Print 17 comment(s) - last by NT78stonewobbl.. on Jun 14 at 5:15 AM

Intel's "Tulsa" die shot
Intel has moved the "Tulsa" launch up

Intel representatives today announced that the company intends to push up the launch of its "Opteron killer" code named Tulsa.  Tulsa is dual-core processor built Intel’s 65-nanometer process and is the last remnants of the NetBurst architecture. That is not to say however that Tulsa doesn’t still have a few tricks up her sleeve as DailyTech reported last month.

Alistar Kemp, an Intel spokesman for the Intel's server CPU group, claimed that Tulsa will appear in the third quarter of 2006 as opposed to the fourth quarter originally slated in the Intel roadmaps.

Tulsa is primarily aimed at systems with 4 to 8 physical processors and includes Intel’s HyperThreading, each Tulsa CPU contains two cores with HyperThreading support. So, for example, an eight socket Paxville system will show 32 logical CPUs. But by far the largest feature Tulsa offers is a massive shared L3 cache coming in both 8MB and 16MB parts as well as each CPU having a dedicated L2 cache.

Intel is also expecting to launch a Core-based processor, dubbed Woodcrest, later this month. Woodcrest benchmarks have already surfaced at review sites, and when compared to other NetBurtst-based Xeons, Woodcrest has the advantage.  However, Intel does not have any immediate plans on its roadmap to add Core-based Xeons for the 4+ socket server market.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Core or Netburst architexture
By hstewarth on 6/12/2006 6:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Is this chip Core or Netburst architexture? The following
article over at TGDAILY indicates Core based.

If this Core bases this is signifcant event, this means that we are likely going to see some extremley powerfull 4 and 8 cpu systems.

If its not, its likely like the Xeon 50xx and 51xx system, where its shortly later be followerd by a Core based system.

This shows that Intel is not standing still.

By KristopherKubicki on 6/12/06, Rating: -1
RE: Core or Netburst architexture
By hstewarth on 6/12/2006 6:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
It not impossible - especially for Intel - to find out that this cpu is actually Core based. It would be very logically for all there CPU's to be based on this new architexture.

Its also maybe possible that Intel has a new version of Hyperthreading in this series of cpus based on the Core archechture - but its not very likely since they have efficient dual core and quad cores coming.

Like everything else we just have to wait and see what happens - I think few people actualy use this type for personal machine, but big business likely use them.

By stevty2889 on 6/12/2006 6:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's definatly a netburst chip.

RE: Core or Netburst architexture
RE: Core or Netburst architexture
By hstewarth on 6/12/2006 7:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
I am not saying it is Core, just that it has the possibility.

One thing interested on Page 9 of the document MP processors indicated to started of 2007 ( Blue area ), but this documnent was made before Intel made this announcement concerning the releasing Tulsa before orginally being planned.

Lets say the Tulsa is the early 2007 MP CPU, that would make it in the Blue Area which means Core architexture instead of Netburst. The little out burst of light blue area on the MP line is what I am referring to. If the dark Blue area means Core architexture as it states - it means in Early 2007 there is a MP Core Server chip coming out.

This means that either the Tulsa is a core architexture cpu, or its like Dempsey and shortly later a Core will be reproduce. Assuming that IDF PDF Roadmap is correct.

RE: Core or Netburst architexture
By The Cheeba on 6/12/2006 7:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
Tulsa is just the code name for the processor family. It can't have the option to be "Core" -- it either is or isn't .. and it isn't.

Tulsa will be replaced by Tigerton, which is a Core CPU. The roadmap was only made a few weeks ago, and Intel has announced the chip is a Netburst chip at every IDF since 2004 I think. It's definitely Netburst.

RE: Core or Netburst architexture
By hstewarth on 6/12/2006 7:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming that the PDF is correct, then what is the chip in Blue ( Core ) section of MP Timeline. Is it Tigerton. Note: its time line - early 2007.

That is what I am curious about, didn't think about until I saw the Roadmap - I always thought that Tulsa was Netburst but I wonder now.

RE: Core or Netburst architexture
By The Cheeba on 6/12/2006 7:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I just told you the chip after Tusla is Tigerton. I don't get it, what are you getting confused about?

Paxville (Netburst) -> Tulsa (Netburst) -> Tigerton (Core)

Either you're over analyzing it or you refused to believe it. I'm not sure anymore.

RE: Core or Netburst architexture
By hstewarth on 6/12/2006 8:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
I am actually not consfused about anything, just curious about something..

Actually if you look at the Intel PDF document on Page 9 as stated above and look at MP line, you will notice that the Blue Core architexture line is indicating that it starts in early 2007. What cpu is that cpu.

All of the server class cpus, are mark in 2007 as Core architexture - there is no section of light blue areas in 2007. What does this mean.

I completely understand "Paxville (Netburst) -> Tulsa (Netburst) -> Tigerton (Core) ", but how does it fit into the roadmap mention on Page 9 of that document.

Please check page 9 of that document and check out the dark blue section and notice that its all 2007 for server chips.

RE: Core or Netburst architexture
By hstewarth on 6/12/2006 8:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected, Tulsa appears to be Netburst according to PDF but will be short live like Demsey, Tigerton looks likes coming early 2007. Shortly after Cloverton. Look at text under the bars in roadmap.

By NT78stonewobble on 6/14/2006 5:15:07 AM , Rating: 2

Why would anyone wan't to run a server on that friggin unstable intel c***. It ain't a processor its a heater for your rack...


Die size
By Stele on 6/13/2006 2:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
Tulsa's die size is enormous... it appears to be about 2/3 that of Montecito (Itanium) and more than twice as large as Woodcrest/Conroe. Thank goodness for 65nm otherwise that beast could only be larger - wonder what the yields would be like as it is!

The Tech Report made an interesting (and, imho, fitting) comment about Tulsa's die size and shape in their Woodcrest review:
The die size? Think Wyoming.

They immediately followed that with a photo of the various dies including Tulsa and Conroe/Woodcrest... laughed my head off when I saw what they meant :P

RE: Die size
By NextGenGamer2005 on 6/13/2006 2:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it makes sense with a L3 cache that huge. "Woodcrest" has two CPU cores with 4MB of shared L2 cache. "Tulsa" has two CPU cores, each with their own 2MB of L2 cache, plus either 8MB or 16MB (ridiculously insane) of shared L3 cache. The 16MB L3 cache version should actually be MORE then twice the size of "Woodcrest."

By the way: is this the last, and I mean the absolute LAST, NetBurst-based chip coming from Intel? As far as I know, there is no desktop, mobile, or workstation NetBurst chip after "Tulsa." Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

RE: Die size
By Stele on 6/13/2006 9:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
The 16MB L3 cache version should actually be MORE then twice the size of "Woodcrest."

Which is what I said :P

quote: this the last, and I mean the absolute LAST, NetBurst-based chip coming from Intel?

It does seem from the roadmaps so far that Tulsa will absolutely, positively, definitely be the last Netburst-based chip - coming from Intel or anyone else. :)

I'm not sure why they'd bother releasing another Netburst CPU (and an enormous, expensive-to-produce one at that) when Woodcrest is already ready, but I'm guessing it's a 'grand finale' product for the server market to fill the gap until Woodcrest full ramps up.

By FoxFour on 6/12/2006 9:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
This one is just a bit too comical to pass up.

Main Entry: 1ru·mi·nant
Pronunciation: 'rü-m&-n&nt
Function: noun
: a ruminant mammal

Main Entry: 2ruminant
Function: adjective
1 a (1) : chewing the cud (2) : characterized by chewing again what has been swallowed b : of or relating to a suborder (Ruminantia) of even-toed hoofed mammals (as sheep, giraffes, deer, and camels) that chew the cud and have a complex usually 4-chambered stomach
2 : given to or engaged in contemplation : MEDITATIVE <stood there with her hands clasped in this attitude of ruminant relish -- Thomas Wolfe>
- ru·mi·nant·ly adverb

The word you're looking for is remnant .

By KristopherKubicki on 6/12/2006 10:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that. I totally looked at that word long and hard too before I published and it didn't click. Thanks.

“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki