Quote:Core 2 duo came out of it so that's a win, right?
The core 2 architecture (called core internally by intel just to add further confusion) slowly evolved from P6.
p6 (pentium pro) -> p6 (pentium II) -> p6 (pentium III) -> p6 (pentium mobile) -> core -> core 2
Each generation shows an increase in both IPC and performance per watt on the same manufacturing technology compared to its predecessor.
Quote:Obvious reasons?
What, it was slow and ineffiecient?
.....kind of
I'm pretty tired and haven't gotten a lot of sleep over the past couple of days on account of being busy. I was planning on quickly browsing the forums tonight so I won't leave you with my normal bull blown wall-of-text explaining everything in elaborate detail.
Quick summary: The netburst microarchitecture (the microarchitecture used in pentium IV, pentium D, etc. cpus from that era) was designed for exploiting superpipelining as much as possible. The general idea was to produce an extremely long pipeline capable of achieving high clock rates within reasonable voltage limitations while trying to minimize the IPC impact of the long pipeline through improvements in branch prediction, micro-op trace cache, MLP (memory level parallelism), and out-of-order superscalar execution. Of course higher voltages/clock rates also produce higher power consumption and higher power leakage which produces a much higher TDP. The longer pipelines further compounded the problem by making the power leakage even higher. A large die size contributed to high cost.
The architecture produced higher clock rates at the expense of lower IPC and energy efficiency. Overall performance was still higher than its predecessor though......until......the inevitable happened. We hit the heat wall. We eventually reached the limits of how much TDP a desktop chip could have. And that stopped the clock rate from climbing any higher. Basically the architecture didn't scale well into the future and intel shifted its development focus back to P6 and created core/core 2.
Edit: I'm not writing any more tonight.
(06-21-2012, 01:53 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Core 2 duo came out of it so that's a win, right?
The core 2 architecture (called core internally by intel just to add further confusion) slowly evolved from P6.
p6 (pentium pro) -> p6 (pentium II) -> p6 (pentium III) -> p6 (pentium mobile) -> core -> core 2
Each generation shows an increase in both IPC and performance per watt on the same manufacturing technology compared to its predecessor.
Quote:Obvious reasons?
What, it was slow and ineffiecient?
.....kind of
I'm pretty tired and haven't gotten a lot of sleep over the past couple of days on account of being busy. I was planning on quickly browsing the forums tonight so I won't leave you with my normal bull blown wall-of-text explaining everything in elaborate detail.
Quick summary: The netburst microarchitecture (the microarchitecture used in pentium IV, pentium D, etc. cpus from that era) was designed for exploiting superpipelining as much as possible. The general idea was to produce an extremely long pipeline capable of achieving high clock rates within reasonable voltage limitations while trying to minimize the IPC impact of the long pipeline through improvements in branch prediction, micro-op trace cache, MLP (memory level parallelism), and out-of-order superscalar execution. Of course higher voltages/clock rates also produce higher power consumption and higher power leakage which produces a much higher TDP. The longer pipelines further compounded the problem by making the power leakage even higher. A large die size contributed to high cost.
The architecture produced higher clock rates at the expense of lower IPC and energy efficiency. Overall performance was still higher than its predecessor though......until......the inevitable happened. We hit the heat wall. We eventually reached the limits of how much TDP a desktop chip could have. And that stopped the clock rate from climbing any higher. Basically the architecture didn't scale well into the future and intel shifted its development focus back to P6 and created core/core 2.
Edit: I'm not writing any more tonight.
Can you send me a PM?
This is really fascinating.
Thinking of becoming a Computer Science major.
Quote: The core 2 architecture (called core internally by intel just to add further confusion) slowly evolved from P6.
Um, no.
The core architecture was refferring to Core Solo, the single core predecessor that intel launched first in intel macbooks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8XBzGiURYk&feature=youtu.be I messed up a setting so it ran a little funny.
(06-21-2012, 06:47 PM)Squall Leonhart Wrote: [ -> ]Quote: The core 2 architecture (called core internally by intel just to add further confusion) slowly evolved from P6.
Um, no.
The core architecture was refferring to Core Solo, the single core predecessor that intel launched first in intel macbooks
Which CPU? I got a little lost and don't wanna read all the way back?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvLECh13f_s&feature=share damn freemake messes the sound up and does anyone know of a free converter that wont do this?
no thats my brother
Who builds too yous have seen his youtube by googling. And Xeno is not reno.
and look at my videos and out facebooks if you want.
thank you for confirming my suspicions that the both of you were are too close (Relatives) to be objective in any discussions.
EDIT Facebook links out y [SS]***
And how does that matter we are not agreeing because we are family
(06-21-2012, 10:35 PM)Squall Leonhart Wrote: [ -> ]thank you for confirming my suspicions that the both of you were are too close (Relatives) to be objective in any discussions.
Your suspicions you just said that we were the same person and so you are wrong!!!!!! and I wasnt arguing why do you have to start!?!?!?
I wasn't even arguing with you just posting videos for those to see and make up their own mind!
(06-21-2012, 02:20 PM)d3monr3no Wrote: [ -> ]keep it going. thats what I wanna do here talk about all sorts of things now. Done arguing.
Ok I am about to post a video and im not tryin to argue its just here for others to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcPu2lL-X2o&feature=youtu.be
tons of extras turned on.
including LLE
(06-21-2012, 06:47 PM)Squall Leonhart Wrote: [ -> ]Quote: The core 2 architecture (called core internally by intel just to add further confusion) slowly evolved from P6.
Um, no.
The core architecture was refferring to Core Solo, the single core predecessor that intel launched first in intel macbooks
There is a difference between the core microarchitecture and the processors sold under the name core. I hate to quote wikipedia as a source but intel redid its site and all of the old links are broken now:
Quote:The Intel Core microarchitecture (previously known as the Next-Generation Micro-Architecture, or NGMA) is a multi-core processor microarchitecture unveiled by Intel in Q1 2006. It is based around an updated version of the Yonah core and could be considered the latest iteration of the P6 microarchitecture, which traces its history back to the Pentium Pro introduced in 1995. The high power consumption and heat intensity of NetBurst-based processors, the resulting inability to effectively increase clock speed, and other bottlenecks such as the inefficient pipeline were the primary reasons Intel abandoned the NetBurst microarchitecture. The Core microarchitecture was designed by Israel's Intel Israel (IDC) team that previously designed the Pentium M mobile processor.[1]
The first processors that used this architecture were code-named Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest; Merom is for mobile computing, Conroe is for desktop systems, and Woodcrest is for servers and workstations. While architecturally identical, the three processor lines differ in the socket used, bus speed, and power consumption. Mainstream Core-based processors are branded Pentium Dual-Core or Pentium and low end branded Celeron; server and workstation Core-based processors are branded Xeon, while desktop and mobile Core-based processors are branded as Core 2. Despite their names, processors sold as Core Solo/Core Duo and Core i3/i5/i7 do not actually use the Core microarchitecture and are based on the Enhanced Pentium M and newer Nehalem/Sandy Bridge microarchitectures, respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_%28microarchitecture%29
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1961/4
Typing "core microarchitecture" into google will give you hundreds of other articles released around 2006 that all say the same thing.
Yonah was not considered to be a chip based on the core microarchitecture despite the fact that it was sold under the names core solo and core duo.
Quote:thank you for confirming my suspicions that the both of you were are too close (Relatives) to be objective in any discussions.
This just keeps getting better.
![[Image: tumblr_lkc2emRFTh1qi8qoxo1_500.gif]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkc2emRFTh1qi8qoxo1_500.gif)