PDA

View Full Version : Sandybridge Speculations...




JesterJJZ
Oct 25, 2010, 07:19 AM
Is it too soon to start ranting about when SB will get here? :D
I kinda miss all these threads where we bicker about the next MacPro.

So...? Where does Sandybridge stand as of now? What are we looking forward to? Good chance we'll see it in the next major revision no?



philipma1957
Oct 25, 2010, 08:20 AM
Must be a triple rant sandybridge-usb3-lightp. Then it is okay.

Hellhammer
Oct 25, 2010, 09:22 AM
Sandy Bridges suitable for Mac Pro (LGA 2011 Xeons) are scheduled for H2 2011 along with Intel X68 "Waimea Bay" chipset. The CPUs that are coming in early 2011 (likely in CES so 6-9th of Jan) are for mainstream market (Core iX) and are based on LGA 1155 socket and use Intel's "Cougar Point" chipset. It's unlikely that we will find those in Mac Pro since they are only dual or quad core and the chipset is very limited compared to X68.

So, my guess is H2 2011 for next gen Mac Pro. SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 should be preset as X68 should support both of them. Possibly PCIe 3.0 as well.

johnnymg
Oct 25, 2010, 09:36 AM
Sandy Bridges suitable for Mac Pro (LGA 2011 Xeons) are scheduled for H2 2011 along with Intel X68 "Waimea Bay" chipset. The CPUs that are coming in early 2011 (likely in CES so 6-9th of Jan) are for mainstream market (Core iX) and are based on LGA 1155 socket and use Intel's "Cougar Point" chipset. It's unlikely that we will find those in Mac Pro since they are only dual or quad core and the chipset is very limited compared to X68.

So, my guess is H2 2011 for next gen Mac Pro. SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 should be preset as X68 should support both of them. Possibly PCIe 3.0 as well.

Excellent overview!

I'll just add that if the chips are available H2 then it's a fairly safe bet that we won't see them in MP's until the Fall of 2011 or later. So, my WAG guess is early 2012.

cheers
JohnG

obfuscated
Oct 25, 2010, 11:22 AM
Here's a hardware newbie question:

Why care?


Is there anything special apart from incremental speed increases and some kind of CPU-integrated graphics?

I don't ask as a troll. Can anyone point me at an article on why these chips will be so much better than the current generation? The wikipedia article on Sandy Bridge was a bit above my level of understanding.

Hellhammer
Oct 25, 2010, 11:30 AM
Is there anything special apart from incremental speed increases and some kind of CPU-integrated graphics?

I don't ask as a troll. Can anyone point me at an article on why these chips will be so much better than the current generation? The wikipedia article on Sandy Bridge was a bit above my level of understanding.

There will be no IGP in Xeons.

They won't be significantly better than current chips are, possibly ~15% clock for clock (just a guess). One interesting feature is that 8-core chips for Mac Pro should come along with SB so we may see a 16-core, 32-thread behemoth.

As I said above, there will be some nice updates in the chipsets, such as SATA 6Gb/s, USB 3.0 and PCIe 3.0 (not all are confirmed).

If you have to ask, you're probably fine with current gen. We just like to geek and speculate about the future :p

jav6454
Oct 25, 2010, 11:33 AM
Sandy Bridges suitable for Mac Pro (LGA 2011 Xeons) are scheduled for H2 2011 along with Intel X68 "Waimea Bay" chipset. The CPUs that are coming in early 2011 (likely in CES so 6-9th of Jan) are for mainstream market (Core iX) and are based on LGA 1155 socket and use Intel's "Cougar Point" chipset. It's unlikely that we will find those in Mac Pro since they are only dual or quad core and the chipset is very limited compared to X68.

So, my guess is H2 2011 for next gen Mac Pro. SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 should be preset as X68 should support both of them. Possibly PCIe 3.0 as well.

Actually, you got it half right. SATA 6Gb/s will be supported on 2 ports and the other 4 ports will still be SATA 3Gb/s.

Also, PCIe 3.0 support is coming on all 40 PCIe lanes. This is a *very* good thing for motherboard vendors who like to add add-on extension chips (like extra USB 3.0 or maybe extra SATA 6Gb/s ports). *drools at 1GB/s per x1 lane*

Also, USB 3.0 is not coming till late 2011/early 2012 because as always Intel takes their sweet little time to do it.

Hellhammer
Oct 25, 2010, 11:40 AM
Actually, you got it half right. SATA 6Gb/s will be supported on 2 ports and the other 4 ports will still be SATA 3Gb/s.

I said it will get SATA 6Gb/s, not how many ports ;) That sounds likely though. Maybe (well, more like hopefully :p) more SATA ports in total, like 4+4 for example.

Also, USB 3.0 is not coming till late 2011/early 2012 because as always Intel takes their sweet little time to do it.

Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/20347-sandy-bridge-to-get-usb-30-support) begs to differ. Nothing has been confirmed by Intel, yet. They've been very quiet about the whole USB thing though Fudzilla provides decent reasons why.

My guess is that at least X68 will get native support for USB 3.0

Eidorian
Oct 25, 2010, 11:43 AM
While not directly Mac Pro related, the LGA 1155 midrange and its mobile derivation are going to have more PCIe lanes for USB 3.0 and SATA 6 Gbps.

You won't have to worry about decreased high speed I/O performance like you did with the current P55/H55 generation.

jav6454
Oct 25, 2010, 11:49 AM
While not directly Mac Pro related, the LGA 1155 midrange and its mobile derivation are going to have more PCIe lanes for USB 3.0 and SATA 6 Gbps.

You won't have to worry about decreased high speed I/O performance like you did with the current P55/H55 generation.

How many lanes are LGA1155 chipsets getting? Last I read, it stayed at 20 lanes

Eidorian
Oct 25, 2010, 11:51 AM
How many lanes are LGA1155 chipsets getting? Last I read, it stayed at 20 lanes20 PCIe 2.0 lanes with 16 being devoted to graphics.

You'll have x4 2.0 to spare and DMI is getting bumped up to PCIe 2.0 as well so that's double the bandwidth there too. None of this PLX switching or low performance mode nonsense.

citizenal
Oct 25, 2010, 11:55 AM
Here's a hardware newbie question:

Why care?


Is there anything special apart from incremental speed increases and some kind of CPU-integrated graphics?

I don't ask as a troll. Can anyone point me at an article on why these chips will be so much better than the current generation? The wikipedia article on Sandy Bridge was a bit above my level of understanding.

I can't speculate for anyone else, but for me I would like to get the best spec'd computer I can, even if I have to wait a few months from now to get it. I plan on getting a 6 core processor and use it for the next 4 to 5 years. Paying 4500 plus w/ a 27 inch screen is quite a chunk of change for some people, and it would be nice to know you got something alittle faster/better than not waiting a few months and getting something alittle slower. Every year I see these new macbook pro's and macpro's and the little things add up. Sure it's alittle bump here, and specs go up alitte there, but in 1 or 2 years they do start adding up. Just my .02 cents.

jav6454
Oct 25, 2010, 11:56 AM
20 PCIe 2.0 lanes with 16 being devoted to graphics.

You'll have x4 2.0 to spare and DMI is getting bumped up to PCIe 2.0 as well so that's double the bandwidth there too. None of this PLX switching or low performance mode nonsense.

That I recall LGA 1156, it was already at x20 lanes at PCIe 2.0 speeds, with x4 of those being devoted to the DMI. All manufacturers could do was use nVidia's NF chips to add more GPU capabilities to the motherboard. But still it was either a GPU at x16 or 2 GPUs at x8/x8.

Oh, I forgot, some vendors add USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s to that further decreasing PCIe count or sacrificing speeds by using the ICH10R's PCIe 1.x lanes.

Hellhammer
Oct 25, 2010, 12:00 PM
That I recall LGA 1156, it was already at x20 lanes at PCIe 2.0 speeds

The bandwidth is limited to 250MB/s per lane which is half of the "real" PCIe 2.0. Too lazy to search for something more official so I'll just use Wikipedia as my source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P55

rootsmaneuver
Oct 25, 2010, 12:01 PM
So, whats the holdup with LightPeak? When can we expect to see it on the market/in a Mac ?

Hellhammer
Oct 25, 2010, 12:02 PM
So, whats the holdup with LightPeak? When can we expect to see it on the market/in a Mac ?

Intel said that the parts should be available in late 2011 but computers with LP won't be seen before 2012. So, late 2011 at the earliest.

jav6454
Oct 25, 2010, 12:04 PM
The bandwidth is limited to 250MB/s per lane which is half of the "real" PCIe 2.0. Too lazy to search for something more official so I'll just use Wikipedia as my source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P55

Holy crap, that's even worse than I thought. Here I was think P55 platform was already bandwidth starved, and here I am seeing that the case is even worse than expected.

How in the world is Intel getting away calling x20 lanes @ PCIe 2.0 speeds when x8 of those are at PCIe 1.x speeds? Crazy.

However, still, using full blown x20 PCIe at 500MB/s per x1 is still bandwidth starvation in that platform. maybe bless it with PCIe 3.0 speeds?

chrmjenkins
Oct 25, 2010, 12:07 PM
That I recall LGA 1156, it was already at x20 lanes at PCIe 2.0 speeds, with x4 of those being devoted to the DMI. All manufacturers could do was use nVidia's NF chips to add more GPU capabilities to the motherboard. But still it was either a GPU at x16 or 2 GPUs at x8/x8.

Which wasn't really an issue. 1156 mobos trucked along just fine with CF/SLI configs. Looking forward, we may have saturation issues. I've not looked at how much bandwidth the enthusiast cards are using lately.

cutterman
Oct 25, 2010, 12:09 PM
They won't be significantly better than current chips are, possibly ~15% clock for clock (just a guess

Agreed, and maybe 15% is on the high side.

Interesting read here (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/25875/?nlid=3628) about the power/performance limits cpu designers are facing now, especially with SB.

Hellhammer
Oct 25, 2010, 12:13 PM
Holy crap, that's even worse than I thought. Here I was think P55 platform was already bandwidth starved, and here I am seeing that the case is even worse than expected.

How in the world is Intel getting away calling x20 lanes @ PCIe 2.0 speeds when x8 of those are at PCIe 1.x speeds? Crazy.

It's just a marketing scheme to get people buy the more expensive X58 or X68 chipset. Most consumers don't know the difference between chipsets. In fact, most of them have no idea what PCIe is :p

maybe bless it with PCIe 3.0 speeds?

Yeah, limited to 500MB/s :D

chrmjenkins
Oct 25, 2010, 12:14 PM
Agreed, and maybe 15% is on the high side.

Interesting read here (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/mimssbits/25875/?nlid=3628) about the power/performance limits cpu designers are facing now, especially with SB.

Yeah, anandtech's preview only showed a 10% clock-for-clock. SB will turbo quite a bit higher, though.

Our best hope for CPUs in the near term is graphene. Commercialization of that will spawn a revolution bigger in significance than SOI, strained silicon and high-k put together. Still a lot of hurdles, unfortunately. 1 atom thick substrates tend to be a bit hard to mass produce.

osxabsd
Oct 25, 2010, 12:28 PM
Will we see Sandybridge in Mac Book Pros? What are the benefits of having those CPUs in MBPs?

chrmjenkins
Oct 25, 2010, 12:30 PM
Will we see Sandybridge in Mac Book Pros? What are the benefits of having those CPUs in MBPs?

Yes.

They're faster.

jav6454
Oct 25, 2010, 12:30 PM
Will we see Sandybridge in Mac Book Pros? What are the benefits of having those CPUs in MBPs?

MBPs use a mobile version of 1156 currently. So, X68 will have no effect on MBPs, only Mac Pros.


It's just a marketing scheme to get people buy the more expensive X58 or X68 chipset. Most consumers don't know the difference between chipsets. In fact, most of them have no idea what PCIe is :p

Yeah, limited to 500MB/s :D

And I wouldn't be surprised.

chrmjenkins
Oct 25, 2010, 12:35 PM
MBPs use a mobile version of 1156 currently. So, X68 will have no effect on MBPs, only Mac Pros.

Sandy Bridge launch is LGA 1155 processors. X68 comes later. Apple should be able to do an update around April-ish like last time, provided they want to update then.

I think the biggest question is whether or not 13" MBPs and MBs go straight to SB and keep a discrete GPU.

jav6454
Oct 25, 2010, 12:38 PM
Sandy Bridge launch is LGA 1155 processors. X68 comes later. Apple should be able to do an update around April-ish like last time, provided they want to update then.

I think the biggest question is whether or not 13" MBPs and MBs go straight to SB and keep a discrete GPU.

I say, Steve will sacrifice the dedicated GPU.

chrmjenkins
Oct 25, 2010, 12:45 PM
I say, Steve will sacrifice the dedicated GPU.

There's no reason they can't do SB + discrete GPU with an Optimus like setup. However, I feel that they won't because they won't like the profit margin. Perhaps 13" will become Arrandale and always lag a generation behind. After seeing the Vaio Z pack arrandale plus the 330M I don't buy that the logic board either can't fit or be cooled in Apple's 13" chassis size.

Eidorian
Oct 25, 2010, 12:53 PM
Which wasn't really an issue. 1156 mobos trucked along just fine with CF/SLI configs. Looking forward, we may have saturation issues. I've not looked at how much bandwidth the enthusiast cards are using lately.PCIe 2.0 x8 + x8 was not surprisingly more than enough for a dual GPU setup.

DMI and the remaining lanes outside of those dedicated to the GPU were where P55 and its siblings failed when it came to providing bandwidth for USB 3.0 and SATA 6 Gbps at the same time.

jav6454
Oct 25, 2010, 05:05 PM
There's no reason they can't do SB + discrete GPU with an Optimus like setup. However, I feel that they won't because they won't like the profit margin. Perhaps 13" will become Arrandale and always lag a generation behind. After seeing the Vaio Z pack arrandale plus the 330M I don't buy that the logic board either can't fit or be cooled in Apple's 13" chassis size.

Apple would have to sacrifice battery space to make room for the extra chip. Recall, in the Core ix solution, we have the CPU, GPU and ICH module. So that extra space has to come from somewhere. I have a feeling that or an MacBook Air SSD approach; which I doubt the later.

chrmjenkins
Oct 25, 2010, 05:30 PM
Apple would have to sacrifice battery space to make room for the extra chip. Recall, in the Core ix solution, we have the CPU, GPU and ICH module. So that extra space has to come from somewhere. I have a feeling that or an MacBook Air SSD approach; which I doubt the later.

Also now have the option to turn off discrete and use IGP. This solution is not possible in the C2D implementations. Still, battery life will suffer overall at the cost of space as you point out.

deconstruct60
Oct 25, 2010, 10:56 PM
Here's a hardware newbie question:

Why care?


If looking specifically for a Mac Pro that is loaded down with workload:

Because it will be 10-30% faster on many heavy duty workloads. Much faster than that on highly vectorizable code ( better vector instructions than what SSE has provided. )

If have a Mac Pro that commonly runs at 10% utliization levels.... they don't really need the extra headroom.



Is there anything special apart from incremental speed increases and some kind of CPU-integrated graphics? [quote]

It is more than speed increases. Certain workloads are going to get better improvements. And the GPU is moot for integrated graphics for the Mac Pro class machines.

Gets done to the low level specifics.

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT091810191937

short summarize.
a. better decode of instructions. faster and low power ( the latter should allow turbo to turn on in more situations .)

b. more memory lanes. Will go from 3 to 4. if going to have 6-8 cores you need more paths to smaller chunks of memory. [ and it that just works for many old programs too. Maybe not 100% optimized but it does work, despite the naysayers around here. ]

#1 benefit of going to 4 lanes is that folks can stop whining about Apple having 4 slots in these forums. Sandy Bridge is oriented to 4 slots specifically ( yeah also 8 and 12 .... but there is no room with current design constraints for either one of those. )




c. there is a better bus between the cores. ( workloads which fork/join work will be happier. )


[quote] The wikipedia article on Sandy Bridge was a bit above my level of understanding.

Beyond the tech the reality is that Mac Pro is really on a two year major revision cycle. Every two years Intel changes the socket. That forces a redsign of the logic boards. That brings in new stuff. In the second year you mainly will get a speed bump. ( a slightly better processor and a few other bumped components. No new sockets/connectors. No major internal changes. ).

With a Mac Pro you buying more than just a CPU ( although that seems to be what folks fixate on in the forums. )

xgman
Oct 27, 2010, 02:44 PM
Wow!

an Intel Core i7-2600K Sandybridge running at 5GHz + on air cooling

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI4ODEyNDMyM2RzUU1JdTlvc2tfMV8xX2wuanBn

jav6454
Oct 28, 2010, 12:57 PM
Wow!

an Intel Core i7-2600K Sandybridge running at 5GHz + on air cooling

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI4ODEyNDMyM2RzUU1JdTlvc2tfMV8xX2wuanBn

0.98V? Something is wrong there.... can't be that low and have a stable clock at 5GHz.... perhaps 1.2V

chrmjenkins
Oct 28, 2010, 01:40 PM
0.98V? Something is wrong there.... can't be that low and have a stable clock at 5GHz.... perhaps 1.2V

Nice spy. Even 1.2 at 5.0 GHz sounds wonky. That's around stock voltage. If the K's overclock that well and there's no workaround for the bclk lock on these Intel will be bending people over barrels for K prices.

jav6454
Oct 28, 2010, 02:28 PM
Nice spy. Even 1.2 at 5.0 GHz sounds wonky. That's around stock voltage. If the K's overclock that well and there's no workaround for the bclk lock on these Intel will be bending people over barrels for K prices.

Surprisingly, K prices are stable on the i5 and i7 front. It's the X prices that people have to bend over for.

In any case, yes you are right, even at 1.2V it looks fake.

Clicky (http://regex.info/exif.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hardocp.com%2Fimages%2Fnews%2F1288124323dsQMIu9osk_1_1_l.jpg)

It is fake... Adobe Photoshop 6... nice try I'd say.

xgman
Oct 29, 2010, 03:35 PM
That ver of cpuz program may be reading it wrong as well. It may not be updated for the new cpu etc. If this is from cooaller. They are not know for producing fakes. Nevertheless, one can hope Intel has this sort of yield in these things.

jav6454
Oct 30, 2010, 09:28 AM
CPU-Z is known to be exact regardless of new CPU.

CaoCao
Oct 31, 2010, 12:06 AM
There's no reason they can't do SB + discrete GPU with an Optimus like setup. However, I feel that they won't because they won't like the profit margin. Perhaps 13" will become Arrandale and always lag a generation behind. After seeing the Vaio Z pack arrandale plus the 330M I don't buy that the logic board either can't fit or be cooled in Apple's 13" chassis size.
Sony uses some impressive stunts to make the VAIO Z

Intel seems to be having LGA 2011 appear on 22nm Ivy Bridge goodness
We might see:
20MB L3 cache
Octocore @3.6GHz
Quad Channel (Confirmed)
40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes (Confirmed)

jav6454
Oct 31, 2010, 12:41 AM
Sony uses some impressive stunts to make the VAIO Z

Intel seems to be having LGA 2011 appear on 22nm Ivy Bridge goodness
We might see:
20MB L3 cache
Octocore @3.6GHz
Quad Channel (Confirmed)
40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes (Confirmed)

In reality we will only see x36 PCIe 3.0 lanes. The other x4 will be dedicated to the DMI.

In any case, the 20MB L3, seems a bit steep. Maybe 12MB for the Quads, 16MB for the Hexs.

Eidorian
Oct 31, 2010, 12:54 AM
In reality we will only see x36 PCIe 3.0 lanes. The other x4 will be dedicated to the DMI.

In any case, the 20MB L3, seems a bit steep. Maybe 12MB for the Quads, 16MB for the Hexs.QPI would be used to communicate with the IOH and that steps down to the PCH/SB over DMI.

CaoCao
Oct 31, 2010, 12:57 AM
In reality we will only see x36 PCIe 3.0 lanes. The other x4 will be dedicated to the DMI.

In any case, the 20MB L3, seems a bit steep. Maybe 12MB for the Quads, 16MB for the Hexs.

but isn't 22nm less than 50% of 32nm? (I'm assuming 22•22 vs. 32•32)
therefore they could double it?

jav6454
Oct 31, 2010, 12:58 AM
QPI would be used to communicate with the IOH and that steps down to the PCH/SB over DMI.

Forgot about that... thank you for the reminder.

but isn't 22nm less than 50% of 32nm? (I'm assuming 22^22 vs. 32^32)
therefore they could double it?

Scaling isn't linear to die size.

CaoCao
Oct 31, 2010, 01:09 AM
Forgot about that... thank you for the reminder.
Sony uses some impressive stunts to make the VAIO Z

Intel seems to be having LGA 2011 appear on 22nm Ivy Bridge goodness
We might see:
20MB L3 cache
Octocore @3.6GHz
Quad Channel (Confirmed)
40 PCI-E 3.0 lanes (Confirmed)In reality we will only see x36 PCIe 3.0 lanes. The other x4 will be dedicated to the DMI.

In any case, the 20MB L3, seems a bit steep. Maybe 12MB for the Quads, 16MB for the Hexs.
but isn't 22nm less than 50% of 32nm? (I'm assuming 2222 vs. 3232)
therefore they could double it?


Scaling isn't linear to die size.

Currently Intel has a Hexacore operating at 3.33GHz with 12MB L3
Isn't it possible to hit 20MB L3 and eight cores on the very high end with 22nm?

Hellhammer
Oct 31, 2010, 02:23 AM
Isn't it possible to hit 20MB L3 and eight cores on the very high end with 22nm?

Possibly even 10 or 12-core in the high-end as Sandy Bridge is expected to have 8-core variant (for SP and DP market, not just MP).

Gainestown and Westmere have 2MB of L3 cache per core so if that is followed, then it's 16MB for 8-core but according to this (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://northwood.blog60.fc2.com/blog-entry-3318.html) (not reliable at all but just linking it), there will be 2.5MB of L3 cache per core, thus 20MB for 8-core.

chrmjenkins
Oct 31, 2010, 11:44 AM
Scaling isn't linear to die size.

More specifically, scaling isn't quadrilinear to die size either. It neither reliably follows the process size or its square. While the gate length minimum is the advertised process size, the gate width is not necessarily directly proportional, and this is true for a multitude of other things like vias and such.

jav6454
Oct 31, 2010, 10:59 PM
More specifically, scaling isn't quadrilinear to die size either. It neither reliably follows the process size or its square. While the gate length minimum is the advertised process size, the gate width is not necessarily directly proportional, and this is true for a multitude of other things like vias and such.

You spiked my interest, go on. (I know nothing in the die is linear or in direct increase with increased space)

chrmjenkins
Nov 1, 2010, 10:21 AM
You spiked my interest, go on. (I know nothing in the die is linear or in direct increase with increased space)

That's the extent of my knowledge since I am not involved in digital CMOS design. Lithography will determine the smallest dimension you can reliably create, but that doesn't mean other concerns like mechanical stress and electromigration won't dictate things like line width, length, interconnects, etc. There may be some rule of thumb out there for how much more transistors per sq/mm you can fit with each process shrink, but I've never seen one.

gto55
Nov 4, 2010, 03:04 AM
Lightpeak is coming soon according to this article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20021658-64.html

Hellhammer
Nov 4, 2010, 09:33 AM
Lightpeak is coming soon according to this article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20021658-64.html

That fights again what Intel said in IDF. IIRC availability was late 2011 and first computers with LP will appear in 2012. Although I wouldn't mind to see it earlier ;)

Pachang
Nov 4, 2010, 09:55 AM
That fights again what Intel said in IDF. IIRC availability was late 2011 and first computers with LP will appear in 2012. Although I wouldn't mind to see it earlier ;)

"The Intel fellow also made clear the release plans and noted that Light Peak would only become available to component makers in late 2010. Actual shipping PCs should be ready earlier in 2011."

http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/04/14/intel.suspects.light.peak.will.take.over/

that's what internet said when I asked it. That was at beijing intel dev forum.

Hellhammer
Nov 4, 2010, 09:58 AM
"The Intel fellow also made clear the release plans and noted that Light Peak would only become available to component makers in late 2010. Actual shipping PCs should be ready earlier in 2011."

http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/04/14/intel.suspects.light.peak.will.take.over/

that's what internet said when I asked it. That was at beijing intel dev forum.

That's old news, Intel changed the schedule in IDF in September (your article is from April)

http://www.guru3d.com/news/intel-light-peak-arrives-in-2012/

nanofrog
Nov 4, 2010, 02:37 PM
That's old news, Intel changed the schedule in IDF in September (your article is from April)

http://www.guru3d.com/news/intel-light-peak-arrives-in-2012/
Take a look at the Front Page here on MR. The article posted goes back to the original dates.

As to accuracy of either dating announcements, I'm not sure, but it's in Intel's best interest to get LP out ASAP. So the original dates may actually be true (systems available in 2011 rather than 2012).

jav6454
Nov 4, 2010, 02:45 PM
Intel won't release LP right now. Not until Ivy Bridge at least.

Hellhammer
Nov 4, 2010, 02:46 PM
Take a look at the Front Page here on MR. The article posted goes back to the original dates.

As to accuracy of either dating announcements, I'm not sure, but it's in Intel's best interest to get LP out ASAP. So the original dates may actually be true (systems available in 2011 rather than 2012).

I saw that. I don't know, somehow it feels strange that Intel changed their plans so quickly. If the availability is early 2011, then it should be more or less ready and in production by now, but why didn't Intel know that 1.5 months ago? LP is such big thing, the schedule shouldn't be different every week.

I don't want to be the party pooper but where did CNet get its data from? Late 2011 was straight from Intel in IDF so at least I have more confidence towards Intel than CNet (unless they got their information straight from Intel).

Hopefully ASAP of course

nanofrog
Nov 4, 2010, 02:50 PM
I saw that. I don't know, somehow it feels strange that Intel changed their plans so quickly. If the availability is early 2011, then it should be more or less ready and in production by now, but why didn't Intel know that 1.5 months ago?

I don't want to be the party pooper but where did CNet get its data from? Late 2011 was straight from Intel in IDF so at least I have more confidence towards Intel than CNet (unless they got their information straight from Intel).
The source is the issue....

What may have happened, is that one of the partners thought they had a problem that didn't actually exist = miscommunication (remember, Intel's not in this alone).

At this point, we'll have to wait for further confirmation, or parts start shipping (since they've had fairly tight control on what's been released to the public).

Hellhammer
Nov 4, 2010, 02:56 PM
The source is the issue....

What may have happened, is that one of the partners thought they had a problem that didn't actually exist = miscommunication (remember, Intel's not in this alone).

At this point, we'll have to wait for further confirmation, or parts start shipping (since they've had fairly tight control on what's been released to the public).

That's possible. I would still give more credit to Intel's own sayings, but maybe that's just me. You're right, we need official confirmations from Intel.

Although Intel still has time to change it before early 2011 :p

nanofrog
Nov 4, 2010, 03:05 PM
That's possible. I would still give more credit to Intel's own sayings, but maybe that's just me. You're right, we need official confirmations from Intel.

Although Intel still has time to change it before early 2011 :p
I understand your POV.

But I've worked in partnerships like this before, and miscommunications are more common than you'd imagine. So it's a real possibility is all (partner x told Intel that y was occuring just before IDF 2010, and there'd be a delay; or the date heard was incorrect). Now the mistake's been realized, and a new report released (gone back to the original dates).

It's also possible the front page article referenced old information.

Unfortunately, either scenario is a viable explaination for the different dates. :rolleyes: :(

Waiting sucks... :eek: :D :p