backtop

Hardware Intel Set for Big Announcements at IDF
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - September 14, 2009 12:40 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 35 comment(s) - last by kroker.. on Sep 19 at 8:29 AM
Intel expected to unveil details on future CPUs and chipsets

Intel's annual Developers Forum is set to start on September 22 in San Francisco. PCMag reports that Intel is will announce at the show that it has begun manufacturing on its 32nm process for its Core CPU line. The line of CPUs is known under the codenamed Westmere.

The Arrandale chips will be for notebooks and will contain both a GPU and a graphics core in one package. The Clarkdale chip with be a desktop version of the same layout. Arrandale is reportedly expected to ship in Q4 2009.

One big topic at IDF is expected to be the unveiling of the Intel SoC effort and Intel is also expected to make transistor improvement announcements. The conference will also be the venue where Intel talks about its holiday season plans for this year and its goals for 2010.

PCMag reports that the Arrandale and Clarkdale CPU with a graphics core inside may put pressure on AMD, who only recently unveiled its new Vision program to help consumers understand what different computers can do for them with respect to creating and watching video and other common PC tasks. Intel is also expected to offer more details on Larrabee, its anticipated CPU with a GPU on the same core.

Other topics of discussion at IDF will include the new high-k+ metal gate transistor formula that will give Intel a "3+ year advantage in addressing leaky and energy inefficient transistors" according to Intel's Bill Kircos.

EWeek reports that Intel will also be talking about the Jasper Forest integrated I/O hub at the event that will offer a power savings of 27 watts and save business as much as $200 over the seven to ten year life of a computer. Current chips of the type need a separate I/O hub on the board.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
sigh
By jay401 on 9/14/2009 12:52:10 PM , Rating: 3
Intel just start by telling us whether or not we'll see Clarkdale chips on sockets 1156 and 1366. Knowing this will go a long way in determining which socket has better longevity - and better options for low power computing.




RE: sigh
By Fnoob on 9/14/2009 12:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I'll be sorely pissed if the 1366 i7 rig I just built is going to obsolete with the first set of chips.

Will the 920/940/965 be the only 1366's made?


RE: sigh
By UNHchabo on 9/14/2009 1:15:58 PM , Rating: 5
See the roadmap I posted below; "Gulftown" will be on LGA-1366, and is scheduled to be released in 2010.

Disclaimer: I work for Intel, but my knowledge of these processors is based on articles published by Dailytech and other such tech sites.


RE: sigh
By CCRATA on 9/14/2009 1:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
no the 6-core chips will be 1366 only


RE: sigh
By Roy2001 on 9/15/2009 11:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
He meant 6-core CPU would b 1366 only!


RE: sigh
By Totally on 9/17/2009 2:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently, that's what I read too. Why the need for clarification?


RE: sigh
By UNHchabo on 9/14/2009 1:08:03 PM , Rating: 3
Clarkedale will be on LGA-1156, according to this roadmap:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...


RE: sigh
By UNHchabo on 9/14/2009 1:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
Whoops, don't know where that 'e' came from... I meant "Clarkdale"


RE: sigh
By Inspector2211 on 9/14/2009 2:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
Look, Clarkdale is the 2-core low-cost line of processors and thus will only have 1156 pins, ever.
1366 pins are needed in order to add a third memory channel which is definitely not needed for only two cores.

Now, can you buy a socket-1156 motherboard now and then plug in a Clarkdale chip come January?

The answer is:
I highly doubt it, as Clarkdale includes a graphics controller in the same package (on a separate die, though) and current socket-1156 motherboards simply don't route these video signals from the processor to a DVI or HDMI connector.


RE: sigh
By Randomblame on 9/14/2009 2:16:49 PM , Rating: 3
"metal game transistor"
and my boss yells at me for letting my department get away with the improper use of semi colons...


RE: sigh
By Kougar on 9/15/2009 12:30:32 AM , Rating: 4
But I want "metal game transistors" in my CPU! I'm sure whatever they are they would useful to have!


I hope someone at DailyTech can call Intel
By peldor on 9/14/2009 2:56:04 PM , Rating: 5
And let them know IDF starts today.

Intel seems to think it starts Sept 22. How embarrassing not to be at your own forum!




RE: I hope someone at DailyTech can call Intel
By Micronite on 9/14/2009 4:44:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
... and save business as much as $200 over the seven to ten year life of a computer.

Don't forget this little gem. I'm totally stoked when I can save $200 over 10 years.
My company will totally jump on this. They typically step over a 20 dollar bill to pick up the 6 cents a day savings.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/15/2009 7:23:14 AM , Rating: 3
You overlooked the fact that you have to run the computer for 10 years? Who has ever heard of such a thing? The 7 to 10 year life of the computer? Well, that is 5 years tops as a viable computer, and then 5 years as a doorstop. I guess the energy savings comes when you turn it off for 2 to 5 years after its 5 years useful life.


More cores sighhhhh
By AlmostExAMD on 9/15/2009 1:01:42 AM , Rating: 1
Stop with the cores already,Virtually useless.
Hard enough getting my i7 950 quad to strain at all, 6 cores will be even worse. How about giving us less cores and more Ghz for a change. I would rather have a quad or even a dual core cpu running at 4-5ghz(non overclocked) rather than a 6 core running at 2.6-3ghz.
Software just doesn't need these cores,CPU does stuff all anyway these days,Graphics card doing all the work. More cores=more waste.




RE: More cores sighhhhh
By noirsoft on 9/15/2009 1:33:21 AM , Rating: 1
Um... WTF? If you aren't straining you system, why would you care about more Ghz either? I could see wanting the same power in cheaper/smaller/cooler-running/lower-voltage packages, but a higher clockspeed wouldn't get you anything either.

The software that does strain CPUs these days (music/video encoding/3d rendering/scientific computations) tends to scale very well to multiple cores, and it is far easier to throw 2x the cores at a problem than 2x the clockspeed. I also believe (but am not an expert, someone can correct me) that increasing the clock speed generates more heat than an equivalent (in terms of computational power) increase in cores.

All in all, I am much happier to see the number of cores increase. Imagine if every process on your machine had its own core. Background processes (virus scan, firewall, etc) would no longer dramatically slow down your foreground process (word processing, whatever)

Generally, a big performance hit comes every time the CPU changes context, which invalidates a lot of the cache memory. A massively parallel system could keep each process running at near-peak efficiency by minimizing the number of times the cores switch contexts. The machine I am typing this on currently shows 48 running processes, so I don't think we will start to reach that point until the 12-16 core mark. Idle processes could be constrained to one or two cores, then moved to a dedicated core when it becomes more active.


RE: More cores sighhhhh
By Amiga500 on 9/15/2009 3:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
BULLSH!T!!!

We're maxxing out a 3.2 GHz dual socket Nehalem right now... and need more speed. The current job isn't going to be finished until after 10pm tonight, and we need to present the data tomorrow morning!

More cores would give us more speed.... of course, we'd then need to buy more parallel licences for the software, but one step at a time!!


RE: More cores sighhhhh
By DOSGuy on 9/15/2009 7:07:43 PM , Rating: 3
Then it's your lucky day! Core i7/i5 processors have a thing called Turbo mode where, if not all of the cores are active, the remaining core(s) can run faster. Happy now?


RE: More cores sighhhhh
By kroker on 9/19/2009 8:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
Aaaah, the "if I don't need it, no-one does" mentality. Well, if you don't need it, then buy a quad-core with more GHz, I'm sure Intel will release those too. Or, overclock them yourself. As some of the others who replied to you said, some people do need the performance provided by more cores. And, as software becomes ever more multi-threaded, so will most people.


Video
By straycat74 on 9/14/2009 4:06:13 PM , Rating: 1
Now it will be even more difficult to get an intel cpu without their crappy gpu. Great.




RE: Video
By Jeffk464 on 9/14/2009 5:18:21 PM , Rating: 1
Yup, might even give a role for AMD. They can focus on their 12 core cpu and make bad ass graphics cards. Much better then graphics built into the cpu.


RE: Video
By foolsgambit11 on 9/15/2009 2:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, totally. And the same goes for the FPU. I miss having that in a different socket. </sarcasm>

First off, AMD is planning to add a GPU to their chips, as well.

Secondly, if the GPU-on-package/GPU-on-die is done correctly, it has the potential to be a pretty good performance booster for most users. For power users (read gamers) it's unclear what the end result will be.

Initially, I expect we'll see something around the power of integrated graphics due to power constraints and heat dissipation constraints. For people using integrated graphics, they're apt to see a performance boost, a power savings, and potentially a reduction in system costs. Good deal, especially if it plays nice with discrete graphics solutions.

Of course, for power users, the extra transistors will pretty much be a waste (except for in the case of graphics card failure, when the integrated graphics provide a backup to keep the system minimally functional). Even if they reached the point where top-of-the-line graphics solutions were included on-chip or on-package, it's possible a discrete solution would be used by some since GPU upgrades seem to outpace CPU upgrades for many. Additionally, moving the GPU off-package could allow some extra room for overclocking by taking a load off the cooling systems and socket's power supply. Which solution turns out to be the most performant, only time will tell.

Of course, we power users are a small minority, so any concerns we may have will play second fiddle to providing the best performance at the best price for the center of the bell curve.

But there is a small perk for us in it either way. Since the average Joe will have a better-performing graphics system (and because people upgrade their CPUs marginally more often than they upgrade their motherboards), those using integrated graphics may be less likely to hold game development back for the rest of us.


Larrabee!!!!!!!
By ksherman on 9/14/2009 5:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
Larrabee!!!!!!!

I have been waiting to hear more about this GPGPU!! Need some technology to get EXCITED about!




RE: Larrabee!!!!!!!
By dgingeri on 9/14/2009 11:53:46 PM , Rating: 1
like all Intel graphics efforts, it will be unsupported after 6-8 months and outdated as soon as it is released.


RE: Larrabee!!!!!!!
By stmok on 9/15/2009 4:15:27 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, this is going to be quite different.

(1) Its NOT done by the team who is currently responsible for their IGPs. The Larrabee team is a whole different branch.

(2) It has its own instruction set that will be supported by future Intel CPUs.

(3) Larrabee technology will be in future IGPs of Intel.
(They're gonna gradually phase out the current X4500, etc. Clarkdale's IGP is nothing more than an improved X4500HD.)

From the Intel devs I've been talking to, they're laying the foundations for infrastructure for Larrabee. So far, there's the initial C++ code (immature) available to play with.

Larrabee isn't going to beat AMD or Nvidia. What it will do; is introduce a different approach to graphics and GPGPU. As well as be a third play in the mainstream graphics market. (They ain't going to bother with the enthusiast/performance end).


Poor Intel Souls
By Hlafordlaes on 9/14/2009 2:25:27 PM , Rating: 3
"seven to ten year life of a computer..."

Didn't know Intel engineers had to stick with the same workstations as long as I do with my poor little home PC.

And sheesh, talk about giving excuses for not upgrading to the new chipsets and CPUs.

/kidding




By phazers on 9/14/2009 4:08:15 PM , Rating: 3
"BK 2Q 08 - er, 09 - er, 10 - er, 11"...

-quote courtesy of Sharikook, P.Hud




Larrabee isn't Fusion
By DOSGuy on 9/15/2009 1:20:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel is also expected to offer more details on Larrabee, its anticipated CPU with a GPU on the same core.


Larrabee isn't a CPU with a GPU on the same core, it's a GPU made of CPUs.




RE: Larrabee isn't Fusion
By MrPoletski on 9/15/2009 9:14:37 AM , Rating: 1
Its a pentium 1 chip with a gurt big vector unit bolted onto the side then many-cored up to acceptable performance levels.

At least, that's how it started. What I just said there makes it sound like old hat, but you can't just stick 32 cores together and expect them to work in unison. Intel spent a long time developing its architecture for utilising many cores on one chip (I dont mean quad core, I mean like potentially hundreds of cores).


LGA1366 is a dead end.
By mrhunter9 on 9/14/2009 2:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
LGA1366 is only for the high end and Server Core i7 CPUs. Gulftown (Westmere 32nm) is the 6 core i7 that should run on your x58 motherboards with a bios update. After that CPU release, 1366 is dead. It was only meant to be an interm socket to get to LGA1156.




Quad Core for notebooks anyone?
By DukeN on 9/14/2009 4:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps we'll see a real series, not a cripped desktop version :)




high-k+ metal game?
By plouf34 on 9/15/2009 2:42:52 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't it "high-k+ metal ga T e"?




Want the 32 nm 'tick' of Lynnfield
By HotFoot on 9/15/2009 4:05:24 AM , Rating: 2
To me, Lynnfield looks very sweet, and these new 32 nm products will do great as well, I'm sure. However, what I really really want is a 32 nm update of Lynnfield. Do we have word on when that is coming out? A 2-core version with on-chip IGP is pretty much useless for me since I'm going to be going with some heavy discrete graphics.

That is, at least until the 'exploitation' phase of the graphics processing migration onto the CPU. When that comes along and the IGP starts being used for much more than pushing pixels, I'll be interested.




roh roh
By Yaos on 9/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: roh roh
By Etsp on 9/14/2009 6:40:41 PM , Rating: 3
Well, aside from the fact that CPU's are starting to become similar to GPU's, and GPU's are also moving to be more like CPU's... what you said makes little sense.

Graphics processing is a massively parrallel process, general computing is largely (in the perspective of GPU's) non-parallel. You can't design a processor to do both of these at nearly the same ability as the specialized processors can. Simply making a GPU "Faster" will not make it a CPU.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki