Intel Details Nehalem CPU and Larrabee GPU 166
Vigile writes "Intel previewed the information set to be released at IDF next month including details on a wide array of technology for server, workstation, desktop and graphics chips. The upcoming Tukwila chip will replace the current Itanium lineup with about twice the performance at a cost of 2 billion transistors and Dunnington is a hexa-core processor using existing Core 2 architecture. Details of Nehalem, Intel's next desktop CPU core that includes an integrated memory controller, show a return of HyperThreading-like SMT, a new SSE 4.2 extension and modular design that features optional integrated graphics on the CPU as well. Could Intel beat AMD in its own "Fusion" plans? Finally, Larrabee, the GPU technology Intel is building, was verified to support OpenGL and DirectX upon release and Intel provided information on a new extension called Advanced Vector Extension (AVX) for SSE that would improve graphics performance on the many-core architecture."
Re:Nehalem? Larrabee? (Score:5, Informative)
Intel has a rich collection of silly code names.
Re:Gflargen and Blackeblae (Score:5, Informative)
You can't trademark numbers. When AMD started releasing "x86" numbered processors, Intel filed suit and lost. The judge stated that you can't trademark numbers. It's such an old case, this is what I found in the last 10 minutes regarding Intel and trademarking numbers [theinquirer.net].
I'm tired and too lazy to find the actual lawsuit.
Re:Nehalem? Larrabee? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nehalem? Larrabee? (Score:1, Informative)
Someone even wrote a song about the place: http://www.google.com/search?q=everclear+Nehalem [google.com]
Re:Nehalem? Larrabee? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why the brick wall? (Score:5, Informative)
For example. Let's start with a single-core Core 2 @ 2GHz. Let's say it uses 10 W (not sure what the actual number is).
Running it at twice the frequency results in a (2^3) = 8X power increase. So, we can either have a single-core 4 GHz Core 2 at 80W, or we can have a quad-core 2GHz Core 2 at 40W. Which one makes more sense?
Re:Why the brick wall? (Score:5, Informative)
2) We also have hit the "Memory Wall", modern microprocessors can take 200 clocks to access DRAM, but even floating-point multiplies may take only four clock cycles.
3) Because of this, processor performance gain has slowed dramatically. In 2006, performance is a factor of three below the traditional doubling every 18 months that occurred between 1986 and 2002.
To understand where we are, and why the only way to go now is parallelism versus clock speed increase, see The Landscape of Parallel Computing ReseView from Berkeley [berkeley.edu].
Re:Intel Vs. AMD? (Score:1, Informative)
Vista also has a ceiling of 3.5gb if I remember correctly. I forget what the extra 512mb gets used for if you have it, but if you have 4gb of ram in a vista system, the system will not show a some 2^x mb amount of it, and it isn't some amount being dedicated to integrated graphics.
Re:The Giant is awakened (Score:5, Informative)
AMD and they have other clever stuff in the pipeline. E.g.
http://www.tech.co.uk/computing/upgrades-and-peripherals/motherboards-and-processors/news/amd-plots-16-core-super-cpu-for-2009?articleid=1754617439 [tech.co.uk]
Re:Intel Vs. AMD? (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)