New Intel chip technology to use less power

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2005   #1
New Intel chip technology to use less power

Quote:
"Intel (Nasdaq: INTC - news) 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<<

-R
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
Old 12 December 2005   #2
And thus the tech preview that sold Apple.
__________________
JDex
(Sans Gerfuffle)

On a VFX Hiatus
 
Old 12 December 2005   #3
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.
__________________
"Have you ever just stared at it.......Marveled at its bee yooty?"
 
Old 12 December 2005   #4
This is supposedly... something bigger. We'll see how the cards fall.
__________________
JDex
(Sans Gerfuffle)

On a VFX Hiatus
 
Old 12 December 2005   #5
They better get this right this time, otherwise AMD will keep eating their cookies (as they currently are).
__________________
Photography works (portfolio in the making)
www.apollux.smugmug.com
 
Old 12 December 2005   #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apollux
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.
__________________

Control the media and you control the people
 
Old 12 December 2005   #7
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.
__________________
Take a look at my websites :
http://heliosmulti.com/plaplo my blogfolio
 
Old 12 December 2005   #8
It's more like a pendulum... at times they are equal, and at times far apart.
__________________
JDex
(Sans Gerfuffle)

On a VFX Hiatus
 
Old 12 December 2005   #9
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.
__________________

Control the media and you control the people
 
Old 12 December 2005   #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beamtracer
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...
__________________
Enjoy the endlessness of my mind.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beamtracer

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!
 
Old 12 December 2005   #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon_Lee
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 chip, when you say it "came to bite them".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon_Lee
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon_Lee
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.
__________________

Control the media and you control the people
 
Old 12 December 2005   #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMack
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.

Last edited by ambient-whisper : 12 December 2005 at 11:34 AM.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #14
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.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMack
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.

Last edited by ambient-whisper : 12 December 2005 at 12:54 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.