What is Digg?57 Comments
- fmohr, on 11/02/2008, -2/+43Which do you think is greener: getting a new computer using this processor, or continuing to use an existing computer that will meet your needs for the next two years?
- Afrochu, on 11/02/2008, -25/+46Oh god... the green marketing *****... I just can't stand it anymore...
They would have released the same processor regardless of what greentards are demanding - reducing voltage and getting more calculations done per clock are a time tested way of increasing processing power and this has been done for decades. Nothing in this processor's design was optimized to be 'green' - it's just another processor optimized to get the most possible performance from the ~50-150 Watt thermal limits of a typical CPU.
The entire article is just an adverisement for the new intel processor to make greentards buy them so they get warm fuzzy feelings from the delusion that they are making a difference. - transient0, on 11/02/2008, -3/+22Core IV doesn't exist.. its a Core 2 Quad.
- Atario, on 11/02/2008, -9/+22Remember kids, if you give a flying ***** about the environment, you're retarded!
Idiot. - jerryjamesstone, on 11/02/2008, -3/+16Awesome, I been wanting a new laptop
- doiveo, on 11/02/2008, -8/+21You sound like a grumpy and small minded person. If I were a company, I would be very interested in get a piece of that 2 billion. "Greentard" agenda or not.
- Nephersir7, on 11/02/2008, -1/+11It depends if your current computer makes the lights flicker all around your house every time you power it on...
- CatsAreGods, on 11/02/2008, -1/+11Oh, definitely buying a new one is greener because you will make all your friends GREEN WITH ENVY!!!
- exscape, on 11/02/2008, -0/+10Generating power (many kinds) creates CO2. Computers use power. Computers indirectly cause carbon emissions.
- inactive, on 11/02/2008, -0/+9Save $2 Billion for me? My bill is less than 100 bucks but if you insist you can save me $2 billion then yes! yes! sign me up!
- mrboratsagdiev, on 11/02/2008, -7/+15Translation: Marketing BS.
Should read: "Intel’s Green Processor Offers $2 Billion In ESTIMATED BUT NOT YET PROVEN OR REALIZED Energy Savings" - kronix2, on 11/02/2008, -0/+8Nehalem won't reach laptops until late 2009.
- aussieNickuss, on 11/02/2008, -0/+8Computers don't get slower over time....their perceived performance reduces in comparison to new technologies. E.g. When I got my P4 in 2004...it was a rocket. Today it's as slow as molasses...but that's only in comparison to my new Intel Core 2 Duo. It's physically still the same speed.
(computers get slower due to bloat though....but that has nothing to do with the actual hardware). - rolf, on 11/02/2008, -0/+7Reducing the energy requirements (read: heat) is also practical from the standpoint that Notebooks are all the rage and the growth sector currently.
- sqrt7744, on 11/02/2008, -3/+10no, Afrochu is right. If you really want to be green, don't buy a computer at all.
- CaviMike, on 11/02/2008, -2/+7"The company also suggests that 2 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions globally are from computers."
What? - chrislewis, on 11/02/2008, -0/+5Um, then why are the TDPs 130w, while core 2 quad is about 95w? How can i7 be more efficient?
- Vazel, on 11/02/2008, -1/+5He knows that he's just trolling no one can be that stupid.
- chrislewis, on 11/02/2008, -1/+5Yeah... but the power plant at the other end of your wall socket does damage the environment.
- financedude2, on 11/02/2008, -1/+4We're developing greener technologies
- gaijintendo, on 11/02/2008, -2/+5I might hold out for a laptop that doesn't cook my woozies, and has a battery life of more than an hour and a half after 6 months of use. Wake me up when that battery/processor combo gets released.
- aussieNickuss, on 11/02/2008, -2/+5I like the new logo.
- mesasone, on 11/02/2008, -0/+3I was wondering about that...
- nick111, on 11/02/2008, -0/+3This kindof ties in with Amory Lovins Negawatts ideas (google is your friend) (there are even videos for those of you who can't read)
It's good to see that greeness/efficiency are becoming a marketable characteristics in their own right. - kronix2, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2That's an 130W TDP for the highest-end Core i7, the same way the highest-end Core 2 Quads suck up 130W. A mid-range Quad has a TDP of 95W.
- zbeast, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2I need more speed and the only green I need is more green in my pocket.
So faster processes and cheaper prices. - chrislewis, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2It's expensive. 284 for the entry level, and then more for x58 and ddr3.
i7 is shaping up to be for those with deep pockets (for now).
Like all tech it will come down in price but, i7 is not practical yet. - meed, on 11/02/2008, -3/+5besides the fake tech talk and the un-supported statistics, the real idiotic thing is the last sentence. "Maybe it’s time to upgrade?" maybe this idiot doesn't know that the Intel hasn't shipped the damn CPU yet?
- Vazel, on 11/02/2008, -1/+3Still, this gets people interested in being environment friendly. I'm really happy at these companies making being green-friendly as a marketing feature. Gigabyte and Asus are rolling out power saving technology into their motherboards called DES and EPU. Now those are implemented to be green-minded as they otherwise wouldn't have happened.
- fluxion, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2oh my bad daPhoenix, i didnt realize that since the majority of my country doesnt care about green energy that im not allowed to either. that's a great philosophy there. too bad we all didnt adopt it in the 1950's when NOBODY gave a ***** about it, so we could all look like China in perpetuity.
and do you realize how absolutely ridiculous it is that you went scouring through Atario's post history and profile to call him out on being an American? holy ***** man. - Stalks, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2Perhaps a single user doesn't make much difference to the environment by using a "green" cpu. But Intel ship millions of processors and I'm sure that if all their new processors run with less power, it would make a commulative difference on a massive scale.
- inactive, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1EPIC FAIL!
- ICSU, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1plus the manufacturing process, transport etc.
- seavers, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1It's just marketing.
- inactive, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1anybody know when LGA1366 motherboards'll start showing up?
and if they're gonna immediately cost like $1000, just like DDR3 ram and such? - financedude2, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1I bought my computer in 2000. Why isn't it better off now?
- nrox653, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1*cough* Core II & IV = Core 2 and Core 2 Quad
Honestly, Intel hasn't used Roman numerals since Pentium III. I have no idea where he got Core IV from. - cuoops, on 11/02/2008, -1/+2bs or not....really guys, where would be without Intel?
- TonyCubed, on 11/02/2008, -1/+2You fail on two fronts there.
- thealsir, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1A post that reflected what I was thinking the moment I read the title. Dugg.
The most eco-friendly computing method (with devices that have moderate power consumption) is to keep using them for several years. It's also easier on the wallet.
These "save $X Billion by buying our new stuff" things are just ploys to get people to buy new stuff.
In other news, nothing to see here, move along. - partrow, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1AMD chips are also excellent, and less expensive. I have been using them for years, and like them very much.
They are also being used in supercomputers by the leading companies. Yes, Intel is fine, but AMD is just as fine at less cost. - Stalks, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1Idle is very much ON-BASE.
You leave your computer on 24/7 right? I bet over half of that time is spent IDLE.
Like right now, me typing into this comment box, my CPU is, for the best part ... IDLE
*drumroll* - financedude2, on 11/02/2008, -2/+2I can't wait to over clock it.
- stormofswords, on 11/02/2008, -2/+2Yeah, you don't seem to understand that the "being green" movement has only picked up steam in the last few years. So yeah, we're not talking about then, but now.
Feel free to try again, though. Maybe next time you won't get dugg down for such a stupid comment. - fluxion, on 11/02/2008, -1/+1considering the entire article is basically about what the processor does AT IDLE, your entire post is completely off-base. performance-per-cycle is not a factor at idle.
"greentards"? ***** ridiculous. most people leave their computers on 24/7, sometimes people have several on. power consumption is a factor that can indeed be seen in ones monthly bill and in the temperature of their houses. in terms of corporate IT infrastructures, lower power consumption is worth millions upon millions in reduced energy and cooling costs.
so yes, power consumption is a factor that is taken seriously in the design of these chips. its not just marketing toward the "greentards". im sorry if your apparent disdain for efficient use of energy blinds you from this fact. - jerryjamesstone, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1ah, some people just need to bitch...
- lusenok2, on 11/02/2008, -1/+1I know even better way to save... Turn off your computer!
- doddbear, on 11/02/2008, -1/+0lol
- partrow, on 11/02/2008, -2/+1Buried for misleading title. And the cost of the chip has not been revealed.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is