backtop

Hardware "Conroe-L": Core 2 Duo on the Cheap
Sven Olsen (Blog) - May 28, 2006 2:02 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 41 comment(s) - last by Knish.. on May 30 at 1:30 PM

"Conroe-L" appears on Intel's low end roadmap
65nm single-core Conroes for all

Intel's newest roadmap has an unusual addition: Conroe-L.  Intel defines Conroe-L as a single core processor, which we assume is based on the Conroe Core 2 Duo architecture.  The most recent roadmaps have Conroe-L designated as a Q2'07 component as a supplement to Cedar Mill chips.

The Conroe-L processors are scheduled for a launch a full three quarters after the July 23, 2006 desktop launch.  For other architectures, Intel typically has allocated the processor family across the entire board: value, mid-range and high end.  Intel's 65nm Cedar Mill, for example, was launched as Pentium 6xx and Celeron 3xx at the same time.  Intel's roadmap reveals that the company will attempt to place the majority of 65nm Netburst CPUs into the low end during the next few quarters.

Intel's Conroe architecture (described in the Core architecture launch) uses a dual-core design with a shared L2 cache.  Decoupling the two cores is a more complicated process than simply "disabling one core."  Pricing of the processor family was not revealed yet.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Single Core is Useless
By Assimilator87 on 5/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: Single Core is Useless
By TomZ on 5/28/2006 8:15:25 AM , Rating: 2
Single core will always be cheaper to manufacture than dual core. There are a lot of users who will not benefit from the performance boost of dual core, who would instead benefit from a slightly lower cost.


RE: Single Core is Useless
By JumpingJack on 5/28/2006 8:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
It is a little more complicated that assuming it will be a celeron replacement. The establishment of CPUs in the industry stretchs much farther than simply a 2 year refresh (average refresh). Some companies require rack units or control systems that will remain the same over long periods of time. As Intel wishes to phase out Netburst as quickly as possible, many of their customers have 7 year support contracts -- besides becoming a very cheap single core product this is a legacy part to help their customers meet longer term legacy commits, likely this chip will work with any existing single core chipset common in the market.


RE: Single Core is Useless
By stephenbrooks on 5/28/2006 11:34:00 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with TomZ insofar as I'd like to see single cores continue to be manufactured. Imagine in a few years when quad-core is mainstream -- how cheap would a single core be then? If you happened to have an application where you just wanted a single thread for some reason, the value for money of a single core would be superb.


RE: Single Core is Useless
By surt on 5/28/2006 11:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
At some point, it starts costing Intel more money to continue to design and validate single core varieties than they will make up with sales.

No one running conventional applications will 'need' single core within 3 years ... virtually every application developer around is thinking about how to add threads to boost performance now. As one example, anyone who uses a web browser will want dual core, and that is sure to cover at least 75% of new computer sales.

And the price differential will soon become meaningless as well ... when the cheapest dual cores fall under $50, there just won't be room at the bottom for single cores any more. Why risk giving up 2x the performance to save less than $5?


RE: Single Core is Useless
By TomZ on 5/28/2006 1:43:21 PM , Rating: 4
I disagree, based on a couple of reasons:

1. There are a lot of applications that don't benefit much from multiple threads or cores. For example, I was just running Quicken a few minutes ago. Any benefit there - nope. Probably the same for lots of apps most people use, like e-mail, word processing, some games, even most Internet browsing.

2. There is a strong market for really cheap PCs - lots of folks are interested in getting PCs that cost less than $500. The only way to make that happen is to keep a really tight budget on all the components, and if you can save even $5-10 on a processor, that helps towards the overall.


RE: Single Core is Useless
By joust on 5/28/2006 5:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
As for 1, I think there are two main issues. Firstly, many apps simply are not cpu-limited anymore (even some of the latest games!). The major bottlenecks are components such as memory, GPU, internet/LAN and HDD. Secondly, just because apps aren't optimized at this second for multicore doesn't mean one should not buy a multicore proc. The apps will come. Multitasking will work better too.

As for 2, I think that's what the person was trying to say -- it may end up being costly to support both multicore and single core at the same time. In that case, why not save money by going multi-core? Why not get more power for the buck? win-win for both consumer and amd/intel.


RE: Single Core is Useless
By adt6247 on 5/29/2006 12:22:15 PM , Rating: 3
1) Quicken, et al, can be rewritten to take advantage of multiple cores. First, there's the obvious switch to a true multithreaded MVC paradigm; decoupling the UI from the guts can make the whole system more portable and more responsive on multiprocessing systems. Second, there's deeper stuff in there... data stores, transaction systems. There's stuff you can make threads out of. Is it a lot of work, yes. Will it happen eventually, also yes.

2) When we go massively multi-core (4 and 8 cores), the chip manufacturers will make the design as such that a bad core can be disabled at time of packaging. So you fab an 8 core CPU, two of the cores are bad, and boom, you have a 6-core CPU.

3) Multitasking. The average user doesn't multitask, you say? Bull. Virus scanner, spam blockers, browser plugins, system monitors, etc., all compete for CPU time. Multi-core makes modern OS's WAY more responsive. Let's say you have 8 cores, on an intelligent architecture that has a) asymetric core design, and b) the ability to dynamically adjust clock and voltage. What does this bring to the table? The ability to make more specialized cores, such as a fast, light, integer-only core that just handles, I don't know, UI updates.


good news for me
By rqle on 5/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: good news for me
By Pandamonium on 5/28/2006 4:02:48 AM , Rating: 2
So you can't afford a premium on the motherboard and CPU, but can afford an additional monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, and computer?


RE: good news for me
By Viditor on 5/28/2006 4:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
That's what KVM switches are for...


RE: good news for me
By Totalfixation on 5/28/2006 4:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
do you smell that smoke?


RE: good news for me
By Samus on 5/28/2006 5:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
do you feel that elecricity bill?


RE: good news for me
By Goty on 5/28/2006 8:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
Do you... well crap, there's really not anything else that's even remotely funny....


RE: good news for me
By peternelson on 5/28/2006 11:05:37 AM , Rating: 2

Bills? I felt nothing. My cpus are the latest ULTRA super UBER extra low wattage, incredible performance per watt, sleepmode enabled, chips portion shutting down, amazingly economic cores. I think they may also be vapourware though ;-)


RE: good news for me
By joust on 5/28/2006 5:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
hey, i know you love to brag about your dogs all the time, but this is getting ridiculous :-P


Yelds must be really poor...
By fikimiki on 5/28/2006 5:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
Because Conroe-L is just standard Dual Core 2 with damaged one core during production.
I remember when Intel was saying that 2006 is the last year for single-core CPUs and now from the heaven we have new model...
Production of Conroe model must be lowest on the market.




RE: Yelds must be really poor...
By MDme on 5/28/2006 7:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
agreed. these must be the core 2 duo's where one core is goofey. They're waiting Q2 '07 to build up enough rejects to sell at a profit.


RE: Yelds must be really poor...
By nangryo on 5/28/2006 8:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
Conroe-L = Conroe (cripp)L(ed one core)


RE: Yelds must be really poor...
By The Cheeba on 5/28/2006 9:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Lol. I was going to say Conroe "Lite" maybe.


RE: Yelds must be really poor...
By JumpingJack on 5/29/2006 4:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
This is incorrect, the product name for single core conroe is Millville
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_...


By coldpower27 on 5/29/2006 11:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily, this could be Core 2 Solo, like the Core Solo T1300 they have with Yonah...

Instead of the lower cache Celeron line.


RE: Yelds must be really poor...
By Knish on 5/30/2006 1:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Quoting Tom Pabst when it comes to company roadmaps is like quoting Fox News when it comes to unbiased reporting.


Celeron Killer
By Viditor on 5/28/2006 2:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
My bet is that the Conroe-L will replace the Celeron...




RE: Celeron Killer
By smitty3268 on 5/28/2006 3:27:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. I bet they'll quit manufacturing Netburst cpus at the same time and replace them with these.


RE: Celeron Killer
By stephenbrooks on 5/28/2006 11:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
The logical name for it would be Core 2 Solo.


RE: Celeron Killer
By joust on 5/28/2006 5:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
just like the logical name for quad-core would be core 4 duo


RE: Celeron Killer
By MDme on 5/28/2006 7:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
Remember:
Core Solo (core (pentium-m based) cpu single core)
Core Duo (core (pentium-m based) cpu dual core)
Core 2 Duo (is a dual core core2 (conroe) cpu)

therefore a quad core (conroe) cpu would be called: Core 2 Quattro


RE: Celeron Killer
By arapahoe on 5/30/2006 7:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'm hanging out for the Core 2 Octo or Core 2 Hexadeco :-P


Keep it up Intel
By bamacre on 5/28/2006 2:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
Keep it up, I need my stock to go as high as possible.




RE: Keep it up Intel
By Mudvillager on 5/28/2006 3:50:31 AM , Rating: 2
i don't know why but that made me laugh =)


RE: Keep it up Intel
By JumpingJack on 5/28/2006 9:08:48 AM , Rating: 2
While speculative, and may garner a chuckle, what has been shown is most certainly going to translate into a better bottom line and ultimately a better stock price.

Do you find it interesting that the conroe buzz has been so strong in the enthusiast circles, but the financial analyst have refered to the new architecture as "closing the gap" or "bringing to parity"... this is what makes me chuckle -- evidently the do not frequent these kind of sites. :)


RE: Keep it up Intel
By bob661 on 5/29/2006 11:57:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
but the financial analyst have refered to the new architecture as "closing the gap" or "bringing to parity"
They say this because to the typical end user, Conroe being faster than the current offerings is irrelevant. Now if it ends up costing Intel less to manufacture, then you're talking. AMD makes bigger news here because they are the little guy and are not really expected to compete with Intel at all. Besides, Intel's stock has been going down lately.


RE: Keep it up Intel
By peternelson on 5/28/2006 11:03:00 AM , Rating: 2

Hope it goes high for you but make sure you sell for profit, before the REAL conroe benchmarks come out. People are bound to be disappointed when it isn't like 75% faster than AMD after all.


RE: Keep it up Intel
By Strunf on 5/28/2006 3:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
Who said it was 75% faster than AMD ? as far as I know Intel only says its 40% faster than their current CPUs.


How many roadmaps have we got from intel?
By muziqaz on 5/28/2006 9:31:05 AM , Rating: 3
I lost a count already ;/
it starts to get irritating ;/
looks like someone from Intel gets up in the morning, thinking: Well, let's add one more cpu to a future roadmap and release it, that people keep talking about us.
sad, really sad.




By peternelson on 5/28/2006 11:09:40 AM , Rating: 2

As usual there are three Intel roadmaps, one for mobile, one for desktop, one for server (and let's not mention itanium LOL). Each of these contains the present (old) chips and the next/new ones. They revise and release these about every six months eg for IDF and channel conferences etc. They try to look about a year ahead of where we are now ie what's on the horizon like the Bearlake chipset.

I have to agree though with AMD and NVIDIA announcements too all at the same time there will be a lot to take in and a lot to review.


RE: How many roadmaps have we got from intel?
By TomZ on 5/28/2006 1:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
If you can't handle the rate of information flow, just turn it off and ignore it. If anything, it is only going to accelerate going forward. They don't call this the "information age" for nothing.


RE: How many roadmaps have we got from intel?
By stephenbrooks on 5/28/2006 2:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
I blame the fact that it's a public company and they always feel they have to show the shareholders something. The more of their future plans one company shows, the more the other has to in order not to look ill-prepared. I guess the same could happen in frequency of roadmap publication, leading to plenty of PPT bilge.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/28/2006 3:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
Intel releases its roadmaps every ten workweeks like clockwork. The reason why there has been so much to talk about lately is because Intel has two separate architectures that are debuting just a few months apart.


Manufacturing costs
By smilingcrow on 5/29/2006 8:09:21 AM , Rating: 3
Cheap single core CPUs make a lot of sense for emerging countries, it just depends on whether Intel wants to chase that market. A CPU that was designed as single core and with a smaller cache will have a much smaller die size and therefore lower manufacturing cost. This obviously doesn’t apply to recycled or crippled dual-cores.




"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

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