Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Into the Core - Intel's New Core CPU

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the one-hard-core dept.

178

Tyler Too writes "Hannibal over at Ars Technica has an in-depth look at Intel's new Core processors. From the article: 'In a time when an increasing number of processors are moving away from out-of-order execution (OOOE, or sometimes just OOO) toward in-order, more VLIW-like designs that rely heavily on multithreading and compiler/coder smarts for their performance, Core is as full-throated an affirmation of the ongoing importance of OOOE as you can get.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075403)

Ok, so I know I'm going to get a lot of AMD people agreeing with me and a lot of Intel people outright ripping me to shreds. But I'm going to speak my thoughts come hell or high water and you can choose to be a yes-man (or woman) with nothing to add to the conversation or just beat me with a stick.

I believe that AMD had this technology [wikipedia.org] before Intel ever started in on it. Yes, I know it wasn't really commercially available on PCs but it was there. And I would also like to point out a nifty little agreement between IBM and AMD [pcworld.com] that certainly gives them aid in the development of chips. Let's face it, IBM's got research money coming out of their ears and I'm glad to see AMD benefit off it and vice versa. I think that these two points alone show that AMD has had more time to refine the multicore technology and deliver a superior product.

As a disclaimer, I cannot say I've had the ability to try an Intel dual core but I'm just ever so happy with my AMD processor that I don't see why I should.

There's a nice little chart in the article but I like AMD's explanation [amd.com] along with their pdf [amd.com] a bit better. As you can see, AMD is no longer too concerned with dual core but has moved on to targeting multi core.

Do I want to see Intel evaporate? No way. I want to see these two companies go head to head and drive prices down. You may mistake me for an AMD fanboi but I simply was in agony in high school when Pentium 100s costed an arm and a leg. Then AMD slowly climbed the ranks to be a major competitor with Intel--and thank god for that! Now Intel actually has to price their chips competitively and I never want that to change. I will now support the underdog even if Intel drops below AMD just to insure stiff competition. You can call me a young idealist about capitalism!

I understand this article also tackles execution types and I must admit I'm not too up to speed on that. It's entirely possible that OOOE could beat out the execution scheme that AMD has going but I wouldn't know enough to comment on it. I remember that there used to be a lot of buzz about IA-64's OOOE [wikipedia.org] processing used on Itanium. But I'm not sure that was too popular among programmers.

The article presents a compelling argument for OOOE. And I think that with a tri-core or higher processor, we could really start to see a big increase in sales using OOOE. Think about it, a lot of IA-64 code comes to a point where the instruction stalls as it waits for data to be computed (most cases, a branch). If there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional (and third core to evaluate the conditional) then where is the slowdown? This will only break down on a switch style statement or when several if-thens follow each other successively.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075582)

"I believe that AMD had this technology before Intel ever started in on it. "

What technology?

"As you can see, AMD is no longer too concerned with dual core but has moved on to targeting multi core. "

I have not seen anything that says that Intel is not targeting multi core either. It looks like both AMD and Intel will ship quad-core CPUs in about the same timeframe, with Intel a bit ahead.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075627)

Dual core technology. AMD was the first [short-media.com] . 20 [newegg.com] dual cores for AMD, 14 [newegg.com] dual cores for Intel.

Both [theinquirer.net] are [extremetech.com] probably going to ship quad cores in early 2007.

Not sure where you're getting your data.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075638)

As an old hippy socialist Apple user I completely agree with pretty much everything you said. Although some of the ideas that caught my interest in the IBM PPC970 apparently can be found in this latest Intel offering... still I'm mostly in the middle of my upgrade cycle... and I expect quad cores before I upgrade my PowerMac and a second generation of widescreen MacBook before I update my laptop.

Also I would be interested in a Cell / Power based content creation workstation --- but not from Sony, I've given up on them.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (2, Informative)

archen (447353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075639)

f there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional

I don't see how that could really be useful. I mean if you were computing instructions on a one by one basis, then perhaps that would work, but you fill the pipe then find out it's the prediction is wrong so you go to the other cpu, however when you look at the bigger picture you realize that you are essencially crippling one CPU by dedicating it to doing something other than actually processing.

Intel's CPU branch prediction is already known to be better than AMD's. I think the bigger news is that the pipe will be cut down by half of the P4 to 14. If they can keep the processor fed (and perhaps move the memory controller on die like AMD has), then Intel may finally be able to end the spanking session they've been recieving by AMD.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (2, Insightful)

antime (739998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076323)

If there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional
I don't see how that could really be useful.
Doing it with multiple cores would probably be a waste, but isn't that what the IA64's predicated execution is all about? To avoid pipeline bubbles it executes both paths from the branch, and once the branch condition is known the results from the not-taken path are thrown away.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (3, Interesting)

default luser (529332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15077088)

Right, there are two camps for the "high-end" branch prediction concept:

Camp 1: devise adaptive, multi-component prediction systems that offer both fast and accurate branch prediction. Waste hardware purely for branch prediction.

Camp 2: Use the compiler hint if available, otherwise execute both paths, and throw away the incorrect processing path. It seems cheaper on the surface, but you have to realize: all that extra fetching to process both paths in reasonable time mean more fetch bandwidth and more execution units required just to keep up.

Obviously, if your code contains lots of branches that cannot be predicted by the compiler hints, the Camp 2 solution is going to perform worse. The advantage of active branch prediction is that you never have to recompile the code to keep the branch hints "optimized" if your datasets change.

It doesn't really matter which camp you choose, because both camps waste space on a Branch Target Buffer (predicts the TARGET of the branch) anyway, and that's often more costly than the branch direction predictor. Even the Itanium has a BTB, that's how it can instantly start executing the "branch taken" case.

The Itanium is just taking advantage of a serious architectural flaw to perform branch prediction. Even modern compilers are inserting 20% or more "noops" into the instruction stream, why not take advantage of that underutilization. On any other platform, it would be a very stupid approach to branch prediction.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (4, Insightful)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075642)

I will now support the underdog even if Intel drops below AMD just to insure stiff competition. You can call me a young idealist about capitalism!

Hmmmmn, I think I'll actually call you someone who needs to read up a bit on both idealism and capitalism!

Also, on a somewhat note - never care about a company, because the company cannot reciprocate your feelings.

If Intel comes out with a better, cheaper processor tomorrow, don't buy the AMD one, buy the intel one. Their is no point treating a company like a person.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075862)

I'd like to point out that companies are still ran by people, even if it doesn't sometimes seem that way because the people running them apparently forget this as well.

You can go on as much as you like about them existing solely for the purpose of making a profit but in the end people should behave ethically in everything they do instead of hiding behind artificial constructs.

From this follows that you can actually care about the group of people that make up a company and they can care about you. This is most often apparent with very small shops.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

Eivind Eklund (5161) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075934)

I vote with my money: I consider Intel to behave badly, so I don't buy Intel if there's a reasonable alternative.

This is personal responsibility: I will try to avoid moving resources to a company that behaves badly, instead trying to move they resources where they do good.

Eivind.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (5, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076041)

If Intel comes out with a better, cheaper processor tomorrow, don't buy the AMD one, buy the intel one. Their is no point treating a company like a person.

Clearly you've never heard of a boycott, picket, or any other similar form of consumer revolt.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076401)

If they handing over bloggers to the Chinese secret police I'd boycott them.

FUD and dumping don't justify a boycott, at least to me.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15076306)

If Intel comes out with a better, cheaper processor tomorrow, don't buy the AMD one, buy the intel one. Their is no point treating a company like a person.

You missed his point entirely. You're advocating a short-term, passive outlook, while the GP is advocating a long-term, active one. If you buy whoever is less expensive now, you get the benefit of saving money on this purchase and every purchase from them until they decide to raise prices. And that will be shortly after they snuff all the competition out of existence. If you buy from whoever is the underdog, you'll likely get a less expensive item now (since they have to cut prices to get attention away from the market leader), and in the future, you'll see healthy competition where everyone (including the market leader) has to lower prices. And that makes all of your purchases less expensive overall.

It's not "caring about a company". It's evaluation of a company's credentials and market position. The word "care" is just used as a shorthand way of saying that. In context, it makes perfect sense. In the context of a person, "care" is a term of affection or affinity. In the context of a company whose product you're planning to purchase, "care" is a term of satisfaction with the product and acceptance of the purchase terms. And on that level, a company can reciprocate your feelings and "care" about you as a customer.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15077083)

This discussion regarding purchasing choices strikes a chord with me since I've just recently been evaluating two financial products (a Variable Universal Life policy versus investing in low cost mutual funds). If you really want to be savvy about chip purchasing decisions, it's all about the Net Present Value (NPV) of the payment/purchasing streams.

For example, consider choosing between a market leader, A, and an underdog B. A has a good product which costs $500. B has a not-so-good product for $500 also. Now if everyone is focused on the short-term benefits and logical, they'll buy from A, since it's a better product for your money (more value). However, this may make B go out of business.

Imagine everyone also knows that once A becomes a monopoly, they will sell the same product for $1000 each, and will stop innovating. Imagine everyone also knows that if B survives, both A and B will continue to innovate and continue to sell their products for $500 each. If you calculate the NPV of your future payment/purchase streams in both situations, people will logically chose to buy from B (and eventually A as A becomes the underdog) to keep both in business and stimulate competition/innovation.

Of course, the assumptions about the monopoly and the competitive environment are big ones. However, I think this is the concept the GGP wanted to express. When you think about the long term, you make assumptions and your decisions might not make sense to someone only thinking about the short term.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

ooze (307871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15077121)

I fpeople would buy the better, cheaper processors, then x86 would have been long gone.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075651)

IA-64 is NOT OOOE. It is the exact opposite.

AMD 64, on the other hand, is OOOE.

Did you read ANYTHING before posting that?

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075761)

Yeah, I did read quite a bit before posting that. It's been a while since I've coded IA-64's prediction style instructions but the first sentence of IA-64's Architecture in the Wikipedia entry (which I linked) is:
In a mainstream "out-of-order" design, a complex decoder system examines each instruction as it flows through the pipeline and sees which can be fed off to operate in parallel across the available execution units...
Ok, so how does IA-64 not qualify as OOOE (alias OoO)?

Did you read anything before posting that?

I RTFA'd and also noted that the article started out by saying that people have been moving away from OOOE but since we're getting multicore processors (and they picked Intel to promote so I focused on AMD) that we should be moving towards it. I thought I understood what was going on but by all means, please, enlighten me!

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075907)

did you not get to the part where it said "IA-64 instead relies on the compiler for this task."?

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (5, Interesting)

DesertWolf0132 (718296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075693)

As you fear a beating from the Intel side after what I say I fear I will receive a beating from both.

In my personal experience the AMD chips have been the fastest systems I have ever owned. My problem with them is the boards made for them (this is personal experience only) tend to become unstable after a couple of years. Intel boards, in my experience, stay stable longer.

For example, I have two 5 year old systems, one with a Gigabyte AMD Athlon board, and one with a true Intel P3 board. Both run Slackware. Both have insane cooling so the board temps never go over 100 degrees. The Athlon board system will occasionally reboot for no reason. The Intel board system has run for months without ever needing to be touched. The last time I brought it down was for a power outage that lasted longer than the battery on my UPS. I have tested everything on the Athlon system. The power supply is solid, the hard drive is new and the second one I have installed, none of the controllers test bad, and while it is running nothing tests bad using diagnostics. Then it suddenly reboots.

One would think this an isolated incident but I have build 6 Athlon systems in the last 5 years for friends and only two are still stable. All of the Intel systems I have built with true Intel boards in the last 15 years are still running including a 486 DX/2 66. I know this is personal experience only and not a good enough sample to make any real judgement but as for me, I pick Intel. That said, I believe the problems I have had with AMD come from the fact that none of the boards are made by AMD. If AMD made a board up to the same standards as its CPU I believe my opinion would change in a heartbeat.

You may commence my flogging now...

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

kbogert (792477) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075759)

Really? In my experience, the only motherboards I've had to replace were intel, one just this last week an 845BG thats only 2 1/2 years old. But I also have two Dell Dimension 800's that I use as servers which are up constantly, so I guess my opinion is in the Pentium 4 era quality went down.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

DesertWolf0132 (718296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075989)

I get that alot when I relate my story. I also understand that I am a sys-admin and don't always have time to research every detail of each core. It is very possible the board-chip combination I picked was not optimal and thus created detrimental performance. I would often use supplier recommendations and seeing as they are there to sell me something they might not have taken the time to choose the best combinations. All the Intel board/chip combinations I picked using the Intel recommendations and they also tended to be higher end than the AMD systems I built. Like I said, this is in my experience only and not to be taken as enough information to judge AMD poorly.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075993)

Actually, the problem is probably in the chipset, rather than the processor. Old AMD-compatible chipsets were really flakey and full of incompatibilities (I remember way back when getting an nvidia card to work on AMD was a crapshoot... and only now are there nforce chipsets for intel ;) Not just AMD's own chipsets, but chipsets by via etc, for amd processors were pretty bad.

My own motherboard (I think its around 4-5 years old) uses the AMD768, which has a known errata, which paraphrased, reads like this: "AMD768 occasionally fucks up. We don't know why, and we can't fix it, but we've got a machine with a PS/2 mouse here that it's never happened to." Sure enough, I plug in an old ps/2 mouse (it now hangs from the back, i still use my usb mouse) and the hard locks and drive corruption that would happen every few days if I didn't reboot the machine nightly hasn't happened since.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (2, Interesting)

vondo (303621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076470)

I suspect you are right. My problem seems to be with the VIA KT333/400/600 series of boards. I manage about 40 PCs at work and at home an almost without exception over the last 3 years, the failures have been these boards. The boards are a mix of 440BX, VIA KT, Intel 865 (I think), dual Athlon MPs (the old ones), new NForce 4, and a few other chipsets. The (assumed) VIA problems put me off Athlons for quite a while, which is not good for AMD.

I say assumed, because I think twice we tracked it down and it was the MB. After that, we just replaced the whole MB/CPU/RAM combo since it's not worth trying to diagnose and replace one old part.

The 440BX boards are tanks. They are running 450 MHz P3s 24/7 for about 8 years now and have ~0 problems.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076681)

Why do I care if it's the AMD processor that's shoddy, or the chipsets that are required to make the processor work? I don't care where the problem is...I care that my PC doesn't randomly reboot itself. If I buy an Intel board with an Intel chip, I'll be fine.

I have the same sorts of problems with my Athlon system, and it's cured me of ever buying another AMD processor. Once bitten, twice shy.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

DesertWolf0132 (718296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076707)

I can agree with that. I had an old Gateway box with an Athlon 650 (I lost it in a divorce) that had this weird glitch on the board. Every few times I would boot it the keyboard and mouse would stop working. I called support and the tech said to swap the ps/2 ports they were plugged into. I did and all of a sudden they worked with the keyboard plugged into the mouse port and vice versa. After a while the mouse stopped working so I replaced it with a USB mouse and never had a problem again.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (2, Interesting)

BeBoxer (14448) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076089)

What sort of tests have you run on it? My home machine would misbehave occasionally, with random applications crashing. I tested it with Memtest86+, and it didn't find any problems. Since I run Linux, I tried repeated kernel compiles next. Doing that, I found it couldn't manage more than two or three complete compiles without the compiler failing. In my case, re-arranging my DIMMs cleared it up. But since one of the DIMM's was bought at fire sale prices at a computer surplus show, I don't think I can blame my crashes on AMD. What's my point? I don't know, other than saying that memory is a ripe place for problems and it's not unheard of for diagnostics for a specific subsystem to not pick up problems.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

DesertWolf0132 (718296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076776)

Everything from an old copy of PCPro to the latest Professional Diagnostics from Ultra-X. All of the RAM was factory Crucial RAM recommended specifically for that board. That said, it is not entirely unheard of.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076193)

My problem with them is the boards made for them (this is personal experience only) tend to become unstable after a couple of years. Intel boards, in my experience, stay stable longer.

You're comparing one brand of motherboard (Intel) with a very large GROUP of motherboards (any Socket-A compatible). For it to be fair, you'd have to compare something like Asus Intel motherboards to Asus AMD motherboards.

That said, I believe the problems I have had with AMD come from the fact that none of the boards are made by AMD.

Guess what, Intel doesn't make motherboards either. They contract with Asus or another company to sell their motherboards with the Intel brand on it.

So, you might as well say that Sony makes great optical drives, while Lite-on makes junk. (Sony re-brands Lite-on drives)

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (2, Informative)

dpilot (134227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076472)

>Guess what, Intel doesn't make motherboards either. They contract with Asus or another company to sell their
>motherboards with the Intel brand on it.

Two points:
1. Intel design chipsets for their CPUs. AMD designed one, a while back, and otherwise relies on 3rd party.
2. Intel may well have designed, engineered, and spec'ed the board, regardless of who makes it.

So this is really a statement that Intel has better control of delivering their CPU capabilities to the end user than AMD, independent of the raw capabilities of those CPUs.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

DesertWolf0132 (718296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076798)

Thank you. You articulated my point better than I would have.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15076850)

Guess what, Intel doesn't make motherboards either. They contract with Asus or another company to sell their motherboards with the Intel brand on it.

Posting anonymously from the desktop boards division at Intel, I can confidently say that you are incorrect because I am working on a retail motherboard right now.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

HoboMaster (639861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076428)

It's just a crapshoot with AMD mobos. As a general rule, I stick with ASUS or MSI boards, as both have treated me very well and been very stable. A friend of mine went through 4-5 different mobos in the course of 6 months. Cheap mobos aren't worth it. On another note, I've got an old k6 350mhz that's been running perfect for over a decade now. Now I'm curious as to what mobo my uncle used when he made it. Summary: AMD mobos are a crapshoot, but 90% of cheap ones are complete shit. Find one that works for you and stick with it. Everyone I know has a certain brand they swear by that works great for them that doesn't work for anyone else (cept ASUS, everyone likes those =P).

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 - motherboards (1)

bec1948 (845104) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076478)

FWIW, AMD has recognized problems with motherboards. Since they don't make them themselves there's lots of variation in design, capabilities and quality control. AMD and Radion and ATI have all initiated programs to bring better qualtity control and consistancy to motherboards for AMD processors. Most of these issues are seen in server class rather than desktop class boards, but the problems are still there. At this point, components and drivers are the main cause of system crashes on X86 boxes. The better the quality of the components the more reliable the computer. Remember, these problems may not appear to be hardware related too. They may seem to be caused by software - blame Microsoft! In order to support the performance capabilities of the next generation of processors all of the components from the big ones like memory and NICs and Storage contollers, to the less obvious ones like mother board layer construction will need to be top-notch.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | more than 8 years ago | (#15077067)

For example, I have two 5 year old systems, one with a Gigabyte AMD Athlon board, and one with a true Intel P3 board.

I used to like Gigabyte boards ever since I got my old TX board for my P200. But I don't think I'll be buying any more Gigabyte boards for now:
  • My server had a Gigabyte GA7VAX (I think) which went up in a cloud of smoke (capacitors blew - lots of smoke).
  • My MythTV box has one of the smaller Gigabyte Athlon/VIA boards. WoL doesn't work even though there's an option in the BIOS, ACPI S3 mode doesn't work (it just powers off the whole damned box instead of suspending to RAM), lm_sensors can't get any sensible temperature readings off anything and you can't get temperature readings off ACPI.
  • The replacement motherboard for my server is another Gigabyte board. Again, can't get much in the way of temperature or voltage readings with lm_sensors and ACPI won't provide a CPU temperature reading.


Also, all the Gigabyte boards have only the clip-on heatsink mounts rather than also having the bolt-through holes in the board, so some heat sinks and water cooling kits either won't fit at all or require some modification.

Both have insane cooling so the board temps never go over 100 degrees.

100 degrees sounds really far too hot to me. My air-cooled Athlon XP 1900+ runs at ~60 degrees (CPU temperature). My water cooled Athlon XP 2100+ server runs at 30 - 40 degrees. If the CPU temperature exceeds 70-odd degrees the whole thing goes really unstable.

Don't want to be seen as an AMD fanboi? (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075713)

Then cut out all the "personal revelation" nonsense. You are trying to write a comparison between an Intel processor and an AMD processor and don't see why you should try an Intel processor first? You like AMD's explanation better? This isn't a matter of who csn write the most entertaining copy. What does the "support the underdog" sentence even mean?

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (2, Informative)

amjacobs (769757) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075753)

It's entirely possible that OOOE could beat out the execution scheme that AMD has going but I wouldn't know enough to comment on it. I remember that there used to be a lot of buzz about IA-64's OOOE processing used on Itanium. But I'm not sure that was too popular among programmers.
There is nothing new with Out of Order Execution. It's been implemented in all the Pentium cores as well as AMD chips from the K6 (I think) on up. In fact, the reason why going to multi-core designs is necessary is because it is difficult to extract any more instruction-level parallelism (ILP) from code using additional hardware techniques. (For instance, some new hardware may increase performance by 3%, but add 10% area to the design) Itanium, which is an in-order processor, shifts the ILP extraction to the compiler.
The article presents a compelling argument for OOOE. And I think that with a tri-core or higher processor, we could really start to see a big increase in sales using OOOE. Think about it, a lot of IA-64 code comes to a point where the instruction stalls as it waits for data to be computed (most cases, a branch). If there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional (and third core to evaluate the conditional) then where is the slowdown? This will only break down on a switch style statement or when several if-thens follow each other successively.
Processors can already do what your suggesting. All modern cores from AMD and Intel are super-scalar. This means that there are multiple pipelines running in parallel. If you have two pipelines, you can compute both of the possible results from a branch and discard the incorrect value. BUT, you cut your maximum efficiency by half. (You are using 2x the resources to get 1x the results) You wouldn't want to do the same thing with separate cores for a variety of reasons. Instead, using separate cores for separate threads provides an immediate performance improvement without the need for major code revisions.

I don't think you'll find anyone who is against using OOE. Ideally, you would want a processor that combines good hardware techniques (OOE, branch prediction, prefetching) with a good compiler/ISA (maybe some sort of VLIW, but I still have my doubts about the compiler feasability). The key for AMD and Intel is to find the right balance of hardware and software techniques that provide the best overall performance.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075845)

There is nothing new with Out of Order Execution. It's been implemented in all the Pentium cores as well as AMD chips from the K6 (I think) on up...

...I don't think you'll find anyone who is against using OOE.
I'm confused, the article said:
In a time when an increasing number of processors are moving away from out-of-order execution (OOOE, or sometimes just OOO) toward in-order, more VLIW-like designs that rely heavily on multithreading and compiler/coder smarts for their performance, Core is as full-throated an affirmation of the ongoing importance of OOOE as you can get.
So when they talked about "moving away" what did they mean? You can't move away from it if you were never using it. Did he mean entirely different architectures are being selected and the consumer is moving away from OOOE?

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

amjacobs (769757) | more than 8 years ago | (#15077104)

I think the assertion that designers are "moving away" from OOE is false. Some newer processors are in-order, the Itanium is the main one. But, it's not like designers are moving en mass away from OOE.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

trilliwig (558395) | more than 8 years ago | (#15077162)

From TFA:

But for Intel, having multicore in mind doesn't mean quite the same thing that it means for Sun or IBM. Specifically, "multicore" doesn't mean "throw out out-of-order execution and scale back single-threaded performance in favor of a massively parallel architecture that can run a torrent of simultaneous threads." Such an aggressive, forward-looking approach is embodied in designs like STI's Cell and Sun's Ultrasparc T1.

Also, contrary to the first poster's statements, Intel's Itanium architecture (IA-64) uses an in-order implementation, relying on the compiler to extract instruction-level parallelism. So there is a definite trend in the industry to forgo the hardware complexity of out-of-order execution in favor of software methods of extracting parallelism.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

antime (739998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076232)

There is nothing new with Out of Order Execution. It's been implemented in all the Pentium cores as well as AMD chips from the K6 (I think) on up.
The original Pentium was superscalar, but in-order. The big "wow" thing about the P6 was that contrary to everyone's expectation, Intel had managed to make an out-of-order version of the x86.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

MrFlibbs (945469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076451)

Just to clarify a few things:

1) OOO was not used in the original Pentium. It debuted (for Intel) in the P6 family. This includes the Pentium Pro, PII, & PIII. The P4 is also OOO, but is not a P6 derivative.

2) Super-scalar does not require multiple pipelines. The term refers to the ability to run simultaneous execution units, but these can be fed in various ways. In the Pentium, there were indeed two separate pipelines. However, the P6 dispatches micro-ops (uops) to multiple execution engines from a single pipeline. This is part of the OOO scheme, as the uops complete in a non-deterministic order. The results are held in a re-order buffer and retired in-order.

3)There are various trade-offs between in-order and out-of-order execution. Using the compiler to pre-extract parallelism simplifies the hardware, but a single binary won't be optimized for all CPUs within the same family. For example, upgrading to a CPU with a larger cache may require re-compiling the application in order to take advantage of the new hardware capability.

As for AMD vs. Intel, what's the big deal? AMD processors have been faster for the last couple of years. Intel's Conroe will reclaim the crown when it debuts next quarter. This doesn't have to be a religious war -- just buy the best system that fits your budget when you're ready to upgrade.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075817)

I believe that AMD had this technology before Intel ever started in on it. Yes, I know it wasn't really commercially available on PCs but it was there.

Perhaps (I'm not sure what "this technology" refers to), but so what?

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075819)

How can this get modded up to +5?

This is an article about internal processor blocks, and you clearly don't know too much about that.
I believe that AMD had this technology before Intel ever started in on it.
There's a nice little chart in the article but I like AMD's explanation along with their pdf a bit better. As you can see, AMD is no longer too concerned with dual core but has moved on to targeting multi core
The article does not touch on the multiprocessor or multicore subject. RTFA

Out of order execution was introduced on x86 cpus quite some time ago. It just got that little bit better on the latest Intel CPU.

I remember that there used to be a lot of buzz about IA-64's OOOE processing used on Itanium.
WTF? The Itanium is a EPIC architecture, which can HARDLY be called Out Of Order execution. With EPIC the cpu executes packs of instructions at once, packs which the compiler has to prepare at compile time. Out of order execution is the complete opposite.
 
Out of order execution coupled with more execution units than a P4 is exactly what made/makes AMD's cpus faster than Intel's!

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

tayhimself (791184) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075898)

I believe that AMD had this technology before Intel ever started in on it.
IBM's Power 4 was dual core. Heck there are already multi-core versions of Power4/5. They do this by having putting multiple dual core dies on the same package (Multi chip modules afaik).
AMD is no longer too concerned with dual core but has moved on to targeting multi core.
See above
I cannot say I've had the ability to try an Intel dual core but I'm just ever so happy with my AMD processor that I don't see why I should.
Have you even tried a multi-core or SMT processor? Linus (yes him) posts on RWT forums and he frequently fawns over the difference SMT/HT makes in user experience.
It's entirely possible that OOOE could beat out the execution scheme that AMD has going but I wouldn't know enough to comment on it. I remember that there used to be a lot of buzz about IA-64's OOOE processing used on Itanium. But I'm not sure that was too popular among programmers.
OOE has been available since the P5 or Pentium days. Every mainstream processor architecture bar IA-64 (and maybe some MIPS cores) uses it. IA-64 is VLIW and in-order relying on the compiler to schedule instructions. Ahh, the Cell and X360 cores are also in-order AFAIK. But in order execution is the recent trend so to speak not OOE. The late generation PPCs were great OOE processors as well.
Think about it, a lot of IA-64 code comes to a point where the instruction stalls as it waits for data to be computed (most cases, a branch). If there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional (and third core to evaluate the conditional) then where is the slowdown? This will only break down on a switch style statement or when several if-thens follow each other successively.
WTF is this? This is not how multicore works. Go read something. How does this shit get modded +3 insightful is beyond me.
In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.
Ahaha a fan-boy. That explains it. BTW, I've built 3 intel and 4 AMD systems in the last 3 years. I dont know what I will buy next. The dual-core 805 D is very attractive at $135 but a pain to silence.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076213)

"Have you even tried a multi-core or SMT processor? Linus (yes him) posts on RWT forums and he frequently fawns over the difference SMT/HT makes in user experience."

He's right, and it does not matter who is the CPU maker. I have an Athlon X2 4200+ dual-core machine that I built (runs SuSE 10.0) , and have put in some butt time on a dual 2.8 Xeon Irwindale machine that I also built (but it is not mine, I just run it in a lab, and it runs FC5) I have used a Pentium D 820 machine a very small amount (XP Pro), and also a dual 2.0 G5 PowerMac (Mac OS 10.4.)

In all of the cases, the second CPU really does make a big difference in the user experience if you have multiple apps open, which I certainly do and most people do also unless they are gamers. I would say that the Windows machine benefitted most from the second core as Windows tends to bog down for a while after a load has been removed as it has to process the delayed tasks, and the second core did these while the first one was working.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

oringo (848629) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076271)

Mod the parent up! Anyone who has been educated in computer architecture would agree with the parent and know that grandparent knows nothing about it. Thank you for posting, parent, I was going to post a very similar comment but you beat me to it.

Just one addition, branch instrucctions don't hold up processors, memory load and floating point instructions do. The problem with the branch instructions is that the branch decision may come too late, and the penalty depends on the depth of the pipeline.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076836)

Have you even tried a multi-core or SMT processor?

...

OOE has been available since the P5 or Pentium days. Every mainstream processor architecture bar IA-64 (and maybe some MIPS cores) uses it.

There is a big difference between SMT and multi-core. SMT provides multiple contexts in a single core. This is very useful for reducing latency and increasing throughput (two things which are usually a trade off).

SMT improves throughput since any kind of hazard in one instruction stream, the CPU can continue to execute instructions from the other one(s). It also works particularly well with branch miss-predictions, and anything that requires a memory access, since the CPU can continue doing useful work while it is waiting for the memory controller to return.

SMT improves latency, since it reduces the cost of a context switch. Context switches between scheduled threads executing in SMT contexts are free. This reduces the number of context switches required overall, which can dramatically improve latency.

It is worth noting that many of the advantages of SMT are the same as those of OoOE, and so good OoOE is not as important when you bump up the number of contexts, since you are no longer stalling if instructions are scheduled in the wrong order.

Oh, and for reference, all (most?) of the SPARC CPUs are in-order, as is the Cell and the PowerPC used in the XBox 360. They are all a lot more mainstream than IA64...

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075994)

It is really a said thing to see this getting modded high and informative.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15076502)

What about 'said thing'?

Here's a thought, stop being an anonymous coward and spend the time to make a real post without typos with real links to back up a real counter-point to the parent's post. Stop wasting people's time with posts about "Gee golly, this person's a fucking moron and it makes me sad to see that no one can get this straight."

Go ahead, enlighten us ... we're all waiting.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075997)

Ok, so I know I'm going to get a lot of AMD people agreeing with me and a lot of Intel people outright ripping me to shreds.

It is interesting that you start your comment by trying to build a dichotomy. Almost all the responses to your comment have been from people who (unlike you) don't care about the companies, only the products and results.

As a disclaimer, I cannot say I've had the ability to try an Intel dual core but I'm just ever so happy with my AMD processor that I don't see why I should.

Okay, you've established yourself as a loyal customer who is not interested in evaluating all the options and making an informed and impartial decision. So why should anyone care what you have to say about it? You've just admitted you're both uninformed and biased.

I will now support the underdog even if Intel drops below AMD just to insure stiff competition. You can call me a young idealist about capitalism!

The idea behind capitalism is that people buy the best product, thus motivating companies to strive to be the best. Just buying product from whichever company has a smaller market share is anathema to said ideal.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

I really don't understand this thinking. When I need a new system I look at all the available products and pick the best combination for my purposes and price range. I can understand the concept of a strategic purchase, but don't see the case for it here. My own evaluation of the market right now would lead me to look at either an AMD or IBM system for a desktop, AMD for servers, and Intel or IBM for a laptop. I don't care who makes them, just what they can do for me.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076149)

...but I simply was in agony in high school when Pentium 100s costed an arm and a leg.

I'm not going to beat you for choosing AMD over Intel. I'm not going to beat you for claiming that your loyalties will switch on a moments notice. I'm not even going to beat you for getting a well modded first post.

No, no, no. I'm going to beat you for being a brat.

Why? Because when I was in high school, I simply was in agony because 6502's cost an arm and a leg.

whippersnapper.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

fastgood (714723) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076309)

As a disclaimer, I cannot say I've had the ability to try an Intel dual core but I'm just ever so happy with my AMD processor that I don't see why I should.

I've seen a single 2.0GHz duo core processor (T2500) benchmark like a 1.8GHz Sempron (aka 3000+).
Tie score: Not bad for a mobile processor, and not bad for a value desktop chip with just 128K L2 cache.

That was operating off the old premise that good "laptop" processing lags behind adequate desktop useage.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

Not me. The dirty little AMD secret we all know is the current outrageous pricing. Proof is documented:


http://web.archive.org/web/20020603180418/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html [archive.org]

AMD Athlon(TM) XP (May 2002)
2000+ $193
1900+ $172
1800+ $160
1700+ $140
http://web.archive.org/web/20030602013858/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html [archive.org]

AMD Athlon(TM) XP Processor (May 2003)
2600+ $103
2500+ $89
2400+ $84
2200+ $74
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611152643/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html [archive.org]

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (June 2004)
3200+ $278
3000+ $218
2800+ $178
http://web.archive.org/web/20050319092914/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html [archive.org]

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2005)
3700+ $329
3500+ $272
3400+ $223
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01 [amd.com]

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2006)
4000+ $341
3800+ $288
3700+ $238
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01 [amd.com]

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 X2 (current)
4800+ $643
4600+ $556
4400+ $467
4200+ $362

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (4, Informative)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076535)

I believe that AMD had this technology [wikipedia.org] before Intel ever started in on it.

No offense, but you lost me right about here. The Athlon 64 and Opteron (and the Clawhammer/Sledgehammer chips as a whole) are fundamentally a whole different direction than the Core Duo. While they're aiming towards the same goals (really damned fast x86 code execution), they get there in two entirely different ways.

The idea behind the Athlon 64 and Opteron chips were to attack Intel where it would hurt them most, the midrange server section of their business. AMD realized that Intel sells more of these machines, and the maintainance contracts on these machines mean that they're going to keep coming back to you for more of them, even 5 years down the line when your chips are virtually "obsolete". This is broadcasted very loudly in their choice to integrate a memory controller onboard their CPUs; in order to upgrade chips with an integrated memory controller, you have to replace the whole board, and managers aren't going to want to do that very often. Your chips are cheaper overall (because they don't have to have external logic to drive the memory controller anymore, and they were cheaper to begin with), but it locks you into AMD as a company, and locks you into that chip (a slam dunk victory for AMD).

The Intel Core philiosophy was something completely different; it was reactionary in the sense that the Pentium 4 and Netburst were sputtering to the end of their performance gains, way earlier than Intel could have prediticted. But at the same time, Intel has always been known to make great mobile chips, and the Intel Core Architecture was built on a mobile chip platform. It was the logical choice, even in March 2003 when the Pentium M/Core Architecture first made itself available to the world as Banias. The Athlon 64 didn't even make itself available on the market until April (Opteron) or September (Athlon 64) of that year.

Better late than never? Yeah, of course. But the point is, the Opteron was meant to be a server chip and take back the market from Intel and is completely succeeding. The Core chips were entirely meant to be Mobile chips, and due to technology trickledown, we're starting to see that Mobile chips are just as much at home in desktop computers.

And, I know you werent' trying to make yourself out to be a complete and total AMD fanboy in your post, you entirely came off that way, especially without knowledge of the product itself. I don't care particularly for either company, just the fastest chips I can possibly get my hands on, and right now that's the Athlon FX, but in a few months that's going to be Conroe.

Re:AMD Vs Intel: Round 8 (1)

philthedrill (690129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15077040)

I'll post some corrections.
It's entirely possible that OOOE could beat out the execution scheme that AMD has going but I wouldn't know enough to comment on it. I remember that there used to be a lot of buzz about IA-64's OOOE processing used on Itanium. But I'm not sure that was too popular among programmers.
Out-of-order execution has been standard on x86 processors since the Pentium Pro. Itanium doesn't have OoO, at least so far. Its goal has been to reduce hardware complexity by letting the compiler handle the instruction scheduling. As for programmers, OoO is invisible to them. Instructions in our basic superscalar pipeline flow like so:
| Fetch | Decode | Schedule | Execute/Mem | Retire |
| In order | In order | OoO | OoO | In order |
OoO is execution only and programmers have no idea whether instructions are shuffled or not.
Think about it, a lot of IA-64 code comes to a point where the instruction stalls as it waits for data to be computed (most cases, a branch).
No, in most cases, a cache miss. Branch prediction is what allows processors to continue execution speculatively until the results of a branch is known. If a processor stalled on every branch, you have no idea how slow machines would be.
If there are enough cores to compute both branches from the conditional
You don't need multiple cores to compute both branches. In fact, you don't even want to compute both branches - it's extra hardware and current branch prediction schemes achieve accuracy rates of > 95% (depending on the workload).

journey to center (0, Offtopic)

jigjigga (903943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075416)

i hope we dont find dinosaurs!

Yeah! More Noops (0)

jacksonai (604950) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075418)

Seriously, can the rest of the system keep the processor fed with data consistently or is the processor just gonna spend more time nooping / sleeping?

Re:Yeah! More Noops (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076541)

If you'd read the actual article you wouldn't ask that question. Most of the steps they've taken are designed to keep the execution units busy and minimize stalls. How well it will work will be determined when we see real silicon.

narrow pipeline? (-1, Redundant)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075432)

of course I didn't RTFA. just tell me - did intel solve their problems with narrow pipeline to transfer data between multiple cores and RAM?

you know - they are bumping up RAM frequency, but still transfer is too low, because of that narrow throat in the middle.

and this is why... (5, Funny)

escay (923320) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075435)

overheard at the intel core processor design lab:

"Brian, there's a message in my cereal! it says OOO..."

Re:and this is why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075550)

Google was quick to deny rumors it was buying Intel.

Re:and this is why... (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075579)

Peter, those are cheerios.

Re:and this is why... (4, Informative)

greypilgrim (799369) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075731)

Dammit if you're gonna quote Family Guy, at least do it properly!

"Brian, there's a message in my Alphabits. It says 'OOO'"

"Peter those are cheerios."

See, it's just not as funny if you forget the Alphabits part.

Who needs acronyms like OOOE and VLIW... (1)

tomcres (925786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075879)

Motorola created an opcode that beats them all: eieio

Sing: "Old Macdonald had a processor farm..."

Hey Wait (0, Flamebait)

G)-(ostly (960826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075471)

Are you allowed to put anything up about Intel now that AMD is paying Slashdot for the right to spam the site with crap advertisement "stories"? [slashdot.org]

I mean, hell, you created a whole new function in the journals system just so that AMD [slashdot.org] could continually spam with garbage [slashdot.org] .

Re:Hey Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075573)

"From now on I only buy Intel"

Oh ffs. Come on.

Grow up. Massive company puts targeted advertising on a separate section that you never have to go to of commercial needs-to-make-money-somehow site. Shock bloody horror.

If you boycotted all companies that try to advertise their products, especially in such an inobtrusive way, I think you'd be living a pretty rustic lifestyle.

Re:Hey Wait (2, Funny)

G)-(ostly (960826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075623)

Just for that, I'm never buying Intel again either.

Re:Hey Wait (0, Troll)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075596)

Ya know, Ghostly sounds a lot like Goatse.

I predict G)-(ostly, that by the time they're done moderating your comment, your name will be G)O(ostly

If you don't get it, allow me to elaborate:
Your Ass Before - ()-()
Your Ass After - ()O()

Burn karma burn

amd (0, Offtopic)

pheco (957437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075489)

i found money in your Dad's purse

Out-of-Order Operation Handling And High Hopes (4, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075507)

Do you think that when we open up a new Apple(TM), we will find a Core(TM)?

Re:Out-of-Order Operation Handling And High Hopes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075612)

If you open up a rotten crapple then you're going to find a pit.

Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing this? (0, Offtopic)

mccalli (323026) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075615)

What I'd like to know is if whether my noisy dual-core MacBook Pro (has the processor whining sound) is the only brand of dual-core Intel that's having this problem. Does anyone have a PC laptop that's dual-core? I think Acer make them, maybe some others by now. Does anyone have one of these and if so, when the CPU is idle, do you get a high pitched electrical whining sound? I'm likely to reject this machine because of noise. It's my second one too, one of the W8612 ones that a previous article suggested had the problems fixed. I can tell you that the processor noise one isn't. I'm likely to reject this one too, or at least force Apple to note my dissatisfaction so that I can get a replacement when they've got a quiet product out there. Cheers, Ian

Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (1)

motiz88 (912086) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075689)

Er, wouldn't that be the fan making the noise? CPUs have no moving parts.

Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (2, Interesting)

mccalli (323026) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075747)

Er, wouldn't that be the fan making the noise? CPUs have no moving parts.

No, it's not the fan. It's the CPU's idling mechanism, specifically its power-saving attempt. Up the CPU activity to around 5% and the noise goes away. I'd like to know if that's endemic to dual-core Intels at the moment, or if it's an Apple-specific problem.

Cheers
Ian

Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076003)

I have a MacBook Pro and it is 100% silent.

So the answer to your question is: neither.

Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (3, Insightful)

tayhimself (791184) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076090)

Ian. These are often inductor coils on the MB power circuitry making this noise. Go to silentpcreview.com forums and search for coil whine. It happens in PSU coils or/and more frequently on MB power circuitry coils. It is a combination of components that causes it and unfortunately there is not much you can do other than change the PSU/video card etc which are not possible on a laptop. You can douse the coils in electronics grade silicone (which is acid free) but I am not suggesting this. Send it back for servicing if they take it.

Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (1)

level_headed_midwest (888889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076248)

He's right. My old laptop makes that noise whenever I push a lot through a network interface (something more than half of the maximum bandwidth.)

Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (1)

mccalli (323026) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076249)

Thank you - a very informative answer.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (1)

x2A (858210) | more than 8 years ago | (#15077036)

Fast charging/discharging of capacitors can make them sing in this way. While there're no moving parts as such, changing in electric current causes changes in electromagnetic field, which is a force, thus can create tiny movement.

Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075755)

Try the mirror-widget-hack. Download the Mirror widget, start it up in Dashboard for a few seconds, then close it. Your machine will then be silent until it's next rebooted. Battery life will be slightly reduced, but not by much.

There was a run-on-startup utility available from somewhere with the same effect, but apparently 10.4.6 has broken that.

Fry baby! (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075805)

It's probably the laptop's power supply. I've only heard one processor make this sound. And that was when I hooked up the power to my motherboard backwards to my 486 many years ago. ;-)

Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (1)

jonny02 (966555) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075841)

My iMac intel works like a champ and doesn't make any noises, plus my brother just got a MacBook Pro and his is the same way. I would take yours back.. nobody likes a noisy processor :( And as for the joker who wrote this article in the first place.. How about you get yourself a real computer and then write an article begging for forgivness. The AMD has nothing on the Inel CoreDuo, and I'll go a step further and say that microsoft has nothing on apple. If they're smart, they'll make like usual and steal a grip of code from apple so at least they might be able to keep up until apple puts the next thing out. Don't get me wrong, it's not that i don't like you, i just think that you should go and actaull try something before you trash it. Didn't your mom teach you that, "How can you say you don't like brocoli?, you've never even had it!" something like that... anyway i should get back to work....

Re:Apple's noisy Dual Core MacBooks-PCs seeing thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15076058)

they'll make like usual and steal a grip of code from apple so at least they might be able to keep up until apple puts the next thing out

Apple didn't wrote OS X. They glued together pieces bought or copied from other companies and OSS so I don't see what you mean by this statement. Microsoft at least tries to write some code of their own.

Why AMD is better than Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15075767)

Intel's CEO [wikipedia.org] is an economist, while AMD's chief [wikipedia.org] might actually have a clue how a chip works...

Re:Why AMD is better than Intel (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Conrad (600139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076469)

Intel's CEO is an economist, while AMD's chief might actually have a clue how a chip works...

So what? Running big business is not the same skillset as chip engineer.

The CTOs, now *they* need a technical background. CEOs certainly don't, that's what Harvard MBAs are for.

Core has OOOE? (0)

hpcanswers (960441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075780)

It's surprising that Intel would have OOOE in Core. Itanium 2 goes more the VLIW route with what Intel terms "EPIC [intel.com] ," short for Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing.

processors are more in-order/VLIW now? (1)

dsn1337 (965775) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075788)

processors are moving away from out-of-order execution toward in-order, more VLIW-like designs that rely heavily on multithreading and compiler/coder smarts for their performance I have stopped following processor developments recently, but is this really happening? Between Intel and AMD, the only chip I've heard of that was VLIW and relied on the compiler was Itanium, and I don't see why AMD or Intel would risk repeating that mistake* again any time soon. *I dont think Itanium was a mistake because it relied on the compiler or had cool hardware (like hardware support for software-pipelining). I think it was a mistake to push for Itanium when their compilers didn't seem ready to take full advantage of it.

Re:processors are more in-order/VLIW now? (1)

the packrat (721656) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075948)

I'm amazed that no-one has mentioned Alpha before this. Remember how Intel got the dregs of the DEC people? Nice to see some of it surface.

The basic stupid assumption of the VLIW people is that magical compiler technology would appear that would allow them to generate code that made use of the chips. Having software critically depend for performance of non-fixed CPU architectures such as numbers of the various execution units and types is sheer lunacy. Anyway, what the Itanic people forgot was that any advance in compiler technology would benefit the Alpha/OOO folks just as much.

Re:processors are more in-order/VLIW now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15076257)

Having software critically depend for performance of non-fixed CPU architectures such as numbers of the various execution units and types is sheer lunacy.

There's that, and then there's also the problem that multiple cache levels mean that memory latencies are quite unpredictable. Out-of-order processors can work around that at runtime while in-order processors can't.

Re:processors are more in-order/VLIW now? (1)

1000StonedMonkeys (593519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076900)

The Cell from IBM, Rock/Niagra/T1 from Sun and the XBox's CPU all throw away out of order execution to fit more cores on the CPU. Depending on what you're trying to do, this can be good (web servers, database servers), or bad (games *ahem*).

OOO? What about AAH? (2, Funny)

m4c north (816240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075870)

and for the dyslexics out there: AAH and OOO

Re:OOO? What about AAH? (1)

SpinJaunt (847897) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076651)

Aah comes after you've burnt off your fingers from an OOO Dell, We call this Redefining Value.

New Intel marketing slogan? (4, Funny)

MECC (8478) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075912)


"You can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Core!"

OOO (0)

William Robinson (875390) | more than 8 years ago | (#15075920)

out-of-order execution (OOOE)

My dad always said that I think out of my brains.

Now I know what he means.

I'll most likely never buy intel again (0, Redundant)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076283)

AMD has surpassed anything Intel has been able to offer. I've dealt with enough Intel and AMD workstations in an engineering environment to make the switch. Intel faceplants when matched up to an Athlon 64 crunching numbers. Intel is simply buying time with all the marketing hype until they can figure out how to get the gaming market back. If you can't see that you need to get your head out of the benchmarks and go do some testing in your own environment.

Re:I'll most likely never buy intel again (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076511)

Hmm, you certainly do sound like quite the authority, and insightful post has changed my mind. I thank you.

Retard.

Re:I'll most likely never buy intel again (1)

moof1138 (215921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15077003)

There was a long period of time where Intel cleaned AMD's clock, and significantly surpassed them both in performance and stability. During that time did you say that you would never buy AMD? If so why did you change your mind? If not, well, that's what you are doing now, it was just as stupid then as it is now.

The truth is that there is a performance competition going on. AMD may have the edge now, but there is no guarantee that they will keep it. There's no way to effectively predict what the CPU world will look like in five years. Loyalists who choose to use inferior technology in the future because they love some company (a company that would happily sue fanboys into oblivion if it would raise their stock price by a penny) are just going to be stuck with a lesser technology and a warm feeling about wasting their dollars on it.

Time to sell AMD and buy INTC (1)

RoboSpork (953532) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076700)

If Intels new chips live up to the hype, it will help to restore INTC's hurting stock. It will also help to correct AMDs overvalued stock. A year ago the correct move was to buy AMD, soon I think the correct move will be to buy INTC.

What kind of new chips does AMD have up its sleeves to compete with the new Core architecture?

Article summary (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15076837)

Here's the short version:
  • Intel has a new x86 CPU coming out. It's basically an improved version of their last few CPUs, but because fabs have improved, they can fit more execution units in.
  • The wide "vector"-like instructions now have real 128 bit execution units.
  • There's a new branch prediction scheme for loop exit, which seems clever.
  • Hoisting of loads from an unknown address is now performed more speculatively than it used to be, at the cost of some complexity in the retirement unit.
  • The author of the article has no clue that the retirement unit is the hard part. That's where all the hard cases end up being unwound.
  • No benchmarks yet.

That's what's in there.

Core CPU - Truly a bizarre idea (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15077123)

Abstracted from the hacker's dictionary,

core
        n. Main storage or RAM. Dates from the days of ferrite-core memory; also still used in the UNIX community and by old-time hackers or those who would sound like them. Some derived idioms are quite current; `in core', for example, means `in memory' (as opposed to `on disk'), and both {core dump} and the `core image' or `core file' produced by one are terms in favor.

=

If now Intel has gone to using old ferrite core memory to perform CPU functions (maybe because of a huge silicon shortage or maybe to get persistance in case of blackouts due to power failures) I predict that this is finally the end of Moore's law, the game industry, the Internet and pretty much everything else dependent on cheap fast CPUs. A new 64 bit Core CPU will now contain 64 little magnets strung on wires.

Of course if the rest of the industry fails to follow Intel's lead, I sure wouldn't want to be a stockholder.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?