PDA

View Full Version : New Intel chip technology to use less power


RobertoOrtiz
12-09-2005, 11:03 PM
Quote:
"Intel (Nasdaq: INTC (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/finance/nf/bs_nf/storytext/40040/17350027/*http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=intc&d=t) - news (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/biz/nf/bs_nf/storytext/40040/17350027/*http://biz.yahoo.com/n/i/intc.html)) is creating a new transistor technology that promises to boost processing speed while requiring significantly less power. The technology could form the basis of the company's chips a decade down the road. "
>>LINK<< (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20051209/bs_nf/40040)

-R

JDex
12-10-2005, 02:51 AM
And thus the tech preview that sold Apple.

zzacmann
12-10-2005, 03:13 AM
Yeah, that sounds like what they said about Centrino Processors, yet most Centrino based laptops Ive used cant make it through a 2 hour dvd before the battery is dead as a door nail.

JDex
12-10-2005, 03:22 AM
This is supposedly... something bigger. We'll see how the cards fall.

Apollux
12-13-2005, 03:39 AM
They better get this right this time, otherwise AMD will keep eating their cookies (as they currently are).

Beamtracer
12-13-2005, 05:51 AM
They better get this right this time, otherwise AMD will keep eating their cookies (as they currently are).

AMD processors are clearly superior to Intel's for the purpose of 3D and graphics rendering.

How is it possible that the smaller company, AMD, is able to make better processors for 3D than the bigger company, Intel?

Intel's marketing department is busy talking about what processor technology they'll have in ten years from now, which may be to deflect attention away from the fact that their 64-bit desktop technology of today is vastly inferior to AMDs.

This must be bad news for Dell. Dell has an exclusive agreement with Intel, so that Dell will only sell computers with Intel processors. Dell won't sell AMD based computers, even though all their major rivals (like HP) give the choice of either AMD or Intel.

I notice this week that Intel's profit forecast has been reduced, while AMD's profits are rising. Anyway, if the two companies battle it out together the competition will be good for computer users.

Schwinnz
12-13-2005, 01:26 PM
It's cyclic I guess. A few times ago AMD was behind, the P4 clearly dominating in the beginning. Now it's the inverse situation, and I guess in a year or so the next Intel chips will be ahead. If they released similar products at the same time it could compare.

JDex
12-13-2005, 01:33 PM
It's more like a pendulum... at times they are equal, and at times far apart.

Beamtracer
12-14-2005, 08:30 AM
Look at this news. There's a rush to buy AMD based computers for Christmas, and Hewlett-Packard (HP) has sold out of them completely.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/14/hp_amd_pc/

The pressure must really be on Dell to drop its Intel-only policy and start shipping AMD systems like its rivals do. I wonder how long Dell can remain Intel-only before they lose too many sales.

Dragon_Lee
12-14-2005, 08:51 AM
AMD processors are clearly superior to Intel's for the purpose of 3D and graphics rendering.

How is it possible that the smaller company, AMD, is able to make better processors for 3D than the bigger company, Intel?

Intel's marketing department is busy talking about what processor technology they'll have in ten years from now, which may be to deflect attention away from the fact that their 64-bit desktop technology of today is vastly inferior to AMDs.


Intel made some internal-political decisions quite a few years back which now (with long turnaround development time for totally new CPU designs) came to bite them in their toes...

For a long time Intel was betting on a 100% transfer to a 64bits platform, w/o staying with the 32bit compatibility (yes this was planned to filter down to desktop level by now), AMD on the other hand went for 32 bits computing with 64bit memory adressing, a better decision on the short run...which forced Intel's hand on these matters...

Over the past 10 years or more a lot of good staff at Intel ran into the company's new front of politics, managers started to push the actual designers into corners they did not wish to go, so the treadmill of lesser cpu designs was started...
Some of these tech staff are once again being listened to now though, so for a coming new generation of chips (I do not mean the upcoming crop) might indeed hold a few surprises here and there...

But in my honest opinion, AMD is still not much more than an ankle-biter for Intel, company wise there is no comparison, not even a david vs goliath one...
Untill Intel's products are dropped en masse for AMDs, I do not think Intel execs cry themselves to sleep over AMDs "10% faster cpus", their stuff is being sold anyway...

DMack
12-14-2005, 09:11 AM
The pressure must really be on Dell to drop its Intel-only policy and start shipping AMD systems like its rivals do. I wonder how long Dell can remain Intel-only before they lose too many sales.

I specced up a Dell 670 the other day in th UK (dual dual core 2.8Ghz, 4Gb Ram, the Quadro 512Mb Gfx card (forgotten the number 4400?) and it came to 4,800!!! (roughly $8-9000) Got to say I was shocked! I know it's a high spec but I've heard an Apple QUAD G5 is way less than that. I don't get it?!? I'm not moving over to Macs and have to date thought Dell's machines represented good value for money given their reliability....but 4,800+VAT?!?!?! As elastigirl says...I don't think so!

Beamtracer
12-14-2005, 10:11 AM
Intel made some internal-political decisions quite a few years back which now (with long turnaround development time for totally new CPU designs) came to bite them in their toes...
I assume you're referring to Intel's Itanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium) chip, when you say it "came to bite them".

AMD on the other hand went for 32 bits computing with 64bit memory adressing, a better decision on the short run...which forced Intel's hand on these matters...
Are you inferring that AMD-64 processors are superior now, but Intel's Itanium might still have a chance long-term? I thought Intel's Itanium is probably dead and buried as far as desktop computing goes.

But in my honest opinion, AMD is still not much more than an ankle-biter for Intel, company wise there is no comparison, not even a david vs goliath one...
Untill Intel's products are dropped en masse for AMDs, I do not think Intel execs cry themselves to sleep over AMDs "10% faster cpus", their stuff is being sold anyway...
If AMD "forced Intel's hand", and made them change their entire desktop processor lineup (ie, ditch Itanium desktop, go with x86-64) then AMD must be influencing Intel much more than biting their ankles.

So AMD is in the lead now, because Intel stumbled with Itanium. Makes me wonder how AMD will sustain the lead into the years ahead.

If people support AMD at a time when their processors are better, it will help AMD grow to be a better competitor to Intel.

ambient-whisper
12-14-2005, 11:27 AM
I specced up a Dell 670 the other day in th UK (dual dual core 2.8Ghz, 4Gb Ram, the Quadro 512Mb Gfx card (forgotten the number 4400?) and it came to 4,800!!! (roughly $8-9000) Got to say I was shocked! I know it's a high spec but I've heard an Apple QUAD G5 is way less than that. I don't get it?!? I'm not moving over to Macs and have to date thought Dell's machines represented good value for money given their reliability....but 4,800+VAT?!?!?! As elastigirl says...I don't think so!

have you checked how much that videocard costs? or how much the ram you added there costs?

if you want to do a fair comparrison then compare the mac to pc with the same quality of ram ( in same amounts ) with the same videocards.

i got a dual core 2.8 myself, with a geforce 7800, and 3gb ram. it only cost me 1700 canadian dollars. that quadro 4400 is a way overpriced card. having had a look at price watch just now, the card goes between 1700-3000 USD!.

plus, isnt the quadro 4000 series based on older geforce cards anyway( the 6xxx series )? because after having taken a look at their memory bandwidth, the quadro 4400 has much less memory bandwidth than the geforce 7800.

shop smart, shop S-mart.

DMack
12-14-2005, 12:31 PM
It seems it's the CPUs and the Gfx card that makes it a complete non-starter....But that doesn't get me very far :( They both seem overpriced to me.

ambient-whisper
12-14-2005, 12:47 PM
It seems it's the CPUs and the Gfx card that makes it a complete non-starter....But that doesn't get me very far :( They both seem overpriced to me.
well, the other problem with your setup is that you went with a xeon. a standard dual core 2.8 will go for 300canadian. so why spend 1500usd on a xeon that wont move much faster than the standard? 1-5% faster maybe? is that worth 3-4x the price difference?

( im not sure if the xeon 2.8 has HT though, if they do then they will generally perform even better than 5%. you can usually expect an extra 10-15% ontop of that ). but remember, that 15% will only work in applications that are multi-threaded. meaning that your stuck to rendering applications, or zbrush ( if you turn on multi threading ). dont expect that 15% to help much otherwise.

DMack
12-14-2005, 01:48 PM
Cool - I'll look into that (dual vs Xeon dual). Certainly as it stands, I'm not purchasing!!!

PattyMelt
12-14-2005, 04:48 PM
I just like how Intel thinks ahead to help ease the burden on pc's power supplies. I'm just curious how much more they can reduce the power usage from procesors.

Yeah, that sounds like what they said about Centrino Processors, yet most Centrino based laptops Ive used cant make it through a 2 hour dvd before the battery is dead as a door nail.

You forget that the dvd player as well as the other hardware is using the juice, not just the processor. Power to run a laptop isn't soley based on the processor. Why not plug in your laptop to watch a dvd?


Another thing I've notice on these boards. 'Omg Dell should switch to AMD chips for 3D.' We, as 3D artists/programmers/what not, are only are a small percent of those who actually use and buy pc's. People buy Dell not just for CG, but for web browsing, typing documents, and other regular tasks not just 3D or 2D. And people should stop with AMD vs Intel, wow... a few seconds faster.... omfg. Otherwise, why does intel outsell and out last AMD by a long-shot? And there are other companies that produce processors, why are you just comparing Intel and AMD without the other competition? If one is comfortable with their set-up and can get from point A to B happily and it suits them, then that's the system/programs for them. Not the latest and greastest or biggest e-penis. Focus on the topic at hand instead of debating over the specs of an item not mentioned in the original thread or topic. Please.

ambient-whisper
12-14-2005, 07:45 PM
Another thing I've notice on these boards. 'Omg Dell should switch to AMD chips for 3D.' We, as 3D artists/programmers/what not, are only are a small percent of those who actually use and buy pc's. People buy Dell not just for CG, but for web browsing, typing documents, and other regular tasks not just 3D or 2D. And people should stop with AMD vs Intel, wow... a few seconds faster.... omfg. Otherwise, why does intel outsell and out last AMD by a long-shot? And there are other companies that produce processors, why are you just comparing Intel and AMD without the other competition? If one is comfortable with their set-up and can get from point A to B happily and it suits them, then that's the system/programs for them. Not the latest and greastest or biggest e-penis. Focus on the topic at hand instead of debating over the specs of an item not mentioned in the original thread or topic. Please.

totally. for example. many people on these boards were boasting how much 64 bit processors will help them in the long run ( this was like a year ago or so when amd was releasing their 64 bit compatible procs ), and yet, a year later there really is nothing useful for 64 bit yet, and those users are upgrading yet again to dual cores. so all of that nitpicking of features and 5% extra performance that they got in rendering means nothing in the long run. its funny because even at work, people tell me that intel is useless, blah, blah, but im getting work done pretty damn fast on an intel. hell, when people on all these 3d boards were doing their comparrisons of the amd and p4s that ran at like 2ghz, and saying that the intel was unworkable, i was somehow able to work on my puny p3 800 just fine.

what i would rather have is for developers to spend more time updating their viewport/geometry handling code so it runs faster. for example, in the modeller i use named clay, when the coder updated the code for viewing models and manipulating them, i got a 10x increase in speed. ( atleast ) its much more welcome than me having to fork over another grand to upgrade the speed of my pc, so i can get a 25-50% increase.

mummey
12-14-2005, 08:07 PM
what i would rather have is for developers to spend more time updating their viewport/geometry handling code so it runs faster. for example, in the modeller i use named clay, when the coder updated the code for viewing models and manipulating them, i got a 10x increase in speed. ( atleast ) its much more welcome than me having to fork over another grand to upgrade the speed of my pc, so i can get a 25-50% increase.

Indeed, so much is invested in QC for hardware, if a tenth of it was spent in QC for software you would probably get the same performance results.

CGTalk Moderation
12-14-2005, 08:07 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.