[Ken_F2]

Intel announced this morning that its next-generation processors would be launching in six weeks. Woodcrest (server) launches in June, Conroe (desktop) in July, and Merom (notebook) in August. At WWDC in August, Mac users can expect a complete overhaul of Apple's entire lineup featuring this next-generation architecture, which offers superior performance and 64-bit capability.

You can read more in this pdf, released by Intel this morning (see slide 21):

Intel Spring 2006 Analyst Meeting

Intel also briefly discussed its next-generation architecture after Core, codenamed Nehalem, coming in 2H 2008. It will pickup where the Core architecture left off, further improving performance per watt.

[rickey939]

w00t.

I like how they stole the iCal icon for their presentation....

[mduell]

With Woodcrest launching first and Clovertown reportedly ahead of schedule, we may just see a dual quad pro tower.

[goMac]

Apparently Apple has finally lost the Motorola effect.

[Millennium]

...and still chained to the junk architecture that is x86. And thus, the state of the art continues to be years behind where it could be.

[Sijmen]

Originally Posted by Millennium

...and still chained to the junk architecture that is x86. And thus, the state of the art continues to be years behind where it could be.

True.

I'm just wondering, what if Intel gave the Power instructions a shot, would they be able to design a better CPU than IBM?

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by goMac

Apparently Apple has finally lost the Motorola effect.

Don't be so sure, Apple seems to be bad luck to CPU manufacturers:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04...php?lsrc=mwrss

[Salty]

Nice, hopefully I'll be able to get my Merom laptop for next school year

[Mike Pither]

Originally Posted by Millennium

...and still chained to the junk architecture that is x86. And thus, the state of the art continues to be years behind where it could be.

I really don't understand this comment. The powerPC processore may be state of the art in some way or another but nobody has so far managed to consistently get it to perform as well the x86. Look what happened to the G5. It was much touted at the start but the upgrades were slow coming and a portable version it seems was not practical / possible. Apple seemed to have no choice but to jump ship as far as I can see if they wanted to be competive.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Millennium

...and still chained to the junk architecture that is x86. And thus, the state of the art continues to be years behind where it could be.

Unless you do assembly programming, I see no real reason to be downbeat on x86. It'll be replaced eventually, but PowerPC never lived up to the platform it was supposed to be. In a utopian fantasy PowerPC would have won out, but no one was really producing it in quantities needed, and it's become more a utility processor than a computing processor.

[Chuckit]

It seems like Millennium basically feels Apple should have become a processor house and singlehandedly made the PowerPC reach its potential in the absence of interest from Moto or IBM. This would have been nice, but I do kind of understand why it's not reasonable.

[quilmes]

Originally Posted by rickey939

w00t.

I like how they stole the iCal icon for their presentation....

it's a good thing. their focus should be shifting!

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Don't be so sure, Apple seems to be bad luck to CPU manufacturers:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04...php?lsrc=mwrss

The cuts will probably be mostly in the flash memory area (which lost over $100M in the last quarter) rather than the CPU area.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Millennium

...and still chained to the junk architecture that is x86. And thus, the state of the art continues to be years behind where it could be.

Meh. You're sound almost as bad as the OS-9-roolz-all freaks.

[Brass]

Kind of sneaky of Intel to use the word "core" in naming the current line up of chips (CoreDuo and CoreSolo), when these chips are really just glorified Pentiums, and not actually using the "Core" architecture at all.

I guess it's fair enough, because the CoreDuo is a dual-core chip, but it is a little misleading when they're rabbiting on about their new Core architecture, and, oh, here's the CoreDuo!

However, it is good news that the REAL Core chips will be available for Macs soon. Finally there will be an answer to all the nay-sayers who complained about Apple abandoning 64-bit, and Alti-Vec. The (real) core chips will be 64 bit, and have a vector processing unit that is (arguably) as good as or even better than Alti-Vec (according to Ars Technica). It's sure better than MMX, etc in the Pentiums!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Brass

Kind of sneaky of Intel to use the word "core" in naming the current line up of chips (CoreDuo and CoreSolo), when these chips are really just glorified Pentiums, and not actually using the "Core" architecture at all.

I guess it's fair enough, because the CoreDuo is a dual-core chip, but it is a little misleading when they're rabbiting on about their new Core architecture, and, oh, here's the CoreDuo!

However, it is good news that the REAL Core chips will be available for Macs soon. Finally there will be an answer to all the nay-sayers who complained about Apple abandoning 64-bit, and Alti-Vec. The (real) core chips will be 64 bit, and have a vector processing unit that is (arguably) as good as or even better than Alti-Vec (according to Ars Technica). It's sure better than MMX, etc in the Pentiums!

Huh? The Core architecture is based off the Pentium architecture. Core chips are glorified P3's. The chips we have now are real Cores, and even have the 64 bit functionality, but for some reason Intel cut it off for this series.

We also already have our Alt-vec competitor. It's called SSE3. SSE was in the Pentiums, and SSE3 was in the Pentium 4. I'm sure they'll improve SSE3 in later designs but we already have it.

[Lateralus]

Pffft... SSE3 doesn't approach the power of AltiVec.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Pffft... SSE3 doesn't approach the power of AltiVec.

I said competitor, not equal.

Regardless, it is the Altivec competitor refereed to, and it's already in the Core, regardless of how optimized.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by goMac

Huh? The Core architecture is based off the Pentium architecture. Core chips are glorified P3's. The chips we have now are real Cores, and even have the 64 bit functionality, but for some reason Intel cut it off for this series.

Not if you believe the in depth review and discussion at ArsTechnica...
Review
Discussion

Check the discussion, in particular.

Intel would like you to think that CoreDuo and CoreSolo are part of their new "Core" architecture, but they are not. They are just glorified Pentiums. The Conroe and Merom will be the first of the Core architecture chips.

The real Core chips are not simply based on Pentiums. Yes, they will support the same instruction set, and will therefore be x86 chips, but the architecture is different. Architecture and instruction set are not necessarily the same thing.

When the real Core chips are finally released, they may continue to use the "CoreDuo" and "CoreSolo" brand names, and therefore you could say that CoreDuos use the Core micro architecture. But the current CoreDuo chips do not.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Pffft... SSE3 doesn't approach the power of AltiVec.

Altivec is great, but doesn't overcome the other shortcomings of current PowerPC chips.

PowerPC in Macs is history (or soon will be). Time to move on. And I am writing this on my PowerPC iMac too.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Brass

Not if you believe the in depth review and discussion at ArsTechnica...
Review
Discussion

Check the discussion, in particular.

Intel would like you to think that CoreDuo and CoreSolo are part of their new "Core" architecture, but they are not. They are just glorified Pentiums. The Conroe and Merom will be the first of the Core architecture chips.

The real Core chips are not simply based on Pentiums. Yes, they will support the same instruction set, and will therefore be x86 chips, but the architecture is different. Architecture and instruction set are not necessarily the same thing.

When the real Core chips are finally released, they may continue to use the "CoreDuo" and "CoreSolo" brand names, and therefore you could say that CoreDuos use the Core micro architecture. But the current CoreDuo chips do not.

All Cores, whether released now or in the future, are based on the Pentium 3 and the Pentium M architecture. The Core is a Pentium even though it has a different name.

The Core is not a Netburst chip, yes. But the only Netburst chips were the Pentium 4's. Yes, the Core is not related at all to the P4. But it is heavily related to the P3. SSE, the Altivec like technology you are talking about, was introduced with the Pentium 4.

The lineage goes like this:
Pentium 3->Pentium M->Core Duo

I don't know where you're getting this new not based on Pentium stuff from, but it's not in that Ars article. As quoted from the article:

"Before I get into the more technical discussion of Core's features, I want to quickly spell out how I view Core's relationship to its predecessors. As Intel has repeatedly claimed, Core is a new microarchitecture that was designed from scratch with today's performance and power consumption needs in mind. Nonetheless, Core does draw heavily on its predecessors, taking the best of the Pentium 4 and the Pentium M (Banias) and rolling them into a design that looks much more like the latter than the former."

They're using a Pentium M as their design modal. The Core is a Pentium M. Apple said the same thing about XCode, how they designed XCode from scratch. Most OS X developers here will know that's not exactly true.

As for why SSE3 sucks, it's because SSE3 operations are done using the same general registers software uses on the CPU. This means in order to do an SSE3 operation, you need to move those registers off and on the stack. Ick.

In the discussion they say that the current Core is not a Core because it's not 64 bit. This is a lame argument for two reasons. The current Core has the 64 bit extensions onboard, they were just cut on the silicon, and the 64 bit extensions are just that, extensions. Pentiums can be 64 bit or not 64 bit. Same is true of the Core.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by goMac

Yes, the Core is not related at all to the P4.

Except that it's dependent on the P4's pathetic bus architecture.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Except that it's dependent on the P4's pathetic bus architecture.

Yeah, it's not as nice as the G5's, but for machines bumped from G4's, it's a blessing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Millennium

...and still chained to the junk architecture that is x86. And thus, the state of the art continues to be years behind where it could be.

I didn't know Debbie Downer was a mod.

[Ken_F2]

The Core is not a Netburst chip, yes. But the only Netburst chips were the Pentium 4's. Yes, the Core is not related at all to the P4.

The new Core architecture does use the P4's bus design, but yes, aside from that, the similarities end.

But it is heavily related to the P3. SSE, the Altivec like technology you are talking about, was introduced with the Pentium 4.

Well, you could say the same thing, but substitute P3 for Pentium Pro. The new Core architecture is "heavily related" to the P3 in the same way that the G4 was "heavily related" to the original PowerPC. They are all based on the same general design choices with each new processor building upon what was learned (and designed) from the last.

Every processor from the Pentium Pro -> P2 -> P3 -> Pentium M -> Core Duo -> Core NGA has been an expansion upon the original Pentium Pro, which was Intel's first modern superscaler processor. The P2 added MMX, the P3 added vector ALUs for SSE, the Pentium M incorporated micro-op and macro-op fusion plus extensive clock and power gating, and the Core Duo expanded upon the clock and power gating and incorporated a shared cache for dual core. This trend continues with the new Core architecture.

I don't think it's really appropriate to trivialize the design differences between the existing Core Duo and Core architecture line. The Core architecture was designed from the ground up to do 4 uops/cycle, which is a major departure from all previous Intel designs. Whereas previous Intel processors (outside of the P4) simply took the previous design and added onto it, or took one piece and changed it, virtually every part of NGMA was rearchitected to support the wider issue design. The new architecture also incorporates architectural features never before seen on any x86 processor, such as memory disambiguation from the ill-fated Alpha EV8 design.

In terms of core logic, the Core architecture represents a three-fold change over any previous processor release; more than three times the logic changes seen from the Ppro->P2, P2->P3, and P3->Pentium M.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Ken_F2

The new Core architecture does use the P4's bus design, but yes, aside from that, the similarities end.

All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what HAVE the Romans done for US?

[Chuckit]

That is an excellent example. The United States took many ideas (directly and indirectly) from the Romans, but to say America is "a glorified Rome" is pretty far out there.

[mduell]

The confusion between Core Duo the CPU and Core NGMA the architecture is annoying. Intel wants to emphasize the emphasis on the number of cores, but it ends up introducing ambiguity.

Nehalem has been on Intel's roadmap for years; IIRC it was originally supposed to debut in 2005. Some of the recent rumors say Core/NGMA will be short-lived, and Nehalem will replace it in 2008.

Does VMX/AltiVec support 64-bit data types yet, or does it still only accept 4 32-bit values? Have IBM or Freescale made any significant changes to VMX/Altivec since the PPC970/PPC744x launched?

What's the "everyday" impact of FSB speed (ceteris paribus) on CPU performance?

[Eug Wanker]

I don't give a frack that Yonah isn't the same arch as Merom. It's fast and low power, so I like. And I'll like Merom even more when it comes out, cuz it will have an even better performance to Watt ratio.

[Salty]

I'll like the fact that I'll have a MacBook that'll smack my current PowerBook!