Intel Presler to clock at 3.4GHz, gets named 9XX series

[clarkey01]

INTEL ROADMAPS seen by the INQ show that when Intel introduces its Presler 65 nanometre dual core processors in the first quarter of next year, the chips will be named the 9XX series. Intel expects to launch several flavours of these processors, which will have 2 times 2MB of cache, and will initially aim them at the "performance" end of the market.
These Pentium Ds will come with Vanderpool VT virtualisation technology, use the Broadwater chipset, include Intel GbE LAN, and the next generation of AMT.

Clock speeds will be de-emphasised - the 95X will clock at 3.40GHz, while the other three members of this family will have clock speeds of 3.20GHz, 3GHz, and 2.8GHz. All will use the 800MHz front side bus.

The processors set for launch in the second quarter, that is to say the dual core 840, the 830 and the 820 will cost $530, $316 and $241 respectively. The 670 processor, a single core 3.8GHz Pentium 4 with hyperthreading will cost $850 when it's launched.

Intel is readying a series of price cuts on the 6XX family in mid-August, with the 670 falling to $605, the 660 to $400, the 650 to $273, the 640 to $224 and the 630 to $180. These have clock speeds of 3.8GHz, 3.6GHz, 3.4GHz, 3.2GHz and 3GHz.

Intel is now expected to launch the 351/350 Celeron at the end of June. This has a 533MHz bus, 256K of L2 cache, and clocks at 3.2GHz. It will cost $125 at launch. µ


Source : http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22498


I have a really bad feeling that AMD's for a kicking.

 

[clarkey01]

If presler is a high IPC design then AMD better start ramping, quick.

 

[MBrown]

Intel is going to pass AMD again with this pressler core.

 

[dmens]

presler = 2 cedarmills. cedarmill is a prescott compaction. im not overly excited, but i like the features.

im more excited about the nextgen cores based on p6. but im biased since im working on the project.

 

[miketheidiot]

somehow i'm not concerned.

 

[Avalon]

Ever since I heard Intel's dual core was going to arrive before AMD's, I've been sort of expecting the next two years to fall back into Intel's favor. We'll see.

 

[RussianSensation]

Ok so basically A64 today is still faster at gaming than any P4 even in Q1 2006. This is exciting. Once A64 comes out with dual-core they'll regain the lead again.

 

[Leper Messiah]

we'll see. It all depends on the IPC of the cores. If they operate like prescotts, then in gaming apps, AMD is still king. AMD's dualies still better come out soon though...

 

[dmens]

the gamers market is not worth a damn. more people would benefit from dual core than single threaded performance, and people won't switch because intel's dual cores will be more competitively priced.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Originally posted by: dmens
the gamers market is not worth a damn. more people would benefit from dual core than single threaded performance, and people won't switch because intel's dual cores will be more competitively priced.

The gamers market is not worth a damn? So you are saying more people do heavy multi-media multi-tasking work than play games? But you're also saying that people WON'T switch because Intel DC's are priced more competitively. ??????????

U R off your rocker.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: dmens
the gamers market is not worth a damn. more people would benefit from dual core than single threaded performance, and people won't switch because intel's dual cores will be more competitively priced.

Sure the gaming market is rather small on the PCs. However, you gotta realize that A64 is better at office tasks (anything in word, excel, antivirus, online browsing), extracting zipping files, etc. In fact, most users would benefit much more from faster single thread performance since common every day tasks (as listed above), are faster on a single faster core. If processor speed was not limited by physics, then dual-core would be on the back burner for a lot longer.

 

[Stoneburner]

So intel will kill amd because it will be able to rip movies with auto gordian knot faster? Dual core seems pretty useless until all applications or most applications take advantage of it. How large will any gains in performance be even in 2006? It seems that intel is just pushing dual core because it's a nice market campaign and its performance is lacking currently. I can't expect much rom intel intel they change architectures.

 

[Stoneburner]

x2

 

[imported_Ged]

Originally posted by: dmens
presler = 2 cedarmills. cedarmill is a prescott compaction. im not overly excited, but i like the features.

im more excited about the nextgen cores based on p6. but im biased since im working on the project.

I hope the Nextgen cores from Intel are much better. I know Intel has the resources (see Pentium M) to pull off great things.

I also hope AMD's K10 is killer as well. Does seem like Intel and AMD are going towards the same general approach, at least that's what it looks like from what I have been able to find on the net.

Can't wait for nextgen AMD vs. nextgen Intel

 

[MBrown]

I do see the benifits in dual core. Just because there arent that many apps that take advantage of Dual Core doesnt mean you wont see any benifits or any performance gain. And it wont be useless. Doing to things at the same time will be better. Im always running more than one program on my computer. I might have itunes on and browes the internet at the same time and download something. I do it all the time.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: dmens
presler = 2 cedarmills. cedarmill is a prescott compaction. im not overly excited, but i like the features.

im more excited about the nextgen cores based on p6. but im biased since im working on the project.

Are you meaning dual core Pentium M, or a desktop version of the architecture?

In terms of desktop P6 variants, one website had this to say:

In addition, the Conroe will have to support the whole breed of desktop features, including virtualization capabilities, LaGrande technology, 64-bit capability in addition to EDB, EIST and iAMT2.

no P6 chip could employ the mentioned feature-set without very serious design changes.

Link


They seem to think that the P6 architecture used in Pentium M would be difficult to translate to the desktop without some big changes (and performance in certain areas of the currecnt design seem to be lacking), so are we looking at some Dual core Pentium M derivatives with big design changes to make up for areas they suck in, or a new architecture? (You don't have to answer obviously )

 

[aka1nas]

I doubt that cedarmill will be architecturally much different than prescott. Usually, both companies first core design on a new process is basically a core shrink of an existing core with minimal changes. Examples of this are: Thoroughbred A vs Palamino, Northwood A vs Willamete, Winchester vs Newcastle. Then they usually have one or sometimes two core revisions before they move onto the next process. After the t-bred was working well and they go ttheir .13micron process down, AMD then started producing the Barton which had more changes than tbred had compared to it's predecessor. This generation might be a little different because dual-core is coming out and Tejas got cancelled. Still, it would be somewhat strange for Intel to go straight to dual core with a massively reworked core design on a brand new process that they haven't yet mass produced chips on yet.

 

[dmens]

P6 philosophy is versatile enough so that it can be transformed from a mobile to a desktop/server product *fairly* quickly. P6 and K7 were similar, and look what AMD did with that family, lots of good stuff.

The dataflow will remain pretty similar. Of course, there are be many, many OMG many changes to make this s*** rock on the high end, yes, many sleepless nights ahead.

as for the amd fanboys, i hope you all realize p4 still beats amd big time in heavy-duty "productivity" workloads. office is not a heavy duty workload and even if amd64 is faster it wouldn't make a damn difference.

and dual core, well, lots of people actually use their computers for multitasked work... not just playing games after killing all unused winxp threads. jeez.

 

[dannybin1742]

Ok so basically A64 today is still faster at gaming than any P4 even in Q1 2006. This is exciting. Once A64 comes out with dual-core they'll regain the lead again.

in the last 2 years, when did they ever lose it?

 

[dmens]

northwood beat the crap out of barton

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: dmens
northwood beat the crap out of barton

They didnt ramp barton to the proper clock speeds(im guessing they kept it in reserve to make the K8 look more migthter) . The K8 was a year late, and the 533FSB & 800 FSB (B's and c's) came out of nowhere.

Bartons (M) hit 2.6 Ghz no problem, thats = to a P4C 3 Ghz. They just didnt do it...

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

Ok so basically A64 today is still faster at gaming than any P4 even in Q1 2006. This is exciting. Once A64 comes out with dual-core they'll regain the lead again.

in the last 2 years, when did they ever lose it?

I was commenting on how some above said Intel might take the lead now that dual core is going to come faster for them as opposed to AMD and at more competitive prices. I was saying how during that gap before A64 ships its dual core, Intel will be in the lead before A64 regains it weeks later with their release. So it's not like Intel will actually become the speed king starting with dual core.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
They didnt ramp barton to the proper clock speeds(im guessing they kept it in reserve to make the K8 look more migthter) . The K8 was a year late, and the 533FSB & 800 FSB (B's and c's) came out of nowhere.

Bartons (M) hit 2.6 Ghz no problem, thats = to a P4C 3 Ghz. They just didnt do it...

its beyond me why they'd bother.

amd64 vs p4 bores me. im more interested in what we're doing now vs K10.

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: clarkey01
They didnt ramp barton to the proper clock speeds(im guessing they kept it in reserve to make the K8 look more migthter) . The K8 was a year late, and the 533FSB & 800 FSB (B's and c's) came out of nowhere.

Bartons (M) hit 2.6 Ghz no problem, thats = to a P4C 3 Ghz. They just didnt do it...

its beyond me why they'd bother.

amd64 vs p4 bores me. im more interested in what we're doing now vs K10.

Yeah I bet AMD are never intrested when they lose too. lol j/k

K10 will just be a turbo charged K9 dual core (BTW they dual core K8's are know known as the K9's, and the orignal k9's are now the K10's).

Intel will have an on die memory controller by then the K10's arrival, as well as a point to point bus.

 

[dmens]

i dont give a s*** as long as my stock/salary/bonus goes up. they dont pay me enough to care.

Originally posted by: clarkey01
K10 will just be a turbo charged K9 dual core (BTW they dual core K8's are know known as the K9's, and the orignal k9's are now the K10's).

Intel will have an on die memory controller by then the K10's arrival, as well as a point to point bus.

just freq scaling? amd has to be doing more than that... if not, we'll run them into the ground, big time. im sure they're doing some funky stuff... makes life more exciting for us.