backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by clnee55.. on May 30 at 2:24 PM

Intel promises significant price cuts across the board in preperation for dual-core ramp

Previously, DailyTech revealed a number of changes that will be taking place with Intel's family of desktop processors: Pentium 4 processors will drop down to roughly 30% of Intel's overall desktop processor shipments and Pentium D processors falling to 45% of desktop sales.

Core 2 Duo processors will be introduced on July 23 of this year and, according to Intel's estimates, and will be accompanied by the new 96x "Broadwater" chipset. According to Intel's updated roadmap, Core 2 processors will expand to roughly 35% of Intel's shipments in Q1'07. Conroe, as the desktop version of Core 2 Duo is dubbed, will be the first Intel processor with the new letter/number naming schedule, as noted below.

Intel's flagship, the Core 2 Extreme processor, is also expected to launch on July 23 with the X6800 name. 

Intel Desktop Processor Roadmap for Dual Core
Processor
Brand
Processor
Number

Clock Speed
FSB
Cache Launch
Date
Price @
Launch
C2E
X6800
2.93GHz / 1066MHz 4MB 23-Jul $999
PPXE 955
3.46GHz / 1066MHz 2z2MB Now $999
PPXE 840
3.20GHz / 1066MHz 2x1MB Now $999
C2D
E6700
2.67GHz / 1066MHz 4MB 23-Jul $530
C2D E6600
2.40GHz / 1066MHz 4MB 23-Jul $316
C2D E6400
2.13GHz / 1066MHz 2MB 23-Jul $224
C2D E6300
1.86GHz / 1066MHz 2MB 23-Jul $183
P4D
960
3.6GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now
$530
P4D 950
3.4GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now $224 (23-Jul)
P4D 940
3.2GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now $183 (23-Jul)
P4D
930
3.0GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now
$178 (4-Jun)
P4D 925 (no VT)

3.0GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Q4'06 $133
P4D 920
2.8MHz / 800MHz 2x2MB Now $178 (4-Jun)

Intel has dropped desktop processor prices throughout the year. Many of the Pentium D processors have seen anywhere from $30 cuts to more than 50% price cuts. All entry level Celeron 300-series desktop processors from Intel will  be priced well under $80 by the time Q4'06 comes around.

Intel Desktop Processor Roadmap for Dual Core Without VT
Processor
Brand
Processor
Number

Clock Speed
FSB
Cache   
Price
   Now   
 Price @ Launch
PDP
945
3.4GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB N/A $163 (23-Jul)
PDP 925
3.0GHz / 800MHz 2z2MB N/A $133 (Q4'06)
PDP 915
2.8GHz / 800MHz 2x2MB N/A $133 (23-Jul)

Intel will also be launching VT-disabled Preslers laster on this year with the 945, 925 and 915 series. VT, or Virtualization Technology allows virtual operating systems running on VMs such as VMWare or Parallels Desktop to access processor ops directly. The mainstream Pentium 4 processors with 2MB and 1MB caches will also see significant price drops. For example, a Pentium 4 661 (LGA775) processors running at 3.6GHz with 2MB of L2 cache will be priced at $183 on the 23rd of July. Right now, the same processor sells for $401.

Intel Desktop Processor Roadmap for Single Core
Processor
Brand
Processor
Number

Clock Speed
FSB
Cache    Price
   Now
   Price on
  23-Jul
P4P
661
3.6GHz / 800MHz 2MB $401 $183
P4P 651
3.4GHz / 800MHz 2MB $273 $163
P4P 641
3.2GHz / 800MHz 2MB $218 $163
P4P 631
3.0GHz / 800MHz 2MB $178 $163
P4P 541
3.2GHz / 800MHz 1MB $218 $84
P4P 531
3.0GHz / 800MHz 1MB $178 $74
P4P 524
3.06GHz / 533MHz 1MB $143 $69

All of Intel's single core processors see significant price drops across the board. According to Intel's roadmaps, dual core ramp will accelerate after July 23rd. Core 2 Duo will become Intel's flagship processor while Woodcrest takes the helm for enterprise and server level performance in 2007.

Intel's roadmap also confirms the existence of Kentsfield, the first quad core desktop component for Intel.  Kentsfield will launch as an "Extreme" processor in Q1'07, but Intel isn't saying the official name yet.  AMD is expected to introduce quad-core processors in 2007 as well. Called the K8L, AMD is expected to introduce new HyperTransport protocols as well as support for third party co-processors.


Comments     Threshold


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

The truth...
By irev210 on 5/27/2006 4:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
People, do you really think that intel can totally change the current samples in a 1-2 month period?

What about the Core Duo Yonah processors? All samples from far back as week 30 of 2005 were pretty much 100% retail. From week 30 to week 40, there was a small step change from step 4 to step 8, but both work just as well. The only thing we saw was more overclocking potential as they refined the chip.

You will see the same thing today with Conroe and Merom. Production samples have gone through just one minor revision, and again, we just see some greater overclocking potential.

Fact is, that X6800 samples are floating around already, and can do 4ghz on air.

There is going to be HUGE value in lower clocked E6300 and E6600 chips.

I think we will see the overclocking potential just grow as intel continues to improve their 65nm process. They have been at it for about a year now, and it has really matured.


I just want to say this again:

The current production samples are actually perfect indicators of how Conroe is going to perform.



I fail to see how people can look at objective tests. Look at anandtech's Yonah core duo tests. It's the same darn core as conroe... why do people feel it is going to perform so differently?


I think people really should take a close look at clock speeds and chip costs. Because, clock for clock... the core processor scales far better than the AMD 64 x2 chip. I mean, the core 2 duo CPU really doesnt start to shine until you pass 4ghz.


So I say this... to people who dont want to look at pre-production benchmarks... no issue, just look at the Yonah Core Duo benchmarks. That is only with 2MB L2 cache.


There is so much information avalible out there, i dont know how there can still be so much confusion.




RE: The truth...
By Mortal on 5/27/2006 7:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just want to say this again:
The current production samples are actually perfect indicators of how Conroe is going to perform.


QFT.


RE: The truth...
By saratoga on 5/27/2006 7:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fact is, that X6800 samples are floating around already, and can do 4ghz on air.


There are? The one link I saw used phase change cooling, and was not stable at 4GHz.

[quote]I fail to see how people can look at objective tests. Look at anandtech's Yonah core duo tests. It's the same darn core as conroe... why do people feel it is going to perform so differently?[/quote]

Because its not the same core? Because Yonah is a P3 derivitive with nothing to do with Conroe?

quote:
I think people really should take a close look at clock speeds and chip costs. Because, clock for clock... the core processor scales far better than the AMD 64 x2 chip. I mean, the core 2 duo CPU really doesnt start to shine until you pass 4ghz.


Again, I'm pretty sure you're confusing things here? Have you actually seen benchmarks for a >4GHz Core2? I kind of doubt they exist. Just looking at this roadmap, I'm not seeing the 3.33GHz Conroe part Intel talked about for months. If 4+GHz was so easy, why are they lowering the clock speed on launch parts?

quote:
So I say this... to people who dont want to look at pre-production benchmarks... no issue, just look at the Yonah Core Duo benchmarks. That is only with 2MB L2 cache.


Thats a completely different processor . . .

quote:
There is so much information avalible out there, i dont know how there can still be so much confusion.


There is a lot info out there, and I think you should spend some time reading about it! Start with the difference between Conroe and Yonah.


RE: The truth...
By Khenglish on 5/27/2006 9:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
Go to the Xtremesystem forums. There's at least 10 people there who got Conroes somehow and many put them on phase change or LN2. Several made it to 3.5 on air and at least 3 got over 4 gHz, with the top being 4.7, getting 10.75s on superpi 1M.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php...

I agree with the rest that you say besides the clocks.


RE: The truth...
By irev210 on 5/27/2006 9:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are? The one link I saw used phase change cooling, and was not stable at 4GHz.


*sigh*

quote:
Because its not the same core? Because Yonah is a P3 derivitive with nothing to do with Conroe?


double *sigh*

Yonah has everything to do with Conroe. Are you going to tell me that Merom has nothing to do with Conroe either? They are all variants of the core architecture. Intel is working hard to lower their cost. By creating a unified processor, to serve all segments (mobile, desktop, server) IE: Yonah/Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest it makes it much cheaper to produce processors. While I am not familar with the exact manufacturing differences between a Conroe E6300 and a Yonah T2400, they both share pretty much the same core, while the Yonah is optimized to use less power. Hence, why Yonah benchmarks are so important to reconize the power of Conroe.

Conroe, unlike Yonah/Merom only has one codename to cover both the 2MB l2 cache variants and the 4MB l2 cache variants. The E6600+ have 4MB L2 cache, and it is said that the E6600, at a street price of about 320 USD will be the choice of overclockers, do to the low price point, and great overclock potential, making it the "bank for the buck CPU". If you want to compare it to the past, it was like people going crazy over the AMD 64 X2 4400+, people wanted the cheapest processor with double the L2 cache.

quote:
Again, I'm pretty sure you're confusing things here? Have you actually seen benchmarks for a >4GHz Core2? I kind of doubt they exist. Just looking at this roadmap, I'm not seeing the 3.33GHz Conroe part Intel talked about for months. If 4+GHz was so easy, why are they lowering the clock speed on launch parts?


The 3.33ghz/1333fsb conroe is slated to be released in 2007. X-BIT labs got a hold of some incorrect information, and everyone believed it. Often times, there is little info that slips out, so we take advantage of it, regardless of its accuracy. Just last week, it was thought that Conroe X6800 was going to have HT, but that also turned out to be incorrect.

Now, your question about why isnt intel releasing faster CPU's... well that is easy. They are! They are releasing processors that really "leap ahead". So why not leap ahead further? Performance per watt. It has gotten big nowadays, and especially after the "preshot" fiasco, intel is looking to crown both performance catagories, so a low vcore results in a nice PPW. For Enthusiasts, we dont care since we have our 700+ watt power supplies and laugh at our electric bills. So crank the vcore to 1.5+, and you see the high clock speeds that I mentioned earlier. I guess you can say everyone wins.

quote:
There is a lot info out there, and I think you should spend some time reading about it! Start with the difference between Conroe and Yonah.


As I said above, the Yonah and Conroe processors both share the same core architecture. The difference is their respective power consumption; one being optimized for the laptop, the other for the desktop. Please feel free to do your own research to confirm what I have said. If I am wrong, I would definitely like to know.


I play no favorites, or sides. My favorite is just the one that is the "best". While "best" is often subjective... last year it was pretty easy to say AMD was king. When AMD was king... I owned a nice AMD rig. This year, Intel is king... and guess what, I own a new Intel rig, conroe powered :)


RE: The truth...
By Khenglish on 5/27/2006 10:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
Conroe and Yonah have similar cores, but they are still a lot different. Most noteable are the 128bit SSE and memory disambiguation, which is very poorly named. It really refers to how it can reorder load instructions it its pipelines, which are by far the most common intructions. Yonah has a limited ability to reorder loads, and K8 almost none, which is likely the main reason why it can't beat Yonah clock for clock dispite its much greater number of execution units. 128bit SSE is the biggest improvement, since it allows twice as many SIMD intructions to be performed at once, and it can do full 128bit intructions in one cycle which are supposed to be optimum for SIMD. Sometimes Conroe beats out Yonah by 50% clock for clock because of these enhancements. Conroe can also decode an extra x86 intruction per clock, but that's overhyped. Conroe also has longer pipelines than Yonah, the integer units now have 14 stages instead of 12.

You talk a lot about the extra cache size, but that really only gives a small performance boost. Look at the tiny gains the pentium m, pentium 4, and athlons got when their L2 caches were doubled. In most situations there is no performance gain, with a 5% gain at the most. The pentium 4 had a major latency increase, and the athlon had an exclusive L1 cache, but banias to dothan was a straight double in cache size and it brought very little performance gain.


RE: The truth...
By Viditor on 5/28/2006 6:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you Khenglish...
There are sooooo many people who are confused about this point (even well educated people)!
Conroe/Merom is VERY different than Yonah, just as Yonah is very different than the PIII...
There are significant similarities it's true, but they are still quite different.


RE: The truth...
By saratoga on 5/28/2006 10:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
*sigh*


I guess this means you realized you were wrong.

quote:
double *sigh* Yonah has everything to do with Conroe. Are you going to tell me that Merom has nothing to do with Conroe either? They are all variants of the core architecture. Intel is working hard to lower their cost. By creating a unified processor, to serve all segments (mobile, desktop, server) IE: Yonah/Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest it makes it much cheaper to produce processors. While I am not familar with the exact manufacturing differences between a Conroe E6300 and a Yonah T2400, they both share pretty much the same core, while the Yonah is optimized to use less power. Hence, why Yonah benchmarks are so important to reconize the power of Conroe.


Yonah is a P3 derivitive. Conroe and Merom are based on NGA. They do not share the same core, you're pretty confused about this whole thing.

quote:
As I said above, the Yonah and Conroe processors both share the same core architecture.


And as I said above, please look up what the difference is because you're completely wrong.



RE: The truth...
By PT2006 on 5/28/2006 11:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
Um...

It went:
Pentium 3 (P6) -> Banias -> Dothan -> Yonah -> Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest

Dothan and Banias were generally refered to as P6+ because intel did not have an official name for them. Both processors used elements of P6 but also had things like Netburst and ops fusion.

NGA was some term a press guy cooked up that means "Next Generation Architecture." The official "name" for Conroe/Merom/Yonah is "Core"

Yonah is kind of inbetween Core and P6+, but its more like Core than anything else.


RE: The truth [sic]...
By stephenbrooks on 5/29/2006 9:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
double *sigh* Yonah has everything to do with Conroe. Are you going to tell me that Merom has nothing to do with Conroe either? They are all variants of the core architecture.
Yonah is Core 1, Merom and Conroe are Core 2, to use Intel's naming. When I looked at the block diagrams of these CPUs, it looked like Yonah is a bit of a "bridge" between the old Pentium M and the new Conroe generation. Core 2 has more execution units and such things as macro-op merging, so somewhat like Yonah but a lot more-so, certainly not the same core.


RE: The truth...
By clnee55 on 5/30/2006 2:24:17 PM , Rating: 2

No. But the AMD fans need to believe that so they can sleep well in the next two months.

Quote:

"People, do you really think that intel can totally change the current samples in a 1-2 month period?"


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki