting to 3.8GHz before the end of the year, I would say that
    > they are indeed downclocking their dual-core chips relative to the
    > single core ones!
    >

    Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
    for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
    to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
    rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?


    --
    Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
    Do not remove anything.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no>,
    Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

    >Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
    >for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
    >to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
    >rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?

    Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
    cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds. Multiple cpus
    on a die is one of many things they're trying. The reason people are
    wondering about how low the clock will be is that they hate
    sacrificing too much single-thread performance to get better total
    performance. Also, they want to know how much improvement in total
    performance that they're going to get.

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

    Greg Lindahl wrote:
    > In article <rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no>,
    > Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
    >>for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
    >>to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
    >>rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?
    >
    >
    > Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
    > cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.

    Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example.
    Multi-core would be the first significant change to
    the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were
    released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime
    is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is
    nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months.

    The situation has been much the same for the P4 since
    it first came out. Many small changes have been made
    to allow Intel to keep jacking up clock speeds, but
    the basic chip design has stayed the same.

    You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
    Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
    without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
    since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
    motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.

    > Multiple cpus
    > on a die is one of many things they're trying. The reason people are
    > wondering about how low the clock will be is that they hate
    > sacrificing too much single-thread performance to get better total
    > performance. Also, they want to know how much improvement in total
    > performance that they're going to get.
    >


    --
    Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
    Do not remove anything.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    >> Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
    >> cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.
    > Such as ?

    pipelining, OOO execution, bigger caches, faster caches, higher
    associativity in caches, fewer cycles for some operations, on-board memory
    controller, wider busses, better compilers, SMT, more registers, new
    instructions, more reservation stations, more ALUs, better branch
    predictors, ...

    > Take the AMD64 processors, for example. Multi-core would be the first
    > significant change to the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240
    > were released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime is a steady
    > jacking up of clock speeds and there is nothing else on the horizon for
    > the next 6 to 9 months.

    Only Ghz can be changed without some significant redesign, so it's no wonder
    that within a short time span nothing else than Ghz will change.


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

    Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote :

    > You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
    > Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
    > without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
    > since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
    > motherboard for Pentium M

    yes You can, in Japan :o)

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

    Grumble wrote:
    > Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
    >
    > Is Intel's x86 dual-core based on Northwood? Prescott? P6? PM? The
    > article mentions 3.2 GHz, which, if accurate, rules out P6 and PM.
    > (Unless 3.2 GHz = two cores at 1.6 GHz... just kidding.)

    The initial ones are going to be based on Prescott, should be here by 2006.
    Then probably a year later, they'll probably have ones based off of
    Pentium-M.

    > AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
    > looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?

    It's likely that all of the dual cores whether from AMD or Intel will be a
    couple frequency steps behind their single-core cousins. I think the only
    question is how many frequency steps behind they will be, and whether one
    mfg or the other will be able to keep the percentage of the drop lower than
    the other (eg. one might only be one step behind their own single-core,
    while the other one might be two steps behind).

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

    Rob Stow wrote:
    > Greg Lindahl wrote:
    >> Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
    >> cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.
    >
    > Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example.
    > Multi-core would be the first significant change to
    > the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were
    > released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime
    > is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is
    > nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months.

    Well, I think Greg was referring to the overall evolution of the
    microprocessors over the last several years. You could say the increase in
    cache sizes, better branch-prediction, prefetch tweaking, etc. that's been
    done over the last several years has been done to improve instruction
    efficiency without needing to jack up clockrates. Of course another one of
    the performance tweaks that's been done over the years is the jacking up of
    the number of instruction pipeline stages, which was done mainly to
    facilitate jacking up the clockrates. But both mfgs have tried a number of
    techniques to increase performance in several areas.

    Of course it looks like AMD has done much more in the last little while to
    increase performance, with the integrated RAM controllers, and
    Hypertransport I/O links.

    > You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
    > Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
    > without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
    > since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
    > motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.

    You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may
    be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them. :-)

    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559

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

    RusH wrote:
    > Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote :
    >
    >
    >>You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
    >>Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
    >>without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
    >>since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
    >>motherboard for Pentium M
    >
    >
    > yes You can, in Japan :o)
    >
    > Pozdrawiam.

    Can you get me anything more detailed ?
    Brand/Model ? URL ?

    Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
    and could perhaps ship something to me.

    --
    Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
    Do not remove anything.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Rob Stow wrote:

    > RusH wrote:
    >
    >> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote :
    >>
    >>
    >>> You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
    >>> Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
    >>> without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
    >>> since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
    >>> motherboard for Pentium M
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> yes You can, in Japan :o)
    >>
    >> Pozdrawiam.
    >
    >
    > Can you get me anything more detailed ?
    > Brand/Model ? URL ?
    >
    > Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
    > and could perhaps ship something to me.

    Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.

    --
    Mike Smith
  14. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Rob Stow wrote:

    > You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
    > Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
    > without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
    > since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
    > motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.

    Given that the M/B vendors have done other things Intel didn't like,
    such as dual Celeron boards and BIOS support for overclock for examples,
    I have to think that this is because the M/B vendors don't see the
    demand, rather than because there's some conspiracy.

    I'm open to another explanation, I just have faith in greed providing me
    with toys ;-)

    --
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
    "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
    last possible moment - but no longer" -me
  15. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) writes:

    >In article <rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no>,
    >Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:

    >>Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
    >>for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
    >>to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
    >>rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?

    >Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
    >cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds. Multiple cpus
    >on a die is one of many things they're trying. The reason people are
    >wondering about how low the clock will be is that they hate
    >sacrificing too much single-thread performance to get better total
    >performance. Also, they want to know how much improvement in total
    >performance that they're going to get.


    Its possible they wouldn't have to. If AMD's highest clocked dual core
    in 90nm by A4 2004 is 2.5 GHz, and their highest clocked single core in
    90nm reaches 3.5 GHz, it may be possible to overclock your 2.5 GHz dual
    core to 3.5 GHz. That's assuming the circuits are the same on the dual
    core part -- they might use more lower performance lower power
    transistors on the dual core parts so this is not possible. If you
    could do it might require more power than some motherboards and power
    supplies could handle, and produce enough heat to require a really top
    notch heatsink and fan. But if the transistors were the same on the dual
    core part I could see this being a favorite activity among overclockers.

    Another route would be to support cool'n'quiet on a per core basis, to
    allow the OS or BIOS to dynamically manage the power draw and heat on
    each core. Each would be capable of 3.5 GHz, but when one went up to
    that speed, the other might drop to low power mode of only 1 GHz. It'd
    take OS support for this regardless of how its managed since the OS
    would need to know if one CPU is 3-4x faster than the other.

    Better yet, for the long term, might be to have one high performance
    core and a bunch of little ones for less important tasks. A K8 type
    core along with four cores that were more on the order of VIA's new C7
    in terms of size, power usage and performance.

    --
    Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Thomas Jefferson
  16. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote :

    > Rob Stow wrote:

    >> Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
    >> and could perhaps ship something to me.
    >
    > Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.

    http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22pentium+m+motherboard
    first hit - doh

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

    RusH wrote:
    > Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote :
    >
    >
    >>Rob Stow wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
    >>>and could perhaps ship something to me.
    >>
    >>Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.
    >
    >
    > http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22pentium+m+motherboard
    > first hit - doh
    >

    In the section you snipped you missed the part about
    wanting an ATX motherboard.

    The AOpen one is just another one of those
    less-than-full-featured micros. Only 2 DIMM
    slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it -
    particularly when it costs twice as much as a
    full-featured ATX board. A lot of people - but
    not me - would also be disappointed by no AGP 3.0.


    --
    Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
    Do not remove anything.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > Rob Stow wrote:
    >
    >>Greg Lindahl wrote:
    >>
    >>>Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
    >>>cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.
    >>
    >>Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example.
    >>Multi-core would be the first significant change to
    >>the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were
    >>released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime
    >>is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is
    >>nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months.
    >
    >
    > Well, I think Greg was referring to the overall evolution of the
    > microprocessors over the last several years. You could say the increase in
    > cache sizes, better branch-prediction, prefetch tweaking, etc. that's been
    > done over the last several years has been done to improve instruction
    > efficiency without needing to jack up clockrates. Of course another one of
    > the performance tweaks that's been done over the years is the jacking up of
    > the number of instruction pipeline stages, which was done mainly to
    > facilitate jacking up the clockrates. But both mfgs have tried a number of
    > techniques to increase performance in several areas.
    >
    > Of course it looks like AMD has done much more in the last little while to
    > increase performance, with the integrated RAM controllers, and
    > Hypertransport I/O links.
    >
    >
    >>You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
    >>Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
    >>without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
    >>since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
    >>motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.
    >
    >
    > You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may
    > be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them. :-)
    >
    > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
    >

    Reet petite and awesome neat :-)

    What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
    tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.


    --
    Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
    Do not remove anything.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Rob Stow wrote:
    >> You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon
    >> you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to
    >> power them. :-) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
    >>
    >
    > Reet petite and awesome neat :-)
    >
    > What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
    > tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.

    And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
    they use their cellphones. :-)

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

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> writes:

    > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187

    The Digitino Cometh !
  21. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Rob Stow wrote:

    > RusH wrote:
    >
    >> Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote :
    >>
    >>> Rob Stow wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
    >>>> and could perhaps ship something to me.
    >>>
    >>> Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.
    >>
    >> http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22pentium+m+motherboard
    >> first hit - doh
    >
    > In the section you snipped you missed the part about
    > wanting an ATX motherboard.
    >
    > The AOpen one is just another one of those
    > less-than-full-featured micros. Only 2 DIMM
    > slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it -
    > particularly when it costs twice as much as a
    > full-featured ATX board.

    Indeed. If I were really desperate, I could buy one of those mini-ITX
    jobs from Commell or Lippert, but damn are they expensive.

    > A lot of people - but
    > not me - would also be disappointed by no AGP 3.0.

    I could go either way. I would love to build a Pentium M gaming system,
    but what I'm really looking for is to be able to build low-power,
    low-noise (preferably silent) servers to experiment with. (I live in a
    small apartment and don't have the luxury of a spare room where I can
    put all the computers and then keep the door closed.)

    --
    Mike Smith
  22. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > Rob Stow wrote:
    >
    >>>You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon
    >>>you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to
    >>>power them. :-) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
    >>>
    >>
    >>Reet petite and awesome neat :-)
    >>
    >>What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
    >>tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.
    >
    >
    > And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
    > they use their cellphones. :-)
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >
    >

    Sales of Chanel #5 are about to take a huge boost ?

    --
    Reply to rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca
    Do not remove anything.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <tB8ed.181563$a41.62910@pd7tw2no>,
    Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> writes:
    |> Yousuf Khan wrote:
    |> > Rob Stow wrote:
    |> >
    |> >>>You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon
    |> >>>you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to
    |> >>>power them. :-) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
    |> >>
    |> >>Reet petite and awesome neat :-)
    |> >>
    |> >>What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
    |> >>tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.
    |> >
    |> > And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
    |> > they use their cellphones. :-)
    |>
    |> Sales of Chanel #5 are about to take a huge boost ?

    You have forgotten the need to water-cool them - it's really
    Channel number five.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Rob Stow" <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:ol_dd.1976$kN2.1018@pd7tw3no...

    snip

    > What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
    > tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.

    For those, you might not want to have the jet engine run a generator to
    create electricity. It might make more sense to gear down the turbine to
    turn the shaft on the tool directly (i.e. like a prop jet) But I think
    these are a long way off. :-)

    --
    - Stephen Fuld
    e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
  25. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    >
    > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
    >
    > --
    > Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com
    > Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-)

    Will the next one be an Intel Pentium Pentium, i.e. a Pentium 5?
  26. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:17:35 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

    > Rob Stow wrote:
    >>> You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon
    >>> you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to
    >>> power them. :-) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559
    >>>
    >>
    >> Reet petite and awesome neat :-)
    >>
    >> What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered
    >> tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter.
    >
    > And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as
    > they use their cellphones. :-)

    Hmm. It would make Sidewinders more effective (in both Afganistan and
    here;).

    --
    Keith
  27. 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:SbKdncX59rQGxOXcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
    > Grumble wrote:
    >> AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
    >> looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?
    >
    > It's likely that all of the dual cores whether from AMD or Intel will be a
    > couple frequency steps behind their single-core cousins. I think the only
    > question is how many frequency steps behind they will be, and whether one
    > mfg or the other will be able to keep the percentage of the drop lower
    > than the other (eg. one might only be one step behind their own
    > single-core, while the other one might be two steps behind).

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18967

    "At MPF this week, AMD said two things of note, clock speed and performance.
    The clock speed was given as three or five speed grades below the prevailing
    chip at the time. This fits in well with the reports I am getting that it
    will basically be a couple of low voltage cores on a slice of silicon to
    remain under the 95W power cap."

    "The performance estimates AMD gave fit even more closely. They were saying
    that the dual core chips will be between 130 and 160% of the performance of
    the highest clocked single core."


    I haven't seen any similar info on the relative speed of Intel's dual-core
    chips, but that's not surprising with the recent flurry of roadmap updates.

    S

    --
    Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
    CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
    K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
  28. 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:SbKdncX59rQGxOXcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
    > Grumble wrote:
    >> AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
    >> looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?
    >
    > It's likely that all of the dual cores whether from AMD or Intel will be a
    > couple frequency steps behind their single-core cousins. I think the only
    > question is how many frequency steps behind they will be, and whether one
    > mfg or the other will be able to keep the percentage of the drop lower
    > than the other (eg. one might only be one step behind their own
    > single-core, while the other one might be two steps behind).

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18967

    "At MPF this week, AMD said two things of note, clock speed and performance.
    The clock speed was given as three or five speed grades below the prevailing
    chip at the time. This fits in well with the reports I am getting that it
    will basically be a couple of low voltage cores on a slice of silicon to
    remain under the 95W power cap."

    "The performance estimates AMD gave fit even more closely. They were saying
    that the dual core chips will be between 130 and 160% of the performance of
    the highest clocked single core."


    I haven't seen any similar info on the relative speed of Intel's dual-core
    chips, but that's not surprising with the recent flurry of roadmap updates.

    S

    --
    Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
    CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
    K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
  29. 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:SbKdncX59rQGxOXcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
    > Grumble wrote:
    >> AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
    >> looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?
    >
    > It's likely that all of the dual cores whether from AMD or Intel will be a
    > couple frequency steps behind their single-core cousins. I think the only
    > question is how many frequency steps behind they will be, and whether one
    > mfg or the other will be able to keep the percentage of the drop lower
    > than the other (eg. one might only be one step behind their own
    > single-core, while the other one might be two steps behind).

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18967

    "At MPF this week, AMD said two things of note, clock speed and performance.
    The clock speed was given as three or five speed grades below the prevailing
    chip at the time. This fits in well with the reports I am getting that it
    will basically be a couple of low voltage cores on a slice of silicon to
    remain under the 95W power cap."

    "The performance estimates AMD gave fit even more closely. They were saying
    that the dual core chips will be between 130 and 160% of the performance of
    the highest clocked single core."


    I haven't seen any similar info on the relative speed of Intel's dual-core
    chips, but that's not surprising with the recent flurry of roadmap updates.

    S

    --
    Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
    CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
    K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
  30. 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:SbKdncX59rQGxOXcRVn-1A@rogers.com...
    > Grumble wrote:
    >> AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It
    >> looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core?
    >
    > It's likely that all of the dual cores whether from AMD or Intel will be a
    > couple frequency steps behind their single-core cousins. I think the only
    > question is how many frequency steps behind they will be, and whether one
    > mfg or the other will be able to keep the percentage of the drop lower
    > than the other (eg. one might only be one step behind their own
    > single-core, while the other one might be two steps behind).

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18967

    "At MPF this week, AMD said two things of note, clock speed and performance.
    The clock speed was given as three or five speed grades below the prevailing
    chip at the time. This fits in well with the reports I am getting that it
    will basically be a couple of low voltage cores on a slice of silicon to
    remain under the 95W power cap."

    "The performance estimates AMD gave fit even more closely. They were saying
    that the dual core chips will be between 130 and 160% of the performance of
    the highest clocked single core."


    I haven't seen any similar info on the relative speed of Intel's dual-core
    chips, but that's not surprising with the recent flurry of roadmap updates.

    S

    --
    Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
    CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
    K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
  31. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:48:49 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca>
    wrote:
    >
    >Greg Lindahl wrote:
    >> In article <rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no>,
    >> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
    >>>for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
    >>>to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
    >>>rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?
    >>
    >>
    >> Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
    >> cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.
    >
    >Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example.
    >Multi-core would be the first significant change to
    >the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were
    >released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime
    >is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is
    >nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months.

    Come now, they've only been out for a year and a half! AMD has made a
    few tweaks to the Athlon64/Opteron core with the 90nm shrink, though
    nothing major.

    On the Athlon64 side of things AMD has changed the socket used to
    increase memory bandwidth (or reduce cost relative to Socket 940) and
    added Cool 'n Quiet to reduce power consumption.

    >The situation has been much the same for the P4 since
    >it first came out. Many small changes have been made
    >to allow Intel to keep jacking up clock speeds, but
    >the basic chip design has stayed the same.

    Err, except that the cache has gone from 256K up to 1MB (2MB for the
    Extremely Expensive Edition and maybe future standard-P4s), the bus
    speed has gone from 400MT/s up to 800MT/s (with 1066MT/s being a
    possibility in the near future), the core was significantly redesigned
    for the Prescott (albeit with rather unimpressive results). SSE3 was
    added in and 64-bit support is available in limited situations (only
    to OEMs at the moment).

    I would say that they have made some changes. Maybe not all the right
    changes, but they have made changes.

    >You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
    >Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
    >without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
    >since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
    >motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.

    Yes, rather disappointing, those Pentium-Ms are rather nice little
    chips but Intel really just doesn't want people using them in desktop
    systems. I have no idea why not, it doesn't seem to make any sense to
    me, but I'm sure they've got some misguided reasoning.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  32. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Tony Hill wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:48:49 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Greg Lindahl wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no>,
    >>>Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core
    >>>>for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways
    >>>>to continue to improve cpu performance without having to
    >>>>rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve
    >>>cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds.
    >>
    >>Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example.
    >>Multi-core would be the first significant change to
    >>the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were
    >>released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime
    >>is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is
    >>nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months.
    >
    >
    > Come now, they've only been out for a year and a half! AMD has made a
    > few tweaks to the Athlon64/Opteron core with the 90nm shrink, though
    > nothing major.

    True enough - and in that year and a half all AMD
    has really done with AMD64 processors is to jack up
    the clock speeds. I'm *not* putting them down for that.
    My whole point is simply that they can't keep doing
    that indefinitely - which is why they are switching to
    dual cores as another way to keep jacking up performance.

    The first paragraph I posted in this thread hasn't
    been snipped yet, but what came immediately before
    it /has/ been snipped. The poster I was replying to
    was lamenting the fact that dual cores are apparently
    going to be accompanied by lower clocks. And I say
    again: isn't that the whole point of dual cores ?
    Clocks simply can't keep going up the way they have in
    the past.

    > On the Athlon64 side of things AMD has changed the socket used to

    AMD has not really changed the socket. All
    three socket types were planned for long before
    the first Opterons were released. For some reason
    they put off releasing the socket 939 versions for
    a long time, but it was always something they had
    intended to do.

    > increase memory bandwidth (or reduce cost relative to Socket 940) and
    > added Cool 'n Quiet to reduce power consumption.

    I was under the impression that C & Q is was a feature
    that has been in all of the chips since day one, but
    disabled because it had bugs in it that needed to be
    worked out.

    >
    >
    >>The situation has been much the same for the P4 since
    >>it first came out. Many small changes have been made
    >>to allow Intel to keep jacking up clock speeds, but
    >>the basic chip design has stayed the same.
    >
    >
    > Err, except that the cache has gone from 256K up to 1MB (2MB for the
    > Extremely Expensive Edition and maybe future standard-P4s), the bus
    > speed has gone from 400MT/s up to 800MT/s (with 1066MT/s being a
    > possibility in the near future), the core was significantly redesigned
    > for the Prescott (albeit with rather unimpressive results). SSE3 was
    > added in and 64-bit support is available in limited situations (only
    > to OEMs at the moment).
    >
    > I would say that they have made some changes. Maybe not all the right
    > changes, but they have made changes.
    >
    >
    >>You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being
    >>Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and
    >>without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but
    >>since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX
    >>motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot.
    >
    >
    > Yes, rather disappointing, those Pentium-Ms are rather nice little
    > chips but Intel really just doesn't want people using them in desktop
    > systems. I have no idea why not, it doesn't seem to make any sense to
    > me, but I'm sure they've got some misguided reasoning.
    >


    --
    BOYCOTT GOOGLE !
    Partners in crime with the scum that rules China.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/09/27/google.china.ap/
  33. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    > For those, you might not want to have the jet engine run a generator to
    > create electricity. It might make more sense to gear down the turbine to
    > turn the shaft on the tool directly (i.e. like a prop jet)

    No, for tool use you want to have an electric motor driving the shaft -
    it has much better properties than any other engine for this purpose (think
    stalls and low-speed behaviour, for instance). Most (all?) Diesel-powered
    train engines are really Diesel-electric.

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

    Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> writes:

    >True enough - and in that year and a half all AMD
    >has really done with AMD64 processors is to jack up
    >the clock speeds. I'm *not* putting them down for that.
    >My whole point is simply that they can't keep doing
    >that indefinitely - which is why they are switching to
    >dual cores as another way to keep jacking up performance.

    >The first paragraph I posted in this thread hasn't
    >been snipped yet, but what came immediately before
    >it /has/ been snipped. The poster I was replying to
    >was lamenting the fact that dual cores are apparently
    >going to be accompanied by lower clocks. And I say
    >again: isn't that the whole point of dual cores ?
    >Clocks simply can't keep going up the way they have in
    >the past.


    Why do you assume clocks can't keep going up the way they did in the
    past? Just because Intel reached a limit with Prescott, which may be
    due to a lot of reasons other than "scaling is dead", you can't assume
    the same is true for AMD, or Intel's other designs. I'm not making
    any claims one way or another, just that you are drawing conclusions
    on limited data. Certainly there's no evidence AMD believes it can't
    scale MHz effectively in their 90nm process, and no reason to believe
    that either Intel or AMD couldn't do so in their 65nm generation as
    well.

    IMHO the bigger driver for dual cores is that smaller processes
    allow for more transistors, and the easiest ways now to use those extra
    transistors are for bigger cache or for additional cores. In the past
    you'd see processors made more complex, by widing the superscalarity.
    3 way x86 is at now there is a point of diminishing returns. Though I
    think Intel is rumored to have a 4 way core in their next x86 design...

    There are certain things that drive a "sweet spot" for die sizes. You
    can only make them so small before you run into packaging issues, and
    smaller dies result in more chips which if you can't sell them all
    leads to unsold inventory that you have to write down -- something Intel
    is currently going through. That's probably one of the reasons why
    Intel is increasing the cache size to 2MB, and moving to dual cores on
    the desktop (since it is higher volume and can soak up more capacity)
    before servers.

    This is in contrast to AMD, which is doing dual cores on the server
    first, where the larger profit is, since they do not have oversupply
    issues, but a much larger desktop die size could potentially lead them
    into an undersupply. Look for dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get
    pushed forward if AMD starts having a lot of spare capacity (either due
    to lower sales in the overall CPU market, or AMD's market share staying
    stagnant or declining) If AMD's market share starts to shoot through
    the roof, look for the dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get pushed back
    to the 65nm generation.

    --
    Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Thomas Jefferson
  35. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Douglas Siebert wrote:
    > Why do you assume clocks can't keep going up the way they did in the
    > past? Just because Intel reached a limit with Prescott, which may be
    > due to a lot of reasons other than "scaling is dead", you can't assume
    > the same is true for AMD, or Intel's other designs. I'm not making
    > any claims one way or another, just that you are drawing conclusions
    > on limited data. Certainly there's no evidence AMD believes it can't
    > scale MHz effectively in their 90nm process, and no reason to believe
    > that either Intel or AMD couldn't do so in their 65nm generation as
    > well.

    Personally, I think we'll see 4Ghz again in maybe another two or three
    years. It just won't be from a Pentium-4-derived processor, which I'm
    assuming will be history by then.

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

    Mike Smith wrote:
    > Rob Stow wrote:
    >
    >> RusH wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote :
    >>>
    >>>> Rob Stow wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English
    >>>>> and could perhaps ship something to me.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22pentium+m+motherboard
    >>> first hit - doh
    >>
    >>
    >> In the section you snipped you missed the part about
    >> wanting an ATX motherboard.
    >>
    >> The AOpen one is just another one of those
    >> less-than-full-featured micros. Only 2 DIMM
    >> slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it -
    >> particularly when it costs twice as much as a
    >> full-featured ATX board.
    >
    >
    > Indeed. If I were really desperate, I could buy one of those mini-ITX
    > jobs from Commell or Lippert, but damn are they expensive.
    >
    >> A lot of people - but
    >> not me - would also be disappointed by no AGP 3.0.
    >
    >
    > I could go either way. I would love to build a Pentium M gaming system,
    > but what I'm really looking for is to be able to build low-power,
    > low-noise (preferably silent) servers to experiment with. (I live in a
    > small apartment and don't have the luxury of a spare room where I can
    > put all the computers and then keep the door closed.)

    I built a SHuttle system, something-51 case, and I put in a 5400 rpm
    drive and 2GHz Celeron. The fan almost never runs, the drive is quiet,
    and I think I have about $300 invested in parts I bought (new) at a
    local computer show. The heat pipes on the Shuttle cool the CPU with the
    fan off much of the time.

    Note that quiet is usually low power, and low power is not normally a
    gaming system. PM is ideal, but pricy.

    Did you consider a year-old used laptop? Gets most of what you want and
    a UPS built-in.


    --
    bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
    SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
    Project Leader, USENET news
    http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
  37. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Douglas Siebert wrote:
    > Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> writes:
    >
    >
    >>True enough - and in that year and a half all AMD
    >>has really done with AMD64 processors is to jack up
    >>the clock speeds. I'm *not* putting them down for that.
    >>My whole point is simply that they can't keep doing
    >>that indefinitely - which is why they are switching to
    >>dual cores as another way to keep jacking up performance.
    >
    >
    >>The first paragraph I posted in this thread hasn't
    >>been snipped yet, but what came immediately before
    >>it /has/ been snipped. The poster I was replying to
    >>was lamenting the fact that dual cores are apparently
    >>going to be accompanied by lower clocks. And I say
    >>again: isn't that the whole point of dual cores ?
    >>Clocks simply can't keep going up the way they have in
    >>the past.
    >
    >
    >
    > Why do you assume clocks can't keep going up the way they did in the
    > past?

    Because we are soon to be hitting physical limits
    in how small things can be and how much power we
    can pump through those itty bitty things without
    melting them.

    Up until now and for the near future, the physical
    limits haven't been what was holding us back - it
    was our manufacturing technology. Now manufacturing
    technology is just about caught up to the physical
    limits, so what will be left except to manufacture
    bigger or better chips instead of chips that are
    merely clocked faster ?

    You might want to take a look at what Keith Williams
    had to say on Monday in the thread
    "Re: Processor heat dissipation, Leakage current, voltages & clockspeed"

    Here's part of it ...
    <quote typos=fixed>
    Face the facts. *We* are getting perilously close
    to atomic dimensions and the voltage gradients are
    constantly flirting with the MV/cm "limit". *We*
    now have 100A on a chip, not much bigger across than
    the wire supplying power to your electric stove ...
    and the current is all on the "surface". The power
    density of these things are on the order of a *BILLION*
    times that of ol' Sol.
    </quote>

    > Just because Intel reached a limit with Prescott, which may be
    > due to a lot of reasons other than "scaling is dead", you can't assume
    > the same is true for AMD, or Intel's other designs. I'm not making
    > any claims one way or another, just that you are drawing conclusions
    > on limited data. Certainly there's no evidence AMD believes it can't
    > scale MHz effectively in their 90nm process, and no reason to believe
    > that either Intel or AMD couldn't do so in their 65nm generation as
    > well.

    AMD is currently at 2.4 GHz with their 90 nm chips, and
    the two that I've had my hands on have had little room
    for overclocking - even when the fan is blowing -10'C
    air over the heatsink.

    Do I think AMD is going to solve this and get up to the
    kinds of clocks Intel hit with the P4 ? Yes - eventually.
    Do I think 65 nm is going to be a magic cure-all that's
    going to burst through the 3.6 GHz ceiling Intel hit ?
    I'll believe it when I see it.


    >
    > IMHO the bigger driver for dual cores is that smaller processes
    > allow for more transistors, and the easiest ways now to use those extra
    > transistors are for bigger cache or for additional cores. In the past
    > you'd see processors made more complex, by widing the superscalarity.
    > 3 way x86 is at now there is a point of diminishing returns. Though I
    > think Intel is rumored to have a 4 way core in their next x86 design...
    >
    > There are certain things that drive a "sweet spot" for die sizes. You
    > can only make them so small before you run into packaging issues, and
    > smaller dies result in more chips which if you can't sell them all
    > leads to unsold inventory that you have to write down -- something Intel
    > is currently going through. That's probably one of the reasons why
    > Intel is increasing the cache size to 2MB, and moving to dual cores on
    > the desktop (since it is higher volume and can soak up more capacity)
    > before servers.
    >
    > This is in contrast to AMD, which is doing dual cores on the server
    > first, where the larger profit is, since they do not have oversupply
    > issues, but a much larger desktop die size could potentially lead them
    > into an undersupply. Look for dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get
    > pushed forward if AMD starts having a lot of spare capacity (either due
    > to lower sales in the overall CPU market, or AMD's market share staying
    > stagnant or declining) If AMD's market share starts to shoot through
    > the roof, look for the dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get pushed back
    > to the 65nm generation.
    >


    --
    BOYCOTT GOOGLE !
    Partners in crime with the scum that rules China.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/09/27/google.china.ap/
  38. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Douglas Siebert <dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net> writes:
    >Why do you assume clocks can't keep going up the way they did in the
    >past?

    Because they have not kept going up last time the way the did earlier.
    Up to the 0.18u generation Intel and AMD have very reliably produced
    clock speedups by factors of around 2 per generation of the same core.
    With the 0.18u-0.13u they only produced speedups by a factor 1.7 or
    less (Williamette 2GHz -> Northwood 3.4GHz, Thunderbird 1.4GHz ->
    Thoroughbred 2.25GHz, and that's not counting the Palomino (~1.7GHz)
    as 0.18u chip).

    >That's probably one of the reasons why
    >Intel is increasing the cache size to 2MB

    Also, Intel seems to have a trick for fitting lots of cache in little
    space die that AMD does not have: 0.5MB of cache take 49mm^2 on 0.13u
    AMD CPUs (Clawhammer-Newcastle differences); I would expect that in
    90nm 1MB of cache take about the same area. However, Dothan's cache
    takes about 42mm^2 (about half of the 84mm^2 die) and has 2MB;
    Prescott 1MB cache also looks small.

    Followups to comp.arch.

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
  39. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Bill Davidsen wrote:

    > Mike Smith wrote:
    >>
    >> I could go either way. I would love to build a Pentium M gaming
    >> system, but what I'm really looking for is to be able to build
    >> low-power, low-noise (preferably silent) servers to experiment with.
    >> (I live in a small apartment and don't have the luxury of a spare room
    >> where I can put all the computers and then keep the door closed.)
    >
    > I built a SHuttle system, something-51 case, and I put in a 5400 rpm
    > drive and 2GHz Celeron. The fan almost never runs, the drive is quiet,
    > and I think I have about $300 invested in parts I bought (new) at a
    > local computer show. The heat pipes on the Shuttle cool the CPU with the
    > fan off much of the time.

    Tried the XPC route, though with an Athlon XP 2000+. It would probably
    be OK if sufficiently well hidden, but as a personal machine I found it
    too noisy. Now, this was an SK41G, one of the early ones, so it's quite
    possible that they've gotten better since then.

    > Note that quiet is usually low power, and low power is not normally a
    > gaming system.

    Thus my dilemma. ;-)

    > PM is ideal, but pricy.

    Pricey - *within reason* is OK.

    > Did you consider a year-old used laptop? Gets most of what you want and
    > a UPS built-in.

    For the machine I sit in front of, that's exactly the route I chose -
    right now I have a P4M 1.8 GHz w/ GeForce 440 Go (coupla years old), and
    I am about to migrate to a Dothan 1.7 w/ Radeon 9600. However, even on
    that machine I'm already discovering that Doom 3 has its slow moments.
    What I need is a Dothan notebook with MR9800 or GeForce 6600 Go or
    something, but AFAIK there ain't no such animal.

    For the server boxes (nothing heavy-duty, just something I can play with
    to learn Linux and Apache and MySQL and such) for the time being I'm
    going the mini-ITX route, with VIA boards and cases from Logic Supply
    (http://www.logicsupply.com) - they specialize in mini-ITX and
    small/quiet stuff.

    I may just end up building a separate game machine, and forget about
    trying to get it all in one package. Then maybe I'll just duct-tape a
    vacuum cleaner hose to the case for cooling. ;-)

    Thanks for comments,
    --
    Mike Smith
  40. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Douglas Siebert <dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net> wrote in message news:<cljgde$v3s$1@narsil.avalon.net>...
    > Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> writes:
    >
    > >True enough - and in that year and a half all AMD
    > >has really done with AMD64 processors is to jack up
    > >the clock speeds. I'm *not* putting them down for that.
    > >My whole point is simply that they can't keep doing
    > >that indefinitely - which is why they are switching to
    > >dual cores as another way to keep jacking up performance.
    >
    > >The first paragraph I posted in this thread hasn't
    > >been snipped yet, but what came immediately before
    > >it /has/ been snipped. The poster I was replying to
    > >was lamenting the fact that dual cores are apparently
    > >going to be accompanied by lower clocks. And I say
    > >again: isn't that the whole point of dual cores ?
    > >Clocks simply can't keep going up the way they have in
    > >the past.
    >
    >
    > Why do you assume clocks can't keep going up the way they did in the
    > past? Just because Intel reached a limit with Prescott, which may be
    > due to a lot of reasons other than "scaling is dead", you can't assume
    > the same is true for AMD, or Intel's other designs. I'm not making
    > any claims one way or another, just that you are drawing conclusions
    > on limited data. Certainly there's no evidence AMD believes it can't
    > scale MHz effectively in their 90nm process, and no reason to believe
    > that either Intel or AMD couldn't do so in their 65nm generation as
    > well.

    Well, their going dual core, that should be a clue.

    > IMHO the bigger driver for dual cores is that smaller processes
    > allow for more transistors, and the easiest ways now to use those extra
    > transistors are for bigger cache or for additional cores.

    Let me give you a hint, 200mm^2 cores won't WORK in 90nm...

    You can spend transistors in many fashions:
    1. Improving the core
    2. Improving the cache
    3. Replicating the core

    1 causes problems if you use too much area. 2 is pretty inexpensive,
    from the area, defect and design standpoint, and 3 is inexpensive from
    the design standpoint (I suspect).

    Large area cores take too long for signals to traverse and are also
    problems from the yield stand point.

    >In the past
    > you'd see processors made more complex, by widing the superscalarity.
    > 3 way x86 is at now there is a point of diminishing returns. Though I
    > think Intel is rumored to have a 4 way core in their next x86 design...
    > There are certain things that drive a "sweet spot" for die sizes. You
    > can only make them so small before you run into packaging issues, and
    > smaller dies result in more chips which if you can't sell them all
    > leads to unsold inventory that you have to write down -- something Intel
    > is currently going through.

    Well, you also cannot make cores too large or it takes too long for
    signals to traverse the core. Thats the major restriction to
    uber-wide OoO cores IMHO.

    > That's probably one of the reasons why
    > Intel is increasing the cache size to 2MB, and moving to dual cores on
    > the desktop (since it is higher volume and can soak up more capacity)
    > before servers.

    Actually, IMHO that has more to do with heat and scaling issues
    driving the need for more cache and the inventory issues make larger
    die sizes more palatable.

    BTW, I believe that Intel will be releasing Dual core Xeons at the
    same time as dual core desktops.

    > This is in contrast to AMD, which is doing dual cores on the server
    > first, where the larger profit is, since they do not have oversupply
    > issues, but a much larger desktop die size could potentially lead them
    > into an undersupply.

    That's a good point, as dual core on the desktop would halve AMD's
    capacity. Maybe Intel should have thought about going quadcore...that
    would sure put some pressure on AMD.

    Did AMD state that they would release a dual core server chip before
    the desktop, or do they simply not intend to release a dual core
    desktop chip?

    Sorry, I stopped caring about the desktop market a while ago...

    > Look for dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get
    > pushed forward if AMD starts having a lot of spare capacity (either due
    > to lower sales in the overall CPU market, or AMD's market share staying
    > stagnant or declining) If AMD's market share starts to shoot through
    > the roof, look for the dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get pushed back
    > to the 65nm generation.

    I doubt this will happen. Intel can easily push dual cores as a huge
    desktop advantage (twice as good). It will show up in benchmarks,
    unlike HT, which was just a blip. I would expect to hit ~30-70% gains
    on certain benchmarks, and also the systems will be more responsive
    since normal users have quite a few processes running at once.

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

    Mike Smith wrote:
    > Bill Davidsen wrote:
    >
    >> Mike Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I could go either way. I would love to build a Pentium M gaming
    >>> system, but what I'm really looking for is to be able to build
    >>> low-power, low-noise (preferably silent) servers to experiment with.
    >>> (I live in a small apartment and don't have the luxury of a spare
    >>> room where I can put all the computers and then keep the door closed.)
    >>
    >>
    >> I built a SHuttle system, something-51 case, and I put in a 5400 rpm
    >> drive and 2GHz Celeron. The fan almost never runs, the drive is quiet,
    >> and I think I have about $300 invested in parts I bought (new) at a
    >> local computer show. The heat pipes on the Shuttle cool the CPU with
    >> the fan off much of the time.
    >
    >
    > Tried the XPC route, though with an Athlon XP 2000+. It would probably
    > be OK if sufficiently well hidden, but as a personal machine I found it
    > too noisy. Now, this was an SK41G, one of the early ones, so it's quite
    > possible that they've gotten better since then.
    >
    >> Note that quiet is usually low power, and low power is not normally a
    >> gaming system.
    >
    >
    > Thus my dilemma. ;-)
    >
    >> PM is ideal, but pricy.
    >
    >
    > Pricey - *within reason* is OK.
    >
    >> Did you consider a year-old used laptop? Gets most of what you want
    >> and a UPS built-in.
    >
    >
    > For the machine I sit in front of, that's exactly the route I chose -
    > right now I have a P4M 1.8 GHz w/ GeForce 440 Go (coupla years old), and
    > I am about to migrate to a Dothan 1.7 w/ Radeon 9600. However, even on
    > that machine I'm already discovering that Doom 3 has its slow moments.
    > What I need is a Dothan notebook with MR9800 or GeForce 6600 Go or
    > something, but AFAIK there ain't no such animal.
    >
    > For the server boxes (nothing heavy-duty, just something I can play with
    > to learn Linux and Apache and MySQL and such) for the time being I'm
    > going the mini-ITX route, with VIA boards and cases from Logic Supply
    > (http://www.logicsupply.com) - they specialize in mini-ITX and
    > small/quiet stuff.
    >
    > I may just end up building a separate game machine, and forget about
    > trying to get it all in one package. Then maybe I'll just duct-tape a
    > vacuum cleaner hose to the case for cooling. ;-)

    Ducting can make a *huge* difference.

    I recently modded a system to use 2.5" flexible rubber
    hose (from a swimming pool vacuum) and two 1800 rpm 60 mm
    fans to provide ducted cooling for an Athlon64 3200+.
    Having the ducting draw cool air in from outside the
    case, blow it over the heat sink, then blow it outside
    the case through another duct provides virtually silent
    cooling for the CPU. Cooling the cpu with 20'C air
    drawn from outside the case instead of with warm air
    drawn from inside the case means you require a lot less
    air to cool the cpu.

    This is the second time I have done that kind of ducting
    for cpu cooling and it worked great both times.

    In addition, by having the heat from the CPU ducted out
    of the case, the need for the two case fans was reduced
    so much that I could slow one down to an inaudible
    1200 rpm and turn off the other one altogether. If it
    wasn't for the Radeon 9800 Pro in that system I wouldn't
    have hesitated to simply turn off both case fans completely.

    After I turned that system back over to the owner ( usual
    friend of a friend situation ) he liked the noise reduction
    so much that we did something similar to cool the PSU.
    Now that the PSU is cooled by room temperature air instead
    of with warm air from inside the case, the PSU fan speed
    was cut in half - with the obvious resultant noise reductions.
    This necessiated the turning the second case fan back on, but
    since it too can be run at only 1200 rpm there is still a
    noticeable improvement in noise levels from the PSU mod.

    The downside is that the pre-mod fans were much
    faster and noiser and they did a lot to mask the noise
    made by other things - particularly the hard disks and
    the DVD drive. Those things and things like keyboard
    noise now seem much louder now the fan noise has been
    reduced so much.


    --
    BOYCOTT GOOGLE !
    Partners in crime with the scum that rules China.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/09/27/google.china.ap/
  42. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> writes:

    >> Why do you assume clocks can't keep going up the way they did in the
    >> past?

    >Because we are soon to be hitting physical limits
    >in how small things can be and how much power we
    >can pump through those itty bitty things without
    >melting them.

    >Up until now and for the near future, the physical
    >limits haven't been what was holding us back - it
    >was our manufacturing technology. Now manufacturing
    >technology is just about caught up to the physical
    >limits, so what will be left except to manufacture
    >bigger or better chips instead of chips that are
    >merely clocked faster ?


    Ah, sounds like "Death of the Internet predicted, film at 11pm"...

    We're an over of magnitude away from hitting the limit in terms of "how
    small things can be". Though its possible quantum effects might hurt
    us before then, but we might find a way to harness them for further
    improvements. I remember 10 years ago when it was fashionable to claim
    that we were nearing the physical limits using optics and we'd need to
    be using xrays or electron beams by now. But damned if those smart
    boffins didn't find a way around that with new materials with amazing
    refractive indices so we can continue using optics to the 45nm and
    perhaps even the 32nm generation. Its even possible that by then we
    might have new materials that ever better to extend the life of optics
    even further.

    As for power density limits, we are still in the caveman stages when
    it comes to handling stuff like that, blowing air over pieces of metal
    pressed down on the chip surface...c'mon! There are plenty of ways to
    help with the cooling of localized heat buildup, from simple liquid
    cooling like overclockers (and Apple) are doing now, to integrated
    Peltier's (AMD's patent from 2001 that was recently publicized) to
    stuff that's further out, like routing thousands of microscopic channels
    through the chip for cooling fluid flow.

    True, wires won't shrink as fast as feature sizes (and I think that's
    been true for a while now and hasn't hurt us) That just means more
    metal layers as we get smaller and more complex routing -- luckily we
    have faster computers to help with that more complex routing.


    >AMD is currently at 2.4 GHz with their 90 nm chips, and
    >the two that I've had my hands on have had little room
    >for overclocking - even when the fan is blowing -10'C
    >air over the heatsink.


    Yes, and this is their very first batch of 90nm chips. I remember a
    lot of the same complaints about the first 130nm K8s that were shipped
    being unable to exceed 2 GHz and there was a lot of worrying about
    AMD's SOI process, but since they are shipping some parts at 2.6GHz in
    130nm now it seems like they licked that problem pretty well.

    --
    Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Thomas Jefferson
  43. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:18:06 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:

    > Douglas Siebert wrote:
    >> Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>True enough - and in that year and a half all AMD
    >>>has really done with AMD64 processors is to jack up
    >>>the clock speeds. I'm *not* putting them down for that.
    >>>My whole point is simply that they can't keep doing
    >>>that indefinitely - which is why they are switching to
    >>>dual cores as another way to keep jacking up performance.
    >>
    >>
    >>>The first paragraph I posted in this thread hasn't
    >>>been snipped yet, but what came immediately before
    >>>it /has/ been snipped. The poster I was replying to
    >>>was lamenting the fact that dual cores are apparently
    >>>going to be accompanied by lower clocks. And I say
    >>>again: isn't that the whole point of dual cores ?
    >>>Clocks simply can't keep going up the way they have in
    >>>the past.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Why do you assume clocks can't keep going up the way they did in the
    >> past?
    >
    > Because we are soon to be hitting physical limits
    > in how small things can be and how much power we
    > can pump through those itty bitty things without
    > melting them.
    >
    > Up until now and for the near future, the physical
    > limits haven't been what was holding us back - it
    > was our manufacturing technology. Now manufacturing
    > technology is just about caught up to the physical
    > limits, so what will be left except to manufacture
    > bigger or better chips instead of chips that are
    > merely clocked faster ?
    >
    > You might want to take a look at what Keith Williams
    > had to say on Monday in the thread
    > "Re: Processor heat dissipation, Leakage current, voltages & clockspeed"

    Oh, my... I'm (in)famous! ;-)
    >
    > Here's part of it ...
    > <quote typos=fixed>

    Thank you. I gotta get a speel checker.

    > Face the facts. *We* are getting perilously close
    > to atomic dimensions and the voltage gradients are
    > constantly flirting with the MV/cm "limit". *We*
    > now have 100A on a chip, not much bigger across than
    > the wire supplying power to your electric stove ...
    > and the current is all on the "surface". The power
    > density of these things are on the order of a *BILLION*
    > times that of ol' Sol.
    > </quote>
    >
    > > Just because Intel reached a limit with Prescott, which may be
    >> due to a lot of reasons other than "scaling is dead", you can't assume
    >> the same is true for AMD, or Intel's other designs. I'm not making
    >> any claims one way or another, just that you are drawing conclusions
    >> on limited data. Certainly there's no evidence AMD believes it can't
    >> scale MHz effectively in their 90nm process, and no reason to believe
    >> that either Intel or AMD couldn't do so in their 65nm generation as
    >> well.
    >
    > AMD is currently at 2.4 GHz with their 90 nm chips, and
    > the two that I've had my hands on have had little room
    > for overclocking - even when the fan is blowing -10'C
    > air over the heatsink.
    >
    > Do I think AMD is going to solve this and get up to the
    > kinds of clocks Intel hit with the P4 ? Yes - eventually.
    > Do I think 65 nm is going to be a magic cure-all that's
    > going to burst through the 3.6 GHz ceiling Intel hit ?
    > I'll believe it when I see it.

    You sum up my thoughts rather well. Sure, we're going to get
    better and faster, but it's not going to be easy, nor cheap. The big
    question is whether *we* want to pay for it. These questions have been
    kicking around for many years, but it seems the question can no longer be
    avoided.

    <snip>

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

    On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:42:07 +0000, Douglas Siebert wrote:

    > Rob Stow <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> writes:
    >
    >>> Why do you assume clocks can't keep going up the way they did in the
    >>> past?
    >
    >>Because we are soon to be hitting physical limits
    >>in how small things can be and how much power we
    >>can pump through those itty bitty things without
    >>melting them.
    >
    >>Up until now and for the near future, the physical
    >>limits haven't been what was holding us back - it
    >>was our manufacturing technology. Now manufacturing
    >>technology is just about caught up to the physical
    >>limits, so what will be left except to manufacture
    >>bigger or better chips instead of chips that are
    >>merely clocked faster ?
    >
    >
    > Ah, sounds like "Death of the Internet predicted, film at 11pm"...

    I think you're being a tad hyperbolic.

    > We're an over of magnitude away from hitting the limit in terms of "how
    > small things can be".

    Assuming you're right (order of magnitude), that's less than a decade
    before the world ends. ...not a great proposition for people investing
    several billions in semiconductor research. We indeed *are* getting close
    to atomic sizes for things like oxide thicknesses.

    > Though its possible quantum effects might hurt
    > us before then,

    There already are! Gate tuneling is a quantum effect. ...then again,
    what isn't in semiconductor physics?

    > but we might find a way to harness them for further
    > improvements. I remember 10 years ago when it was fashionable to claim
    > that we were nearing the physical limits using optics and we'd need to
    > be using xrays or electron beams by now. But damned if those smart
    > boffins didn't find a way around that with new materials with amazing
    > refractive indices so we can continue using optics to the 45nm and
    > perhaps even the 32nm generation. Its even possible that by then we
    > might have new materials that ever better to extend the life of optics
    > even further.

    You certainly have a point. IBM spent in excess of a BigaBuck for a
    synchrotron for xray lithography. Interferrence masks made this useless
    (well, that and the fact that it never worked...)

    > As for power density limits, we are still in the caveman stages when it
    > comes to handling stuff like that, blowing air over pieces of metal
    > pressed down on the chip surface...c'mon! There are plenty of ways to
    > help with the cooling of localized heat buildup, from simple liquid
    > cooling like overclockers (and Apple) are doing now, to integrated
    > Peltier's (AMD's patent from 2001 that was recently publicized) to stuff
    > that's further out, like routing thousands of microscopic channels
    > through the chip for cooling fluid flow.

    You're optimism is admirable. Sure we can do all that IBM mainframe stuff
    from thirty years ago, but do you really want a cooling tower on your
    roof? (ok, I'm being hyperbolic now ;-).

    > True, wires won't shrink as fast as feature sizes (and I think that's
    > been true for a while now and hasn't hurt us) That just means more
    > metal layers as we get smaller and more complex routing -- luckily we
    > have faster computers to help with that more complex routing.

    If you don't think that wires are hurting us, perhaps you'd like to have
    my job for a day. Wiring is a *huge* problem, and not getting better.
    We've already paid the pain with copper, and ten-levels of it. What are
    you suggesting as the breakthrough here?

    >>AMD is currently at 2.4 GHz with their 90 nm chips, and the two that
    >>I've had my hands on have had little room for overclocking - even when
    >>the fan is blowing -10'C air over the heatsink.
    >
    >
    > Yes, and this is their very first batch of 90nm chips. I remember a lot
    > of the same complaints about the first 130nm K8s that were shipped being
    > unable to exceed 2 GHz and there was a lot of worrying about AMD's SOI
    > process, but since they are shipping some parts at 2.6GHz in 130nm now
    > it seems like they licked that problem pretty well.

    You are an optomist. ;-)

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

    David Kanter wrote:
    > BTW, I believe that Intel will be releasing Dual core Xeons at the
    > same time as dual core desktops.
    >
    >> This is in contrast to AMD, which is doing dual cores on the server
    >> first, where the larger profit is, since they do not have oversupply
    >> issues, but a much larger desktop die size could potentially lead
    >> them into an undersupply.
    >
    > That's a good point, as dual core on the desktop would halve AMD's
    > capacity. Maybe Intel should have thought about going quadcore...that
    > would sure put some pressure on AMD.

    Intel had some huge inventory problems. Too many 300mm, 90nm fabs. Probably
    originally intended to produce a lot of Itaniums, probably now slated to
    produce a lot of EM64T's instead.

    > Did AMD state that they would release a dual core server chip before
    > the desktop, or do they simply not intend to release a dual core
    > desktop chip?
    >
    > Sorry, I stopped caring about the desktop market a while ago...

    Yeah, actually AMD's original intention was to never release dual-core chips
    for the desktop. It was originally only going to release it for servers.
    However, after Intel's about-face on dual-cores, AMD decided to add
    dual-core desktops too. It doesn't cost AMD anything, as the desktop and
    server processors are the exact same things, only in different packaging
    (Socket 939 vs. 940).

    >> Look for dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get
    >> pushed forward if AMD starts having a lot of spare capacity (either
    >> due to lower sales in the overall CPU market, or AMD's market share
    >> staying stagnant or declining) If AMD's market share starts to
    >> shoot through the roof, look for the dual core desktop Athlon 64s to
    >> get pushed back to the 65nm generation.
    >
    > I doubt this will happen. Intel can easily push dual cores as a huge
    > desktop advantage (twice as good).

    I don't think AMD would delay dual-core desktops till 65nm either. Intel
    would have a huge publicity advantage over it. However, look for AMD to sell
    dual-core desktops at nearly server prices, like it does with the FX series.
    Maybe, the dual-cores will become the GX-series? :-)

    > It will show up in benchmarks,
    > unlike HT, which was just a blip. I would expect to hit ~30-70% gains
    > on certain benchmarks, and also the systems will be more responsive
    > since normal users have quite a few processes running at once.

    The HThread programming interface will become very popular now as the
    gateway to multicores, not just SMT. Intel's HT API has room in its
    registers for upto 256 virtual processors. Some of them can be real cores,
    some can be SMT cores. Unfortunately, MS Windows only assumes upto 2 virtual
    processors, so it looks like Intel is going to have to sell multicore
    processors without SMT as that would make the processors look like 4
    virtuals which would confuse Windows.

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

    dkanter@gmail.com (David Kanter) writes:

    >> Why do you assume clocks can't keep going up the way they did in the
    >> past? Just because Intel reached a limit with Prescott, which may be
    >> due to a lot of reasons other than "scaling is dead", you can't assume
    >> the same is true for AMD, or Intel's other designs. I'm not making
    >> any claims one way or another, just that you are drawing conclusions
    >> on limited data. Certainly there's no evidence AMD believes it can't
    >> scale MHz effectively in their 90nm process, and no reason to believe
    >> that either Intel or AMD couldn't do so in their 65nm generation as
    >> well.

    >Well, their going dual core, that should be a clue.


    That a logical fallacy. If in the transition from 130nm to 90nm and 90nm
    to 65nm scaling became suddenly easier and they could get a 3x frequency
    increase for each, would that mean that neither AMD nor Intel would go
    dual core? I think the answer is an emphatic "NO WAY", of course they'd
    still do dual core, and reap even larger performance benefits!


    >> IMHO the bigger driver for dual cores is that smaller processes
    >> allow for more transistors, and the easiest ways now to use those extra
    >> transistors are for bigger cache or for additional cores.

    >Let me give you a hint, 200mm^2 cores won't WORK in 90nm...

    >You can spend transistors in many fashions:
    >1. Improving the core
    >2. Improving the cache
    >3. Replicating the core

    >1 causes problems if you use too much area. 2 is pretty inexpensive,
    >from the area, defect and design standpoint, and 3 is inexpensive from
    >the design standpoint (I suspect).

    >Large area cores take too long for signals to traverse and are also
    >problems from the yield stand point.


    None of what you said refutes my point that dual cores were done due to
    the additional available transistors, and have little or nothing to do
    with whether scaling the clock rate is still working fine, has been
    slowed down or has stopped entirely. No matter what was happening or
    not happening with scaling, they'd do dual cores because the transistors
    available allowed it and there wasn't any better/easier use of those
    transistors.


    >> That's probably one of the reasons why
    >> Intel is increasing the cache size to 2MB, and moving to dual cores on
    >> the desktop (since it is higher volume and can soak up more capacity)
    >> before servers.

    >Actually, IMHO that has more to do with heat and scaling issues
    >driving the need for more cache and the inventory issues make larger
    >die sizes more palatable.

    >BTW, I believe that Intel will be releasing Dual core Xeons at the
    >same time as dual core desktops.


    Nope, latest info has them doing the desktops in Q3 2005, and the Xeons
    in H1 2006. Given their recent slips I wouldn't put much stock into
    those dates, of course...


    >
    >> This is in contrast to AMD, which is doing dual cores on the server
    >> first, where the larger profit is, since they do not have oversupply
    >> issues, but a much larger desktop die size could potentially lead them
    >> into an undersupply.

    >That's a good point, as dual core on the desktop would halve AMD's
    >capacity. Maybe Intel should have thought about going quadcore...that
    >would sure put some pressure on AMD.

    >Did AMD state that they would release a dual core server chip before
    >the desktop, or do they simply not intend to release a dual core
    >desktop chip?

    >Sorry, I stopped caring about the desktop market a while ago...


    Yes, AMD has plans for dual core desktops in H1 2006, according to the
    latest rumors.


    >> Look for dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get
    >> pushed forward if AMD starts having a lot of spare capacity (either due
    >> to lower sales in the overall CPU market, or AMD's market share staying
    >> stagnant or declining) If AMD's market share starts to shoot through
    >> the roof, look for the dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get pushed back
    >> to the 65nm generation.

    >I doubt this will happen. Intel can easily push dual cores as a huge
    >desktop advantage (twice as good). It will show up in benchmarks,
    >unlike HT, which was just a blip. I would expect to hit ~30-70% gains
    >on certain benchmarks, and also the systems will be more responsive
    >since normal users have quite a few processes running at once.


    Yes, Intel can definitely do that. But consider this: Right now AMD
    is selling everything they can make, supplying a desktop market that's
    growing slowly, and a server market that's growing quickly (easy to do
    considering it was essentially zero 18 months ago) 90nm gives them
    more chips due to the smaller die sizes, but they have to supply their
    existing desktop market, fast growing server market, and plan to attack
    the mobile market as well in 90nm. They may simply not have the capacity
    to attack the dual core desktop market in any meaningful way until they
    move to their new 300mm fab at 65nm in 2006. Sure, they might sell some
    dual core Athlon FXs, since those are just Opterons with a different
    pinout and they will be selling dual core Opterons next summer. But if
    Intel moves aggressively to dual cores across their whole desktop range
    by this time next year, AMD probably won't be able to answer.

    It will be interesting to see how consumers perceive the choice between
    a dual core CPU with each core running at 3 GHz or so, versus a single
    core Athlon 64 5000+ running at 3 GHz or so. It'll come down to marketing
    of course, and Intel always wins there, but the benchmarking war ought to
    be fun. There will be some things that Intel will win going away but for
    other things that don't parallelize as well AMD will totally dominate.

    Even though Intel is dropping HT, at least for the new dual cores which
    will not have HT enabled, it will have done its job as it got some
    developers interested in threading their applications. More importantly
    for Intel, they concentrated on making sure all the apps used for
    benchmarks supported HT, which will help their showing with their dual
    core CPUs next year. A dual core CPU released in 2001 would have looked
    useless on the desktop benchmarks of the time, but now there is a lot of
    multitasking built into most of the apps used for testing, courtesy of
    Intel.

    --
    Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Thomas Jefferson
  47. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    Douglas Siebert wrote:
    > Yes, Intel can definitely do that. But consider this: Right now AMD
    > is selling everything they can make, supplying a desktop market that's
    > growing slowly, and a server market that's growing quickly (easy to do
    > considering it was essentially zero 18 months ago) 90nm gives them
    > more chips due to the smaller die sizes, but they have to supply their
    > existing desktop market, fast growing server market, and plan to
    > attack the mobile market as well in 90nm. They may simply not have
    > the capacity to attack the dual core desktop market in any meaningful
    > way until they move to their new 300mm fab at 65nm in 2006. Sure,
    > they might sell some dual core Athlon FXs, since those are just
    > Opterons with a different pinout and they will be selling dual core
    > Opterons next summer. But if Intel moves aggressively to dual cores
    > across their whole desktop range by this time next year, AMD probably
    > won't be able to answer.

    I don't think Intel would want to move whole-hog into dual-cores for the
    desktop. Dual cores on the desktop would be expensive to build and therefore
    expensive to purchase. Dual cores will become their top-line processors to
    make up for performance no longer available through continous clockspeed
    increases. First they'll start out with bigger caches, but that will quickly
    come to a point of diminishing returns, and then they will try dual-core to
    further increase performance.

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

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

    >>> Look for dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get
    >>> pushed forward if AMD starts having a lot of spare capacity (either
    >>> due to lower sales in the overall CPU market, or AMD's market share
    >>> staying stagnant or declining) If AMD's market share starts to
    >>> shoot through the roof, look for the dual core desktop Athlon 64s to
    >>> get pushed back to the 65nm generation.
    >>
    >> I doubt this will happen. Intel can easily push dual cores as a huge
    >> desktop advantage (twice as good).
    >
    >I don't think AMD would delay dual-core desktops till 65nm either. Intel
    >would have a huge publicity advantage over it. However, look for AMD to sell
    >dual-core desktops at nearly server prices, like it does with the FX series.
    >Maybe, the dual-cores will become the GX-series? :-)

    All I know is that dual-cores will be hideously expensive. Think
    P4-EE pricing, with NO ramp-down to mainstream pricing, at least not
    for a few years.
  49. Archived from groups: comp.arch,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:30:43 -0500, chrisv wrote:

    > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>> Look for dual core desktop Athlon 64s to get
    >>>> pushed forward if AMD starts having a lot of spare capacity (either
    >>>> due to lower sales in the overall CPU market, or AMD's market share
    >>>> staying stagnant or declining) If AMD's market share starts to
    >>>> shoot through the roof, look for the dual core desktop Athlon 64s to
    >>>> get pushed back to the 65nm generation.
    >>>
    >>> I doubt this will happen. Intel can easily push dual cores as a huge
    >>> desktop advantage (twice as good).
    >>
    >>I don't think AMD would delay dual-core desktops till 65nm either. Intel
    >>would have a huge publicity advantage over it. However, look for AMD to sell
    >>dual-core desktops at nearly server prices, like it does with the FX series.
    >>Maybe, the dual-cores will become the GX-series? :-)
    >
    > All I know is that dual-cores will be hideously expensive. Think
    > P4-EE pricing, with NO ramp-down to mainstream pricing, at least not
    > for a few years.

    You *know* this? I'd like to see your evidence for this "knowledge". I
    don't see a dual-core in 90nm as being a nickel more expensive to produce
    than a uni in 130nm. Indeed, the market will *demand* dual-cores, so the
    cost is irrelevant, the price differential will soon be *zero*.

    --
    Keith
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Hardware Pentium