Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

First Intel Yonah Laptop Announced

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Dec 22, 2005 06:45 PM
from the hot-off-the-presses dept.
Portables Intel Hardware
Lam1969 writes "IDG News Service reports NEC will release its first laptop based on Intel's Yonah dual-core processor in the first quarter of 2006, for just under $2,000. According to AnandTech, Yonah performance is comparable to AMD Athlon 64 X2, and is more efficient than the AMD chip in terms of power consumption."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

First Intel Yonah Laptop Announced 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Great (Score:3, Funny)

    by Lifewish (724999) on Thursday December 22 2005, @06:46PM (#14323265) Homepage Journal
    Where can I get this without Windows preinstalled?

    • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Lost Supertone (754279) on Thursday December 22 2005, @06:48PM (#14323282) Journal
      From Apple after MacWorld San Francisco

      • More on that (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mnemonic_ (164550) <jamec@umich.OPENBSDedu minus bsd> on Thursday December 22 2005, @06:54PM (#14323321) Homepage Journal

        "Reliable sources have further confirmed recently to Think Secret that new iBooks and Mac minis--as well as iPod shuffles--will debut at Macworld Expo San Francisco next month. Apple's new Mac mini and iBook are expected to be among the first--if not the first--systems to feature Intel's new mobile processor, code-named Yonah. [thinksecret.com]"
        • Wouldn't it make sense to base the powerbooks and powermacs on intel chips? They are alot faster than the 1999 era G4's? I am aware professionals use specific software still for the powerpc but Apple would lose a ton of sales.

          Someone like me would laugh and get the ibook with the faster processor than purchase a powerbook. I dont care about the hideff screen and damn the pentiumM would smoke anything by Motorrola away. Not ot mention I could run windows on it and run my win32 software if needed.
          • Uhhh. Powermacs don't use G4s anymore. Nor do the iMacs.

            Both of those lines use the IBM 64bit G5 chip.
                • As buggy as 10.4 is on a ppc

                  *boggle*

                  10.4 on PPC Macs is perhaps the least-buggy OS it has ever been my pleasure to witness. I've got multiple systems running it, and have yet to see a crash, either on my systems or anybody else's.

                  If you consider it "buggy", what is your other computer that does better? An abacus!?
          • There isn't a lot of professional intel OS-X software to take advantage of the new platform yet would be my guess...
            • A lack of support for a platform that doesn't currently exist in retail isn't exactly a big deal. Besides, Rosetta (a rebranded version of Transitive's incredibly impressive QuickTransit emulator) has made big gains over the past few months, and it isn't even out in retail yet.

              Sure, some apps are not going to run incredibly well under Rosetta, but when you consider that we're talking about going from a slow single-core G4 (first Mactels will be notebooks, it seems) to a speedy dual-core Yonah, I think that

        • It makes more sense to differentiate the two by giving PowerBooks the dual-core, with iBooks getting the upcoming single-core Yonah. And that'd certainly go a long ways towards keeping the iBooks cheap.

          If this NEC is supposed to be $2k, that strongly suggests a dual-core mac notebook would be well out of the iBook price range, but right in line with PowerBook prices.

          Powerbooks were upgraded recently, but it was a pretty meager bump.

      • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fermion (181285) on Thursday December 22 2005, @08:02PM (#14323749) Homepage Journal
        Although I am really bummed that the Mac is going to hobbled by a legacy processor with legacy hacks, I think we will have fun playing the game of who has the computer with more value. As has often been suggested, when comparing major vendor to major vendor, Apple has never really been overpriced.

        Take this for instance. The NEC machine is 2000, with 512Mb, 100 Gig, 14 inch screen, and the other bells a whistles n would expect. The only real weakness is that it priced with XP toy, so it will cost $150 to get the pro version. Why anyone would sell a $2000 machine with XP home is beyond me.

        OTOH, a current mac with similar specs is also $2000. When Apple moves to intel, we can assume that they will stay with these similar specs and similar price. Therefore we can expect to get a Mac, possible with a bigger screen, but smaller hard disk, not to mention built in Airport, for the same money. To make matters better, the extra $150 goes a long way to putting 1 gig RAM in slot A, which leaves the other slot free for an additional gig. And of course lets not forget that XCode and WebObjects are now free.

        I am sure we will see Dell undercut the price with tricks such as rebates and the XP Home maneuver, but in the end list prices for the MS Window machines are sure to continue to be higher.

      • Well, I was thinking more of a -1 Bitter And Twisted really, but whatever. Actually I figured that there was about a 1 in 3 chance that someone would know somewhere in the UK that doesn't insist on bundling XP with everything.

  • Yonah? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22 2005, @06:48PM (#14323277)
    Oh yeah ebonics. As in "Yonah need alot a dough to buy one."
  • What is clear is that even when AMD had the superior product, it didn't gain massive market share. So same shit different day. At the end all the oems flock to the company that can mass manufacture.

    • Re:Yawn (Score:2, Informative)

      by Eightyford (893696)
      I agree with you about AMD's technical superiority, but the Pentium M was, and is an excellent product. The 1.3 ghz Centrino I bought 2 1/2 years ago is holding up better than any of the other computers I've purchased.
    • What is clear is that even when AMD had the superior product, it didn't gain massive market share. So same shit different day. At the end all the oems flock to the company that can mass manufacture.

      What it seems is that the OEMs will go with the company who can mass spin. "Yonah performance is comparable to AMD Athlon 64 X2, and is more efficient than the AMD chip in terms of power consumption.". Yeah right, please. Yonah is a 32 bit chip. There is no way in hell it can approach the performance of a 64 bit

        • Re:The company that can mass spin (Score:5, Funny)

          by carlislematthew (726846) on Thursday December 22 2005, @07:56PM (#14323708)
          But 64 bit is TWICE as many bits. Therefore is is TWICE as good, and TWICE the speed.

          You must have a 32 bit brain or something...

        • Not exactly like that, although there is a lot of truth in what you said. Where you where wrong? Nowhere. Better question is "What you forgot to mention".

          A lot of code consists with memory block moving (and those are the most time cunsuming parts usualy too). This happens a lot faster on 64-bit (register is larger and you move larger block in one cycle). Every time you move or reallocate memory. For example, string functions are mostly this kind of logic. Then another one it is mapping one bitmap over anoth

        • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

          by NerveGas (168686) on Friday December 23 2005, @12:44AM (#14324922)
          "and AMD isn't exactly innovative, it's just the underdog"

              While other companies put the memory controller on the CPU and gave the CPUs low-latency, high-bandwidth interconnects, you *do* have to hand it to AMD for actually bringing that to commodity-level hardware. And you have to shake your head at the fact that Intel, who traditionally has enjoyed smaller, better manufacturing capabilities, *could* have done it significantly earlier than AMD, but just didn't care to try anything new. I can't fathom why they would sink billions into R&D on the Itanium, when there were plenty of options of real, proven advances that would have been much easier, faster, and cheaper.

          steve

  • As for the laptop itself (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FireballX301 (766274) on Thursday December 22 2005, @06:49PM (#14323294) Journal
    Other than the newfangled dual core processor everything else is kinda marginal. XP Home? 512 mb? Not for 2000 USD.

    As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop? Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?

    • applications of dual core for a on-the-go (Score:5, Funny)

      by fredistheking (464407) on Thursday December 22 2005, @06:55PM (#14323329)
      personal heating device?

    • Re:As for the laptop itself (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday December 22 2005, @06:58PM (#14323346) Journal
      NEC said the LR900 will be based on Windows XP Home Edition, come with 512MB of main memory and a 100GB hard-disk drive. It will have a 14.1-in. LCD, DVD Super Multi drive (DVD-R/+R, DVD-RAM, DVD-RW/+RW), 802.11a/b/g Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. The machine will weigh about 2 kilograms, and the battery will provide enough power to last about four hours.

      NEC intends to put the machine on sale sometime in 2006 for around $1,945 in its basic configuration

      This isn't a laptop, it's a desktop replacement.

      I wonder about the small monitor, RAM and XP Home though. I guess you have to make some compromises to keep the $$$$ down.
    • I work for a company that produces software for radiation simulation for oncology. We need as much power as possible for our apps. Right now we run our systems on dual-package dual-core AMD systems. Laptop solutions are important because many of our users work at multiple clinics and have to take their planning solutions on the road.

      So we'll be buying some of these just about the instant they come out.

    • Re:As for the laptop itself (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rolfwind (528248) on Thursday December 22 2005, @07:05PM (#14323396)
      As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop? Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?


      Many people don't want PC Towers of any size anymore, they'd rather have a notebook. Just like they don't want CRT montiors vs. LCD. Or normal CRT TVs vs. Plasma. Etcetera. For many reasons - aesthetics. It's easier to move (Americans move an average of every 7 years). It takes up less space, for a cramped apartment or just to dispose of (something Europeans think a lot about in both cases).

      Thus, the notebook isn't a on-the-go computer anymore (Why pay for 2 computer systems anyway if you aren't a gamer, etcetera.) It's the main computer. This is reinforced by the fact that notebook sales exceeded PC sales for the first time this year.

      BTW, dual-cores aren't only handy for rendering. They are handy for responsiveness, it's most obvious when a process hogs the CPU and makes everything else slow to a crawl - including but not only when trying to kill said process if it turns into a zombie. On a dual-core, that's not a problem.

      • BTW, dual-cores aren't only handy for rendering. They are handy for responsiveness, it's most obvious when a process hogs the CPU and makes everything else slow to a crawl - including but not only when trying to kill said process if it turns into a zombie. On a dual-core, that's not a problem.

        I agree with you. When I had a dual 2GHz G5, I would periodically notice that the fans would slowly ramp up to full speed. I could open a terminal and notice that one of the processes had gone postal and was at 1

        • That reasoning only works if you assume that someone only buys a PC immediately after moving. Otherwise the next move is likely to be less than seven years away.
    • As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop?

      Dual cores (like dual processors) start to shine as soon as you're doing any sort of interactive multitasking. For people using their laptop as a full time machine, that's important.

  • Where's the battery backpack ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gopal.V (532678) on Thursday December 22 2005, @06:52PM (#14323306) Homepage Journal
    What about the memory controller, are they adding the power consumption of that to the CPU - to be properly compared to the integrated system that AMD X2 uses ?.

    A dual-core laptop processor sounds overkill. For me a laptop is merely a shell terminal to log-in to some other box.

    Anyway, good to see Intel go back to the original P3 designs with all this. P4 really sucks totally - hyperthreading or no hyperthreading.
    • For me a laptop is merely a shell terminal to log-in to some other box

      So it doesn't sound like you'll be needing to upgrade then. A five year old laptop would work fine for that application. Some people, though, actualy do work on their laptop.
    • The whole thing seems like crap to me, it's marginally better than the single core one due to a 40% more latency of the memory controller, and yes, it uses less power than the X2, hurray? To bad they aren't comparing to an AMD mobile cpu but a desktop one. A dual core Turion would probably own this one.
    • What about the memory controller, are they adding the power consumption of that to the CPU - to be properly compared to the integrated system that AMD X2 uses ?.

      Parent and moderators, RTFA. The power comparisons [anandtech.com] in the original article are for total system power consumption. Quote:

      In fact, a 2.0GHz Yonah under 100% load consumes less power than an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ at idle.

      Note that these figures are for desktop systems using these chips. Properly engineered laptops using these chips will have lower v

    • If it weren't for the P4, a processor like Yonah would never exist (at least, in the form it currently is in).

      The whole PM line draws heavily on technologies that were invented and used in the Pentium 4 since the Williamette series. Even hyperthreading, a technology that IMO is too far ahead of its time to be useful, had its merits. Things like micro-op fusion, advanced cache logic, some of the most advanced branch predictors in the history of modern computing, these are all directly attributable to the

      • As for them going back to the Pentium 3's P6 archetecture; I personally think it's a saddening defeat, not only for Intel, but for us consumers as well. It means that the Pentium 4 simply didn't work, and that in order for computers to get faster, they have to become more effecient. This means no longer can we take it for granted that we can simply turn up the clockrate and expect more performance, at least, not without cooking our expensive new processors. It means that we've entered a whole new era of com

  • desktop, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by User 956 (568564) on Thursday December 22 2005, @06:52PM (#14323309) Homepage
    So when are these available on desktop machines? It's gonna be hard to pitch buying a laptop instead of a workstation to the IT manager.
      • Or am I missing something here?

        Crash of the oil economy and rising electrical costs.

        Or maybe people hoping they can have dual dual-core chips ;)
      • Nooooo, I don't think that's remotely right. This isn't news to most people, but CPUs have hit a brick wall around 3 - 3.5GHz, for both laptops and desktops. AMD/Intel haven't and won't be releasing a 4GHz chip anytime soon. The only way to get processing now (for the CPU itself) is to make your software run on multiple CPUs, and keep adding more and more CPUs. Thus, we have a 3-CPU XBox 360 and a 7-CPU PS3 (and a 2-CPU Revolution, probably).
      • '' For desktops, regular dual CPU's will be a lot cheaper and just as effective for a long time to come.

        Or am I missing something here?''

        Ask Apple. They don't build any dual CPU machines anymore, just dual-core (there is one exception, and that is dual CPU + dual core = quad core).

        If you can fit two CPUs into one chip, that is definitely cheaper than building two separate chips. There is faster communication from chip to chip (direct L2 cache to L2 cache is faster than going through the bus), L2 cache can b
      • there's no real advantage to dual-core in a desktop

        That statement doesn't make any sense, unless you're assuming that a dual core chip is the same price as two single-core chips, which is false.

  • Less Power Consumption then AMD X2 a desktop CPU (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fallen Kell (165468) on Thursday December 22 2005, @06:59PM (#14323350)
    Come one guys. I sure wouldn't be flaunting the it consumes less power then the AMD X2 spec too much. You are compairing a "MOBILE" CPU core against a "DESKTOP" CPU core. The only reason Anandtech used the AMD X2 as the benchmark and not the mobile Turion CPU is because the dual core Turion CPU's are not out yet, so comparing the performance of the Yonah dual core system against a single core just didn't make sense. Its like saying that a cellphone CPU uses less power then a laptop CPU.
  • So like a newbie I decided to click and read the article. I saw about 10 cookies try to set themselves, and about 6 ads, but for the life of me I cannot find the article. I am sure it was somewhere around there in the flash and car ad, but where? Do I go on a treasure hunt and look for it? Or do I decide that Anandtech is just another place that is not worthwhile to visit.

  • I can't wait for Macworld (Score:4, Funny)

    by ducomputergeek (595742) on Thursday December 22 2005, @07:32PM (#14323552) Homepage
    I'm going to Law School this fall and will be looking to replace my G3 iBook. Dual core anything will be a little overkill, but I do a bit of hobby work in Blender 3D (www.blender.org) so that should help. You you imagine an Xgrid of these things? (no apologies to the Beowolf crowd)

  • This is NOT a 64-bit CPU! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22 2005, @07:59PM (#14323723)
    So how does Yonah's performance compare to the AMD Athlon 64 X2 running AMD64/EM64T software? Yonah can't even run it. That doesn't sound faster to me.

    Read about the benefits Intel ascribes to 64-bit software here [intel.com]. "Processors with Intel EM64T support 64-bit capable operating systems from Microsoft, Red Hat and SuSE." And you won't be able to run them.

    There are some applications where a 64-bit CPU can perform FOUR TIMES more work in 64-bit mode than 32-bit mode. One of these is big integer multiplication. Check out Is 32 bits really better than 64?" [swox.com]: "If we instead would compare an Athlon XP and an Athlon 64, the latter would be almost 4 times faster. Why 4 times and not just 2 times? Because a 64x64=>128 bit integer multiplication actually performs 4 times more work than a 32x32=>64 bit integer multiplication!"

    If you want a low power 64-bit CPU consider an AMD Turion based notebook. Check out this [laptoplogic.com] article and its conclusions. In particular, "A lot of people see Dothan's 27W TDP & Turion ML's 35W TDP and assume that Dothan is automatically lower power. Intel computes thermal design power as 75% of the maximum load on the chip, while AMD's TDP rating is derived from the absolute worst case power dissipation of the chip. Part of the total system power is also incorporated into AMD's TDP, as the memory controller is located on-chip. Intel's memory controller is built into the chipset and thus draws power not calculated as part of Dothan's TDP. Also while Turion 64 is at idle (800MHz clock speed), it's performance is likely to be higher due to the higher bandwidth data bus. All of these factors contribute to Turion 64 being more power efficient under low load circumstances."

    And the -MT Turions have even lower power consumption: AMD Turion 64 specifications [amd.com].

    My next notebook will not be constrainted to only running x86-32 software.

    • It's still one cpu (ie not a dual xeon). Although the article is unclear whether it will come with the dual core or single yonah.
        • When Adobe releases a 64-bit version of Photoshop (which will supposedly happen with the next release), then we'll see a lot of things happen.

          Right now, the only things that *most* pc users don't have any apps that can take advantage of the 64-bitness, aside from the extra registers that you get when you run in 64-bit mode. However, Photoshop lives and dies on memory size, and there are a LOT of people that already buy 3 or 4 gigs of memory for Photoshop right now, and will happily buy mor

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.