Opening the Kimono: Intel Details Nehalem and Tempts with Larrabee
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 17, 2008 5:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Prior to its Intel Developer Forum, Intel is revealing a bit more detail on some new products coming down the pipeline - including Nehalem and Larrabee.
IDF is going to be all about scaling Intel Architecture from milli watts all the way up to Peta FLOPs. This is clearly a reference to the Intel Atom on the milli watts side and new high end quad-core Itanium and Larrabee products on the Peta FLOPs side.
First up is Intel's quad-core Itanium product, codenamed Tukwila:
Tukwila is Intel's first chip with a full 2 billion transistors and should be shipping by the end of this year, with full systems available next year. Tukwila, like Nehalem, will support Intel's QuickPath Interconnect (QPI), a point-to-point interconnect similar to AMD's Hyper Transport. Also like Nehalem, Tukwila will feature an integrated memory controller - two in this case.
Next up was the Intel Dunnington processor, a 45nm 6-core Xeon part based on Penryn cores:
With 6 cores (3 dual-core pairs on a single die) and a massive 16MB shared L3 cache, Dunnington is close to Tukwila in transistor count, weighing in at a whopping 1.9 billion transistors. Dunnington is the first shipping product to come out of Intel's India Design Team based out of Bangalore, India.
Architecturally there's not much difference between Dunnington and current Penryn based Xeon parts, you simply get more cores and a very large L3 cache shared by all of the cores. Designing such a beast isn't an insignificant effort, but it's made easier because when Intel designs a core it designs everything up to but not including the L2 cache. The L2 and everything external to it is referred to as the "uncore" and is made somewhat modular, although not quite to the same degree as Nehalem.
Dunnington is the first step in Intel implementing a very Phenom-like cache architecture with its future Core products, culminating in Nehalem.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
53 Comments
View All Comments
dreddly - Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - link
Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the repeated objections to the insertion of a sexually inappropriate innuendo into the headline does not constitute 'vague mutterings'.If this site persistently juxtaposed sexually charged images of women with their headlines (akin to maxim) to make a literary statements or metaphors, then it would not be an issue. The objection is to complete irrelevance and seeming ignorant refusal to justify why the image of a Japanese women was chosen and why a traditionally conservative and respectful piece of clothing -the kimono- became the focal point for 'exposure'.
The point you have consistently ignored is that if we replace the image of the Japanese women with a man or a image of a woman on the beach, the non-nonsensical nature of the headline is overly and absurdly apparent.
Your persistent attempts to imply that this argument is anti-sex is as laughable as your understanding of contemporary feminism. If anandtech has decided to go the maxim route, fine, there is an range of arguments and a justifiable reasons to counterpose technology and sex. The problem is that there is no justification or purpose for the headline - it isn't very literary and doesn't relate to the overall purpose of the site. As such, it is a superficial and unnecessary trope, the use of which DOES replicate and connotate a persistent stereotype of sexualized asian women. The use of the stereotype out of ironic or literary context appears to be DESIGNED to offend women and asians who object to those oversimplications that have often used to discriminate and marginalize in the past.
Screammit - Sunday, March 23, 2008 - link
"The use of the stereotype out of ironic or literary context appears to be DESIGNED to offend women and asians..."I'm totally with you on this Anandtech marginalization conspiracy theory, but i'm pretty sure the girl in the picture did something to deserve it. I was kinda hoping for the new Nehalem chips to be used as pasties, but hey, there's always the next article, right?
hobel - Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - link
You are the only who thinks that a kimono is womans clothing only.In the context with the image, ok... but the headline only is gender neutral. Or never seen a sumo ringer in kimono?
jasongg06 - Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - link
Well put. This title is inappropriate. Not only is it offensive to women, it is also offensive to Asians in general. You'd think in 2008 people would have better taste and judgment.masher2 - Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - link
> "it is also offensive to Asians in general..."The headline implies:
a) That somewhere in the world, some women still wear kimonos, at least under some circumstances.
b) That at least some men still remain sexually attracted to women.
Which of these suggestions is "offensive to Asians in general"?
ocyl - Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - link
Agreed. I don't think that the article title and the front-page image are appropriate, either, considering that there is no need to sensitize / emotionalize the subject matter.madoka - Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - link
Yes, the title and imagery is pretty crass and tasteless.masher2 - Monday, March 17, 2008 - link
I commend you on your ability to be offended by pointless trivia.Griswold - Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - link
Good thing you're not the authority on what is "pointless trivia" and what is not.Tilmitt - Monday, March 17, 2008 - link
As someone with a Japanese girlfriend...I loved the title!