POST A COMMENT

23 Comments

Back to Article

  • strikeback03 - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    Which temperature units is that "160 below 0" in? Reply
  • amdsupport - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Intel didn't have much to say about the architecture other than it was called Kenmore and we'd see it in 2008 in the Consumer Electronics market.


    Did Sears/Kmart design part of the chip also? :p
    seems like intel could come up with a more creative name than that.

    I'm kinda curious though what consumer electronics will end up with some form of this.
    Reply
  • cheburashka - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    The believe the codename is actually Canemore. Reply
  • AmberClad - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    I did a double take when I saw that too. I couldn't believe the PR people let that one through. This is what happens when you randomly pick the name of a city, without considering the alternate connotations of that name. Reply
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    I was wondering if it was intended as a joke that an architecture designed for the CE market is given the same name as a CE company. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    Code names are not product names. They could call something "AMD- Thunderbird" internally if they wanted; it's only the final product names that really matter in terms of trademarks. Reply
  • bespoke - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link

    In the mid nineties, Apple got in trouble for a product with a code name of "Sagan". Carl Sagan's lawyers made a stink about Apple's use of his name, even thought it was an internal code name. Apple engineers changed the code name to "BHA", which was understood to mean "butt-head astronomer". Sagan sued for libel after that. :) Reply
  • archcommus - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    Looks like current trends will continue for the near future. Both AMD and Intel are heading in similar directions: new architecture on 65 nm, same architecture on 45 nm, and then a brand new architecture that is highly parallel and a large divergence from CPU designs of today. And, just like today, it appears Intel will get to that new architecture at least a half year if not a full year ahead of AMD. Glad to see things accelerating so quickly in the CPU market, as long as AMD DOES keep catching up we should be okay!

    Question: Does having a FSB implementation versus an on-die memory controller have any tangible advantage or disadvantage to the end user besides the impact on memory performance? Which types of applications see this impact the most? It's surprising that I've owned an Athlon 64 for over two years now, and if I upgraded any time before next summer, I'd STILL be going "backwards" regarding that. Wonder why Intel stuck with it for so long.
    Reply
  • Lord Banshee - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    I would say you will not see a difference in Mem Performance going from A64->Core2Duo. But if intel does do the IMC then it might allow them to have smaller caches with less performance hit then makes their CPUs cheaper or have more room for other random logic. Reply
  • Shadowmage - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    Nehalem is definitely NOT 8 cores on a single die. Nehalem is 4 cores on a single die, with possibility for MCP solutions (8 cores on 2 dies). Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link

    It looks like Nehalem is coming in in both Native Quad Core and Native Octo Core configuration, no intermediate MCM Octo Core this time around. Reply
  • JackPack - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    Not incorrect.

    Nehalem is a modular design. There is a monolithic 8 core version of Nehalem for MP systems.
    Reply
  • AmberClad - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    According to http://techreport.com/discussions.x/13232">TechReport: 'In its "largest configuration," Nehalem will pack eight CPU cores onto a single die'. Reply
  • Martimus - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    You showed some interesting stuff, and I read through the article with interest. What really threw me was your symantics. You sounded more like an Intel salesman than a reviewer. things like
    quote:

    Silverthorne is Intel's very simple x86 system-on-a-chip design, which will hopefully make its way into everything from smart phones to digital TVs.
    like it matters if Intels solution makes it's way there versus someone elses solution. Or when you say
    quote:

    Nehalem is fully expected to close the gap between AMD and Intel when it comes to memory performance and multi-processor scalability.
    which is just a pure guess at this point. If you say "may" instead of "fully expected to", it wouldn't sound like a used car salesman trying to covince me that this is already a done deal. I already get that enough from my contractors trying to convince me that their product has some magical properties that make it head and shoulders above the competition.
    Reply
  • fitten - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    I don't read it like that at all...

    For example:
    [quote]
    Silverthorne is Intel's very simple x86 system-on-a-chip design, which Intel hopes will hopefully make its way into everything from smart phones to digital TVs[/quote]

    [/quote]
    Nehalem is fully expected by Intel to close the gap between AMD and Intel when it comes to memory performance and multi-processor scalability.[/quote]

    Would you argue either of those are false?

    Reply
  • Martimus - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    That would be the best way of putting it I think. Those two adjustments you made make it sound much better. The current writing implies a bias of the writer, but yours implies a bias from the company, which is to be expected. I'm not sure why it upset me to see my favorite site writing an article that seemed to show a favoritism toward a particular company, but I think it had more to do with the fact that I don't want to have to worry about the site that I use to make purchasing decisions having a bias. I want to be able to trust this site, because it is stressful when you lose confidence in the people you look to for help. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    Just remember: this is the *Intel* Developer Forum, so any reporting is basically an overview of what Intel is saying and planning. Tradeshow articles don't tend to be quite as in-depth as actual reviews, and while we don't always explicitly state it or make it clear, meetings with any manufacturers are always them telling us what they hope/plan/want/etc. Reply
  • Nfarce - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    Huh. That is exactly the way I read it. Methinks a fanboi got just a tad overzealous in the bias accusation department and read more into it than was meant to portray. Geez. Reply
  • Roy2001 - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    Intel roadmap is impressive and they excuted well recently. Reply
  • code65536 - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    Penyrn hasn't even been launched yet, and Intel is already demonstrating Penryn's successor? Well, they're certainly on top of things... Reply
  • mattsaccount - Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - link

    Impressive, to say the least. Reply
  • Schmide - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link

    Ever since the Washing Machine went out in 1992 i refuse to buy anything with the Kenmore name. WTF am I spose to do in 2008? Reply
  • Schmide - Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - link

    Sorry I didn't want this to go here. I'm a dumbass. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now