You know something doesn't add up. We've seen a lot of Conroe benchmarks and even pricing. But yet Intel makes core revisions to 9 series cpus? Now that makes no sense at all especially if all the info about Conroe is true. This smells too much like the nvidia deal that is going on. They announced and produced some 7900 series cards, but I suspected that the same supply problems would occur and low and behold they are. Now I am a skeptic, but something tells me that Conroe is a bit suspicious. Its like you gotta get to work in the morning and its 8pm, you got two cars, one old one which needs to be fixed and a new one parked right next to it. Who in their right mind would fix the old one for in the morning?
I am a little skeptical about Conroe
- Thread starter classy
- Start date
When I read the article about Intel introducing a new core revision to a cpu that will cost as much as a vastly superior Conroe, I scratched my head on that. When A64 was released AMD did nothing more to improve the Athlon XP. I see no reason, none whats so ever to improve a core on a chip, if you have better and supposedly cheaper core, unless all things aren't rosy. And Conroe is supposedly only 8-12 weeks away. I am no accountant, but that doesn't add up.
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
I saw the same reports and personally I think it's a ramp up issue. It's difficult to go from 0% of consumers to 75% over one quarter. All your fabs currently tuned to churning out high yields on 900 series chips will have to throw it all away and reramp up on the next process. So to maintain a good supply, they will be ramping down the volume of the 900 series (and perhaps single core) chips but not at a rate that'll cripple chip supply.
So now that they're forced to keep working out 900 series chips, may as well see what else you can get out of it. Makes sense to me.
So now that they're forced to keep working out 900 series chips, may as well see what else you can get out of it. Makes sense to me.
I see your point, but thats not what has happened. Yea I can see to continue to produce 9 series cpus, but why would you introduce a new core revision if what you have is better? Why would anyone buy an inferior 9 series cpu if a Conroe is available. So why improve an inferior chip, unless you have to?
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
Because you can? Fabs will keep fine tuning it to get better yields to make it cheaper. Core revisions will add whatever features consumers want right now without having to change to a new platform and to improve the yield in the top speed bins.
Now as for why buy an inferior 9 series chip, well that's something to ask the consumer and not the producer.
You never want to both have a die shrink and a new architecture introduced at the same time. I think doing a die shrink to 65nm on the 900 series gives them "practice" and experience at the 65nm level and makes it a smoother transition to the new architecture when you have the bugs worked out of 65nm. Also I think it will take awhile to ramp up the Conroe chips to great enough supply and we may not see them as soon as we think. If you read the Xtereme systems thread on them it looks like they have a ways to go yet on the mobo/bios end of it.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
Doesn't Intel still have to sell CPU's from now until conroe is launched? Doesn't matter how good they are compared to conroe either. They have to have something to sell. Core revisions are par for the course and just because a new CPU is coming out shortly, doesn't mean all other business stops and waits.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 22,744
- 12,743
- 136
They did it because the new core revision, as featured in the latest EE chip, is quite a bit better in terms of power consumption than previous Preslers. It is an improvement. OEMs will like that, especially if the new core revision finds its way into cheaper Preslers like the 920.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
It usually takes quite a while to transition to new chip so Intel will probably still be manufacturing quite a few Pentium D's a year from now. The Athlon XP lingered for quite a while when the Athlon 64 was released and the xp core lingered on for a long time as the duron. I am kinda mystified by the low Conroe pricing though. You'd think that it'd be as expensive as the PentiumEE at first.
Is it me or... Does this look suspecious?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=95021&page=1
Take a good look at those pics. Why is it that the Conroe has a voltage over 3.0 volts? If the Conroe's TDP is suppose to be lower than AMD processors, then why is the voltage so high? I mean, for AMD processors, anything over 1.6 volts would be considered meltdown.
It's because, if you read the thread, that cpu-z does not properly detect the voltage. Everest does detect the proper voltage of 1.2v. It was also noted that the Conroe chip is passively cooled.
Its in the thread you gave him on page 4
EDIT: Back on topic, you can be skeptical all you want, but you really have to wait until the real deal comes out, then you can really make a decision. If Conroe is as good as everyone says it is, good for Intel as it will force AMD to come out with something competitive.
EDIT: Back on topic, you can be skeptical all you want, but you really have to wait until the real deal comes out, then you can really make a decision. If Conroe is as good as everyone says it is, good for Intel as it will force AMD to come out with something competitive.
Intel will make up the extra $$ due to the fact to run Conroe will most likely require the purchase of a "Conroe Compatible" motherboard. It seems to all equal out in the end.
Intel intices everyone with low priced, high performing processors, but to later find out, that almost every single processor revision lately has been requiring a new motherboard.
The only issue I have with Conroe is the clock speed. If Conroe really performs as well as we saw at the IDF showing (across the board) then there's no point to releasing a 2.67GHz part. Hell, there may be no point to going 2.4GHz either since the 2.13GHz part should out-perform AMD's X2s. I'd be a much better decision to just hold back on a few speed grades and just release them later to make people want to upgrade again. A possible reason for this may be that Intel needed that clock to actually beat AMD across the board (ie, maybe AMD's FPU was still superior at lower than 2.67GHz) because it wanted to show that its technology was superior in every way possible.
Releasing these higher speed grades will be good for consumers, of course, but doing so at the expense of possible future revenues is not very smart, if you ask me.
Releasing these higher speed grades will be good for consumers, of course, but doing so at the expense of possible future revenues is not very smart, if you ask me.
91% of the computer market is business sales. Business doesn't change computing platforms just because there is something new out. It can take a very long time to qualify a new platform, sometimes over a year.
That's why someone would buy an "inferior" cpu when Conroe is available.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 31,768
- 31,764
- 146
IntelUser2000
Elite Member
- Oct 14, 2003
- 8,686
- 3,787
- 136
According to released information, the FPU is much better than the one AMD Athlon 64 has so that's no problem. Also no need to have a CPU that performs 5% better than previous fastest CPU when it can be clocked 20-30% higher(if at 2.167GHz as you suggested).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter