Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

After Conroe: Penryn - Nehalem - Gesher

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 6, 2006 4:18:34 AM

While we all eagerly await the release of Conroe, here's a sneak peek at greater things to come from Intel...

The Next Generation:





die shot of "Penryn" [SRAM] edit: oops i forgot to add that, sorry!




Article: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2649
July 6, 2006 5:00:49 AM

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Gotta luv it... BM gets owned and does not even have to post! :wink:
July 6, 2006 5:11:31 AM

Great info, Jack, you too TM. This is the kind of stuff everyone comes to THG for.

Kudos to those that have posted here thus far!!!
Related resources
July 6, 2006 5:19:55 AM

LOL... I was just about to say that after spending 5 seconds looking at that die pic, it was evident it's not a CPU but rather some sort of memory. But you summed it up nicely. ;-)
July 6, 2006 5:24:56 AM

Its intels new tactic, more cache so much that theres no logic! A brillant strategy.
July 6, 2006 5:29:09 AM

I read a halfway decent article somewhere that tried to address Intel's future BW problems. It basically came to the conclusion that they're going to have to eventually create something similar to a IMC and AMD's HT. Intel's FSB architecture simply isn't going to cut it for much longer.

I'm really curious to see what they come up with. Obviously, if they were to go the IMC route, they'd have to pay AMD royalties... or battle it out with AMD in a patent court. Either way, it'll be interesting. ;-)

EDIT: Intel would have to pay AMD for licenses, not royalties. Sorry.
July 6, 2006 5:46:04 AM

You might be right on the IMC part. I'm not 100% sure it's patented... er... that the patent reads AMD's design is exclusive and therefore must be licensed.

I would think that something that radical would be though. I mean... that idea wasn't on anyone's radar.

BUT... come to think of it.. i'm sure other chipmakers have done the same thing for other applications like DSP. So you're probably right... Intel can do it if they want. It would be a bit of an embarassment if they did though.

Regardless... HT is what makes AMD's dual core so powerful. And Intel can't steal that. But they are going to have to figure out a way to mimick it without infringing.
July 6, 2006 6:00:11 AM

If they wanted to (Intel) they could use HT couldnt they ? I mean AMD uses all kinds of tech Intel developed ? Ahh well I think Intel will come up with something snappy when they are ready. Apart from the die shot the rest of the information is interesting :p 
July 6, 2006 6:06:57 AM

Sure... Intel could use it. But they'd have to license it from AMD first. And you can be sure AMD won't license it for pennies.

AMD and Intel very, very rarely get into patent disputes. They usually work it out through licensing. Which is a good thing. Patent disputes really only hurt the consumer in the long run.

The last thing Intel licensed from AMD was x86-64... or... "EMT" as intel likes to call it.
July 6, 2006 6:07:59 AM

It's called CSI, and it's actually faster than HTT. Intel's planning it for 2008.

There's nothing embarassing about it, you could say AMD copied Intel by putting out Dual-Cores. You could say AMD copied Intel by using SSE and MMX instructions since Intel invented that. You could also say that they're copying Intel by using PCI-E, PCI, AGP, USB, etc. on their motherboards because Intel invented that, too. Nobody accuses anybody of anything, and if you really want to piss an AMD fanboy off, you can let them know that AMD licenses technology from Intel in order to exist, per se the x86 platform, which they invented, as well as their instruction sets. Hell, Intel had 64-bit before AMD did, MS just doesn't like EPIC, not to mention it's RISC, but the idea is all the same. IA-64 came way before AMD64, not to mention AMD is based off of IA-32 (Intel Architecture 32).

So every time you buy an AMD processor, you're paying Intel. Yeah, you just got 0wn3d AMD fanboys. Intel funded AMD until they coul dbecome a competitor, and gave them the designs they had and free R&D. Intel INVENTED the computer industry, not to mention let AMD live. AMD would be nothing, NOTHING without Intel.

Anyway, I think my point is proven.
July 6, 2006 6:11:36 AM

Quote:
It's called CSI, and it's actually faster than HTT. Intel's planning it for 2008.

There's nothing embarassing about it, you could say AMD copied Intel by putting out Dual-Cores. You could say AMD copied Intel by using SSE and MMX instructions since Intel invented that. You could also say that they're copying Intel by using PCI-E, PCI, AGP, USB, etc. on their motherboards because Intel invented that, too. Nobody accuses anybody of anything, and if you really want to piss an AMD fanboy off, you can let them know that AMD licenses technology from Intel in order to exist, per se the x86 platform, which they invented, as well as their instruction sets. Hell, Intel had 64-bit before AMD did, MS just doesn't like EPIC, not to mention it's RISC, but the idea is all the same. IA-64 came way before AMD64, not to mention AMD is based off of IA-32 (Intel Architecture 32).

So every time you buy an AMD processor, you're paying Intel. Yeah, you just got 0wn3d AMD fanboys. Intel funded AMD until they coul dbecome a competitor, and gave them the designs they had and free R&D. Intel INVENTED the computer industry, not to mention let AMD live. AMD would be nothing, NOTHING without Intel.

Anyway, I think my point is proven.


You know... we were having a pleasant, intelligent, and most of all FAN BOY free discussion here... that is until YOU came along.

We're all aware of this information and the history of IA64, x86, etc. You're preaching to quoir. Please leave ur fan boy statements out of future intelligent topics. Save them for BaronMatrix's inspid threads.
July 6, 2006 6:16:06 AM

One more thing... where did u come up with this statement?

Quote:
you could say AMD copied Intel by putting out Dual-Cores


Last I checked, AMD was both FIRST to demonstrate dual cores and SELL dual cores. Dual core was an afterthought to Intel.

But I do agree with the rest of your post. Just saying... there's no reason to start using the fanboy word in this thread.
July 6, 2006 7:14:21 AM

Actually the Pentium D was out first.
July 6, 2006 7:17:24 AM

Yes and Yes. The only thing is, the HT you're thinking of is Hyper-Threading. We're talking about HTT, or Hyper-Transport, AMD's name for an IMC FSB.

I believe Timna was, I'll look into it. Total failure, but an interesting project nonetheless. One of those system-on-chip things.

Quote:
Intel will take advantage of the smaller size of the .18 micron process to integrate a graphics controller and a memory controller onto a Pentium III Celeron chip, code-named Timna. Originally, Timna was scheduled to be released in the second half of 2000, but due to its built in RDRAM interface and problems with the MTH (Memory Translator Hub), it has been delayed until Q1 2001. The resolution will either be a new MTH-like part or a reworking of the Timna to support SDRAM directly.


Yes here we go. So yeah, AMD copied Intel with the IMC idea. GG AMD fanboys. Yeah, I'm an Intel fanboy, but hell even I forgot about Timna. So basically Intel is using an idea the had first, and AMD copied. Again.
July 6, 2006 7:39:58 AM

right...


intel's timna core based on celeron3 core are the world's 1st core with integrated memory controller.. instead of IMC intel named it MTH or Memory Translator Hub..

cHT or rHT of AMD is different from CMT or Core Multiplexing Technology of intel..

AFAIK... cHT/rHT are still under research.. and amd doesnt know if this thing can run on their current A64 line-up..

while on the otherhand.. CMT are already found on some 975XBX motherboard...
July 6, 2006 7:44:58 AM

OK yes, it's not the same thing, but it's the same IDEA. HTT is a new FSB-type transfer architecure, STEMMING from the fact the memory controller is on-board, and therefore has no FSB bottleneck for core communication. They've managed to adapt this technology to include co processors and HTX slots, etc. etc.

The idea is still the same.
July 6, 2006 8:25:58 AM

Quote:
Actually the Pentium D was out first.


Yup it was out first and look who it performs compared to the same MHz rated X2 ...You rush out a product well you get what exactly hapend ..lol

This page has some nice info on that ..
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122236,00.asp
July 6, 2006 8:31:16 AM

Are you retarded? Everyone knows the PD sucks, it's a Prescott. That's not the point. The point here is that the only thing AMD has ever really come up with is 3DNow!
July 6, 2006 9:40:13 AM

Quote:
right...


intel's timna core based on celeron3 core are the world's 1st core with integrated memory controller.. instead of IMC intel named it MTH or Memory Translator Hub..

Sorry but your off slightly on the MTH. The name is correct but the function is not correct. The Timna had a RDRAM Memory controller built into it because you needed less pins to effectively get high Bandwidth. I have seen a Timna processor and it has the same number of pins as a standard Coppermine or Tualitin processor. They did key it differently so you could not put it in a standard Socket 370.

The MTH was to allow a RDRAM board to be converted to SDRAM 133 because the writing was on the wall that the average consumer was not interested in paying the extra for the RDRAM. This was to allow the Camino 820 chipset to run with SDRAM 133.

The MTH was never meant for the Timna. That was killed because no OEM was interested in it.

cHT or rHT of AMD is different from CMT or Core Multiplexing Technology of intel..

As for Core Multiplexing Technology that has shown up recently in the latest Bad Axe Bios. This seems to be how to control the 2 cores in the Conroe. When it is enabled you have to functioning cores. When it is disabled you have only one core functioning. This can allow lower thermals and therefore much higher overclocking. Sort of a new name for Hyper Threading.

AFAIK... cHT/rHT are still under research.. and amd doesnt know if this thing can run on their current A64 line-up..

while on the otherhand.. CMT are already found on some 975XBX motherboard...
July 6, 2006 10:05:08 AM

hmmm...

he deleted his reply...


core multiplexing technology, the future of intel's multi-core processor.


it was based on IA-64 (Itanium Architecture x64 technology called "mitosis"



an area where single threaded apps were prefetch in different ways to optimized 2 or 4-cores
July 6, 2006 12:42:47 PM

Quote:
While we all eagerly await the release of Conroe, here's a sneak peek at greater things to come from Intel...

The Next Generation:





die shot of "Penryn"




Article: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2649


I understand the attention for Conroe but a 5+ years roadmap... that is going too far. We all have better (and shorter term) things to discuss!
July 6, 2006 12:45:03 PM

Apparantly not, as this thread is already a bit long (and will yet get longer still.)

:D 
July 6, 2006 12:50:59 PM

I see... so I'm getting out of it as soon as I post this message. Blah, better go & whatch Star Wars; they have 80-th generation CPUs there. When I'm back I tell you who is leading, AMD or Intel.
July 6, 2006 1:32:29 PM

Haha, and HUGE CRT screens, too. No, really.
July 6, 2006 1:56:23 PM

Quote:
Are you retarded? Everyone knows the PD sucks, it's a Prescott. That's not the point. The point here is that the only thing AMD has ever really come up with is 3DNow!

i think AMD announced the dual core project first, before Intel scrambled to release a dual core product ahead of AMD.

and for your reference, IBM's Power4 was the first dual core processor in the world. does that mean Intel copied IBM's idea? not necessarily. multi-core is definately the future, but all three companies have different technical approach to create a dual core processor.

i believe AMD64 was developed by AMD. HT was jointly developed by AMD and other companies, but i have no doubt AMD played an important part in HT's developement.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2006 2:33:56 PM

I was personally under the impression that Intel and MAD have a Cross licensing agreement. Im not 100% either, so me , Jumping Jack and Mpjess must be somewhere in between.

I guess it's a complicated relation where some stuff is totally "free" for the other compagny to take, other stuff you have to pay royalties, etc. A good cross licensing does make sense because the industries does'nt want to have to support two completely different processors. They're willing to do a little tweaking/optimizing here and there but thats it.

Finally, I dont beleive AMD had to pay a cent to add SSE1/2/3/?4 (k8l?)
They even added the SSe3 rather quietly in the Rev E...So that and AMD64/EMT64 would fall under the cross licensing.

Oh and yes JumpingJack, im pretty sure HT is derived from the Ev7 bus from alpha. As a matter of fact, many of AMD's K7/K8 where derived from the acquistion of alpha's IP...I had a really good article on that, maybe on acehardware, will check into it
July 6, 2006 4:01:11 PM

my knowledge of both companys is fairly limited.. but diddnt the guys from amd used to work for intel way back in the beggining? and then the amd guys left to form amd, and werent they at one time partners or something? as for sse3, wasnt that added, because amd let intel use their 64 bit instructions?
heres a pic of a cpu from their partnership.. im pretty sure amd made cpus for intel at one point..



i just posted this, so that all the people that think amd has been ripping off intel since the beggining, have this to look at.
July 6, 2006 4:16:06 PM

No. That's a common misconception. None of AMD's engineers worked for Intel (although, i'm sure that throughout history some have). What happened was a bunch of engineers from FAIRCHILD Semiconductor left and started AMD, including Jerry Sanders.

People get confused because Gordon Moore also worked for Fairchild at one time.

As for the partnership... yes one sort of existed. AMD reverse engineered 8080 processor and started selling it. Intel didn't like it. Eventually AMD caved in and paid licensing fees to make future x86 processors. They also signed a deal w/ Intel to become a "second source" manufacturer of x86 parts.

Eventually that deal broke through and more lawsuits ensued. After that it gets messy and even I don't understand it all.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2006 4:19:41 PM

Whoa, blazing 10mhz there!
Nice pic =)

Well the 286 was intel's design anyhow, was'nt Intel outsourcing to AMD to make their lower end CPU's and to get more volume? I think thats why you have this kind of CPU with intel and AMD on it, could be wrong, I was born in 1983 :oops: 
July 6, 2006 5:04:19 PM

basically yes
July 6, 2006 5:40:59 PM

Quote:
Whoa, blazing 10mhz there!
Nice pic =)

Well the 286 was intel's design anyhow, was'nt Intel outsourcing to AMD to make their lower end CPU's and to get more volume? I think thats why you have this kind of CPU with intel and AMD on it, could be wrong, I was born in 1983 :oops: 


8O

If you find 10 Mhz funny .........
I remember one of my first 'decent' PC's (if you can call it that,)Was an Atari 1040 Ste(had also the STFM with TV output)
It had an 68000 Motorola Processor with additional blitter chip(some sort of pre-historic GPU) running at a whopping 8 Mhz and had 1Meg of ram.......no fans at all totally noiseless , exept the 720KB floppydrive who made such a racket all the time that I thought it would die when i loaded a game (some people complain they have to wait a few second's before loading something , in those days some games took allmost 5 minutes to properly load (some games came in up to 10 floppy's..)
I was so happy at the time as it replaced my commodore 64 :D 
Those were the days ......what people could do with 16 colors was unbelievable....... never played more games in my entire life then
Monkey Island Anyone?
(And yeah i know it was basically another platform , but it is what I used so many years ago..
I still have them here , yet my wife says i should throw away "that old garbage"
Women :lol: 
Sorry , got carried away in a haze of nostalgia...
I think its good there's such fierce competition between AMD and Intel..
The cosumer reaps the rewards........More performance , less money to pay.
July 6, 2006 5:44:37 PM

Quote:
No. That's a common misconception. None of AMD's engineers worked for Intel (although, i'm sure that throughout history some have). What happened was a bunch of engineers from FAIRCHILD Semiconductor left and started AMD, including Jerry Sanders.

People get confused because Gordon Moore also worked for Fairchild at one time.

As for the partnership... yes one sort of existed. AMD reverse engineered 8080 processor and started selling it. Intel didn't like it. Eventually AMD caved in and paid licensing fees to make future x86 processors. They also signed a deal w/ Intel to become a "second source" manufacturer of x86 parts.

Eventually that deal broke through and more lawsuits ensued. After that it gets messy and even I don't understand it all.


Awsome! Thanks for clearing that up for me :)  guess i better do some reading ;) 
July 6, 2006 7:31:08 PM

Quote:
However, I am very glad you posted this because unlike the "CAD Plot" BaronMatrix posted in a different thread -- this pic is an actual die shot because you can see the "color" variation due to the diffractive reflection of light across the surface of the die.



Why don't you just beat off to my picture? I'm sure it will get rid of that "tension."
July 6, 2006 7:33:26 PM

Quote:
However, I am very glad you posted this because unlike the "CAD Plot" BaronMatrix posted in a different thread -- this pic is an actual die shot because you can see the "color" variation due to the diffractive reflection of light across the surface of the die.



Why don't you just beat off to my picture? I'm sure it will get rid of that "tension."
July 6, 2006 7:35:12 PM

Quote:
However, I am very glad you posted this because unlike the "CAD Plot" BaronMatrix posted in a different thread -- this pic is an actual die shot because you can see the "color" variation due to the diffractive reflection of light across the surface of the die.



Why don't you just beat off to my picture? I'm sure it will get rid of that "tension."
July 6, 2006 7:53:53 PM

8O :? Triple posting in 2 minute intervals?!? :roll: Dude, lay off the board for a while... it is definately getting under your skin. Surely you could take a walk and enjoy some fresh air. :wink: This is just a forum and people tend to joke harsher than in real life...
July 6, 2006 8:01:35 PM

I just did some further reading. NexGen was created by a bunch of ex-intel engineers. Back in the late 90's AMD purchased NexGen. This is why some folks might think AMD was created from Intel.

;-)
July 6, 2006 8:14:26 PM

Obviously... good conspiracy material there... :p 
July 6, 2006 8:15:17 PM

and now AMD is going downhill even with ex-intel employees... :p 
July 6, 2006 8:17:41 PM

maybe they are still getting subsidised by intel :roll:
July 6, 2006 8:19:27 PM

Well... many see AMD's K6 and their first strong chip. NexGen engineers collaborated heavily on it and future designs.

So a fanboy might suggest that the only reason AMD is so successful is because they employ engineers that once worked for intel.

However, I for one do not believe such rubbish.
July 6, 2006 8:23:28 PM

Quote:
Whoa, blazing 10mhz there!
Nice pic =)

Well the 286 was intel's design anyhow, was'nt Intel outsourcing to AMD to make their lower end CPU's and to get more volume? I think thats why you have this kind of CPU with intel and AMD on it, could be wrong, I was born in 1983 :oops: 


No, there was no outsourcing. AMD sued Intel for 'violating' a license agreement: basically they felt that Intel should do all the work and AMD should be able to reap mad profits. Intel funded AMD to become a competitor with them so that they wouldn't run a monopoly on the first IBM PC's, (at the request of IBM of course). Intel then gave them free research and development information up unti the 286 design, where AMD became a whiny little bitch because it meant they actually had to work for their money. So the court decided that AMd should have to make their own design, yet still be able to use the x86 platform.

Quote:
my knowledge of both companys is fairly limited.. but diddnt the guys from amd used to work for intel way back in the beggining? and then the amd guys left to form amd, and werent they at one time partners or something? as for sse3, wasnt that added, because amd let intel use their 64 bit instructions?
heres a pic of a cpu from their partnership.. im pretty sure amd made cpus for intel at one point..



i just posted this, so that all the people that think amd has been ripping off intel since the beggining, have this to look at.

AMD has never made CPUs FOR Intel at ANY point. AMD copied the Intel x86 design and then sued them when Intel decided not to give them free R&D anymore and try to develop their own product because AMD has no talent.

Quote:
Are you retarded? Everyone knows the PD sucks, it's a Prescott. That's not the point. The point here is that the only thing AMD has ever really come up with is 3DNow!

i think AMD announced the dual core project first, before Intel scrambled to release a dual core product ahead of AMD.

and for your reference, IBM's Power4 was the first dual core processor in the world. does that mean Intel copied IBM's idea? not necessarily. multi-core is definately the future, but all three companies have different technical approach to create a dual core processor.

i believe AMD64 was developed by AMD. HT was jointly developed by AMD and other companies, but i have no doubt AMD played an important part in HT's developement.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that nobody is copying anybody, but if you'd like to get technical about it, AMD is copying Intel in just about every way.
July 6, 2006 8:25:34 PM

Here here... It is much more likely Intel took the lead due to Alien technology reverse engineered from the computers aboard the Nevada crash site...
July 6, 2006 8:36:01 PM

Are those names from Bible or are we in Holy land's site tour?
why so many Jewish names for CPU's?
Has Intel forgotten good old American names?
what is this? I feel like I have to catch up w/ my Hebrew lesson.
Shalom Intel la kha halim.
July 6, 2006 8:39:58 PM

Because Intel's Israeli R&D facility has pretty much taken over concept designs. The Pentium M & Conroe were primarily designed by jewish engineers.

Intel's Oregon site has been left with the scraps. ;-)
July 6, 2006 8:46:42 PM

Quote:
Are those names from Bible or are we in Holy land's site tour?
why so many Jewish names for CPU's?
Has Intel forgotten good old American names?
what is this? I feel like I have to catch up w/ my Hebrew lesson.
Shalom Intel la kha halim.


It's because Intel is a corporation, and is therefore out to make a lot of money. Hence the Hebrew. Oh man I could make a horribly funny yet ethnically insesitive remark right now relating to Prescott . . . however I wil refrain. Love ya all!
July 6, 2006 9:07:14 PM

Quote:
AMD has never made CPUs FOR Intel at ANY point. AMD copied the Intel x86 design and then sued them when Intel decided not to give them free R&D anymore and try to develop their own product because AMD has no talent.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that nobody is copying anybody, but if you'd like to get technical about it, AMD is copying Intel in just about every way.
You're sounding like an Intel version of MMM. :roll:
July 6, 2006 9:15:35 PM

Sure, but I'm still right about everything.
July 6, 2006 9:27:47 PM

That statement contradicts itself; you say sure to being like MMM, and you then claim you're right about everything. :roll:
!