Intel drops HyperThreading

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

<http://www.pcplus.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=37096&subsectionid=360>
 

Ed

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
1,253
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On 24 Aug 2005 05:47:58 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

><http://www.pcplus.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=37096&subsectionid=360>

It's good to see Intel making changes. I hope they open a big can of
whoop ass on AMD..... 4800+ X2 for under $200 anyone? ;p

Ed
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:

>
> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>

No.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

CJT wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > Gnu_Raiz wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> >>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
> >>
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> >
> Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>
That you would think so was apparent from the form of your question
posed, apparently, as a rhetorical. In terms of *performance* per
watt, Intel Celeron ULV has had Via beat over and over and over again,
and I'm tired of googling it. It's been discussed over and over, and
over again.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:14:37 -0500, Ed wrote:

> On 24 Aug 2005 05:47:58 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>><http://www.pcplus.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=37096&subsectionid=360>
>
> It's good to see Intel making changes. I hope they open a big can of
> whoop ass on AMD..... 4800+ X2 for under $200 anyone? ;p
>
> Ed

What! you can't pay out $380 bones for a 3800 X2? I think the big question
would be when? Sure I can pick up a Pentium D 820 for $233 bones, but I
have to have that new board, and memory.

If I have to wait for a year for a dual core on board memory controller
from Intel like AMD has whats the fun in that, when I can get one right
now.

What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?

http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/c7-m/lowpower_by_design.jsp

According to that url at idle they are claiming .1w, or 100mW and 20W at
peak power. It looks like Intel is getting the open end of the whoop ass
can right now. Or more like it they are playing catch up, I just wish that
the marketing team at Intel would know just what they are marketing. They
tried to sell us on hyper threading, now they will start selling Watts.

Lets just wait and see how long it takes Intel to come to market with
these new products, that is supposed to have all these new features.


Gnu_Raiz
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:
> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?

Also, I'm pretty sure I know what a Watt is, but not sure what a
Performance is. Was that recently defined by the metric system? Will we
be seeing kiloPerformances, MegaPerformances, GigaPerformances, or even
centiPerformances anytime soon? :)

Yousuf Khan
 

cjt

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
440
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:

<snip>
> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>
> http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/c7-m/lowpower_by_design.jsp
>
> According to that url at idle they are claiming .1w, or 100mW and 20W at
> peak power. It looks like Intel is getting the open end of the whoop ass
> can right now. Or more like it they are playing catch up, I just wish that
> the marketing team at Intel would know just what they are marketing. They
> tried to sell us on hyper threading, now they will start selling Watts.
>
> Lets just wait and see how long it takes Intel to come to market with
> these new products, that is supposed to have all these new features.
>
>
> Gnu_Raiz
>

A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 

cjt

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
440
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>
>
>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>
>
>
> No.
>
> RM
>
Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Gnu_Raiz" <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> wrote in message
news:1124903368.2908700f5f7273a4127f6aa6904e9a06@teranews...

> They tried to sell us on hyper threading, now they will start
selling Watts.

Actually, they sell lots and lots of watts right now. What they plan
to sell is lots less watts. "Less is more" - didn't a CA governor
once push that? ;-)


> Lets just wait and see how long it takes Intel to come to market
with
> these new products, that is supposed to have all these new features.

Everybody knows that these products will not appear in the marketplace
in quantity until 2007, which is a long, long way off in CPU years.
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 +0000, CJT wrote:

<snip>

>
> A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.

Not possible. ;-)

--
Keith
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:42:53 -0700, YKhan wrote:

> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>> What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>> push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>
> Also, I'm pretty sure I know what a Watt is,

Let's be sure what we're talking about. The measure of power is a "watt",
with the SI symbol 'W'. Units named after people are not capitalized when
written out, in defference to the person. ;-)

> but not sure what a Performance is. Was that recently defined by the metric system? Will we
> be seeing kiloPerformances, MegaPerformances, GigaPerformances, or even
> centiPerformances anytime soon? :)

Like Potter Stewart's porn, neither do I but I know it when I see it. ;)

--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> RM
>>
>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."

While VIA's chips offer ok performance, low power consumption and VERY
low prices, they definitely can't match Intel in terms of
performance/watt. The VIA chips are CONSIDERABLY slower than any
current Intel chips. Even the lowly 900MHz Celeron-M, with a TDP of
only 5.0W should be able to match the 2.0GHz VIA C7-M chips when they
ship. Certainly the 900MHz Celeron-M is a LOT faster than the current
1.3GHz C3 chips.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> RM
>>
>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."

Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=205107

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:31:48 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> RM
>>>
>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>
> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=205107

Seems to be a dead link, I was unable to download the pdf under Firefox
under Linux. I was more under the impression that now Intel was going to
push low power watts as a means of marketing their chips. I took this to
mean that the chip with the lowest power usage wins the day. But now this
brings up a good question, how exactly do you measure watt performance? A
watt is a watt is a watt, maybe someone can educate me on this fine point.

Gnu_Raiz
 

cjt

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
440
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>RM
>>>
>>
>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>
>
> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=205107
>
Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
of power used by each processor.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:35:07 -0500, Gnu_Raiz <Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:31:48 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> RM
>>>>
>>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>>
>> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=205107
>
>Seems to be a dead link, I was unable to download the pdf under Firefox
>under Linux.

It works fine for me with Mozilla/WinXP.

> I was more under the impression that now Intel was going to
>push low power watts as a means of marketing their chips. I took this to
>mean that the chip with the lowest power usage wins the day. But now this
>brings up a good question, how exactly do you measure watt performance? A
>watt is a watt is a watt, maybe someone can educate me on this fine point.

Measuring and expressing results is not easy. There is an obvious space
for a system with the right amount of performance for low heat and, more
importantly, ultra-low noise. The Celeron buried both VIA chips for
similar (enough) power consumption.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>RM
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>>
>>
>> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=205107
>>
>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>of power used by each processor.

C'mon this was not even a competition - the Celeron was in a different
class and did not fail any tests.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>> http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=205107
>>
>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>of power used by each processor.

Ok.. how's this?

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/

I'm no big fan of Tom's, but the fact of the matter is that the VIA C3
at 1.0GHz really struggles to match the performance of an ancient
Celeron 667MHz processor. Now figure that the Celeron-M at 900MHz
offers a greatly improved core, 4 times as much cache, 6 times the bus
bandwidth and 3 times the memory bandwidth. It all adds up to the C3
just not being at all competitive.

Even at 2.0GHz I suspect that the yet-to-ship C7 processor will have
difficulty competing with a 900MHz Celeron-M, and it will do so with 4
times the power consumption (20W for the VIA chip vs. 5W for Intel).

Ohh, here's another set of slightly dated numbers comparing the C3 at
800MHz to a PIII at 500MHz:

http://www.dansdata.com/c3.htm


-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
 

cjt

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
440
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:18:02 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gnu_Raiz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>What gets me is this new per watt performance metric they are going to
>>>>>>push out? Doesn't VIA have them beat right now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>RM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I think the answer is probably "Yes."
>>>
>>>
>>>Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>>>http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=205107
>>>
>>
>>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>>of power used by each processor.
>
>
> C'mon this was not even a competition - the Celeron was in a different
> class and did not fail any tests.
>
Who's to say whether, if VIA were the sponsor, a test could be found
that the Celeron failed.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 

mygarbage2000

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2002
126
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

....snip...
>
>A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.

Focus on watts in laptops and SFF boxes? Paramount. In blade servers
- ditto. Even at the expence of raw speed. But in desktops there is
always a place for a fan or two, and there is always need for speed,
be you a gamer, software developer, or heavy graphics user. Much more
so in 4U+ servers. The top $ are paid for top notch performance of
"mission-critical" databases and like. The heat produced by a
high-performing chip is a problem that can be and usually is
reasonably solved. That is, unless you deal with Prescott core that
doubles as a space heater.
 

cjt

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
440
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

nobody@nowhere.net wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:24:57 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
>>A focus on watts could drive Itanium even deeper in the hole.
>
>
> Focus on watts in laptops and SFF boxes? Paramount. In blade servers
> - ditto. Even at the expence of raw speed. But in desktops there is
> always a place for a fan or two, and there is always need for speed,
> be you a gamer, software developer, or heavy graphics user. Much more
> so in 4U+ servers. The top $ are paid for top notch performance of
> "mission-critical" databases and like. The heat produced by a
> high-performing chip is a problem that can be and usually is
> reasonably solved. That is, unless you deal with Prescott core that
> doubles as a space heater.
>
If people calculated how much per month it's costing to power their
"gaming" machines, it might quickly become an issue. "Power user"
is closer to true than one might imagine.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 

cjt

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
440
0
18,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>>Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
>>>http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=205107
>>>
>>
>>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
>>of power used by each processor.
>
>
> Ok.. how's this?
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/


Quoting from the "Conclusions" page of that article:

"Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3
blows away its competitors."

>
> I'm no big fan of Tom's, but the fact of the matter is that the VIA C3
> at 1.0GHz really struggles to match the performance of an ancient
> Celeron 667MHz processor. Now figure that the Celeron-M at 900MHz
> offers a greatly improved core, 4 times as much cache, 6 times the bus
> bandwidth and 3 times the memory bandwidth. It all adds up to the C3
> just not being at all competitive.
>
> Even at 2.0GHz I suspect that the yet-to-ship C7 processor will have
> difficulty competing with a 900MHz Celeron-M, and it will do so with 4
> times the power consumption (20W for the VIA chip vs. 5W for Intel).
>
> Ohh, here's another set of slightly dated numbers comparing the C3 at
> 800MHz to a PIII at 500MHz:
>
> http://www.dansdata.com/c3.htm
>
>
> -------------
> Tony Hill
> hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

CJT wrote:
> Tony Hill wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:36:17 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>George Macdonald wrote:
> >>
> >>>Its not even close - you can get a benchmark comparison .pdf here
> >>>http://www.tollygroup.com/DocDetail.aspx?DocNumber=205107
> >>>
> >>
> >>Now show a study _not_ sponsored by Intel. And that addresses the watts
> >>of power used by each processor.
> >
> >
> > Ok.. how's this?
> >
> > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020605/
>
>
> Quoting from the "Conclusions" page of that article:
>
> "Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio, the C3
> blows away its competitors."
>

<quote>

As expected, the C3 processor is not able to compete with other
processors at similar clock speeds. Depending on the particular
benchmark, an old Celeron 667 is either considerably faster or
considerably slower, making it difficult to specify a recommendation
for VIA's C3.

The C3 has definitely won the power and temperature race: no other
desktop processor consumes as little energy and wastes as little power
as the C3. Looking at performance and power output in terms of a ratio,
the C3 blows away its competitors.

</quote>

The "Old Celeron 667" that is used to support this comparison being one
that was never designed for low power operation. At 17W, it's not
particularly power-hungry and isn't exactly "blown away" by the 12W
Via. Celeron power consumption from

http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

As long as Tom's was going to dig into old proecessors to compare for
conclusions about power, he should have been using the PIII-667, but
that's a nit. Any of the ULV processors that Intel has brought out,
whethere branded Celeron or Pentium, would blow away Via. A 1GHz
Pentium-M ULV draws 5 Watts.

As to comparison of "ratio" with desktop chips, the only exercise that
makes any sense is to compare power consumption at equal performance or
performance at equal power consumption.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

CJT wrote:

> >
> Here's something current and on point:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/story/0,10801,104017,00.html?source=NLT_PM&nid=104017
>

What's this got to do with Via? Green Destiny is very old news: LANL
scientists playing in the sandbox. With any luck, we won't be seeing
more of that kind of nonsense. LANL p'd away a ton of taxpayer money
wiring together everything they could lay their hands on, even paid
Cray to custom-build them their sandbox dreams, and the bottom line is
that we're going to be using piles of generic server boxes for the
forseeable future. The real breakthrough in performance/watt came from
IBM's Blue Gene.

As to Transmeta, I haven't seen head-to-heads, but I'll be really
surprised if *they* do better on a performance per watt than Pentium-M
ULV.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:

>
> Well, if the processor is an extra 100 watts (large number) and
> electricity is 15 cents/kwH (on the high side) and the processor draws
> the extra 100 watts even when nobody is using it, it comes to 36
> cents/day, or about 10 dollars/month. So the extra electricity to
> assure optimim game play over 6 months equals the cost of a game. On
> the other hand the high speed internet connection costs 40 dollars per
> month. QED Power consumption in gaming PC is not a significant economic
> factor.
>
Nobody would argue about the importance of power consumption for
servers, for HPC, or for mobile applications. The question is: why
worry for stationary machines, such as those used for gaming? As far
as I can tell, because there is no other way to get more performance
into an acceptable power and cooling envelope, and I'm assuming that
machines used for gaming will continue to have an insatiable demand for
greater performance. The only way to get it, as I currently understand
the situation, is more cores operating at a point that is less than
optimal from the POV of single-thread performance. It will be
interesting to see how long power-no-consideration single-thread
workhorses will survive. I expect them to become an endangered species
for all but the the most specialized applications (very high-end HPC,
for example).

RM