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!

Intel Unveils New Atom and Xeon Processors and Future Rack Scale Architecture

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the take-a-look dept.

Intel 73

MojoKid writes "Intel recently revealed a number of details regarding future Atom and Xeon processors and proposed server rack-level enhancements to improve efficiency and ease upgrades. The company will soon refresh its Xeon and Atom processor lines with new products manufactured using Intel's 22nm process node, which offer improved performance per watt characteristics and expanded feature sets. In total, Intel revealed details of three new low-power, Atom-branded SoCs for the data center, all coming in 2013. Intel is also updating the Xeon E3, E5, and E7 product lines. The Atom processor family will see new SoCs based on designs codenamed Briarwood, Avoton, and Rangeley, while the more powerful Xeons will be updated with Haswell, Ivy Bridge EP, and Ivy Bridge EX-based designs. Xeon E3s will leverage the increased graphics performance of Haswell to improve performance in multimedia-related workloads, like HD video transcodes. OHaswell-based Xeon E3 processors will also offer improved performance per watt over existing Sandy and Ivy Bridge-based designs and Intel will offer Xeon E3 processors with TDPs as low as 13 watts, approximately 25% lower than the prior generation."

cancel ×

73 comments

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

AND NO X64 VIDEO DRIVER !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43419469)

Lot of NUNS on the RUN if you ask me !!

Compatible with Windows 7? (5, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#43419503)

If not then I am not interested.

Rumor has it the new Atoms with Clovertail are not Windows 7 compatible. [neowin.net] As Microsoft wants us to be testers first rather than customers so they can sell more phones as we get used to the UI.

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43419523)

My guess is that you can install windows 7. But since most atom based systems would be tablets, very likely would be just annoying as xp to have installed.

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43419673)

Windows 7 requires legacy (PCI) components to boot. Windows 8 doesn't. /conspiracy

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43419719)

Sounds like a good chore for a foss project:

Build a custom HAL to be invoked by NTLDR that makes virtual surrogates for win7 to be happy with at kernel init, then proper kernel drivers after that.

Could probably fork and share code with the ReactOS project, actually.

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420277)

Sounds like a good chore for a foss project:

Build a custom HAL to be invoked by NTLDR that makes virtual surrogates for win7 to be happy with at kernel init, then proper kernel drivers after that.

Could probably fork and share code with the ReactOS project, actually.

Sounds like a huge undertaking. The PCI bus and architecture is so finely ingrained in the Windows 7 kernel that I do not know if it would be easy or even possible to do?

I guess the move to share the same kernel with Windows Phone is what MS had to do to rid the old code.

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43421815)

The PCI bus and architecture is so finely ingrained in the Windows 7 kernel that I do not know if it would be easy or even possible to do

uh most certainly possible...
http://www.virtualbox.org
http://www.vmware.com
http://bochs.sourceforge.net

and I would be shocked if by next year these guys do not at least have win7 booting.
http://www.mess.org/

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43419787)

Windows 8 is fine. Either install a start menu or learn to use all the keyboard shortcuts to use Metro as little as possible.

It's better than windows 7 if you can manage for the whole week it takes to get used to the UI.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#43419863)

If you gotta hack it like that to make it usable, it's NOT better than windows 7.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1, Interesting)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420027)

Heaven forbid you might have to choose a window manager too...

Don't bother with the Linux world if you don't want to 'hack it' -- so your only alternative is OS/X -- enjoy the overpriced bullshit.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420177)

Only Windows 7 has IE 8.

That is a must for my job if I get a netbook and Windows 8 comes with IE 10 so that is a no go. Windows 7 support is a must for me

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420489)

Well, you could try VirtualBox, VirtualPC, VMWare, Parallels, or any number of other virtualization platforms... Most of which are available in windows, osx and linux.

I use Windows 7 because it's my favorite UI... I have a mac laptop because it was the best option at the time, and I run linux in VMs... VMs are great, setup dev environments, clone, snapshop, drop back.. even take a look at what that virus payload actually does...

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (3, Informative)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420729)

Only Windows 7 has IE 8.

That is a must for my job if I get a netbook and Windows 8 comes with IE 10 so that is a no go. Windows 7 support is a must for me

You can run IE10 on compatibility mode, and it can go down to at least IE7 mode. http://techathlon.com/internet-explorer-10-run-compatibility-mode/ [techathlon.com] . I think you can even enforce the compatibility mode via GPO

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about a year and a half ago | (#43422523)

Only Windows 7 has IE8

Turn in both your geek and nerd card noob. MS Has already released IE10 for Win7 - It's now installed on all 3 Win7 systems here (personal uses linux) and MS will be pushing it as a Critical update by Sept/Oct of 2013 - everyone who's already installed it are the beta testers

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

styrotech (136124) | about a year and a half ago | (#43427167)

Turn in both your geek and nerd card noob

Turn in your reading comprehension card.

They said they needed IE8 - not that IE 10 wasn't available for Windows 7. I'm not sure how you could misread that so badly.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43425073)

And only Windows 8 has hyperV.

Hey look I solved your problem.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43425339)

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (0)

bryan1945 (301828) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420259)

Enjoy wasting your time hacking around. I guess your time is worth $0/hour?

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (2, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420533)

I guess your time is worth $0/hour?

Ah the classic piece of anti-Linux FUD. I haven't seen this one here in a while.

Your comment implies that Linux takes up more time than Windows. It doesn't. Not only is the OS free, but you waste less of your valuable time messing with it and get a more efficient environment. A net win in every way.

Also, your attitude is, frankly, baffling. It's part of "the computer is a tool and should get out of my way" attitude which is so wrong it's hilarious. A computer certainly is a tool and given ther amount of use it gets it is some sort of insanity not to spend some time optimizing its use.

If people with this attitude were woodworkers, then you'd see them hacking away with a screwdriver and clawhammer, rather than a chisel and mallet. Oh and also, every piece made would be riddled with woodworm, made out of random bits of wood, have sticky drawers and would collapse about 3 weeks after it shipped, destrooying everything that was held within it.

But then I suppose it's not all that baffling. Most people I know cook for themselves, frequently, yet not a single one has a blue clue how to sharpen a knife. Yet they spend far longer mashing away with a butter knife cunningly disguised as a chefs knife, or use teeny serrated knifes since they stay sharp longer, and keep using well past the point where they are serrated butter knives.

And people get drowned under email and REFUSE to learn how to use filters.

I know people who commute by bike yet mysteriously haven't even learned to adjust the little cable twiddlers to account for brakepad wear. They then keep haveing to take the bike in to "get repaired" because it's a "piece of crap".

All of these people would save valuable time and have a nicer, less frustrating life if they learned the the bare basics of the tools they use day to day.

Given your implied attitide, you are among them. I would heartily recommend leaving their ranks and join the ranks of the tool users. We are a happy bunch and have nice tools.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (3, Interesting)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420595)

Ah the classic piece of anti-Linux FUD.

I'm not sure that the original poster was making an anti-Linux statement there. I read it as having to do with having to hack around the Windows 8 "improvements".

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420669)

I'm not sure that the original poster was making an anti-Linux statement there. I read it as having to do with having to hack around the Windows 8 "improvements".

Sorry yes: I realise that my reply was badly written and rather easy to misunderstand.

It's the classic piece of anti-Linux fud, which has now been turned around to point elsewhere. Rather ironically.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43427521)

"Your comment implies that Linux takes up more time than Windows. It doesn't."

yes it does

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43421119)

Heaven forbid you might have to choose a window manager too...

Don't bother with the Linux world if you don't want to 'hack it' -- so your only alternative is OS/X -- enjoy the overpriced bullshit.

You can install from an image from quite a number of Linux distros these days, that work perfectly well out of the box.

In addition, choosing a Window manager is something Linux is intended to provide, so it's not "hacking it". Windows 8 is not supposed to have a start menu. One is offering choice, the other is compensating for its flaws.

Or, to put it another way, your comment is a crock of shit.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420413)

IMHO Windows 7 requires Classic Shell and some messing around in Control Panel to make it usable. Essentially, with each new Windows release there is another half hour of setup you must do to get rid of the latest bright ideas from Microsoft and get back to the basic but usable interface circa 1999.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420495)

Funny, Windows 7 was the first version I wasn't compelled to revert to another desktop environment (used to love litestep).

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

rbprbp (2731083) | about a year and a half ago | (#43421399)

(Posting to undo mistaken mod) At least for me, in Windows 7 I didn't need any shell replacement (or much in the way of tweaking, really) unlike I needed in XP. In fact, whenever I use XP (I have some virtual machines for ancient software) I miss the Windows 7 interface.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420583)

I use Windows 8 on a "classic" laptop. I feel it is a step down from Windows 7 and metro can be very clumsy in some ways especially with a mouse and keyboard. So it has obvious shortcomings but it's not unusable. It needs a lot of refinement however and I hope when 8.1 turns up that it gets a dose of that.

I fully expect that my next PC will be a tablet with dock running Windows 8.

tablets don't really have the GPU or CPU power (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43421187)

tablets don't really have the GPU or CPU power to replace a PC and a DOCK can't really add a CPU maybe a GPU but it will need at least a X8 pci-e link to make it work good thunderbolt is to slow even more so if you also put networking / usb / ect on it as well.

Re:tablets don't really have the GPU or CPU power (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year and a half ago | (#43423225)

I wouldn't be replacing a desktop PC with a 10-11" tablet. I was think more of replacing my netbook with it reducing the need to haul around my larger laptop. The Atom processor might not be much but it's still dualcore and probably 2-3x more powerful than my existing netbook. Enough to browse the web, write some apps and mess around with and small enough to throw in a carry on bag.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

Black LED (1957016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43427407)

I had to hack Windows 7 to make it usable for me. In fact, I've had to hack every single OS I have ever used to make it usable. How is this different?

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43419897)

No its not. It's unpleasant to use and adds nothing of value.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43420787)

FTFY

Windows 8 is fine for me, because I didn't have driver issues. Either install a start menu or learn to use all the keyboard shortcuts to use Metro as little as possible.

It's better than windows 7 if you can manage for the whole week it takes to get used to the UI.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43421785)

WinKey+X brings up a menu of all the OS admin utilities I use frequently. Hitting the WinKey and typing the first few letters of an application name works for everything else. No hacking required.

Re: Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

D1G1T (1136467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43424305)

Unless it is in a virtual/remote window, in which case getting the mouse into one of the corners is frustratingly fiddly and your Win-C etc. keybinds are mapped to something else depending on your environment. WS2012 is fantastic. Win8 is an abortion.

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

Chewy509 (1178715) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420063)

Actually it's probably not the CPU core, but the GPU included. The last Atoms to be produced (N570) had a GPU still largely based on the i945G chipset, and the other crop had a GPU done by PowerVR (no Linux support). Either way, great for 2D, no good for 3D. IIRC, the new Atoms will have a newer GPU core based on the same GPU core as SB? (could be horribly wrong, but it's a new GPU based on an existing Intel design).

Let's not forget most netbooks have a 1024x600 display, and MS mandated displays with at least a 768 pixel height for Metro applications. Mind you I have seen personally Win8 running on a netbook, but had problems with Metro because of the screen resolution. But in desktop mode it worked fine...

Anyway, Smells like someone is drinking too much Koolaid...

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420287)

If that's all, it should be possible to boot Win7 in some VESA mode and load the proper driver afterwards.
Unless someone has decided to drop such unimportant ways of ensuring backwards compatibility ;-)

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43420099)

For touch based tablets/convertibles, windows 7 is a liability. Too hard to do anything in windows 7 with your finger. My Acer W510 with kbd dock is the best computer I've ever owned -- not because of the processing power (absolutely not!!!) but because of the "always on" and the crazy battery life. I get an honest-to-goodness 7h with the tablet and double that when it is docked. I'll never buy a computer with less than 12h battery life again.

Several days without charging, easily. The kbd dock battery gets drained first, so if that runs out, I pull the tablet bit out, and plug the kbd part in to let it charge. What good is performance if the battery is dead? I just need it to vpn in when the router based vpn is blocked/not working (I'm living in China right now), an internet browser, and VLC to watch tv shows(audio over A2DP bluetooth headset) that I've downloaded to the microsd card.

If the new atoms get better battery life, with even slightly better performance (the only real complaint I have is that the Citrix client to log in to my work's corporate LAN is very slow, totally not optimised for Win8 evidently. A first gen Atom on XP performs better in this situation), it's worth it.

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420673)

Most of the system that came with third generation core chip from Intel are no longer Win 7 compatible

In our company we have tried to re-format a machine that was preinstalled with Win 8, then re-install Win 7 on it

No go --- it just won't start

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43425135)

Probably more to do with missing mobo etc drivers, than anything else.

Opportunity for AMD? (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43424609)

So, Cedar Trail only works on Windows 7 and Clover Trail only works on Windows 8. I assume AMD's brazos works on both systems. The could be a selling point.

Re:Compatible with Windows 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43427397)

Your link is to a story about "Some recent Windows 7 PCs can't handle Windows 8 upgrade", not about them being incompatible with Windows 7.

Text Processing will greatly benefit these (1, Insightful)

houbou (1097327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43419711)

In a world where information is key, and where it's getting to be overwhelming in its capacity, these more powerful processors will play a key role in analyzing data to retrieve the meaningful and management portions.

Far Cry 3!!!! (3, Funny)

RudyHartmann (1032120) | about a year and a half ago | (#43419721)

Hey, I want a pair of these new CPU chips from Intel with 10 cores each and 30M of cache in my next PC. These CPU's will now directly access a measly 12TB of ram. Heck, they're only $4616 each. Why not use them to run Far Cry 3 real fast? ;-)

http://ark.intel.com/products/53580/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8870-30M-Cache-2_40-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI [intel.com]

Re:Far Cry 3!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43419925)

Are you retarded, or just a nincompoop?

Re:Far Cry 3!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43420263)

Which part of "Microsoft customer" did you not understand?

Re:Far Cry 3!!!! (2, Interesting)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420039)

Actually running high end games on a Xeon isn't that bad of an idea these days. For some bizarre reason they are always cheaper than equivalent i7 CPUs.

eg, the E3-1275 [intel.com] has an tray price of of $339. It runs faster both in turbo and non-turbo mode than the i7-3840QM [intel.com] which has a tray price of $568.

The E3-1225 at $215 [intel.com] is faster in both turbo and non-turbo speeds than the i7-3610QM at $378 [intel.com] .
The E3-1245 at $266 [intel.com] is faster in both turbo and non-turbo speeds than the i7-3820QM at $568 [intel.com] .

All CPUs listed are pretty much the same. Same architecture, same generation, same internal graphics card (the P4000 is the HD4000). Yet for some reason there's a huge discount if you buy Xeon rather than i7. There's not that much difference in the motherboard prices either. And the ECC RAM is optional, not required. So bizarrely these days it's worth buying Xeon if you want a huge discount on the desktop CPU prices.

Re:Far Cry 3!!!! (3, Informative)

CadentOrange (2429626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420051)

You are comparing server Xeon chips to *mobile* i7 chips, hence the price and performance difference!

Re:Far Cry 3!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43422867)

and I've actually be comparing the E3 against comparable i5/i7 offerings (not the mobile chips) and the price premium actually leans towards the i5/i7 (consumer) chips according to Newegg. Because of this, I've decided that my next build will be based on the E3 series as it includes one thing that most of the i5/i7 chips lack (VT extensions). That's right, check out those Oh so Important VT extensions and you'll suddenly see that most of the god damn consumer chips don't have em while every one of the Xeons (workstation/server) do. Personally, I'll take a chip that's not artifically crippled for the same price over the crippled one any day of the week, which is why I'm ignoring the consumer versions by Intel.

Re:Far Cry 3!!!! (0, Redundant)

RudyHartmann (1032120) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420175)

I was making a joke. But I actually have an HP XW8600 as my desktop machine. It has 2 quad core Xeons with 12M cache running at 3Ghz. I also have 32G of ram and an Nvidia GT520 graphics card with 2G ram. It runs games pretty nice. I have a dual boot with Win7 Ult 64-bit and OpenSuse 12.3 64-bit. Most of my games are now on Steam for Linux. Actually works quite well. But those big burly Xeons arouse my techno lust. ;-) Oh, and Windows 8 is just stupid.

Re:Far Cry 3!!!! (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420529)

So bizarrely these days it's worth buying Xeon if you want a huge discount on the desktop CPU prices.

Maybe you should look at desktop CPU prices then? These are all mobile chips you're comparing to...

Re:Far Cry 3!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43422215)

the Desktop CPUs are still stupid in price. Methinks it is because xeons don't give nearly as much diespace to the Intel GPU (who the hell needs an integrated GPU in a server. If you really need a render farm, you use dedicated cards like quadro or tesla or FireGL)

I am not going to use Intel's GPU, and having it there is just a waste of diespace. This is a Workstation that also does hardcore gaming, not some microatx deal junior cobbled together after school.

Re:Far Cry 3!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43422953)

and yet, as a Linux user, I'm eyeballing one of the Xeons with IGP because I'm also looking at a nice ITX board that only has a single PCIe x16 slot (what to put in it?) I actually like the performance of the HD4000 GPU as the damn CPU has more then enough performance to handle what I'm throwing at it and to backup the GPU performance.

Where the damn Xeon rocks though is I'll be underclocking the damn thing by 75-85 percent and turning off turbo-boost yet still getting 2-3 times the performance of my current desktop while extending UPS battery life. Another reason is the fact that the Xeon's are not artificially crippled as most of the consumer i series cpu's are - check out the VT Extension support that's disabled in half or more of the consumer chips, yet it's part of the damn chip design.

Re:Far Cry 3!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43448185)

32W TDP difference. The i7 only uses 45W to the Xeon's 77.

Graphics Capabilities? (2)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about a year and a half ago | (#43419799)

Is this increased multimedia capability simply an improved crappy integrated GPU or is this improved x86 multimedia processing like AVX? I would be very interested in improved x86 processing for tasks like rendering and raytracing. I could care less about the integrated GPU being slightly better.

Re:Graphics Capabilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43419877)

Pretty sure it's just a beefed up QuickSync as part of the integrated GPU.

Re:Graphics Capabilities? (1)

badkarmadayaccount (1346167) | about a year and a half ago | (#43420061)

IO channel controllers? Will we ever see them?

Re:Graphics Capabilities? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43420839)

I could care less about the integrated GPU being slightly better.

So you actually care a bit about it?

Re:Graphics Capabilities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43424817)

The question starts losing its meaning once your media applications utilize OpenCL, which Intel supports.

Re:Graphics Capabilities? (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about a year and a half ago | (#43427287)

OpenCL is too limited.

I had a wish years ago, (2)

pecosdave (536896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43419957)

Back when we were in the 800 MHz to 1.5 GHz as common range I had a wish. I wanted something akin to a Pentium Pro 200 build on - at the time - modern processes for a simple server or put around machine. Nothing high performance, just reliable and low power.

The Atom was an answer to that wish, I love it. I've been an AMD guy most my life, but considering I hated ATI, I love nVidia, and Intel is producing great stuff like the Atom and playing nice with the FOSS community I'm about ready to become a turncoat. AMD processors of all types are great, but especially when it comes to mobile it's hard to find one with a good system around it.

A wish almost come true, but no ECC (4, Interesting)

ControlFreal (661231) | about a year and a half ago | (#43419997)

I agree with the power-consumption part, but the reason I would still not buy the Atom line is the simple fact that they do not support ECC RAM; when you say "reliability", you do want to know when your RAM walks out on you.

Supermicro sells a couple of mini-ITX board for mobile Core i7s, though, that will still allow you to build an under-30W-idle system with ECC RAM.

Re:A wish almost come true, but no ECC (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43420137)

atom s1200 series hass ecc

Re:A wish almost come true, but no ECC (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43420859)

The Atom S1200 series (introduced Dec 2012) includes support for ECC.

Re:A wish almost come true, but no ECC (1)

Shinobi (19308) | about a year and a half ago | (#43421027)

You don't need to use the mobile chips for that, there are even Xeons with under 20W, and ECC+virtualization support..

to bad atom was 32bit only and amd is all 64 bit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43421487)

to bad atom was 32bit only and amd is all 64 bit.

Re:to bad atom was 32bit only and amd is all 64 bi (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#43423165)

to bad atom was 32bit only and amd is all 64 bit.

That'll be news to my two 64-bit Atom systems. I don't know about current Atoms, but when the original models were released only the netbook versions were restricted to 32-bit.

Microrarchitecture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43421047)

After having scanned TFA (I know, I shouldn't), I'm left with one big question: WTH is a micro-rarchitecture? (See 2nd image from the top)

Re:Microrarchitecture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43421779)

In the time you spent typing that post..you could have looked up this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microarchitecture [wikipedia.org]

Re:Microrarchitecture? (1)

squizzar (1031726) | about a year and a half ago | (#43421917)

In the time you spent typing that post you could have read the comment carefully...

See if you can spot it this time round... [lmgtfy.com]

Pedantic GP is pedantic. Over-eager-to-feel-superior AC should not feel superior

22nm vs the rest of the industry (1)

frinkster (149158) | about a year and a half ago | (#43422261)

Is the rest of the industry still stuck at 32nm for ARM processors? I haven't seen anything yet that suggests that TSMC can meet 28nm demand on the various ARM chips they have contracts for.

At some point, the x86 Atom at 22nm or 20nm (or whatever is next) is going to be more powerful and more energy efficient than a real-world ARM chip.

Re:22nm vs the rest of the industry (1)

asliarun (636603) | about a year and a half ago | (#43425023)

You can see the Antutu benchmark of the Clovertrail+ Atom chip that is in the process of being launched.
Clovertrail+ gets a benchmark score of 25k. To put this in perspective, Galaxy S3 gets a score of 16k, and a decent mid-level phone like the HTC One S gets a score of 10k, and Tegra3 in the HTC One X gets 14k.

Galaxy S4 might beat the Clovertrail+ (it is supposed to be 28k), but not by much. They are pretty much head to head, and in both cases, you are talking about the latest and greatest from Intel and ARM.

Reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fbm1agvXzI [youtube.com]
http://www.antutu.com/Ranking.shtml [antutu.com]
http://vr-zone.com/articles/antutu-benchmark-indicate-exynos-5-octa-galaxy-s-iv-is-faster-than-qualcomm-600-variant/19612.html [vr-zone.com]

Caveat: This is quite obviously not a comprehensive review done by a website with a solid reputation like Anandtech. Nonetheless, it looks reasonable to me.

Re:22nm vs the rest of the industry (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about a year and a half ago | (#43425833)

That benckmark seems to be quite usefull for the porpouse it was built, that is knowing if a program will run well in a phone. But power consuption is missing from the gathered data, thus it's completely useless for comparing processors.

Rack scale architecture (1)

eliphalet (1222732) | about a year and a half ago | (#43425693)

Sounds like Intel has invented the mainframe.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?