Looks like old info. The busses have gone up since.Quote:
Originally Posted by XeRo
Also the product launch is in 2007.
Printable View
Looks like old info. The busses have gone up since.Quote:
Originally Posted by XeRo
Also the product launch is in 2007.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
:rofl: :rofl:
:up: gODJO
a nice calculation of very very big fanboy, that's completely rubbish, if you're calculation is true they should already brought 65nm above 3ghz and they will never do that because of TDP increase and you are talking about 4GHZ :shrug: . downplay every comment and reply in an AMD thread and try to keep the heads up in an INTEL thread.
as stated before, if you don't have any decent NDA You are just another one in line that needs info from the web. try to live with it.
indeed it will be end oktober-begin november you will see Penryn in retailQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
yeah sure and Nehalem is not a hype? first onboard memory controller (the old 386 does not count, that's old tech) , csi, .... it is still early dev and paperwork and offcourse fanboy's like it already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I dont think Nehalem is hyped yet. it sure will be closer to the launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
What about 486SL then? ;)
Onboard memory controller is only useful for the multisockets systems as I said before. For the desktop its 100% useless. Its just a sideeffect from the server oriented design. And in my eyes its a somewhat bad one. Just look on 939->AM2->AM3 situation.
But since Nehalem is a new architecture, I would expect alittle more and better than Penryn over Conroe. And I say I wait on nehalem because I dont believe in K10 hopes (It looks great for the bigger servers tho). Nor do I believe Penryn will make my Conroe obsolete before Nehalem.
Nehalem is pretty interesting. You would have to believe in K10 hopes though... the two are in many ways pretty similar.
@duploxxx
Why don't you come back with something intelligent?
I don't care about stupid comments on my posts, but your hanging on my branch and dangling left-right annoys me. If you have something to say, related to computers or IT, we can discuss. But don't come back with another low IQ reply, without any valid arguments, data, facts or logical explanations. For example if you think that something is wrong with my calculation, you can point at it and explain, but your tasteless comment "a nice calculation of very very big fanboy, that's completely rubbish" makes me think that you are unlettered villager.
well that's just the same way you fill each thread, with garbage commentsQuote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
the answer is very simple, look at power consumption at load of the c2d architecture from e6300-6400 and e6600-e6700-e6800 the series are the same, only different speed binding and yet you see a higher power consumption due to higher speed. That's way you don't see a higher bin from INTEL, X6800 is at teh tdp limit, until they create a new revision so they can drop the vcore a little or go to penryn.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._11.html#sect0
And don't put your high marks on penryn at the moment, there is a reason that they only release it late this year and ES samples are no +3,0Gig. But you'll find out when the NDA lifts :ROTF: :ROTF:
Looks like they did:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/674-...1333-ddr3.html
Of course, the main reason that Intel hasn't gone higher is because they haven't needed to and therefore decided to use the TDP headroom on quad-cores.
Even if true, I'd imagine it has to due with AMD's feeble response, especially on the desktop.Quote:
And don't put your high marks on penryn at the moment, there is a reason that they only release it late this year and ES samples are no +3,0Gig. But you'll find out when the NDA lifts
The only garbage I see here is you. Lay off the crack dude. :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
@gOJDO and duploxxx:
Gentleman: Cut the personal attacks.
This is XS not Family Feud!
Thank you.
You should be warned for monumental stupidity. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Reality speaks otherwise : Intel has a 75w TDP on its C2D Xtreme.Since at 2.93 it burns 66w I wouldn't be surprised if they cram a 3.2GHz in the 75w TDP envelope.Quote:
the answer is very simple, look at power consumption at load of the c2d architecture from e6300-6400 and e6600-e6700-e6800 the series are the same, only different speed binding and yet you see a higher power consumption due to higher speed. That's way you don't see a higher bin from INTEL, X6800 is at teh tdp limit, until they create a new revision so they can drop the vcore a little or go to penryn.
However , with no competition why shoot yourself in the foot and not maximize yields ?
Also , the new E6850 3GHz C2D burns 59w under 2x Prime. 3.33+ Ghz in the 75w TDP ?
If you want to see which uarch is power limited look at the jump from 2.6 to 2.8GHz on k8.
That's why Intel demoed 3.33GHz 45nm Quad-Cores 2 months ago at IDF ?Quote:
And don't put your high marks on penryn at the moment, there is a reason that they only release it late this year and ES samples are no +3,0Gig. But you'll find out when the NDA lifts :ROTF: :ROTF:
6 months from now as they refine the process why not see a 3.66Ghz Quad-Core at launch ?
Out of curiosity, how da hell can you tell how much a CPU (ONLY the CPU) uses vs. the entire system difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
FWIW, Xeon 5148LV (DC) is rated at 35W @ 2.33. So the numbers you ask for are very much possible - only not useful, as you said ;-)
Very hard or close to impossible without very advanced gear. However, the easy way is to measure the consumption before the VRM. But then the efficiency/loss is something you have to guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
3.6 ghz quad :slobber:
:slobber:
:slobber:
:slobber:
:weapon:
if the pleb's can squeeze another few hundred MHz out of a penryn i spose they'll be happy :hehe:
don't believe this. Actual Quad at 3.33ghz are 150W tdp :yepp: with 30% less power in 45nm you can run a kentfield at 105watt for 3.33ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
Penryn is 6Mo per dual core. with more cache it will be more hard to go higher. Dual core can, i'm pretty sure of this, but quad is too hot.
3.66 quad will go out one day, but not this year. ;)
45nm offers +20% higher clocks at 30% less power consumption. So
It would be like 3GHz * 1.2 = 3.6GHz @ 130W * 0.7 = 91W, but that is the case for a die shrink only. Although the L2 is more than 50% of Core2 transistors it consumes around 20% of the total power consumption under 100% CPU utilization. So the additional transistors for the L2 in Penryn can't make a significant difference in power consumption. There would be also another 15 millions(on the quadcore, around 7.5M per die or around 3.5M per core) of transistors included in Penryn. I expect 3.6GHz 45nm quadcore at around 100W TDP.
BTW, here are some slides about Penryn from Intel:
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_...gerOshanew.pdf
that would be amazing...but i think it might be a bit optimistic.:shrug:Quote:
I expect 3.6GHz 45nm quadcore at around 100W TDP.
even though i can see how you arrived at those numbers sort of; who knows you may be right....assuming 90W tdp at 3.33 for yf.
does anyone know what speed wolfdale or yorkfield are supposed to clock at stock? what their codings are etc? have intel actually started to churn these chips out yet? i get the feeling that intel are not sorting /binning penryn cpu's as we speak :shrug: or are they?
and just how much different architecturally are they from c2d's?
and sorry if this has already been discussed.
looking at that Gelsinger link:
intel forecasts (or is targeting) 45nm shipments to equal 65nm shipments by Q3 '08.
where does this come from?Quote:
Actual Quad at 3.33ghz are 150W tdp with 30% less power in 45nm you can run a kentfield at 105watt for 3.33ghz.
if this is correct 3.6 should be a walk in the park for a yorkfield.
edit---------
my bad Hexus site is silly.
yep that same demo again.
I haven't seen a Penryn CPU yet. But according to the process parameters it should be like: 30% lower power consumption at 20% higher frequencies, compared to Merom/Conroe. Too good to be true, but that are the benefits of high-K dielectrics + metal gates + 45nm shrink.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
They can clock more than 20%, compared to Conroe/Kentsfield, while consuming 30% less energy.Quote:
does anyone know what speed wolfdale or yorkfield are supposed to clock at stock?
What do you mean? what codings? :confused:Quote:
what their codings are etc?
yes, right now they are mass producing them.Quote:
have intel actually started to churn these chips out yet?
I have absolutely the opposite feeling. The first produced Penryn CPUs were able to run multiple OS-es and softwares. That is very rare and big exception. Usually are needed months and a lot of debugging before you got a CPU which can boot an OS. With the first Penryn CPUs running in Dec 2006, Intel should release Penryn earlier.Quote:
i get the feeling that intel are not sorting /binning penryn cpu's as we speak :shrug: or are they?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2972&p=1Quote:
and just how much different architecturally are they from c2d's?
Currently Intel have only one fully functional 45nm fab for mass production. In mid 2008 they'll have 3. No wonder, their 65nm production will be higher than their 45nm until mid 2008.Quote:
and sorry if this has already been discussed.
looking at that Gelsinger link:
intel forecasts (or is targeting) 45nm shipments to equal 65nm shipments by Q3 '08.
Kentsfield @ 2.93GHz has TDP of 130W. At 3.33GHz, without increasing the voltage Kentsfield should have 148W TDP(130W * 3.33GHz/2.93GHz).Quote:
where does this come from?
if this is correct 3.6 should be a walk in the park for a yorkfield.
Yorkfield Quad core will be 1066 or 1333? One site says 1066, but the X38 shows it will support a quad core at 1333.
1333. Servers will be 1600 sofar I recall for DP.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobHarris
Is 1333 for the fastest Yorkfield? Otherwise, it's going to be very hard to overclock the yorkfield without having expensive 8500 RAM.
Why ? To run in sync you need DDR2 5300...Quote:
Originally Posted by BobHarris
Intel first showed a E6700 (limit of 65w TDP) and they released the X6800. I'd expect just the same with here, they demoed at 3.33 and will release a 3.67 extreme. 3.67GHz is probably just out of the mainsteam TDP window. Well, if history repeats it's self.
When a CPU has letters like EE, X, or FX in the name TDP goes out the window.
Err EE for Intel yeah, but for AMD it's actually the low wattage version ;-) (Energy Efficient vs. Exterme Edititon)
I reckon the 3.33 is not far from the top Penryn can achieve though (mb 4GHz tops official).
Yeah, at stock. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
I wonder what multi the lowest clocked Yorkfield will have. Or maybe they'll release some cheapo 1066 FSB parts... that would be great. :D
Yorkfield Arived?:welcome:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115021
The New Era Start's or it's a detail mistake?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkfie..._and_Yorkfield
Manufacturing Tech 65 nmQuote:
Originally Posted by ediflorianus
That isn't a Yorkfield..
just ordered 2, thanks!!
j/k
wrong Process and too little Cache..Quote:
Originally Posted by ediflorianus
Intel 45nm Penryn Quad-Core Spy Pics @ hothardware.
http://www.hothardware.com/News/Excl...Core_Spy_PIcs/
http://www.hothardware.com/newsimage...tel_45nm_1.jpg
Very nice.
Intel show us working and fast 3,33 GHz 45 nm samples and AMD stuck @ buggy B0 1,6 GHz Barcelonas. :cool:
July 22 price cut confirmation and yet another price cut coming in September 2?
SourceQuote:
Moreover, Intel also has plans to drop the price of some of its Core 2 Duos by 24-32% on September 2.
Just keeps getting better and better.... i love price cuts...
Fudzilla says Penryn doesnt overclock well...
only 10%
Don't know if its true or not, just posting it
Fuad seems to be unable to seperate a 65nm Clovertown setup in a V8 and Penryns. And we already seen 3.33Ghz Penryn Quads.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Its really not a place for technews ;)
Maybe a little off topic, but anyone know how they will be named ?
E7600 ? E7700 ? QX7700 ?
I would guess 8000 series or a 6000 variant. 7000 series is MP CPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuKo
The Yorkfields demonstrated were probably specially hand-picked chips. It is possible that most of them are terrible at overclocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Just playing devil's advocate :p
hoping it will go quad with a 65-75W TDP
if so then it should kick and it would make for a drop in replacement for my c2d.
would result in a nice sextupling of my current l2 cache
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32624/135/
*Intel in fact aims to announce the first members of its 45nm processor family this year, most likely late in Q4.
*The first Penryn CPU to be available on the market will be the quad-core Yorkfield, dual-core Wolfdale early in Q1 2008.
*Clock speeds will be inching up and hit 3.33 GHz, we heard. :confused: ??
*45 nm mobile processors will follow in Q1 2008
*Gainstown, up to eight cores, will be using a dual-die design as well as the flip-chip LGA8 package. The die size will climb substantially from currently 143 mm2 of the 65 nm Core 2 Duo and an expected 107 mm2 of the upcoming 45 nm Penryn generation to 191 mm2, due to larger caches as well as an integrated memory controller, which will be one major factor that is responsible for an increased pin count
IMC on Penryn???Quote:
Originally Posted by red
No IMC on penryn
TG was mostly talking about Penryn but threw in a tip about Gainstown, a Nehalem derivative.
Known info shows Nehalem with IMC, clearly not Penryn. They don't really know the Transistor counts or size Nehalem, do they?Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Nehalem for desktop won't have IMC...
Says who ?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
informal!Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
I win?
Yeah...here's your prize :Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
http://www.donutking.com.au/images/d...donuts_big.jpg
Thanks, but I would have prefer a penryn ... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38232Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
I've read that months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Since Nehalem hasn't even taped out , I would take the usual spoon of salt with the Inq article.
The FSB is simply out of breathing room and I doubt Intel will use a CSI link as a FSB , simply doesn't sound rigth.
That looks like a good article.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Given that Intel's design cycle is 5 years long, what could you possibly mean by the "since Nehalem hasn't even taped out" argument? Don't you think that the design would have been close to finalized BEFORE it has been taped out?
In the graphics card realm, the design cycles are much shorter, and the competition much fiercer, so there's a lot of misinformation spewed all the time. However, I really can't think of any time TheInq has been wrong about CPU specification information (not clock speed information... specification information).
Intel's design cycle is 4 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Secondly Nehalem was designed to be completly modular , you can modify it much easily than older designs , that is you don't have to redo everything.
With this extra flexibility Intel can choose between IMC or not , integrated graphics or not , etc.
What I mean is this : FSB is out of breathing room ; you can't go over 1600MHz with ease , the technicals hurdles are staggering and the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
While it might be fine for notebooks , on desktops once the core count reaches 4 and above the limitations start to pan out.
Instead of a Grain-of-Salt, take that one with a whole damned teaspoon:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Example---->The volume part, Thurley, will have three DDR3 channels per socket. The memory is currently slated to run at 800/1066/1333, so bandwidth will not be a problem there. We understand Intel is adopting the micro-buffer strategy from AMD. As we say here in Arkansas, "that's Hog wash". Intel, just like AMD used Alpha for inspiration.
Core doesn't need an integrated memory controller simply because it's not memory bandwidth starved. Test it with crappy RAM and that will become blatantly obvious.
Absolutely QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Nehalem is also NOT just another Core 2 like Penryn and might actually make use of an IMC. Otherwise, it becomes just a Gimmick. Also, it'd be pretty stupid IMHO, if Intel added all higher end tech on all processors, even the budget models. I THINK Intel will do just like they did with Hyperthreading (HTT makes a return on Nehalem) and split the line-up feature wise.
No, it's 5 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
That's true, but all the performance data for with/without IMC and such take months to complete. Most of this stuff will have been decided many months in advance.Quote:
Secondly Nehalem was designed to be completly modular , you can modify it much easily than older designs , that is you don't have to redo everything.
With this extra flexibility Intel can choose between IMC or not , integrated graphics or not , etc.
That's true. That's why they're switching to CSI.Quote:
What I mean is this : FSB is out of breathing room ; you can't go over 1600MHz with ease , the technicals hurdles are staggering and the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
While it might be fine for notebooks , on desktops once the core count reaches 4 and above the limitations start to pan out.
Why is that "hogwash"? TheInq's speculation may be incorrect but the data about Thurley is certainly believable, especially since many other sites have confirmed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
That's half true. Core has plenty of memory BANDWIDTH but still suffers from high memory LATENCY.Quote:
Core doesn't need an integrated memory controller simply because it's not memory bandwidth starved. Test it with crappy RAM and that will become blatantly obvious.
That's true, but the problem is that only the XE editions will get the IMC. Even the high-end desktop parts will not have an IMC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Yeah,that's what i think also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
I'm not talking about TheInq, I'm talking about folks testing and saying as much. I find that MaximumPC, Tech Report, ExtremeTech, and many others who tested slow RAM know what they're talking about. No site confirm RAM making more than 2 or 3% difference with Core2 Duo or even Core 2 Quad=P A64 can be affected buy slower and higher latency RAM, that just not true for Core=PQuote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Absolutely not, especially compared to the hit Athlons on AM2 takes with an IMC and slower RAM. Core features a Smart L2 and Smart Memory Access. Each of these are tweaked and improved even more on Penryn. These make the use of an IMC moot. Please note, for single sockets, it also nullifies the negative effects of the FSB.Quote:
That's half true. Core has plenty of memory BANDWIDTH but still suffers from high memory LATENCY.
Latency
Nehalem will use SMT and might need an IMC, just as more than one socket will benefit from CSI.That's where CSI will prove more valuable.
NO ONE knows who'll get IMC but CSI is just what it is. Note the first letter? C is for Common in this case.Quote:
That's true, but the problem is that only the XE editions will get the IMC. Even the high-end desktop parts will not have an IMC.
Please don't contradict yourself. XE is the high end and everything else will be mainstream. Even without an IMC, these babies will kick mucho ass just as they are with even higher latency DDR3 running at 1333 and 1600MHz.
Then you're off as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Added. It's "Hog Wash" because AMD and Intel used Alpha for a lot of ideas. Intel had working Timna with an IMC before any Athlon with it shipped.
Intel also had working 386SL and 486SL with IMCs before ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
It's 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Pleas do tell what design has taken Intel 5 years to complete. ( except Montecito which was delayed by 1 year due to implementation issues )
That would mean different boards for the XE series.I really doubt Intel will do such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
why not? it makes sense. XEs would work with boards based on only high-end chipset.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
No it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by dexman
Intel's strength derives from its manufacturing excellence.
What's the MS for XE edition ? 0.01% ?
Does that warrant the following :
1.Different mask.
2.Mobos
3.Chipset.
4.Validation time.
The answer is obviously no.IMO , Intel would be pretty stupid to do that.
And thatīs the very good reason to do something about it. Many people canīt justify buying XEs. Too pricy and you can have same results with overclocked Exxxx models. Heck, some of them oc even better than XEs.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Lets say Intel drop prices on XEs and introduces more of them, not just one - the highest clocked cpu. Kinda like all CPUs over 3 GHz are XE while highest clocker is still priced very high. They separate them from others by better features (CSI, better oc chipset, etc...), that way XE would still hold upper hand over regular model at same clocks. In the end, more people will start buying XEs and high-end chipset boards.
Slaps self on the head in a "Could have had a V8" fashion. Thanks!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
but maybe the extreme margins (low volumes though) on XEs would justify all the work...Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Then you have a lot of users (more of them than us BTW) who buy the top two or three models and NOT overclock. I see these folks more and more on forums all over the Web.Quote:
Originally Posted by dexman
I'm not-well off by any means but one of the last rigs I bought before becoming a 100% DIYer cost me about $3,400 in 1995.
I think I'll wait and see just how Intel uses CSI. My point is, IMHO, just that it is NOT that important on any Intel Single socket system=P The FSB is NOT that frackin bad for Conroe and Penryn desktops. That goes for CSI and IMC. If Nehalem is different enough, it might need an IMC though but I doubt it. IMHO, sure I could be wrong as hell, IMC and CSI becomes a Gimmick.Quote:
Originally Posted by dexman
There's just too much negative BS propaganda IMHO about the FSB for a Single Socket system. 95% of the time, my estimation from using my E6600 stock and overclocked, even with the RAM even slowed to 667, has very little effect on my performance bandwidth wise. Latency is almost not worth talking about. The worse problem with slow RAM on a Conroe system are poor overclocking results.
Hell, I agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Somebody tell me, please, how would it make sense to cut prices TWICE in SIX WEEKS?Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
IIRC last price cut was in late April or early May, so the upcoming July 22 markdown makes sense - but another one only 5-6 weeks later?:eek: :confused:
PS: of course, if it's only about drying up any revenue AMD still enjoys then it makes sense - but it would still hurt their own (Intel) revenues too.
If you have a lot of faster products coming and the market is in a slowdown rut, you cut prices=P Once sales pick up, or if they pick up, prices first hold steady, then they rise. Look at RAM that's more volatile but gives an accelerated example. Notebooks and Smaller Servers are the only thing selling real well right now according to most market watchers.Quote:
Originally Posted by T2k
So you would even kill the sales of your just-marked-down products? Hmmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Not me, but I'm not them. Intel is at the point of making less money, 1.6 to 1.8 Billion a Quarter compared to 2.2 to 2.4 Billion. They are not like AMD, who is not only in the Red, but the red ink is growing. Either way, Intel is still turning a profit. It's like saying, the good news; I punched some jerk up-side the head and knocked him out(more sales while taking more market share). The bad news; But I also hurt my hand on his hard assed head (lower ASP). Now, isn't that better than having him knock you out?Quote:
Originally Posted by T2k
Also keep in mind that just because it hasn't taped out for the HVM/development factories, doesn't mean that the pathfinding groups in the small volume labs do not have test reticles yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...9286539,00.htm
Last things first, the writer's view is thrown in and has nothing do with the news report or interview.Quote:
"We view [Nehalem] as the first dynamically scalable microarchitecture," Gelsinger said. What he means by that is that Intel chip designers will be able to pick and choose from a wide variety of ingredients to build chips for different types of computers, from powerful servers to small notebooks.
Chips based on Nehalem will have between one and eight cores, and will be capable of handling two independent software threads per core. Hyperthreading, Intel's name for the concept, allows a processor to execute two different code streams at pretty much the same time. This was a feature found in Intel's single-core Pentium 4 processors but largely discontinued with the advent of multicore chips. Note; Also found on certain XE models
Intel also plans to build chips with "point-to-point" links that directly connect processor cores with their neighbours, and install a fast link between the processor and memory with integrated memory controllers, Gelsinger said. Those were two design philosophies used by AMD to break into the server market with its Opteron chip in 2003. Intel has thus far disdained those approaches.
I might be missing it but I thought CSI is a Common Serial Interconnect or Common Scalable Interface. This replaces the FSB and Interconnections for Point to Point for everything but DMI--->Direct Media Interface To meet the device-to-memory bandwidth requirements of PCIe, SATA, USB 2.0, Intel HD Audio and others, a proprietary serial interface, based on PCIe, was developed, the DMI link. This link connects the ICH6-M and the GMCH. It offers 2 GB/s maximum bandwidth compared to 266 MB/available with the ICH4-M hub interface. The DMI integrates priority-based servicing to allow concurrent traffic and isochronous data transfer capabilities for Intel HD Audio.
Note; DMI is also called Direct Memory Interface.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1...2081306,00.htm
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/03/index.html
So, it would be foolish for any of us to pretend we know which of those processors will ship with integrated anything, be they Graphics or Memory controllers. Like Timna, there are bound to be Mini Mac models that are fully integrated and Celeron models with nothing. IMHO, there might be as many as 24 models once integration or the amount there of is figured in.Quote:
Initial disclosures about the Nehalem revealed that some of the processors will have eight cores and should, of course, beat its predecessor's specs. More than 15 45-nm designs will be on offer (remember when the choices only comprised the Pentium and Celeron for the desktop and laptop?).
Sorry for the long assed post!
I'm guessing im right but 1333mhz cpu's = peryn?
The 6x50 series? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Origin_Unknown
Penryn will be 1066/1333/1600. Current 65nm is 800/1066/1333
hrm, abit just added 1333mhz cpu support to my ab9 pro so i wonder which it is. only says 1333.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Because of these 1333FSB 65nm chips that officially launches at the july 22 pricecut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Origin_Unknown
http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/july22.bmp
Yup, it seems a lot of folks are forgetting the 1333MHz FSB Conroes. If that's the only difference I'd just as soon stick with the 1066 and its slightly higher multiplier for overclocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I'm with you. Geez-o-pete those quads look tastey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Ryan
Tweaked mature processes have always been good for many of us in this OC/DIYer segment.Quote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
http://www.vr-zone.com/index.php?i=5116
150W (3GHz) and 120W (2.666GHz) go to 3.16GHz/120W/45nm.
80W quad go from 2.33GHz@65nm to 3GHz@45nm.
50W quad go from 1.86GHz@65nm to 2.66GHz@45nm.
65W dual goes from 2.66GHz@65nm to 3.33GHz@45nm
40W dual goes from 2.33GHz@65nm to 3.16GHz@45nm.
The 50W 2.66Ghz Quad looks very nice. I wish Intel would make these for the 3000 series too. Or maybe desktop aswell.
My goal is to be under the 65W today in my next build. I could settle for a 3.16Ghz dualcore too at 40W.
I also dont see any reason for them not being able to make a 3.16Ghz 80W quad using LV chips.
Slightly OT but I keep hearing rumors of a 120W 3330/12mb/1600 Harpertown.
That would be pretty close to the numbers I see here for TDP decreases.
My Clovers at 3157 draw 144W with 1.35V(coretemp) 1.3v reported in BIOS.
Agreed, 50W at 2660 would make a hell of a combo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Electrical cost has now become a big factor and my little end of this hobby is the DC work.
An 8 core clover at over 3000mhz costs me close to $90.00 a month to run.
A constant 450W draw thru the wall to feed it.
I'm doing a system now to try and offset some of that.
A dual sossaman(yonah) with 31w cpu's.
This was sort of lost as the C2D's appeared very shortly after it's launch but will be interesting to see output versus elec cost.
Can you spill more like you did about the WCG K10 anomaly? :D Yep, the 1600FSB part is missing officially but like the X5365 and Apple, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. BTW, How would 3.3GHz+1600FSB work? 400*8=3200, 400*8.5=3400. A 3.2GHz/1600FSB would fit right on top of the 3.16GHz/1333FSB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
We have no problems getting 3Ghz Quads from Dell. You just have to ask for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Yelp, those are 400MHz FSB parts. I even heard talk of Intel moving back to .5 on their multiplers.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
I'm in the same boat as you on this. I did the math and it doesn't make a lot of sense. 3330 divided by 400= 8.325 and thats not something that Intel does based on past history.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
I think we'll be into winter before we get good info on that one.
One thing for sure is that it will be an interesting year and my elec bill will drop hopefully!:D
I hope my bill will be lower too, I'm dumping my big old CRT and getting a LCD. If Newegg didn't pull a fast one. I just missed the UPS Guy but he should be back soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Extra cost for LV must probably correspond to high perf/watt :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
(2.66/50 = 0.05, 3.16/80=0.04)
To make one part more dramatic:Quote:
Originally Posted by red
April 3GHz 65nm QC at 150W goes to Aug/Sep G0 65nm at 120W goes to 80W in Q4 on 45nm.
Power cut almost in half for 3GHz QC part in the course of 6-9 months.
Impressive.
so is the entire lineup of penryn aiming for a Q1 08, or before..? I thought it was fallish.
Ryan
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4687
Server has been late 2007.
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=5117
Mobile has been early 2008.
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=5119
Desktop has been flipping in between both, latest news suggesting 2007.
Intel will launch them when they feel they need to:)Quote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Price...rticle8074.htm
Intel "Penryn" Xeon DP to start out at $177 and top out at $1,172.
No premium compared to Clovertown http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4981 ,very small premium for low wattage quad 45nm parts, no info on the 3.16GHz 40W dualie, launch of dualies in Q108. Also compare http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40606