<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Gizmodo Australia &#187; chips</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/tags/chips/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au</link>
	<description>the Gadget Guide &#124; Technology and consumer electronics news and reviews</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:30:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Intel Deems The Dual Core Atom 330 Too Hot For Netbooks</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/intel-deems-the-dual-core-atom-330-too-hot-for-netbooks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/intel-deems-the-dual-core-atom-330-too-hot-for-netbooks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rosa Golijan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[n330]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[netbooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=366701</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;ve been curious as to why Intel decided to keep the N330 chip out of netbooks, and now we finally know: The chips are just too damn hot.
On top of those thermal issues, testing done by computer builder Haleron revealed that the N330 was also a killer on batteries in comparison to the, now used, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#8217;ve been curious as to why Intel decided to keep the N330 chip out of netbooks, and now we finally know: The chips are just too damn hot.<span id="more-366701"></span></p>
<p>On top of those thermal issues, testing done by computer builder Haleron revealed that the N330 was also a killer on batteries in comparison to the, now used, two-chip N270 processor. Guess that explains why resellers have been trying to get rid of the N330 as quickly as possible. [<a href="http://www.newswireless.net/index.cfm/article/7633">Newswireless</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/intel-deems-the-dual-core-atom-330-too-hot-for-netbooks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intel&#8217;s 32nm Arrandale Core i5 And i7 Chips For Anorexic Notebooks</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/intels-32nm-arrandale-core-i5-and-i7-chips-for-anorexic-notebooks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/intels-32nm-arrandale-core-i5-and-i7-chips-for-anorexic-notebooks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arrandale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core i5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core i7]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laptops]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[notebooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rumours]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unconfirmed]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=366571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We know, the Core i7-i5-i3 stuff is confusing. Not to make it worse, but Digitimes outs some of Intel&#8217;s notebooks plans for next year: a triplet of processors of Core i7 and i5 processors, codenamed Arrandale, for skinny laptops.
The key feature about Arrandale, versus current Core i5/i7 processors, is that it&#8217;s manufactured using a 32nm [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/11/500x_intelshot.jpg" alt="" class="left" />We know, the Core i7-i5-i3 stuff <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/giz-explains-intels-entire-confusing-armada-of-chips/">is confusing</a>. Not to make it worse, but <a href="http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20091112PD202.html">Digitimes outs</a> some of Intel&#8217;s notebooks plans for next year: a triplet of processors of Core i7 and i5 processors, codenamed Arrandale, for skinny laptops.<span id="more-366571"></span></p>
<p>The key feature about Arrandale, versus current Core i5/i7 processors, is that it&#8217;s manufactured using a 32nm process, meaning it&#8217;ll be less power hungry. Remember the jump to the Penryn Core 2 chips a couple of years ago? Same speeds, better efficiency? Like that. The three coming out in the first half of 2010 are the Core i7-640UM (1.2GHz), Core i7-620UM (1.06GHz) and Core i5-520UM, all for &#8220;ultra thin&#8221; laptops.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ll also see some 32nm chips for the desktop, codenamed Clarksdale, announced in January. Mmm, chips. [<a href="http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20091112PD202.html">Digitimes</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/intels-32nm-arrandale-core-i5-and-i7-chips-for-anorexic-notebooks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AMD&#8217;s Atom-Mauling Bobcat And High-End Bulldozer Chips</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/amds-atom-mauling-bobcat-and-high-end-bulldozer-chips/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/amds-atom-mauling-bobcat-and-high-end-bulldozer-chips/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:39:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bobcat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bulldozer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=366568</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sure, AMD&#8217;s sorta revelling in getting handed $US1.25 billion by Intel, but more importantly, they&#8217;ve just revealed the future of AMD chips: The promised Atom competitor Bobcat and a new high-end architecture called Bulldozer.
Bobcat&#8217;s a low power chip at Atom, like for netbooks, that can run using less than 1W of power. It&#8217;ll be manufactured [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/11/500x_boooobcat.jpg" alt="" class="center" />Sure, AMD&#8217;s sorta revelling in <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/intel-pays-amd-1-25-billion-to-end-antitrust-patent-wars/">getting handed $US1.25 billion by Intel</a>, but more importantly, they&#8217;ve just revealed the future of AMD chips: The promised <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/07/amd_revealing_atomkiller_plans_in_november-2/">Atom competitor Bobcat</a> and a new <a href="http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/11/amd-bobcat-bulldozer.ars">high-end architecture called Bulldozer</a>.<span id="more-366568"></span></p>
<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/11/bobbycat.jpeg" alt="" class="center" />Bobcat&#8217;s a low power chip at Atom, like for netbooks, that can run using less than 1W of power. It&#8217;ll be manufactured using a 32nm process. It&#8217;s not hitting until 2011 though, and as Ars&#8217; Jon Stokes points out, by then Intel will have been at 32nm with Atom for a while, and already close to going to 22nm.</p>
<p>Bulldozer is AMD&#8217;s new server architecture, also slated for 2011 which uses a new design with two &#8220;tightly linked cores&#8221; as the heart. You can read about it in way more detail over at Ars, though for now, Stokes says it&#8217;s still hard to tell how competitive they&#8217;re going to be with Intel&#8217;s 2011 lineup. Guess we&#8217;ll see. [<a href="http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/11/amd-bobcat-bulldozer.ars">Ars</a>, <em>Image via <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/flasporty/2752012164/">Michele Eve</a>/Flickr</em>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/amds-atom-mauling-bobcat-and-high-end-bulldozer-chips/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One Day, This Will Be Remembered As The First Tricorder Ever</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/one-day-this-will-be-remembered-as-the-first-tricorder-ever/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/one-day-this-will-be-remembered-as-the-first-tricorder-ever/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jesus Diaz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[detectors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iphone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nasa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prototypes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sensors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tricorders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=366473</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Leave it to a NASA scientist to create the first Star Trek Tricorder using a stamp-sized sensor chip, an iPhone and some spiffy programming. What does it do? It can detect killer gases in the air.
While the concept is not new, this prototype is fully working and operational. Created by Jing Li and a team [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/11/500x_iphone-tricorder.jpg" alt="" class="center" />Leave it to a NASA scientist to create the first Star Trek Tricorder using a stamp-sized sensor chip, an iPhone and some spiffy programming. What does it do? It can detect killer gases in the air.<span id="more-366473"></span></p>
<p>While the <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/09/california_scientists_design_working_tricorder-2/">concept is not new</a>, this prototype is fully working and operational. Created by Jing Li and a team of researches at NASA&#8217;s Ames Research centre, Moffett Field, California, the sensor is a multiple-channel silicon-based sensing chip integrated in micro-board with 64 nanosensors.</p>
<p>The low-cost, low-power system can detect minimal concentrations of ammonia, chlorine gas and methane, showing the values in an iPhone application. It can automatically communicate the results with other mobile phones or the Enterprise&#8217;s computer using Wi-Fi or 3G, and order massive teleportation evacuations if needed. OK, not true. No teleportation yet, but we are getting there. [<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/features/2009/cell_phone_sensors.html">NASA</a>]</p>
<p><img src="http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2009/11/500x_399275main_cell_phone_sensor2_full.jpg" alt="" class="center" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/one-day-this-will-be-remembered-as-the-first-tricorder-ever/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ZiiLABS&#8217; ZMS-08 System-On-A-Chip To Bring 1080p To Netbooks</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/ziilabs-zms-08-system-on-a-chip-to-bring-1080p-flash-acceleration/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/ziilabs-zms-08-system-on-a-chip-to-bring-1080p-flash-acceleration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rosa Golijan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ziilabs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ziilabs zms-08]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zms-08]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=365582</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ZiiLABS latest system-on-a-chip is crammed full of features: 1080p playback, 24fps encoding, HD video conferencing, OpenGL ES 2.0 support, an integrated HDMI controller, X-Fi audio and Flash acceleration. All combined with a 1GHz ARM Cortex A8. Of course, there&#8217;s a catch.
We don&#8217;t know the expected price range yet. Could a company like Creative really undersell [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/11/ziilabs.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/11/500x_ziilabs.jpg" alt="" class="center" /></a>ZiiLABS latest system-on-a-chip is crammed full of features: 1080p playback, 24fps encoding, HD video conferencing, OpenGL ES 2.0 support, an integrated HDMI controller, X-Fi audio and Flash acceleration. All combined with a 1GHz ARM Cortex A8. Of course, there&#8217;s a catch.<span id="more-365582"></span></p>
<p>We don&#8217;t know the expected price range yet. Could a company like Creative really undersell the likes of Intel or Nvidia?</p>
<p>That question aside and despite Creative specifically ruling out putting it into smartphones, chips like the ZMS-08 will definitely bring higher performance to lower-power devices and seem worth at least a bit of excitement. [<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/09/ziilabs-zms-08-offers-cortex-a8-powered-full-hd-and-flash-accele/">Engadget</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/ziilabs-zms-08-system-on-a-chip-to-bring-1080p-flash-acceleration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Samsung&#8217;s New Flash Memory Chips Will Cause Gadget Shrinkage</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/samsungs-new-flash-memory-chips-will-cause-gadget-shrinkage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/samsungs-new-flash-memory-chips-will-cause-gadget-shrinkage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rosa Golijan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flash memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[memory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[samsung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[storage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=365167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With a thickness of only 0.6mm, Samsung&#8217;s newest NAND chips are practically anorexic, but for once that&#8217;s a good thing. Thinner chips like these could bring smaller gadgets and hopefully also lead to lower SSD prices.
According to Samsung, their new chips are actually the slimmest ever and 40 per cent thinner and lighter than a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/11/samsungchips.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/11/500x_samsungchips.jpg" alt="" class="center" /></a>With a thickness of only 0.6mm, Samsung&#8217;s newest NAND chips are practically anorexic, but for once that&#8217;s a good thing. Thinner chips like these could bring smaller gadgets and hopefully also lead to lower SSD prices.<span id="more-365167"></span></p>
<p>According to Samsung, their new chips are actually <i>the</i> slimmest ever and 40 per cent thinner and lighter than a conventional memory package. Whether those details are true or not, I look forward to seeing them hit the market and start slipping into newer, smaller gadgets. [<a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/processors/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=221600353&amp;cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All">Information Week</a> via <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/06/samsung-slims-down-nand-memory-packaging-wafer-thin-gadgets-to/">Engadget</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/11/samsungs-new-flash-memory-chips-will-cause-gadget-shrinkage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>100-Core Tilera TILE-Gx Processors Planned For 2011</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/100-core-tilera-tile-gx-processors-planned-for-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/100-core-tilera-tile-gx-processors-planned-for-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:56:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Danny Allen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tilera]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tilera tile-gx]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=362746</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While Intel and AMD look to make a complete jump to 8-cores, Tilera (an MIT start-up) says its upcoming 100-core chip has &#8220;at least four times the compute performance of an Intel Nehalem-Ex, while burning a third of the power&#8221;. 
The 40-nanometre TILE-Gx will reportedly draw about 55 watts of power at full load, and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/10/Tilera.jpg" alt="" class="left" />While Intel and AMD look to make a complete jump to 8-cores, Tilera (an MIT start-up) says its upcoming 100-core chip has &#8220;at least four times the compute performance of an Intel Nehalem-Ex, while burning a third of the power&#8221;. <span id="more-362746"></span></p>
<p>The 40-nanometre TILE-Gx will reportedly draw about 55 watts of power at full load, and though it&#8217;s expected to cost between $US400 and $US1000 (depending on volume), it&#8217;s more intended for use on Linux-based enterprise Web servers. </p>
<p>According to Wired, the chip isn&#8217;t really geared for regular operating systems such as Windows 7 &mdash; for that, you&#8217;ll have to wait for Intel&#8217;s 80-core processor which was demonstrated last year and is expected in about five years. [<a href="http://tilera.com/news_&amp;_events/press_release_091026.php">Tilera</a> via <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/10/tilera-100-cores/">Wired</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/100-core-tilera-tile-gx-processors-planned-for-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New iMacs Get Core i7 Chips, But What Does That Mean?</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/new-imacs-get-core-i7-chips-but-what-does-that-mean/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/new-imacs-get-core-i7-chips-but-what-does-that-mean/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:41:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Wilson Rothman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core 2 duo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core i5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core i7]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[imac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new imacs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=361435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We were pretty excited to see Intel&#8217;s new monster quad-core chips inside the iMacs Apple unveiled today, but you may be a little confused by the options: Core 2 Duo or Core i7 or Core i5??? Can someone please explain? Why yes, Giz can.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We were pretty excited to see Intel&#8217;s new monster quad-core chips inside <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5385841/apple-imac-hands-on">the iMacs Apple unveiled today</a>, but you may be a little confused by the options: Core 2 Duo or Core i7 or Core i5??? Can someone please explain? Why yes, <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/giz-explains-intels-entire-confusing-armada-of-chips/">Giz can</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/new-imacs-get-core-i7-chips-but-what-does-that-mean/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Giz Explains: Intel&#8217;s Entire Confusing Armada Of Chips</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/giz-explains-intels-entire-confusing-armada-of-chips/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/giz-explains-intels-entire-confusing-armada-of-chips/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[centrino]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core 2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core 2 duo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core i3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core i5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core i7]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[features]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[giz explains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=360507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Intel makes a lot of processors. Too many, maybe. Don&#8217;t know the difference between a Core i7 and a Core 2 Duo? A Bloomfield from a Wolfdale? A Sasquatch from a Yeti? You&#8217;re not alone.
Chips, Chipsets and Damned Chipsets
OK, so the first thing to understand is that an Intel brand, like Core 2 or Core [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/10/intelshot.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/10/500x_intelshot.jpg" alt="" class="center" /></a>Intel makes a lot of processors. Too many, maybe. Don&#8217;t know the difference between a Core i7 and a Core 2 Duo? A Bloomfield from a Wolfdale? A Sasquatch from a Yeti? You&#8217;re not alone.<span id="more-360507"></span></p>
<h3>Chips, Chipsets and Damned Chipsets</h3>
<p>OK, so the first thing to understand is that an Intel brand, like Core 2 or Core i7, actually refers to a whole bunch of different processors. Although they generally have the same basic microarchitecture (in other words, <a href="http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silicon/microarchitecture.htm?iid=tech_as+micro_head">chip design</a>), the brand envelopes both desktop and mobile chips, chips with radically different clock speeds, that use different motherboard sockets, etc.</p>
<p>Because of these differences, each particular chip is given a codename, chosen for obscure geographical locations (seriously, plug just about any codename into Google Maps). For instance, the original mobile Core 2 Duo processor was Merom, and it was replaced after about two years by Penryn, which was manufactured using a new 45-nanometre process to be more efficient. Quite different, these two, but Intel pimped both as Core 2 Duos nonetheless.</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=104176566474738326459.000475f155d6a690a8ce6&amp;source=embed&amp;ll=37.996163,-94.570312&amp;spn=47.855783,98.4375&amp;z=3&amp;output=embed"></iframe><br /><small>View <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&amp;hl=en&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=104176566474738326459.000475f155d6a690a8ce6&amp;source=embed&amp;ll=37.996163,-94.570312&amp;spn=47.855783,98.4375&amp;z=3" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">Intel</a> in a larger map</small></p>
<p>Although Intel doesn&#8217;t market chips according to their codenames, the individual chip <a href="http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/index.htm">gets a model number</a> that gives you an idea of how it compares, spec-wise (clock speed, cache size, etc.), to other chips in the same group. So, a Core i7-950 is gonna be faster than a Core i7-920, and a Core 2 Duo P8600 isn&#8217;t going to quite stack up to a Core 2 Duo P9600. The difference between a P8400 and P8600 is obviously less than the difference between a P8600 and a P9600. To match a particular chip codename to a particular model number though, you probably have to do some Googlin&#8217; (or Bingin&#8217;).</p>
<p>In some cases, Intel pushes chips with a ULV designator for &#8220;ultra-low voltage&#8221;, which doesn&#8217;t mean anything <em>in particular</em> in terms of chip design, since it includes <a href="http://www.intel.com/consumer/learn/ultra-thin.htm">several brands of chips</a>, from Core 2 to Celeron. The point is that these chips power notebooks that are almost as portable at netbooks, but are more expensive, so computer makers (and Intel) make more money.</p>
<p>While we&#8217;re at it, I might as well explain what the hell Centrino is. It&#8217;s not a single chip, it&#8217;s a platform. That is, it&#8217;s a combo meal for notebooks with a mobile processor, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipset">chipset</a> (essentially the silicon that lets the processor talk to the rest of the computer) and a wireless networking adaptor. Typically, Intel releases a new combo meal every year, though they&#8217;ve all been called Centrino, with the most recent making the leap to being called Centrino 2.</p>
<p>The reason we decided to tell you all this stuff now is that Intel is gradually phasing out the Core 2 family, like Pentiums before that, and is moving Core i7, Core i5 and Core i3 up to take its place. This is how all the families relate to each other&#8230;</p>
<h3>Nehalem Rising: Core i7, Core i5 and Core i3</h3>
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/10/corei7shot.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/10/500x_corei7shot.jpg" alt="" class="center" /></a>Core i7 systems use a totally new microarchitecture called Nehalem, and <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/giz_explains_why_intels_core_i7_processor_is_a_beautiful_monster-2/">it&#8217;s badass</a>.</p>
<p>The first set of Core i7 chips, codenamed Bloomfield, launched in November 2008 for high-end desktops. They&#8217;re the most outrageously fast Core i7 chips, with triple-channel memory (meaning they&#8217;re able to use memory sticks in triplets rather than pairs) and other blazing accoutrements.</p>
<p>The <em>new</em> Core i7 chips, launched last month, are for desktop and mobile. The desktop variant is codenamed Lynnfield, and it more closely resembles its mobile equivalent, codenamed Clarksfield, than it does the Bloomfield monster &mdash; dual-channel memory, not triple, for instance.</p>
<p>You&#8217;ll be seeing a lot more Clarksfield in the next couple weeks, like in the <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/hp-envy-hands-on-macbook-pro-clone-better-than-the-real-thing/">HP Envy 15</a>, since most computer makers were holding off for Windows 7 to drop their new laptops. All of the Core i7 processors are quad-core, even the mobile Clarksfield, so you&#8217;re not gonna see it in anything like Dell&#8217;s skinny Adamo.</p>
<p>Core i5 is going to be Intel&#8217;s more mainstream Nehalem-microarchitecture chip brand, and as a broader brand, the chip differentiation gets a little more confusing. Core i5 actually includes <em>some</em> (but not all) of the desktop Lynnfield processors. For now, the only Core i5 chip is quad-core, but you&#8217;re going to start seeing dual-core Core i5 chips, and soon enough they will make up the bulk of Intel&#8217;s mainstream processors. In English: Unless you&#8217;re looking for a crazyfast new computer, your next machine will probably run an Intel Core i5 CPU.</p>
<p>Eventually, dual-core Core i3 chips will come out, and as you can guess by the number, they won&#8217;t be quite as fast&mdash;or expensive&mdash;as the Core i5 or i7 chips.</p>
<h3>Netbook&#8217;s Best Friend: Atom N and Z</h3>
<p>Atom is probably the Intel chip you hear about second only to Core 2 Duo: It&#8217;s essentially the CPU that goes inside of netbooks. There are a couple of different variations out now, the N series (codename Diamondville) and the Z series (codename Silverthorne). The Diamondville chips are for nettops and netbooks, and can handle full versions of Windows Vista and 7. Silverthrone is used in netbooks but was designed for smaller connected devices like UMPCs and MIDs. (This is why Sony shoving an underpowered Atom Z in <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/01/sony_vaio_p_review-2/">the Vaio P</a>, and trying to run Windows Vista on top of it, was retarded.)</p>
<p>The <a href="http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/05/intel-announces-next-gen-atom-with-on-die-gpu.ars">next generation of Atom</a> is more interesting, and more confusing, in a way. The CPU is codenamed Pineview, and it&#8217;s actually got the graphics processor integrated right onto the same chip, precluding the need for a separate GPU tucked into the netbook&#8217;s overall chipset. The benefit is longer battery life, since it&#8217;ll take less energy to crunch the same visuals. We&#8217;ll start seeing Pineview netbooks sometime early next year, most likely.</p>
<h3>Oldies But Goodies: Core 2 Duo, Quad and Extreme</h3>
<p>Intel&#8217;s Core 2 chips have been out three years now, an eternity in computer years. Because of this, and because they&#8217;re the main ones used in most personal desktop and laptop systems, there is a metric shitton of different Core 2 chips.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also more confusing because there are way more codenames to wade through. Let&#8217;s start from the top: Core 2 Solo has one core, Core 2 Duo two, and Quad has four (as does Extreme). From there, you have two distinct generations of chips within the Core 2 family.</p>
<p>In the first generation of Core 2 Duos, the main desktop chip was Conroe (with a cheaper variant called Allendale), while the main mobile one was called Merom. There was also a branch of Core 2 Quads called Kentsfield.</p>
<p>The next generation (that is, the current generation, unless you&#8217;re already on the Core i7 bandwagon) arrived <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/12/giz_explains_whats_the_f_is_a_/">with a new process</a> for making chips with even smaller transistors. Among other more technical differences, they were more energy efficient than their predecessors. With this generation of Core 2s, the mainstream desktop chips are Wolfdale, the desktop quad-cores are called Yorkfield, and the mobile chips are Penryn &mdash; if you&#8217;ve bought a decent notebook in the last two years, it&#8217;s probably got a Penryn Core 2 inside of it.</p>
<p>Ancient History: Pentium and Celeron Pentium is dead, except it&#8217;s not, living on as a zombie brand for chips that aren&#8217;t as good as Core chips, but aren&#8217;t as crappy as Intel&#8217;s low-end Celeron processors. If you see a machine with a sticker for Pentium or Celeron, <em>run</em>.</p>
<p>OK, I hope that helps, at least a little &mdash; you should probably thank me for staying away from clock speeds and other small variations, like individual permutations of Core i7 Bloomfield processors, to hopefully give you a broader overview of what all&#8217;s going on. Intel told me it&#8217;ll all make more sense once their entire road map for the year is out on the market, but I have a feeling it&#8217;s not gonna help my mum understand this crap one bit better.</p>
<p><em>Top image via <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/36984152@N08/3471662920/">soleiletoile</a>/Flickr</em></p>
<p><em>Thanks to Intel for helping us sort all this out!</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/giz-explains-intels-entire-confusing-armada-of-chips/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nvidia&#8217;s Nforce Chipset Is Dead In The Water</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/nvidias-nforce-chipset-is-dead-in-the-water/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/nvidias-nforce-chipset-is-dead-in-the-water/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:29:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt Buchanan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hardware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chipsets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core i7]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherboards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nehalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nforce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nvidia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=359066</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I used an Nvidia Nforce-based motherboard in the first computer I ever built, so I&#8217;m a little sad to see that Nvidia&#8217;s freezing all development on their Nforce chipset because of licensing issues with Intel, primarily over whether or not Nvidia&#8217;s licence covers chipsets for Nehalem-based processors. Nvidia&#8217;s not developing new chipsets for AMD&#8217;s processors, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used an Nvidia Nforce-based motherboard in the first computer I ever built, so I&#8217;m a little sad to see that Nvidia&#8217;s freezing all development on their Nforce chipset because of licensing issues with Intel, primarily over whether or not Nvidia&#8217;s licence covers chipsets for Nehalem-based processors. Nvidia&#8217;s not developing new chipsets for AMD&#8217;s processors, either. Lame-o. [<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353939,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03069TX1K0001121">PC Mag</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/10/nvidias-nforce-chipset-is-dead-in-the-water/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
