Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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's Penryn Benchmarked

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the slightly-faster-than-my-286 dept.

Intel 124

Steve Kerrison writes "Intel's keen to show off its up-coming 45nm Penryn Core 2 CPU. HEXUS had some hands on time with the new processor to get an idea of how well it will perform once its released: 'Intel's new 45nm Penryn core adds more than just a clock and FSB hike, so much so that even a dual-core Penryn is able to beat out a quad-core QX6800 under certain circumstances.'"

cancel ×

124 comments

I want it... (-1, Offtopic)

kid_oliva (899189) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781551)

to have my children.

I really wanted to read that.... (2, Insightful)

Churla (936633) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781589)

But the combination of trying to find how to easily get to the real article while also fighting "Intellitext" ads proved too much for me. I am a weak weak man.

"intellitext" (0, Offtopic)

tom17 (659054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781707)

I know this comment is of no intrinsic value to /. But bloody hell those things bloody piss me right off!

With this article it was almost like that "don't touch the wire" game - slowly edging the mouse down through the minefield of text bombs ready to go off in your face at the slightest hint of mousage.

ARRGGHH!!!

Re:I really wanted to read that.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18781733)

I wanted to see ads! I wanted a chance to be able to breath in the crisp, plasticky smell of cheap advertising! But all I get is a lousy page that says "Down for maintenance." Phhbt, whatever.

Re:I really wanted to read that.... (-1, Offtopic)

Indy1 (99447) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781803)

Apparently your not the only one struggling with the ads. I got this when clicking on the link.

"The server at www.hexus.net is taking too long to respond."
"The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few
moments."

Re:I really wanted to read that.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18782329)

Yeah apparently, they haven't installed on of these bad boys in their web server yet. Though, I'm not sure that can overcome the Slashdot effect.

Re:I really wanted to read that.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18781879)

http://adblock.mozdev.org/ [mozdev.org]
*Intellitxt*

Re:I really wanted to read that.... (4, Interesting)

Tom Womack (8005) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781881)

Firefox NoScript is the answer to all this kind of stupidity; I think it's worth using Firefox for NoScript alone.

Also, remind your hosts file that intellitxt.com is a synonym for 127.0.0.1

Yes, this is depriving hexus of advertising revenue. If they want advertising revenue, they should produce adverts which do not deeply infuriate their readers. Intelligently-targetted intellitxt might be actually usable, but to have every occurence of 'computer' hyperlinked to Dell's store is of no use to anybody.

Re:I really wanted to read that.... (4, Informative)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782709)

Or just use the AdBlock Plus extension, which blocks all the advert scripts without disabling any of the other scripts on the site.

It also has the advantage of blocking gif image ads on other sites that NoScript misses.

Re:I really wanted to read that.... (3, Interesting)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782813)

Exactly. I didn't see any ads there at all and none of these text bombs people wrote about.

Re:I really wanted to read that.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18786793)

Not just the infuriating ads... look at the frigging article content.

It's utterly clueless. The interpretations are irresponsible guesswork, and often go flat out wrong. Wish I had the time right now to list the major factual errors there -- fortunately they outright glare at any (even remotely informed) reader. Outside the mistakes, this "review" boils down to just a mix of buzzword bingo and PR handout paraphrasing, the most gaping holes in the author's compherehension carpeted over with tiring "hip and cool" style (when the author has nothing even seemingly informative to say).

The related Hexus article about Penryn's and Nehalem's new features is even more horrible crapola.

Haven't visited Hexus in a while. This piece was alarming, if representative of their standard nowadays.

Re:I really wanted to read that.... (1)

pkulak (815640) | more than 7 years ago | (#18786981)

Really? I didn't have any problems at all [privoxy.org] .

Quick summary (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18781595)

If your app benefits from SSE4 optimizations, the gains compared to the current Core 2 can be giganormous (DivX encoder: +85% at equal clock). Otherwise, expect a per clock advantage of about 10%.

which brings up a point... (3, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781713)

arent most app developers still working their way into SSE3? (for instance, mplayer only mentions sse2 in configuration and initialization, and from what i remember even macos intel doesnt fully utilize sse3)

what's the point of even trying for SSE3 or even SSE4 when theyll just plunk down SSE5 within the next 6 months..

Re:which brings up a point... (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782091)

Simple:
Sale in generation n: Xn%

Market share of instruction set introduced in last generation: X1%
Market share of instruction set introduced two generations ago: X1%+X2%
Market share of instruction set introduced three generations ago: X1%+X2%+X3%

Sure you can go for SSE3 today... or wait for SSE5 which will come in 6 months + several years to get actual market share.

Re:which brings up a point... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782589)

If you are running simulations or other custom heavy number crunching applications then yes you will take the time to recompile your code for SSE4. Not everyone runs off the self software.

Re:which brings up a point... (2, Informative)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782611)

And you would ofcause first need to add auto SSE4 support to your compiler.

Or use the Intel compiler... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18783573)

I'll be ambitious and suggest that Intel may release a tuned math library with SSE4 support (MKL) as well as a revamped Intel compiler.

So if you happen to use those (which many number-crunching users do), you'll be in good shape when they appear.

Re:which brings up a point... (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784233)

I guess that you never heard of the Intel C/C++/Fortran Compiler? They will surely include such support almost in sync with their processor releases.

Re:which brings up a point... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18786247)

As a few people have already pointed out. Intel probably already supports their own extensions. Also a lot of places that develop these types of custom applications will take the time to hand optimize critical path code.

Re:which brings up a point... (1)

shawnce (146129) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782829)

1) SSE4 adds instructions that makes auto-vectorization by a compiler easier for a larger set of code.
2) High performance code is often written to pick, at runtime, the implementation that works best on the processor it is running on (one tuned for SSE3, one tuned for SSE4, etc.).

Re:which brings up a point... (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784193)

Why is that a problem? It isn't like SSE2 is going away just because SSE4 is coming through the door. And it isn't necessarily the case that SSEx+1 is "better" than SSEx, since the different SSE instruction sets may have slightly different target applications. One project may mostly benefit from SSE2, while another may mostly benefit from SSE4. Some projects may not receive any benefit from certain SSE revisions, and thus wouldn't care to implement them.

Re:Quick summary (2, Insightful)

Trelane (16124) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781779)

expect a per clock advantage of about 10%.
If my calculation takes 9 days instead of 10, I'd call that a win.

The other question is power consumption.

Re:Quick summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18782451)

And I'd call it 11% faster.

Re:Quick summary (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782769)

The other question is power consumption.
i think (could be wrong) a smaller chip inherently uses less power.

Re:Quick summary (1)

InvalidError (771317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783091)

Penryn is supposed to be lower-power at higher clock speeds than the current C2D for the same core count.

10% more IPC + 10% higher clocks + same (or possibly smaller) power budget = a formerly 10 days job becomes a 8 days job without any CPU-specific tuning or extra cooling/power costs. Sounds like a good deal to me - even more so considering that I am still using a 3GHz Northwood as my primary PC.

Re:Quick summary (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#18787115)

If your app benefits from SSE4 optimizations, the gains compared to the current Core 2 can be giganormous (DivX encoder: +85% at equal clock). Otherwise, expect a per clock advantage of about 10%.

Particularly bloody awkward, then, that hardly anyone codes anything for general-purpose PC usage in assembler any more, and compilers don't get updated and optimised to take full advantage of new instruction sets that quickly.

Always Suspicious of These (4, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781665)

I wonder what under certain circumstances, means because I couldn't gather it from the article. Also, they simply looked at some systems pre-configured by Intel. Not great.

Re:Always Suspicious of These (1, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781763)

this reminds me of the core2 duo upgrade to the macbook (and MBP) lines claiming leaps and bounds greater performance from the cpu... when in reality that performance is because the C2D series have double the cash of the CD series (at least on mac platforms).

Re:Always Suspicious of These (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18781933)

I find that double the cash also improves my girlfriend's performance.

good catch there. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781975)

I find that double the cash also improves my girlfriend's performance.


good catch there.. brainfart.. i meant "cache"

Re:Always Suspicious of These (1)

fitten (521191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782239)

So... was the performance better or not? Why would it matter how that performance was gained? Is not 20% faster, well... 20% faster?

Damn! This computer is 20% faster because of X and not Y! I think I'll throw it away! Those bastards!

Re:Always Suspicious of These (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782279)

the point is theyre overcharging for that arguably negligible increase in cpu power. they could have easily just upgraded the cache on the core duo series and left it at that.

it's comparable to requiring you buy leather in order to get the 4 door variant of a family sedan.

Re:Always Suspicious of These (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783271)

Being able to charge people what they are willing to pay(rather than their cost) gives them good reason to build new fabs, which generally pushes the bottom of the market down faster than charging cost would. The notion that it isn't possible for it to be win-win is silly(but people get technology based on their willingness to pay for it rather than its availability...boo freaken hoo).

Re:Always Suspicious of These (2, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782749)

That's bullshit, the core2 is a different design, not just larger cache when compared to the core. First, the core is a pentium M, which iirc has 2 pipes for ALU, one of which does load/store as well. The core2 has 3 pipes for ALU and dedicated pipes for load/store.

The core2 is faster because fundamentally the IPC of the core is a lot higher on average. The larger cache does help but the benefits decay exponentially. So from the 1MB and 2MB parts to the 4MB part the benefits are not as high as you'd think.

Tom

Re:Always Suspicious of These (3, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781863)

As with all computing benchmarks, YMMV.

There are applications where CPU speed is a marginal component of the speed. Some apps require large memory to run correctly, or fast disk access, or fast graphics access.

Will this new processor benefit the tasks that 95% of do each day like e-mail, web browsing, word processor and slashdot posting? More speed will certainly allow me to open more windows at once, along with a increase in RAM. The performance should be a boon for gamer and science communities, though. Optimized your app for this processor and watch the simulation fly! Is there anything in most OSes that could benefit from these advanced optimizations?

I wish we could faster advances in the performance of memory and drive access to match all of this CPU wizardry. With the growing presence of solid-state disk drives, I wonder if we will see a new SATA/SAS version that can support the rates a RAM drive is truly capable of.

Re:Always Suspicious of These (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18782009)

> Is there anything in most OSes that could benefit from these advanced optimizations?

OSes themselves are very well optimised and use very little CPU: the problem is with apps (some of which maybe classed by some companies as part of OS, but they ain't). For example SSE4 can help grep run faster - or anything involved with searching, this is a big plus as things that deal with strings comparison will benefit nicely from it.

Computers are already fast enough (1)

Tom Womack (8005) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782497)

Of course this new processor won't help you read faster, think faster or type faster; and e-mail, web browsing, word processing and slashdot posting have been constrained by human fingers and brains rather than by inadequate computation since the Pentium. If you're using gnome, put a System Monitor and a Frequency Monitor in your panel and see just how rare it is that the Frequency increases above bare-minimum or the load average bar leaves the very bottom of the window.

You can already open, on a five-year-old computer if you want to use current Firefox and a ten-year-old one if you're OK with Internet Explorer 3, windows enough that your short-term memory and your screen space is the limiting factor.

Faster computers mean that you can write experimental code which runs in acceptable time while concentrating on the problem domain rather than on optimisation. They enable silly hobbies - I factorise 130-digit numbers in my idle cycles, each one takes a week on a Core2Duo while in 1997 they took six months of work on a distributed system followed by three days on a Cray.

Re:Computers are already fast enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18786205)

I synthesize, place and route medium sized FPGAs (Xilinx Virtex 4 SX35). On my work computer (Pentium 4 Xeon, 3.2GHz) it take ~35minutes. On my home computer (Core2Duo 2.4 GHz) it takes 15minutes. I would like it if my boss bought me a computer with one of these new 4 core processors. The boost in performance means I would not have to wait for a place and route. I would also love it if my Xilinx would make their tools multi-threaded so it could take advantage of the two cores in my home computer and 2 or four cores in my next work computer.

Re:Always Suspicious of These (0, Troll)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782321)

The same benchmarks and "pre-configured" tests were run by Intel when the Conroe was first introduced. AMD fanboi's all gathered together to say the same garbage about the tests and later ended up finding out that benchmarks were probably higher than Intel's supposed "fake" tests.

After the smoke cleared and Intel's tail lights were no longer visible, they gathered together again to say, "Well.. floating points, memory bandwidth and real-time memory hogging applications are all that matter nowadays anyway."

What will the excuse be this time when Intel lies about benchmarks that they rigged, only to find out the lie was... the benchmarks were low.

Re:Always Suspicious of These (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784641)

I'm guessing an AMD fan gave me a "troll" mod for an opinion that was just as viable as the comment I replied to.

Re:Always Suspicious of These (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784991)

You didn't read the article very well, then! There was a graph that showed exactly what happened when the dual-core beat the quad-core, and they explained exactly what they were doing to get those results, and exactly how they achieved them. SSE4 is the answer, coupled with DivX's codec being re-written to utilise SSE4. Encoding to DivX is what beats the pants off the quad-core, which is rather interesting, as the quad-core chips are frequently sold as the heart of video-editing.

Is this a laptop chip (3, Interesting)

bcmm (768152) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781735)

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , Penryn is intended as a laptop processor.

Does it seem odd to anyone else for Intel to launch a new instruction set on a laptop CPU? Are portables that dominant these days?

doesn't matter... (5, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781801)

They finally applied some common sense, and are actually pursuing their performance per watt optimization path.

by engineering their chips for portables first, this means they can integrate the same chips into desktops and have the same kind of power conservation from desktop units.

additionally, by investing their r&d straight into laptop chips they dont end up having to spend extra later to re-engineer the chip for portables.

IMHO this is the first smart move from a lumbering corporate giant i've seen since toyota shipped compacts to the us in the mid 70's.

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

SmokeyTheBalrog (996551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781853)

Yes, the portable market has been growing faster and I believe has been larger then the desktop market for quite a while.

Go into Best Buy, CompUSA, Apple Store or any other major retailer. You will see a lot more floor space given to laptops then to desktops.

Re:Is this a laptop chip (5, Insightful)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781887)

Yes, laptops are dominant, or more precisely, power efficiency now matters. That's why Intel threw away the NetBurst/P4 architecture and developed Core from the Pentium M architecture. Laptops are more profitable, and people are starting to care about noise and power consumption in desktops and HTPCs as well.

This seems to be a new pattern for Intel. The Core processors were all mobile oriented, and the Core 2 introduced desktop processors, too. The mobile processors are now being treated as the flagship products. And for good reason, too. Intel seems to be the best when it comes to laptop chips.

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

Envy Life (993972) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783937)

Intel's switch from NetBurst/P4 to Pentium M architecture has more to do with performance than noise and power consumption. P4's maxed out at 4ghz due largely to heat constraints, and when benchmarks started making it obvious that the Pentium-M outperforms it at half the clock rate, it became apparent that Pentium-M was a superior architecture with room to grow, and thus emerged core 2 duo.

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18785277)

Power consumption and fan noise are the symptoms of an inefficient processor. The P4 was abandoned not because it couldn't perform, but because it put out so much heat that the cooling solutions necessary to get the P4 past 4Ghz were too expensive and/or loud for the majority of the market. Essentially, the P4 architecture could only be clocked up after a die shrink. The P-M architecture was the only alternative intel had, and it was not at all obvious at first that it would be able to clock up significantly. However, it turned out that Intel was able to make it reach much faster speeds, and so we now have the Core 2.

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781907)

No, but the people who BUY portables are that dominant. Its the same logic that MS used to get Win95 into business - it runs on people's home machines OK, and Mr PHB wants his work machine to be equally cool, so it is Declared that they'll switch over.

didn't the "Core" line start out with laptops too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18781989)

i thought the core duo was first for the laptop, and then was adapted into the core 2 duo for desktop (and then circled back around into the laptop again...)

yes? no?

Re:didn't the "Core" line start out with laptops t (1)

creepynut (933825) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782177)

Core Duo was based on the Pentium M, which was a notebook chip. Things went from there.

Re:Is this a laptop chip (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782015)

Does it seem odd to anyone else for Intel to launch a new instruction set on a laptop CPU? Are portables that dominant these days?

Over the desktop? Not really, given how much the market has increased in recent years. The price of a laptop is not far over the prices of a comparable PC, hard disk space and GPU power is enough that most people don't have to compromise.

There's a few reason to have desktops:
1. Large monitors
2. Large diskspace
3. Better graphics cards
4. You want to tinker with it, upgrade etc.

But if you're not really falling into either of these four, there's not really much of a reason to go with a desktop, unless you know it'll be fixed in one location 90% of the time. Many people don't have a dedicated "computer area", they sit down at a suitable desk, use it then afterwards pack it away. Many people want to take it places, school, work, friends, cabin, road trips, whatever. Most people want that over the three 5 1/4" bays (DVD-burner and ???), four 3 1/2" bays (2-500GB disk + ???), 7 PCIe expansion slots (GFX card + ???) and all the other empty space they get in a desktop.

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782185)

additionally, if all you want is large diskspace you can always buy a detachable set of firewire drives (single disks on up through raid arrays).

I have a desktop and a portable atm, but my next hardware upgrade (a long time in the future) will probably have such a configuration, especially since they upped the resolution on the 17" macbook pro to 1680x1050.

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

Mike1024 (184871) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782697)

There's a few reason to have desktops:
1. Large monitors
2. Large diskspace
3. Better graphics cards
4. You want to tinker with it, upgrade etc.


In the first two cases, there's even less benefit; you can plug a laptop into a monitor and external hard disk when at your desk, and do without them when you're travelling.

Personally my next computer purchase will be a laptop because portability is a more compelling benefit than a speed increase I'm unlikely to notice in everyday use.

hell you gave reasons to not have a desktop (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783017)

There's a few reason to have desktops:
1. Large monitors
2. Large diskspace
3. Better graphics cards
4. You want to tinker with it, upgrade etc.


1. You can do this if you have a laptop or not.
2. External drives, and 200gb internals, allow laptops to equal desktops
3. Some laptops allow you to swap, there are many good laptops with high end video ability
4. ok, you got me, but you don't have the majority of buyers and I think thats why laptops and semi-laptops will pull away with the market

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

ponos (122721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783337)

But if you're not really falling into either of these four, there's not really much of a reason to go with a desktop, unless you know it'll be fixed in one location 90% of the time. Many people don't have a dedicated "computer area", they sit down at a suitable desk, use it then afterwards pack it away. Many people want to take it places, school, work, friends, cabin, road trips, whatever.

First, I'd like to add another reason: for the same performance, desktops are way cheaper. Then, even though your reasons for buying a laptop are accurate, my estimate is very different. I think that most people will just keep their laptop on the desk for 99% of the time. I know many people with laptops, and their only reason for buying appears to be the occasional trip and the extra prestige associated with a "slicker" device. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are people constantly on the move, but these are not the majority of laptop buyers.

Me, I prefer to have a heavyweight desktop (for real work) and an ultra-cheap laptop (for music, DVD, maybe a presentation) that won't make me miserable if it breaks.

P.

Re:Is this a laptop chip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18783349)

"The price of a laptop is not far over the prices of a comparable PC..."

I just couldn't let this one go.

I'm not sure where you live... either the land of massively overpriced desktops or deeply discounted notebooks. Off the top of my head, apple.com will sell you a 2GHz 17" iMac for $1199. The closest notebook they sell is the 15" MacBook Pro for $1999. I realize the CPU is a little faster on the MacBook, but the iMac has a bigger screen and hard drive. The retail price difference between the two processors is about $40, so if you could somehow "upgrade" the processor on the iMac, it'd be something like $1239 vs. $1999. The notebook is better than 60% more expensive than the "comparable PC", and you still end up with a smaller monitor and hard drive.

If you don't like using Apples, I can buy stuff from my local PC shop (in Canada). I can get an ASUS G1-AK024C notebook for $2239.95, and a *very* comparable PC (although I can't seem to find a 15" monitor, so it gets a 17") for $1119.45. That's just twice the price for a comparable notebook. Except the screen is still smaller on the notebook.

I didn't bother with Dell because the layout of their website would make this sort of comparison painful. Someone else can if they feel like it. I'd be very surprised if the results were much different.

I think you'll also find that the desktop will tend to last a little longer than the notebook. There's a reason those consumer ratings places recommend extended warranties for notebooks, and virtually nothing else. Sadly I don't have any hard numbers to back this up. Desktops are definitely far easier to repair (or have repaired) if and when something does go wrong. Maybe this isn't a problem if you're the sort that buys a new machine every 9 months, but lots (most?) of us don't.

I do a good deal of consulting on computer purchases for people, and I usually tell them that unless you absolutely need the mobility, a laptop is probably a bad buy. It will definitely cost you more up front, and you'll probably be buying a new one a lot sooner.

I'm not saying that laptops don't have their place. Clearly they do, and they make good sense for some applications. A low-cost replacement for a desktop isn't one of them. It certainly isn't fair to say "The price of a laptop is not far over the prices of a comparable PC..."

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783873)

There's a few reason to have desktops:
1. Large monitors
2. Large diskspace
3. Better graphics cards
4. You want to tinker with it, upgrade etc.


5. You want the performance of a desktop hard disk, which generally is substantially faster than an equivalent laptop one
6. You want multiple hard disks, because you need a RAID array (either for speed, reliability or both)
7. You want to perform an application with it that requires add-on hardware that isn't supported by the laptop, and the hardware you want to use isn't a USB or PCMCIA device (e.g. most prototyping and data acquisition boards or custom hardware)
8. Multiple monitors.
9. You want something cheap (I paid £150 for my current PC, that's about $300 -- where can you get a laptop for that price?)
10. You need to leave the machine on for long periods, and want to be sure it won't overheat (I've had several laptops that overheat badly after they've been switched on for more than about 4 hours at a time).

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784773)

1, 2,8, 10 aren't valid.

My 12" Powerbook is routinely hooked up to my 23" HDTV. yes It can play 720p videos just fine.

I have a firewire external drive so my laptop has 200gb's of possible storage.

Multi monitors? My powerbook will span both display's at the same time.

10) laptop's with poor cooling overheat. usually they run windows, because windows has inconsistent power, and fan controls. Laptop's setup to run their fans poperly don't overheat unless under load for long periods. As in a server, but you should use a laptop for serving files anyways, the Disk I/O sucks.

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

Anubis350 (772791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18786843)

multi-monitors *can* mean more than 2 you realize. My current tower has 2 19inch samsungs, I'll be adding a 24inch dell very soon. 3 monitors (19,24,19 set-up) is something my macbook pro certainly can't do, and I've yet to see a laptop that can...

As for external drives, not many laptops have esata, or even firewire 800, so if you need performance on the discs (10k rpm really do need a sata or fw800 connection).

Now, I have a tower and a laptop. The tower is at my desk, my laptop comes with me. I could I s'pose put a laptop (though no 3 monitors then) on my desk too, but it costs more for less power than a tower and if I'm littering my desk with monitors and disks anyway, why not have the bloody tower anyway, at least I can stick *it* under my desk...

Re:Is this a laptop chip (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783181)

According to Wikipedia, Penryn is intended as a laptop processor.

Does it seem odd to anyone else for Intel to launch a new instruction set on a laptop CPU? Are portables that dominant these days?


The Wikipedia article is misleading. The chips that were tested were Yorkfield and Wolfdale, which are listed under the Desktops section. Penryn is the generic name for the entire 45nm Core 2 family, as I understand it.

Poor AMD (3, Insightful)

xBOISEx (1089557) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781777)

I feel bad for AMD, it seems like they're really taking a thrashing this round. This surge in processor technology is just the kind of thing I like to see though. Now to actually harness all that power...

!Poor AMD (1)

jasonhamilton (673330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782013)

The technologies are staggered between the two companies. So every other year the other company leaps ahead. It's not that AMD is behind, it's that their last release is behind intel's new release. The same thing happened to intel when AMD leaped ahead..

I'm just thankful AMD can compete. If they were still making crappy intel clones, we'd be paying quite a bit more for hardware.

Re:Poor AMD (2, Interesting)

RockoTDF (1042780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782191)

In a few years when everyone starts hitting the RAM ceiling for 32 bit CPUs, 64 bit will have to take off. Right now AMD has the lead on consumer priced 64 bit processors, as well as the patent on the x86_64 architecture which they have licensed to Intel. It is entirely possible that with the next mass jump (like to Pentiums 12 years ago) that a completely new architecture altogether will take over, although people love their legacy apps so much that x86_64 still has a good shot at it. But as we have seen with Apple and the PPC to Intel switch, Rosetta demonstrates that we have the technology to create good utilities to seamlessly run code for different architectures. We can't just add cores to x86_32 forever, we will need the RAM. Also, power consumption will come to bite us since (in theory) a 32 bit CPU is not as efficient as a 64 bit CPU, assuming the program code is truly optimized in 64 bit.

Re:Poor AMD (2, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782575)

There aren't a lot of applications which can truly take advantage of 64-bit integer registers. In fact, bignum math is about the only that really comes to mind.

What does matter is the address space. It isn't even the memory [as in physical memory], but virtual address space. As more and more mapped memory is used by applications like databases, it is nice to be able to just logically access it via a mmap.

For example, you can mmap a 10GB file to memory, then poke at it like you would a C array, even though you may only have 512MB in the system. That's something you just can't do in a 32-bit process even if you had the memory.

Tom

Re:Poor AMD (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783523)

For example, you can mmap a 10GB file to memory, then poke at it like you would a C array, even though you may only have 512MB in the system. That's something you just can't do in a 32-bit process even if you had the memory.

Sure about that? Intel processors have had, for a long time, features to window very large address spaces into the 32-bit addressable region. "Windowing is a pain in the ass" you say? Well, I say that doubling the size of every pointer from 4 bytes to 8 bytes is more of a pain in the ass.

This is like saying that because books are filled with more and more information, we should make the pages of the book larger.

Re:Poor AMD (2, Informative)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784203)

Um, ia32 could never address more than 4GB per process (and often it was 2GB). Even though with PAE you could put segments anywhere in a 36-bit address space. Most modern C compilers have no idea about "far pointers" [think back to the 16-bit days] so you're still stuck to at most 32-bits of address.

As for pointers being twice the size, yeah that's a pain. You can code around that if you know you'll be indexing something smaller than 4GB in size (hint: x86_64 can still efficiently use 32-bit registers). But if you're poking around a 10GB mmap object you just need 64-bit pointers so there is no getting around that anyways.

Since x86_64 can run 32-bit apps in long mode, you can just re-compile your app for 32-bit mode if it's absolutely not going to take advantage of the memory space or register size.

Tom

Re:Poor AMD (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784473)

There aren't a lot of applications which can truly take advantage of 64-bit integer registers. In fact, bignum math is about the only that really comes to mind.

You forget the extra 16 general purpose registers that AMD64 introduced, as well as the extra eight SSE registers. Doing more operations on registers is always nice, though the extra registers also take a longer time to save and restore in a context switch.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18786567)

Whoops yeah, of course. Well the extra SSE makes a flat file FPU possible (e.g. -mfpmath=sse) which is nice as it avoids the stack dancing that is required with the x87 stack.

I meant in terms of it being "64-bit" though.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783047)

I thought Intel had the lead on consumer-priced 64-bit chips with the Core 2.

Re:Poor AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18786751)

Factor in motherboard prices too, and AMD is still cheaper at the really low end. Well, in the UK at least. Intel are indeed the obvious choice in most other cases though. At the risk of sounding like a fanboy here's hoping AMD can strike back, we've seen before how much Intel screws us with overpriced speedbump processors for years on end when it has no real competition.

Re:Poor AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18783175)

AMD's 64-bit implementation is more complete (IO address range is still limited to 32-bit on intel's implementation which means slow bounce buffers), they have a better interconnect, NUMA, etc. i.e. all the stuff intel left out for marketing reasons. intel wanted you to buy an itanic, which is a monstrosity of a poor implementation of a poor design which everyone else left behind in the drawing boards of the 1970s.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783457)

In a few years when everyone starts hitting the RAM ceiling for 32 bit CPUs, 64 bit will have to take off.

I find that statement laughable. There are other ways to utilize more than 4 gigabytes of address space without having to move to full-blown 64-bit addressing. Doesn't anybody remember the days of DOS? Under 16-bit real mode, the CPU could only directly address 64 kilobytes! Yet this was not a fundamental problem. Segmented addressing expands the range to a full megabyte. And doesn't anyone recollect the Extended and Expanded Memory Managers which used some protected mode features to page extended data in and out of the 20-bit addressable space?

And the biggest point? Since the 80386, the CPU supported native 32-bit addressing in protected mode and nobody used it! Why? I'll let you ponder it.

Re:Poor AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18783831)

Hacks, hacks and more hacks. Slow, bloated, bug-prone hacks. They slow down the computer, they slow down the software, they make programming complicated and development time longer. And don't get me started on debugging.

The only reason the 386 32-bit memory model wasn't used was backwards compatibility with the firmware (BIOS) and crummy OS (MS-DOS) of the PeeCee. Other operating systems and non-peecee hardware used it quite nicely.

Re:Poor AMD (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18784155)

"I find that statement laughable."

Ditto to your statement. Segments, 'extended memory', 'EMS', etc were necessary, but a bad idea. We all got a lot happyer when everything became 32-bit. Let's not make the same bad mistakes over and over again.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783581)

In a few years when everyone starts hitting the RAM ceiling for 32 bit CPUs, 64 bit will have to take off.

Current average memory on a new PC = 1GB.
Memory ceiling for 32 bit CPUs with PAE = 16GB.
Number of doublings required to hit ceiling = 4
Length of doubling per Moore's Law = 18 months
Total = 6 years

I think we're farther off that limit than you think.

Right now AMD has the lead on consumer priced 64 bit processors

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. My current Celeron D was cheaper than any AMD machine available, and is comparable in most respects. I'm pretty sure it's a 64 bit chip, even though I'm not running a 64-bit OS, because the BIOS tells me it is during bootup.

It is entirely possible that with the next mass jump (like to Pentiums 12 years ago)

Huh? You seem to be remembering a different 1995 to me. Back in 95, I saw a lot of people still buying 486s. It wasn't until 96 or 97 that they were completely phased out.

that a completely new architecture altogether will take over, although people love their legacy apps so much that x86_64 still has a good shot at it

Legacy apps are only half the issue: vendors for new apps are reluctant to support a new ISA until it looks pretty certain that it'll survive.

We can't just add cores to x86_32 forever, we will need the RAM.

Who's adding cores to 32 bit chips? I don't see any dual or higher core chips on the market today that do not support a 64-bit instruction set.

Also, power consumption will come to bite us since (in theory) a 32 bit CPU is not as efficient as a 64 bit CPU, assuming the program code is truly optimized in 64 bit.

I don't suspect this is true. Most programs don't perform significant amounts of processing on 64 bit values. Process a 32 bit value on a 64 bit processor is no better (and is likely worse) than doing it on a 32 bit one. But again, please point me to a current generation 32 bit CPU, because I don't see any.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

RockoTDF (1042780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784525)

The Celeron is not a 64 bit processor, nor is the core 2 duo, etc. They have Intel64 virtualization, but are not true 64 bit CPUs. I was a kid in Xmas 95 when we got our first pentium 1, so thats my frame of reference as to when the switch occured, and I remember everyone else getting computers like mine around that time as well. The next jump will probably not occur for a while. There is an article out there somewhere (I think it was on here a few months ago) on why Linux will have an advantage when this jump occurs because they are ahead on using the 64bit ISA. (although that is a separate issue) It made a lot of good points about how 64 bit could sneak up on us and we need to stop avoiding it.

Re:Poor AMD (1)

RockoTDF (1042780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784555)

scratch that, the virtualization tech is just the term for using the two at the same time apparently. But I still stand by my statement that AMD by owning the patents for x86_64 will still help since Intel is licensed to use their architecture.

that's not all folks.. (5, Funny)

GonzoTech (613147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781877)

The Penryn core is just the first. Wait for the Teller core to come out. It's slight of hand techniques tricks you into thinking it has actually out performed other chips.

Re:that's not all folks.. (1)

frisco350z (982796) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782425)

I wonder who all will get this? Probably the best comedian/magicians of all time!

Re:that's not all folks.. (1)

snp-7-3 (777049) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782479)

Sounds like BULLSHIT to me! :-D

Intel's Penryn Benchmarked (1)

bornroot (795375) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781905)

... and so is Hexus Webserver, apparently.

a review you can actually read (3, Interesting)

Tom Womack (8005) | more than 7 years ago | (#18781957)

www.anandtech.com has a presumably very similar review (since these are lists of benchmarks which the journalists observed being run by Intel on Intel-provided systems), and enough bandwidth that you can actually get through to it.

It's a little annoying that these chips require different voltage regulators from the ones on current motherboards, since the chipsets are the same and changing the motherboard adds £80, some hours of fuss and an inordinate number of screws to what should be a trivial CPU upgrade, whilst bare motherboards, and even motherboard+CPU pairs, don't seem to sell well on ebay.

Re:a review you can actually read (-1, Troll)

koreaman (835838) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782147)

What the fuck is £80? Remember that Slashdot is an American site. And even if it weren't, people across the world are more likely to understand prices quoted in dollars.

From Google, £80 = $159.15200 = 117.412025

Re:a review you can actually read (0, Flamebait)

koreaman (835838) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782189)

Apparently Slashdot doesn't like the euro sign. $159.152 = 117.412025 euros

Re:a review you can actually read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18782523)

Slashdot is an American site where people, on the whole, can multiply by two without having to get Google to do it for them. Asshat.

Why link to hexus.net? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18782035)

This is getting way beyond silly now.

Every few weeks the same guy submits a story on his site, every time the site melts within a few minutes of the story being accepted.

Surprise surprise, this story is no exception. The page actually loads which makes a change: but its just a worthless error message.

Re:Why link to hexus.net? (1)

unts (754160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782201)

We had a power issue overnight (UK time) which seems to be leading to a few further problems for us. I might add, though, that an article of ours was posted on Slashdot only two days ago, with no ill effects whatsoever.

Re:Why link to hexus.net? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782429)

no ill effects? that thing gave me a rash! ; )

The real question... (2, Funny)

Piedramente (1063240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782507)

The real question is... Will it blend?

Great! However... (2, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782633)

All we need now is software that will take advantage of all these cores.

Re: (2, Interesting)

u0berdev (1038434) | more than 7 years ago | (#18782921)

It's faster, yes. But I can't wait to see how much less power it uses. The main benefit I see from Intel moving to 45-nm should be getting speeds => Core2 but using less power. As everyone continues on the path to 'greener' tech, this will be one of the biggest selling factors for the Penryn family.

And let's not forget that when this comes out in '08, the Core2's will get even cheaper! Heck I'm still excited about the next price drop for the Core2's this 22nd (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdo c.aspx?i=2963&p=2 [anandtech.com] ).

Re: (1)

theantipop (803016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784347)

Well, the article pointed out that TDP (typical dissipation power, or something like that) ratings are likely to remain the same. They paraphrase Intel as saying they used the reduction in process size to pack in my transistors instead of pursue the power-savings route.

Re: (1)

u0berdev (1038434) | more than 7 years ago | (#18786787)

Well, the article pointed out that TDP (typical dissipation power, or something like that) ratings are likely to remain the same. They paraphrase Intel as saying they used the reduction in process size to pack in my transistors instead of pursue the power-savings route.
True, however, the test dual-core Penryn CPU's were performing close to a quad-core QX6800. A QX6800 has a TDP of 130W. http://www.hothardware.com/articles/Intel_Core_2_E xtreme_QX6800/ [hothardware.com] And from this article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070328-inte l-spills-beans-on-core-2-successor-sse4-faster-vir tualization-bigger-caches.html [arstechnica.com]

The TDP numbers for Penryn desktop quad-core parts will be 95 and 130 watts, with desktop dual-core parts coming in at a 65W TDP.
the Penryn dual-core should have about a 65W TDP. So already we are seeing near quad-core performance out of a dual-core CPU that uses the same TDP as the 'old' 65-nm Core2 dual-cores. Hence, better performace-per-watt.

And even better, if they made a Penryn dual-core that performed the same as a Core2 E6300, it MIGHT scale to an even lower TDP. Again, my point is that the move to 45-nm benefits greatly from being able to perform the same as an older Core2 dual-core (not a Quad-core), but have a lower TDP.

-Same Speed
-Lower TDP
-Profit! :)

What about that EDA tech they talked about? (1)

Wicko (977078) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783407)

Enhanced Dynamic Acceleration Technology is supposed to be for the Santa Rosa platform, but I'm having trouble thinking that they would limit it to just a mobile platform? Would desktops not benefit from this? Intel only mentions its for mobile core 2 processors.. although the Dynamic Acceleration is present in all the chips now, just not as "enhanced".

C7o3k (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18783589)

Kinda Pointless (4, Insightful)

walmartshopper67 (943351) | more than 7 years ago | (#18783639)

Well, I RTFA, and it was pointless. FTFA: "and we're absolutely adamant that the benchmarks were chosen to show the two Penryn-based CPUs off in the best possible light." -and- "Further, it's not an apple-to-apple comparison as both 45nm processors were clocked in at 3.33GHz and the QX6800 at 2.93GHz. Our requests for clock and FSB parity were politely ignored. " ...I appreciate the disclosure that it was in fact ruled by Intel and your requests were ignored, but with that, why did you do it then? If the whole thing is skewed by the manufacturer, you've just become part of their advertising campaign. Intel set it up, they weren't gonna set themselves up to fail. Besides, isn't benchmarking supposed to at least resemble a scientific-like process? If you were going to benchmark you're own machines for whatever reason, would you set it up like this?

Re:Kinda Pointless (1)

tknd (979052) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784753)

Because if they didn't do it they wouldn't get on slashdot!

Multi-page version? Anyone? (2, Funny)

The Real Nem (793299) | more than 7 years ago | (#18784897)

Where's the multi-page version you insensitive clod?

I Kept searching for a multi-page option but I couldn't find one. After years of being conditioned to read articles over 12 pages or so, this layout just freaks me out. I couldn't find the combobox that let me jump to the conclusion. The page seemed way too long and daunting for me to process. And I kept expecting next links that never came!

Take me back to the good old days where you could read a 12 page article and actually feel like you accomplished something.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...