someone (someone@somewhere.com) on 2/8/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>Michael S (already5chosen@yahoo.com) on 2/8/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>>Which is not much taking into account four cores and all new uncore stuff. Remember that Montvale is 104 W.
>>In fact. with proposed less aggressive low-level circuited technique 2GHz at 170W
>>already looks like very aggressive target.
>
>http://www.itaniumsolutions.org/itanium_processor__tukwila
>
>"Tukwila is based on Intel's 65nm process technology and has an early clock speed of up to 2GHz at both 170W and 130W."
>
>
>> Unless they finally made Foxton replacement working.
>
>Tukwila uses basically the same dynamic power management
>system that is shipping now in i7 - an all digital scheme >with
>deterministic decision making and discrete V/F points.

I don't know if that's entirely true. The system in Tukwila still looks a lot more aggressive and fine-grained than what is used in Nehalem. Again, I'm not an expert here, but that's according to my parsing.

Nehalem is really all about sensing when cores are idle and power gating them off. Then you can move up a 'bin' of frequency.

Tukwila's system focuses primarily on measuring cap. across the chip with performance monitoring and then resynching PLLs in a single cycle to adjust up to Fmax.

David