Best of the Blogs

FrontSideWhat’s New from the World of Tech

The 2009 CPU Forecast

ExtremeTech’s Loyd Case lays out what AMD and Intel processors you can expect to see in new PCs this year.

Choosing a processor is an exercise in predicting the future. The CPU in your computer should last long enough to be able to run the latest software smoothly a few years down the road—but which technologies will survive? In the processor game, Intel has advanced much more rapidly than has AMD—and 2009 looks to be more of the same. Although both companies are poised to introduce new product lines, Intel’s offerings have a substantially new micro architecture, while AMD is only now making the move to the 45nm (nanometer) manufacturing process—which Intel has been using for nearly a year. Intel’s new process will result in processors with lower power consumption, higher clock speeds, and more transistors per CPU die.

But don’t count AMD out just yet. Moving to 45nm should make AMD somewhat more competitive, especially in the midrange and low-end desktop market. AMD’s Phenom processor line had some advantage in certain types of server applications, particularly those that benefi ted from low latency memory access.

What may end up drowning out AMD’s accomplishments in 2009 is the buzz surrounding Intel’s much-hyped processor line—Nehalem. Also known as the Core i7 series, these quad-core desktop processors come in 2.66-, 2.93-, and 3.20-GHz fl avors and tout advances such as DDR3 memory support, four cores on a single die, a new QPI (QuickPath Interconnect) system bus, and the new X58 chipset for high-end performance. Core i7 will be found mostly in high-end systems, but later this year, Intel will roll out the mainstream Lynn-

field (quad-core) and Havendale (dualcore) processors. Havendale is Intel’s fi rst attempt at integrating a graphics core on a CPU, and Lynnfield, instead of CPUintegrated graphics, will work with the Ibex Peak chipset (which integrates the display controller, separating display and graphics into different chips).

In terms of laptops, Intel will try to close the power gap between desktop and mobile systems. We saw quad-core Penryn mobile processors in 2008, and 2009 will bring the four-core Clarksfi eld CPU. Based on the Nehalem architecture, Clarksfield will most likely appear on big, highperformance desktop replacement laptops with 17-inch HD screens. A dual-core version named Auburndale will also ship in the second half of 2009. These CPUs will push the Montevina and Santa Rosa platforms into lower-end segments of the market.

Intel will also continue to cash in on the netbook craze in 2009 with a successor to the highly popular and energy-effi cient Atom processor—Pineville. Pineville will integrate graphics and a memory controller onto the CPU, effectively building a system-on-a-chip (SoC).

All the hype over Intel’s plans in 2009 doesn’t mean that AMD is out of the race. Previously hobbled by sticking to the older 65nm CPU, the company could well fi nd its niche by offering super-energy-efficient processors using the 45nm manufacturing process. Launched in late 2008, AMD’s Shanghai line is its fi rst set of 45nm quadcore CPUs to be based on the Phenom architecture. Shanghai processors offer 6MB of L3 cache (up from 2MB) and HyperTransport 3 support. However, Shanghai will still have an embedded DDR2 memory controller, which means it will trail Intel in overall memory bandwidth.

A major change recently announced at AMD is that it is shedding its manufacturing operation, transferring its manufacturing assets to a new company that will not be part of AMD. This will allow the company to focus on design and engineering, which could mean catching up to and perhaps even surpassing Intel in 2009 and beyond.—Loyd Case

SMALL WONDERS The AMD Phenom X4 (top) and Intel Core 17 (bottom) are two processors that will boost speed and energy effi ciency in 2009.

Sending the Wrong Message

Texting while driving is causing accidents on the roads of America.

It may not be long before you see this message on your cell phone: “Getting in accident. Txt u ltr?” That’s because texting while driving is on the rise—and leading to more crashes. This phenomenon grabbed headlines last September when the conductor of a California train missed a signal and ran head-on into an oncoming freight train, killing 25 people. It was later revealed that the conductor was sending text messages just seconds before, a fact that investigators concluded led to the deadly collision. And in June 2007, fi ve girls died when their vehicle collided with a tractortrailer in Rochester, New York; police discovered that the driver’s phone was being used for text messaging just before the crash.

According to a report from the London-based RAC Foundation, driving while texting is more dangerous than driving under the infl uence of alcohol or marijuana. In a test of drivers between the ages of 17 and 24, those who had consumed alcohol to the legal limit—0.08 for most U.S. states—saw a 12 percent reduction in

reaction time, compared with 21 percent for marijuana. Texting, however, led to a 35 percent reduction for those who composed or read text messages while driving. In response, at least 16 states, including California, Washington, Alaska, Louisiana, and Minnesota, are proposing or have already enacted bans on texting while driving. “Certainly, texting is the issue du jour this year in the legislatures,” says Matt Sundeen of the National Conference of TEXTING TRAGEDY Texting while driving can lead to serious acci- State Legislatures in a recent dents, such as this train collision in California that killed 25 people. interview with U.S. News & World Report. The legislatures, it turns out, are right to be concerned. The U.S. National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration estimates that four out of fi ve car crashes are due to distracted drivers. And with 47 percent of drivers between the ages of 18 and 24 admitting to texting while driving (according to a recent survey by legal Web site Findlaw.com), legal repercussions may be the only way to prevent an “OMG!” moment.—Chloe Albanesius