Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware

Intel Looks Beyond the Microchip 152

Posted by Zonk from the don't-look-down dept.
Dr Occult writes "BBC reports about upcoming major changes in Intel in 2006. The current Intel core, the Pentium, is on its way out and is to be replaced by a new chip called 'Core'. These new Core chips come in two flavours. Solo Core is a single core processor, and Duo Core is a dual core processor. Intel has also announced the Viiv standard. Viiv is less technology and more a shopping list of technologies. Aimed at the home entertainment market, it defines the latest generation of media centres that are capable of playing anything from MP3 songs to high-definition films."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Looks Beyond the Microchip More

Intel Looks Beyond the Microchip

Comments Filter:

  • I wonder why. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Musteval ( 817324 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @07:31AM (#14704821)
    In other news, AMD keeps looking at the microchip, because they're winning at it.

  • Technically devoid fluff piece (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pchan- ( 118053 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @07:31AM (#14704823) Journal
    "The current Intel core, the Pentium, is on its way out and is to be replaced by a new chip called 'Core'. These new Core chips come in two flavours. Solo Core is a single core processor, and Duo Core is a dual core processor."

    How the hell did this make the front page? "Core Solo|Duo" is just what Intel calls their single, dual core processors now (remember, generic names are not worth anything to them, they must have a brand name). But is it news for nerds? Hardly.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @07:36AM (#14704836)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • ...trying their best to do The Right Thing, i.e. stopping the rot before it takes hold.

        That's "The Right Thing(TM)";-)

        But yes, this looks more like a press release than a news story.

        From the title you would think Intel was going with some new non-microchip technology for their next processor line. Rather they are just leveraging their existing customer base with... er...

        Oh well, I'll never make it in marketing.

        But it _is_ a cool new logo.

    • it's NOT news. (Score:2, Informative)

      by eshefer ( 12336 )
      it's probably the worst story submision in the history of this site.

      it is SO clueless - it is obvious that the submitor and (much worse) the submiting editor - are both clueless and have no buisness posting anything on a tech site. the headline "intel looks beyond the microchip" is missleading. I know that it hints about intels foray into platform, rather then componant solutions - but that IS'NT evident in the story submition.

      VIIV and core have been ALL OVER the tech sites for two months (at least) - there
    • They are paving the way for a lawsuit to stop amd from using the term core in their processor description.

    • Re:Technically devoid fluff piece (Score:5, Informative)

      by gormanly ( 134067 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @08:26AM (#14704993)

      yep, and Core Duo and Solo are just the latest rev of the P6 core that's been in every IA32 chip except the Pentium 4, from the PPro to the Pentium M. In other words, all this news says is that Netburst is dead, and 32-bit computing lives a little longer.

      The real new chip line is coming later in the year, when Intel's new architecture comes out: see these 2 great articles by Oleg Bessonov over at Digit Life on Conroe, the future [digit-life.com], and Yonah, the current [digit-life.com] Intel CPU.

      Of course, this is Slashdot, so about 3 people will read these through, and only 2 of those will grok 'em, but their server will get melted anyway...

    • It's all simply paving the way for the new "Cor(e) Blimey, Gov" chip aimed squarely at the olde worlde Lahndahn market. :)

      T.

      PS My wife says I have a technically devoid fluff piece. :(
    • It's worst than you think. The submitter is NOT to blame. He is just quoting the BBC moron which wrote that shit. I have skimmed over the article and it's there.

      Except that this not being news at all, it is a stupid article for non-techies, hmm, then YES, the submitter IS to blame. And the /. editors for letting it in.
    • Intel has changed a few names and are out in full force at the press conference.

      Makes me wonder if thats the best theyre going to do... a nice new website and shedding the Pentium name which is over 15 years old. Also Viiv is a list of technologies for the home media. Does that mean like, a PVR, game console, mp3 player and quite possibly a podcaster? If yes, then Viiv is a small collection of stickers.

      I'm pretty sure Intel can do more than that. With awesome fabs under their thumb, they'll find ways to get
      • Intel can't release a 4-core (let alone 8-core) anything until they get their processor interconnect act together. As it is their 2-core is suffering for lack of bus bandwidth, which is why AMD's dual-core smacks it down so hard.
    • "Core Solo|Duo" is just what Intel calls their single, dual core processors now

      And the story couldn't even get the name right. It's "Core Duo" while the story had "Duo Core."

  • quad core, oct core, etc (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anubis350 ( 772791 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @07:32AM (#14704827)
    I would assume there are plans for these, would seem to make sense based on their naming convention.
    Goodbye mhz race, hello core race (not that it hasnt been on for a while :-P).
    • Indeed. The core race was alive and well during the RISC vs. CISC years. At that time it was core instruction set. Before then it was probably core something else. The cores have become larger and more complex. While Intel may not have the best approach (or it may) it is important for someone to continue to redefine not just the basic instruction set that the processor runs on but what that processor set is geared to accomplish. In terms of Intel's market--the IT industry, home desktops, work desktops
    • AMD recently announced plans for quad core chips, slated for availability sometime next year. Intel are hardly going to be left out of the race.

  • Not far beyond... (Score:5, Funny)

    by themysteryman73 ( 771100 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @07:34AM (#14704830)
    Ironically, all of those things listed under "Intel looks beyond the microchip" are based on microchips.

  • the best part of TFA: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 246o1 ( 914193 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @07:35AM (#14704834)
    "All microprocessor chips have a core. The current Intel core, the Pentium, is on its way out, to be replaced by a new core, called "Core".

    It all sounds a bit like Intel's hijacking a technical term and trying to turn it into a brand name."

    I've never really thought about this, but could it lead to confusion and/or lawsuits with regards to the AMD multi-core chips? I certainly wouldn't put such a hope past Intel.
    • Especially since the new core is actually just a new variant of the P6 core that's been their standard core since the Pentium Pro.

    • Riddle me this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sane? ( 179855 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @08:15AM (#14704958)
      Surely "Core" is a generic term?

      Therefore sure it should be impossible to have a valid trademark? Remember the reasoning behind "Pentium" rather than "586"?

      So what is the "TM" doing on it?

      • Re:Riddle me this (Score:2, Informative)

        by theorbtwo ( 493 )
        "TM" means that they claim it's trademarked. It doesn't mean that it neccessarly is a valid trademark, that anyone in authority has looked at it and said "this is trademarkable", or even that they filled out a form to trademark it. That's the difference between TM and ®.

      • Re:Riddle me this (Score:2, Informative)

        by tokul ( 682258 )
        Intel uses [intel.com] "Intel® Core(TM) Duo" and "Intel® Core(TM) Solo". Not Solo Core and Duo Core terms. I am pretty sure that they will use "Intel Core" name for their CPUs.

      • Re:Riddle me this (Score:4, Informative)

        by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:39AM (#14706345) Homepage

        Surely "Core" is a generic term?

        Therefore sure it should be impossible to have a valid trademark? Remember the reasoning behind "Pentium" rather than "586"?

        So what is the "TM" doing on it?


        My guess it what they've actually trademarked is "Duo Core" and "Solo Core". Notice how those are strange terms like duo, solo, and not common english expressions like dual core, single core that everyone uses to describe multi-core processors. Even Intel can't think they can trademark the word core and get away with it.
        • "Even Intel can't think they can trademark the word core and get away with it."

          I would not put it past companies that can get away with trademarking the word "Intel" *and* sue the crap out of everyone using the same word...
        • TM isn't a granted thing, it's simply saying 'we came up with this as a branding for a cpu, do the same and we'll sue you', there never going to see a circle-R (registerd trademark), but then Windows (TM), has gotten by fine without it being registered.

          I don't think 'Core' is a great name though, just going to be confusing saying 'Intels new dual-core core-duo procesor contains two cores linked by a ...' But then they do need a new name, pentium's been pretty much done to death.

    • It all sounds a bit like Intel's hijacking a technical term and trying to turn it into a brand name.

      It seems to be a standard marketing ploy these days, the Ford Ka springs to mind.
      I guess the benefit it gives the product, is a sort of consumer confusion. I might say to someone "you need a dual core chip", they would go to the shop and see "Core Duo" and think that must be what I was talking about, even though I mean simply the generic term for any chip with two cores.
      Its a bit like Hoover, only naming

    • AMD Will Have To Avoid Unnecessary Capitalisation, True.

      E.g. AMD 64 X2 Dual core = OK.
      E.g. AMD 64 X2 Dual Core = OMFG Lawsuit!!!11!!!
       
    • I certainly look forward to playing Half-Life 2 with the new Source engine on this Core technology.

  • Do you you do best. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theheff ( 894014 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @07:38AM (#14704840)
    I don't think this article is really saying much, except for the fact that Intel is going to try to put their chips in everything (DVD players, appliances, etc). From a technology/research standpoint, this kind of worries me. Does this suggest that Intel is trying to secure their future by broadening their market because they can't produce new technology? As much as I love AMD, I hope that competition continues between the two chip-makers for a long, long time.
    • I agree.... but I'd like to see more chip-manufacturers. Two companies just aren't enough to breed good competition, imho. Consider if our only choices of OS were still Unix and the Mac - no BSD (and consequently no OSX), no Windows, no Linux, no Solaris and so on. But does any other company that got into the business now stand a chance? Only if they were already powerful enough in some other area of the PC hardware world, I think. It's too bad none of them seem to be willing to step up to the plate becaus
      • In the embedded space, there are. A few dozen at least. Intel has a long way to go if they want to be price competitive with ARM in the embedded market. Especially with the P4's heat issues.
        • Intel do quite well in the embedded market. Perhaps you've heard of XScale? It's ARM-compatible and clocks at up to 1.25GHz and down to 200MHz.

          Outside the embedded space, IBM, Toshiba and Fujitsu are doing relatively well with POWER/Cell/SPARC systems. Intel and AMD may be the only ones in x86-land at the moment, but there's a lot of innovation going on outside of that arena.

    • It could also be that the PC market is saturating. There is no new "killer app" so to speak, on the horizon(with the possible exceptions of Vista and Duke Nukem Forever), so people who buy a new computer today should be able to do everything they want with it(email, web, and word processing) years from now.
      Intel was buoyed for a while by laptops that are sanely priced and reasonably powerful, but even they are become saturated too(esp. in the Western world). So how can Intel sell more chips? Open up new
      • It's grow or die in this market...

        I've always sortof questioned that whole mantra. Yeah, so it ends up being true, but it seems more like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me than some kind of universal truism. Businesses think that they have to be always increasing, increasing, increasing . . . there's only a limited amount of stuff on this planet, period! You can't just increase everything forever. But alas, if you increase faster than your competitors, then you beat them and buy them out and everyone o

  • weve already seen the core duo in action... (Score:3, Informative)

    by nicknameinthebrain ( 954092 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @07:39AM (#14704843)
    the "wonderful" macbook in all its intelness: http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intelcoreduo.html [apple.com] also for those wanting to see intels take on its chip: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/coreduo/ [intel.com]

    • Re:weve already seen the core duo in action... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Lussarn ( 105276 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @07:45AM (#14704866)
      While 32bit x86 chips might be new and exciting to you the rest of the world have been using it for 20 years and are phasing it out for x86-64. Good luck with your new and improved Macintosh. It will be nice to see how many years Apple will give this platform before a complete upgrade is necesarry again. My guess is, not long.
      • I've got a dual G5 and it's 64bit... I'm not aware of a single application, for a regular person, that even uses the '64 bit-ness' much less requires it. Come to think of it I can count on one hand the number of applications, that are useful to normal people and are not games, I've found that use any of the advanced features of the G5: the 64 bit addressed memory, the 64 bit instructions, and the Alti-vec unit.

        Don't get me wrong... I'm not an Intel fan and I'm generally disappointed by the whole MacIntel d
        • 64bit isn't needed just this moment, but introducing a "new" architecture which only has a few years left of lifespan seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Pretty soon people will need more memory for Desktops. Memory is cheap, programs will take advantage of it. How many different CPU architectures will Apple have in it's lineup? How many architectures should the developers test on, how many developers can have all these boxes.
          • And what will they do with all of this new found processor goodness without: A compiler, an OS, and applications that actually will these features?

            Is there a completely 64 bit Linux? I *know* OS X isn't completely 64bit.
            Is there a commonly available compiler that can *really* automatically compile C/C++ code such that it is optimized to use the vector extensions?
            Is there a Java virtual machine that uses any advanced processor feature?

            That's my point... with the exception of Games and Video applications what applications do regular users use and what will they use that demands 64 bitness? It's not web browsing, or E-mail, or IM, or VOIP, or even that "Web 2.0" crap. I'll tell you now that the existence of the VLC media player and Handbrake don't really justify the expense of 64bit machines. And I'll also bet you that the vast majority of users seldom use any of these processor features.

            The hardware is here and it's been here for ages... I've been using various 64bit processors for at least 10 years. What isn't here and I don't seeing coming, except for games and scientific applications, is a real need for the average person. What the point of having a general purpose computer with that kind of performance if the *only* application is gaming, when you can go out and buy a special purpose console for considerably less money?

            Given that reality a fast 32bit processor will be just as good to the average user for a long time to come.
            • This is beggining to sound like an 640Kb will always be enough argumentation, I guess only time will tell.
            • There has been a pure 64bit linux since linux was ported to the alpha. For about 10 years now you could get a pure 64bit linux. The distros for x86-64 are mostly pure 64bit. The 32bit code they have is proprietary stuff that does not have a 64bit version and the 32bit support libraries since x86-64 can run 32bit code and 64bit code side by side.

              The java virtual machine I think can use the noexec bit as a security feature which x86-64 has. Windows XP 64 and the various linux distros also use noexec on x86-64
        • Come to think of it I can count on one hand the number of applications, that are useful to normal people and are not games, I've found that use any of the advanced features of the G5: the 64 bit addressed memory, the 64 bit instructions, and the Alti-vec unit.

          You had me up until you included AltiVec in that list. A huge number of things use AltiVec on OS X. For a trivial example, take a look at iTunes. The AAC encoder is AltiVec-enabled, and performs a lot better on a G4 than a G3 of similar (or sligh

        • I'm not familiar with the G5 architecture, but on x86 chips the 64-bit extensions include doubling the number of GPRs, which is useful on many applications.
      • Good luck with your new and improved Macintosh. It will be nice to see how many years Apple will give this platform before a complete upgrade is necesarry again. My guess is, not long.

        Or they could just ship systems based on chips which support EM64T. [intel.com]
        • I'm sure they will. But EM64T (x86-64) is a different architecture. It's not unreasonable to think that pretty soon (Think 3-5 years) programs will NEED x86-64, and therefore won't run at all on these new but yet unreleased macbooks.
          • in 3 to 5 years they will most likely be so slow at a new app, that who cares if it runs or not, get a new machine.
            • Macs tend to last a lot longer than other PCs. We have a ten year old one that works fine (in the sense that it does everything my parents need and has never broken) running OS 7.5.1. We've also got a G3 iMac, which is itself getting up there in years (4 or so years I think). Again, no issues (except convincing them to switch to OS X). My friend got a new PC around the same time as my parents' iMac, and had to replace it 2 years ago.
          • I'm not going into the intrinsics of the core itself, but it still supports the old x86 32-bit instruction set and most operating systems should happily run 32-bit and 64-bit code side by side on the same box. Linux, for instance, does so perfectly happily. The only restriction I can think of is (IIRC) all 32 bit applications have to run in the first 4GB of RAM.

            Sun faced a similar issue when they upgraded the Sparc to 64 bit. Guess what? It's completely transparent to the user and even today will happil

  • Total Annihilation (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And thus began the four thousand years long war of Core vs. ARM, depleting the resources of an entire galaxy...

  • and loaded to the eyeballs with (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pair-a-noyd ( 594371 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @07:40AM (#14704851)
    TCP/DRM....

    No thanks. Buh-bye Intel. I recently made the switch to AMD but I fear that will be short lived.

    As much as I despise any product from China, I fear that some of us freedom rebels will have to resort to underground TCP/DRM-free chips.
    I think they were working on a new chip called the Dragon or something like that.
    I don't care about watching HD anything on my PC. I don't listen to music on my PC.

    But I'll be damned if I'll be forced to replace all my stuff just because Mega-Corp(tm) decides that we all must comply and submit.

    Freedom Fries and all that stupidity. It's all for our own good you know.

    I think they should rename the new TCP/DRM chips the "INGSOC Chip"..

  • Viiv - shear genius (Score:5, Funny)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @08:04AM (#14704932) Homepage Journal
    Well done Intel - spend millions building up the Pentium brand, then throw it away for something no-one can pronounce.

    Also, well done for adding to the general confusion by calling your new chips "Core". You must be so prowd of your marketing deparment.

    • Re:Viiv - shear genius (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13, 2006 @08:24AM (#14704989)
      They should call the new multi-core pentiums for, uhm:

      Plentium!
    • It's not that hard to pronounce.

      "Viiv"

      See? No problem.

    • Well done Intel - spend millions building up the Pentium brand, then throw it away for something no-one can pronounce.

      The problem is the "Pentium" brand is OLD. Real old. It may be strong, but eventually it's gotta be replaced in order to keep things fresh. (This may not matter in a lot of industries, but in technology things have a limited lifespan. How many suffixes to "Pentium" can they get away with?)

      All I have to say is I'm happy that "Intel Core" isn't a stupid "nonsense word" made-up by some marketin
    • Also, well done to me for being able to spell. I must be so prowd.
  • BBC reports about upcoming major changes in Intel in 2006
     
    I hope by "upcoming" the article submitter meant "currently happening". It seems that the linked article doesn't actually mention the chips as upcoming and correctly treats them as a shipping product though so really only the submitter looks silly.

  • The next paradigm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by danratherfoe ( 915756 )
    I think that the number of cores is going to be the "megahertz" of the 2010s (no prizes for making this observation). It seems that Moore's law continues on, but the limits of electronics prevent higher clock rates so now it is all about adding cores (in its original form, Moore's law refers to a doubling of the number of circuits per linear dimension). What I would really like to see is a chip with about 512 80486 cores on it ... that would be sweet.
    • That's probably true, but it will really just shift the performance burden to application developers. Writting multi-core apps is not going to be as easy as writing multithreaded apps we're all used to. Regardless, it's good since it will bring back a bit of new-ness to writing PC apps, the last several years has been kinda stale. Someone should start a pool as to when the first "Requirements: Dual-core or higher CPU" boxed software shows up at your local BestBuy.

  • Ol Shakespeare: "What's in a name..." (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ancient_Hacker ( 751168 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @08:29AM (#14705001)
    So you think Intel tossed out all the Pentium designs, technology, processes, algorithms, and employees and started from scratch? Not likely.

    This "change" is more likely a marketing thing. If the marketing folks don't change everything every few years, they start to look idle.

    • Actually I have a friend that worked at Intel and their project was to start designs on an entirly new pc, new case, board, power supply and cpu. I dont know the ins and outs of it but that was 4 years ago so who knows whats coming.
    • If the marketing folks don't change everything every few years, they start to look idle.

      Marketing: The ability to spout nonsense, have management steer the company based on the nonsense, and draw a healthy paycheck for all this.

      So you're absolutely right. The marketing people were starting to look idle and unnecessary, so they stepped up the "We need to make a gigantic change for no reason" nonsense until management bit.

      In related news, this marketing construct [intel.co.uk] makes it out that if you only buy Itanium 2 s
      • Reminds me of many years ago, a certain big computer company (big then), had a pretty good operating system named KRONOS. After a few years the marketing folks decided that wasnt a snazzy enough name. So they changed the name to "NOS" standing for "Network Operating System". Two, er, three main points: (1) There was darn-little "networky" about this OS. You could dial in to it on 300 baud modems, that's about the networkyness of it. No connections to other computers, or any other public network. Oh,
    • Your skepticism is understandable, but Merom/Conroe really is abandoning the old NetBurst architecture with something new, designed from the beginning with performance-per-watt in mind.

  • the future (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wwmedia ( 950346 )
    theyll have a hard time marketing their CPUS in few years, and will end up with a mess on their hands, while AMD "leaps ahead"

    Solo Core -current
    Duo Core -current
    Quadra Core?
    Penta Core? or Viiv Core?
    Octa Core?
    Hexa Core?

    as the numbers of cores increase, and they will! the names will get more rediculous, and harder for the average John Doe to pronounce
  • Sounds like Intel's marketing department handed this to the BBC on a plate - Unfortunately, I think most average people will read this looking forward to viiv and the associated "enhanced" digital media experience. Only after everyone buys one of these new computers will we really know the inconvenience DRM will cause. With any luck PC mod chips may start to surface in a few years otherwise I think I'll just start to listen to radio more and only buy compact discs (if they are still around and don't featur

  • No they are not changing technologies (Score:3, Informative)

    by twfry ( 266215 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @08:38AM (#14705026)
    They are just changing brand names. They are dropping the Pentium brand name because it is 10+ years old and switching to a brand name that highlights only how many cores each processor has. The underlying tech is the exact same.

    Thought slashdot editors were nerds and would know this.
  • The "Current Pentium Core"... WTF!?

    The "Pentium" now bares NO resemblance to the old 120Mhz thing I have at home! The PPro, PII, PII share some heritage (barely). The original Pentium stands alone (still a good design IMHO). P4 shares no heritage with the earlier chips and has had major changes over the last few years (the pipeline and trace cache have changed a lot).

    I didn't realise Intel were still selling the old Pentium core at all... Hmmm... Something smells like BS.

    It's time the BBC got some decent, t

  • that's nothing! (Score:3, Funny)

    by utnapistim ( 931738 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <subrab.nad>> on Monday February 13, 2006 @09:02AM (#14705104) Homepage
    I am throwing away my keyboard and replacing it with a new device called the Keyboard!
  • It's probably just a way to try to regain market that AMD has taken away from them. Intel for the most part dominates the notebook processor business, but over the past couple years has lost a sizeable amout of market in the desktop industry to AMD. Intel is probably trying to start fresh so to speak. The Pentium chip has been around for 10+ years now, and the Pentium 4 chip has also been around for a couple years. Some people, more the "not so computer people" could equate that length of time with obso
    • Intel is refreshing itself with its new CEO. When Otellini came onboard, he reorganized the company by target markets instead of product models. The new logo and friendlier chip names are an attempt to show people this isn't the same old Intel.

      With Intel kicking ass in the portable market (which outsells desktops now), Intel is well on its way to staying around far longer than AMD fans would like. :)
  • Try to give your products a generic name so people assume they have all the market, e.g. "Word", "SQL Server", "Internet Explorer" (There is only one SQL server, right?). Then try and claim your usage is nonobvious so you can trade mark it. This is just a marketing fashion, like the one of giving things stupid made-up names ("Pentium", "Accenture") and the flirtation with i-this and e-that. Ford in the UK have a (horrible) model called the Ka, though it makes me think of ancient Egypt rather than the automo

  • Brilliant Marketing Ploy . . . (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @10:17AM (#14705454) Homepage
    Intel is merely capitalizing on Apple's move to their chipset. After all, since the CPU is the center of the computer, the new Intel processors will be the "Apple's Core!" Ha! Hah!

    Thank you! I'll be here all weekend. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
  • ...play HDCP protected content at full resolution? Intel, constructing and overcoming inconsequential technical herdles, one failed DRM implementation at a time.
  • Wow... Lots of bitter people in here... The article doesn't help much, as it gives practically no interesting details.

    The Core chips are Yonah. Frankly, they're one of the more interesting products to come out of Intel. Lets face it, the P4 core was.... Hot? Heheheh. Yonah is based off the M chips. They're fast, efficient, and low power. Expect multiple cores to be the future. As we all know, it's getting harder to get more computing power from pure speed. Tacking on "cores" is the wave of the future. Both
    • Meh. Intel still offloads all memory accesses to an external chip, so they are severely starved for memory if two memory-intensive processes are running. AMD gets around all of that with their hypertransport. I think that's what everyone on /. is waiting for.

  • Viiv (Score:3, Funny)

    by CaptnMArk ( 9003 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @12:49PM (#14707350)
    Great quote from wikipedia: DRM features to combat copyright infringement and consumer rights.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.

Close