Did you see the picture at the bottom of this article?
Dude, I've posted pictures of the Moorestown mockup in these very forums already, saying how I love it, and have inspected virtually every Youtube video of it. It's an RDF class looking device!
Quote:
That doesn't look like it's 5x the volume of a Touch. 2x maybe. And I'm sure they could get that down in time, although if it meant a slightly bigger screen, I wouldn't mind the larger size.
The iPod touch is 8 mm thick! 0.31 inches! The Moorestown demo is like 4 iPod touchs in volume, probably 5, at least. It sure ain't 0.31 inch thick. It's on the order of 14 to 16 mm. Plus, I've got a sneaking suspicion that its a fake demo.
Quote:
The Touch/iPhone is what I've been waiting for for decades. Something I can carry with me everywhere, every day, and do most of what I need. Not even a Macbook Air is an everywhere machine.
Well, Menlow (Silverthorne) won't be fitting inside a palm-size device and Moorestown isn't for an iPhone or iPod touch sized device either. 32 nm, probably. Intel is trying to get there. Moorestown in a 18 mm thick device the footprint of the iPhone is possible I think, but Apple won't do that.
I don't get what your problem is with what is an extremely simple question. I don't have any ulterior motives but intellectual curiosity on microarchitecture design. I'm not even asking because I think it'll compete with the C2D or PC class MPUs. It's really obvious that I'm not, and that this is for UMPCs.
Even the MBA question is one born out of intellectual curiosity. It's like I'm speaking English and you're interpreting it through a marketing droid filter or something. The board in the MBA is extremely small. Menlow won't be much smaller at all. And since the MBA is almost a tweener UMPC-laptop due to extreme thinness, application of Silverthorne in the MBA is an interesting question.
Aren't you even curious at all on how a Pentium-like (in-order, 1 FPU, 1 IU, some SIMD) performs using a modern process and at 1.8 GHz? Well I am. I'm interested in how many execution pipeline stages it has. I'm curious about it's memory latencies. It also could be very very interesting if it encroaches upon low end C2Ds. Very interesting from a marketing and production cost perspective for Intel.
These are all valid questions, I think
- I think people looking for this device in the next iPhone are barking up the wrong tree
- as you point out, the physical size (at least 2 chips + RAM) and power consumption (2-3x ARM?) just aren't right
- so, probably, iPhone2 & Touch2 will use a next generation ARM part
- the Silverthorne chip has very lower power consumption for an x86 chip
- and is powerful when compared to mobile devices, and as powerful as the mobile x86 chips of 3-4 years ago.
- so, I think we should look for this turning up in devices that sit below the MacBook Air in terms of performance - i.e. some form of ultra-portable device, but not as portable as an iPhone.
- perhaps a 6" Touch screen device?
- just a guess
- of course, that could also be done with an ARM-based device, so Silverthorne doesn't really give Apple much that it doesn't have already - since it's already got it's OS running on ARM, and Mobile versions key apps like the browser etc.
- I can see that running on x86 will help with compatability for running Flash-based web-sites, or running full versions of Word, but then that's probably not what you want to do with a 6" touch-screen device most of the time.
Did you see the picture at the bottom of this article? That doesn't look like it's 5x the volume of a Touch. 2x maybe. And I'm sure they could get that down in time, although if it meant a slightly bigger screen, I wouldn't mind the larger size. The Touch/iPhone is what I've been waiting for for decades. Something I can carry with me everywhere, every day, and do most of what I need. Not even a Macbook Air is an everywhere machine.
By the time its power consumption and volume could compete with current ARM SoCs, the ARM SoCs will be either even smaller (and more powerful than today, or even less power draw), or vastly more powerful themselves (with software compatibility on their side).
And Apple knows what it is doing with ARM. It's got 15 years history with the architecture.
I don't get what your problem is with what is an extremely simple question. I don't have any ulterior motives but intellectual curiosity on microarchitecture design. I'm not even asking because I think it'll compete with the C2D or PC class MPUs. It's really obvious that I'm not, and that this is for UMPCs.
I don't doubt your motives. I just don't see the purpose of comparing two chipsets that are so different in power, and speed, and that are intended for two entirely different purposes.
It's like asking how a sportscar compares to a subcompact. Who cares? The two aren't comparable, so it doesn't matter. Compare two sportscars, or two subcompacts. That's valid.
Quote:
Even the MBA question is one born out of intellectual curiosity. It's like I'm speaking English and you're interpreting it through a marketing droid filter or something. The board in the MBA is extremely small. Menlow won't be much smaller at all. And since the MBA is almost a tweener UMPC-laptop due to extreme thinness, application of Silverthorne in the MBA is an interesting question.
The board is only small when compared to that of the MacBook. Otherwise, when compared to that of a UMPC, which is where this chip is intended to go, it is a giant.
Quote:
Aren't you even curious at all on how a Pentium-like (in-order, 1 FPU, 1 IU, some SIMD) performs using a modern process and at 1.8 GHz? Well I am. I'm interested in how many execution pipeline stages it has. I'm curious about it's memory latencies. It also could be very very interesting if it encroaches upon low end C2Ds. Very interesting from a marketing and production cost perspective for Intel.
I understand what you are saying. But, I know that it will never challenge the computing power of the Core 2 Duo, Penyrn, and later this year, Nehalem chips. Because of that, my interest in that comparison is little. I know it doesn't compare, and so I don't care by how much it falls behind.
What I am interested in, is how it will help to advance a handheld, where those other chips can't possibly be used. A totally different category of device, which Apple may offer later this year, or the next.
This the only picture that I can find of an iPhone and the Moorestown demo device in the same frame is at the bottom of this Anandtech article.
The chip is still very small, and so is the associated circutry.
The device they chow is about the size of the one we have been talking about for a while?the Newton-like device.
This would work very well in that, and is, after all, the type of device it is intended for.
I do agree with Gartner's prediction here. In a few years, people won't carry laptops around everywhere (most who own them don't do that now, too big and heavy), but they will carry these smaller devices around.
By the time its power consumption and volume could compete with current ARM SoCs, the ARM SoCs will be either even smaller (and more powerful than today, or even less power draw), or vastly more powerful themselves (with software compatibility on their side).
And Apple knows what it is doing with ARM. It's got 15 years history with the architecture.
Except that the x86 now fits within Apple's plans much more than does the ARM.
With Apple moving OS X into many more devices, the ARM becomes the odd man out.
The ease in programming for the x86 across all of Apple's lines is obvious.
Third party developers would much rather deal with one architecture than two. even though programs for a handheld would be much smaller, it's still easier to move code over, than to rewrite it anew, or have to undergo a major re-compile and fix-up.
Apple now obviously has an "OS X Everywhere" goal, and running x86 everywhere will help to further that goal much better than will continuing with the ARM.
Eventually, the iPhones and iTouch's will also move over, perhaps when the 32nm versions come out next year.
Except that the x86 now fits within Apple's plans much more than does the ARM.
With Apple moving OS X into many more devices, the ARM becomes the odd man out.
The ease in programming for the x86 across all of Apple's lines is obvious.
Third party developers would much rather deal with one architecture than two. even though programs for a handheld would be much smaller, it's still easier to move code over, than to rewrite it anew, or have to undergo a major re-compile and fix-up.
Apple now obviously has an "OS X Everywhere" goal, and running x86 everywhere will help to further that goal much better than will continuing with the ARM.
Eventually, the iPhones and iTouch's will also move over, perhaps when the 32nm versions come out next year.
I look forward to that. I wonder if OS X will make it's way into the rest of the iPod line. Having one OS to rule them all, sans the Shuffle, would be very efficient, especially on x86.
Stokes is very good at analyzing hardware IMO. I read his articles closely.
That sums it up nicely:
"Ultimately, Silverthorne could be compelling for the Asus Eee PC form factor, and at 2GHz there's an outside possibility that it might find a home in a MacBook Air that's relatively underpowered, but has great battery life. But the MID form factor, at least in its Silverthorne combination, is dead on arrival."
I look forward to that. I wonder if OS X will make it's way into the rest of the iPod line. Having one OS to rule them all, sans the Shuffle, would be very efficient, especially on x86.
Eventually, processing will become small enough, and cheap enough, and will have enough memory available for even the cheapest, and tiniest devices to run a full OS.
We might see that between five and ten years from now. A device the size of the Shuffle will be a full fledged computer.
The challenge is then the interfacing. We've seen Si/Fi with people having one eye covered with the input (and eye controlled output) device. Maybe the current, primitive products, that do that will become ubiquitous. Maybe other, better, methods will become available. As we now know that direct thought can control prosthetics directly, that may become a new, widely used method.
"Ultimately, Silverthorne could be compelling for the Asus Eee PC form factor, and at 2GHz there's an outside possibility that it might find a home in a MacBook Air that's relatively underpowered, but has great battery life. But the MID form factor, at least in its Silverthorne combination, is dead on arrival."
His statement "relatively underpowered" says it all. It's why I don't agree that we will see it in an Air.
Right now, with the much more powerful chips, tha Air is considered to be "relatively underpowered" for the price, and size. I can't imagine the reception it would get if it were slower by half, or more.
Jon is very good at describing technology, as he should be, given that his degree is in computing architecture, but his predictions have been only so so over the years.
His statement "relatively underpowered" says it all. It's why I don't agree that we will see it in an Air.
Right now, with the much more powerful chips, tha Air is considered to be "relatively underpowered" for the price, and size. I can't imagine the reception it would get if it were slower by half, or more.
Jon is very good at describing technology, as he should be, given that his degree is in computing architecture, but his predictions have been only so so over the years.
It's interesting that Silverthorne appears ill suited for MIDs (according to Stokes) and would seem underpowered for something like the MBA.
It's interesting that Silverthorne appears ill suited for MIDs (according to Stokes) and would seem underpowered for something like the MBA.
What's the market for this chip?
This is the first incarnation. It's a very good first step. Intel will quickly improve it.
rememver that ARM has been this space for a long time. This is new. I hope that by now, no one here really doubts Intel's prowess.
I also doubt very much that Stoke's "...is deal on arrival" (for now) will be true. There will be a lot of designs done around this, and products will arrive.
The problem for those products is that they will be the same old thing from the same old manufactures, and so THEY will be dead on arrival, as have all UMPC's been so far.
Apple might wait for the 32nm version next year (or, who knows, perhaps late this year). By then, it will be much more viable, and no other chipmaker can stay on the schedule Intel can.
I just looked into this today: For what it's worth, the PPC 750 variant in the Nintedo Wii would probably score the same (if not better) power figures than the Silverthorne if it were made at 45nm, and it would likely have superior performance.
I don't see it happening, but it's an interesting thing to note.
I don't get what your problem is with what is an extremely simple question. I don't have any ulterior motives but intellectual curiosity on microarchitecture design. I'm not even asking because I think it'll compete with the C2D or PC class MPUs. It's really obvious that I'm not, and that this is for UMPCs.
Even the MBA question is one born out of intellectual curiosity. It's like I'm speaking English and you're interpreting it through a marketing droid filter or something. The board in the MBA is extremely small. Menlow won't be much smaller at all. And since the MBA is almost a tweener UMPC-laptop due to extreme thinness, application of Silverthorne in the MBA is an interesting question.
Aren't you even curious at all on how a Pentium-like (in-order, 1 FPU, 1 IU, some SIMD) performs using a modern process and at 1.8 GHz? Well I am. I'm interested in how many execution pipeline stages it has. I'm curious about it's memory latencies. It also could be very very interesting if it encroaches upon low end C2Ds. Very interesting from a marketing and production cost perspective for Intel.
I understand your question completely.
0-60 times & hp#s are still fun to know, even if you're comparing a Smart Two to a Gallardo Superleggera.
melgross' problem is he has no life and the only way he can dhv or achieve any self-esteem is to be a gigantic fart-mongering condescension wonk here on AI, which is why he's not actually Listening to what you're saying.
You should see his google images photo. --Hell I'd be a fart-wonking Mac tool if I looked like "The Librarian" from the original "Blade" movie, too.
Comments
Did you see the picture at the bottom of this article?
Dude, I've posted pictures of the Moorestown mockup in these very forums already, saying how I love it, and have inspected virtually every Youtube video of it. It's an RDF class looking device!
That doesn't look like it's 5x the volume of a Touch. 2x maybe. And I'm sure they could get that down in time, although if it meant a slightly bigger screen, I wouldn't mind the larger size.
The iPod touch is 8 mm thick! 0.31 inches! The Moorestown demo is like 4 iPod touchs in volume, probably 5, at least. It sure ain't 0.31 inch thick. It's on the order of 14 to 16 mm. Plus, I've got a sneaking suspicion that its a fake demo.
The Touch/iPhone is what I've been waiting for for decades. Something I can carry with me everywhere, every day, and do most of what I need. Not even a Macbook Air is an everywhere machine.
Well, Menlow (Silverthorne) won't be fitting inside a palm-size device and Moorestown isn't for an iPhone or iPod touch sized device either. 32 nm, probably. Intel is trying to get there. Moorestown in a 18 mm thick device the footprint of the iPhone is possible I think, but Apple won't do that.
I know x86 has always win because it is backward compatible. But since this time around ARM actually has establish a huge market.
I don't get what your problem is with what is an extremely simple question. I don't have any ulterior motives but intellectual curiosity on microarchitecture design. I'm not even asking because I think it'll compete with the C2D or PC class MPUs. It's really obvious that I'm not, and that this is for UMPCs.
Even the MBA question is one born out of intellectual curiosity. It's like I'm speaking English and you're interpreting it through a marketing droid filter or something. The board in the MBA is extremely small. Menlow won't be much smaller at all. And since the MBA is almost a tweener UMPC-laptop due to extreme thinness, application of Silverthorne in the MBA is an interesting question.
Aren't you even curious at all on how a Pentium-like (in-order, 1 FPU, 1 IU, some SIMD) performs using a modern process and at 1.8 GHz? Well I am. I'm interested in how many execution pipeline stages it has. I'm curious about it's memory latencies. It also could be very very interesting if it encroaches upon low end C2Ds. Very interesting from a marketing and production cost perspective for Intel.
These are all valid questions, I think
- I think people looking for this device in the next iPhone are barking up the wrong tree
- as you point out, the physical size (at least 2 chips + RAM) and power consumption (2-3x ARM?) just aren't right
- so, probably, iPhone2 & Touch2 will use a next generation ARM part
- the Silverthorne chip has very lower power consumption for an x86 chip
- and is powerful when compared to mobile devices, and as powerful as the mobile x86 chips of 3-4 years ago.
- so, I think we should look for this turning up in devices that sit below the MacBook Air in terms of performance - i.e. some form of ultra-portable device, but not as portable as an iPhone.
- perhaps a 6" Touch screen device?
- just a guess
- of course, that could also be done with an ARM-based device, so Silverthorne doesn't really give Apple much that it doesn't have already - since it's already got it's OS running on ARM, and Mobile versions key apps like the browser etc.
- I can see that running on x86 will help with compatability for running Flash-based web-sites, or running full versions of Word, but then that's probably not what you want to do with a 6" touch-screen device most of the time.
Did you see the picture at the bottom of this article? That doesn't look like it's 5x the volume of a Touch. 2x maybe. And I'm sure they could get that down in time, although if it meant a slightly bigger screen, I wouldn't mind the larger size. The Touch/iPhone is what I've been waiting for for decades. Something I can carry with me everywhere, every day, and do most of what I need. Not even a Macbook Air is an everywhere machine.
By the time its power consumption and volume could compete with current ARM SoCs, the ARM SoCs will be either even smaller (and more powerful than today, or even less power draw), or vastly more powerful themselves (with software compatibility on their side).
And Apple knows what it is doing with ARM. It's got 15 years history with the architecture.
I don't get what your problem is with what is an extremely simple question. I don't have any ulterior motives but intellectual curiosity on microarchitecture design. I'm not even asking because I think it'll compete with the C2D or PC class MPUs. It's really obvious that I'm not, and that this is for UMPCs.
I don't doubt your motives. I just don't see the purpose of comparing two chipsets that are so different in power, and speed, and that are intended for two entirely different purposes.
It's like asking how a sportscar compares to a subcompact. Who cares? The two aren't comparable, so it doesn't matter. Compare two sportscars, or two subcompacts. That's valid.
Even the MBA question is one born out of intellectual curiosity. It's like I'm speaking English and you're interpreting it through a marketing droid filter or something. The board in the MBA is extremely small. Menlow won't be much smaller at all. And since the MBA is almost a tweener UMPC-laptop due to extreme thinness, application of Silverthorne in the MBA is an interesting question.
The board is only small when compared to that of the MacBook. Otherwise, when compared to that of a UMPC, which is where this chip is intended to go, it is a giant.
Aren't you even curious at all on how a Pentium-like (in-order, 1 FPU, 1 IU, some SIMD) performs using a modern process and at 1.8 GHz? Well I am. I'm interested in how many execution pipeline stages it has. I'm curious about it's memory latencies. It also could be very very interesting if it encroaches upon low end C2Ds. Very interesting from a marketing and production cost perspective for Intel.
I understand what you are saying. But, I know that it will never challenge the computing power of the Core 2 Duo, Penyrn, and later this year, Nehalem chips. Because of that, my interest in that comparison is little. I know it doesn't compare, and so I don't care by how much it falls behind.
What I am interested in, is how it will help to advance a handheld, where those other chips can't possibly be used. A totally different category of device, which Apple may offer later this year, or the next.
This the only picture that I can find of an iPhone and the Moorestown demo device in the same frame is at the bottom of this Anandtech article.
The chip is still very small, and so is the associated circutry.
The device they chow is about the size of the one we have been talking about for a while?the Newton-like device.
This would work very well in that, and is, after all, the type of device it is intended for.
I do agree with Gartner's prediction here. In a few years, people won't carry laptops around everywhere (most who own them don't do that now, too big and heavy), but they will carry these smaller devices around.
By the time its power consumption and volume could compete with current ARM SoCs, the ARM SoCs will be either even smaller (and more powerful than today, or even less power draw), or vastly more powerful themselves (with software compatibility on their side).
And Apple knows what it is doing with ARM. It's got 15 years history with the architecture.
Except that the x86 now fits within Apple's plans much more than does the ARM.
With Apple moving OS X into many more devices, the ARM becomes the odd man out.
The ease in programming for the x86 across all of Apple's lines is obvious.
Third party developers would much rather deal with one architecture than two. even though programs for a handheld would be much smaller, it's still easier to move code over, than to rewrite it anew, or have to undergo a major re-compile and fix-up.
Apple now obviously has an "OS X Everywhere" goal, and running x86 everywhere will help to further that goal much better than will continuing with the ARM.
Eventually, the iPhones and iTouch's will also move over, perhaps when the 32nm versions come out next year.
Except that the x86 now fits within Apple's plans much more than does the ARM.
With Apple moving OS X into many more devices, the ARM becomes the odd man out.
The ease in programming for the x86 across all of Apple's lines is obvious.
Third party developers would much rather deal with one architecture than two. even though programs for a handheld would be much smaller, it's still easier to move code over, than to rewrite it anew, or have to undergo a major re-compile and fix-up.
Apple now obviously has an "OS X Everywhere" goal, and running x86 everywhere will help to further that goal much better than will continuing with the ARM.
Eventually, the iPhones and iTouch's will also move over, perhaps when the 32nm versions come out next year.
I look forward to that. I wonder if OS X will make it's way into the rest of the iPod line. Having one OS to rule them all, sans the Shuffle, would be very efficient, especially on x86.
Stokes is very good at analyzing hardware IMO. I read his articles closely.
Much better article on Silverthorne over at Ars.
Stokes is very good at analyzing hardware IMO. I read his articles closely.
That sums it up nicely:
I look forward to that. I wonder if OS X will make it's way into the rest of the iPod line. Having one OS to rule them all, sans the Shuffle, would be very efficient, especially on x86.
Eventually, processing will become small enough, and cheap enough, and will have enough memory available for even the cheapest, and tiniest devices to run a full OS.
We might see that between five and ten years from now. A device the size of the Shuffle will be a full fledged computer.
The challenge is then the interfacing. We've seen Si/Fi with people having one eye covered with the input (and eye controlled output) device. Maybe the current, primitive products, that do that will become ubiquitous. Maybe other, better, methods will become available. As we now know that direct thought can control prosthetics directly, that may become a new, widely used method.
That sums it up nicely:
His statement "relatively underpowered" says it all. It's why I don't agree that we will see it in an Air.
Right now, with the much more powerful chips, tha Air is considered to be "relatively underpowered" for the price, and size. I can't imagine the reception it would get if it were slower by half, or more.
Jon is very good at describing technology, as he should be, given that his degree is in computing architecture, but his predictions have been only so so over the years.
His statement "relatively underpowered" says it all. It's why I don't agree that we will see it in an Air.
Right now, with the much more powerful chips, tha Air is considered to be "relatively underpowered" for the price, and size. I can't imagine the reception it would get if it were slower by half, or more.
Jon is very good at describing technology, as he should be, given that his degree is in computing architecture, but his predictions have been only so so over the years.
It's interesting that Silverthorne appears ill suited for MIDs (according to Stokes) and would seem underpowered for something like the MBA.
What's the market for this chip?
It's interesting that Silverthorne appears ill suited for MIDs (according to Stokes) and would seem underpowered for something like the MBA.
What's the market for this chip?
This is the first incarnation. It's a very good first step. Intel will quickly improve it.
rememver that ARM has been this space for a long time. This is new. I hope that by now, no one here really doubts Intel's prowess.
I also doubt very much that Stoke's "...is deal on arrival" (for now) will be true. There will be a lot of designs done around this, and products will arrive.
The problem for those products is that they will be the same old thing from the same old manufactures, and so THEY will be dead on arrival, as have all UMPC's been so far.
Apple might wait for the 32nm version next year (or, who knows, perhaps late this year). By then, it will be much more viable, and no other chipmaker can stay on the schedule Intel can.
I don't see it happening, but it's an interesting thing to note.
I don't get what your problem is with what is an extremely simple question. I don't have any ulterior motives but intellectual curiosity on microarchitecture design. I'm not even asking because I think it'll compete with the C2D or PC class MPUs. It's really obvious that I'm not, and that this is for UMPCs.
Even the MBA question is one born out of intellectual curiosity. It's like I'm speaking English and you're interpreting it through a marketing droid filter or something. The board in the MBA is extremely small. Menlow won't be much smaller at all. And since the MBA is almost a tweener UMPC-laptop due to extreme thinness, application of Silverthorne in the MBA is an interesting question.
Aren't you even curious at all on how a Pentium-like (in-order, 1 FPU, 1 IU, some SIMD) performs using a modern process and at 1.8 GHz? Well I am. I'm interested in how many execution pipeline stages it has. I'm curious about it's memory latencies. It also could be very very interesting if it encroaches upon low end C2Ds. Very interesting from a marketing and production cost perspective for Intel.
I understand your question completely.
0-60 times & hp#s are still fun to know, even if you're comparing a Smart Two to a Gallardo Superleggera.
melgross' problem is he has no life and the only way he can dhv or achieve any self-esteem is to be a gigantic fart-mongering condescension wonk here on AI, which is why he's not actually Listening to what you're saying.
You should see his google images photo. --Hell I'd be a fart-wonking Mac tool if I looked like "The Librarian" from the original "Blade" movie, too.
You should see his google images photo. --Hell I'd be a fart-wonking Mac tool if I looked like "The Librarian" from the original "Blade" movie, too.
That's not the same person.
I understand your question completely.
0-60 times & hp#s are still fun to know, even if you're comparing a Smart Two to a Gallardo Superleggera.
So comparing an iPod Shuffle processor to a 8-core 3.2GHz Intel Xeon "Penryn" processor is relevant?
edit: I just looked and can't find any ARM vs. Xeon comparisons.