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!

Details of New Intel Dunnington and Nehalem Architectures Leaked

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the aren't-leaks-just-more-effective-pr-these-days dept.

Intel 147

Daily Tech is reporting that details about Intel's new processor models were leaked over the weekend. Both the six core Dunnington and Nehalem architectures were featured in this leak. "Dunnington includes 16MB of L3 cache shared by all six processors. Each pair of cores can also access 3MB of local L2 cache. The end result is a design very similar to the AMD Barcelona quad-core processor; however, each Barcelona core contains 512KB L2 cache, whereas Dunnington cores share L2 cache in pairs. [...] Nehalem is everything Penryn is -- 45nm, SSE4, quad-core -- and then some. For starters, Intel will abandon the front-side bus model in favor of QuickPath Interconnect; a serial bus similar to HyperTransport."

cancel ×

147 comments

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

Dunnington and Nehalem? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22548838)

Sounds like good names to be used in a D&D game!

Sir Dunnington against the evil lich lord Nehalem!

Re:Dunnington and Nehalem? (4, Informative)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549246)

Sounds like good names to be used in a D&D game!
I've always liked the way Intel code names their processors, as I was born and raised in Tillamook [wikipedia.org] , which had it's own Mobile Processor [findarticles.com] . Nehalem [wikipedia.org] , is in fact another city in Tillamook County, Oregon. Some of you might remember Nehalem's prior claim to fame was an Everclear [wikipedia.org] song on their breakthrough album Sparkle and Fade [amazon.com] , entitled simply 'Nehalem' [sing365.com] .

Re:Dunnington and Nehalem? (1)

jgarra23 (1109651) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549610)


I've always liked the way Intel code names their processors, as I was born and raised in Tillamook, which had it's own Mobile Processor. Nehalem, is in fact another city in Tillamook County, Oregon. Some of you might remember Nehalem's prior claim to fame was an Everclear song on their breakthrough album Sparkle and Fade, entitled simply 'Nehalem'.


Don't forget the notorious Willamette chip!! Though I'm not sure if anyone wants to be known for that...

Re:Dunnington and Nehalem? (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549722)

Yeah, you beat me to it. "They say you're losing your mind, they say you're leaving Nehalem" ... In college I actually had a Diablo II warrior named "Nehalem" ... barbarian who specialized in warcrys :P

Re:Dunnington and Nehalem? (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550798)


Good cheese [tillamookcheese.com] . And ice cream.

Re:Dunnington and Nehalem? (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550838)

I got some Tillamook Cheese a few months back sent up from Tilamook, it was Smoked Cracked Peppercorn... Best cheese I've ever ate.

Oregon Coast Mandatory Stop (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22551544)

I drive the coast from California to Washington state 4-5 times a year, and each direction, it is a must to stop at the Tillamook factory and drop $100 or so on cheese and whatever. Best Sour Cream in the world, too. My office has 10 or so coffee mugs from the place. The city also has a decent Air and Space museum too.

Re:Dunnington and Nehalem? (1)

Curmudgeonlyoldbloke (850482) | more than 6 years ago | (#22551618)

Well, Harold (who later wound up with an arrow in his eye) vs Harald Hardrada was only a couple of miles up the road (from the Dunnington East of York, that is.).

Wow (4, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22548916)

They could have gone to 3 cores, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do, but they said "Fuck it, we're going to six". What part of this don't you understand? If two cores is good, and four cores is better, obviously six cores would make them the best fucking CPU that ever existed.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930 [theonion.com]
/I'm just waiting for the day Intel says "this one goes to 11"

Re:Wow (0, Troll)

doyoulikegoatseeee (930088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22548936)

I have a gigacore cpu. I win!

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549018)

Intel's coming out with 6 cores.... and?

*pets his 8-core SPARC*

Re:Wow (3, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549186)

Am I the only one who thinks that having 3 cores, 6 cores, 3MB and 12MB is weird? Where did all the multiples of three come from in the sea of powers or 2. Did we suddenly switch to trinary or something?

Re:Wow (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549272)

It makes perfect sence to me. Unified L3, plus two cores off of each L2. 3 2MB L2's plus the L3 does add up.

Re:Wow (3, Interesting)

thsths (31372) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549374)

Am I the only one who thinks that having 3 cores, 6 cores, 3MB and 12MB is weird? Where did all the multiples of three come from in the sea of powers or 2.
Concerning the six cores: yes, that is weird. And after making fun of AMD for selling 3 core CPUs, it is now our obligation to make fun of Intel for announcing six core CPUs. Especially since they seem to tick pretty much the same boxes as AMD anyway. (Unfortunately 6 is more than 3, so I would still want an Intel...)

For the cache, the matter is simple. If you can fit 12 MB, but not 16, then 12 is still better than 8. You build them in 3 units of 4 MB each, so no big deal.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549384)

Does it really matter? Just because the math to double things is easier doesn't make it a more cost-effective move. Maybe due to the shape of the chip, it's a lot cheaper to make a triple-core die than a quad. It's not like the extra core should have any weird effects - apps that support multiple procs/cores will use the extra resources, and those that don't won't. My work XP machine can only use 3GB of RAM (despite having 4GB physically in there) and there's no detriment to such a setup.

Yes, I find it strange. But does it really matter? I doubt it. For all we know, someone at Intel just thought the "sex-" prefix would be funny, rather than the expected "quad-" or "octo-".

Re:Wow (4, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549530)

For all we know, someone at Intel just thought the "sex-" prefix would be funny, rather than the expected "quad-" or "octo-".

Note how they called the it the (Pent)ium II instead of the (Sex)ium processor.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22551224)

Note how they called the it the (Pent)ium II instead of the (Sex)ium processor.


They were probably just afraid they'd get cursed with the name (Hex)ium instead.

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550334)

Forget prefix. Here's a marketing name suggestion: Core 2 Sexi. The commercial practically writes itself!

Re:Wow (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550820)


Once we hit octo-, the Japanese tentacle fetish [google.com] folks will go wild!

Re:Wow (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22551806)

Try adding /PAE to the boot ini file on your xp box as it doesn't normaly atempt to use PAE - and if your lucky your board will support PAE and you will be able to see and address all 4gb of memory on your box from the OS..

Simple (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549888)

The base component of this is the Core 2 Duo. That is a dual-core unit, joined by a common L2 cache. What they are then doing is putting 3 of these together, and joining them with L3 cache. Hence, 6 cores. My guess is they figure that 8 cores would be too expensive, too hot, whatever to do at this point.

Re:Wow (3, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550102)

Not sure about Intel, but in AMD's case, it was cost recovery for quad core chips where one core had a defect. They just zap that one so it doesn't show up and sell a perfectly good 3 core chip.

Re:Wow (1)

NormHome (99305) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550398)

Three cores does seem weird however there is a valid explanation for that. I'd read that due to fab problems a percentage of quad core chips ended up with one core that didn't work but there's nothing else wrong with the chip other than that and the three cores work just fine and so to maximize production and minimize losses they're selling them as triple core cpu's.

It's from the book of Armaments (4, Funny)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550412)

...then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then l...

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549594)

Next they're going to bump it up to 11, for when you need just a little more oomph to get your work done.

Re:Wow (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549924)

No, no, they'll have a separate knob for that - similar to the old "turbo" buttons which everyone just left on all the time. That way you can "crank it to 11" when you need it and then turn it back down when you get tired of the noise of the fans running at 11 too.

Re:Wow (3, Interesting)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549286)

They could have gone to 3 cores, like the competition.
Which is a fantastic move, as they are simply 4-core chips with a core disabled due to manufacturing defects and what have you.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549346)

Cores are the new gigahertz. Where Intel previously raced to get the GHz up higher then AMD (no matter if it was useful or if anybody really wanted it that way), now they race to get more cores then AMD (no matter if it was useful or if anybody really wanted it that way).

This is great for many computing environments, but my home system is not one of them. Honestly there isn't much software I use on a regular basis that really taxes the second core, let alone six of them.

Re:Wow (3)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549426)

Do you only have one program ever open at a time? Not all of my software is multi-core aware by any means, but it still makes a tremendous difference when they're not all fighting over the same bit of silicon. I tend to have a dozen or so programs open at any given time at home (not to mention background processes) and while they're not all resource hogs, I like being able to let something churn away in the background without slowing down what I'm working on at the time to a crawl.

Re:Wow (4, Informative)

Tridus (79566) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549662)

Yes, I do. I don't often have something running in the background thats really active though, like a compiler. A typical setup would be something like World of Warcraft, Ventrillo, Firefox, Wireshark (watching WoW traffic is a hobby during wipe recovery), and stuff like that. The second core still isn't particularily taxed.

In order to spike both cores, I need to start something like a compiler or video encoder, which is going to also eat I/O time. Its the I/O that slows down WoW more then the CPU usage. Since adding four more cores drastically increases my parallel processing power (which I don't need more of now), and doesn't do a thing for my I/O throughput (which I do need more of), its not really all that helpful.

Thats why this doesn't excite me a whole lot. We were already at a spot where a single core is more then fast enough for a majority of mainstream users, and now we're going to give out six of them? Other then being able to run spyware more effeciently, whats actually being gained?

(There are people who will benefit from this type of thing, of course. I just don't see the mainstream market as part of that group.)

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550050)

This is entirely server related, nothing to do with gamers.

In server land, the more cores you jam on a CPU, the fewer blades you need on the rack. The fewer blades on the rack, the greater the TPS on that rack, the more efficient the server farm.

WoW won't use all the cores, but Yahoo!, Ebay and Google definitely will.

Re:Wow (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550076)

The fewer blades on the rack, the greater the TPS on that rack

That made no sense. I meant you could put more blades on the rack, or more rack units on the rack to increase TPS. Duh.

Originally I was headed down the power path: fewer rackmounts means fewer power supply conversions from the rack 240V/480V bus, but then my brain jumped ahead and realize the TPS density increases.

Re:Wow (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550122)

Yes, I do. I don't often have something running in the background thats really active though, like a compiler. A typical setup would be something like World of Warcraft, Ventrillo, Firefox, Wireshark (watching WoW traffic is a hobby during wipe recovery), and stuff like that. The second core still isn't particularily taxed.


Do you have a hybrid RAID chipset (such as Intel's "Matrix)?
Is any DSP function handled by your processor for the LAN or USB interfaces?
What about sound card? Do you have real hardware wavetable synthesis, or is it all done by the drivers, on the CPU?
What about other I/O operations?
Video drivers?

Your second processor has plenty to do on an SMP-capable OS, even when running single-threaded applications. Sure, you may not see a 100% performance improvement, or even 50%, but your multi-core system is a heck of a lot more responsive than it would be had you been running a single-core CPU.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22550638)

(watching WoW traffic is a hobby during wipe recovery)
Might want to up your fiber intake.

World of way off topic? (1)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550764)

When you are watching WoW traffic, have you ever been tempted to analyse the packets? I thought it might be useful to make a program that extracts English messages from a WoW bitstream, e.g. whispers and other chat. These are sent in plain text. But I discovered that the packets appeared to have no obvious structure that would allow chat messages to be distinguished from other data. The nearest thing to a packet header is a 32 bit word that appears every so often. Its position suggests a packet header, since it is at a consistent offset from chat message text, but it looks random (when passed through a frequency analysis, all bits have equally high entropy). It is as if the packet headers are being encrypted using an algorithm and key shared by both the server and client with the specific intention of making the protocol more difficult to reverse engineer.

But why just the header? Can you shed any light on this? (I claim that this is slightly on topic because it is a very nerdy discussion, and, erm.. a possible use for additional CPU cores...)

Re:Wow (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22551574)

how often does more than one process that will max out a core run in your background? It's all just stuff that uses 1% every couple minutes tops. I mean really, how often would you be gaming while encoding a video (which you can do on a dual) while installing a windows update while running a virus scan while brute forcing a zip file password. And that's only 5 cores. It's just idiotic to have 6. Even if you did have that much running, your hard drive would be so taxed, everything would slow down anyway. Anything beyond a quad belongs in a server unless you actually have a multi-core useful program. And FFS people, stop posting that almost all programs use more than one thread. I don't give a shit if it uses 0.0001% of a second core to update the GUI while it maxes out another core encoding something. That doesn't make it multi-core friendly!!!!!! It has to actually max out other cores! And guess how many programs I have that do that. ZERO. Though windows movie maker comes close because it appears to encode audio in a seperate thread from video or something because it takes up about 75% of my total processor cycles and I have a dual core.

Some people run windows (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550466)

This is great for many computing environments, but my home system is not one of them. Honestly there isn't much software I use on a regular basis that really taxes the second core, let alone six of them.

Some people run windows, and they have to have a virus checker running all the time. Loads of activity every so often, which makes another core nice. And the window manager hangs sometimes and does these bizarre full-desktop refreshes every time you look at it crossways. It's good to have your program keep running at full tilt when that happens.

Multiple cores is the way to go, if that's your lot.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

wonnage (1206966) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550640)

The problem is that more and more its technologically infeasible to increase clock speed without frying chips built with ever tinier components. We still have the ability to cram a few more transistors onto the silicon, though. This by itself doesn't solve anything - having the ability to cram transistors on doesn't do jack if you can't make use of them. Right now, increasing the core count seems to be best way to utilize the room on the chip, which is why all the major processor manufacturers have banked on it for the near future. Basically, we've chosen parallelization as the way of the future. Concurrency is a tough problem to tackle, though, which is why a lot of programs either don't make use of it as much as they could. Some tasks just can't be parallelized anyway. The difference between the core race and the gigahertz race is that at least the cores have some potential. Sure, you can bump the clock up to 3GHZ if you make an incredibly long pipeline, but if you can't fill that pipeline or it get stalled or you get interrupted and have to flush the whole thing, the 3GHZ isn't all that useful. Much of those problems are out of the software developers' control. If you have enough jobs for the cores, though, and write a program that makes good use of parallelization (much easier said than done), multi-core will actually give you a big performance increase.

Re:Wow (1)

alexburke (119254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550356)

They could have gone to 3 cores, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do, but they said "Fuck it, we're going to six". What part of this don't you understand? If two cores is good, and four cores is better, obviously six cores would make them the best fucking CPU that ever existed.
As someone who works for Sun, I feel the need to point you to our lovely . You will soil yourself. [sun.com]

If you need even more geek pr0n, without me breaking my NDA I can point you towards Victoria Falls [sun.com] . Hardware support for 128 concurrent threads per socket with support for linking two sockets for 256 threads sharing common memory. :)

Re:Wow (1)

alexburke (119254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550396)

*sigh*

As someone who works for Sun, I feel the need to point you to our lovely UltraSPARC T2 [sun.com] . You will soil yourself.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22551114)

You should take a look at these guys. They DO go to eleven. :)

http://elevenengineering.com/ [elevenengineering.com]

Re:Wow (1)

howman (170527) | more than 6 years ago | (#22551634)

Well actually, they were going to go with 5 cores but in the end decided that the sixth one would be needed to run the cooling and fire suppression systems.

6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (-1, Troll)

Naerymdan (870497) | more than 6 years ago | (#22548924)

See subject.

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 6 years ago | (#22548988)

See article.

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (5, Informative)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 6 years ago | (#22548998)

The L3 cache is 16MB. Each pair of cores shares 3MB of L2 cache. They aren't the same thing at all.

Note: if you're tempted to mod this up, don't. I rehashed the summary.

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22549178)

Note: if you're tempted to mod this up, don't. I rehashed the summary.
Oh, come on. It's not like we can mod the summary +1: Informative. That just wouldn't feel right!

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (3, Informative)

Troy Roberts (4682) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549014)

You seem to have confuse the L2 and L3 caches. The L3 cache is 16MB, while each pair of processors have a shared 3MB L2 cache. So, it's 3pairs X 3MB = 9MB of L2 cache and 16MB of L3 cache.

L3 vs L2 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22549016)

See subject. Comprehensive reading, you fail it.

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (3, Informative)

Eddi3 (1046882) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549028)

Uh, no.

It seems that 16 MB of L3 cache is shared among all 6 processors. Then, each pair of cores has 3 MB between them.

So, 16MB L3 + 3 (pairs of 2 cores) * 3MB L2 = 25 MB total cache.

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (2, Funny)

Hes Nikke (237581) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549074)

your forgetting the L1 cache, maybe 128-256 KB per core... thats up to another meg and a half!

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22550482)

Though we are talking about an Intel design, where the cache isn't exclusive. Thus not including it in total usable cache would be correct.

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (1)

sssssss27 (1117705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549112)

So, 16MB L3 + 3 (pairs of 2 cores) * 3MB L2 = 25 MB total cache.

Which is more memory than RAM of my first computer and I'm only 21 years old.

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (2, Insightful)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549238)

Actually I think you could run windows 95 just in cache. Now say about bloat...

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (5, Funny)

sssssss27 (1117705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549400)

Which kind of puts in perspective just how long Duke Nukem Forever has been in development. It's almost getting to the point where the CPU alone meets the minimum requirements for RAM.

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549522)

But imagine what will happen when DNF finally arrives. It could be start of a new epoch (it certainly be the end of one).

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549666)

Get off my lawn. My first computer came with 1k of RAM. I still have it.

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549944)

Piker. My first computer [retrothing.com] had three bits of memory, and it clocked at 1Hz if I was fast. No friggin kilo- prefixes for me.

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (3, Informative)

Hes Nikke (237581) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549040)

6 cores times 3MB = 16MB?
from the summery: 16 MB Level THREE cache (i'm assuming shared by all cores) and 3 X 3 MB L2 cache (3 MB per pair of cores)

that means we have 9 MB of L2 cache (total) and an additional 16 MB of L3 cache.

now i need to RTFA :P

Re:6 cores times 3MB = 16MB? (-1, Offtopic)

qoncept (599709) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549466)

Why not post your comment in the .. uh, comment. You can imagine what I should see in the subject.

Pet peeve. I'm sick of getting emails like this:
Subject: What are we going to do
Message: about our employees looking at porn all day?

QuickPath vs HyperTransport (5, Interesting)

Dice (109560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22548928)

The Wikipedia page on QuickPath [wikipedia.org] is very lacking in the realm of details. Does anyone know how it stacks up against HyperTransport [wikipedia.org] ? One of the most mouth-watering proposed uses for HT3 that I've heard of was the possibility for an external HT3 bus on a machine which could be used to link together multiple physical machines into one giant NUMA beast.

Imagine a Beowulf of those ;)

Re:QuickPath vs HyperTransport (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549084)

Imagine a Beowulf of those ;)
I tried, but the very thought of it very nearly took over my brain. If I hadn't begun to choke on my own drool, I might not have survived to welcome our new 6-core QuickPath Overlords.

Re:QuickPath vs HyperTransport (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22549268)

Re:QuickPath vs HyperTransport (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549334)

with a general number crunching session... they're in for a world of hurt. If I'm right, their performance is going to take a hit from this bus in most apps.

Re:QuickPath vs HyperTransport (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22550426)

How about an integer and i/o dominated workload, say SAP, SQL Server and web serving? I think they are going after the Niagra (ironically) and server blades for threaded (24 cores per node or board) work loads.

Re:QuickPath vs HyperTransport (3, Informative)

imgod2u (812837) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550844)

The bus is only supposed to take over chip-to-chip and chip-to-peripheral communications. Each chip will still have a dedicated (tri-channel in fact), low latency connection to memory.

One of the most impressive things about Quickpath is its self-calibration circuit. Makes making PCB's a lot easier and variations easier to deal with.

Re:QuickPath vs HyperTransport (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549578)

One of the most mouth-watering proposed uses for HT3 that I've heard of was the possibility for an external HT3 bus on a machine which could be used to link together multiple physical machines into one giant NUMA beast.
Horus was so mouth-watering that it may have driven Newisys out of business.

But... (5, Funny)

chinkuone (1150389) | more than 6 years ago | (#22548946)

Still doesn't run Crysis.

Re:But... (1, Funny)

will.perdikakis (1074743) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549316)

...or Vista

Intel still playing the Chuck Norris of vendors... (4, Funny)

TeknoDragon (17295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22548984)

QuickPath: because Intel doesn't adopt standards... it rewrites them.

Re:Intel still playing the Chuck Norris of vendors (5, Interesting)

nonsequitor (893813) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549240)

QuickPath: because Intel doesn't adopt standards... it rewrites them.
Why should Intel pay AMD to license HyperTransport? The specs may be open to developers, but that does not mean they are unencumbered by patents. Even if they could, why Would they?

I don't really know the situation surrounding the technology, but even if Intel could use it for free, they would lose a huge battle in the PR War. I can see it now, "Remember that interconnect AMD has been using for years now? Well our design has finally caught up with theirs enough to use it." Remember that to the masses, the non-slashdot crowd, they have no idea what the techno-jargon spouted by Intel marketing means.

Intel currently has the superior technology, this is because of superior fabrication capabilities, not because of a superior architecture, if I've been following this correctly over the last few years. The general public is oblivious to the fact that internally the AMD architecture is cleaner and more elegant, the only thing they have to go on is marketing. If Intel were to adopt HyperTransport, which IIRC is trademarked by AMD, that would be a huge step backwards for Intel marketing, which is just recovering now that the Core 2 architecture has put them back on top.

Re:Intel still playing the Chuck Norris of vendors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22549886)

I can see it now, "Remember that interconnect AMD has been using for years now? Well our design has finally caught up with theirs enough to use it.

Yeah, because EM64T was novel.

Re:Intel still playing the Chuck Norris of vendors (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22549962)

Please check your facts, AMD doesn't _own_ HyperTransport, so why would Intel have to pay them anything? HyperTransport can be used royalty-free by anyone joining the HT consortium. Yes, AMD is a member of the consortium, just like a lot of other tech companies such as NVIDIA, one of AMD/ATi's biggest competitors. AMD are not the owners of the technology nor are they in control of the HT consortium. They are simply one of the most visible tech companies that has strongly embraced HT in their products.

Re:Intel still playing the Chuck Norris of vendors (2, Insightful)

mihalis (28146) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550462)

QuickPath: because Intel doesn't adopt standards... it rewrites them.
Why should Intel pay AMD to license HyperTransport? The specs may be open to developers, but that does not mean they are unencumbered by patents. Even if they could, why Would they? I don't really know the situation surrounding the technology, but even if Intel could use it for free, they would lose a huge battle in the PR War. I can see it now, "Remember that interconnect AMD has been using for years now? Well our design has finally caught up with theirs enough to use it." Remember that to the masses, the non-slashdot crowd, they have no idea what the techno-jargon spouted by Intel marketing means.

Note that Intel did adopt AMD's 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set. I regard that as far more significant than, hypothetically, licensing HyperTransport. For example see this article on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] or any other history of AMD64/Intel64 or "x86-64" or whatever everyone is calling it these days.

This was a PR blow to Intel, but still made good business sense at the time, and seems to have been good for Intel and for AMD (bad for Itanium though).

Re:Intel still playing the Chuck Norris of vendors (2, Informative)

Mex (191941) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550936)

"The general public is oblivious to the fact that internally the AMD architecture is cleaner and more elegant, the only thing they have to go on is marketing."

It doesn't help that in most benchmarks, AMD has been trounced by Intel this past year.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html [tomshardware.com]

Re:Intel still playing the Chuck Norris of vendors (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549270)

yea if they used hypertransport they would have to pay amd for it

Re:Intel still playing the Chuck Norris of vendors (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549370)

Unless they negotiated a cross-licensing deal on patents, of course.

Welll.... (5, Funny)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549046)

Does it go to 11?

Re:Welll.... (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549338)

Probably 12, since we're apparently going for petty oneupmanship with the number of cores we slap on a piece of silicon these days.

It makes we wonder why Intel just doesn't go "You know what? 100 cores, bitches. You heard us," kind of like these guys [theonion.com] . :)

Re:Welll.... (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549490)

I seem to remember Intel made some proof-of-concept 80-core chip a while ago. Close enough.

sweet in the MacPro (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22549122)

This is gonna be sweet inside a MacPro! 12 cores, wow!

FSB (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22549206)

"Intel will abandon the front-side bus..."

I think I speak for us all when I say ABOUT FSCKING TIME!

Re:FSB (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549296)

CAN I HEAR AN AMEN! INTEL HAS SEEN THE LIGHT... oh what the hell, make their own interconnect...?!?

Re:FSB (5, Interesting)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549358)

Very true!
Now, hopefully Intel will open the new bus to third party apps (like that FPGA opteron drop-in). I'll admit I'm an Intel fanboy, but I'd buy an opteron system in a heartbeat if I could pony up the $5K for that co-processor...

What surprises me is the current lack of complaints that you can't drop these new processors into an old board, as a new socket will be required (this is because the northbridge is rolling into the CPU IIRC). I don't see it as a big deal, because usually when upgrading the CPU one also is upgrading the memory and MB as well.
-nB

Re:FSB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22550032)

What surprises me is the current lack of complaints that you can't drop these new processors into an old board

when upgrading the CPU one also is upgrading the memory and MB as well
Kinda answered yourself there. I think most people are happy enough with a MB change, when the architecture is dramatically changed. There is solid reason to change MB, therefore it is easier to swallow the upgrade cost for MB and CPU. Past complaints are due to the frivolous changes, which required a new MB for marginal performance increase.

I love Intel (0, Troll)

Sosarian (39969) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549256)

I love how they intimate that their 3Mb L2 Cache is somehow better than the 512Mb Cache in the Barcelona. It very well may be better in their particular CPU, but functionality wise the two products may perform similarly.

The AMD HT transport product has also been on the market for years, and in real computing (non desktop) applications has serious advantages over the Core2 and other Intel CPUs. Intel's solution/redesign for a similar feature isn't even on the market yet, while AMD's is a mature product.

I also like how they talk up power consumption on their CPUs, while leaving out the 100W hair dryer that is typically their memory controller, whereas the AMD memory controller is included in the CPU and in their CPU wattage.

The only way to test these things is at the wall socket, complete systems.

Re:I love Intel (1)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549320)

Care to cite any of that? I'd like to know where you get the seemingly anecdotal 100w from...

Re:I love Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22550242)

I love how they intimate that their 3Mb L2 Cache is somehow better than the 512Mb Cache in the Barcelona. It very well may be better in their particular CPU, but functionality wise the two products may perform similarly.
Perhaps they intimate that because it is, you know, better.

Barcelona would perform a whole lot better if the caches in it were larger. They aren't because the die is too large as it is (the large die makes it not so profitable to sell at $200-$300, but AMD is forced to price it down there because its performance isn't good enough to compete with Intel's $500-$1K CPUs).

One of Intel's long-term technical advantages over AMD has been that at every process node, Intel's SRAM is denser and faster than AMD's. This translates into larger, faster caches in the same die area.

The AMD HT transport product has also been on the market for years, and in real computing (non desktop) applications has serious advantages over the Core2 and other Intel CPUs.
The only significant market niche where HT is currently an advantage is HPC (high performance computing, AKA scientific number crunching). Many (not all) HPC applications essentially scale with memory bandwidth, and since HT systems scale memory BW per CPU socket populated, they do better than Intel systems which don't. (As long as you are using >1 socket. At 1 socket, there are no significant advantages for HT.)

For other 'real computing' application spaces, such as servers, HT is not a significant advantage and Intel wins anyways.

I also like how they talk up power consumption on their CPUs, while leaving out the 100W hair dryer that is typically their memory controller, whereas the AMD memory controller is included in the CPU and in their CPU wattage.
I have a Mac Pro. You can download an application which lets you monitor the various sensors in the MP. The MP has sensors to monitor north bridge and memory power. The NB is typically about 30W and the memory riser cards 13W each with 2 FBDIMMs populated per riser card (so roughly 6.5W per FBDIMM). As my Mac Pro is the original model, it's using Intel's most power hungry 2-socket chipset for Core 2.

In other words, no, it's not even close to 100W. Not even if you count power hungry first generation FBDIMMs.

If you actually go and check out a wide variety of power benchmarks, you'll find that 65nm Intel dual socket systems generally win at full load power efficiency (since the CPU cores use substantially less power at full load and are faster than AMD's) while AMD dual socket systems generally win at idle power (since they don't suffer from FBDIMM's constant power overhead). 45nm Intel CPUs change the equation a bit, often managing to negate a lot of AMD's idle power advantage while extending the lead in full load efficiency. New low power FBDIMMs are also on the way.

Well that's nice (0, Troll)

tietokone-olmi (26595) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549500)

When can we expect this new architecture? 2011? Ok, maybe I can deal with that.

What will I need to upgrade? A new motherboard, since surely the northbridge-less model will not appreciate the northbridge currently present. Ok, a new morbo is like, 90 euros, I can handle that.

Can I upgrade the motherboard only, so that I could use my old Core2 chip in it? No, there's no northbridge. And the socket is likely incompatible since the processor is now directly connected (well with some mild glue for voltages etc.) to the memory chips. Guess I'll have to suck it up.

With a new motherboard comes new memory modules. Let's be realistic and assume that the minimum amount of memory in a new computer in 2011 is going to be at least 4 gigabytes. Anyway, regardless of the year, a new computer's new memory modules cost some 200 euros total.

This is starting to look kind of expensive! Guess I salivated early. I suppose my next upgrade will be to an AM3 motherboard and then to a Barcelona chip. I mean, those are here this year, not in three years, right?

Jeez, Intel, please provide something more quickly than just promises of Nehalem (I mean, we've been hearing about it for _years_ now) and son-of-Nehalem. Pony the fuck up! I mean, at least AMD's got _something_ out besides vapour.

Re:Well that's nice (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549766)

With a new motherboard comes new memory modules. Let's be realistic and assume that the minimum amount of memory in a new computer in 2011 is going to be at least 4 gigabytes. Anyway, regardless of the year, a new computer's new memory modules cost some 200 euros total.
What happened to being realistic? You can get 4 GB of memory now for less than half that price. Are you predicting some kind of supply shortage in 2011?

Re:Well that's nice (1)

superstick58 (809423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549902)

Ok, a new morbo is like, 90 euros, I can handle that.

You can't handle a new Morbo! All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo! [thatwasfunny.com]

Re:Well that's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22550394)

When can we expect this new architecture? 2011? Ok, maybe I can deal with that.
This year. For both Dunnington (not a new architecture) and Nehalem (an actual new architecture).

(snipped upgrade whines -- get used to it, you can't keep the same CPU sockets forever, and Intel's given people a nice run with their current sockets)

This is starting to look kind of expensive! Guess I salivated early. I suppose my next upgrade will be to an AM3 motherboard and then to a Barcelona chip. I mean, those are here this year, not in three years, right?

Jeez, Intel, please provide something more quickly than just promises of Nehalem (I mean, we've been hearing about it for _years_ now) and son-of-Nehalem. Pony the fuck up! I mean, at least AMD's got _something_ out besides vapour.
1. How is Barcelona an 'upgrade' from Core 2, again?

2. Intel promised Nehalem this year. Why are you crying that they're talking about shipping it this year, again?

3. Surely AMD's troubles making Barcelona non-vapor cannot have escaped you. Right now all you can buy are terrible low-clocked buggy (*) versions of the chip which were pushed out on the market before they were ready because Core 2 was eating AMD alive.

(*) yes, buggy. You can't yet buy a version of the Barcelona core which does not require you to run a software BIOS/OS patch to work around a major bug. Unfortunately the software workaround destroys performance.

Re:Well that's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22550478)

I mean, at least AMD's got _something_ out besides vapour.
Of course, the funny part is that Intel's current "vapour" beats AMD's best across the board...

Re:Well that's nice (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550750)

Desktop Nehalem seems to be on track for the first half of 2009, with some server/workstation/enthusiast late 2008. That is, it's almost perfectly mirroring Penryn, but a year later (and about 2.5 years after Conroe). I don't know where you got 2011 from...

Re:Well that's nice (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 6 years ago | (#22551340)

What will I need to upgrade? A new motherboard, since surely the northbridge-less model will not appreciate the northbridge currently present. Ok, a new morbo is like, 90 euros, I can handle that.

I was told not to feed the trolls, but I guess you could feed this one to Morbo [wikipedia.org] .

This is a sever chip and the FSB may get in the... (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22549788)

This is a sever chip and the FSB may get in the way and be a big slow down with you need to go to a other socket or need to load a lot of data to the cpu all of that L3 and L2 helps as well the 24meg buffer in the chipset that needs FB-dimms but all of that pushes the cost up once intel drops the FSB the need for all of that L2 and L3 will go down as well as moveing to DDR3 that gives off less heat and needs less power.

also there needs to be quick path / HTX slots not sockets for add on 3rd party chips on the cpu bus and they need to let you any chipset like how there is a number of them for amd systems on the desktop and the sever side.

Skulltrail with a just a nvidia chip set without having to use a intel one like how the amd 4x4 system is setup and may desktop DDR2 / DDR3 will be better system with lower cost and less heat if they are able to go this way.

and intel needs to have on board video with it's own ram ATI and nvidia are working on this.

I feel like I'm being obsoleted out the door (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#22550726)

I don't even own a dual core machine and now there's going to be Windows Craving 6-core machines that run Vista Ultra Quantum Home Edition!

I feel like they would do us all a favor if they just told us the date that none of the software we'll need to run will stop operating on 'old' hardware. I can hardly wait for my HS Jr. to go off to college and they tell me I need yet another $2400 laptop as a requirement.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?