Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Hardware

Details of Intel 45nm Processors Leaked 104

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the magic-eight-ball-says dept.
DCC writes "TechARP has gotten some juicy news from Intel. This time, it's the top secret details of the Intel 45nm desktop processors, both Yorkfield and Wolfdale with benchmarks and pricing included! 'As promised earlier, Intel will launch their 45 nm processors by the end of this year. In fact, we have been told that the launch date had already been set at November 11, 2007, so mark your calendars. [...] Code-named Yorkfield XE, the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 will be a quad-core processor built from two 45 nm Wolfdale processor dies. It will displace the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (Kentsfield) processor as the top desktop processor model until Q3, 2008'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Details of Intel 45nm Processors Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • Not all that new (Score:4, Informative)

    by CajunArson (465943) on Monday October 01, 2007 @02:15PM (#20813491) Journal
    Anandtech had a preview of Wolfdale including benchmarks back in August (here [anandtech.com]). The ironic thing is that with the limited availability of the K10 and its late arrival at most review sites, I've seen about as much real benchmarking of the unreleased Intel parts as I have of the supposedly widely-released AMD parts.
    • I wasn't even aware the K10 was out, thus far I've seen nothing on it on any of the sites I normally look at. Very strange.
      • I've yet to see a single Barcelona-core processor for sale at retail, and AMD only sent samples to one or two review sites. K10 was essentially a paper launch.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mdm-adph (1030332)

        I wasn't even aware the K10 was out, thus far I've seen nothing on it on any of the sites I normally look at. Very strange.

        I know -- it's been a weird release, to say the least. I haven't really heard very much about them at all, and for a chip this neat that's kind of surprising.

        You can buy them now on Newegg here [newegg.com] -- they were up a few weeks ago for about $800, but then they were taken down, and now they're back up. Who knows, eh?

    • by pete314 (877866)
      Intel confirmed the November 12 launch date in September at IDF - November 11 was an August rumor. At IDF Intel also said that it would ship 20 processor models on November 12, and another 20 in the first quarter of 2007. Also at IDF, Intel released a projection for 45nm performance on the SpecFP benchmark. Looks like Techarp forgot to do its fact checking.
  • by Psychor (603391) on Monday October 01, 2007 @02:19PM (#20813567) Homepage
    Maybe it's time to come up with processor names that actually mean something again instead of confusing and usually meaningless numbers? This is especially true for AMD, whose numbers seem to be based around the clock speed an equivalent Intel chip might have run at many years ago when they invented the convention, but Intel's new "random model numbers" naming doesn't seem much better.

    Of course old style Megahertz numbering doesn't make much sense these days either, with the proliferation of multi-core processors. I think it would be nice if the chip makers could agree on some kind of general performance benchmark number that could be used in names to make processors more easily comparable. Even some kind of very basic number relating to cores/speed like the 4x2200 for a 4 core, 2.2Ghz chip would be better than the current mess in my opinion though.
    • Maybe it's time to come up with processor names that actually mean something again instead of confusing and usually meaningless numbers? This is especially true for AMD, whose numbers seem to be based around the clock speed an equivalent Intel chip might have run at many years ago when they invented the convention, but Intel's new "random model numbers" naming doesn't seem much better.

      So... Let me get this straight... You are complaining about meaningless numbers - and then stating that a number that actual

    • by torkus (1133985)
      >I think it would be nice if the chip makers could agree on some kind of general performance benchmark number that could >be used in names to make processors more easily comparable

      An admirable idea, but then CPU makers will write micro-code or silicon to enhance the individual benchmark result(s).

      You're right though, the numbers are slightly better than nonsense. The bigger issue is that there's SO many different processors. The mfgs are aiming to have the perfect fit for every segment and every pri
      • Yes, in the past both compiler developers and chip designers have been known to optimize for certain aspects of benchmarks. Thus, to make numbers at all useful, you would have to have multiple benchmarks stressing different aspects of computing. This would prevent optimizing for benchmarks while hurting performance in other areas.

        In addition to that, you have the problem that computer usage needs are constantly changing. This is the main reason why benchmarks change from year-to-year. How are you suppos
    • I think it would be nice if the chip makers could agree on some kind of general performance benchmark number that could be used in names to make processors more easily comparable.

      You mean like BogoMIPS?
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by dextromulous (627459)

        I think it would be nice if the chip makers could agree on some kind of general performance benchmark number that could be used in names to make processors more easily comparable.

        You mean like BogoMIPS?
        That reminds me of my favorite lines from the Linux 2.4 source code: arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c
        /*
        * Allow the user to impress friends.
        */
        After which is the calculation for bogomips.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by EvanED (569694)
      Even some kind of very basic number relating to cores/speed like the 4x2200 for a 4 core, 2.2Ghz chip

      Okay, now how do you mark different versions of that? Ones with different sized caches? Different FSB speeds?

      I'm not claiming that the Intel numbers make all that much sense, but they still manage to convey a fair bit of information. Higher "hundreds" digits are faster clocks. (The Q6600 and E6600 both have the same clock speed.) Numbers with the same leading digits, e.g. the E6700 vs. the E6750, are differe
      • Exactly. I don't see the problem. If a model number doesn't make sense, just look it up (there's this thing called the internet now), and you'll have all the information you desire.
      • I liked how things worked in the P3's days... the brand gives you the architecture (P3), the MHz gives you a general performance figure and suffixes tell you what extras the chip supports... I liked my P3-650E and my P3-1066EB, though I kind of wish I had held off a year longer to get a P3-1200T or P3-1200S instead.

        Cryptic numeric product codes do pretty much the same thing in a slightly more compact format. What is really annoying is when more than one feature affect a given digit in the product code and w
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by qortra (591818)

      some kind of very basic number relating to cores/speed like the 4x2200 for a 4 core, 2.2Ghz chip

      Of course, that would insufficient; You would need some other indicator to mention that fact that it is, say, a Wolfdale instead of a Conroe (Wolfdale's being, say, 10% faster). Also imagine that another axis has to be considered; power-efficient, or non-power-efficient. That would make your model name even more complicated: "Conroe4x2200PE". That's quite a mouthful. This is only an example to indicate that specification-based model numbers have a tendency to get prohibitavely complex. The spec-ba

    • by evilviper (135110)
      Hmm... So... Did you actively plagiarize your comment from B5_geek and my own comments from THIS THREAD, 2 days ago, [slashdot.org] or was it entirely subconscious?

      This is especially true for AMD, whose numbers seem to be based around the clock speed an equivalent Intel chip might have run at many years ago when they invented the convention,

      AMD's numbers are consistent... You can be pretty sure a 4000+ will be 2X as fast as a 2000+. What system could possibly be better? There is no inherent natural metric for computi

      • by Psychor (603391)
        I hadn't even seen that thread, perhaps you're not quite the visionary and Slashdot celebrity that you thought. I read it now and while your general sentiment is the same (that chip model numbers aren't very meaningful), the posts in question are hardly identical. I find it strange that you'd be so hostile that you'd make a post here accusing me of copying, especially since you've then decided to point out why you think I'm wrong, points which I would surely have taken on board already had I read your threa
    • by TheThiefMaster (992038) on Monday October 01, 2007 @04:21PM (#20815495)
      For the AMD Athlon 64 X2 processors, the number does actually mean something.

      For a 1MB cache (per core) cpu, it's exactly 2x the clock speed in megahertz. The X2 4000+ is 2000MHz. This continues every 200MHz all the way up to the top cpu, the 6400+ (3200MHz, 1MB cache).

      For a 512kB cache (per core) cpu, it's 200 lower than that. The X2 3800+ is 2000MHz as well, but 512kB cache. This continues every 100MHz all the way up the line to the 5400+ (2800MHz, 512kB cache).

      For a 256kB cache (per core) cpu, it's 200 lower again. The X2 3600+ is ALSO 2000MHz, but has 256kB cache. There is only one 256kB cache X2 cpu. There is also a X2 3600+ that is 1900MHz and 512kB cache, which still fits the pattern.

      The single core Athlon 64s seem to have a similar numbering scheme, but with more factors affecting it, including hypertransport speed (800MHz/1000MHz), and socket (754/939). Some of the cpus were numbered slightly differently, but this is 99% accurate:
      The base is a 512kB cache socket 754 hypertransport 800MHz 2000MHz cpu, which is rated at 3000.
      Socket 754 cpus were rated 200 higher for every 200MHz higher cpu speed.
      1MB cache versions were mostly 200 higher (one was 300), and 256kB cache versions were 100 lower.

      Socket 939 cpus were rated 200 higher than socket 754. (Due to the support for dual-channel ddr, they were better).
      1000MHz HT cpus were rated an additional 100 higher for every 200MHz higher cpu speed than the base (2000MHz). The cpus that were 200MHz slower than the base didn't get an additional 100 points deducted though.
      Again, 1MB cache versions were 200 higher.

      This doesn't cover the 1500+, which was only used in a HP Blade PC.

      The AM2 cpus were mostly the same as the 1000MHz HT S939s, except for the 4000+, which was a 2600MHz/512kB cache instead of 2400MHz/1MB, and the details above would have scored it at 4100+.

      As you can see, the numbers are mostly arbitrary, and mostly derived from the features of the cpus instead of a comparison against intel.
    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      How about this. Just about every CPU available now is bloody fast!
      If you don't transcode HDVideo and you don't play super high end games then just about any modern CPU is going to be fast enough.
      The performance of the CPU is such a small part of PC performance. For most people more Ram will mean more than a faster CPU. Then maybe a faster HD or video card!
      I develop software for a living and Athlon X2 3800 is pretty fast with enough ram.

    • by edwdig (47888)
      Maybe it's time to come up with processor names that actually mean something again instead of confusing and usually meaningless numbers? This is especially true for AMD, whose numbers seem to be based around the clock speed an equivalent Intel chip might have run at many years ago when they invented the convention, but Intel's new "random model numbers" naming doesn't seem much better.

      That's what AMD at least used to do. Contrary to popular belief, their numbers had nothing to do with Intel's speeds.

      When AM
    • I think the manufactures like the names that don't signify much. I think they know the knowledgable enthusiast will be able to tell the quality cpus no matter what its called. The general public on the other hand can be allowed to think they are buying the best when they are not. A lot of people bought computers they thought were "dual core" when they were actually "Pentium Dual Core" - an inferior cpu to dual core.
  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Monday October 01, 2007 @02:19PM (#20813573)
    The true AMD quad-cores may blow intel away the desktop ones will use faster and lower lag desktop ram then the sever ones that are out now.

    And The amd 4x4 system with 2 amd quad cores with desktop ram will be alot better then intel Skulltrail with FB-DIMMS and poor chipset io Full sever chipset + 2 nvidia chipset linked by a pci-e x16 bus 1.1 from the intel chipset to the nvidia chip and HT from nvidia to the other nvidia chipset with 2 x16 pci-e 1.1 sli slots. Amd system will cost less with cheaper ram and
    a less costly MB.

    The amd system will likey have the choice of a nvidia based system with 2 Full sli x16 slots pci-e 2.0 slots + other pci-e 2.0 slots with HT links form the cpus to the nvidia or a
    ATI one with
            * Codenamed RD790
            * Dual or single AMD CPU configuration
            * Supports socket AM2+ and socket F CPU
            * Allowing maximum of four physical PCI-E x16 slots at x8 lanes bandwidth or 2 PCI-E x16 slots at maximum bandwidth (16x-16x or 8x-8x-8x-8x CrossFire)
            * Discrete PCI-E x4 slot
            * Providing a total of 52 PCI-E lanes [4], 41 lanes in Northbridge
            * Two to four cards CrossFire, with reported 2.6 times of performance than single card
            * Support of HyperTransport 3.0
            * Support for HTX slots
            * Support of PCI-E 2.0
            * Supports Dual Gigabit Ethernet, and teaming option
            * Discrete chipset cache memory of at least 16 KB to reduce the latencies and increase the bandwidth
            * Reference board codenamed "Wahoo" for dual-processor (Quad FX) reference design board with three physical PCI-E x16 slots, and "HammerHead" for single socket reference design board with four physical PCI-E x16 slots, also notable was the reference boards includes two ATA ports and only four SATA 3.0 Gbit/s ports (as being paired with SB600 southbridge), but the final product with SB700 southbridge (see below) should support up to six.
            * Northbridge runs at 3 W when idle, and maximum 10 W under load

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_700_chipset_series [wikipedia.org]

    • by CajunArson (465943) on Monday October 01, 2007 @02:25PM (#20813685) Journal
      Every single review I saw of the 4x4 had it losing to Intel quad cores using the "crippled" FSB. Hypertransport is great for 4 socket+ systems which is why Intel is going to a point-to-point interconnect next year. However, on smaller systems like desktops and up to 2 socket servers, Hypertransport's benefits are much less clear. For example, when Anandtech did the initial K10 benchmarks it turns out that it took the K10 about 76ns to transfer data between any 2 cores on the chip using its layer 3 shared cache (which is faster than the Hypertransport used in the 4x4).
          However the more interesting number was that it took Intel's FSB 77ns to transfer data between the dual-dies, and if the data were only going between cores on the same die that time was only 26ns. So the upshot was, that the worst case scenario for Intel's data latency was less than 2%, while the better case scenario (which is not too hard to achieve) gave Intel a 50% reduction in data latency. If you want to talk about 4 socket+ systems then Hypertransport is a winner, but on a desktop I wouldn't obsess over it too much.
      • But intel's Skulltrail is likely to be a poor gameing system FB-DIMMS and server chipset + nvidia chipset running over pci-e x16 1.1 bus split to 2 x16 slots 1.1 slots.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Skulltrail and 4x4 are for bragging rights only - pretty much nobody will buy either except a few uber-rich people who don't care about money. That said - the numbers will belie your impression. Skulltrail will score almost identically to 4x4 because it's all about SLI/Crossfire. In terms of raw computing power, Skulltrail will be superior to Barcelona simply because Barcelona, which is a good core, will only ship at 2.0GHz or _maybe_ 2.5GHz this year.

          This really isn't a good time to be an AMD fanboy,

        • Skulltrail isn't a gaming system, it's a dual-socket graphics workstation. Intel would love to up-sell some idiot on it as a gaming station, but barring exotic set-ups (a personal Counter-Strike server in your basement), a dual-socket system is a workstation system. 2x quad-core processors with 2-4 graphics cards and 4GB+ of RAM is hitting $2500-3000.

          Most of the work on a modern video game is in the video card. If you have a quad-core processor at >2GHz, you have the processor requirements for games
          • Most of the work on a modern video game is in the video card.

            What are you basing that one? In my experience--writing commercial video games--it isn't true.
            • What I meant to say was that the bottleneck is in the video card (I wrote that kind of fast). Even a sub-$150 processor in a new system will not be the bottleneck, whereas increasing video-card power is very helpful.
      • All the time on Slashdot I see people bag on Intel's "Double double" design as I like to call it. Ok, it's not 4 cores on a chip, but why should I care? I've got a quad core at work and the thing is smoking fast. Works great, I can run two VMs at the same time, have another intensive process running on the host, and still have a responsive system. The processors gets the job done, despite it's theoretical inferiority.

        What Intel seems to think, and what my admittedly limited testing seems to bare out, is tha
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Chirs (87576)
          I suspect it's just the principle of the thing. Intel is calling it a quad-core, but us techno-types know that it isn't. AMD's really is quad-core.

          There is a perception that AMD's solution is more elegent and regardless of benchmarks is somehow "better". Intel's design is a "throw cache at the problem" sort of solution--but it works for most normal usage.

          I suspect that many people would like to see what Intel could do if they got off their seats and really did something original...like if they can do thi
          • Ummm, you are talking but I don't think you are understanding what you are talking about. Intel isn't doing novel designs? Really? You mean like the Core 2? The same Core 2 that is blazing fast, very energy efficient, cheap, and so on?

            Ya, about that.

            I think what it really is is that AMD zealots are pissed off. Intel has been really putting the screws on AMD hard lately. For most people, this is nothing but good. We've got no stake in who makes our hardware and it's great to see companies doing everything th
          • by dfghjk (711126)
            BS. 4 cores on a processor is quad-core. You "techno-types" think you can define terms to suit your prejudices. It doesn't matter at all how many dies are inside the part.

            There may be a "perception" that AMD's solutions are elegant and Intel's are not, but that's just retarded thinking among those who don't know any better. If AMD's engineering is so much better then why can't they keep up? What matters is what can be provided at what cost and in what timeframe. Intel has been innovative because it isn
            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by therufus (677843)
              LOL, mod parent up funny!!!

              Wait... you mean that wasn't sarcasm?

              Look, to start with I'm an AMD fanboy (I guess), mainly due to the fact they call a spade a spade and don't lie to their (marketing zombie) customers about what their chips actually are. Intel are a marketing company first, a CPU manufacturer second. If you want to believe that the Q-series CPU's from Intel are actually quad core, you can take your ill-informed self to your nearest retailer and buy your double-duel-core CPU with your hard earne
        • by MojoStan (776183)

          What Intel seems to think, and what my admittedly limited testing seems to bare out, is that you can double up on your cores and it works fine for normal usage. They did it with the Pentium D (2 single cores) and now with the Core 2s. Perhaps we'll see more of it, 2 4 core sets to make an 8 core. It seems to work well in the ability to offer more cores on a package sooner and at a lower cost, and still give good performance.

          FYI, Intel will break this "two dies on one package" pattern with Nehalem, the 45nm successor to the current Core 2 architecture. Intel's first 8-core CPUs will actually have all 8 cores on one die. Also, Nehalem will have an on-die memory controller and QuickPath Interconnect (a HyperTransport-like system interconnect).

          Anandtech has a nice write-up of Intel's Nehalem presentation at IDF: "Nehalem: Single die, 8-cores, 731M transistors, 16 threads, memory controller, graphics, amazing." [anandtech.com]

          I agree that Int

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Kind of funny you mention that, considering that Intel's "archaic" FSB and "glued together" quad core greatly outperforms AMD's Barcelona in virtually every meaningful benchmark (and no, FP_Rate is not a meaningful benchmark).

      Whether or not you like it (I don't), AMD dropped the ball with K10/Barcelona.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TeknoHog (164938)
      I don't get this alleged superiority of "true" quad-cores vs. dual dual. I used to think that two discrete CPUs should outperform a dual-core, because the latter must share the external communication channels, other things being equal. Now I'm not so sure of it, because of things like shared cache and hypertransport, which may improve performance in certain situations, but it's not obvious. The difference between a dual dual and a quad is much more subtle. Would you prefer a "true" octal-core to your dual-q
      • by Agripa (139780)
        The devil is in the details.

        Integration allows lower latencies and higher bandwidths at the expense of die size and perhaps packaging cost. The advantages of Intel's dual die quad core include improved yields because of smaller dies and larger cache at the cost of splitting the last level of cache between each pair of cores and increased packaging costs. AMD's quad core shares the entire last level of cache between the cores and has lower latency because of the on die memory controller but the cache is sm
    • by StikyPad (445176)
      Shh... you had me at "Skulltrail."

      Honestly, who mods this stuff up? Run on sentences, parroted market-speak, and theoretical performance figures.. the only thing missing is a bad car analogy.
    • I swear that was some kind of computer-generated reply.
    • by smash (1351)
      Blah blah blah... all i heard was "AMD isn't shipping anything decent yet".
  • by Marcion (876801) on Monday October 01, 2007 @02:19PM (#20813579) Homepage Journal
    ... but it turns out to be some pricing details.

    Nothing to see here, move right along.
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Monday October 01, 2007 @02:27PM (#20813707)
    Was this an accident, or FUD to put the brakes on AMD sales prior to the official release of the Intel processors? This way Intel get the news out without collecting the grief that comes from pre-announcing their next moves themselves.
    • This kind of summary is a pet peeve of mine. "Top Secret Whatever is Leaked!" like this is advertising disguised as news.

      Given the end-of-year release of the product, it's in sales, marketing and mass production hands now so there's nothing secret about it.

      As a general rule, if something is "leaked" 3 months out, then it's advertising disguised as news because the product is ready for market, sales reps are out placing & promoting the product.

      Parent is right on.
    • by hchaos (683337)
      No, it's a press release.
  • by Connie_Lingus (317691) on Monday October 01, 2007 @02:27PM (#20813713) Homepage
    Jimbob's Corollary to Moore's Law...

    Every 18 months I will become ever more numbed by the announcement of denser and denser chips.
    • Re:here we go again (Score:4, Informative)

      by 644bd346996 (1012333) on Monday October 01, 2007 @02:59PM (#20814193)
      Not likely. Intel is currently developing their 32nm technology, and IBM has tested 29.9nm lithography. That's only around 600 times the Bohr radius (radius of a hydrogen atom). Within the next 10 years or so, we will have reached the fundamental limits on the size of a silicon transistor, and once those chips are brought to market, that's it. If Moore's law continues at all, it will be applied to something like quantum computers, not semiconductors.

      Of course, there are many parts of a CPU that traditionally don't scale as well as the basic transistor, so with continued work, we can probably keep shrinking CPUs. But we'll be doing it in small increments with increasing marginal costs, not by the factors of 2 we've been seeing for the past 20 years.
      • by Jimmy_B (129296)

        Not likely. Intel is currently developing their 32nm technology, and IBM has tested 29.9nm lithography. That's only around 600 times the Bohr radius (radius of a hydrogen atom). Within the next 10 years or so, we will have reached the fundamental limits on the size of a silicon transistor, and once those chips are brought to market, that's it. If Moore's law continues at all, it will be applied to something like quantum computers, not semiconductors.

        Actually, Moore's Law doesn't care about fundamental phys

      • by Kjella (173770)
        Or more specialized CPUs, for a great many years CPUs have been improving so fast there seemed to be no point - it'd be eaten up by the progress in general CPUs. I think there's still a lot of room for improvement once it's clear die shrinks won't get us further.
  • I sort of don't care (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Most of the fossil fuel/greenhouse warming effect of a computer is in the manufacturing process. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/9100/28876/01299692.pdf [ieee.org] That becomes more dramatic when one takes into account that the internet uses something like 6% of our electricity. I don't know how much it is, but manufacturing computers must spew a whole pile of greenhouse gases if they use so much electricity in operation.

    My current motherboard is more than five years old. It runs Ubuntu Feisty
    • Most people never upgraded every couple of years anyway, but we are rapidly getting to the point where the typical PC uses(web/music/video/email/images) can be run well on the most modest a machines whether they have Linux,Windows, or OSX on them. That will have a bigger affect on sales than any environmental concerns.

      That link you posted makes some flawed asumptions anyway. You buy a PC to do something, and that is part of the cost of it. The tree huggers pick something new to pull their hair out over

      • Most people never upgraded every couple of years anyway, but we are rapidly getting to the point where the typical PC uses(web/music/video/email/images) can be run well on the most modest a machines whether they have Linux,Windows, or OSX on them. That will have a bigger affect on sales than any environmental concerns.
        People have been saying this for years but in my experiance it hasn't held out for a few reasons.

        1: software bloat is ever increasing and shows no real sign of stopping. Sure you can stick wit
        • I specifically remembering a friend bitching and moaning over needing 1286mb of RAM for win95 to run well and the fact that he couldn't find a replacement copy when he lost one of the 15 floppies needed to install it. The only versions available were on CD-ROM which he thought was a pointless device to buy.

          People have been crying over software bloat for the last decade. I for one welcome all the bloat, I'll take that over command line monocrome screened computing anyday. Frankly until I can walk throug

          • I'm not saying that the "bloat" is nessacerally a bad thing but it is a reality that you can't run current software at acceptable speeds on older hardware and that running older software is also problematic for many reasons.

    • by ianare (1132971)

      Have we reached the place where most people and businesses don't have to upgrade every couple of years?

      It depends. If you don't want to upgrade software then we have already reached that point long ago (minus games of course). However each new version of most software makes them more bloated and the hardware requirements keep on going up. If you upgrade software then you need to upgrade hardware every couple years.

      Will environmental concerns put a brake on new computer sales?

      They might if regulation is passed to increase the cost of computer parts to reflect their carbon output during manufacture. Given that they are manufactured in China and the companies are US ba

    • by drsmithy (35869)

      I realize that Vista needs some serious horsepower but I'm avoiding it.

      No, it doesn't. For most people's needs, Vista runs quite adequately on modestly upgraded 6-7 year old hardware. If you've got a 1+ Ghz CPU (really dictated by your applications (or games)), a gig of RAM (more helps, but is not necessary) and a video card less than 3 years old (for Aero/video acceleration), Vista will run fine.

      Heck, even for an "optimal Vista experience", the hardware required hasn't been "serious horsepower" for ye

      • We reached that point ca. 2000 (even earlier for people whose web-browsing doesn't involve Flash). Most people don't do anything that needs large amounts of CPU power (more than a ca. 1Ghz P3). They benefit most from RAM and (to a lesser extent) video card upgrades.

        Yes, thereabouts (I'd personally peg it at 2001-2002). Computers stopped getting twice as fast every 12-15 months right around that time. We stopped needing to replace machines every 3 years (a 386 was a lot faster then a 286 and the 486 was
        • by drsmithy (35869)

          Yes, thereabouts (I'd personally peg it at 2001-2002). Computers stopped getting twice as fast every 12-15 months right around that time. We stopped needing to replace machines every 3 years (a 386 was a lot faster then a 286 and the 486 was a big step up as well) because a 3 year old machine was no longer 1/4 to 1/8 the speed of a new one.

          Personally, I think it has more to do with software maturity. Until ca. 2000, software - particularly Windows - was increasing in capability (and subsequently hardware

  • Leopard? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I wonder if the processors will be announced in the form of spanking new Mac Pro towers to coincide with the release of Apple's Leopard? It's the kind of big glitzy media event that Apple love and Intel would love to be included in.
  • Flawed Analysis (Score:2, Informative)

    by paulsnx2 (453081)
    In the article, the author scaled the performance based on the clock speed each time a comparison was made between chips with different clock speeds. This was mostly done in favor of the new Intel chips.

    The problem is right there in the Author's analysis. For example:

    "If you extrapolate the data, then the Yorkfield processor is really about 12-21% faster than the Kentsfield at the same clock speed. This is almost entirely due to the 50% larger cache in the Yorkfield processor. The very large 81% boost in
  • Okay, 45nm desktop processors, great. Any idea when the mobile version will be available? That is what I'm really interested in.
  • Is anyone else simply baffled by the names Intel chooses for it's processors? Back in the day, they were criticized for ?86 being confusing to non-nerds. Calling the 586 "Pentium" was a step in the right direction, but now they've completely hosed things again. Core 2? Is that a dual core? If so, than what the heck is a Core 2 Duo? Clearly it's not a quad-core, but the CPU from TFA, IS a quad-core, even though it's still called Core "2". Is this some sort of a sick joke by the marketing department?
    • by Chlorus (1146335)
      You also get such wonderful combinations as "Core 2 Solo", and bizarre words as "Tigerton". I heard there was an attempt by Intel to simplify their nomenclatures, but that got canceled. I found an article on Arstechnica concerning it: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070808-intel-announces-plan-to-unify-product-naming-scheme.html [arstechnica.com] Of course, that proposed naming system made even less sense...
      • Intel originally made the Pentium, followed by the Pentium 2, Pentium 3 and then the Pentium 4. Later Intel made a whole new architecture and called it "Core". Intel then made a second version of the Core and called it the Core 2, just like how the successor to the original Pentium was named the Pentium 2...

        I will agree that Intel's naming convention is pretty confusing for people that haven't read up on all their past chips.

    • by EvanED (569694)
      Core 2? Is that a dual core? If so, than what the heck is a Core 2 Duo? Clearly it's not a quad-core, but the CPU from TFA, IS a quad-core, even though it's still called Core "2".

      Hey, I'm SSHed into a dual Core 2 Quad at the moment.

      How's that for a description of a machine? ;-)
    • by mdwh2 (535323)
      If so, than what the heck is a Core 2 Duo? Clearly it's not a quad-core, but the CPU from TFA, IS a quad-core, even though it's still called Core "2".

      "2" is the version, not the number of cores (like Pentium 2 vs Pentium).

      Core 2 Duo is dual core - I can't see where the article talks about a Duo Quad core?
    • by bronney (638318)
      Imagine you're just hired by Intel and your department is responsible to come up with the processors' names. Imagine you took your desk when the Pentium Pro launched. How are you going to name the Slot-1 ones? Hexium.. mm doesn't sound good. Came out to be Pentium 2's.

      A few years later, you continue this trend, Pentium 3, 4. Now a new dude came in and took your job. His boss tell him to be "creative" and please don't give me any pentium 5's (or Vista 2's). He HAS TO deliver something. What the hell,
      • Yes, but if you can't come up with a meaningful naming scheme, /at least/ eliminate things like "2" and "Duo" from the names that make people /think/ the naming scheme is has meaning.
  • and you can quote me on that.
  • Wow still using two dual core dies to make a quad. I guess they are just trying to use their raw speed and fab abilities to fight AMD. Crude but it can be effective. Still I don't use Intel chips as often unless I'm buying a mobile device, something about the desktop motherboards for Intel products keeps turning me off to them.
    • by smash (1351)
      Dunno if i'd call it crude, i'd call it an effective way of reducing costs and increasing yields.

      Being able to churn out core2 duo cores for everything and just glue some together to make quads - saves on fab costs - and hence they can provide quad core at a much lower price point.

  • How is Intel following their roadmap for process downsizing a "leak" worthy of news? I'll leak you some more things right now - they're looking to go to 32nm in another 2 years, and further to ~20nm 2 years after that.
    • Leaked as in most don't even know the pricing and also benchmarks of both Yorkfield and Wolfdale.

      Leak is defined as "to become known unintentionally (usually fol. by out): The news leaked out"

      I bet Intel doesn't want the details of the processors to be known so early and this is probably leaked from the roadmap presentation of some kind.
  • Just wondering if anyone here thinks the new CPUs will deliver better value than the Q6600 SLACR, which only costs around ~A$350 (US$315) and will easily reach 3ghz with virtually nill effort. Put a little bit of work in it and it will reach 3.4ghz or even 3.6ghz with just a little bit more, on a good air cooler

    Whilst the running costs would be lower due to the lower energy usage, I'm just wondering if any of the new CPUs will come anywhere close to the absolutely fantastic performance/value that is currently represented by the SLACR.

    I'm looking to buy a new CPU & motherboard for my Zalman HD160XT HTPC case in the next month or so. I already have a Q6600@3GHZ in my self built desktop (based on Asus Blitz Formula in an Antec Nine Hundred w/2GB of RAM) and it is supreme in desktop usage with lots of apps running in Vista, just totally outclassing the Core2Duo 2.67ghz WinXP desktop (IBM IntelliStation M Pro 9229/also 2GB of RAM) which I have at work.
    • by smash (1351)
      If you're overclocking the Q6600 then take into account the possibility of overclocking the new CPU... or the fact that when overclocking any guarantee of stability is gone.
      • Stability testing is par of the course with any proper overclock...
        I'm asking about the prospect of if even better price/performance will be attained, as it looks like the new CPUs will be priced higher.
        And yes, temperature wise you'd think they'd be able to reach much higher speeds with the smaller die.
        • by smash (1351)
          You can do all the testing you like. If you run into a miscalculation or crash, and you're not running at the factory clock-rate, all bets are off.

          Don't get me wrong, if you want the speed for gaming, go ahead. If the CPU malfunctions, who cares? If it's for business use though, get the company to fork out the $$ for a vendor supported solution. Risk of malfunction (not necessarily crash, but perhaps miscalculated financial/scientific data, etc) is just not worth it in a production environment, imho.

          • Yeah if you are buying quality stuff I'd have to agree with that for production environments. I've seen some rather shocking servers when it comes to thermal management though, where every bit of headroom would surely be pushed to the maximum.

            I guess it boils down to allowing the enthusiasts who are going to design well functioning systems to get the most for their money; it certainly doesn't seem to hurt Intel's reputation in the market (I'm leaving AMD out as they're still to come out with a quick running
            • by smash (1351)
              Just for the record, by "vendor supported" i meant as in Intel. Not necessarily one of the PC building OEMs :)

              Have a Q6600 myself and I agree, bang for buck it's awesome :) I just think comparing something that can be oc'd to a particular clock rate to something that's guaranteed and supported at the same clock rate is not exactly "fair"...

              Having said that, the Q6600 is likely virtually identical to many higher rated parts, i really don't think intel is being pushed for yield at the moment... just cru

  • by Godji (957148)
    Leaked... yeah, right ;) Someone wants to taunt AMD, me thinks.
  • Seems like Tech ARP just corrected the launch date from 11th to 12th November. Their source said that 11th will be the date Intel set the price for the processors to be launched. :D

    In addition, the author has just talked to Pat Gelsinger a few hours ago with some confirmation and additional info.

    "The November 12 launch will include server-grade processors like the quad-core Xeon code-named Harpertown (12 MB L2 cache, TDPs of 50W, 80W and 120W) and a dual-core Xeon code-named Wolfdale-DP (6 MB L2 cache
  • Wait anxiously new 45-nm processors. Immediately verse to itself.

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Working...