backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by Trisped.. on Jun 7 at 12:27 PM
3.2GHz "Conroe" gets confirmed by Intel

Intel representatives just contacted DailyTech with the following information:

The Core 2 Extreme processor (Conroe based) will ship at 2.93GHz at Core 2 Duo launch.   We will also have a 3.2GHz version by end of the year.   And as you know, the Quad Core enthusiast SKU, Kentsfield, is planned for Q1'07.

Several days ago, we published details of Intel's Core 2 Duo roadmap, although the roadmap did not have information about a 3.2GHz Conroe.  Intel's Extreme Edition processors typically launch at a $1,000 USD price point, and then are quickly phased out in time for the next generation.

The 2.93GHz Conroe processor will ship as the Core 2 Duo X6800 processor.  Previous Intel roadmaps have also confirmed that the launch date for Conroe, the desktop Core 2 Duo processor, is slated for July 23, 2006.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Is it a GPU?
By Clauzii on 5/31/2006 6:35:28 PM , Rating: 2
Core Duo 2 X6800 - sounds like a graphics card to me.

Btw., how can intel trademark a common word as "Core"?




RE: Is it a GPU?
By The Cheeba on 5/31/2006 6:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
Probably because they didn't trademark "Core"

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=5...


RE: Is it a GPU?
By xdrol on 5/31/2006 6:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
How could MS trademark a common word as "Windows"?


RE: Is it a GPU?
By smitty3268 on 5/31/2006 7:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's why the sued Lindows in a foreign court. No one really knows if their trademark would hold up in an English language courtroom.


RE: Is it a GPU?
By Bull Dog on 5/31/2006 9:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Microsoft tried many times in the US courts. They got thrown out on their ears.


RE: Is it a GPU?
By Ard on 6/1/2006 12:40:01 AM , Rating: 2
As far as the PTO is concerned, "Windows" is still a valid Microsoft trademark and is still protected. As to why MS can trademark it in the first place, it's a descriptive term of their OS and that term has acquired a secondary meaning over the past 20 years.


RE: Is it a GPU?
By psychobriggsy on 6/1/2006 6:16:21 AM , Rating: 2
WIMP as a term has been around since the 70s.

What does it stand for? Windows Icons Menus Pointer.

It has not gained a 'secondary meaning' since Windows was released. Microsoft trademarked a standard common computer GUI term.


RE: Is it a GPU?
By Ard on 6/1/2006 3:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it has. What does anyone immediately think of when they hear the word "Windows" in the PC context? Microsoft. That's a secondary meaning under trademark law. While WIMP may have been somewhat common in the GUI context in the 70s, no one outside of that small group really knew about it. Believe me, Windows is a registered trademark (you can check MS' site and you can also check the PTO). If it weren't valid, the PTO would've struck it down a long time ago for being too generic. As it stands, it's a descriptive term that has since acquired secondary meaning.


RE: Is it a GPU?
By lemonadesoda on 5/31/2006 6:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
They can't trademark Core. But they can trademark how it is shown. ie. the graphic representation of Core. If you look carefully, just like "Microsoft", there is a non-standard typeface, or edit to a standard typeface to make it "trademark".


RE: Is it a GPU?
By Clauzii on 5/31/2006 8:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
I see - thanks man :)


RE: Is it a GPU?
By Ard on 6/1/2006 12:42:47 AM , Rating: 2
"Intel Core" is not trademarked as of yet. It's pending. It's unlikely that they'll receive a TM for "Core" alone, since it's far too generic of a term in the semiconductor industry. "Intel Core", which is the term pending in the PTO, might receive protection though.


3.2Ghz Cionroe
By hstewarth on 5/31/2006 9:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
My calculation is that a 3.2Ghz is 6x processor with 1066Mhz Bus 6*533 is close to 3.2Ghz. if 6x was on 1333Mhz it would likely be a 4Ghz cpu. 3.33Ghz would be at 5x which is same as 2.66Ghz at 1066mhz.

My guess is that we will not see 1333Mhz bus until we have a new chipset on the Conroe. This could also mean that a 4Ghz Woodcrest is possible in the future.

Just having fun with calculator.




RE: 3.2Ghz Conroe
By hstewarth on 5/31/2006 9:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
Woops typo in title - no way to correct mistakes - sorry.


RE: 3.2Ghz Conroe
By BrownTown on 5/31/2006 10:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
Also, its 12*266. Its still using the 1066 FSB because there are no chipsets which officially support 1333 FSB. So, the only benefit is the higher multiplier, and the better binned silicon.


RE: 3.2Ghz Conroe
By hwhacker on 5/31/2006 11:19:43 PM , Rating: 3
Who really cares what the bus is stock-rated at? I mean 754/939 never was rated past DDR400 (200mhz) and AM2 past DDR800 (400mhz) but that hardly holds you back if the hardware is capable, which most completely are. For instance, most of those products with a decent chip+board can do 1/2 past that rating either 1:1 with decent ram or a with a divider. I know Intel's FSB is different than HT, but I imagine catch my drift.

It seems from the multiple people whom have Conroe production samples that many are able to achieve 400+ fsb...ala 1400-1800 FSBwhen quad-pumped...especially on that MSI board that everyone is so psyched about, obtaining 3.0-3.8ghz on air, with 3.5-3.6 seemingly average. I doubt everyone will obtain 450mhz (1800fsb) but I imagine 1400+ will be doable quite regularly.

Sure, Intel might release stock FSB parts with a 1333mhz (333) rating, but who cares? So they can use the same multipliers to charge more for higher clocks with FSB you could already obtain on these chips?

Screw waiting for that pseudo speed-hike. I'm sure E6300 or E6600's (depending on if you want the extra cache) coupled with decent memory at their stock multis (9x and 7x respectively) will be a hell of a deal to even the casual overclocker.

Granted, who knows how the bottom-of-the-barrel chips will do in overall speed and fsb when overclocking until we see more reviews of the finished products, but I imagine they'll do quite well and be worth the while. Those 9x E6600's look really enticing...9x multi with 4mb of cache. Say the released products can do 400fsb, which I think they will, with a good board, and average high-end air overclocks can achieve somewhere around 3.6ghz...That's a perfect match for fsb,the cpu, regular people's cooling, and the DDR2 standard of 400mhz. (9x400=3.6ghz). I have a feeling those are going to fly off the shelves regardless of whatever the Intel sets the regular FSB bus at or where they set the highest-end cpu at. Sure, with the 3.2 speed-bin there's a chance most low-end cpu's won't get that high, but still, they'll probably still get somewhere around the stock rating of the highest cpu, if not higher...Well, if we can take what we've seen so far as an indication of the final products.

Sorry for the long-ass post, but that's my feelings on the matter. Perhaps i'm confused, but doesn't anyone else see it that way?


RE: 3.2Ghz Conroe
By hstewarth on 5/31/2006 11:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
I was actually thinking in comparison to memory speed - but still I believe that 3.2Ghz will be 1066Mhz quad pump bus - but the 1333Mhz bus is not going to happen until a new chipset, but there is a good point - it leave possibiliy of 1600Mhz bus out there.

Actually there is chipsets that officially support 1333Mhz - called 5000x and 5000p - but that is for Woodcrest.

All I am saying here, that I believe there is lots of room for future higher speeds - just like begining of P4 series.

Exiting times are ahead.


RE: 3.2Ghz Conroe
By hstewarth on 6/1/2006 12:08:09 AM , Rating: 2
Ok I found more information on the 3.2Ghz, I found the following link.. a lot of benchmarks

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1970190...

The 3.2 in this test is 11x over clock system, but Intel plans to 3.2Ghz 12x system. Check out the review, they compare it FX-62.


RE: 3.2Ghz Conroe
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/1/2006 12:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
RE: 3.2Ghz Conroe
By RMSe17 on 6/1/2006 9:46:59 AM , Rating: 2
I had my P4-2.4GHz (C revision) running at 3.6GHz with stock heatsink, so my FSB went from 200MHz (800) to 300 (1.2GHz). And this has been like that for almost 3 years.


RE: 3.2Ghz Conroe
By AkumaX on 5/31/2006 11:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My calculation is that a 3.2Ghz is 6x processor with 1066Mhz Bus 6*533 is close to 3.2Ghz. if 6x was on 1333Mhz it would likely be a 4Ghz cpu. 3.33Ghz would be at 5x which is same as 2.66Ghz at 1066mhz.


its not 6*533, its actually 12*266 (like BrownTown has)
quad pumped, not dual pumped like AMD ;)

so a 3.2ghz 1333fsb (4 x 333) would probably be either 9.5 x 333 for 3.16ghz, or 10 x 333 = 3.33ghz


RE: 3.2Ghz Conroe
By Assimilator87 on 6/1/2006 2:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
The trick to finding the right model is to consider when the FSB or CPU will max out. The lower the stock multiplier, the higher the FSB will be when the CPU maxes out, but if the multiplier is too low then the FSB may max out before the highest CPU clock is reached. That's the other reason people bought the P4 2.4Cs, aside from being the cheapest 800Mhz FSB chip. It had a higher FSB at the same clock as higher rated models. We'll definitely have to wait for people to experiment with overclocking Conroe to find out which model will yield the highest performing OC.


Finally
By vanka on 5/31/2006 7:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
There's finally an Inel processor that I can get excited about. Decent clock speeds, awesome performance and overclocking. I mean getting a 2.66 GHz to do 4.6 GHz, awesome. Looks like Intel is finally waking up.




RE: Finally
By jkresh on 5/31/2006 7:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
2.66 at 4.6 is a netburst thing, I highly doubt we will se any core 2 duos at anything close to that overclockability for quite some time.


RE: Finally
By HopJokey on 5/31/2006 7:34:51 PM , Rating: 1
They have already gotten Conroes (aka Core 2) using LN2 to overclock to 5 Ghz at XStreamSystems. Here is the link:

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



RE: Finally
By bob661 on 5/31/2006 10:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
That's a crazy OC. I hope the shipping products are just as good. Otherwise, there will be Internet-wide riots. LOL!


RE: Finally
By jkresh on 5/31/2006 10:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
Thats very impressive however LN2 is a far cry from Air or Water, if people are getting core2's to 4 or higher on Water, I might very well go back to intel (its been a while, 2.26 p4 folowed by 754 3200, 939 3200, currently 939 4400 at 2.7 on water)


RE: Finally
By PrinceGaz on 5/31/2006 11:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
That's nice. I'll have to order some more LN2 for my box tonight then as you consider that sort of thing normal.


holy crap
By phaxmohdem on 5/31/2006 6:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
If all these unofficial reports around the web are anywhere near correct 3.2GHz EE @ ~$1000 = bye bye/cheap cheap FX60/62!




RE: holy crap
By TheLiberalTruth on 5/31/2006 7:58:22 PM , Rating: 4
I wouldn't expect the FX60 and FX62 chips to disappear or be cut down in price. Look at the P4 EE chips now. Just because they're not the fastest available doesn't mean that Intel's not going to try to make every last dime out of fools who will pay $1100 so they can brag to all their leet friends that they have a leet processor.


RE: holy crap
By MrKaz on 6/1/2006 10:31:02 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah crappy Intel costs 1100$,

Why wouldn’t the good AMD still cost 1100$.

Or everyone is going to stop buying it.


Conroe & you
By crystal clear on 6/1/2006 5:19:34 AM , Rating: 2
You start off on an impressive note-Intel rep contacting..... etc.
Yes you could have used the opportunity to convince Intel to send you their Conroe for your website review.
A review like this will become The Talk of the town(sorry web).
All the roadmaps/prices etc that U put out are good as information,but a product test/review will have all glued to the screen.
So GET the conroe & TEST IT & PUT out the REVIEW.




RE: Conroe & you
By danidentity on 6/1/2006 9:10:40 AM , Rating: 2
There's a NDA in effect. They can't.


RE: Conroe & you
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/1/2006 11:47:09 AM , Rating: 2
We have three processors and no motherboards. We do not sign NDAs or embargos, so as soon as we get a motherboard we will do some fairly extensive tests.


RE: Conroe & you
By crystal clear on 6/2/2006 3:27:35 AM , Rating: 2
LANParty UT C19SLI32-T2R/G"
This is a SLI,CONROE ready motherboad.
If you can get this mobo would be great.


Umm
By shabby on 5/31/2006 8:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
Are these things running at 266fsb? I thought all of the extremes were at 333fsb.




RE: Umm
By Soccerman06 on 5/31/2006 8:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the FSB of Conroe would be 1333 or 1000.


RE: Umm
By NextGenGamer2005 on 5/31/2006 8:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
That was the original rumor, but now the Core 2 Extreme is nothing more then a clockspeed bump above the Core 2 Duo E6700. Here is the final lineup:

Core 2 Extreme X6800 - 2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2 Cache
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 2.67GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2 Cache
Core 2 Duo E6600 - 2.40GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB L2 Cache
Core 2 Duo E6400 - 2.13GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2MB L2 Cache
Core 2 Duo E6300 - 1.86GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2MB L2 Cache

The Core 2 Duo all have a TDP of 65-Watts, while the Core 2 Extreme has a TDP of 80-Watts (well below the 125-Watts rating of the Athlon 64 FX-62 at 2.80GHz).


Ohhhh yeaaahhh
By Geordanh on 5/31/2006 6:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
That's gonna be sweet




RE: Ohhhh yeaaahhh
By Samus on 6/1/2006 4:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
AMD better have a trick up their sleeve by XMAS.


2.6>2.8
By rqle on 5/31/2006 7:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
if those benchmark 2.6ghz even "hold half-ass" true to the OC 2.8ghz AMDX2 FX OC, then am excited. Cant wait to see what a 2.9-3ghz intel can do.

If close to ~$1k as the FX series...




RE: 2.6>2.8
By chickenselects on 5/31/2006 7:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
yes they hold true, you can find several other sites doing their own tests and yielding similar results.


Conroe E6700 vs FX 62
By theteamaqua on 5/31/2006 7:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
no need for Core 2 Xe, the E6700 is already fast at clock speed, here:

http://www.coolaler.com/modules/news/article.php?s...

its all boxes on my broswer but the picture shows that E6700 is clearly faster at 2.4 GHz !! even under clock, special thanx to a thread in xtremesystem for showing me this page




RE: Conroe E6700 vs FX 62
By theteamaqua on 5/31/2006 7:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
What's the difference?
By Goi on 5/31/2006 8:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
What's gonna be different between the Core2 EE and regular Core2s? Just the clockspeed? Or an increase in L2 cache as well? The regular Core2s already have 4MB L2 cache though, which is huge by mainstream standards.




By theprodigalrebel on 6/1/2006 3:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
i believe unlocked multipliers (like the AMD FX series...and the Presler 955/965). Allows you to overclock by just changing the multiplier and keep the FSB at stock.


Not too surprising
By smitty3268 on 5/31/2006 7:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like their speed bump will take place at the end of the year, right about when AMD starts releasing their 65nm chips.




very nice
By tk109 on 5/31/2006 7:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Sweet looking badge design. I like it.

And these new processors are going to scream. It's been nice to have something to get really excited about again.




core duo 2 questio????
By saturn342001 on 6/4/2006 1:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
Will guys I just bought the laptop last 2 week ago, with T2400 with GM945 chip do you think new Core duo 2 might upgade in new laptop?

I think if was 478 socket it should be work, how ever I'm still interesting the frequency on T2600-2.167ghz can be possible push higher then core do 2 ?? or my guess is they just add Em64, sse4, .... batter low power operation




Quadcore + XP = dual core
By Trisped on 6/7/2006 12:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the Quad Core enthusiast SKU, Kentsfield, is planned for Q1'07.
If they do come out with a quad core everyone will have to upgrade to Vista to use it since XP Home, Pro, and MCE only support up to 2 cores.

DailyTech, please keep an eye on this as 4 cores might not be all that useful in the long run.




Clock speed...
By ZeeStorm on 6/1/06, Rating: -1
RE: Clock speed...
By hstewarth on 6/1/2006 10:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
This may be true for Netburst, but these chips are netburst. A 2Ghz Conroe will be much faster than 3Ghz Netburst power.


RE: Clock speed...
By DallasTexas on 6/1/2006 10:37:56 AM , Rating: 1
"..clock speed's of Intel's chips have always been higher than AMD's. .."

Do you realize we are in June of 2006? Your BS is about 2 years old. Get with it, tell mom to get you a new calendar.

Also, you got it wrong. AMD has superior floating point. Geez


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki