Intel Discusses Future Plans 154
heeeraldo writes "Tom's Hardware (unfortunately known for their one-page-stretched-into-nine articles, and endless ads) attended an Intel presentation about their future processor plans. The unsurprising bit: the endless march of additional cores. The surprising part: they're already focusing on 45nm processes." From the article: "Last week, Intel held a series of presentations at its Ronler Acres campus in Hillsboro, Oregon, whose facilities represent the main pillar of product design and manufacturing. These presentations included a short tour to the top-notch 65 nm production facility Fab D1D whose specifics Intel is currently replicating to other locations. The primary purpose of this show obviously was to convince around 80 analysts and journalists of the substantial health of Intel's 65 nm fabrication leadership, which is outputting new processors in high volume for launching new Pentium 4 6x1, Pentium D 900 and Core branded (known as Yonah) processors in early 2006."
apple (Score:3, Interesting)
they're already focusing on 45nm processes
substantial health of Intel's 65 nm fabrication leadership, which is outputting new processors in high volume for launching new Pentium 4 6x1, Pentium D 900
Now I think we all know why Apple did what they did.
Focus / Schmocus (Score:2)
Re:Focus / Schmocus (Score:2)
Re:apple (Score:3, Informative)
Re:apple (Score:2)
Surprising how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats the only way to dodge their inefficiency problems. Outside of like, designing better chips.
Re:Surprising how? (Score:1)
Re:Surprising how? (Score:3, Insightful)
You see, effeciency isn't a measure of raw speed, it's a measure of power verses the thermal production and power needed to run the chip. In this case, Intel wins flat out. While AMD's chips may be faster, Intel's Pentium M platform has been growing in the background. When Yonah is released, we will not only see speeds slowly being ramped back up
Re:Surprising how? (Score:2)
By the way, how much of a difference in speed for how much of a difference in power savings is there between those chips?
Re:Surprising how? (Score:3, Informative)
That preview from Anandtech failed to mention some key aspects necessary for comparison, such as: was Cool 'n Quiet enabled on the Athlon 64 processor?
But there was also no conjecture that took into account the comparison between a desktop and laptop chip. The Yonah, like Dothan and Turion will be binned based on a lower full-load
Re:Surprising how? (Score:2)
Quantity better than Quality (Score:3, Insightful)
If Intel starts mass producing these then people will just buy what's avalable.
Re:Quantity better than Quality (Score:2)
--S
Re:Quantity better than Quality (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In the meantime, despite your positive spin (Score:2)
Re:Quantity better than Quality (Score:1)
The PR War (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The PR War (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD: "Your car sucks! Ours is faster, more comfortable, safer, and gets better mileage."
Intel: "Oh yeah? Well our factories are better! Your factories suck!"
If Intel has pulled its head out of its butt and put the engineers in charge again, instead of the marketroids, it could easily come back and eat AMD's lunch once again. They execute better than anybody in the tech business. They are a fearsome competitor. They've marketed themselves into a significant bind, but if anyone can dig themselves out of that jam, it's Intel. 80% market share gives you some leeway for mistakes, even big ones.
However, that said, I don't think 2006 is looking too good for them. If AMD can simplify their lines a little and keep executing as well as they have, they could take a good chunk of marketshare next year. By 2007, I figure Intel is going to be back in the game, and I'm looking forward to whatever they come up with.
This competition is GREAT for us. When Intel isn't challenged, prices stagnate and chips go nowhere. And with the competition this intense, it will be harder for either company to push involuntary DRM hardware.
Re:The PR War (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The PR War (Score:2)
Let's not forget that smaller circuits also mean more errors per wafer. The key here is to make sure your processes are still good enough that when you shrink the die size the extra dies per wafer outpaces the errors per wafer. To be honest, Intel can be confident that their processes will work fine, but they will not really know for sure until they actually begin mass producing at 45 nm.
Re:The PR War (Score:3, Interesting)
Intel: "Oh yeah? Well our factories are better! Your factories suck!"
Don't forget that an important part of better process tech is more dies/wafer, meaning lower marginal cost. Basicly, that tells the investors that margins will stay good, and that they can be cut if the competition forces them to.
When Intel isn't challenged, prices stagnate and chips go nowhere. And with the competition this intense, it will be harder f
Re:The PR War (Score:2)
It also seems that Intel has adopted a very App
It is mostly wrong (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27192 [theinquirer.net]
There is a lot wrong with the 45nm code names, and in general, it is lacking a lot of info.
If Intel gave him this info, it is blurring the lines for PR purposes, and somewhat flat out wrong. As of Friday, Whitefield was still dead, and the roadmap didn't match up with Intel's internal ones.
There is a bit of right there, but few if anything that can't be found at the usual places.
-Charlie
Re:It is mostly wrong (Score:1)
Re:It is mostly wrong (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11588 [theinquirer.net]
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11668 [theinquirer.net]
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25591 [theinquirer.net]
There is a ton more, but that is all I feel like looking up for now.
-Charlie
P.S. You are not that stupid for real, are you?
Re:It is mostly wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
HJ
Nope. (Score:2, Troll)
This one was wrong.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13171 [theinquirer.net]
Here is the correction.
That is the one I can think of, if you got more, I'd be glad to post them for you. You seem utterly incapable of finding them on your own, so that kind of disproves your point.
-Charlie
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Inquirer on R520 Pipelines
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22202 [theinquirer.net] ("ATI placed 32 pipelines inside, but there is a chance that it will enable just 24 for a start.")
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22345 [theinquirer.net] ("IT'S STILL NOT crystal clear what ATI implemented in its 24 to 32 pipelines, 300 millions+ transistor beast")
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23648 [theinquirer.net] (R520 has 32 pipelines, 24 workin)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24423 [theinquirer.net] (It's either 24 or 32, but we ain't telling!)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25730 [theinquirer.net] (16)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25730 [theinquirer.net] (Ok ok, really it was 16 pipes, we lied)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26618 [theinquirer.net] (16 again!)
The Inquirer on R520 Clock Speeds
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22486 [theinquirer.net] (1400MHz is really close to 1500MHz, good for running 24 or 32 pipelines)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24423 [theinquirer.net] (Nice estimate of the clock speed there -- so close)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24698 [theinquirer.net] (Er wait,.. )
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25898 [theinquirer.net] (I would have thought by now you'd get the clock right....)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26010 [theinquirer.net] (Still can't get that clockspeed right...)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26378 [theinquirer.net] (Let me get this straight, ATI TOLD you the clock speeds and you still got it wrong?)
The Inquirer on R520 Launch date
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20896 [theinquirer.net] (May, October, close enough right?)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23097 [theinquirer.net] (Getting warmer! Just one month away from the actual date!)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24203 [theinquirer.net] (Oops that was one of your gems, Charlie. And I quote "mid-August for the lucky partners, and September for the real shipments." Nice pipeline estimates there too I might add)
The Inquirer on R520 Memory Controller
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26168 [theinquirer.net] (Oh, remember this one before it was editted? 512bit addressing!!! Even after the edit it's still nonesense
Other Various Inquirer Thoughts
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22894 [theinquirer.net] ("At least, in 2005 you will get R520 in an AGP version as well")
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21413 [theinquirer.net] (You can always count on the Inq to even get the fucking name wrong)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21699 [theinquirer.net] (..."We don't know many details about it yet, but we are almost certain that ATI plans to bridge the R520 chip with its Rialto bridge chip"...)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26543 [theinquirer.net] (How do you cancel a chip that nev
Are you truly this stupid? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Go back to the Anandtech forums, you'll look smarter there.
-Charlie
Re:Nope. (Score:2)
1. Fuad is fun to read, but never to be believed.
2. In the big rivalries (ATI v Nvidia, Intel v AMD), the one that is down will always make as much noise as possible. That is why Faud reported so much inaccurate information about R520, even with insider information it's hard to see through the noise.
But even Faud gets it right some times: your R520 AGP card in 2005 [visiontek.com], as requested. You can even buy it online [google.com] now.
Re:Nope. (Score:2)
Re:Nope. (Score:2)
Aren't there some crossfire articles as well. Crossfires been launched and re-launched for ages now, and got lots of coverage.
Re:It is mostly wrong (Score:2)
Re:It is mostly wrong (Score:2)
In this case, it isn't an issue, the article on Tom's is flat out wrong there, I checked.
-Charlie
the real question is (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the real question is (Score:5, Funny)
Pentium I
Pentium Ì
Pentium Í
Pentium Ï
Pentium Î
The new line features the standard, grave, acute, diaeresis, and circumflex models. Very different from one another!
Each processor will serve it's own special purpose and will have the exact same socket configuration. Unfortunately the processors are incompatible from a power standpoint and the mismatching of a processor and motherboard will result in the loss of both.
Easy one to answer (Score:2)
Yup, not a problem. The last two are by far the best.
-Charlie
Intel finally catching up ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Merom being the sucessor to the forthcoming Yonah. Based on the recent AnandTech benchmarks of Yonah against desktop chips [anandtech.com], it seems like Intel may not have to play 'catch up' for much longer. Of course, we don't know what else AMD has up their sleeve
watts, heat ... ahhh no infertility (Score:1)
Re:watts, heat ... ahhh no infertility (Score:5, Funny)
But first Intel or AMD will have to design a CPU that will get a geek laid.
Re:watts, heat ... ahhh no infertility (Score:1)
Re:watts, heat ... ahhh no infertility (Score:2)
I don't know when that will be, but I suspect it will involve AI and a real doll.
Pentium 5? (Score:2, Interesting)
And while we're at it, could AMD explain their CPU lines better (esp. to consumers)?
Re:Pentium 5? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pentium 5? (Score:2)
Re:Pentium 5? (Score:2)
Argh.. naming... (Score:5, Funny)
It's like when MS picked "SQL server" for their SQL server product.
A: What SQL server are you guys running?
B: Oh, we're using SQL server.
A: Yes, but *which* SQL server? Oracle? Sybase?
B: No, SQL server!
A: Yes but.... doh!
Now that everyone else have been selling multi-core processors for some time, Intel chose to brand their new processor geenration, of all things, "Core".
A: What multi-core processors are you guys using?
B: Oh, we're using multiple Core processors
A: Yes, but *which* multi-core processors?
B: We're using multiple Core processors!
*doh*
Oh dear oh dear...
Re:Argh.. naming... (Score:2)
Suspicious article title... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:5, Insightful)
If by "this technology" you are referring to process technology, you are wrong. Intel has a lead on AMD in processing technology, they were first on 90nm, first on 65nm, first on 300mm wafers, and I'm quite sure they'll be first on 45nm technology. AMD has a lead on Intel in multi-core technology, but you were talking as if it was the fab that was ahead of Intel. It's not, it is the chips that have a smarter design. If you could have AMD's chips on Intel's processing tech, they'd be superior to anything currently on the market.
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:2)
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:2)
Why?
You can't just keep making things smaller/cooler forever. You hit physical limitations.
As-is, AMD is happy to lag behind Intel interms of fabrication technology, as long as they win everywhere else. Intel will change this, however; Intel is a rich, powerful, well-staffed company, they can turn it around.
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:2)
Your blind faith in corporate ability is astounding. After all, this is the same Intel that came out with Itanium and the NetBurst architecture (5Ghz or bust!).
They've shoveled a lot of money down the Pentium 4 / NetBurst hole. How long did it take them to admit that the NetBurst architecture was not living up to expecations and that they were going to go back to the Pentium M designs? (Or an i
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:2)
Sorry, I probably overdid it.
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:2)
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:2)
The point is that Intel is actually producing 65nm chips in quantity right now. AMD is not: even Fab 36 is still 90nm. Your statement that AMD has "at least a one-year lead" is outright false.
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:2)
The newest AMD Fab was built for 65 nm and can later move to 45 nm.
That doesn't change the fact that it is 90nm today, and will be until at least late next year.
I'm not going to bother mentioning out all of the things you're overlooking, because I don't really care one way or another about Intel or AMD, but I will point out that for someone apparently concerned about fanboyism, you sound a lot like
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:2)
I understand your point, but I don't think you can claim AMD is beating Intel in a race that Intel isn't running in. I don't know if this same point applies to SOI and hypertransport or not.
You could equally claim that Intel has a several years' edge on A
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:2)
This instance is rather an orthagonal competition. Intel is betting that (so far anyway) flexibility is more important to customers than performance, whereas AMD is betting on the better performance they get from having the memory controller on die being the important thing for customers.
Re:Suspicious article title... (Score:3, Interesting)
the edison symdrome (Score:1)
Re:the edison symdrome (Score:1)
They suck... big time.
I'm glad they don't do the whole commercial thing.
My personal ad campaign (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My personal ad campaign (Score:2)
Re:My personal ad campaign (Score:2)
Future Plans? (Score:2)
Hey, its a fairly quiet thread!
Re:Future Plans? (Score:2)
Current plans: In the process of being implemented. Resources have been set aside, contracts are in-progress, maybe there's concrete and steel being laid already. Funds are being spent.
Future plans: Anything that still exists only on paper.
No idea if those are common definitions.
advert in article annoying (Score:2)
There is only one way to stop this horrid thing: boycott toms hardware rev and the advertisers
Re:advert in article annoying (Score:1, Informative)
Cyrix (Score:1)
Or, maybe not.
Re:Cyrix (Score:2, Informative)
Putting them in micro and nano ATX boards, etc...
Writing Quality (Score:2)
Today, it is all about squeezing the current manufacturing advantage in order to conquer middle earth and lock down brave AMD into its current 90 nm shire - although it i
I guess it's not worth reading the fine article... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:I guess it's not worth reading the fine article (Score:2)
Missing Optimum (Score:2)
Is it just me, or is the Big Picture non optimal?
You know, Intel's wonderful state-of-art 65 nm fab line producing dual core Opteron's would be nice:)
How to program for multiple cores (Score:2)
- Shared-state concurrency
- Message-passing concurrency
- Declarative concurrency (synchronization on logic variables)
A post from this mailing list: Lambda the Ultimate [lambda-the-ultimate.org]
Peter Van Roy - Concurrency-oriented programming blueArrow
10/21/2003; 5:06:42 AM (reads: 1765, responses: 20)
Concurrency-oriented programming is a phrase invented by Joe Armstrong, the main designer of Erlang. Basically, we would like to write applications where the concu
Speeds conspicuously absent (Score:2)
The cpu speeds have hit a plateau for the last couple years. (Yes, I know about the P4->PM core changes, but even considering that, clock speeds have been stagnant).
Will the changes to 65nm and later 45nm enable 4GHz++ clock speeds? Or, is all this multi-core talk implying that Intel will be "building out rather than building up"?
Re:Yes but (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile Sun Microsystems came out with 8 cores _this_ year.
Re:Yes but (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Yes but (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yes but (Score:2)
Apple is shipping a dual dual core now. Its not 4 on one die, but its 4 processors on a computer the masses can buy. I think AMD is on the right track. I'd like to see a dual core in a laptop personally.
Sparcs are good processors for servers. You'd be suprised.
Re:Yes but (Score:2)
You know that, and I know that, but the "computer community" is not so well-informed. It sees "PC" as the opposite of "Mac", as in: "is that computer a PC or a Mac?" Other kinds of computers aren't even on the radar.
Re:Yes but (Score:2)
Re:Yes but (Score:2)
Re:Yes but (Score:1)
Re:Yes but (Score:2)
I expect the OS... (Score:2)
Re:Yes but (Score:2)
And meanwhile, no one gives a shit about Sun's new overpriced hardware.
Re:How Intel Told Off The DCMA (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24638 [theinquirer.net]
It was linked here, but I can't find it.
The short story is that Intel's new VIIV boxes are crushingly DRM infested, and can load more. There is remote key revocation and all the things MS wanted, they are playing AMD off of Intel. Don't look to AMD to be any better, they are being screwed too.
I predict massive failure and egg on Intel's face here.
-Charlie
Re:How Intel Told Off The DCMA (Score:2)
Re:How Intel Told Off The DCMA (Score:2)
I think I'll wait to get actual evidence over a news journal that publishes every microprocessing rumor or grumble that runs across them [not that this Tom's article is much better, though].
Re:How Intel Told Off The DCMA (Score:2)
-Charlie
Re:Thanks for the corrections (Score:2)
HJ
Re:Thanks for the corrections (Score:2)
I DID post a link ot the one I wrote, or maybe you missed the off-colored underlined text in my post. What I could not find is the Slashdot article on the subject, if anything there seacrh is worse than ours.
I DID NOT write the slashdot one.
Go back to your hole little troll. If you mother catches you up this late, you might lose your allowance for the week.
Re:Thanks for the corrections (Score:2)
I DID post a link to the one I wrote, or maybe you missed the off-colored underlined text in my post. What I could not find is the Slashdot article on the subject, if anything their search is worse than ours.
Five typos in two sentences, not bad for an Inquirer author. About EF, I think it will only accelerate piracy to the point of no longer being enforcable. The police already don't give
Re:Thanks for the corrections (Score:2)
Good points, it is basically what I am arguing to the people in charge of various projects. It is a
Re:How Intel Told Off The DCMA (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Hmmm... Shady Intel.com Business (Score:2)
Re:How does this affect Mac users? (Score:2, Funny)
> It seems that the G5 outperforms the Intel lineup on the desktop right now, for Mac users at least.
You're telling me; I bought Tiger from the Apple Store and tried putting it on my P4 Inspiron, and it didn't even boot up.
Maybe those G5 zealots are right, after all.