No Mobile Intel Chip for Longhorn?
Posted by Yardena Arar | Friday, June 03, 2005 2:05 PM PT
At Intel's Wireless and Mobility Press Day yesterday, Mooly Eden--vice president and general manager of the company's mobile platforms group--waxed enthusiastic in describing the company's next-gen notebook technology, code-named Napa. (What else would you call the successor to today's Sonoma notebook platform?) Napa's centerpiece: Intel's coming Yonah mobile processor--the company's first dual-core CPU for notebooks.
Judging from Eden's lively presentation, Yonah will be a much more integrated dual-core processor than today's Pentium D desktops, which essentially are two single-core chips fused together. You can get the details in
this story by Tom Krazit of IDG News Service, but here's what struck me as a bit odd: Unlike the dual-core desktop chips we're seeing now, Yonah will be a 32-bit CPU.
Why was I surprised? Intel is saying Napa notebooks will only appear in the first quarter of next year--in other words, only a scant six-to-nine months before the scheduled release of Longhorn, Microsoft's next version of Windows.
The primary release of Longhorn will be the 64-bit version (although a 32-bit version is being prepared for older upgradeable PCs). So it sounds like Intel won't have a 64-bit notebook CPU at Longhorn's launch.
When I asked Eden about this after his speech, he looked a bit pained. "If the demand is there, we'll have a product," he said, a bit evasively. He also suggested that the demand might not be that great since we've yet to see major 64-bit apps.
But by the time Longhorn comes out, the 64-bit apps may be ready--and you can bet some games will be. I talked to Krazit and some of
PC World's resident chip experts, who say it's possible that Intel has a plan (that it doesn't want to publicly discuss) for quickly moving Napa to 64 bits without having to start from scratch.
But if I were contemplating a notebook purchase next year, I wouldn't invest in one I couldn't upgrade to run the 64-bit version of Longhorn. In fact, I'd hold off to get a portable with Longhorn 64 pre-installed. If nothing else, debuting Yonah with only 32-bit support sounds like bad marketing.
I will NOT get longhorn for AT LEAST a year after it is released. Windows XP is good enough and compatible with (almost) everything (software and hardware) I have.
I was wondering when Intel was going to come out with a mobile 64 bit chip. I've been holding off replacing my laptop until Longhorn came out. If Intel doesn't have a 64 bit mobile product by then, I'm going AMD.
Debuting with 32 bit processing May not be bad marketing if the average user upgrades his laptop every year to 18 months, by then I am sure Intel will have a 64 bit laptop. Also seeing as they have postponed the intro of longhorn in the past it may be done again!
I have read mostly 64 bit gaming reviews and there simply isn't any real benefit to 64 bit (Farcry is supposedly 64 bit optimized with patch). They looked at other 64 bit apps and really found no benefit, mostly was a little slower (due to slow drivers). I mean who really cares, this is a marketing fud thing. You are going to get a TON more value from the dual core chips than 64bit nonsense. Uless you want more than 4 gigs of ram then you have the only compelling reason to get 64 bit. Yeah I know there are a ton more op codes for 64 bit processors again we won't see any real benefit I think even with optimizations. The mobile sector is the only one that Intel can claim to have a lead, and this announcment is no exception dual core cpu's WOW.
I belive that AMD will get better solution.My next laptop will run AMD CPU.
AMD has yet to prove its worthiness in the world of mobile computing. So finally they have beaten intel in desktops(for now), but intel is still the king of mobile cpu's. I think a 64bit dual core mobile cpu from intel would be worth the wait.
we'll just have to see. AMD might have something up their sleeves that'll blow us away in the mobile sector. Remember, the Athlon came out of nowhere. Its performance certainly couldn't be judged based on its predecessors (K6-2/3)
64 bits means nada to average Joe cause he has no clue.
AJ: Will it make it faster?
God: No
AJ: Will the 32 bit system be slower?
God: No
AJ: So whats the big effing deal?
God: Though shall be able to access more ram than 4gb!
AJ: Thats it?
God: Lemmings like you will buy it cause your clueless and think 'Big number, must be better'.
AJ: Thanks, neato a bigger number. Can't wait!
Longhorn, forget it for now
Right now I'm still using Windows 2000 Pro.
A one word answer to the 64-bit question: Merom. Google it for details.
Intel is still trying to look like it didnt get caught with its finger in its nose. I dont think intel's 64 bit duel core prossessors that have been cobled togher to have something to show will beat amd for a long time. Maybe the next generation but by then amd will be farther along.
But the world is still stuck on intel. That and the vapor ware that will be longhorn.
what about that C7 chip from Via? the low power consumption has mobile computer written all over it.
why wait... get a turion notebook now ;)
INTEL is at least 3 years behind AMD in technology. Doing 64 bit is not easy. INTEL spent two years copying AMD64 instruction set to P4. But, P4 already had 36 bit physical address, so making it to fake 64 bit is easy. OTH, Pentium M has only 32 bit physical address, so a lot more work needs to be done to make a AMD64 pentium M clone. INQ just reported AMD will release quad-core opteron in Q1 2006. It seems INTEL is getting further behind. INTEL won't have something similar to AMD's DCA until 2008. AMD is going to release K10 architecture in 2007.
Don't people like sharikou actually read the trade press? Merom and Conroe.
I'm with the AMD trail blazers. The architecture shows more potential then what I've seen in Intel. And for Apple going to intel, oh my god. Sounds like corporate politics got in the way of almost full bandwidth performance !
Zoran,
Not only is the processor capable of of addressing up to 16 terabytes but its capable of quicker speeds due to the 64-bit processors have registers that hold 64-bit values, double that of 32-bit processors. Although this is not the major advanage of the chip regular users are going to benefit from it even though they will not be utilizing the memory expansion. Get off your high horse, go get some fresh air. geek
I wonder if this chip will be the first chip to see the light of day on the first line of Intel powered Apple Powerbooks? My guess is that Intel won't/can't say anything about the 64 bit versions which have to exist (because there is no way Apple would have swithed if they weren't in the immediate pipline), because it might give away information that Apple does not want to become public yet. Remember that Tiger and Leopard (Mac OS 10.5) have 64 bit memory addressing capabilities.
I don't understand how someone can state that 64bit processors aren't faster than 32bit processors. Using an amd64 3200 laptop running windowspro x64 beta I can rip a cd and dvd almost twice as fast as a 2.8Ghz pentium 4 laptop running xphome with the drives running the same speed....
sharikou take a look at "Sathinator" answer. you can also take a look at Job's interview and conclude the date.
our software havnt been optimized for the 64bit yet, once everything begging to do so, everyone is going to jump on the wagon. 64bit is the future so i would definitely invest in it no matter if it worth it right now or not.
Yonah is just only test market from intel.
Intel have Merom in his hand and will launch at the same time when Vista release.
so, get merom instead of yonah because the price is not much different when merom out for a month.