Intel rolls out 'breakthrough' chip tech bound for Macs

[AppleInsider]

Intel Corp. has taken the wraps off of a new 45 nanometer processor technology that could be a cure-all for performance and power roadblocks threatening to frustrate the personal computer industry over next few years -- and a reality in shipping Macs by the end of 2007.

Known today only as "Penryn," the design uses a blend of hafnium and other rare metals in its transistors to keep the flow of electricity in check, reducing the amount of power leakage by as much as ten times over today's Core 2 and Xeon processors.

The refined process will allow many more transistors to fit on to a single chip -- as many as 800 million in a quad-core version, Intel said -- while still cutting back on the heat and power levels that are the bane of most CPUs.

While fundamentally a mirror of the Core 2 architecture introduced in mid-2006, Penryn's nearly doubled chip density compared to existing 65 nanometer versions both reduces the delays in crunching instructions and leaves space for more features. The updated chips will contain a whopping 12MB of second-level cache on a dual-core model, up 50 percent from the Core 2 Duo. They'll also contain a new set of instructions titled SSE4 that will help with media decoding and other vector code.

All this will be possible while continuing to ramp up clock speeds and improve power management, Intel said in a statement over the past weekend.

The Santa Clara-based chipmaker has planned an equally pleasant surprise in a prompt release of the new technology. Even as rivals are still adjusting to the idea of 65nm processors,the company noted that the newfound freedom gained from switching to 45nm will let it ship Penryn as soon as the second half of 2007 -- several months ahead of a similar development from AMD and IBM.

A close-up of a 300mm silicon test wafer made using Intel's 45nm process technology

Fully-functional processors are already being used in prototype machines. In total, Intel said fifteen different chips are in the works for systems ranging from workstations and servers to heat- and power-sensitive laptops.

At least some of these designs are headed to the Mac platform. Breaking with Apple's tradition of absolute secrecy in advance of official releases, the chipmaker revealed that it had specifically booted and run Mac OS X on the new processor design. Unsurprisingly, no specific testbed models were mentioned; however, the sweeping nature of the Penryn overhaul points to Apple receiving the die-shrunk Core 2 and Xeon systems as soon as the summer's end.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
[ Digg this Story ]

[Eduardo]

Bloody amazing!

Geez, hard to believe the rate of processor upgrades back in the "Power PC" days.

Who would have thought that Apple would upgrade their machines in a span of just months prior to having Intel provide the CPU's (for example the recent bump to the Macbooks).

[retroneo]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The updated chips will contain a whopping 12MB of second-level cache on a dual-core model, up 50 percent from the Core 2 Duo.

I think you mean 12MB on the quad core models, as they already contain 8MB of L2 cache. Penryn is set to have 6MB L2 cache on the dual core models.

[solipsism]

Rhetorical Questions:

Is there still anyone who thinks Apple make a poor choice by going with Intel over other chip makers?

I wonder how far AMD stock will drop today?

[ThinkExpensive]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Rhetorical Questions:

Is there still anyone who thinks Apple make a poor choice by going with Intel over other chip makers?

I wonder how far AMD stock will drop today?

Nope, Intel's blowing AMD away lately with announcements. They're spending a LOT in r&d though, cutting into their profits signficantly last I heard.

[polyester]

I've never seen such a pretty photo of a silicon test wafer.

[onlooker]

Not to burst any bubbles here because I am totally behind the intel switch, but IBM made the announcement of the same technology at the same time, and if they are still working with AMD, AMD wont be too far behind.

IBM, Intel pace each other with improved transistors

[Booga]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Penryn's nearly doubled chip density compared to existing 65 nanometer versions both reduces the delays in crunching instructions and leaves space for more features.

I'm just curious about the math where 65 is double 45. A "50% increase" in density seems closer to reality. Or is there something else besides the nm measurement feeding the additional density?

Still, I want one. Hopefully Apple will either release their mid-range mini or a laptop with a docking station this year. (Need more than a mini, already have 2 monitors so not getting an iMac, can't justify a Pro, and see no point in a laptop without a dock for me personally.)

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by Booga

I'm just curious about the math where 65 is double 45. A "50% increase" in density seems closer to reality.

I was wondering the same thing...

[elwood56]

Originally Posted by Booga

I'm just curious about the math where 65 is double 45. A "50% increase" in density seems closer to reality. Or is there something else besides the nm measurement feeding the additional density?

(surface) density = n * (area)^(-1) = n * (length)^(-2)

[fahlman]

Originally Posted by onlooker

Not to burst any bubbles here because I am totally behind the intel switch, but IBM made the announcement of the same technology at the same time, and if they are still working with AMD, AMD wont be too far behind.

IBM, Intel pace each other with improved transistors

About a year.

[tonton]

Originally Posted by Booga

I'm just curious about the math where 65 is double 45. A "50% increase" in density seems closer to reality. Or is there something else besides the nm measurement feeding the additional density?

Still, I want one. Hopefully Apple will either release their mid-range mini or a laptop with a docking station this year. (Need more than a mini, already have 2 monitors so not getting an iMac, can't justify a Pro, and see no point in a laptop without a dock for me personally.)

The area of the chip, not the linear density.

[retroneo]

Originally Posted by Booga

I'm just curious about the math where 65 is double 45.

65 x 65 = 4225
45 x 45 = 2025

The 45nm process is more than twice as dense as the 65nm process.

[MauiMac]

Which system will most likely use this chip?

[retroneo]

Originally Posted by MauiMac

Which system will most likely use this chip?

The penryn family of chips includes chips for laptops and desktops. Yorkfield and Wolfdale are desktop. Montevina is the laptop family that includes a penryn-class processor.

[trevorlsciact]

Originally Posted by polyester

I've never seen such a pretty photo of a silicon test wafer.

exactly what I was thinking.

[CoolHandPete]

Originally Posted by retroneo

The penryn family of chips includes chips for laptops and desktops. Yorkfield and Wolfdale are desktop. Montevina is the laptop family that includes a penryn-class processor.

Do you guys make these names up?

(I know you don't, but it sure sounds like you do.)

I'm waiting for the Washingraham to find its way into the Mac Pro and the Schnauzerdoodle to take over the laptop class.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by retroneo

65 x 65 = 4225
45 x 45 = 2025

The 45nm process is more than twice as dense as the 65nm process.

Thank you for a clear/helpful answer!

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by elwood56

(surface) density = n * (area)^(-1) = n * (length)^(-2)

If that made sense to us, we probably wouldn't have asked in the first place...

[ZachPruckowski]

Originally Posted by retroneo

The penryn family of chips includes chips for laptops and desktops. Yorkfield and Wolfdale are desktop. Montevina is the laptop family that includes a penryn-class processor.

Isn't montevina the Centrino after Santa Rosa? I thought Penryn was the name for the family and the laptop processor?

Also, the server versions of this may need new chipsets, because the current chipset in my Mac Pro is only rated to handle 50x0s (P4-based), 51x0s (Woodcrest), and 53x0s (Clovertown).

Also, the desktop version might require Bearlake (the 1333 MHz desktop chipset w/ PCIe 2.0) and the laptop versions will need Socket P (part of Santa Rosa, coming soon).

[Rolo]

I was all set to buy a new, spring MBP based on the Santa Rosa platform so what do I do now, wait until the fall for a Penryn system? Will it be slightly faster, slightly cooler, and have a bit more battery life? Is it worth the wait? I've got a 9/03 PB and would like to get a MBP with Leopard.

[Inkling]

I couldn't have heard worse news. As a writer, my budget is tight, so each upgrade has to last a long time. I waited for Core 2 because Core 1 was too hot. That was easy. Now, just as I was about to bite down on a juicy Macbook, Apple and Intel dangle this tempting bit of bait in the water, saying "Just wait a few more months and look what you'll get." The jerks! Why can't it be like before, when in a good year a PPC chip might get a meager 100 MHz boost. Blankity, blankity, blank that Intel.

The good side of fast-changing technology is that there's always something better in the pipeline. The bad side is also that there's always something better in the pipeline.

--Mike Perry, Untangling Tolkien (LOTR chronology)

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by elwood56

(surface) density = n * (area)^(-1) = n * (length)^(-2)

Thanks Spock for clearing that up for all of us.

[mjteix]

Originally Posted by retroneo

The penryn family of chips includes chips for laptops and desktops. Yorkfield and Wolfdale are desktop. Montevina is the laptop family that includes a penryn-class processor.

I believe Montevina is the codename for the next mobile/centrino platform (just like Santa Rosa is the platform codename for the soon-to-be-released merom+800FSB platform). But it doesn't matter much.
Harpertown also seems to be the codename for the quad-core server version (Clovertown 45nm update).
That leaves room for another chip to make them 5 (5 chips were demo'ed if I remember well). Maybe it's a new dual-core Xeon whose code name should end in "crest" (Woodcrest 45nm update).

"Penryn": dual-core mobile 45nm CPU (up to 2.xxGHz, 1066FSB on the Montevina platform!) for the MacBook, MBP, Mac mini, iMac
Wolfdale: dual-core desktop 45nm CPU (close to 4.00GHz, 1333FSB with the Bearlake chipset) for ???
Yorkfield: quad-core desktop 45nm CPU (up to 3.xxGHz, 1066FSB with the Bearlake chipset) for ???
"SomethingCrest": dual-core server 45nm CPU (close to 4.00GHz, 1333FSB with the Seaburg chipset) for the Mac Pro, Xserve
HarperTown: quad-core server 45nm CPU (up to 3.xxGHz, 1333FSB with the Seaburg chipset) for the Mac Pro, Xserve

The last I've checked it was more like:
1-Yorkfield between Q3 and Q4 2007 and possibly HarperTown (same chip, different package)
2-Wolfdale between Q4 2007 and Q1 2008 and possibly "SomethingCrest" (same chip, different package)
3-"Penryn" between Q4 2007 and Q1 2008

Hey CoolHandPete, we don't come up with those names, Intel does!
It gets sometimes confusing with codenames for chips, chipsets (and sometimes, parts of chipsets) and "platform" codenames (ensemble of chips and chipsets).

Just to say that 2007 AND 2008 will be very interesting years. Maybe Apple will finally give up and release another desktop form factor computer using Yorkfield/Wolfdale/Bearlake.

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by Inkling

I couldn't have heard worse news. As a writer, my budget is tight, so each upgrade has to last a long time. I waited for Core 2 because Core 1 was too hot. That was easy. Now, just as I was about to bite down on a juicy Macbook, Apple and Intel dangle this tempting bit of bait in the water, saying "Just wait a few more months and look what you'll get." The jerks! Why can't it be like before, when in a good year a PPC chip might get a meager 100 MHz boost. Blankity, blankity, blank that Intel.

The good side of fast-changing technology is that there's always something better in the pipeline. The bad side is also that there's always something better in the pipeline.

--Mike Perry, Untangling Tolkien (LOTR chronology)

If you don't need that MacBook by September then i'd wait too, otherwise you have to bite like the rest of us.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by elwood56

(surface) density = n * (area)^(-1) = n * (length)^(-2)

Yeah. What he said.

[bobo28]

If AMD/IBM come out with something better, what stops Apple from switching , or more likely adding ? OSX is clearly multi-platform capable and has been for some time. I wonder how long Apple has to remain exclusively Intel? Then again , if Intel keeps on innovating at this rate , what difference does it make ?
In my case it just means I'll really use my current tower and PB until I can't stand them any more, then bite the bullet . . . at least I'll be getting real improvements . . . I hope !

[Benton]

How will prospective chip speeds and multiple cores affect the development and target release date for Leopard at Apple WWDC in June 2007?

[ksec]

Originally Posted by Inkling

I couldn't have heard worse news. As a writer, my budget is tight, so each upgrade has to last a long time. I waited for Core 2 because Core 1 was too hot. That was easy. Now, just as I was about to bite down on a juicy Macbook, Apple and Intel dangle this tempting bit of bait in the water, saying "Just wait a few more months and look what you'll get." The jerks! Why can't it be like before, when in a good year a PPC chip might get a meager 100 MHz boost. Blankity, blankity, blank that Intel.

The good side of fast-changing technology is that there's always something better in the pipeline. The bad side is also that there's always something better in the pipeline.

--Mike Perry, Untangling Tolkien (LOTR chronology)

Well that has only happen in the last year or so ever since Intel changed leadership. Before Pentium 4 didn't offered much more performance with each upgrade.

Core 2 Duo has increase the performance as well as lower power consumption. Penryn is about to make this even better late this year. Not to mention Nalehem coming in late 2008 that will bring another 300% increase in performance / watt.

In my own view intel is now paying up for the performance we were suppose to have over the past 5 - 6 years.

[sunilraman]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

....The design uses a blend of hafnium and other rare metals in its transistors to keep the flow of electricity in check, reducing the amount of power leakage by as much as ten times over today's Core 2 and Xeon processors...

Bloody hell I don't ever recall "Hafnium" being on the periodic table, it sounds "made up". Actually it is there - AtomicNumber 72 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafnium ... Part of transitional metals, "Hafnium is a shiny silvery, ductile metal that is corrosion resistant and chemically similar to zirconium".

[sunilraman]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...The chipmaker revealed that it had specifically booted and run Mac OS X on the new processor design....

*Jaw drops through the floor* OSX booted and ran so fast it opened a wormhole and the technician testing it actually travelled backwards through time and ended up in the North Pole.

[sunilraman]

Originally Posted by onlooker

Not to burst any bubbles here because I am totally behind the intel switch, but IBM made the announcement of the same technology at the same time, and if they are still working with AMD, AMD wont be too far behind.

IBM, Intel pace each other with improved transistors

Not to burst *your* bubble ... but Intel is delivering strongly on *real world shipping and very affordable widespread availability* 65nm chips. Similarly, 45nm towards the end of this year. In the bigger picture, they are absolutely positively whipping IBM and AMD's ass.

AFAIK AMD is only going to deliver 65nm in the 2nd half of 2007, and even then, I wonder about the prices of singlecore and dualcore CPUs, and their performance compared to Core2. Admittedly, Intel's ravaging stride has cost them profits, but... well, we'll see. Who cares about Intel's profits when Apple is doing so well and getting sweet CPUs .

[sunilraman]

Originally Posted by bobo28

If AMD/IBM come out with something better, what stops Apple from switching , or more likely adding ? OSX is clearly multi-platform capable and has been for some time. I wonder how long Apple has to remain exclusively Intel? Then again , if Intel keeps on innovating at this rate , what difference does it make ?
In my case it just means I'll really use my current tower and PB until I can't stand them any more, then bite the bullet . . . at least I'll be getting real improvements . . . I hope !

Intel is the clear winner going right through to MacWorld January 2009 SanFrancisco. 8)

[sunilraman]

Originally Posted by Benton

How will prospective chip speeds and multiple cores affect the development and target release date for Leopard at Apple WWDC in June 2007?

It will not. Leopard is being prepped for proper 64-bit support. This is good. Leopard and Universal Binary applications run multiple threads. This is good, given multitasking, the OS and apps will make good use of even 8-16 cores going into 2008. Leopard may or may not already include SSE4 in its maiden release in the Accelerate.framework (AFAIK). Leopard will very likely include SSE4 in subsequent updates if SSE4 support is not built-in with Leopard 10.5.0. MacOSX Leopard is proving to be a brilliantly engineered operating system that can run on anything from a PowerPC 500mhz G3 (AFAIK) up to a 8-core Xeon down to a modified version on Samsung-CPU driven iPhone. Leopard is looking goooooood.

Also, Leopard should be released in April 2007, otherwise May 2007, not during WWDC in June 2007. IMHO. 8)

[ecking]

Awww wtf it looks like I have to get a new notebook late this year, again.

Damn technology is raping the pockets My wallet's still in therapy from my mbp and I just might have to do it all again...one year later.

[emig647]

Originally Posted by Rolo

I was all set to buy a new, spring MBP based on the Santa Rosa platform so what do I do now, wait until the fall for a Penryn system? Will it be slightly faster, slightly cooler, and have a bit more battery life? Is it worth the wait? I've got a 9/03 PB and would like to get a MBP with Leopard.

If you're set to buy one, I'd go ahead and buy it. You're always going to play the waiting game if you go by news like this. Us mac users aren't used to so many updates so quickly. Look how fast we've gone from Yonah to Merom and about to go to Santa Rosa. Since it's a mbp and it's not upgradeable, go ahead and get one. If it was a mac pro, I might tell you to hold off since the chipsets may change and pci-e may convert to pci-e 2.0. This would kill any future drop in replacements with current towers. I don't expect a HUGE performance increase going from the next rev of Mac Pros / MBPs to the 45nm chips.

[blackwave]

Bloody glad, still, that I bought my meron MBP when I did. I needed it, it's been fantastic, and I couldn't have held off forever. As nice as OLED backlighting, 45nm chipsets, quad-core and a new enclosure would be, I needed a laptop in and of itself more.

You can't hold off forever, guys.

[sunilraman]

Originally Posted by blackwave

Bloody glad, still, that I bought my meron MBP when I did. I needed it, it's been fantastic, and I couldn't have held off forever. As nice as OLED backlighting, 45nm chipsets, quad-core and a new enclosure would be, I needed a laptop in and of itself more.

You can't hold off forever, guys.

Yeah, Core2Duo is obsolete !!! Yay muah ha ha h ahah ah ahh ahah ha ...I'm glad I didn't get a Core2Duo, instead an eBay'ed MacBook Core[1]Duo with 2gb RAM 2ghz CPU. Fan noise is the only niggle, but a good chance to learn and help my perfectionist ways to be more forgiving... *sniff*... Come home soon, my precioussss (LCD screen being swapped because of 1 dead pixel and 2 small white spots....! yay!)...

I agree blackwave, seriously, even in mid-2008 I would not know what I would do with a 4 or 8 core 45nm CPU MacBook/Pro running at 3ghz ...Though Apple will of course make it heart-crushingly desirable and ultra teh sexy.

[132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR
...so I take it now is not a good time to spend £4000 on a Mac Pro,
and that I should wait for these new chips ?



Its just like the old days again...

EDIT_1: However, no doubt this is good news for everyone, its not for me.
It means my investment will be obselete very quickly

Why cant the industry stay stagnant for just a year or two ? :-/

[sunilraman]

Originally Posted by 132GHz,4TB DDR8 SDRAM,95TB HDD

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR
...so I take it now is not a good time to spend £4000 on a Mac Pro,
and that I should wait for these new chips ?

And what would you use your Mac Pro for that you CAN recoup £4000 within 1-3 years?