This is how much difference one week will make. Cinbench scores will be updated next week. Thuban without HT, but with real threads, all six of them.
Please try to break the images up so they don't stretch across the page next time.
Well, AMD's extra cores are just integer cores, so if work is just integer, it will be fine. But there are still problems. If a four core Phenom II goes against a four core Intel design, what happens then? Intel still has hyperthreading in addition to the four cores. It also have much better FP. AMD is relying on the GPU for most of that, and right now, that could lead to problems. One is that they can't control which gpu is being used. So FP will vary.
In addition, Intel's hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die, an insignificant amount, but AMD's extra core adds 50%, a rather big piece of real estate. How is that going to affect yields? AMD has had yield problems several times in the past three years.
And let's not forget that Intel has 6 core chips, all with hyperthreading.
Of course, this also depends on AMD not screwing up as they did.
Cores are cores and performance is performance. At least, this is how Intel is marketing i5 & i7 platforms against it's own c2q. Do you think consumers would mind whether a cpu has two real extra cores vs. HT when performance benefit is there for much less price? If you can have i7 975 performance with Thuban 1090T at 1/3 of the price, who would care what core/core performance is? People care more about price/performance. Your argument is weak.
I am about to build a new HTPC/video encoding PC, and I would be stupid to pay 3X more for the intel cpu and 2X more for intel chipset mobo to get comparable performance out the it. I can save roughly $800 going with Thuban 1090T with AMD 890 chipset mobo. $800 can be used on SSD and high-end ATI/AMD video card instead to make it into a serious gaming rig. For $800, you can even build a second Thuban 1090T system. I guess HT is more important for some people. Perhaps, we should measure threads/chip or performance/thread?
Cores are cores and performance is performance. At least, this is how Intel is marketing i5 & i7 platforms against it's own c2q. Do you think consumers would mind whether a cpu has two real extra cores vs. HT when performance benefit is there for much less price? If you can have i7 975 performance with Thuban 1090T at 1/3 of the price, who would care what core/core performance is? People care more about price/performance. Your argument is weak.
I am about to build a new HTPC/video encoding PC, and I would be stupid to pay 3X more for the intel cpu and 2X more for intel chipset mobo to get comparable performance out the it. I can save roughly $800 going with Thuban 1090T with AMD 890 chipset mobo. $800 can be used on SSD and high-end ATI/AMD video card instead to make it into a serious gaming rig. For $800, you can even build a second Thuban 1090T system. I guess HT is more important for some people. Perhaps, we should measure threads/chip or performance/thread?
Of course we're comparing two cores to four, but as we all know intel does have 4 core chips, and will have cheaper ones before too long. They will also drop these prices as they do every few months. It won't be too long before Intel's 4 core chips will cost the same as AMD's, at least the ones that aren't already. Then what will AMD do?
I don't agree. Arrandale is a great chip. Apple has found the best way to deal with both graphics IPs. When you don't need it, the gpu is idle. When you don't need it, you REALLY don't need it. The quality of Arrandale's graphics is irrelevant.
For many applications where the CPU core of ARRANDALE would be ideal it is very relevant. The built in GPU on this SKU weakens its position in the marketplace. Frankly it makes many AMD solutions look appealing because systems aren't all about he CPU, everything has to work in an orderly and performant manner in a modern PC.
There is no doubt that in some benchmarks AMD chips follow Intel chips when looking at CPU performance. However raw CPU performances is only part of the equation.
It's the cheapest and smallest machine in the line. What about it?
Core 2 seems to be fine for it right now. Later in the year they will be refreshed.
Everything will be refreshed later in the year. The question is how do you get past C2D in the 13" MBP? There are actually ways to do that with Intel hardware at the cost of a larger motherboard and in fact personally I'd rather see Apple trash the Optical Drive and concentrate on higher performance in the 13" machine. Apparently though they believe they need to market the little laptop with an Optical drive.
The point people have repeatedly tried to make here is that if Apple wants the same formula in the next 13" machine, that is an internal optical drive, they will need to look at AMD for solutions. Or get Intel to make custom hardware, because frankly Intel doesn't seem to have anything on the roadmap to really provide the GPU performance Apple wants.
Well, AMD's extra cores are just integer cores, so if work is just integer, it will be fine.
Don't they have FP too? Also, most workloads are integer-heavy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
But there are still problems. If a four core Phenom II goes against a four core Intel design, what happens then? Intel still has hyperthreading in addition to the four cores. It also have much better FP.
Intel will have the lead, but there are situations when dual-core Intel CPUs go up against quad-core AMD CPUs, as well as quad-core Intel vs. 6-core AMD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
In addition, Intel's hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die, an insignificant amount, but AMD's extra core adds 50%, a rather big piece of real estate. How is that going to affect yields? AMD has had yield problems several times in the past three years.
Are you talking about Bulldozer's module? If so, one extra integer core adds 12.5% or 50% to the die (seen both numbers, can't remember the correct one), and that adds 5% to the entire die. An additional integer core gives 80% extra performance over a module without the integer core.
AMD does have problems making large CPUs but that's mitigated by their dual-die approach for servers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
Cores are cores and performance is performance. At least, this is how Intel is marketing i5 & i7 platforms against it's own c2q. Do you think consumers would mind whether a cpu has two real extra cores vs. HT when performance benefit is there for much less price? If you can have i7 975 performance with Thuban 1090T at 1/3 of the price, who would care what core/core performance is? People care more about price/performance. Your argument is weak.
Intel has the lead in single-threaded performance but that's becoming less important over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
Perhaps, we should measure threads/chip or performance/thread?
I think total performance per watt and per $.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Of course we're comparing two cores to four, but as we all know intel does have 4 core chips, and will have cheaper ones before too long. They will also drop these prices as they do every few months.
From the roadmaps I've seen Intel isn't really shifting the boundaries of core counts with Sandy Bridge, except at the high end. Ivy Bridge looks to be where the next large change occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It won't be too long before Intel's 4 core chips will cost the same as AMD's, at least the ones that aren't already. Then what will AMD do?
Intel has the lead in single-threaded performance but that's becoming less important over time.
Intel's lead in single-threaded performance was mainly due to turbo modes when making Intel-Mhz/AMD-Mhz comparison of stock cpu speed. This will be changed for the case of Thuban. Thuban will employe even more aggressive turbo scheme than intel by allowing three cores to boost 400 - 500 Mhz. Turbo mode will benefit even the multi-threaded loads when less than 3 cores are stressed.
I actually don't really care to go with intel or amd, as long as I am not getting ripped off and ensures most value per $.
For many applications where the CPU core of ARRANDALE would be ideal it is very relevant. The built in GPU on this SKU weakens its position in the marketplace. Frankly it makes many AMD solutions look appealing because systems aren't all about he CPU, everything has to work in an orderly and performant manner in a modern PC.
There is no doubt that in some benchmarks AMD chips follow Intel chips when looking at CPU performance. However raw CPU performances is only part of the equation.
Dave
I don't think it's a problem for the devices that will be using these chips. It's overblown. Look at the 13" MBP. It was sold out at numerous locations the first day it went on sale. That's what matters. These will be used for consumers who don't care about another 25% of graphics performance. For those who do, AMD's on chip solution is no good anyway, and something along the lines of what Nvidia, or better yet, Apple did, will be far better than worrying about Intel's IP here.
It's really a non issue, except on the tech boards.
Everything will be refreshed later in the year. The question is how do you get past C2D in the 13" MBP? There are actually ways to do that with Intel hardware at the cost of a larger motherboard and in fact personally I'd rather see Apple trash the Optical Drive and concentrate on higher performance in the 13" machine. Apparently though they believe they need to market the little laptop with an Optical drive.
The point people have repeatedly tried to make here is that if Apple wants the same formula in the next 13" machine, that is an internal optical drive, they will need to look at AMD for solutions. Or get Intel to make custom hardware, because frankly Intel doesn't seem to have anything on the roadmap to really provide the GPU performance Apple wants.
Dave
First of all forget about trashing the optical drive. Most people want them. There's a survey at either Macsimumnews or Macnn, I forget which, that showed that 78% of those polled wanted optical drives. I believe it.
I imagine that we'll see a version of the i3, or possible the i5 in a later MBP. I'm not worried about the graphics performance. See my above post.
Don't they have FP too? Also, most workloads are integer-heavy.
AMD made the point that FP is secondary with these chips. The cores are integer. There is FP hardware, but it's fairly weak.
Quote:
Intel will have the lead, but there are situations when dual-core Intel CPUs go up against quad-core AMD CPUs, as well as quad-core Intel vs. 6-core AMD.
And we have 4 core Intel up against 4 core AMD, and six core Intel against 6 core AMD. Intel wins every time there, and not by a little.
Quote:
9core)
Are you talking about Bulldozer's module? If so, one extra integer core adds 12.5% or 50% to the die (seen both numbers, can't remember the correct one), and that adds 5% to the entire die. An additional integer core gives 80% extra performance over a module without the integer core.
It's 50%, and it doesn't add 5% to the die. It's more like 20% per core. Intel's hyperthreading adds 5%, thats what you're thinking about.
The extra core does give what AMD CLAIMS is an 80% increase in INTEGER performance per core, as opposed to the known quantity of 30 to 40% improvement per core for hyperthreading. It also uses much more power, and needs more heat dissipation that Intel's chips.
Quote:
AMD does have problems making large CPUs but that's mitigated by their dual-die approach for servers.
It's very funny, you know, because when Intel first began using the dual die per package, AMD was criticizing them for it.
Quote:
Intel has the lead in single-threaded performance but that's becoming less important over time.
Thats totally wrong. However many cores are there, per core performance is as important as it ever was.
Quote:
I think total performance per watt and per $.
Intel's ahead on the P/W spec, and is usually ahead on the P/$ as well. As usual, Intel will drop prices on its chips, putting pressure on AMD.
Quote:
From the roadmaps I've seen Intel isn't really shifting the boundaries of core counts with Sandy Bridge, except at the high end. Ivy Bridge looks to be where the next large change occurs.
Add more cores.
I'm willing to bet that Sandy Bridge will beat the pants off Bulldozer.
First of all forget about trashing the optical drive. Most people want them. There's a survey at either Macsimumnews or Macnn, I forget which, that showed that 78% of those polled wanted optical drives. I believe it.
I imagine that we'll see a version of the i3, or possible the i5 in a later MBP. I'm not worried about the graphics performance. See my above post.
I have no doubt people want them. People wanted Floppy Drives, Serial and Parallel Ports, too, when Apple removed them in favour of USB and Optical Drives. What I don't think people realize is how often they, as consumers, are actually using these large power-hungry components in their modern notebooks.
I do think that Apple will likely have to give up the CPUs with the Northbridge in the next revision, which in turn means the next 13" MBP will need to get a discrete CPU. Unless they pull some major engineering feat like it appears they did with the next generation iPhone logic board I think that finally means the ODD moving to the outside of the device.
Note that removing the ODD doesn't mean that ODDs can't be used or that they would be removed from all machines. The fact that Apple hasn't supported Blu-ray may not back up this eventual more to remove the ODD but it certainly doesn't hurt the argument.
Just an idea: While they current MBPs take a 12.7mm HDD, dropping it to only take a 9.5mm HDD would shave 3mm off the case size. If they went to a dual drive system using 7mm drives that more than make up for the smaller HDD drives capacity. It's also the standard for SSDs and a size you can get HDDs in now. Of course this would require the removal of the ODD.
Note that the largest capacity drive in the new MBPs is a 512GB HDD. Why didn't they go with 640GB, 750GB or even 1TB in the HDD. I think Apple will be pressing SSDs harder and harder and that this MBP revision is just an overdue stopgate for a major HW revision. The NAND nanometer size will show a 50% increase in capacity this year as well as a major price drop.
I know we have never come close to seeing eye-to-eye on this, but I can't see how the ODD is a long term option for notebooks when it's doing nothing but holding back notebooks in some many areas while offering so little use to most notebook users.
I know we have never come close to seeing eye-to-eye on this, but I can't see how the ODD is a long term option for notebooks when it's doing nothing but holding back notebooks in some many areas while offering so little use to most notebook users.
BTO the optical drive. Simple as that. If someone wants it let then order it.
Having another drive bay and larger battery would be great. If I had my druthers
I'd not have any moving parts in a portable though because of SSD size versus cost
Volume production will happen sometime in Q2, with products shipping before the end of the year. In my last SSD article I mentioned that Intel?s 3rd generation X25-M would be shipping in Q4 at 160GB, 320GB and 600GB. These drives will use IMFT?s new 25nm flash.
The first 25nm product is an 8GB (64Gbit) 2-bits-per-cell MLC NAND flash. A single 8GB die built on IMFT?s 25nm process has a die size of 167mm2. Immersion lithography is apparently necessary to produce these 25nm NAND devices, but the extent is unclear. This is technically Intel?s first device that requires immersion lithography to manufacture.
I hope there are no delays. 160GB of fast SSD storage for Boot and applications would be perfect. A secondary drive for storing documents would only need be 5400rpm and quiet.
BTO the optical drive. Simple as that. If someone wants it let then order it.
Having another drive bay and larger battery would be great. If I had my druthers
I'd not have any moving parts in a portable though because of SSD size versus cost
I'd have to have a HDD for large storage.
I wish it was. While I think that would be a great solution for many companies that doesn't seem like something Apple would do.
I'm likely getting a new 13" MBP next week and with it the OptiBay drive for a 2nd HDD. the problem with this setup is the wasted space. I get no additional battery, no discrete GPU and that 5" of port side space is still just a wasted slot. But for me, this is a best option.
I hope there are no delays. 160GB of fast SSD storage for Boot and applications would be perfect. A secondary drive for storing documents would only need be 5400rpm and quiet.
Me too. I don't understand why Apple isn't using Intel SSDs. According to Anand they couldn't with the first generation if they wanted to maintain their EPEAT Gold rating, but with the 2nd gen they are in the clear.
PS: Did you see that TRIM support is probably coming to Mac OS X?
Very interesting indeed. I thought Apple might skip out on TRIM support in lieu of some of the SSD vendors adding in their own Garbage Collection. I'd rather have it in the OS working for every SSD that supports TRIM.
You know to veer back on topic. I think regardless of whether Apple decides to use AMD (I think they should in the low end) I'm probably going to build something with an AMD chip. I'll probably build a Mini ITX HTPC computer using a dual core Llano. It should be small and energy efficient.
I hope there are no delays. 160GB of fast SSD storage for Boot and applications would be perfect. A secondary drive for storing documents would only need be 5400rpm and quiet.
SSD's are only good when, and if, Apple implements TRIM. Until they do that, it's not great. There are utilities to help with this on the Mac now, but they're all clumsy, take time to use, and aren't efficient. I doubt that more than a few techies will have even heard of them, much less get, and use them.
I can't understand why Apple hasn't rushed on this, since they offer SSDs.
I wish it was. While I think that would be a great solution for many companies that doesn't seem like something Apple would do.
I'm likely getting a new 13" MBP next week and with it the OptiBay drive for a 2nd HDD. the problem with this setup is the wasted space. I get no additional battery, no discrete GPU and that 5" of port side space is still just a wasted slot. But for me, this is a best option.
Me too. I don't understand why Apple isn't using Intel SSDs. According to Anand they couldn't with the first generation if they wanted to maintain their EPEAT Gold rating, but with the 2nd gen they are in the clear.
PS: Did you see that TRIM support is probably coming to Mac OS X?
Dear Mr. Jobs.Support TRIM in Mac OS X. It's not that big a deal
Mel Gross
Sent from my iPad
iPad next Friday.
You know, I wonder if this is the kind of nit he picks, or whether he's aware of it at all? It's doubtful he gets into the kinds of arcane techie stuff that doesn't affect the user on a more visceral plane.
You know, I wonder if this is the kind of nit he picks, or whether he's aware of it at all? It's doubtful he gets into the kinds of arcane techie stuff that doesn't affect the user on a more visceral plane.
I have no clue. I am not even sure he does the email replies or not. Lately they have been more verbose.
I did send my own requesting a better system notifications design with history for iPhone OS v4.0. Personally, I think that has been the most lacking feature since v1.0.
Comments
This is how much difference one week will make. Cinbench scores will be updated next week. Thuban without HT, but with real threads, all six of them.
Please try to break the images up so they don't stretch across the page next time.
Well, AMD's extra cores are just integer cores, so if work is just integer, it will be fine. But there are still problems. If a four core Phenom II goes against a four core Intel design, what happens then? Intel still has hyperthreading in addition to the four cores. It also have much better FP. AMD is relying on the GPU for most of that, and right now, that could lead to problems. One is that they can't control which gpu is being used. So FP will vary.
In addition, Intel's hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die, an insignificant amount, but AMD's extra core adds 50%, a rather big piece of real estate. How is that going to affect yields? AMD has had yield problems several times in the past three years.
And let's not forget that Intel has 6 core chips, all with hyperthreading.
Of course, this also depends on AMD not screwing up as they did.
Cores are cores and performance is performance. At least, this is how Intel is marketing i5 & i7 platforms against it's own c2q. Do you think consumers would mind whether a cpu has two real extra cores vs. HT when performance benefit is there for much less price? If you can have i7 975 performance with Thuban 1090T at 1/3 of the price, who would care what core/core performance is? People care more about price/performance. Your argument is weak.
I am about to build a new HTPC/video encoding PC, and I would be stupid to pay 3X more for the intel cpu and 2X more for intel chipset mobo to get comparable performance out the it. I can save roughly $800 going with Thuban 1090T with AMD 890 chipset mobo. $800 can be used on SSD and high-end ATI/AMD video card instead to make it into a serious gaming rig. For $800, you can even build a second Thuban 1090T system. I guess HT is more important for some people.
Cores are cores and performance is performance. At least, this is how Intel is marketing i5 & i7 platforms against it's own c2q. Do you think consumers would mind whether a cpu has two real extra cores vs. HT when performance benefit is there for much less price? If you can have i7 975 performance with Thuban 1090T at 1/3 of the price, who would care what core/core performance is? People care more about price/performance. Your argument is weak.
I am about to build a new HTPC/video encoding PC, and I would be stupid to pay 3X more for the intel cpu and 2X more for intel chipset mobo to get comparable performance out the it. I can save roughly $800 going with Thuban 1090T with AMD 890 chipset mobo. $800 can be used on SSD and high-end ATI/AMD video card instead to make it into a serious gaming rig. For $800, you can even build a second Thuban 1090T system. I guess HT is more important for some people.
Of course we're comparing two cores to four, but as we all know intel does have 4 core chips, and will have cheaper ones before too long. They will also drop these prices as they do every few months. It won't be too long before Intel's 4 core chips will cost the same as AMD's, at least the ones that aren't already. Then what will AMD do?
I don't agree. Arrandale is a great chip. Apple has found the best way to deal with both graphics IPs. When you don't need it, the gpu is idle. When you don't need it, you REALLY don't need it. The quality of Arrandale's graphics is irrelevant.
For many applications where the CPU core of ARRANDALE would be ideal it is very relevant. The built in GPU on this SKU weakens its position in the marketplace. Frankly it makes many AMD solutions look appealing because systems aren't all about he CPU, everything has to work in an orderly and performant manner in a modern PC.
There is no doubt that in some benchmarks AMD chips follow Intel chips when looking at CPU performance. However raw CPU performances is only part of the equation.
Dave
It's the cheapest and smallest machine in the line. What about it?
Core 2 seems to be fine for it right now. Later in the year they will be refreshed.
Everything will be refreshed later in the year. The question is how do you get past C2D in the 13" MBP? There are actually ways to do that with Intel hardware at the cost of a larger motherboard and in fact personally I'd rather see Apple trash the Optical Drive and concentrate on higher performance in the 13" machine. Apparently though they believe they need to market the little laptop with an Optical drive.
The point people have repeatedly tried to make here is that if Apple wants the same formula in the next 13" machine, that is an internal optical drive, they will need to look at AMD for solutions. Or get Intel to make custom hardware, because frankly Intel doesn't seem to have anything on the roadmap to really provide the GPU performance Apple wants.
Dave
Well, AMD's extra cores are just integer cores, so if work is just integer, it will be fine.
Don't they have FP too? Also, most workloads are integer-heavy.
But there are still problems. If a four core Phenom II goes against a four core Intel design, what happens then? Intel still has hyperthreading in addition to the four cores. It also have much better FP.
Intel will have the lead, but there are situations when dual-core Intel CPUs go up against quad-core AMD CPUs, as well as quad-core Intel vs. 6-core AMD.
In addition, Intel's hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die, an insignificant amount, but AMD's extra core adds 50%, a rather big piece of real estate. How is that going to affect yields? AMD has had yield problems several times in the past three years.
Are you talking about Bulldozer's module? If so, one extra integer core adds 12.5% or 50% to the die (seen both numbers, can't remember the correct one), and that adds 5% to the entire die. An additional integer core gives 80% extra performance over a module without the integer core.
AMD does have problems making large CPUs but that's mitigated by their dual-die approach for servers.
Cores are cores and performance is performance. At least, this is how Intel is marketing i5 & i7 platforms against it's own c2q. Do you think consumers would mind whether a cpu has two real extra cores vs. HT when performance benefit is there for much less price? If you can have i7 975 performance with Thuban 1090T at 1/3 of the price, who would care what core/core performance is? People care more about price/performance. Your argument is weak.
Intel has the lead in single-threaded performance but that's becoming less important over time.
Perhaps, we should measure threads/chip or performance/thread?
I think total performance per watt and per $.
Of course we're comparing two cores to four, but as we all know intel does have 4 core chips, and will have cheaper ones before too long. They will also drop these prices as they do every few months.
From the roadmaps I've seen Intel isn't really shifting the boundaries of core counts with Sandy Bridge, except at the high end. Ivy Bridge looks to be where the next large change occurs.
It won't be too long before Intel's 4 core chips will cost the same as AMD's, at least the ones that aren't already. Then what will AMD do?
Add more cores.
Intel has the lead in single-threaded performance but that's becoming less important over time.
Intel's lead in single-threaded performance was mainly due to turbo modes when making Intel-Mhz/AMD-Mhz comparison of stock cpu speed. This will be changed for the case of Thuban. Thuban will employe even more aggressive turbo scheme than intel by allowing three cores to boost 400 - 500 Mhz. Turbo mode will benefit even the multi-threaded loads when less than 3 cores are stressed.
I actually don't really care to go with intel or amd, as long as I am not getting ripped off and ensures most value per $.
For many applications where the CPU core of ARRANDALE would be ideal it is very relevant. The built in GPU on this SKU weakens its position in the marketplace. Frankly it makes many AMD solutions look appealing because systems aren't all about he CPU, everything has to work in an orderly and performant manner in a modern PC.
There is no doubt that in some benchmarks AMD chips follow Intel chips when looking at CPU performance. However raw CPU performances is only part of the equation.
Dave
I don't think it's a problem for the devices that will be using these chips. It's overblown. Look at the 13" MBP. It was sold out at numerous locations the first day it went on sale. That's what matters. These will be used for consumers who don't care about another 25% of graphics performance. For those who do, AMD's on chip solution is no good anyway, and something along the lines of what Nvidia, or better yet, Apple did, will be far better than worrying about Intel's IP here.
It's really a non issue, except on the tech boards.
Everything will be refreshed later in the year. The question is how do you get past C2D in the 13" MBP? There are actually ways to do that with Intel hardware at the cost of a larger motherboard and in fact personally I'd rather see Apple trash the Optical Drive and concentrate on higher performance in the 13" machine. Apparently though they believe they need to market the little laptop with an Optical drive.
The point people have repeatedly tried to make here is that if Apple wants the same formula in the next 13" machine, that is an internal optical drive, they will need to look at AMD for solutions. Or get Intel to make custom hardware, because frankly Intel doesn't seem to have anything on the roadmap to really provide the GPU performance Apple wants.
Dave
First of all forget about trashing the optical drive. Most people want them. There's a survey at either Macsimumnews or Macnn, I forget which, that showed that 78% of those polled wanted optical drives. I believe it.
I imagine that we'll see a version of the i3, or possible the i5 in a later MBP. I'm not worried about the graphics performance. See my above post.
Don't they have FP too? Also, most workloads are integer-heavy.
AMD made the point that FP is secondary with these chips. The cores are integer. There is FP hardware, but it's fairly weak.
Intel will have the lead, but there are situations when dual-core Intel CPUs go up against quad-core AMD CPUs, as well as quad-core Intel vs. 6-core AMD.
And we have 4 core Intel up against 4 core AMD, and six core Intel against 6 core AMD. Intel wins every time there, and not by a little.
9core)
Are you talking about Bulldozer's module? If so, one extra integer core adds 12.5% or 50% to the die (seen both numbers, can't remember the correct one), and that adds 5% to the entire die. An additional integer core gives 80% extra performance over a module without the integer core.
It's 50%, and it doesn't add 5% to the die. It's more like 20% per core. Intel's hyperthreading adds 5%, thats what you're thinking about.
The extra core does give what AMD CLAIMS is an 80% increase in INTEGER performance per core, as opposed to the known quantity of 30 to 40% improvement per core for hyperthreading. It also uses much more power, and needs more heat dissipation that Intel's chips.
AMD does have problems making large CPUs but that's mitigated by their dual-die approach for servers.
It's very funny, you know, because when Intel first began using the dual die per package, AMD was criticizing them for it.
Intel has the lead in single-threaded performance but that's becoming less important over time.
Thats totally wrong. However many cores are there, per core performance is as important as it ever was.
I think total performance per watt and per $.
Intel's ahead on the P/W spec, and is usually ahead on the P/$ as well. As usual, Intel will drop prices on its chips, putting pressure on AMD.
From the roadmaps I've seen Intel isn't really shifting the boundaries of core counts with Sandy Bridge, except at the high end. Ivy Bridge looks to be where the next large change occurs.
Add more cores.
I'm willing to bet that Sandy Bridge will beat the pants off Bulldozer.
First of all forget about trashing the optical drive. Most people want them. There's a survey at either Macsimumnews or Macnn, I forget which, that showed that 78% of those polled wanted optical drives. I believe it.
I imagine that we'll see a version of the i3, or possible the i5 in a later MBP. I'm not worried about the graphics performance. See my above post.
I have no doubt people want them. People wanted Floppy Drives, Serial and Parallel Ports, too, when Apple removed them in favour of USB and Optical Drives. What I don't think people realize is how often they, as consumers, are actually using these large power-hungry components in their modern notebooks.
I do think that Apple will likely have to give up the CPUs with the Northbridge in the next revision, which in turn means the next 13" MBP will need to get a discrete CPU. Unless they pull some major engineering feat like it appears they did with the next generation iPhone logic board I think that finally means the ODD moving to the outside of the device.
Note that removing the ODD doesn't mean that ODDs can't be used or that they would be removed from all machines. The fact that Apple hasn't supported Blu-ray may not back up this eventual more to remove the ODD but it certainly doesn't hurt the argument.
Just an idea: While they current MBPs take a 12.7mm HDD, dropping it to only take a 9.5mm HDD would shave 3mm off the case size. If they went to a dual drive system using 7mm drives that more than make up for the smaller HDD drives capacity. It's also the standard for SSDs and a size you can get HDDs in now. Of course this would require the removal of the ODD.
Note that the largest capacity drive in the new MBPs is a 512GB HDD. Why didn't they go with 640GB, 750GB or even 1TB in the HDD. I think Apple will be pressing SSDs harder and harder and that this MBP revision is just an overdue stopgate for a major HW revision. The NAND nanometer size will show a 50% increase in capacity this year as well as a major price drop.
I know we have never come close to seeing eye-to-eye on this, but I can't see how the ODD is a long term option for notebooks when it's doing nothing but holding back notebooks in some many areas while offering so little use to most notebook users.
I know we have never come close to seeing eye-to-eye on this, but I can't see how the ODD is a long term option for notebooks when it's doing nothing but holding back notebooks in some many areas while offering so little use to most notebook users.
BTO the optical drive. Simple as that. If someone wants it let then order it.
Having another drive bay and larger battery would be great. If I had my druthers
I'd not have any moving parts in a portable though because of SSD size versus cost
I'd have to have a HDD for large storage.
Anxiously awaiting Intel's 25nm SSD
Volume production will happen sometime in Q2, with products shipping before the end of the year. In my last SSD article I mentioned that Intel?s 3rd generation X25-M would be shipping in Q4 at 160GB, 320GB and 600GB. These drives will use IMFT?s new 25nm flash.
The first 25nm product is an 8GB (64Gbit) 2-bits-per-cell MLC NAND flash. A single 8GB die built on IMFT?s 25nm process has a die size of 167mm2. Immersion lithography is apparently necessary to produce these 25nm NAND devices, but the extent is unclear. This is technically Intel?s first device that requires immersion lithography to manufacture.
I hope there are no delays. 160GB of fast SSD storage for Boot and applications would be perfect. A secondary drive for storing documents would only need be 5400rpm and quiet.
BTO the optical drive. Simple as that. If someone wants it let then order it.
Having another drive bay and larger battery would be great. If I had my druthers
I'd not have any moving parts in a portable though because of SSD size versus cost
I'd have to have a HDD for large storage.
I wish it was. While I think that would be a great solution for many companies that doesn't seem like something Apple would do.
I'm likely getting a new 13" MBP next week and with it the OptiBay drive for a 2nd HDD. the problem with this setup is the wasted space. I get no additional battery, no discrete GPU and that 5" of port side space is still just a wasted slot. But for me, this is a best option.
Anxiously awaiting Intel's 25nm SSD
I hope there are no delays. 160GB of fast SSD storage for Boot and applications would be perfect. A secondary drive for storing documents would only need be 5400rpm and quiet.
Me too. I don't understand why Apple isn't using Intel SSDs. According to Anand they couldn't with the first generation if they wanted to maintain their EPEAT Gold rating, but with the 2nd gen they are in the clear.
PS: Did you see that TRIM support is probably coming to Mac OS X?
PS: Did you see that TRIM support is probably coming to Mac OS X?
Very interesting indeed. I thought Apple might skip out on TRIM support in lieu of some of the SSD vendors adding in their own Garbage Collection. I'd rather have it in the OS working for every SSD that supports TRIM.
You know to veer back on topic. I think regardless of whether Apple decides to use AMD (I think they should in the low end) I'm probably going to build something with an AMD chip. I'll probably build a Mini ITX HTPC computer using a dual core Llano. It should be small and energy efficient.
BTO the optical drive. Simple as that. If someone wants it let then order it.
Having another drive bay and larger battery would be great. If I had my druthers
I'd not have any moving parts in a portable though because of SSD size versus cost
I'd have to have a HDD for large storage.
Anxiously awaiting Intel's 25nm SSD
I hope there are no delays. 160GB of fast SSD storage for Boot and applications would be perfect. A secondary drive for storing documents would only need be 5400rpm and quiet.
SSD's are only good when, and if, Apple implements TRIM. Until they do that, it's not great. There are utilities to help with this on the Mac now, but they're all clumsy, take time to use, and aren't efficient. I doubt that more than a few techies will have even heard of them, much less get, and use them.
I can't understand why Apple hasn't rushed on this, since they offer SSDs.
I wish it was. While I think that would be a great solution for many companies that doesn't seem like something Apple would do.
I'm likely getting a new 13" MBP next week and with it the OptiBay drive for a 2nd HDD. the problem with this setup is the wasted space. I get no additional battery, no discrete GPU and that 5" of port side space is still just a wasted slot. But for me, this is a best option.
Me too. I don't understand why Apple isn't using Intel SSDs. According to Anand they couldn't with the first generation if they wanted to maintain their EPEAT Gold rating, but with the 2nd gen they are in the clear.
PS: Did you see that TRIM support is probably coming to Mac OS X?
Good post. You got in before I did. Almost all new SSDs support TRIM. Not just Intel.
Good post. You got in before I did. Almost all new SSDs support TRIM. Not just Intel.
I know, my comment about Apple using Intel SSDs is because of their cost v. performance ratings.
I know, my comment about Apple using Intel SSDs is because of their cost v. performance ratings.
There are others that are now better. Check out Anandtechs latest articles. It's SSD week.
I'll repeat. Why the heck isn't Apple supporting trim Yet? It's not that much of a problem to do.
There are others that are now better. Check out Anandtechs latest articles. It's SSD week.
Is that like Shark Week?
It looks like I'm behind on the SSD news.
I'll repeat. Why the heck isn't Apple supporting trim Yet? It's not that much of a problem to do.
Dear Mr. Jobs.Support TRIM in Mac OS X. It's not that big a dealMel Gross
Sent from my iPad
Is that like Shark Week?
It looks like I'm behind on the SSD news.
Dear Mr. Jobs.Support TRIM in Mac OS X. It's not that big a deal
Sent from my iPad
iPad next Friday.
You know, I wonder if this is the kind of nit he picks, or whether he's aware of it at all? It's doubtful he gets into the kinds of arcane techie stuff that doesn't affect the user on a more visceral plane.
iPad next Friday.
You know, I wonder if this is the kind of nit he picks, or whether he's aware of it at all? It's doubtful he gets into the kinds of arcane techie stuff that doesn't affect the user on a more visceral plane.
I have no clue. I am not even sure he does the email replies or not. Lately they have been more verbose.
I did send my own requesting a better system notifications design with history for iPhone OS v4.0. Personally, I think that has been the most lacking feature since v1.0.