Looks like it will contain a shared L2 cache, but no 64-bit yet. No
64-bit until "the market requires it". Sort of like what kept Windows
x64 from coming out until now; but now that x64 is already out, not
sure how Intel can prevent the market from requiring it anymore.

Intel spills beans on Yonah, the next notebook chip | CNET News.com
http://news.com.com/Intel+spills+bea...3-5729925.html

Yousuf Khan

"YKhan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Looks like it will contain a shared L2 cache, but no 64-bit yet. No
> 64-bit until "the market requires it". Sort of like what kept
Windows
> x64 from coming out until now; but now that x64 is already out, not
> sure how Intel can prevent the market from requiring it anymore.

Yousuf, I thought Celerons were now routinely shipping with x64
enabled. *If* that's right, there must be something else blocking x64
from Yonah.

On 6/2/2005 20:52, Felger Carbon wrote:

> enabled. *If* that's right, there must be something else blocking x64
> from Yonah.

More than likely there'd be more power draw; definitely a no-no in a
laptop. This thing sure looks like it'll be a real screamer.

From everything I've seen it looks like longhorn will be fully supported
in 32bit and x64 flavors so I don't really see lack of this feature as too
big a deal. Only another year and a half or so to merom...

~Jason

--

Felger Carbon wrote:
> Yousuf, I thought Celerons were now routinely shipping with x64
> enabled. *If* that's right, there must be something else blocking x64
> from Yonah.

Hard to say, well the Celeron-D's are of course based off of the
Prescott core which already has x64.

Another possibility is that it seems like the Netburst chips are like
old American V8 car engines from the 50's and 60's. There wasn't a lot
of subtlety built into those things, and there was lots of room for
aftermarket improvement. You could drop a 64-bit module into the
Netburst like you could drop a bigger carb into one of those old
engines. But the Pentium M is like a highly integrated European engine,
where changing even a small pipe might throw it's balance off. Just my
speculation.

Yousuf Khan

Jason Gurtz wrote:
> On 6/2/2005 20:52, Felger Carbon wrote:
>
> > enabled. *If* that's right, there must be something else blocking x64
> > from Yonah.
>
> More than likely there'd be more power draw; definitely a no-no in a
> laptop. This thing sure looks like it'll be a real screamer.
>
> From everything I've seen it looks like longhorn will be fully supported
> in 32bit and x64 flavors so I don't really see lack of this feature as too
> big a deal. Only another year and a half or so to merom...
>


I agree. The question isn't just when will 64 bit software be
available, but when will 32 bit software *not* be available. I think it
will be a while before having a 64 bit notebook with greater than 4gb
ram is a necessity.

With all the existing 32bit systems in the world right now it might be
a decade or more before you absolutely can't buy a given app or OS in
32bit flavor.

Jason Gurtz wrote:
> On 6/2/2005 20:52, Felger Carbon wrote:
> More than likely there'd be more power draw; definitely a no-no in a
> laptop. This thing sure looks like it'll be a real screamer.

Why do you think 64-bit would require more power draw?

Yousuf Khan

>
> I agree. The question isn't just when will 64 bit software be
> available, but when will 32 bit software *not* be available. I think it
> will be a while before having a 64 bit notebook with greater than 4gb
> ram is a necessity.
>
> With all the existing 32bit systems in the world right now it might be
> a decade or more before you absolutely can't buy a given app or OS in
> 32bit flavor.

yeah but since when does the consumer care about stuff like that, all a
sales guy has to say is this laptop is 32bit while the amd over there is
64 and they will take the higher number.

it may not be a real issue but when you have two like priced processors
and one wouln't run a lot of major software i recon it will have trouble.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:52:05 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"YKhan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Looks like it will contain a shared L2 cache, but no 64-bit yet. No
>> 64-bit until "the market requires it". Sort of like what kept
>Windows
>> x64 from coming out until now; but now that x64 is already out, not
>> sure how Intel can prevent the market from requiring it anymore.
>
>Yousuf, I thought Celerons were now routinely shipping with x64
>enabled. *If* that's right, there must be something else blocking x64
>from Yonah.
>

Not Pentium-M architecture, though--one guesses that Intel just
doesn't have 64-bit designed in.

I'd agree, though that Intel is up to something here, other than
design costs.

RM

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 09:58:17 -0400, Robert Myers
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:52:05 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>"YKhan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Looks like it will contain a shared L2 cache, but no 64-bit yet. No
>>> 64-bit until "the market requires it". Sort of like what kept
>>Windows
>>> x64 from coming out until now; but now that x64 is already out, not
>>> sure how Intel can prevent the market from requiring it anymore.
>>
>>Yousuf, I thought Celerons were now routinely shipping with x64
>>enabled. *If* that's right, there must be something else blocking x64
>>from Yonah.
>>
>
>Not Pentium-M architecture, though--one guesses that Intel just
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which is not much more than just another incarnation of old good P6
architecture, that started as PPro around 1995, IIRC. At that time,
16 bit was the king, and it was not too far away from the (in)famous
B.G. blurp about 640k RAM being enough for everyone. 4 GB was the
number not yet passed by mainstream harddrives. Nobody even thought
about 64 bit back then...
>doesn't have 64-bit designed in.
>
>I'd agree, though that Intel is up to something here, other than
>design costs.
>
>RM

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>Not Pentium-M architecture, though--one guesses that Intel just
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Which is not much more than just another incarnation of old good P6
> architecture, that started as PPro around 1995, IIRC. At that time,
> 16 bit was the king, and it was not too far away from the (in)famous
> B.G. blurp about 640k RAM being enough for everyone. 4 GB was the
> number not yet passed by mainstream harddrives. Nobody even thought
> about 64 bit back then...

What are you talking about? 32-bit was around for at least ten years
prior to that, with the 386 in 1985. The P6 architecture was about the
fourth generation of 32-bit chips in the x86 line: 386, 486, Pentium P5,
and Pentium P6. Pentium 4 represents the fifth generation of 32-bit, and
Intel's first generation of x64.

Yousuf Khan