Intel cancels next-generation Xeon for even-more-next-generationXeon
 

Tigerton, get used to that name. Apparently it's gonna have
Hypertransport in it. :-)

Intel Shifts Plans for Server Chips: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051024/intel...hips.html?.v=2

PS- oh, and it's also delaying the Montecito Itanium, as EdG posted.

Yousuf Khan

Intel cancels next-generation Xeon for even-more-next-generation Xeon
 

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:06:39 -0500, EdG wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:01:21 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

Tigerton, get used to that name. Apparently it's gonna have
Hypertransport in it. :-)

Intel Shifts Plans for Server Chips: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051024/intel...hips.html?.v=2

PS- oh, and it's also delaying the Montecito Itanium, as EdG posted.

Yousuf Khan

Wasn't Intel talking about using a high-speed interconnect a long time
ago, maybe a year or two before Opteron? GIO or something? What happened
with that?

Well there was NGIO and then 3GIO, which became PCI Express.

IIRC 2007 is the scheduled intro of the common Intanium/x86 bus, which is
expected to be an integrated memory controller architecture a packetized
I/O bus -- CSI or sumthin'??.

And not long ago I read somewhere Intel was going to use a dual bus like
the one AMD used on the Athlon MP, I can only hope that was false or
they have now dumped that too, I doubt it would get them far, still a
shared bus right?

I believe the dual independent bus is scheduled for next year some time
with the new 65nm & P-M derived desktop/server chips... dunno if that's
what Bensley is supposed to be. All those damned code names drive me nuts.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

Intel cancels next-generation Xeon for even-more-next-generation Xeon
 

EdG wrote:
Wasn't Intel talking about using a high-speed interconnect a long time
ago, maybe a year or two before Opteron? GIO or something? What happened
with that?

Yeah, that was 3GIO, which became Arapahoe, which became PCI-Express.
That was in a futile attempt to derail any momentum building for AMD's
Hypertransport. Of course PCI-E is no competition for HT, it's much too
bloated to be a chip-to-chip interconnect. AMD never fell for it, and
kept HT as simple as possible while Intel threw as much bling-bling
into PCI-e to dazzle people with features.

Now it looks like AMD might even use PCI-e against Intel, if the
rumours about AMD building a PCI-e link directly into its processors
can be believed.

And not long ago I read somewhere Intel was going to use a dual bus like
the one AMD used on the Athlon MP, I can only hope that was false or
they have now dumped that too, I doubt it would get them far, still a
shared bus right?

Yeah, I think that was supposed to be in the Deerfield processor that
Intel just cancelled.

Yousuf Khan

Intel cancels next-generation Xeon for even-more-next-generation Xeon
 

On 25 Oct 2005 12:00:45 -0700, "YKhan" wrote:

EdG wrote:
Wasn't Intel talking about using a high-speed interconnect a long time
ago, maybe a year or two before Opteron? GIO or something? What happened
with that?

Yeah, that was 3GIO, which became Arapahoe, which became PCI-Express.
That was in a futile attempt to derail any momentum building for AMD's
Hypertransport. Of course PCI-E is no competition for HT, it's much too
bloated to be a chip-to-chip interconnect. AMD never fell for it, and
kept HT as simple as possible while Intel threw as much bling-bling
into PCI-e to dazzle people with features.

Now it looks like AMD might even use PCI-e against Intel, if the
rumours about AMD building a PCI-e link directly into its processors
can be believed.

And not long ago I read somewhere Intel was going to use a dual bus like
the one AMD used on the Athlon MP, I can only hope that was false or
they have now dumped that too, I doubt it would get them far, still a
shared bus right?

Yeah, I think that was supposed to be in the Deerfield processor that
Intel just cancelled.

Yousuf Khan

The whole fleet of next years Xeons (now heating up verification labs at
select OEMs) use a separate hose for each processor to MCH connection. They're
not going to get to 1333mhz fsb speeds with daisy-chains...

Intel cancels next-generation Xeon for even-more-next-generation Xeon
 

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:37:08 -0400, daytripper wrote:

On 25 Oct 2005 12:00:45 -0700, "YKhan" wrote:

EdG wrote:
Wasn't Intel talking about using a high-speed interconnect a long time
ago, maybe a year or two before Opteron? GIO or something? What happened
with that?

Yeah, that was 3GIO, which became Arapahoe, which became PCI-Express.
That was in a futile attempt to derail any momentum building for AMD's
Hypertransport. Of course PCI-E is no competition for HT, it's much too
bloated to be a chip-to-chip interconnect. AMD never fell for it, and
kept HT as simple as possible while Intel threw as much bling-bling
into PCI-e to dazzle people with features.

Now it looks like AMD might even use PCI-e against Intel, if the
rumours about AMD building a PCI-e link directly into its processors
can be believed.

And not long ago I read somewhere Intel was going to use a dual bus like
the one AMD used on the Athlon MP, I can only hope that was false or
they have now dumped that too, I doubt it would get them far, still a
shared bus right?

Yeah, I think that was supposed to be in the Deerfield processor that
Intel just cancelled.

Yousuf Khan

The whole fleet of next years Xeons (now heating up verification labs at
select OEMs) use a separate hose for each processor to MCH connection. They're
not going to get to 1333mhz fsb speeds with daisy-chains...

Ok, but am I the only one who detects Intel trying to defend the
indefensable? IBM tried to hold the "upper ground" too, oh, about 15
years ago. ...and had a better position (different ISA).

--
Keith

IBM defends the indefensible
 

keith wrote:
Ok, but am I the only one who detects Intel trying to defend the
indefensable? IBM tried to hold the "upper ground" too, oh, about 15
years ago. ...and had a better position (different ISA).


Hey, speaking of IBM defending the indefensible. They just picked up
Solaris as one of their OS choices on their blade servers.

Sun freezes hell, gets IBM to sell Solaris on blades | The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10..._solarisblade/

Yousuf Khan

IBM defends the indefensible
 

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:54:34 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

keith wrote:
Ok, but am I the only one who detects Intel trying to defend the
indefensable? IBM tried to hold the "upper ground" too, oh, about 15
years ago. ...and had a better position (different ISA).


Hey, speaking of IBM defending the indefensible. They just picked up
Solaris as one of their OS choices on their blade servers.

Sun freezes hell, gets IBM to sell Solaris on blades | The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10..._solarisblade/

No $#|+! Global warming? Hell *has* frozen! ;-)

--
Keith

IBM defends the indefensible
 

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
keith wrote:
Ok, but am I the only one who detects Intel trying to defend the
indefensable? IBM tried to hold the "upper ground" too, oh, about 15
years ago. ...and had a better position (different ISA).


Hey, speaking of IBM defending the indefensible. They just picked up
Solaris as one of their OS choices on their blade servers.

Sun freezes hell, gets IBM to sell Solaris on blades | The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10..._solarisblade/

Yousuf Khan

You must have missed this back in june....

http://news.com.com/IBM+backs+Suns+S...3-5764485.html

remember the new ibm motto, "anything for a buck" :-)

del

Intel cancels next-generation Xeon for even-more-next-generation Xeon
 

Yeah, that was 3GIO, which became Arapahoe, which became PCI-Express.
That was in a futile attempt to derail any momentum building for AMD's
Hypertransport. Of course PCI-E is no competition for HT, it's much too
bloated to be a chip-to-chip interconnect. AMD never fell for it, and
kept HT as simple as possible while Intel threw as much bling-bling
into PCI-e to dazzle people with features.

How is it bloated, oh font of interconnect wisdom? Perhaps you don't
realize it, but serial interconnects are far higher bandwidth...

Now it looks like AMD might even use PCI-e against Intel, if the
rumours about AMD building a PCI-e link directly into its processors
can be believed.

I don't see how that is "using PCI-e against Intel"...

And not long ago I read somewhere Intel was going to use a dual bus like
the one AMD used on the Athlon MP, I can only hope that was false or
they have now dumped that too, I doubt it would get them far, still a
shared bus right?

Yeah, I think that was supposed to be in the Deerfield processor that
Intel just cancelled.

No it's not cancelled moron. Deerfield is a LV IPF part. They
cancelled Whitefield. White, not deer.

Intel's next gen server chipset is a wonderful piece of work and
features dual independent FSBs. I suspect the next generation after
that will feature 4 or more.

David

IBM defends the indefensible
 

"Del" == Del Cecchi writes:

Del "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
Del ...
keith wrote:
Ok, but am I the only one who detects Intel trying to defend the
indefensable? IBM tried to hold the "upper ground" too, oh, about
15 years ago. ...and had a better position (different ISA).

Hey, speaking of IBM defending the indefensible. They just picked
up Solaris as one of their OS choices on their blade servers.

Sun freezes hell, gets IBM to sell Solaris on blades | The
Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10..._solarisblade/

Yousuf Khan

Del You must have missed this back in june....

Del http://news.com.com/IBM+backs+Suns+S...3-5764485.html

Del remember the new ibm motto, "anything for a buck" :-)

Del del


Actually no surprise here. This is the direction IBM has been moving
for some time and that is OS neutral. IBM has been changing to a
service company and has stated that clearly. The only hardware
division IBM wants to keep is the mainframe division because there is
very little competition and it is still a cash cow.

Heck if they can sale windows they can sale anything ;-)). Well
depends on the contract with M$, but I think after the last anti-trust
lawsuit that M$ won't have a contract like that soon.

Whatever.

Alan