PDA

View Full Version : Intel focuses on new 'super' chip


edesignuk
May 8, 2004, 03:03 PM
Intel is abandoning development of two new computer chips so resources can be focused on developing a more efficient "super" chip ahead of schedule.
Full Article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3695369.stm)

Apple had better start getting on IBM's arse and let us see some new G5's coming our way soon!

JesseJames
May 8, 2004, 03:29 PM
Hmm. Sounds more like hedge technology than anything really new and revolutionary.
Us Macheads have been there before.
I'm sure Big Blue has something up their sleeves.

sonyrules
May 9, 2004, 12:00 AM
YEAH!!!! SWEET!!!

There working on a new heater... Mine was getting old, I need something new to heat the house...

Dippo
May 9, 2004, 01:54 AM
Apple had better start getting on IBM's arse and let us see some new G5's coming our way soon!

I think this is more of a spin by Intel.

Intel must have finally realized that they can't just up the chip frequency forever. The chips they canceled probably wouldn't have been able to be produced to run at lower enough temperatures to be feasible.

Of course, Intel isn't going to redesign their chips to be better, they are just going to slap two cores together and call it a "super chip".

I think Intel is the one that is screwing up, they need to get some 64 bit consumer processors on the market before they get left behind, and these two 32bit chips on one processor isn't going to cut.

This article had some more info http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15778

...Intel will produce a chip that's dual core and can run in both dual core 32 bit only mode and a 64 bit 'single core' that uses one core for the most sigificant bits and the other core for the most significant bits... hrm....

dopefiend
May 9, 2004, 01:56 AM
I think Intel is the one that is screwing up, they need to get some 64 bit consumer processors on the market before they get left behind, and these two 32bit chips on one processor isn't going to cut.

They already are left behind.

AMD already has its mobile 64bit cpu out :eek:

thatwendigo
May 9, 2004, 02:29 AM
Of course, Intel isn't going to redesign their chips to be better, they are just going to slap two cores together and call it a "super chip".

Wrong.

I love it when my predictions come true so soon after I make them. For the last few weeks, I've been reading up on Intel, their chip strategies, the roadmap, and so on, and this doesn't surprise me one bit.

The chip that you're describing as "just slapping two cores together" is, in fact, a pretty impressive bit of engineering. The Pentium-M core had its birth in the Penitum 3's core, with a Pentium 4 derived memory controller, a few more stages on the pipeline, added cache, and amazing power management features for anything coming out of Intel. The Dothan is a revision of this design to go on a 90nm die. The chip (i.e. all the functional logic parts) fit in 23nm when the transistors are that small. It would be a crime not to take advantage of that and fit at least two onto the die (at 46nm), with an even bigger cache. In fact, that's on the roadmap, code-named Jonas. In late 2005 or early 2006, we are supposed to see a third-generation child of today's Centrino that will be dual-core, 90nm, with even more L2 cache to spare it from needing to fetch information quite so much.

I think Intel is the one that is screwing up, they need to get some 64 bit consumer processors on the market before they get left behind, and these two 32bit chips on one processor isn't going to cut.

Why? Consumers aren't really doing anything with 64-bit , neither at the memory addressing or complex mathematics level. It's a gimmick, something to hold up and look shiny for people who don't understand that it doesn't necessarily do anything at the moment.

How many of you have more tha 4GB in a machine at home, or do math with integers that need 64-bit points? I find it unlikely that either apply.

[QUOTE=dopefiend]They already are left behind.

AMD already has its mobile 64bit cpu out :eek:

The Athlon 64 M runs from 65 tto 82 watts. It's hardly a competitor in the same market as the Centrino, unless AMD manages to get it down to 35w, as they claim that they will.

Mav451
May 9, 2004, 02:47 AM
The Athlon 64 M runs from 65 tto 82 watts. It's hardly a competitor in the same market as the Centrino, unless AMD manages to get it down to 35w, as they claim that they will.

And on that note, a press release from AMD just this past Thursday:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~84932,00.html

And a quote from The Register commenting on this press release:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/06/amd_lowpower_notebook_chips/


The new chips, rated as 2700+ and 2800+, are pitched at thin-and-light notebooks and deliver on AMD's promise, made at the original Athlon 64 launch in September 2003, to deliver 64-bit chips for such systems by the middle of 2004.

The two chips have a power consumption rating of 35W - 44 per cent lower power than previous Mobile AMD Athlon 64 processors, AMD said. They also use a smaller, lidless packaging. The new Athlon 64s operate at 1.2V - previous models run at 1.4V.


Want more proof that this can be done?
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=13299

They've been cherry-picking Opterons for quite a while (since last December)--not the most efficient way, but a sure stop-gap until they released the lower power Athlon 64 Mobile chips last Thursday ;)

I agree, however, that the Dothan is going to be one insane laptop chip...forget about those "Pentium 4 Mobiles" that suck up your battery life *_* (not to be confused with the Pentium-M's that dominate the P4 Mobiles)

Dippo
May 9, 2004, 03:27 AM
Why? Consumers aren't really doing anything with 64-bit , neither at the memory addressing or complex mathematics level. It's a gimmick at the moment, something to hold up and look shiny for people who don't understand that it doesn't necessarily do anything at the moment.

How many of you have more tha 4GB in a machine at home, or do math with integers that need 64-bit points? I find it unlikely that either apply.


I think that you are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether a 64 bit processor is better or whether consumers need it. The plain simple fact that 64 is bigger than 32 means that consumers think that it is better.

Intel has been pushing the more Megahertz = more power myth for the longest time. The 64 bit situation is exactly the same, and Intel is going to be left with processors that no one wants to buy because they all want the "better" 64bit ones.

It all comes down to marketing not who has the better product. AMD and Apple are leading the way, and Intel better get in line soon.

thatwendigo
May 9, 2004, 03:36 AM
And on that note, a press release from AMD just this past Thursday:

Actually, it was a reference to their press release that made me say anything about the 35w processors at all. I'll believe it when I see it, but I've always held AMD up as being a better design firm than Intel, ever since the Athlons started acting more like PowerPCs. The shift to a Centrino derivative on the desktop has made me more open to Intel than I was before, but I still don't intend to switch from OS X any time soon.

They've been cherry-picking Opterons for quite a while (since last December)--not the most efficient way, but a sure stop-gap until they released the lower power Athlon 64 Mobile chips last Thursday ;)

I agree, however, that the Dothan is going to be one insane laptop chip...forget about those "Pentium 4 Mobiles" that suck up your battery life *_* (not to be confused with the Pentium-M's that dominate the P4 Mobiles)

Actually, it's the confusion over years and years of megahertz myth that's bringing about some problems for the Centrino line. They want to push it as the new standard, but people see more expensive and only 1.7ghz on the sticker, and they go for the 2.8 ghz P4-M or Celeron. Ah... The irony.

I think that you are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether a 64 bit processor is better or whether consumers need it. The plain simple fact that 64 is bigger than 32 means that consumers think that it is better.

No, I understand your point perfectly. I just think that there ought to be a serious effort to demolish that mindset and educate people about computing, and that Intel ought to be the one to foot the bill since they fostered it.

It all comes down to marketing not who has the better product. AMD and Apple are leading the way, and Intel better get in line soon.

It's only like that because we let it be. If enough of an effort were made, it could all be about products.

Dippo
May 9, 2004, 03:39 AM
It's only like that because we let it be. If enough of an effort were made, it could all be about products.

Tell that to Mircosoft. They certianly are the kings of marketing inferior products. :rolleyes:

Mav451
May 9, 2004, 03:40 AM
Heh when I said dominate...I meant sales. The P4-M, agreeably, still sells more b/c of the ingrained megahertz myth. Heck, if I wasn't an AMD user/fan since '99, I'd probably still be brainwashed by Intel...the reason I shake my head at the $100+ Celerons which get wasted by the <$60 Athlon XP's, and always will :)

edesignuk
May 9, 2004, 05:53 AM
YEAH!!!! SWEET!!!

There working on a new heater... Mine was getting old, I need something new to heat the house...
Wow, I just love the typical mac heads response to threads like this. Can't you read? :rolleyes:
Intel says the new chip will emit less heat than existing fast chips.

thatwendigo
May 9, 2004, 06:05 AM
Tell that to Mircosoft. They certianly are the kings of marketing inferior products. :rolleyes:

Nobody has the money to topple them. Yet.

I'm not going to cross-post it, since Rower doesn't seem to like that, but I think you might be vaguely interest in this. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=833958&postcount=327)

Heh when I said dominate...I meant sales. The P4-M, agreeably, still sells more b/c of the ingrained megahertz myth. Heck, if I wasn't an AMD user/fan since '99, I'd probably still be brainwashed by Intel...the reason I shake my head at the $100+ Celerons which get wasted by the <$60 Athlon XP's, and always will :)

Hey, I'm with you on that. I'm not one of the zealots who thinks that Apple can do no wrong. There's plenty of places we could, at least in theory, have some better conditions that would bring the platform onto an even more superior level. Software and interface are a big part of it, but if Apple and IBM could really scream past Intel and AMD for a while, it could turn things a bit on their ears.

If I were to have to use a PC today, to build one, I'd go AMD without hesitation. In two years... Well, we'll see what happens with Jonas/Merom. I have a feeling AMD might be about to get a shock.