Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Dec 2005 12:30 UTC, submitted by MacWereld
Intel "Intel was surprisingly talkative when it came to future technologies and products this year. As a result, most of the technical audience is up to date regarding the upcoming micro architecture based on the 65 nm Merom design. We discovered that all of these announcements are the top of a hot iceberg only, because the chip firm intends to deliver almost 20 new processor designs within the next eight quarters; all for the sole purpose of dominating the desktop, mobile and enterprise segments."
Thread beginning with comment 68940
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not impressed with Intel
by Brendan on Mon 5th Dec 2005 16:27 UTC in reply to "Not impressed with Intel"
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

"Think about it, look at all the room in a computer, a laptop even, there's plenty of space in there to put dozens of cool chips, but no, they want to hog all the space with a giant heat sink water cooling apparatus."

That's because most software still isn't designed to handle multi-CPU well. One 3 GHz CPU will perform better than four 2 GHz CPUs (when 3 of those CPUs are idle and the CPU that is doing something has the extra overhead of SMP synchronization).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Not impressed with Intel
by on Mon 5th Dec 2005 16:43 in reply to "RE: Not impressed with Intel"
Member since:

On second thought, though :
There are plenty of OSes and applications that are multi-CPU aware. Word and Outlook may not be examples of such, but then again, thats not where the extra horsepower is needed (e.g. scientific computing, cancer research, manufacturing etc)

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Not impressed with Intel
by CPUGuy on Mon 5th Dec 2005 17:21 in reply to "RE: Not impressed with Intel"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

One thing though is that Windows (don't know if Linux does or not, I'm sure it does) will distribute different apps onto the different processors, and you can even say that you want X processor to run on processor 2.

Reply Parent Score: 0

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Should be "X process to run on processor N"

Reply Parent Score: 0