Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sonoma ready to roll!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 13, 2004 2:52:01 AM

As we know, Intel anounced that the Sonoma platform, a P-M based one containing high-end features, had been delayed to 2005.

Sonoma is the new name for the whole new Centrino platform and contains quite a number of new things, including DDR2 and an increased FSB of 533Mhz for Dothan. There'll be a 2.13Ghz Dothan version for Sonoma, as well as a whole 2.0, 1.86, and so on lower-clocked lineup with 533Mhz FSB. Sonoma will include a new chipset (alviso) which will sport more goodies: PCIe, new and improved 7.1 dolby surround onboard audio. The sonoma platform is also supposed to support NX; no word on 64-bit, though.

However, VR-ZONE <A HREF="http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=1108" target="_new">reports</A> that Sonoma's glitch has been found and fixed at this point, and sonoma is good to go. Intel also appears to have said that Sonoma shipment will begin soon and some PC makers will have access to it by Q4 2004. Volume shipments are still expected by 2005, though.

So these are good news from a troubled company. Sonoma is highly interesting, because it will show us the effect of a higher FSB on PM architecture. Centrino is already Intel at its finest, and if sonoma improves on that... (prescott is, of course, Intel at its worst, no doubt about that)

Maybe that all agressive mailing Craig Barrett has been doing made a difference after all? :evil: 

More about : sonoma ready roll

August 13, 2004 4:09:46 AM

Only good news i have hear from intel since a while.It maybe take atlease 2 year at intel to recover from mistake.When AXP was beating willimete at the end of is life it was sure that NW would take the crown back and fast.Now they got beat and there nothing on the roadmap rumor change at every month it was banias desktop after dual banias now it smithfield with a unknow core and about 10 chipset will be release in the next year. very lousy chipset for itanium.A so call EMT64 that intel have no intention of pushing.A brand new platform that use 100 mghz ram i were using 100 mghz ram in my Katmai 450.A wireless chipset that dont work and wont be compatible with china own standart.A prescott that have 70 million transistor for no reason there 2 NW that fit in there.A new ISA that no one will use or care SSE3 or TNI. A fab that have produce faulty ICH what the testing lab were doing no one have see that there a very large bunch of chip that dont work.


I make me think about my new job.I work for for a very large healt corp.We are about 40 tech support in traning since monday.With a trainer that have start there 2 week ago that itself have never use the tool and we do some onligne module that i have finish monday.I guy dint even show at work today they dint even notice.I get at work at 10:30 this morning and no one have notice as the trainer was in reunion until late in the afternoon.He quite busy as he try to get late with the boss from the US (she very cute).As for myself they have hire some chick and i am single and there plenty of time.The worst is the group is too large so we using 2 room at differente floor with single trainer.Also as they cannot keep track of the hour we have done we will get for pay 35 hour.I do 9 to 4 with 2 hour break or more depending how i feel.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 08/13/04 00:30 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 13, 2004 5:04:26 AM

Is there a way to run what you just said through bablefish?

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 13, 2004 5:11:33 AM

I got it. Very good post on Intel woes.

Abit IS7 - 2.8C @ 3.5ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
August 13, 2004 5:15:04 AM

Makes me wonder.. if Sonoma (availablitly) is expected for for early 2005, is it reasonable to expect a more radically redesigned desktop P-M (64 bit ? dual core ? 800 MHz FSB ?) only a one quarter later ? I would guess not.. and if Sonoma featured anything more radical, it should have been leaked by now..

BTW, I don't really understand what the problem could be. P-M is buscompatible with P4, all of the features you mention have been available for P4, so wouldn't they just have to make a low voltage / bus disconnect version of the 915 ? Its not like the 855 is any different from the 845. Maybe the problem lays with the integrated wireless (9x5 wireless is broken isn't it?) ? Intel seems to be having some trouble with wireless lately (which is surprising on its own, they are historically pretty good in networking and pushing WLAN quite agressively).

Just some thoughts.. I still stand by my point that intel's dual core chips will be P4 based initially, though I wouldn't mind being wrong.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 13, 2004 5:47:28 AM

Re: I got it. Very good post on Intel woes.

Well maybe you speak more then one language. I don't know, seemed like babble to me and I don't intend to bother reading it again.

About poor Intel’s woes, personally I'm sick of it. Monopolies are usually illegal and for good reason. Remember what we paid for cpu's in the mid 90's. With out AMD, Intel would be a monopoly so long as M$ stuck to x86. M$ is IMHO a monopoly they always get around it citing linux apple solaris… A monopoly none the less. Intel too got around this saying apple Cyrix AMD transmeta so it's a vibrant competitive arena with computers and even x86.

Intel is the dominate cpu supplier in x86 and will continue to be so for a very long time to come. So what is the big deal if amd gains some market share from intel. AMD worked hard for it. They usually make a better product for less money. Why do so many people have trouble with this? It would be very good for the consumer, innovation, and lasting competition in a healthy market *IF* amd can grow market share from 20% to say 35% of x86 cpu's in the next 2 years or so. I dam well hope they do too. Then maybe it would be much harder for intel to bury amd as they almost did last year.

Here's to AMD and all the money they have saved people buying intel cpu's in a more competitive environment (unlike most of the 1990's) even though I feel sorry for all those innocent people who got ripped of with the p4 Celeron.



If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
August 13, 2004 6:02:52 AM

RE: "BTW, I don't really understand what the problem could be."


Problem seems to be the Alviso chipset part of the Sonoma platfrom.
This might shed so more <A HREF="http://www.reed-electronics.com/eb-mag/article/CA444658..." target="_new"> light </A> on it.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
August 13, 2004 6:07:10 AM

Monopolies aren't illegal at all, what is illegal, is abusing your monopoly power to maintain your monopoly or extend your marketshare in other markets. For instance, Microsoft abusing their OS monopoly by forcing OEM's to bundle Windows licences with all new computers would be illegal, since it would keep competitors (like Lindows) from effectively competing. Or MS could abuse its monopoly power in the OS market to keep competitors in the office app market from competing (like ensuring windows would not properly run WordPerfect or whatever to increase their sales of Word/Office)

But there is nothing illegal or wrong about being a monopoly as such as long as you play by the rules.

> It would be very good for the consumer, innovation, and
>lasting competition in a healthy market *IF* amd can grow
>market share from 20% to say 35% of x86 cpu's in the next 2
>years or so.

Probably, though the most important thing is for AMD to be profitable. Intel has so much more production capacity as AMD, that a 35% marketshare for AMD would actually give them "monopoly power" (well not really, but at least they would increase their prices susbstantially since they would have a hard time producing enough to keep up demand). As long as FAB35 isn't online, ~20-25% marketshare would be plenty for AMD to ensure healthy competition (intel has enough capacity to produce 100%, maybe even 120% of world wide demand, so they will have to compete for the 25% they are "missing").

Personally, I'd like to see a third player gaining some inroads into this x86 market, even though its not likely to happen (best chance I see might be nVidia buying Transmeta, and competing more effectively in the mobile market, but that won't be for tomorrow). In the 486 days we had a bunch of more less competitive players (Intel, AMD, Cyrix, UMC, IBM,..) but I fear R&D costs and fab costs are so incredible high we will likely be limited to 2 major players in the cpu and gpu markets.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 13, 2004 6:10:26 AM

Thanks for that link. Sounds like I may have been right about WLAN being the culprit,though there is not much detail in that article either. Also interesting is this phrase:"Chandrasekher also said that Intel would offer dual core technology in its mobile processors". This would give some more credility to dual core Dothans (instead of my guess of dual core P4s initially), even though they don't mention a timeframe.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 13, 2004 6:11:17 AM

Juin's post was the best he's ever done. He said intel is realy screwing up, and he met a new girl at work.
If she helps him understand that Amd isn't the anti-christ, things will be great.
August 13, 2004 6:18:43 AM

Why am I not surprised you are just as lazy at work as well ?
:p 

(for those who missed it, Juin is too lazy to ever use quote or URL tags, even if he knows perfectly well how to use them. He also seems utterly unwilling to even try and write understandable english, I mean seriously, someone reading and posting as much as he does should know by now in English you write "online" and not "onligne" as he systematically does).

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 13, 2004 6:23:34 AM

Its all the more funny due to the fact that he actually edited that post.

AMD 64 3400+
MSI K8N Neo Platinum
1 GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
ATI AIW 9600XT
WD Raptor 74GB
August 13, 2004 6:27:08 AM

Re: "Monopolies aren't illegal at all, what is illegal, is abusing your monopoly power to maintain your monopoly or extend your marketshare in other markets."

I said <b> usually </b> and monopolies are usually broken up in capitalist countries once proven to be a monoploy as abuse is going to be or is a given. It is however not illegal to be big or to have a patent and be rewarded for R&D. If a company here committs some kind of anti competative crime they would be punished once proven a monopoly. Honestly I can't think of a complete monopoly not abusing its power it has just got to happen at some point.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
August 13, 2004 7:23:27 AM

>I said usually and monopolies are usually broken up in
>capitalist countries once proven to be a monoploy as abuse
>is going to be or is a given.

But they aren't going to be broken up, unless they have been proven to abuse their power. So they aren't broken up for being what they are.. Besides, most monopolies dissapear without any intervention, they tend to get lazy, greedy, overcharge and do not innovate enough, therefore someone else steps in to take a piece of the pie (think IBM in the PC world, 3DFX for 3D cards, etc, ..).

A monopoly like MS has on the OS market might be harder to break, as it would almost require a Windows-compatible OS (like OS/2 once). Actually, I would find that a good thing, if MS where to be forced to open up *all* its API's so anyone could build a 100% Windows compatible OS without doing any reverse engineering like is required for Linux/Wine. That would certainly improve innovation.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 13, 2004 8:47:17 AM

Quote:
Juin's post was the best he's ever done.

I agree. That's the most readable post of his I can ever remember seeing. All the more suprising considering it's also one of the longest!

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro @412/740
August 13, 2004 9:28:09 AM

I would love for Transmeta to be a player. I like their philosphy of minimal heat/power, since I don't really need all that performance a lot of the time.

I would love a cheap, easily available, platform compatible(doesn't matter which) transmeta chip. I'd buy several and set-up fanless little computers everywhere.

<font color=blue>The day <font color=green>Microsoft</font color=green> will make something that doesn't suck is the day they'll start making vacuum cleaners.</font color=blue>
August 13, 2004 5:05:58 PM

Quote:
Monopolies aren't illegal at all, what is illegal, is abusing your monopoly power to maintain your monopoly or extend your marketshare in other markets. For instance, Microsoft abusing their OS monopoly by forcing OEM's to bundle Windows licences with all new computers would be illegal, since it would keep competitors (like Lindows) from effectively competing. Or MS could abuse its monopoly power in the OS market to keep competitors in the office app market from competing (like ensuring windows would not properly run WordPerfect or whatever to increase their sales of Word/Office)

Looks like you might be nitpicking about what came first the chicken or the egg. Most monopolies have to be strictly governed with regulations like utility companies or gauging will occur. Competition is what usually protects the consumer. A monopoly is sooner or later going to abuse its power. M$ is walking on eggshells they want to grow more and more for obvious reasons. Not to much money in mice keyboards or web cams as in intels case. That OEM bundle thing was one of many monopoly abuses. Look at netcape and sun java, or what they are trying to do with media player being embedded in the OS to eliminate competition and gain royalties from music movies etc.


Quote:
But there is nothing illegal or wrong about being a monopoly as such as long as you play by the rules.

This may be true but it will still happen. The justice department knows full well monopolies will abuse power or gauge the consumer it’s inevitable. Intel now sees real competition and cannot completely control where the x86 market goes. If it was not for amd rambus would most likely be the defacto standard in memory. This =’s a licence to print money for rambus through royalties on memory. Intel knew how this could be seen as monopoly abuse and intel cannot make there own or it clearly would be, so they invest quite heavy in rambus to reap the benefits of what would be monopoly abuse. AMD stopped this by having a better cpu using cheaper royalty free ddr. I’m not 100% on this next part but I read somewhere there was another reason or purpose to rambus and that was to keep the memory farther from the cpu to avoid the use of on die memory controllers. IMHO the tax intel imposed with a p4 bus licence is another example of abuse when you really think about it.

Quote:
Probably, though the most important thing is for AMD to be profitable. Intel has so much more production capacity as AMD, that a 35% marketshare for AMD would actually give them "monopoly power" (well not really, but at least they would increase their prices susbstantially since they would have a hard time producing enough to keep up demand). As long as FAB35 isn't online, ~20-25% marketshare would be plenty for AMD to ensure healthy competition (intel has enough capacity to produce 100%, maybe even 120% of world wide demand, so they will have to compete for the 25% they are "missing").

That’s a fair opinion, I did say 2 years or so, and fab36 (not 35) should be well online by then. Actually in 1 year and in full production in a year and ½ so 2 years or more amd could possibly grow to 35% especially with window64 available and 300mm wafers on 90 amd maybe 65nm. AMD needs volume to compete in all x86 cpu segments cause that is where intel will make money if amd is not there then squeeze amd where they compete. So for amd to get asp’s up they must compete in all segments or intel will just squeeze them in the segments they do buy making more money in the segment amd don’t compete in.

Quote:
Personally, I'd like to see a third player gaining some inroads into this x86 market, even though its not likely to happen (best chance I see might be nVidia buying Transmeta, and competing more effectively in the mobile market, but that won't be for tomorrow). In the 486 days we had a bunch of more less competitive players (Intel, AMD, Cyrix, UMC, IBM,..) but I fear R&D costs and fab costs are so incredible high we will likely be limited to 2 major players in the cpu and gpu markets.

Exactly would be nice but not likely to happen. We are most likely going to be stuck with two real x86 cpu makers. And two is better than one.

Quote:
But they aren't going to be broken up, unless they have been proven to abuse their power. So they aren't broken up for being what they are.. Besides, most monopolies dissapear without any intervention, they tend to get lazy, greedy, overcharge and do not innovate enough, therefore someone else steps in to take a piece of the pie (think IBM in the PC world, 3DFX for 3D cards, etc, ..).

M$ was proven in court to have abused their powers as a monopoly with netcape the justice dept took very serious the issue of breaking M$ up into 2 parts an OS and an IE office segment. If this had happened I believe the consumer would be better off. Give the second company IE, office, media player, maybe directx. And maybe a level playing field with linux would exist. M$ makes a great product with windows and when you think of the R&D that goes into it, it’s cheap. $105 for oem xp-home. Anti virus software could cost you more. M$ biggest issue is security but that would subside somewhat if much more people used linux as virus writers target windows cause 95% use windows. And lots of money could be made selling the other stuff like office, IE, media player, licening directx to linux. M$ is being watched and walking on eggshells has the EU investigation with media player been resolved yet?

Quote:
A monopoly like MS has on the OS market might be harder to break, as it would almost require a Windows-compatible OS (like OS/2 once). Actually, I would find that a good thing, if MS where to be forced to open up *all* its API's so anyone could build a 100% Windows compatible OS without doing any reverse engineering like is required for Linux/Wine. That would certainly improve innovation.

Yes making 2 M$ OS’s would probably not be feasible but doing what I said above makes sense to me. Too bad it never happened. Maybe next time. As to intel the monopoly is being reduced do to amd although issues still arise like the EU investigating government tenders stating to bid computers must use intel cpu’s. We will have to wait and see how that develops.

I stand by what I said monopolies are usually illegal. The justice dept focus was to prove M$ a monopoly in order to punish or break up M$ for it's abuse. With a monopoly abuse is inevitable unless governed by another body even then it’s unproductive overall, so laziness and consumer gauging sort of happens. It’s only a matter of time for a monoply and M$ has abused its monopoly in the past and is walking on eggshells.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
August 13, 2004 5:20:58 PM

The old rambus story is base on false rumor

i need to change useur name.
August 13, 2004 5:51:28 PM

>I’m not 100% on this next part but I read somewhere there
>was another reason or purpose to rambus and that was to
>keep the memory farther from the cpu to avoid the use of on
>die memory controllers.

Defnately not. At that time, in fact intel was working on Timna, a highly integrated Celeron/Cyrix MediaGX class cpu with integrated RAMBUS controller. so not true. It is being said however, that BTX (successor of ATX) would be specced to ensure the memory was too far from the cpu to be achieveable without northbridge inbetween.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 13, 2004 6:28:07 PM

I also read <A HREF="http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug200..." target="_new"> this</A> today so it would seem the growth potential is something in between your 20 – 25% and my ambitious 35% that being said Hector Ruiz is usually very conservative when discussing the future from what I know, unlike Jerry was.


Ruiz is betting the new chip design will help AMD double its share of the PC market to 30% over the next three years to five years. Rival Intel's PC chips are based on a 32-bit architecture, although it also recently embraced the 64-bit approach. Intel makes a 64-bit chip for more powerful computers known as servers, but they haven't been a huge success.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
!