Intel Unveils 'Sandy Bridge' Architecture 163
njkobie writes "Intel has officially unveiled Sandy Bridge, its latest platform architecture, at the first day of IDF in San Francisco. The platform is the successor to the Nehalem/Westmere architecture and integrates graphics directly onto the CPU die. It also upgrades the Turbo Mode already seen in Core i5 and i7 processors to achieve even greater speed improvements. Turbo Mode on Sandy Bridge processors can now draw more than the chip's nominal TDP where the system is cool enough to do so safely, enabling even greater boosts in core speeds than those seen in Westmere. No details of specific products have been made available, but Intel has confirmed that processors built on the new architecture will be referred to as 'second generation Core processors,' and are expected to go on sale in early 2011. In 2012 it is due to be shrunk to a 22nm process, under the name Ivy Bridge."
Re:I have first-ed this article... (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time to buy all new chipsets! (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a single word on Intel killing overclocking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yay for heating my house! (Score:3, Interesting)
If I want to make my desktop faster, I can replace the graphics card or CPU independently - it's big enough that an integrated CPU/GPU solution doesn't really make that much sense yet.
Mobile devices, on the other hand, make a lot more sense; if you can integrate the CPU and GPU on one chip with a reasonable max TDP, that's significantly less complexity in the design woth more computing power. You should see the heatsink arrangement in my HP laptop with a discrete CPU and GPU - it's insane, heat pipes and fans everywhere.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel buy nVidia? Replace Intel CEO Otellini? (Score:3, Interesting)
Should Intel buy nVidia? Jen-Hsun Huang [wikipedia.org], who averages about $23.02 million per year [forbes.com], is not the sort of person who would easily integrate into Intel, and he is important to the leadership of nVidia. Intel's CEO, Paul Otellini [wikipedia.org], makes about $14 million. [computerworld.com]
Soon Intel's integrated graphics will have mid-range speed, leaving only the high range for nVidia. The high range of video adapters is mostly bought by teenagers who want to practice being violent with video games, instead of practicing being involved with other people. That means nVidia will be dependent on buyers who are being self-defeating; eventually there may be a backlash against that.
The high range of video performance will always be needed for architectural drawing and machine design, for example, but the total demand will drop, as the nVidia stock price [wikinvest.com] seems to indicate. So, maybe nVidia is not a good purchase for any company.
Should Intel CEO Paul Otellini be replaced? Another reason Intel should not buy nVidia is that Intel is generally a failure at anything besides making new CPUs and support chips. For the success of Intel and AMD in making CPUs, the world can be extremely thankful; that's enough success for any company.
But Intel in other areas seems amazingly badly managed. Intel marketing seems completely out of control. Is the product confusion [dailytech.com] at Intel a deliberate, sneaky way to sell slow processors to technically challenged customers, or just stupid?
Quote from the article linked just above: "Sandy Bridge PC processors will keep the CORE-i3, i5, and i7 designations and will be rebranded the "new CORE-i3..." That approach is likely to create confusion among customers about exactly what they're buying, given that the average user likely wouldn't be able to pick a Nehalem i7 from a Westmere i7 or Sandy Bridge i7."
Either Intel's purchase of the inferior security software maker McAfee for a "lofty 60% premium" [wsj.com] is a HUGE mistake, or the reasons why it is not a mistake should be explained by Intel marketing. No explanation was given, apparently. McAfee has a 21.9% market share selling software often pre-loaded on a computer to technically challenged buyers.
Quote from the article: " 'We believe security will be most effective when enabled in hardware,' Intel Chief Executive Paul Otellini said in a conference call." That seems a particularly wacky statement. "Security software" is needed only because, in my opinion, Microsoft deliberately allows its software to be insecure. Insecure software makes Microsoft more money because people with infected computers often buy another computer. For example, see the New York Times article, Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster. [nytimes.com] The Apple Mac OS, Linux, and BSD operating systems do not require "security software" because they are made to be secure.
Intel CEO Otellini does not seem to have the social sophistication necessary to running a big company. When he made an announcement [youtube.com] in 2006 about the Intel Eduwise laptop, he seemed to be intending to have Intel compete with MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) charity program. However, Intel's intention seems to be just to make a market fo
My turbo button really worked! :) (Score:2, Interesting)
i had a AMD 486 DX5 at 133MHz on a 386 case, after some upgrades...
i connected the turbo button to the Bus speed jumpers, so when i pressed, the bus jumped from 33Mhz to 40Mhz, overclocking the cpu to 160Mhz... i run at "full" speed when i was at home and put the normal speed when i left it idle
To my surprise, it worked really well, the PCI bus accepted that speed, the network and SCSI card never gave any error until i disconnect the computer about 6 years ago
i also tried to up the bus to 50Mhz and the CPU, RAM, the vesa local bus (for the graphic card) and the ISA bus (sound card) worked fine, but it was too much for the PCI bus and the network and scsi cards didnt work so gave up from having a 200MHz 486 CPU and fall back to the already "good" 160Mhz... relative power of the setup was about a Pentium 90-100Mhz... running at normal 133Mhz, the performance was a little lower than a Pentium 75Mhz