• Gizmodo
  • bestmodo
  • lifehacker
  • kotaku
  • Profile logout login

#cpus#tech#introhtmtech#article

Gizmodo

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #whitenoise,
  • #dealzmodo,
  • #broken,
  • #iphoneapps,
  • etc.

New York, 9:47 PM
Mon Dec 14
70 posts in the last 24 hours

FR | IT | DE | SP | JP | AU | BR

Gizmodo Team

Tip your editors:

Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter

Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter

Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter

Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter

Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz

Chris Mascari

Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob

Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner

Interns:
Don Nguyen

Kyle VanHemert

Heroes and Friends

Comment Account Questions:

SUBSCRIBE TO Gizmodo RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
9515 Subscribers
Gizmodo
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of Kaiser-Machead Kaiser-Machead
    12/03/09

    In reply to The FTC Still Wants to Slay the Intel Monopoly Monster
    And it still sucks that Netbooks with ION processors have to cost more because of the fact that "standalone" Atom procs cost significantly more than the full integrated versions. I hope Intel gets a big swift kick in the ass so this sort of thing can change for the better.
     Reply
    Kaiser-Machead was starred Kaiser-Machead was unstarred
    Image of Panzer23 Panzer23
    12/03/09

    @Kaiser-Machead: With you there my friend.
     Reply
    Panzer23 was starred Panzer23 was unstarred
    Image of Monty Monty
    12/03/09

    In reply to The FTC Still Wants to Slay the Intel Monopoly Monster
    Is it just me or does it seem that every time the FTC gets around to stepping on a monopoly they are usually about half a decade late? Just curious.
     Reply
    Monty was starred Monty was unstarred
    Image of Nathan Obbards Nathan Obbards
    12/03/09

    @Monty: Cases take a while to build. I wish they could step in earlier, but by the time they have enough to mount a case, it's 5-10 years too late.
     Reply
    Nathan Obbards was starred Nathan Obbards was unstarred
    Image of RickyRogers RickyRogers
    11/23/09

    In reply to The Cell Processor Is Going Extinct (Updated)
    All's well that ends cell....
     Reply
    bagellord promoted this comment RickyRogers was starred RickyRogers was unstarred
    Image of bagellord bagellord
    11/23/09

    @RickyRogers: I see what you did there.
     Reply
    bagellord was starred bagellord was unstarred
    Image of vx2 vx2
    11/23/09

    In reply to The Cell Processor Is Going Extinct (Updated)
    But seeing all the educational, law enforcement and military uses of the chip (military being the operative word, like a few articles down about the air force), I thought it was going to be still vastly used and developed.
     Reply
    fuchikoma promoted this comment vx2 was starred vx2 was unstarred
    Image of Kirkaiya Kirkaiya
    11/23/09

    In reply to The Cell Processor Is Going Extinct (Updated)
    Aside from the PS3 stuff (Sony can always choose a different processor), the real loss is of another scalable, multi-core alternative to x86/x64.

    The PowerPC, the UltraSparc, the DEC/Compaq/Whoever "Alpha", are all either going, or near, extinct.

    "And one architecture to rule them all, one instruction set to bind them, one design to bring them all, and in the PC bind them..."
     Reply
    Kirkaiya was starred Kirkaiya was unstarred
    Image of Random434 Random434
    11/23/09

    @Kirkaiya: The cell was not an X86 compeditor.. the commercial cell was a RISC core, like PowerPC chips before it, along with the Cell stream processors it controled(. Basically, it was a CPU/GPU SOC.. With the RISC core controling the streams..

    It was, at best, a Co-Processor, like the GPUS on ATI and Nvidia cards.
     Reply
    Kirkaiya promoted this comment Edited by Random434 at 11/23/09 10:57 AM Random434 was starred Random434 was unstarred
    Image of podlinux podlinux
    11/23/09

    In reply to The Cell Processor Is Going Extinct (Updated)
    The cell CPU is hardly even fully utilized in the PS3 anyway. Most game devs don’t want to deal the difficulty of utilizing the CPU's full potential. Muti-core is likely the future for Playstaion.
     Reply
    ripfire promoted this comment Nathan Obbards approved this comment podlinux was starred podlinux was unstarred
    Image of ripfire ripfire
    11/23/09

    @podlinux: It doesn't get fully utilized because most of the processing goes to the GPU.
     Reply
    ripfire was starred ripfire was unstarred
    Image of Random434 Random434
    11/23/09

    In reply to The Cell Processor Is Going Extinct (Updated)
    Guessing it's just IBM's production of it. As Toshiba and Sony produce the chips they use at thier own fabs.. IBM was contuning development for use in Supercomputing.. The fact is that the performance was being bypassed by GPUs, and it wasn't a very attractive option as again, it was hard to code for. With Direct compute and Cuda, and Nvidia's C, & C++ compiler, ATI and Stream, it was being left behind.
     Reply
    spannu promoted this comment Random434 was starred Random434 was unstarred
    Image of spannu spannu
    11/23/09

    @Random434: Actually, it's not much harder to code for than any of those other extremely parallel designs. In a way, it sort of proved that they were necessary, and some of the technology is bound to get recycled into newer chips.
     Reply
    spannu was starred spannu was unstarred
    Image of Random434 Random434
    11/23/09

    @spannu: The "Harder to Code for" was for the immaturity of the compilers.. Where the Compiler code is better for the current gen of GPUs.
     Reply
    Random434 was starred Random434 was unstarred
    Image of helfrez helfrez
    11/23/09

    In reply to The Cell Processor Is Going Extinct (Updated)
    It just means ths PS4 won't have a cell chip. Being that Sony seems to be sticking to their 10yr console, I think its a non issue. By the time Sony release a PS4, their will be something significantly more powerfull out.

    Though it sounded like a silly comment at the time, but it's quite possible the PS3 could actually last 10yrs considering PS2s are still sold, and just recently started development halt. I think the 360 is already strained under the weight of it's games, but the PS3 is still going pretty strong. I give it 5 more years at least, which takes it out to 9yrs.

    Sux because the Cell was a kewl chip, nonissue when 8-16 core chips will be readily available by the time a next version is made.
     Reply
    Canoehead promoted this comment helfrez was starred helfrez was unstarred
    Image of Canoehead Canoehead
    11/23/09

    @helfrez: I'm not sure what you mean about "straining" - I am sure there are developers who would love to have more than 9GB of disc space to play with, but otherwise the 360 seems to be pretty powerful - powerful enough to cook itself anyway.
     Reply
    Canoehead was starred Canoehead was unstarred
    Image of emag emag
    11/23/09

    @helfrez: Hardly silly. Sony's 10-year strategy has been clear since the original PS1. There are ~5.5 years of active life and then ~5.5 years of life support.

    The PS1 launched in 1995 and had its last batch of strong games in 2000. It was discontinued in 2006.

    The PS2 launched in 2000 and had its last batch of strong games in 2006. It'll probably be discontinued in 2010/2011.

    The PS3 launched in 2006. It'll probably run strong until 2012, around the launch of its successor.
     Reply
    emag was starred emag was unstarred
    Image of Noobs-R-Us Noobs-R-Us
    11/23/09

    In reply to The Cell Processor Is Going Extinct (Updated)
    Does that mean no PS4s? Who will develope the next version? Who will keep making the current gen?
     Reply
    Noobs-R-Us was starred Noobs-R-Us was unstarred
    Image of wicketr wicketr
    11/23/09

    @Noobs-R-Us:
    That's a goooood question. With the PS3 supposed 10 year product. They will need the "Cell Processor" for about 6 more years.
     Reply
    wicketr was starred wicketr was unstarred
    Image of emag emag
    11/23/09

    @wicketr: The story is about IBM not continuing development of the Cell line. The PS3's Cell processor will continued to be manufactured and sold.
     Reply
    emag was starred emag was unstarred
    Image of ebob9 ebob9
    11/12/09

    In reply to Intel's 32nm Arrandale Core i5 and i7 Chips for Anorexic Notebooks
    About the right time for a Macbook Pro refresh.. #intel
     Reply
    Nathan Obbards promoted this comment ebob9 was starred ebob9 was unstarred
    Image of Nathan Obbards Nathan Obbards
    11/12/09

    @ebob9: Believe me, you would want a CULV in an MBP. You'd rather have the i5 or i7. #intel
     Reply
    Nathan Obbards was starred Nathan Obbards was unstarred
    Image of ian.nai ian.nai
    11/12/09

    In reply to AMD's Atom-Mauling Bobcat and High-End Bulldozer Chips
    Obviously trying to get Apple's attention with a name like that ;) #processors
     Reply
    Nathan Obbards promoted this comment ian.nai was starred ian.nai was unstarred
    Image of Nathan Obbards Nathan Obbards
    11/12/09

    @ian.nai: Leo, Puma, and Sandtiger are all codenames AMD has had in addition to Bobcat in the past. #processors
     Reply
    Nathan Obbards was starred Nathan Obbards was unstarred
    Image of geekymitch geekymitch
    11/12/09

    In reply to Intel's 32nm Arrandale Core i5 and i7 Chips for Anorexic Notebooks
    I need an explanation, as I've never been much of a hardware guy but...
    The lower the number, the less the processing power of a chip correct? So while lighter and less power-hungry is great, aren't these also less powerful, by a long way???

    If someone can explain I'd be grateful, as I clearly don't get it (still running a P4 on my desktop at home so, I'm a little bit behind I suppose) #intel
     Reply
    The5thElephant promoted this comment geekymitch was starred geekymitch was unstarred
    Image of The5thElephant The5thElephant
    11/12/09

    @geekymitch: It gets complicated now.

    First of all, not all GHz are equal. Back in the day when Intel and AMD were in major competition, Intel chips ran at higher Hz while AMD ran "better" Hz, meaning a lower Hz AMD machine was equivalent to a higher Intel one. This still applies today as one moves from one processor generation to the next.

    Also these new i5/i7 processors can significantly over-clock or under-clock themselves in real-time according to need and energy efficiency. #intel
     Reply
    The5thElephant was starred The5thElephant was unstarred
    Image of D0rk D0rk
    11/12/09

    In reply to Intel's 32nm Arrandale Core i5 and i7 Chips for Anorexic Notebooks
    So these are the chips that everyone over at MacRumors is praying they get in the new MacBook Pro's in 2010?

    They certainly look delicious.. #intel
     Reply
    Nathan Obbards promoted this comment D0rk was starred D0rk was unstarred
    Image of Nathan Obbards Nathan Obbards
    11/12/09

    @D0rk: I think they're praying for mobile i5s and i7s. These are CULV chips, by the sounds of it, which you see in the Acer Timeline and similar laptops. Such a chip would be better suited for the Air than the MBP. [en.wikipedia.org] #intel
     Reply
    Nathan Obbards was starred Nathan Obbards was unstarred
    Image of Software_Goddess Software_Goddess
    11/12/09

    In reply to AMD's Atom-Mauling Bobcat and High-End Bulldozer Chips
    Awesome! I love AMD. I’m glad to see they are back in the running. #processors
     Reply
    Software_Goddess was starred Software_Goddess was unstarred
    Image of ezrashapiro ezrashapiro
    11/12/09

    In reply to Intel's 32nm Arrandale Core i5 and i7 Chips for Anorexic Notebooks
    How is it that these slower processors are SO much better? Giz, can you do a piece on this? #intel
     Reply
    ezrashapiro was starred ezrashapiro was unstarred
    Image of archercc archercc
    11/12/09

    @ezrashapiro: They arent really slower. These are replacing older Core2 chips of the same speed that went into tiny laptops. They were ultra low voltage chips so they werent as powerful as the bigger ones going into desktops.

    The ones they will be announcing in Jan for desktops will be much faster, as fast or more than the current crops. #intel
     Reply
    Nathan Obbards promoted this comment archercc was starred archercc was unstarred
    Image of Kirkaiya Kirkaiya
    11/12/09

    @ezrashapiro: Well, it's not clear from the very brief Giz post whether the new "thin" Core i7/i5 chips will be quad-core or dual-core. Obviously, a CPU with 4 cores running at 1.2 GHz is, for many things, faster than a 2-core chip running at 1.8 GHz (for example).

    And since these new chips can dynamically speed up one core, while slowing down/shutting down another, for single-threaded apps that don't use multiple cores well, the overall effect is a more powerful chip.

    Finally, the Core i7/i5 family uses a new architecture (design), which speeds up communications between the cores and between the cpu and memory, among other things. Just like a 4-cylinder Lotus engine beats the crap out of a 4-cylinder Chrysler... #intel
     Reply
    Kirkaiya was starred Kirkaiya was unstarred
    Image of andyo andyo
    11/13/09

    @Kirkaiya: Arrandale and Clarkdale will only be dual core in their whole lifetime. They do have an on-package GPU, so that's taking up the space. On-die GPU plus quad-core will come with Sandy Bridge in late 2010 or 2011.
     Reply
    Kirkaiya promoted this comment Edited by andyo at 11/13/09 5:37 AM andyo was starred andyo was unstarred
    Image of ezrashapiro ezrashapiro
    11/13/09

    @Kirkaiya: Thanks again. It's still not completely clear but perhaps it more an issue of programs knowing how to use the new hardware. I have an x9100 in my laptop with 4 GB of DDR2 RAM, and from the benchmarks, it rates higher than some quad core desktop processors, so it's still not completely clear. I understand the theory, but in practice with everyday computing, I want to see the theory flesh out. #intel
     Reply
    ezrashapiro was starred ezrashapiro was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gizmodo account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.