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

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?

"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