Dual-Core Intel Xeon Processor LV 2.0 GHz for Dual-Processor EmbeddedComputing and Communications Applications – Overview — I just got a press memo on this and think that Intel may be on the verge of a new performance paradigm. It’s PPW or performance per watt. They haven’t called it PPW or PW yet and perhaps they haven’t even figured out that they can make hay with this one, but it’s there for them to grab. Let’s see if they can run with it.
some items from the email:
Significant Improvement in Performance and Performance/Watt with New Dual-Core Intel(r) Xeon(r) Processor
– Two high-performance execution cores with intelligent power management features deliver significantly greater performance/watt over previous single-core Intel(r) Xeon(r) processor-based platforms.
– High-performance 667 MHz front-side bus provides dual processor support for demanding multi-threaded and multi-tasking usage environments.
– Four high-performance cores per platform-dual core with dual-processor capabilities–provide excellent solutions for low-power communications and embedded applications such as storage area networks, network attached storage, routers, virtual private networks, firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and telecommunications (wireless and wireline) servers.
– Two cores in one physical package support increased blade density, making it
particularly attractive for AdvancedTCA* form factor designs, as well as CompactPCI*,
COMM Express and custom bladed and rack-mounted designs.
Maybe I should be a consultant for these guys. Do I have to tell them everything?
While I think the PPW rating would be great for notebooks, I don’t think it’d be relevant at all to desktop systems. Anyone who’d be concerned about the wattage of their desktop CPU would probably be too much of a luddite to use a desktop system in the first place.
And since AMD would lose the PPW race, Intel might want to use it against them.
But all AMD would have to do is use their infamous + symbol. In other words, AMD would take whatever PPW number Intel comes up with and add the + symbol at the end to indicate a greater wattage used. But the consumer would see the + as an advantage, not a disadvantage. Thus, AMD would even win that!
Agree with SN – PPW would be a good rating for mobile processors – about time we started using real numbers again (anyone else find Intel’s semi-new three digit number codes totally unhelpful) – at least AMD’s “infamous +” symbol actually had some relationship to let you compare their chips with Intel’s
“if you like building more power plants…”
I’m sorry, only luddies and Paul would care about the PPW rating in relation to desktop systems.
No, PPW is important in desktops, just not to the person BUYING IT. If you can run more data on less energy then you have less heat per calculation, and so you can do more calculations per second without melting your processor. The people BUILDING THE CHIP should care, even if all we really care about the speed we get at the end.
“No, PPW is important in desktops….so you can do more calculations per second without melting your processor.”
Maybe you don’t get it, or maybe I don’t get you, but I think you’re talking about two different things. The PPW would only measure efficiency. So a CPU could have a great PPW score but still be slower than a CPU with a poor PPW. If doing “more calculations per second” is your goal, the PPW really won’t matter.
A real world example would to compare Intel’s chips with AMD’s. Intel’s would easily win the PPW war. While AMD would easily win the speed war.
It does matter in relation to notebooks because of battery life.
It does matter for more than just desktops. PPW matters to large corporate users or anyone running a large server farm. Ever hear of Google? “A Google engineer has warned that if the performance per watt of today’s computers doesn’t improve, the electrical costs of running them could end up far greater than the initial hardware price tag.” http://news.com.com/2100-1010_3-5988090.html
“PPW matters to large corporate users or anyone running a large server farm.”
You’re absolutely right, but servers are not desktop systems.
“wrong steve.”
I already admitted I was wrong! You care about the issue. Why are we arguing?!
How about processing per decibel?
I gotta go with reason on this. It only will matter to those where high energy costs, space , and heat dispersion are important. That does not include desk top units. People are more interested in raw power, not power conservation when it comes to desktop units. Portables are another issue and battery power and overall weight are much more important.
Yes, increased usage of computers has increased demand for electricity. So has the increased usage of dishwashers, large TVs, TVs in every room, air conditioners (especially central air), swimming pools (pumps), outside Christmas Lights and Decorations, and microwave ovens. Of this aggregate usage, computers comprise a small portion. Every little bit helps though.
I thought SN drove an Cadillac Escalade. You know those Michigan boys like the big toys to make it through the snow.
PPW was the main reason Jobs gave for switching Apple to Intel processors.
From his keynote speech at the Developer’s conference in Jan 2005:
“Power consumption is just as important as performance.”
“Intel offers not just increased performance, but reduced power consumption.”
John’s right about Intel marketing being slow-on-the-uptake, since Steve was running with this a year ago… 🙂
Mac-heads were moaning when they heard the Core Duo Minis had Intel’s integrated graphics [with shared memory]. Now, Mac-heads who want to setup Home Theatre systems are enjoying 1080i and 1080p output from their minis – without having to setup a Dual-G5 tower in their living rooms… 🙂
When talking about desktops don’t forget the monitors. My 17″CRT uses about 220 W vs. a 17″ LCD at 30 W. As Paul says newer PC are more power hungry, but the concurrent switch to LCDs may offset the increase.
I’ll probably continue to wait for easy, efficient wireless before I work at streaming HDTV content forth-and-back between the living room and the study — where my shiny new MacIntel Mini lives. But, I must admit the combination of OS X + Front Row + Mini has me downloading and watching video podcasts and films of varying lengths that I wouldn’t have apportioned time for in the past.
John’s “Crankygeeks” and Patrick’s “DLTV” work just fine in SD.
Paul
Your lazy half assed search is better then my no search at all. So this response is more gut reaction then fact.
I find it difficult to accept that my three desktops, all running AMDs, use more discretionary power then does my central air conditioner. Neither were very popular even 25 years ago. I don’t know how much my CA draws, but it has its own 30A circuit. Last summer there was about an eight week period that it didn’t run at least once/hr and usually five or six times/hr. (The label says High Efficiency, what ever that means) The computers and monitors are all set to go into sleep mode within one hour of idle. I put mine to sleep whenever I know I’ll be away from it for more then 15 minutes; the wife and kid aren’t as careful.
The number of Christmas Lights and decorations are going up sooner and getting bigger with each year. I try to keep mine simple, totaling about 500W inside only, but our neighbor needs his own coal fired generator for his house, for at least six weeks. And I’ve seen many displays bigger then his. Small backyard swimming pools are popping up like mushrooms after a rain. Most keep their 750W pumps going 24/7. When I was a kid, in the last century, dishwashers were only used in restaurants. Now they are in every new house and they ain’t going away. They definitely use more hot water, and a great deal of electric energy to run and especially dry. I do think all three examples here are much more prevalent then even six or seven years ago.
Your point about ANY increase in energy consumption is well taken. I am taking the point of the average consumer will not care about any increase in CPU efficiency when the amount saved will be but a small fraction of the overall energy used in the home. Where this will stand out will be in portable devices; laptops, notebooks, tablets, portable games, etc. where battery life and total weight are much more important then a small increase in power. Most people do not need all the power already present in their computers. Few people do heavy CPU applications, such as video rendering or photo editing on notebooks or laptops anyways, and when they do they will generally plug the notebook into the wall.