Clarksfield quad-core only 35W TDP, and Lynnfield prices

[Idontcare]

According to Taiwan's motherboard industry indicated that, Intel has officially announced the new Nehalem processor prices, including the mainstream desktop processor-class processors Lynnfield and Clarksfield action product specifications and price, which Lynnfield price from $ 196 U.S. dollars minimum take-off, Clarksfield quad-core maximum TDP is only 35W, prices from $ 364 take-off is expected to market the third quarter of 2009.

Google translated HKEPC article

Damn they really opened up those dynamic clocking multipliers for Lynnfield! :shocked:

It is worth noting that, Lynnfield processors support Intel Turbo Boost technology, and enhance the range of Bloomfield compared to more, 2.66GHz, 2.8GHz and 2.93GHz open the Intel Turbo Boost Technology, the maximum up to 3.2GHz, 3.46GHz and 3.6 GHz, so that will further enhance performance.

Basically they are saying the silicon is validated to function at 3.6GHz but for TDP reasons they are underclocked to the lower settings. Gives you an idea of the guaranteed OC headroom if you invest in cooling to handle the thermals at the higher operating clockspeed.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ya intel made some strange movies on 32nm . The way they doing the 2 core job is differant than what I recall reading . I thought in the beginning they said NO HT. on 2 core unit. WhichI thought was insane. But now it is making sense . The 2core unit will go head to head with PHII 4 core and it will destroy AMD 3 core . At the lowest price point . This is really really bad for AMD. AMD is basicly out of server market. This 2 core chip will Insert intel as leader cost performance wise . AMD has to ans with tech . They need alot more than 32nm. to help them.

 

[ilkhan]

Im wondering if we'll see 2 and/or 8MB caches for the dual cores. Much like intel plays with the cache sizes on C2 chips. Different die sizes, different costs.

The no HT on the i5-2.66 is understandable, though it still sucks. Be good to compare performance vs the duals with HT.

The clarksfield speeds seem really low, about the same as the low voltage core 2 chips run at. (and at exactly twice the rated TDP). 1.6-2.0 seems just, low. I hope arrandale runs a lot faster (between only 2 cores and 32nm, itd better).

 

[Hacp]

What about mobile?

 

[daw123]

If its accurate, then I'm impressed that a 2.0GHz chip only has a TDP of 35W.

Presumably this means that temps will also be significantly lower (ideal for the mobile market)?

 

[lopri]

According to this, Clarksfield is a mobile chip.. Admittedly it's great that Intel is introducing Nehalem into laptops, but at 35W battery won't last any longer than current C2D laptops.

On the other hand, its pricing is shocking. 1.6GHz for $364, $1.7GHz for $546, and $2.0GHz for $1054? Welcome to circa 1999.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: lopri
According to this, Clarksfield is a mobile chip.. Admittedly it's great that Intel is introducing Nehalem into laptops, but at 35W battery won't last any longer than current C2D laptops.

On the other hand, its pricing is shocking. 1.6GHz for $364, $1.7GHz for $546, and $2.0GHz for $1054? Welcome to circa 1999.

Don't forget that clarksfield TDP includes the IMC as well as the 45nm MCM'ed IGP.

Putting all that into a mobile socket and consuming <35W at 2GHz for the cores is pretty darn good.

It's priced that way for a reason - because they expect people to be willing to pay for the level of performance/watt they intend to deliver with Clarksfield.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
It's priced that way for a reason - because they expect people to be willing to pay for the level of performance/watt they intend to deliver with Clarksfield.

Thank you for an economics lesson.

BTW - from what I read Clarksfield is a native-quad, just like Nehalem. And I read MCM'ed IGP would initially have a dual-core CPU. (Disclaimer: I only know as much as what's publicly known and don't speak Chinese).

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: Idontcare
It's priced that way for a reason - because they expect people to be willing to pay for the level of performance/watt they intend to deliver with Clarksfield.

Thank you for an economics lesson.

BTW - from what I read Clarksfield is a native-quad, just like Nehalem. And I read MCM'ed IGP would initially have a dual-core CPU. (Disclaimer: I only know as much as what's publicly known and don't speak Chinese).

Sorry I keep getting Clarksfield and Clarkdale mixed up in my head.

Clarksfield is 4-core 45nm Nehalem for mobile market, no MCM'ed IGP.

Clarkdale is 2-core 32nm Westmere for desktop market, MCM'ed 45nm IGP.

Still though, a 45nm 2GHz quad-core i5 fitting into a 35W TDP actually does impress me considering where the desktop varieties weigh in currently.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

According to Taiwan's motherboard industry indicated that, Intel has officially announced the new Nehalem processor prices, including the mainstream desktop processor-class processors Lynnfield and Clarksfield action product specifications and price, which Lynnfield price from $ 196 U.S. dollars minimum take-off, Clarksfield quad-core maximum TDP is only 35W, prices from $ 364 take-off is expected to market the third quarter of 2009.

Google translated HKEPC article

Damn they really opened up those dynamic clocking multipliers for Lynnfield! :shocked:

It is worth noting that, Lynnfield processors support Intel Turbo Boost technology, and enhance the range of Bloomfield compared to more, 2.66GHz, 2.8GHz and 2.93GHz open the Intel Turbo Boost Technology, the maximum up to 3.2GHz, 3.46GHz and 3.6 GHz, so that will further enhance performance.

Basically they are saying the silicon is validated to function at 3.6GHz but for TDP reasons they are underclocked to the lower settings. Gives you an idea of the guaranteed OC headroom if you invest in cooling to handle the thermals at the higher operating clockspeed.

So the lowest quad core Clarkdale is at 1.6GHz. Now I understand the claims of Turbo Boost giving >50% benefit.

This is for Clarkdale:

4 Cores operating: 1 clock speed grade boost
2 cores operating: 4 grades
1 core operating: 7 grades

I'm assuming for Lynnfield:

4 cores operating: 1 clock speed boost
2 cores operating: 3 speed grades
1 core operating: 5 speed grades

Intel is saying smaller form factors will get greater benefits. The point for Turbo Boost is to bring single thread performance of the multi-core processors similar to previous single core processors and to bridge the gap between laptops and desktops.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Still though, a 45nm 2GHz quad-core i5 fitting into a 35W TDP actually does impress me considering where the desktop varieties weigh in currently.

Yea considering the mainstream desktop and all the mobile parts fully integrate the Northbridge. According to previous reports I have seen the MC+PCI Express adds 10W so the 35W is really a 25W part. I wonder why they wanted quad core TDP to be that low. I'm pretty sure they'll add 55W(45W+10W) quad core with clock speeds much closer to Lynnfield.

 

[ilkhan]

Originally posted by: daw123
If its accurate, then I'm impressed that a 2.0GHz chip only has a TDP of 35W.

Dont be. low voltage C2D parts are hitting 17W TDP @ 2.16Ghz

You guys are right, the 35W does include the mem controller at least. So thats not bad.
Maybe they'll have a 45W quad part at higher speeds.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: ilkhan

Originally posted by: daw123
If its accurate, then I'm impressed that a 2.0GHz chip only has a TDP of 35W.

Dont be. low voltage C2D parts are hitting 17W TDP @ 2.16Ghz

You guys are right, the 35W does include the mem controller at least. So thats not bad.
Maybe they'll have a 45W quad part at higher speeds.

You know that the 35W TDP Nehalem is a quad core right? And the low voltage Core 2 is a dual core?

 

[ilkhan]

yeah I realized that. 17Wx2 means that they didn't improve that much. Clarksfield is slower, and either costs more or is slower clocked per watt per core. But as you say, at least the nehalem also includes the mem controller.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: ilkhan
yeah I realized that. 17Wx2 means that they didn't improve that much. Clarksfield is slower, and either costs more or is slower clocked per watt per core. But as you say, at least the nehalem also includes the mem controller.

34W(17x2) Low Voltage vs a 35W that's really 25W is a big change.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000
So the lowest quad core Clarkdale is at 1.6GHz. Now I understand the claims of Turbo Boost giving >50% benefit.

This is for Clarkdale:

4 Cores operating: 1 clock speed grade boost
2 cores operating: 4 grades
1 core operating: 7 grades

I'm assuming for Lynnfield:

4 cores operating: 1 clock speed boost
2 cores operating: 3 speed grades
1 core operating: 5 speed grades

Intel is saying smaller form factors will get greater benefits. The point for Turbo Boost is to bring single thread performance of the multi-core processors similar to previous single core processors and to bridge the gap between laptops and desktops.

So what MS OS will be able to utilize these "turbo boost" features? I thought that current MS OSes bounced threads around too much for these to be of much utility.

 

[palladium]

Originally posted by: IntelUser2000

Originally posted by: Idontcare

According to Taiwan's motherboard industry indicated that, Intel has officially announced the new Nehalem processor prices, including the mainstream desktop processor-class processors Lynnfield and Clarksfield action product specifications and price, which Lynnfield price from $ 196 U.S. dollars minimum take-off, Clarksfield quad-core maximum TDP is only 35W, prices from $ 364 take-off is expected to market the third quarter of 2009.

Google translated HKEPC article

Damn they really opened up those dynamic clocking multipliers for Lynnfield! :shocked:

It is worth noting that, Lynnfield processors support Intel Turbo Boost technology, and enhance the range of Bloomfield compared to more, 2.66GHz, 2.8GHz and 2.93GHz open the Intel Turbo Boost Technology, the maximum up to 3.2GHz, 3.46GHz and 3.6 GHz, so that will further enhance performance.

Basically they are saying the silicon is validated to function at 3.6GHz but for TDP reasons they are underclocked to the lower settings. Gives you an idea of the guaranteed OC headroom if you invest in cooling to handle the thermals at the higher operating clockspeed.

So the lowest quad core Clarkdale is at 1.6GHz. Now I understand the claims of Turbo Boost giving >50% benefit.

This is for Clarkdale:

4 Cores operating: 1 clock speed grade boost
2 cores operating: 4 grades
1 core operating: 7 grades

I'm assuming for Lynnfield:

4 cores operating: 1 clock speed boost
2 cores operating: 3 speed grades
1 core operating: 5 speed grades

Intel is saying smaller form factors will get greater benefits. The point for Turbo Boost is to bring single thread performance of the multi-core processors similar to previous single core processors and to bridge the gap between laptops and desktops.

Damn, why does i7 ( the enthusiast part) get only a max. of 2 speed grade boost while the mainstream part gets 5? Sounds kinda unfair 🙂

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
So what MS OS will be able to utilize these "turbo boost" features? I thought that current MS OSes bounced threads around too much for these to be of much utility.

For Nehalem the PCU does a far better job managing the shutdown/ramp-up of C-states as threads come and go owing to windows OS thread migration.

Originally posted by: palladium
Damn, why does i7 ( the enthusiast part) get only a max. of 2 speed grade boost while the mainstream part gets 5? Sounds kinda unfair 🙂

Let's see whether or not you get to overclock these chips...

 

[Hacp]

So when will the 3watt single core ULV chip be comming out?

 

[alkalinetaupehat]

Originally posted by: Hacp
So when will the 3watt single core ULV chip be comming out?

Right before the last polar bear on earth dies.

 

[aigomorla]

wait i5 < i7 yet why does it almost cost the freaken same?

LGA 1156 the use of interfaces, the beginning of a total of three clock market, including the 2.66GHz, 2.8GHz and 2.93GHz, built-in 8MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz model will not support Hyper-Threading technology, the highest TDP to 95W, priced at 1000 per unit cost of $ 196, $ 284 and $ 562 U.S. dollars.


Hello Intel... i thought i5 was suposed to be mainstream???

2.93 = i7 940 class btw..

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
wait i5 < i7 yet why does it almost cost the freaken same?

LGA 1156 the use of interfaces, the beginning of a total of three clock market, including the 2.66GHz, 2.8GHz and 2.93GHz, built-in 8MB L3 Cache, 2.66GHz model will not support Hyper-Threading technology, the highest TDP to 95W, priced at 1000 per unit cost of $ 196, $ 284 and $ 562 U.S. dollars.


Hello Intel... i thought i5 was suposed to be mainstream???

2.93 = i7 940 class btw..

Maybe cheaper motherboards?

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: palladium

Damn, why does i7 ( the enthusiast part) get only a max. of 2 speed grade boost while the mainstream part gets 5? Sounds kinda unfair 🙂

Not at all. The Core i7s will be overclocked which takes out much of the point of Turbo Boost while the more mainstream versions(and especially the laptop one) won't be overclocked as much and Turbo Boost will have greater benefits to more users.

"Hello Intel... i thought i5 was suposed to be mainstream???

2.93 = i7 940 class btw.."

It is mainstream. The motherboards are cheaper! The official pricing of "mainstream" chips haven't changed since the first Core 2, but nowadays people complain its too expensive.

 

[extra]

I don't know, really not particularly impressive. :\ Meh.

 

[ilkhan]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
wait i5 < i7 yet why does it almost cost the freaken same?

Its still a quad. $200 is the same as a current quad costs. There'll be i3 dual cores to handle the $80-200 range. Dont forget that prices will fall and MSRP may be lower also.