backtop

Hardware Intel "Conroe-L" Details Unveiled
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - September 20, 2006 10:15 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 43 comment(s) - last by Anonymous Frea.. on Sep 26 at 4:34 PM
Single-core for the value minded

DailyTech has received Intel roadmaps that outline Intel’s value desktop products. New to Intel’s value desktop lineup will be Conroe-L based processors. Unlike Intel’s Core 2 Duo Conroe products, the new Conroe-L processors will not carry the Core nomenclature. Instead Intel is resuscitating the Pentium and Celeron brands for Conroe-L based products.

Intel Conroe-L Pentium
Processor
Number 		Core
Frequency 		Bus
Frequency 		L2
Cache
E1060 1.80GHz 800MHz 1MB
E1040 1.60GHz 800MHz 1MB
E1020 1.40GHz 800MHz 1MB

The Pentium Conroe-L lineup will carry the E1000 series processor number. Three Pentium E1000 models will be available initially. These models include the Pentium E1060, E1040 and E1020 clocked at 1.80, 1.60 and 1.40 GHz respectively. All Pentium E1000 series processors will have an 800 MHz front-side bus with 1MB of L2 cache. Intel Enhanced Memory 64 Technology and Execute Disable Bit are the only technologies featured on Pentium E1000 processors. Intel Virtualization, HyperThreading and Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology are not supported.

Not much is known about the Conroe-L Celeron aside from it having a 400 number sequence. Expect the Celeron 400 series to be slightly crippled when compared to the Pentium E1000 series. DailyTech speculates Conroe-L Celeron 400 series processors will have 512KB of L2 cache and operate on a 533 MHz front-side bus to not overlap with the Pentium E1000 series.

Pricing and availability of Pentium E1000 and Celeron 400 series processors is unknown at the moment.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What for?
By ajfink on 9/21/2006 10:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
These don't sound good at all. Unless Intel plans on selling them all in the sub-$100 range, and I mean very into that range, they're not going to do that well. AMD's processors at that price point are probably going to turn out to be better.




RE: What for?
By Phynaz on 9/21/2006 11:25:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
AMD's processors at that price point are probably going to turn out to be better.


Please provide us the data you used to make this decision. Got the benches?


RE: What for?
By dgingeri on 9/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: What for?
By Phynaz on 9/21/2006 12:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel's past pricing schemes


While I will not stoop to calling you names, I will point out where you have made a false assumption.

You cannot use Intel's PAST pricing schemes, you must use their CURRENT pricing scheme. Intel's current pricing provides a better value than AMD.


RE: What for?
By dgingeri on 9/21/2006 1:49:21 PM , Rating: 1
people are habitual. they only go beyond their normal habits when forced, like Intel has done with the Core2 pricing scheme they are currently using. They have no reason to change their current low end pricing scheme, as they have bottomed out the Pentium D and Pentium 4 chips at $130 and their Celerons have bottomed out at $65, since they haven't lost market share in that arena. Likely, they will continue this until they lose major market share.

The reason they won't lose market share in this arena for about 10 years is the current Thinkpad commercials, and those like them. In a recent Thinkpad commercial, a woman goes over the features of this thinkpad she's holding and she says "It's got titanium hinges, Intel,..." as if Intel is a feature. The stupid people believe it's a feature and they have to have it for a good computer, without even knowing what it means.

Those stupid people happen to be those of average intelligence and below that just follow along with what they are told by the TV or Internet and the very reason why I get yelled at for using my cell phone while filling my gas tank, and I see people smoking cigarettes while filling their gas tanks all the time. Intel just uses this to their advantage, while AMD is taking the honorable way and trying to actually educate people on what they actually need.


RE: What for?
By Phynaz on 9/21/2006 1:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
I have missed something.

How are AMD's actions in the consumer space any different than Intel's?


RE: What for?
By Spivonious on 9/21/2006 3:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD is taking the honorable way


Since when has AMD educated the general public about what they actually need? I go to the store and see horribly overpriced AMD POS laptops right next to the horribly overpriced Intel POS laptops. There is no sign next to the AMD one saying "This is all you need for email."

The truth is that there is a huge market for budget machines, and Intel is simply being creative about getting old product out the door.


RE: What for?
By Spivonious on 9/21/2006 3:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Crap I should have read the linked article. It's the core 2 but with stuff disabled. Still, it makes sense. Faulty Core 2 Duo = $50 Pentium E.


RE: What for?
By dgingeri on 9/21/2006 6:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, there is a huge market for budget machines. If you have watched AMD's methods in the past, they have been educating people that it is not the clock frequency that matters, but how much a chip can do per second. So many people simply pick computers simply for it's clock rate, and AMD had better chips that used less power. They don't now, so the model numbers are really meaningless now, but they have to keep going with what they started or it causes even more confusion.

Intel has further muddled things up lately by squeezing lower clock rate chips between other chip simply because that chip is a ULV chip. Intel's model number scheme confuses people worse, leading to confused people just picking whatever is in their price range.

It would be nice if sales people were actually knowledgable and honest, but I guess that is like asking for the moon. Budget machines are the worst for having sales people sell people on what they don't need and not giving them what they do need.


RE: What for?
By ZmaxDP on 9/21/2006 1:30:22 PM , Rating: 5
Dear dgingeri,

Though I agree that one line comments like "Got the benches?" Aren't particularly useful and waste space on the forums, I also think that rabid responses are equally (if not more) wasteful.

Consider this, our friend Phynaz may have been trying to get across (albeit poorly done) that there are no benchies and that any attempts to pre-determine the likely performance of the parts or their price is merely speculation.

Also consider that there have been many reversals of long true "facts" in the industry these last few months. Between MAC going Intel, Dell selling AMD, AMD buying ATI, and Intel outperforming AMD on performance per clock AND per watt, one might realize that a little caution might be waranted in making speculations about how something that no one has ever seen will perform and cost. Want another topsy-turvy? Xeon processors clocked faster than Conroe processors costing less.

Don't get me wrong, the past is a useful tool for predicting the future, but to imply that because you know the past you KNOW the future is far more foolish than asking for benches of an un-released product.

Last, these are likely to be slated for Laptops and HTPC's, not your gaming desktop. As such the HIGHLY superior thermal and power performance of the Core 2 architecture is going to make your comparison a but invalid. You'd have to get a much slower AMD chip to meet the same power envelope. So, even if the 1.4 is priced like a 2.0 AMD chip, you could get the 2.0 and 3 hours of battery life, or a 1.4 Intel and get 5. Which would you chose? Depends on your needs. My guess is that the person that needs performance won't even be considering these processors and so Intel will win this sector most of the time once they release these, at least until AMD comes out with their answer for it.

Oh, one more thing, if you're going to accuse someone of waving their stupidity as a flag, you might try to make sure yours isn't fluttering about somewhere as well.


RE: What for?
By Phynaz on 9/21/2006 1:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
albeit poorly done


Yes, this is true. In the future I will explain my position better.

I appreciate your response.

Hopefully people will realize a response such as yours will cause people to think and consider what is written. A response such as the one from dgingeri results in immediate dismissal.

Thanks again,
P


RE: What for?
By dgingeri on 9/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: What for?
By Eris23007 on 9/21/2006 10:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In my experience, it takes smacking someone upside the head to get them to see sense about 80% of the time, so I usually start there.


Whereas in my experience "smacking someone upside the head to get them to see sense" inevitably has an outcome diametrically opposed to the desired one.

Fascinating how our experiences could be so wildly out of sync.

/resists urge to throw in smarmy comments or name-calling


Let me translate this...
By Duwelon on 9/21/2006 1:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
"For those people who wouldn't use a C2D to their potential anyway, they can have their Pentiums."




RE: Let me translate this...
By Lazarus Dark on 9/21/2006 3:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
I understand, but comeon, conroe is pretty cheap already. maybe I understand the lower clocked "pentium e10xx" but an even lower celeron seems retarded. My current 5yearold 1.1ghz celeron laptop can't even play mpeg4 without freezing. What place does such a low clocked proc have in todays world? Anyone who just needs a word processer or web surfing already has it and this won't improve anything. Other than pushing off bottom bin procs on the unsuspecting, I don't understand the reasoning behind these.


RE: Let me translate this...
By AQFP on 9/21/2006 4:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
The "Core" Celeron 400 is not your 1.1 GHz laptop of five years ago. As for Intel's reasoning, no doubt Intel has already determined a Core-based Celeron 400 will run Windows Vista acceptably for its word-processing low-end target market.


RE: Let me translate this...
By Tsuwamono on 9/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: Let me translate this...
By Zandros on 9/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Let me translate this...
By Quiksel on 9/21/2006 3:25:52 PM , Rating: 3
Are you kidding me? Sure, Intel should just throw away those lower-binned chips instead of trying to sell them. Sounds like a GREAT business model. Try passing that message along to shareholders.

Intel : "Uhh, hi guys... we feel it's just better to not compete with our chief rival because we feel bad about taking the performance crown away from them when we introduced Conroe. You guys understand, right?"

Shareholders : "Sure, Intel, that's fine. I think I'll go and sell all my stock right now."

The problem with that logic is that they've practically already lost the money in the lower-binned chips if they don't at least try and sell them. Seems like a logical decision to me. Sure, you might not want one, but I'm sure someone will buy some, and that's good business for Intel.


RE: Let me translate this...
By Zandros on 9/22/2006 7:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. Yes, I am kidding you. I was poking fun on how absurd the previous suggestion was if you were Intel, but my point seems to not have come through.


RE: Let me translate this...
By h0kiez on 9/21/2006 8:29:22 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds to me like we may be looking at some "outstanding value through overclocking" with these chips...to quote anand's article about the E6300 & E6400.


RE: Let me translate this...
By retrospooty on 9/21/2006 9:08:06 AM , Rating: 2
Intel is likely selling chips that have failed L2 cache. They simply map out that cache and sell it off as a low end CPU. It takes a 100% loss, and turns it into a minor gain.

As for who needs it? Its still a good CPU for most people, word processing, internet, office apps etc. It will sell.


RE: Let me translate this...
By AzureKevin on 9/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: Let me translate this...
By Phynaz on 9/21/2006 12:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
O.M.G.

Please people, READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING.

It will stop you from looking like an idiot.


RE: Let me translate this...
By darkfossil on 9/21/2006 1:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
I am thinking about building a Conroe system and was wondering if it is better to build now or build later when the Quadro's come out? Will the price for the Core 2 Duo's go down with this or should I buy now?


RE: Let me translate this...
By PrinceGaz on 9/21/2006 10:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if the quad-core Core 2 processors will be called Core 2 Quadro because a certain graphics-card manufacturer uses the Quadro name already for its workstation-cards.

But to answer your question, yes the cost of Core 2 Duos will doubtless fall when the quad-core models become available, but bear in mind that by then AMD will be close to launching the K8L which should at least match and quite possibly exceed Conroe's performance.


Sempron
By nah on 9/21/2006 1:14:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's going to be hard to beat a Sempron at $ 53--considering a Sempron 3400+ beats a P4 2.4 C




RE: Sempron
By bunzerito on 9/21/2006 2:15:11 AM , Rating: 3
The article says there going to retain the Pentium branding for the Conroe-L. They are not continuing the netburst architecture.

It's basicall a new pentium using core 2 architecture. Get it?


RE: Sempron
By Chadder007 on 9/21/2006 8:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
Why are they calling it a Pentium though? Shouldn't they just call it a Core 2 Solo or whatever? They are just throwing more confusion at the consumers.


RE: Sempron
By lemonadesoda on 9/21/2006 12:27:51 PM , Rating: 3
It's political.

Different people have different responsibility for different product lines.

It's technological.

With all the fancy features disabled, the revised Pentium will be socket compatible with existing 775 motherboards. Easy for OEM. Easy for user replacement/upgrade.

It's strategic brand management.

If they want "Core 2" to be a premium product, then they mustn't dilute the brand name with handicapped versions.


RE: Sempron
By Dfere on 9/21/2006 10:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
It is the whole price of the system. I just finished building an Intel Box. Originally I was trying to pull an 805 wonder. The board costs $100 more or so than its equivalent counterpart (and yes I already stated that the I know this should have performed better, I am just talking about price). The heatstsink pin (OEM) was a mess and wound up not being very steadily attached and fried the CPU (and also I admit a part of my own fault). My PQI memory stick was bad (1 of 2 chips, this is somewhat common) and I had to upgrade my power supply.(due to the Xeon power supply on some intel boards).

Figure $400 premium on a mid range do it yourself system. I know this is high, but figure at least $200 for an average anandtech do it yourselfer.

There is no way Intel can compete on cost, except on a Dell (even with 945G as ASRock). And low end Dells are now going AMD. Hee heee.


I hate celery
By The Boston Dangler on 9/21/2006 2:16:49 AM , Rating: 1
If the Pentiums are stripped, what's left to make Celery? I understand the logic, and value, of structuring less than perfect chips into a different tier, but 4 tiers already? Usually this crap goes straight to Asian markets, where cost outweighs bells and whistles.

"Introducing Celeron 4xx! Featuring MMX2 support at a blazing 1GHz! Intel Inside! Woot!"




RE: I hate celery
By snyper256 on 9/21/2006 7:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
I can only imagine the Celerons being under $100. The Pentiums should take up the $100-200 segment.

Makes sense, no?


RE: I hate celery
By therealnickdanger on 9/21/2006 9:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Makes sense, no?

It would, but the E6300 is already under $200 and I wouldn't doubt it if the E6300 goes even lower and is joined by the E6400 in the sub-$200 market. If they are honestly going to provide "Pentiums" and "Celerons" that are even more stripped down models of C2Ds, they'll have to be really low in price for the bottom-end.


Hmmm...
By Spivonious on 9/21/2006 4:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of Celeron, how about CelerCore? That way it retains the budget marketing of Celeron while getting help from the Core name.

And I agree that Core 2 Solo is much better than Pentium E




RE: Hmmm...
By Spivonious on 9/21/2006 4:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ooh, or Core 2 C for the celerons...or maybe not.


Might be good enough
By MonkeyPaw on 9/21/2006 10:35:18 AM , Rating: 3
If the price is right (around $50), I would buy one, especially if these CPUs are 800FSB. They should overclock very well and should still perform better than the Pentium M due to the architectual improvements of Core2. I do think naming these "Pentium" is a bit silly, as these appear to just be Celeron-class chips. In any event, these CPUs provide a cheap bridge for moving to a Core-capable motherboard. I wouldn't mind having a 965 board with 1-2GB of DDR2 and a "Pentium" for ~$250-300.




Why not "Core 2 Solo"?
By VooDooAddict on 9/21/2006 11:19:20 AM , Rating: 3
I'm quite confused why they didn't call it Core 2 Solo.

Intel has just launched a major campaign stating how the Core 2 is faster then any Pentium before it.

Celeron makes some sense for the bottom tier. People already associate "it works but it's is slow" with Celeron.

Since they nave been pushing the "Core 2" name, they should have...

Core 2 Quad
Core 2 Duo
Core 2 Solo
Core 2 Value (Or "Celeron" to keep the slowest chip from devaluing the "Core 2" name.

The "Pentium" name should stay dead. Somehow though I'm afraid the next Core 2 revision will be renamed the "Pentium 5"

I'm sure this will cause some people to buy a lower margin "Pentium" over a "Core 2" because they trust the Pentium name over something unknown. I can't tell you how many times uninformed people have been so confused by the Celeron name they said, "I won't buy a cheep Celeron because I don't trust that 'Celeron Company'. I's rather spend more and get a Pentium by Intel."

I feel bad for the inteligent marketing people who bang thier head out on the wall after hearing upper managment chose the above path.




RE: Why not "Core 2 Solo"?
By DallasTexas on 9/21/06, Rating: 0
old chipset
By hangkedah on 9/21/2006 1:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
can the conroe-L support old chipset like i915,i925?coz i still use Abit AA8.




Only 1Meg of cache
By hstewarth on 9/21/2006 10:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
With only 1Meg of cache in Core 2 based processor - this sounds likely it going to be slower - I assume these are going be really cheaper.

I guess a extremely low power version could be used one day as microcontroller - maybe these could be part of reason that Intel got rid of XScale stuff.




These comments make my head hurt :P
By dug777 on 9/26/06, Rating: -1
"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki