backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by qwertzuiop.. on Nov 4 at 10:38 PM

Core 2 Duo, the sequel

Intel’s latest roadmap outlines plans for Conroe’s 2007 refresh. The upcoming refresh of Intel’s Core 2 Duo processor will arrive at the same time as the upcoming Bearlake 3 series of chipsets. This will be the first time Intel has refreshed its recently released Conroe architecture. The refresh is quite minor this time around. Nevertheless the Conroe refresh raises the front-side bus up to 1333 MHz and adds Intel Trusted Execution Technology.

Intel Conroe Refresh
Processor
Number
Core
Frequency
Bus
Frequency
L2
Cache
E6850 3 GHz
1333 MHz 4MB
E6800 2.93 GHz 1066 MHz 4MB
E6750 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz 4MB
E6650 2.33 GHz 1333 MHz 4MB

Three refreshed models will debut with the upcoming Bearlake 3 series chipsets. These models include the Core 2 Duo E6850, E6750 and E6650 clocked at 3 GHz, 2.66 GHz and 2.33 MHz respectively. At this point in time it doesn’t appear Intel has any plans for its Core 2 Extreme lineup, in terms of dual-core processors that is. Kentsfield Core 2 Extreme QX6700 will remain as Intel’s flag-ship enthusiast product.

In addition to the refreshed Conroe Core 2 Duo lineup, Intel will release one more 1066 MHz front-side bus endowed Core 2 Duo product. The upcoming Core 2 Duo E6800 will arrive clocked at 2.93 GHz—similar to Intel’s Core 2 Extreme X6800. The processor is expected to be Intel’s flagship processor for mainstream segments. Aside from the locked multiplier, the Core 2 Duo E6800 is identical to the Core 2 Extreme X6800.


Comments     Threshold


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

Faster How?
By FITCamaro on 10/17/2006 3:20:49 PM , Rating: 1
Why does the E6650 run at 2.33GHz? A faster FSB but slower overall clock speed doesn't make it faster. The current E6600 runs at 2.4GHz. So how do they figure the slower clocked one deserves the higher model number?

Besides, I'm already running my E6600 at a 1333FSB @ 3.0GHz.




RE: Faster How?
By Spivonious on 10/17/2006 3:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering that myself. Perhaps the faster bus gives more overall performance than the faster CPU clock? Someone should take an X6800 and clock it to 333x7 and compare it to the 266x9 E6600.


RE: Faster How?
By Spivonious on 10/17/2006 3:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wait a minute, we can already do that since it's a lower multiplier. I'll let you know when I get home :)


RE: Faster How?
By soydeedo on 10/17/2006 3:49:22 PM , Rating: 1
note the higher cache. iirc the jump from 2mb to 4mb equates to a rough 10% increase in performance so that combined with the increased fsb should hopefully up the ante a little. =)

wonder if it'll be as oc friendly though once that happens...


RE: Faster How?
By webdawg77 on 10/17/2006 3:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
The E6600 already had 4MB of L2 cache.


RE: Faster How?
By soydeedo on 10/17/2006 4:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
oh doh. for some reason i was thinking of the 6300. i guess since it was at the bottom of the list there. hah.


RE: Faster How?
By MonkeyPaw on 10/17/2006 4:32:15 PM , Rating: 4
Intel's model numbers have never been directly connected with performance. The party line from Intel says that the model numbers are intended to uniquely identify each model based on specific features (like core speed, bus speed, cache size, CPU extensions, TDP, etc). That doesn't make such a scheme right, nor does it does make it easy for the average customer to figure out, but Intel never claimed a higher model number equals a faster processor. Just more technological name games.


RE: Faster How?
By JackPack on 10/17/2006 5:43:06 PM , Rating: 3
A 266 MHz increase in FSB more than makes up for a 67 MHz loss in core frequency. Of course, you'll have a couple of outliers, but overall, the E6650 number is accurate.


RE: Faster How?
By othercents on 10/17/2006 5:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
A Processor refresh even if it is the exact same ghz and same bus could still increase performance especially if they made some core changes which they probably did.

Other


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles
Intel "Bearlake" Plans Unveiled
October 17, 2006, 1:24 PM
Intel "Kentsfield" Performance Explored
September 25, 2006, 6:35 PM
Here Comes "Conroe"
July 13, 2006, 12:47 PM













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