Intel unveiled a power gate feature incorporating a "turbo" mode for its upcoming Nehalem family of processors. With the turbo mode, in a situation where not all the cores are necessary for a particular workload, the ones that are idle will be turned off and power is channeled to the cores that are active, making them more efficient. Intel also showcased the Nehalem-EX for the expandable server market, which consists of eight-core processors on a single die.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-08-29
Member since:2008-07-25
sorry but i just can't ressist 
from my experience i can tell that if i'll be using some MS OS it'll be just as slow as vista is now. remember those "what intel gave us, microsoft took from us" articles? no flaming but the problem is if i use vista on my 2.4 GHz core2duo it feels just like ME on my old 400MHz Pentium II no matter if use those sassy glass window frames or not
Edited 2008-08-20 18:51 UTC
Member since:2008-04-18
It doesn't work like that. It's all about creating new needs. You want to sell your new products. This is where Vista comes in handy. I'll hazard a guess: these new CPUs are designed to work with Windows 7.
Member since:2008-07-25
Member since:2006-07-24
Member since:2008-07-25
lucky you but i expected new computer to run faster that's why i bought it. thx god for hackintosh.
ok enough because this will end up as flaming no matter how i try to avoid it 
PS: i'm also on XP, *Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS and no problems with speed, no HDD doing something all the time, no full 2G memory. tried server 2008 as desktop os and i have to say i like it more compared to vista
sorry for my english
Edited 2008-08-20 19:38 UTC
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:
2006-09-30
Member since:2008-07-25
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2008-07-25
Member since:2006-01-26
Except (and I admit I didn't read the article) it sounds like they're boosting the performance on the remaining cores by channeling the power from the ones that are disabled (i.e., boosting single-threaded processing slightly while using the same amount of total power?)
Member since:2005-07-11
Except (and I admit I didn't read the article) it sounds like they're boosting the performance on the remaining cores by channeling the power from the ones that are disabled (i.e., boosting single-threaded processing slightly while using the same amount of total power?) "
Correct. For example, in a 6x 1.6 GHz CPU, they could turn off 4 of the cores, use some of the saved power to overclock the remaining two cores to 1.8 or 2.0 GHz, and get faster performance with less overall power usage.
Member since:
2006-10-31
Member since:2005-10-11
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-10
At the end of the day, the Turbo button was good for consumers. It gave them the feeling they were getting something great. The computer was noticeably "faster" with the Turbo on (despite the fact the whole situation was in fact reversed)
Consumers will believe just about anything if it's put out in front of them and they surmise what it does themselves.
This is why, even through regular consumers don't know any of the technical details at all, there's a widespread disdain for Vista because to them, it's not the same as they're used to, and therefore can't be as good.
Pleasing a consumer is a genuinely difficult thing.
Member since:
2008-08-17
Member since:
2005-07-22
at the thought of all that lovely per Core(or two) Software Licensing money that is about to literally fall into their laps. With the advent of huge multicore CPU's their pricing models seem to be outdated buy probably unlikely to change soon.
This issue is what almost scuppered a deal last year where the software costs just became silly when a dual chip Quad core system was specified. They ended up with a dual core box instead for one software component. It is running at 70=90% CPU Load all day while the rest ran easily (10-20% cpu) on the 8core beast sitting next to it in the server room.
For example,
An 8 core system running Oracle 11g Enterprise requires 4 CPU Licenses which is 4x$47K + $10K per annum Update and support. Compare that to the cost of the hardware and you groan, shrug your shoulders and look for a different solution.
The data used above was taken from http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/technology-price-list.pdf
The hardware cost (ironically from IBM)was approx 1/10th of the Oracle Software license.
Its a funny old world isn't it....
Member since:
2006-05-19
