backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by uksupramk3.. on Jul 29 at 10:33 PM

"Tulsa," "Merom," "Kentsfield" and "Clovertown" moved up

Yesterday during Intel's Q2'06 earnings report, Intel CEO Paul Otellini revealed that Intel has moved up its launch schedule for quad-core processors to Q4 2006 instead of Q1 2007 as originally announced by Intel in roadmaps and public relations.

Otellini claimed "We notified customers that we're pulling in both a desktop and server of the first quad-core processors into the fourth quarter of this year from the first half of 2007."  These two processors, dubbed Kentsfield and Clovertown, respectively, are essentially twin-die packages of Core 2 Duo.

In late May, Intel announced that the company will ship a 3.2GHz Core 2 Extreme processor followed by quad-core Kentsfield in Q1'07Kentsfield has always been slated as an Extreme processor, meaning it will carry a larger price tag than the traditional Core 2 Duo series.  Intel's quad-core server processor, dubbed Clovertown, is virtually identical to Kentsfield but will use the Socket 771 package instead of Socket 775.

Furthermore, Otellini confirmed that quad-core isn't the only processor series moved up.  The CEO confirmed Merom has been moved up and is already shipping to revenue, as was reported by HKEPC (English) several days ago.  Intel's Tulsa processors for Xeon MP are also already shipping to revenue according to Otellini, but the availability of these processors has largely been overshadowed by yesterday's launch of Itanium 2 Montecito and the recent launch of Xeon DP Woodcrest

Typically there is a two to three week lag between revenue shipments and retail availability, so expect to see many of these new "shipping to revenue" processors before the end of the month.


Comments     Threshold


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

Limitations
By boboisgreat on 7/20/2006 9:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
This 4 core solution will be limited in that the cores will have conflicts accessing the cache. The Pentium D 930 should offer comparable performance for much less $$$. The Conroe architecture has some limitations.




RE: Limitations
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 9:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This 4 core solution will be limited in that the cores will have conflicts accessing the cache. The Pentium D 930 should offer comparable performance for much less $$$.

Well, Conroe outperforms the 930, and Kentsfield is basically two Conroes. The two Conroes have separate caches. So how will cache conflicts cause the performance of Kentsfield to be the same as the 930? It doesn't make sense to me.
quote:
The Conroe architecture has some limitations.

I'm sure it does, but please elaborate as to what you mean.


RE: Limitations
By hmurchison on 7/20/2006 11:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you're right on this. Having 4 cores share a 8MB cache would be ideal but two Conroe cores on the same die with a fast FSB for cache coherency between the cores will still be faster than the slow Netburst D procs.

Conroe has little limitations that I can see but I'd be interested in hearing your opinion.


RE: Limitations
By AntiTomZandmasher2 on 7/21/2006 12:36:07 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a computer architecture student, and right now, the only weakness I see in Conroe is the bus possibly becoming a limitation. They're still on a shared bus solution and the AGTL+ bus is showing its age compared to Hypertrasport. That might become a problem when we get more cpus demanding more throughput.


RE: Limitations
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 10:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, that's true, and it has been stated in nearly every review of Intel architecture in the past 2 years. Nothing new there.


RE: Limitations
By AntiTomZandmasher2 on 7/21/2006 12:43:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a computer architecture student, and right now, the only weakness I see in Conroe is the bus possibly becoming a limitation. They're still on a shared bus solution and the AGTL+ bus is showing its age compared to Hypertrasport. That might become a problem when we get more cpus demanding more throughput.


By hmurchison on 7/21/2006 10:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
Intel's roadmaps never lied. Yonah was going to have 6-12 months of life before being usurped by Merom.

Yonah is a good step towards getting ISV to start making their apps multithreaded. Most of the chipset for the Pentium M was reused for Yonah so you don't have a huge platform change either.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Related Articles
Intel's "Woodcrest" to Launch Monday
June 23, 2006, 1:42 PM
The Count of "Montecito"
July 16, 2006, 3:39 PM
Intel Bumps "Tulsa" Ahead to Q3'06
June 12, 2006, 5:40 PM













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