Print 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

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,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 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
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.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken
Related Articles

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