"Intel lines up nine 45nm CPUs for the desktop"

[NoobyDoo]

Intel lines up nine 45nm CPUs for the desktop

Four of the five Wolfdale processors will have core frequencies of 3.16GHz, 3.0GHz, 2.83GHz and 2.66GHz, while the frequency of the remaining one is unknown. All five Wolfdale processors will feature 6MB L2 cache, detailed the sources.

Three of the four Yorkfield processors will have core frequencies of 2.83GHz, 2.66GHz and 2.5GHz with the remainder as yet unknown. Three will include 12MB L2 cache while the 2.5GHz version will have 6MB.

Intel will introduce the ability to increase the clock multiplier in steps of 0.5 in the upcoming 45nm range to increase its model choices, pointed out the sources.

With Intel aiming to eventually scale the 45nm range up to a maximum core frequency of 4.0GHz, the sources estimate that at least four more CPUs will appear at a later time with frequencies higher than the initial 3.16GHz.

 

[LightningRider]

4GHz

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: LightningRider
4GHz

This sounds good, very good.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: LightningRider
4GHz

This sounds good, very good.

Just like Netburst was supposed to scale up to 4ghz

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: LightningRider
4GHz

This sounds good, very good.

Just like Netburst was supposed to scale up to 4ghz

Well considering I am running a 65nm QX6700 at 3.73GHz right now, I would not be surprised at all if I am running a 4+ GHz QX6900 next spring.

 

[nullpointerus]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: LightningRider
4GHz

This sounds good, very good.

Just like Netburst was supposed to scale up to 4ghz

I thought the goal for Netburst was 10 GHz?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: LightningRider
4GHz

This sounds good, very good.

Just like Netburst was supposed to scale up to 4ghz

Originally ... Netburst was supposed to scale to 10Ghz
--i wonder when we will see 10Ghz
[probably first on a GPU, the way they are going ..
... and a 10Kw PS]

EDIT: nullpointerus, well you know i couldn't have copied your idea ... and next Tues my posting handicap is eliminated .. i am getting Broadband ... after 7 years of 56K it is finally coming to my rural home

 

[PianoMan]

Originally posted by: Stumps
Just like Netburst was supposed to scale up to 4ghz

Remember, Netburst was an archaic design - its power hungry needs, sprawling microarchitechure, and thermal inefficiency limited the upper frequency ceiling.

I've been AMD for the past several years (after relegating that P4 3.0E to furnace duties), but now VERY impressed with Intel's Core 2 design. When the shift is made to 45nm, it'll take A LOT to get me back to the AMD camp (note that I'm not ruling that out - AMD's known to be pretty scrappy... we'll see what's up their sleeves).

LOL - 4Ghz... ain't competition and invention wonderful?

PM

 

[nyker96]

The attack of 45nm monsters .... they are coming to get ya!

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: nyker96
The attack of 45nm monsters .... they are coming to get ya!

I think im safe for a while *hides from monsters*

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: LightningRider
4GHz

This sounds good, very good.

Just like Netburst was supposed to scale up to 4ghz

Well considering I am running a 65nm QX6700 at 3.73GHz right now, I would not be surprised at all if I am running a 4+ GHz QX6900 next spring.

QX6950 ima buy when they hit market Q4.

Im hitting 4ghz on a ES Q6600 so its definitely possible. I would think the 6950 should do 4ghz.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Let's hope and pray that Intel releases some lower-end Yorkfield LGA775 Xeons, in the same fashion as the X3210 Xeon. That could make Penryn affordable. Otherwise, it seems like it will occupy the higher-tier SKUs in the lineup, making it pricy for us bottom-budget overclockers.

 

[SickBeast]

Quad core is somewhat overkill IMO. I'm most looking forward to Fusion/Nehalem when we will hopefully have some cheap, low power laptops that can play modern games. My Opteron 165 seems to handle modern games just fine; 4ghz quad core, while amazing, I can't see increasing FPS that much over the next few years.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: NoobyDoo
Intel lines up nine 45nm CPUs for the desktop

Four of the five Wolfdale processors will have core frequencies of 3.16GHz, 3.0GHz, 2.83GHz and 2.66GHz, while the frequency of the remaining one is unknown. All five Wolfdale processors will feature 6MB L2 cache, detailed the sources.

Three of the four Yorkfield processors will have core frequencies of 2.83GHz, 2.66GHz and 2.5GHz with the remainder as yet unknown. Three will include 12MB L2 cache while the 2.5GHz version will have 6MB.

Intel will introduce the ability to increase the clock multiplier in steps of 0.5 in the upcoming 45nm range to increase its model choices, pointed out the sources.

With Intel aiming to eventually scale the 45nm range up to a maximum core frequency of 4.0GHz, the sources estimate that at least four more CPUs will appear at a later time with frequencies higher than the initial 3.16GHz.

I feel like I know more about Intel's upcoming 45nm Penryn-based product line-up than I do about AMD's soon to released 65nm K10-based product line-up.

I suppose I have to assume that it is this way because AMD wants it this way - keep everyone guessing, assuming the worst until it is proven otherwise, someday soon.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Quad core is somewhat overkill IMO. I'm most looking forward to Fusion/Nehalem when we will hopefully have some cheap, low power laptops that can play modern games. My Opteron 165 seems to handle modern games just fine; 4ghz quad core, while amazing, I can't see increasing FPS that much over the next few years.

If your gaming, then Quad Core at the moment isn't much of a investment, buy in time and cheap Quad Core could help other segments besides gaming.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Let's hope and pray that Intel releases some lower-end Yorkfield LGA775 Xeons, in the same fashion as the X3210 Xeon. That could make Penryn affordable. Otherwise, it seems like it will occupy the higher-tier SKUs in the lineup, making it pricy for us bottom-budget overclockers.

That 2.5GHZ 2x3MB configuration Yorkfield looks to be the value option for the 45nm SKU's, so by the time these come out in Q1 2008 were at just about the right time for a price drop..

 

[coldpower27]

Hmm there are currently 2 unaccounted for SKU's out of the initial 9 with 4 more SKU's sometime down the line > 3.16GHZ,

Possible Yorkfield configurations...

3.0GHZ or 3.16GHZ both with 2x6MB cache... I don't really think lower then 2x3MB on Yorkfield at 2.5GHZ is necessary simply use the existing Q6600 at lower price points like the Pentium D 805 vs Pentium D 9x5 line..

Possible Wolfdale configurations

3.33GHZ/6MB to match the Yorkfield XE like E6850 and QX6850? Or maybe a 2.5GHZ with 3/6MB option?

 

[Skott]

4GHz? I'll believe it when I see it. Its not that I dont think it can be done, it should be possible, but its no use getting excited about something not out yet nor proven. I'm just not that excited about it I guess. Too early.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Quad core is somewhat overkill IMO. I'm most looking forward to Fusion/Nehalem when we will hopefully have some cheap, low power laptops that can play modern games. My Opteron 165 seems to handle modern games just fine; 4ghz quad core, while amazing, I can't see increasing FPS that much over the next few years.

Did you mean Fusion/Larrabee? I thought Nehalem was just supposed to be another CPU generation, and not a CPU/GPU hybrid type thingy.

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Quad core is somewhat overkill IMO. I'm most looking forward to Fusion/Nehalem when we will hopefully have some cheap, low power laptops that can play modern games. My Opteron 165 seems to handle modern games just fine; 4ghz quad core, while amazing, I can't see increasing FPS that much over the next few years.

Did you mean Fusion/Larrabee? I thought Nehalem was just supposed to be another CPU generation, and not a CPU/GPU hybrid type thingy.

nehalem = IMC for intel

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: nonameo
nehalem = IMC for intel

Which will probably require DDR3, which is still quite pricy.
I'm curious what performance benefits an IMC will bring on an Intel CPU, seeing as how they are already scoring well in terms of memory performance with the C2D and its memory-prefetcher unit.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Quad core is somewhat overkill IMO. I'm most looking forward to Fusion/Nehalem when we will hopefully have some cheap, low power laptops that can play modern games. My Opteron 165 seems to handle modern games just fine; 4ghz quad core, while amazing, I can't see increasing FPS that much over the next few years.

Did you mean Fusion/Larrabee? I thought Nehalem was just supposed to be another CPU generation, and not a CPU/GPU hybrid type thingy.

nehalem = IMC for intel

Yeah I meant Larabee...too many silly future product names.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: nonameo
nehalem = IMC for intel

Which will probably require DDR3, which is still quite pricy.
I'm curious what performance benefits an IMC will bring on an Intel CPU, seeing as how they are already scoring well in terms of memory performance with the C2D and its memory-prefetcher unit.

There are rumors of two versions of Nehalem one version without IMC and one with, with the one with only used in DP or MP systems. So on the desktop you may not need to use DDR3, not to mention by H2 2008 DDR3 should have fallen a bit in price.

 

[Xenos]

hmmm, with stock 4.0 on the horizon this must be an o'cing enthusiast's paradise. Wonder what the cost would be like? Better get yr psus, mobos, coolers, and ram in order; .....and would you look at that L2 cache?

 

[BitByBit]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I'm curious what performance benefits an IMC will bring on an Intel CPU, seeing as how they are already scoring well in terms of memory performance with the C2D and its memory-prefetcher unit.

Probably not alot. As you alluded, Core 2's sophisticated prefetchers, plus its huge caches and fast FSBs mean its memory performance is already on par with AMD's, and the need for a faster memory interface just isn't there. Certainly, the improvement seen in memory performance will be nothing like the improvement from K7 to K8, since K7 struggled with a slow memory interface, limited prefetching and small caches. This isn't the case with Core 2. I suspect the real reason for integrating the memory controller on Nehalem will become apparent in multi-socket servers.