Print 26 comment(s) - last by hstewarth.. on Jun 29 at 1:01 AM

9W dual-core and 2.33GHz Yonah processors hit the streets

Despite the Woodcrest Xeon processor announced yesterday, this week Intel is expected to start shipping two new Core Duo processors.

The new Core Duo T2700 is a 2.33GHz dual-core 65nm Yonah-based CPU, specifically targeted for high end notebooks and desktop replacement (DTR) devices.  The processor is already shipping at some retail outlets, and should start showing up in high-end notebooks very soon.  The previous high end model, the 2.16GHz T2600, was reduced to $423 on June 4th, but neither the T2600 nor T2700 will receive another discount until the Merom launch later this year.  The T2700 will sell for $637 in quantities of 1,000.

Furthermore, Intel is also discretely rolling out its Core Duo U2500 ultra-low voltage (ULV) CPU.   The U2500 is currently the only dual-core ULV product in Intel's arsenal until the 1.06GHz U7500 Merom processor launches with Santa Rosa in Q2'07.  The U2500 is a 1.2GHz Yonah processor with 2MB L2 cache and a 533MHz FSB.  The U2500 recently received some attention on DailyTech as it is the only x86 dual-core processor to ship with a 9W maximum TDP envelope.  The CPU consumes less than 1W during normal operation.  The U2500 will sell for $289 per chip in quantities of 1,000.

Intel recently announced it would spin off its XScale ARM CPU series; a processor typically dedicated to extremely low voltage applications like cell phones and PDAs.  With single-Watt dual-core processors now part in Intel's processor lineup, it may be that the company is considering x86 for these devices.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: 9 Watts!!
By MercenaryForHire on 6/27/2006 2:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. I can see these being very popular with the HTPC crowd ... or maybe even the overclockers if these things can bump to 800FSB like the 805D's.

Any indication of pricing for these units, even in tray quantity?

- M4H

RE: 9 Watts!!
By KristopherKubicki on 6/27/2006 2:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
Pricing will be $289 in quantities of 1000

RE: 9 Watts!!
By MercenaryForHire on 6/27/2006 2:55:21 PM , Rating: 1
Okay, maybe not that popular then. :)

Just read from the other link in the article that this is a BGA (soldered-on) processor. Hopefully that's not still the case, otherwise that puts a major dent in any roll-your-own systems.

- M4H

RE: 9 Watts!!
By KristopherKubicki on 6/27/2006 2:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
Although Intel's documentation says its BGA, it looks like there might be a socketed version too

RE: 9 Watts!!
By Samus on 6/27/2006 4:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
Now that Intel (and partly AMD) have unbelievably energy efficient CPU's, the rest of the industry needs to catch up.

Hard drives has dropped in power consumption for as little as 3 watts (1.8") and flash memory has always been faily low voltage/low wattage, but LCD screens and inefficient power supplies (some as poor as 60% efficiency) need to catch up.

After all, the LCD still consumes 60% of the power in a modern notebook.

RE: 9 Watts!!
By del on 6/27/2006 7:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the video card industry produces very power-hungry cards, although power consumption was reduced over the GeForce 6800 Ultra with the advent of the GeForce 7800 GTX.

RE: 9 Watts!!
By plewis00 on 6/27/2006 7:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
The advent of LED-lit LCDs and other technologies should fix that. For some reason Sony appears to be one of the only ones who use LED-lit displays in their notebooks, and I know it has its problems, like (in Sonys case) too thin lids put extra pressure on the LCD and it has cracked (it can be made thicker, that is not an issue) and also the irregular lighting pattern across the base, but I could make do with that for better battery life and I'm sure many others could too.

I still don't see what's wrong with OLED either, 5,000 hours from the shortest colour (blue isn't it?) is still over 200 days 24/7 which isn't realistic.

RE: 9 Watts!!
By KristopherKubicki on 6/28/2006 3:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
I still don't see what's wrong with OLED either, 5,000 hours from the shortest colour (blue isn't it?) is still over 200 days 24/7 which isn't realistic.

I am a huge OLED supporter after seeing a few of the facilities in Taiwan. The problems with discoloration are pretty much taken care of now, now its just a matter of mass producing on the large scale. OLED is more chemical manufacturing than substrate manufacturing, and most of the companies that were really good at making glass-based products have to start at square one to make OLEDs. OLEDs use ridiculously less power than any LCD by the way.

LED-LCD is a good stepping stone in the meantime, however.

RE: 9 Watts!!
By PedroDaGr8 on 6/28/2006 2:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
To correct you, red is the worst color. It results in a green tinging of the screen. The half-life for red still lage by about half behind blue and between 10 and 100x behind green at last check. I know this because I used to do research on OLED materials specifically polyasymrtically substituted penacenes, as efficient stable red emitters.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls
Related Articles
Intel's "Woodcrest" to Launch Monday
June 23, 2006, 1:42 PM
Intel's Dual-Core 9W "Yonah"
May 30, 2006, 2:03 PM
Intel 2006 Mobile CPU Roadmap Update
May 26, 2006, 4:59 PM

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