Cedar Trail CPUs coming

A new range of Intel CPUs codenamed "Cedar trail" with 32nm technology likely to appear in computers later this year:

http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/As-netbook-sales-fall-Intel-will-slash-Atom-pricing/?kc=rss

A netbook with 12 inch screen and all-day battery life will be very interesting.


Posted on 30 May 2011, 20:13


Comments:

Posted on 30 May 2011, 21:20 by BarryK
tri-gate chips
And then there's the tri-gate technology, for extremely low power, to be expected 2012:

http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Intel-3D-TriGate-transistor-technology/



Posted on 30 May 2011, 23:57 by gjuhasz
Capacitance?
This is a very promising technology although there have been some capacitance-related issues discovered since 2009.
See http://iopscience.iop.org/0268-1242/24/4/045001;jsessionid=38A7BB27BB8FB910FD98740E5F3336C4.c3

Size limits are discussed here:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F16%2F5621692%2F05604679.pdf%3Farnumber%3D5604679&authDecision=-203





Posted on 31 May 2011, 14:01 by Sage
Intel
Don't have the links, but the last I heard was that the thermal effects down at 32micron features is/was still an issue. Intel has a poor record in this area of design. Difficult to beat the physics: i^2R reigns. The reluctance of Intel to accept RISC was also reported on The Register yesterday, although they may retrench on that.


Posted on 31 May 2011, 16:57 by jamesbond
Price???
I think netbooks have already reach a point where CPU power consumption doesn't really matter much. The power consumed by the display, memory and storage combined is much more than the CPU - that's why turning-off harddisk and the screen will have more power and throttling CPU (furthermore - modern OS like Puppy Linux is efficient in halting the CPU to make it uses even less power). Unfortunately, reducing the power consumption of these devices usually increase the selling price. 8-hour netbooks have been possible for the last two years, but they are selling at a price of fully-equipped middle class laptop.

BTW - Sage, the RISC vs CISC debate is over. CPUs today - Intel included - is the best combination of RISC and CISC. They are RISC internally (that's what the uOps are) for blazing performance, but CISC externally to make life easier for programmers and compilers.


Posted on 31 May 2011, 19:38 by Sage
RISC
I was referring to ARM RISC, of course, the original developers and to whom royalties - read The Register report, jb.
As for power consumption (not the subject of my comment), you are correct - the display, and capacity of Li-ion sources define the present limits. AS for cpu, Intel will not give up until it hits quantum anomalies! Line width is directly related to dissipation - as well as viability. Size isn't everything if you adopt ARM RISC and OLCP...


Posted on 31 May 2011, 24:42 by GCMartin
New Processors
As I had alluded to earlier this year, the vendors are on the doorstep of some revolutionary technologies which will be entering business and consumer fronts, over the next 2 years.

This is my observation, not an absolute:
Several things must happen in Puppyland, though. Puppy MUST create a new platform approach. It needs to add an additional version from Quirky,Wary, and Puppy which addresses these newer (than PentiumPro) CPUs or it must upgrade present version to take advantages of the advances made thus far. Most recently, there is development to at least address RAM advances.

Thus there are other advances that Puppy and its tools must address which is the wave of "ware" the industry is going. We WILL see more interactive multimedia which Linux powers are just starting to make available. We will seem advances in interactive audio which controls not only your PC, but additional things within your local physical space. We will see artificial intelligence advances which will do "some" forward thinking on a whole range of fronts. To me the most important advance I have seen is to be able to "voice talk" an application, without having to code, in an object oriented fashion; as well as simply using normal everyday Languages (Spanish, French, English, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) This has been demonstrated.

Its a driving reason for increasing multimedia power vendors are placing in the hands of every person on the planet.

P.S. IBM, Motorola, TI, HP, and AMD have also been advancing with major changes in the area we see. Especially IBM as they continue to research, develop, and sell processors, RAM, disks, communications and components that have shown up in EVERYTHING you have in your PC....but without the IBM label.

Thanks to Barry, I believe he is sounding a "Wakeup" call to the rest of us about the need for being able to take advantage of these newer OS and application needs within Puppy.

Hope this helps


Posted on 31 May 2011, 24:52 by GCMartin
New Technology and Puppy???
Why Puppy needs to open its eye on the prize a little wider.

Puppy has done a phenomenal job in its desktop systems. User friendly single user desktop Linux system that runs on old 486/586 PCs for about 5 years now. It is currently perfected and polished. I really really like it.

Let's not ignore the sound of the bugle all around us (the changing technology bugle).

Now, Puppy MUST begin to look (understand and work) into the future


Posted on 32 May 2011, 2:07 by linuxcbon
bugs
It's more important to correct bugs and have more "standard" fstab group gshadow host.conf ld.so.conf passwd profile shadow .Xdefaults .xinitrc.


Posted on 32 May 2011, 3:46 by Sage
Oops
OLED, bit of hybridisation of thoughts above!


Posted on 32 May 2011, 3:57 by Dougal
Linux-3.0
Barry, I haven't seen here any mention of the new kernel versioning change...
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/29/204

Note that from now on the names will be 3.0 3.1 etc. so your scripts might break.


Posted on 1 Jun 2011, 19:13 by scsijon
new name, same linux!
From Basil Chupin (one of my old SuSE friends)

In 1996, Linus Torvalds released Linux 2.0, and we got symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) and we were on our way to Linux supercomputers <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/super-duper-linux-computers/7914>. In 1999, Linux 2.2 appeared <http://lwn.net/1999/features/Timeline/?month=jan>, and Linux made a major move off Intel chip architectures. In 2001, after some delays <http://www.zdnet.com/news/linux-24-kernel-release-delayed/110966>, Linux 2.4 turned up with great server improvements <http://practical-tech.com/operating-system/linux-2-4-its-here/2405>. And, in 2003, Linux 2.6 showed up <http://practical-tech.com/operating-system/linux-2-6-arrives/4114>, the prototype for modern Linux. So why havenít we seen a Linux 2.8 or 3.0 in the last few years? Iíll let Torvalds explain:


[Full story]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/new-name-same-linux/9016