A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

65nm news from Intel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 1st 04, 09:34 AM
Nick Maclaren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article XQbZc.44$A63.6@trnddc09, Raymond wrote:

Oh, really? I did a quick Web search, but couldn't find when
the comparable announcement was made for 90 nm. I vaguely
remember mid-2001, which was a little matter of 3 years before
90 nm hit the streets in quantity.


If you read exactly what Intel said after they achieved 90nm
SRAM, they weren't anywhere as rosy as they are now with
65nm.


I need to correct what I said - it was 2 years. March 2002.

Actually, I remember them being every bit as optimistic. Anyway,
such claims are worth almost as much as the hot air that carries
them.

I shall not be holding my breath for 65 nm; you are welcome to
hold yours for it :-)


I am holding my breath! :-)


You have better lungs than I do :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #22  
Old September 1st 04, 09:39 AM
Nick Maclaren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article XQbZc.45$A63.43@trnddc09, Raymond wrote:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alex Johnson writes:
|
| I thought 2005 was too soon for 65nm, but that's what I read. That
| Pentium 4 will be shipping in 2005 on 65nm. Which, thankfully, gives
| that embarrassment that is Prescott just one year of life.

If you believe that ordinary customers will be able to buy 65 nm
Pentium 4s at commodity prices in mid-2005, I have this bridge for
sale ....


What they're saying is first production in 2005, and high volume by
2006, perhaps even high enough to overtake that of 90nm.


Even if that were so, it would give Prescott a lot more than a year
to hold the fort.

Anyway, once upon a time when knights were bold and press statements
were intended to convey information, "production" meant the delivery
of products, and "products" meant goods sold to ordinary customers.
At least in this context.

Yes, I believe that Intel (and IBM) will be able to make 65 nm CPUs
in early 2005, perhaps even late 2004. But small numbers of ones
made for testing does not constitute production in any meaningful
sense.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #23  
Old September 1st 04, 09:40 AM
Jan Vorbrüggen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am pretty sure that Intel could cool the chip, even at that speed.
A factory-fitted silver heatsink, with high-speed water-cooling to
a heat exchanger in front of a large and fast fan, bolted into a
heavy chassis, should do the job.


A heat pipe is better at moving heat than any solid material, and quite
easy to use.

Dumping all those watts in the environment, absent water cooling, is more
of a problem. I'd rather not have several hundred watts heating the air in
my office, thank you.

Jan
  #24  
Old September 1st 04, 09:43 AM
Nick Maclaren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
G wrote:

Also, I suspect your comments about languages are true when it comes
to C/C++. But the newer languages like Java, C# and VB.Net make
working with threads MUCH easier. I'm not exactly sure what MS could
"incorporate in their next Studio" that could possibly make it any
easier to write multi-threaded managed code. And with alot more of
Longhorn written itself as managed code, inculding the new Avalon/XAML
UI stuff, I suspect that even traditional message driven GUI code will
make better use of multiple cores. Of course the cynics will claim
that amounts to Windows yet again sucking all possible power out of
even the latest & greatest hardware, but I guess that's inevitable.


I am afraid not. I haven't looked at them in detail, but a quick
glance indicates that they give the appearance of making the design
and coding of threaded applications easier, while not tackling the
most important problems.

But your last remark is correct. It isn't hard to separate GUIs
into multiple components, separated by message passing (whether
using thread primitives or not), and those are a doddle to schedule
on multi-core systems. And that is the way that things are going.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #25  
Old September 1st 04, 09:55 AM
Nick Maclaren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= wrote:
I am pretty sure that Intel could cool the chip, even at that speed.
A factory-fitted silver heatsink, with high-speed water-cooling to
a heat exchanger in front of a large and fast fan, bolted into a
heavy chassis, should do the job.


A heat pipe is better at moving heat than any solid material, and quite
easy to use.


Hang on - I never said that the silver heatsink was solid! It should
be silver for the conductivity and resistance to corrosion, but I was
assuming circulating water inside it. Sorry about omitting that
critical point :-(

Dumping all those watts in the environment, absent water cooling, is more
of a problem. I'd rather not have several hundred watts heating the air in
my office, thank you.


Or 1,000 of them dumping heat in my machine room ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #26  
Old September 1st 04, 11:21 AM
Ken Hagan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

G wrote:

Every version of Windows based on NT (NT, 2000, XP, Server 2k3,
Longhorn, etc) has gotten progressively better at utilizing multiple
CPU's. MS keeps tweaking things to a finer level of granularity. So
minimally, a single threaded application could still hog 1 CPU, but at
least the OS underneath will do it's best to make use of the other
CPU.


A data point. I'm doing nothing much except reading this group and yet
the XP performance monitor shows a queue of 7 or 8 threads ready to run.

I think applications like WORD and Excel already do things like spell-
checking and recalculation in worker threads. I don't find it hard to
believe that a typical Windows box would benefit from 4+ "processors".


  #27  
Old September 1st 04, 12:08 PM
Joe Seigh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Nick Maclaren wrote:

But your last remark is correct. It isn't hard to separate GUIs
into multiple components, separated by message passing (whether
using thread primitives or not), and those are a doddle to schedule
on multi-core systems. And that is the way that things are going.


I'm not sure that the gui by itself is enough to justify a multi-core
cpu. And there are problems enough in multi-threaded gui, even apart
from deadlocks caused by inexperienced programmer mixing threads and OO
callbacks. Consider mouse events queued before but received after a
resize operation. The mouse coordinates are in the wrong frame of reference
and all wrong. Gui designers design as if the event queue was = 1 at all
times.

What would more likely to utilize concurrency would be the database like
Longhorm filesystem that MS is supposed to be doing. Except that I don't
think MS has the expertise to do lock-free concurrent programming like that.
If they have, they've been keeping a low profile.

Joe Seigh
  #28  
Old September 1st 04, 01:27 PM
Nick Maclaren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


In article ,
Joe Seigh writes:
|
| I'm not sure that the gui by itself is enough to justify a multi-core
| cpu. And there are problems enough in multi-threaded gui, even apart
| from deadlocks caused by inexperienced programmer mixing threads and OO
| callbacks. Consider mouse events queued before but received after a
| resize operation. The mouse coordinates are in the wrong frame of reference
| and all wrong. Gui designers design as if the event queue was = 1 at all
| times.

Take a mouse event in an unrealistically simple design. This is picked
up by the kernel, and passed to the display manager, which converts it
into another form and passes it to the application. That does something
with it, passes a message to the display manager, which calls the kernel
to update the screen. The user does not see any effect until that has
completed.

At best, you have 4 context switches, 2 of which are between user-level
contexts, and it is common for there to be MANY more. Now, consider
that being done as part of drag-and-drop - you want the process to
happen in under 2 milliseconds (certainly under 5), or it will start to
be visible. That can be 1,000+ context switches a second, and some
of those contexts have large working sets, so you are reloading a
lot of cache and TLBs.

One of the advantages of a multi-core system is that you don't need to
switch context just to pass a message if the threads or processes are
on different cores. You just pass the message.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #30  
Old September 1st 04, 04:03 PM
Stefan Monnier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think applications like WORD and Excel already do things like spell-
checking and recalculation in worker threads. I don't find it hard to


I also see a lot of background processes from GUI thingies on my Mac.
This sucks because it happens even for application that are currently
"idle". E.g. there are two other people "logged in" but currently inactive,
but they use up a lot of resident pages, thus making me page a lot more.
I suspect that with 10 users logged in at the same time and only 768MB of
RAM, the machine would be brought to its knees :-(


Stefan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel Prescott CPU in a Nutshell LuvrSmel Overclocking 1 January 10th 05 04:23 PM
Intel chipsets are the most stable? Grumble Homebuilt PC's 101 October 26th 04 02:53 AM
Real World Comparisons: AMD 3200 -vs- Intel 3.2. Your thoughts, experiences.... Ted Grevers General 33 February 6th 04 03:34 PM
Intel & 65nm Yousuf Khan General 0 November 25th 03 02:18 AM
Intel Updates Plans Again: Adds Pentium 4 EE at 3.40GHz and Pentium 4 at 3.40GHz lyon_wonder General 2 November 11th 03 12:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.