PDA

View Full Version : Intel spills beans on Yonah, the next notebook chip


MacBytes
Jun 3, 2005, 12:01 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: 3rd Party Hardware
Link: Intel spills beans on Yonah, the next notebook chip (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050603010131)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Daveway
Jun 3, 2005, 12:24 AM
Partly because of reduced power consumption, the footprint on Yonah notebooks will be up to 31 percent smaller than those of existing notebooks. By 2008, Intel's goal is to reduce power consumption in notebooks overall to the point where machines can run for eight hours on a single battery charge.

"When I speak of dual cores, I am not talking about a 10 percent to 20 percent improvement in performance. I am speaking about something crazy," Eden said.

Uh oh. We're in trouble. :eek:

CanadaRAM
Jun 3, 2005, 12:33 AM
Smaller, cooler, more energy efficient is a good thing.

Hey you micro-hardware geeks, Intel is using two cores, one cache, one cache buss. AMD is using two cores, two caches, two cache busses. Wouldn't the two caches with independent busses be faster than one cache (double the size) with a shared buss?

Or in other words, what binds the speed more: buss bandwidth or smaller (potentially) individual cache size, asssuming that the load is not symmetrical.

Yonah eh? Wonder who the first manufacturer will be to name their machine "Whale"?

GregUofMN
Jun 3, 2005, 01:02 AM
Uh oh. We're in trouble. :eek:


Should I assume that this Yonah is for PC laptops only??? Or could this somehow be used in Powerbooks?

nagromme
Jun 3, 2005, 01:05 AM
It would be PC-only, for any foreseeable future. Sounds like a decent chip, though!

Also, Intel's plans for 2008 need not worry Apple yet. Or IBM or Freescale...

Tech^salvager
Jun 3, 2005, 01:13 AM
awesome
Can't wait to see them come out.

chibianh
Jun 3, 2005, 01:39 AM
nothing to worry about (i hope) because IBM has some things up its sleeve too - Quasar

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506quasar.html

mkrishnan
Jun 3, 2005, 01:58 AM
Smaller, cooler, more energy efficient is a good thing.

Hey you micro-hardware geeks, Intel is using two cores, one cache, one cache buss. AMD is using two cores, two caches, two cache busses. Wouldn't the two caches with independent busses be faster than one cache (double the size) with a shared buss?

Or in other words, what binds the speed more: buss bandwidth or smaller (potentially) individual cache size, asssuming that the load is not symmetrical.

Yonah eh? Wonder who the first manufacturer will be to name their machine "Whale"?

I think it depends.... In the limiting case where the processing demands can be perfectly split between the two cores, I think you're right, and the AMD design would be better. In the limiting case where one core has an intensive, unthreaded, undistributable process, the Intel design allows it to access twice as much cache memory. Sort of goes back to the question of of how fast a dual processor computer is vs. a single processor computer with a faster processor. It really can vary widely based on the coding.

solvs
Jun 3, 2005, 02:06 AM
Yonah? What kind-of name is that? (not that Quasar is much better)

I'm not too worried, I'm sure the G4 will be up to 1.8GHz by then. :rolleyes: I keep thinking Apple has something really cool with amazing battery life and speed. Any day now.

dontmatter
Jun 3, 2005, 02:28 AM
nothing to worry about (i hope) because IBM has some things up its sleeve too - Quasar

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506quasar.html

hmmm....

i'm a bit confused by that, but... doesn't look like IBM will be down to 65nm quite as fast as intel, and that's the main thing here. And, it should be going into desktops, too, for IBM... or workstations. Hrm. Anybody remember that 45 nm rumor about IBM?

poundsmack
Jun 3, 2005, 02:44 AM
i wana build a mini itx pc with one of these. that would make my day. i wonder how fast they will run?

and when are these suposed to be released anyways?

isgoed
Jun 3, 2005, 03:03 AM
Intel spills beans on YonahI already know this for months. Maybe the spilling is just officially now.
"I believe we were designing it before anyone knew how to spell dual core," So, how was it like in King Arthur's kingdom? :p
Wimax will start to be added in notebooks as an option around 2007, a spokesman said.Everyone can now safely stop saying "Wimax in next powerbook revision", since it won't happen.

Fredstar
Jun 3, 2005, 03:36 AM
I want a dual-core Powerbook with an 8 hour battery, hell even the present Powerbooks with a 8 hour battery.
I wonder if the G4's might reach like 1.87ghz by next year?? If they are Apple can't be charging as much as they do for them

MacSA
Jun 3, 2005, 04:14 AM
........and Apple will still be using the G4 :rolleyes:

SiliconAddict
Jun 3, 2005, 01:55 PM
Uh oh. We're in trouble. :eek:


You've been in trouble for a while now. Apple is just good at RDFing their PowerBooks with OMG OMG!! Its a new feature on a touchpad!! *faints* :rolleyes:

shamino
Jun 3, 2005, 04:38 PM
Uh oh. We're in trouble. :eek:
Assuming IBM/Freescale doesn't also start shipping dual-core chips by 2008. We are still talking about three years from now. That's a very long time in the semiconductor biz.

shamino
Jun 3, 2005, 04:40 PM
Smaller, cooler, more energy efficient is a good thing.

Hey you micro-hardware geeks, Intel is using two cores, one cache, one cache buss. AMD is using two cores, two caches, two cache busses. Wouldn't the two caches with independent busses be faster than one cache (double the size) with a shared buss?

Or in other words, what binds the speed more: buss bandwidth or smaller (potentially) individual cache size, asssuming that the load is not symmetrical.
It could go either way, depending on the rest of the system, the OS and the applications.

On the one hand, a shared cache means two threads running the same code (or accessing the same shared memory) won't produce as many cache-misses. On the other hand, it also means the locking logic (to prevent the two cores from clobbering each others' cache) gets more complicated.