Rumor: New Core i7, Celeron Soon

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]judeh101[/nom]It's not gonna kill me, I pointed out a typo, and that's all. Why make such a friggen big deal out of my message by just typing "TDB"? like seriously. Is it gonna kill you guys by correcting? Cause I'm pretty sure n00bs are going to be like "What the hell is with TDB? I've never seen that before. Could it be TLB (Translation Lookaside Buffer) be 65W? How?" I'm pretty sure that this information is important to information technologists. I won't be comin' back anymore. This website is pointless.[/citation]

So you think nOoBs will not know what TDB means, but will know what TLBs are? Obviously, you do not. Still, I agree, typos should be caught, but, there's a hypocrisy in what you're writing.

TLBs are part of the processor, so I'm pretty sure you're confused.

Think of them as a cache for memory addressing. Since the 8086/88, x86 processors have had a way of virtualizing memory. Consequently, the memory a program asks for, isn't the same as the physical location in any of the virtual modes of the x86 processors. So, there is a translation of virtual to actual physical addresses that must take place for the processor to know what actual physical memory to read based on the virtual address. The processor can actually do this every time it wants to access memory, but it's very slow. So they use TLBs to cache translations that are already done, so they do not calculate it, but rather look it up in this "cache" of address translations.

 

[ta152h]

I should have said "after the 8086/88" for better clarity. 8086 was pure real mode addressing.

It's a pity there is no edit button .

 

[B-Unit]

If it was the occasional typo that made it thru Im sure noone would be up in arms. The problem is that almost EVERY article has multiple typos. If BOM wants to market this as a serious tech site, they SERIOUSLY need to hire a proofreader.

 

[Guest]

ta152h, thank you for the lesson, I was going to have to look that up later, but you saved me the effort. I also agree with the noob comment. I am in no way a technology noob and have been building computers, networking, and writing code in any number of languages for many years. When I read the TDB, I knew exactly what they meant. I in no way thought of some random ass cache addressing system that is part of the x86 processor architecture. judeh101, please stop coming back. if you don't like the site, then leave. and whether or not you think this is rumor or news is your own problem. Tom's does however share information when they know it and classifies it as what it is. "Intel said that it does not comment on "unannounced products" thus, we're reduced to classifying this bit of information as rumor only." soo... stop with the harsh flaming, it's like you're 14 or something.

my $0.02 and rant for the day all in one.

 

[Upendra09]

+1^

 

[computabug]

Hey, I'm only 15... I feel offended...

 

[megamanx00]

Then what would be the point of having the i5s? Yeah I don't see this as making alot of sense. Its like having a Mustang with the NA I-4 used in the Focus. Then again one can assume that there may be defective batches of i7s that can't make it as a 920 for whatever reason. Since a large part of the die is cache some batches could have blocks of bad cache or some may simply need more voltage to operate at 2.66. Rather than discard them it makes sense to try and sell them, but I still don't like it.

 

[maddogoo9]

other then the typo's (come on tom's u can do it!)i found this the exact point of me coming to this website every 2 hours keep up the good work.