backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by Tedtalker1.. on Dec 22 at 6:04 PM

Intel's roadmap adds more quad-core and value dual-core in the pipeline

It’s been a while since Intel last made notable updates to its desktop processor roadmap. Last month DailyTech revealed Intel is expected to launch a variety of new Core 2 Duo and Pentium E 2100 processors including refreshed Conroe based products next year. Intel’s latest desktop roadmap reveals more new processors and removes some previously reported models.

Intel Core 2 Quad
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
FSB Pricing
Q6600 2.40 GHz 8MB 1066 MHz
$851
Q6400 2.13 GHz 8MB 1066 MHz
NA

Intel is expected to release its first mainstream quad-core Core 2 Quad Q6600 early next year. The processor is still on track for a Q1’2007 launch with an $851 per-unit in 1,000 unit quantities price tag. While this may seem a bit steep, Intel is expected to cut the price of the Core 2 Quad 6600 down to $530 per-unit in 1,000 unit quantities when Q2’2007 rolls around.

The Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 won’t be the only one in the Core 2 Quad family though. Somewhere between Q2’2007 to Q3’2007 Intel will add one more member to its Core 2 Quad family. This will arrive as the Core 2 Quad Q6400. The Core 2 Quad Q6400 will be clocked at 2.13 GHz and operate on a 1066 MHz front-side bus. It will have an 8MB L2 cache with support for Intel VT, Enhanced Intel Speedstep, Intel EM64T and NX bit technologies.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6xxx
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
FSB Q2'07
Pricing
E6850 3.0 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz
N/A
E6750 2.66 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz
N/A
E6700 2.66 GHz 4MB 1066 MHz
$316
E6600 2.40 GHz 4MB 1066 MHz
$224
E6550 2.33 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz
N/A
E6420 2.13 GHz 4MB 1066 MHz
$183
E6400 2.13 GHz 2MB 1066 MHz
$183
E6320 1.86 GHz 4MB 1066 MHz
$163
E6300 1.86 GHz 2MB 1066 MHz
$163

Moving onto the dual-core product roadmap Intel has made a few changes to its latest roadmap. Gone from the latest roadmap is the Core 2 Duo E6390 which was essentially a Core 2 Duo E6400 with Intel VT and vPro extensions disabled. The previously reported Intel Core 2 Duo E6650 has been renamed in the latest roadmap. The latest roadmap has renamed the Core 2 Duo E6650 to Core 2 Duo E6550. Aside from the naming changes it remains a 1333 MHz front-side bus processor clocked at 2.33 GHz.

Previous roadmaps have indicated that 3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo processors will be available next year as well. Currently, this remains unchanged.

New to this roadmap are new Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 and E6320 processors. These processors are clocked at 2.13 GHz and 1.86 GHz like the Core 2 Duo E6400 and E6300. However, the Core 2 Duo E6420 and E6320 will have 4MB of L2 cache instead of the 2MB found on the Core 2 Duo E6400 and E6300. The two processors are expected to launch in Q2’2007. Pricing for the Core 2 Duo E6420 and E6320 will be $183 and $163 in 1,000 unit quantities respectively.

Intel Core 2 Duo E4xxx
Model
Core
Frequency
L2 Cache
FSB Q2'07
Pricing
E4400 2.00 GHz 2MB 800 MHz
$133
E4300 1.80 GHz 2MB 800 MHz
$113

Since the Core 2 Duo E6420 and E6320 are endowed with 4MB of L2 cache this leaves room for the new Core 2 Duo E4x00 series processors. It was previously reported the Core 2 Duo E4x00 series was expected to have two models—the Core 2 Duo 4400 and 4200. However the roadmap has changed and the Core 2 Duo E4200 has been scrapped. Nevertheless in place of the Core 2 Duo E4200 is a new E4300. The Core 2 Duo E4300 is clocked at 1.8 GHz on an 800 MHz front-side bus. It’s expected to launch late January with pricing starting at $163 in 1,000 unit quantities. The Core 2 Duo E4300 is expected to have a one year life cycle with a product discontinuance notice expected in Q4’2007 and reach end-of-life in Q1’2008.

Joining the Core 2 Duo E4300 will be the Core 2 Duo E4400. The Core 2 Duo E4400 is expected to arrive in Q2’2007. It will be clocked at 2.0 GHz and priced at $133 in 1,000 unit quantities. With the launch of the Core 2 Duo E4300 in Q2’2007, Intel is expected to slash prices on the Core 2 Duo E4300 down to $113 in 1,000 unit quantities.


Comments     Threshold


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

Confusion
By Tater Salad on 12/19/2006 5:51:56 PM , Rating: 5
My brain hurts.




RE: Confusion
By Nightmare225 on 12/19/2006 5:54:59 PM , Rating: 1
Why all the different models? I thought their current line-up was sufficient and uncluttered.

QX6700-Ultimate Enthusiasts CPU
E6700, E6600 - Serious Gamer
E6400 - Performance User
E6300 - High Performance Business/Budget Solution

It really doesn't need to be more complicated.


RE: Confusion
By cochy on 12/19/2006 6:31:05 PM , Rating: 5
Well yes. More value based Core 2 Duos (Allendale). Nothing wrong with adding more value options for the budget shopper.


RE: Confusion
By Goty on 12/19/2006 8:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Allendale is supposedly nothing more than Conroe with the power cut to the non-funtional part of the cache (i.e. the other 2MB).


RE: Confusion
By Russell on 12/19/2006 9:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. Allendale is a separate core that is designed with only 2MB of cache. It does not have disabled cache.


RE: Confusion
By Goty on 12/19/06, Rating: 0
RE: Confusion
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/19/2006 11:25:38 PM , Rating: 1
We linked to the older article here:
http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4589

But I went back and added the already announced stuff about an hour after the article went up.


RE: Confusion
By VooDooAddict on 12/20/2006 12:18:25 PM , Rating: 1
I thought it also cut the VT functions.


RE: Confusion
By dgrady76 on 12/19/2006 10:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. An appropriatley named and structured product line just makes it easier for the end user to buy your product.

This problem seems to be industry-wide. It doesn't make sense, because the marketing folk work for the engineers, not the other way around.


RE: Confusion
By Spoelie on 12/21/2006 12:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
what, you'd rather have the engineers working for the marketing folk? That happened before, it was called the Pentium 4.

What we need is a marketing department with common sense, that's all.


RE: Confusion
By iwod on 12/20/2006 1:23:48 AM , Rating: 2
I think the confusion is mainly caused by people reading too much into pre release info and roadmap. They are always going to change and therefore not final decision.

If you forget the old roadmap and this new updated roadmap is pretty simple to me.

Basically all E6xxx series get 4MB Cache, 1066 or 1333MHz FSb
E4xxx Series get 2MB Cache and 800MHZ FSB ( Are they suppose to have VM features? )

Qxxx means quad core.

Now the remaining problem is the low end, Celeron? Pentium E ? Core based or still Netburst? I dont think Intel has figure it out yet.


RE: Confusion
By regnez on 12/20/2006 9:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
Not that I ever promote spamming, but this article:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/12/19/Core_2_Duo...

is much more clear on exactly what is going to happen Q2 '07.


Q6600 is freaking expensive...
By Furen on 12/19/2006 5:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see much of a benefit to going for this instead of the extreme edition part. $150 bucks is not a big enough difference in my opinion, especially because the clock will be 10% lower and the multipliers will be locked.




RE: Q6600 is freaking expensive...
By deeznuts on 12/19/2006 6:39:25 PM , Rating: 3
If you are say a small company and you are buying 10 workstations that's $1500 in savings, and there will be no oc'ing.


RE: Q6600 is freaking expensive...
By kamel5547 on 12/19/06, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2006 10:07:01 PM , Rating: 1
> "there are very few desktop apps that will take advantage of four cores efficiently ATM. "

If you're doing anything along the lines of rendering, image processing, transcoding, audiovisual editing, simulation, financial analysis, or scientific processing, odds are your application will already take very good advantage of quad cores.


RE: Q6600 is freaking expensive...
By Orbs on 12/19/2006 7:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an enthusiast and I'm not an overclocker, but $150 is not an insignificant amount. That said, if I'm willing to spend $850, I might be willing to spend $999 too.

It depends if the performance (not clock speed differential) in my usage patterns is reduced by a higher precnetage than the difference in price.


RE: Q6600 is freaking expensive...
By decapitator666 on 12/20/2006 7:54:14 AM , Rating: 2
just wondering which companies overclock their PCs..


RE: Q6600 is freaking expensive...
By JeffDM on 12/21/2006 2:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
There was a mention of small companies. At any rate, I don't think it is worth overclocking computers in a business environment. It's fine to do for gaming computers because it's a hobbyist type of thing to do. Even the slightest risk of additional down time due to overclocking isn't worth it for a business when the computer is handling data that might be expensive to replace, even losing a day's worth of work due to a spurrious reboot is a lot in comparison.


RE: Q6600 is freaking expensive...
By peldor on 12/19/2006 9:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
Then wait until Q2 when the price difference is about $450.


E4xxx series might be come the king of overclock!!
By nurbsenvi on 12/19/2006 6:56:38 PM , Rating: 3
If the yield of Core 2 Duo is good, which I think it is

1.8ghz E4300 could easily be able to overclock to say 2.8ghz and up? low FSB speed is just perfect...

Hopefully this guys come out just in time for my next upgrade along with R600 in GT form I can't wait!!





By slayerized on 12/19/2006 10:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
What does yield got to do with OCing???


By slayerized on 12/20/2006 2:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
There was no need for any animosity here. It was just a simple question that i asked sans any sarcasm. To add in something here, yield is not the only determining factor when it comes to locking parts. There is a process called speed binning which Intel does to segregate parts from the same wafer into different frequency bins. So, if there is any spatial correlation of defects on the wafer, which i am sure there is; then this process is not as simple as yield numbers.


By slayerized on 12/20/2006 6:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just thought people in this forum seem to lack a bit of looseness if you know what I mean...


This is the reason I thought your comment was 'hostile'! Anyway I am not even close to 40..shave 16 off it.


By StevoLincolnite on 12/22/2006 12:31:19 AM , Rating: 3
I'm 11+10% GST. (21).
And there is no need for that language, often a lot of younger children may come to the site.
I often leave my laptop open, displaying the daily tech website, so the last thing I need is to see kids reading that material.
Might be different where you are... But its just not needed!


Missing Conroe CPUs?
By TheRequiem on 12/19/2006 6:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
From what I have seen around the web there is also new mainstream models that support 1333 FSB. They include the E6650, The E6750 and the E6850, with the latter the first to break the 3ghz barrier for a Core Duo processor. Should be nice to see what those are capable of.




RE: Missing Conroe CPUs?
By Goty on 12/19/2006 8:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you actually scroll down the page a bit and read, the E6850 and E6750 are both there while the E6650 was renamed as the E6550.


RE: Missing Conroe CPUs?
By TheRequiem on 12/19/2006 11:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah they are now... When I first read the statement (and I do read the entire news posts, unlike others who comment) Those processors WERE NOT there. They are now, after I mentioned it.

Thanks for the concern however.


RE: Missing Conroe CPUs?
By Goty on 12/20/06, Rating: 0
yay
By plonk420 on 12/19/2006 11:03:03 PM , Rating: 3
i for one applaud the competition... been building and preaching AMD since my last Intel system, a P2-333 (first system of my own, let alone the first i ever built). can't wait to build a C2D system of my own (other than worrying about memory). intel's decent one-upping of AMD made the "slightly better than you" race a little more interesting again ;)




RE: yay
By StevoLincolnite on 12/22/2006 12:34:37 AM , Rating: 3
I actually enjoyed the Race to 1ghz, Pentium 3 VS Athlon.
It surprised me, how much each company changed something in the processor, just to give it the edge on the other company.

Not to mention the price battle!
And If I recall correctly, AMD won the race to 1ghz didn't they?
Glad Intel have bounced back, Now let the games begin!
And lower the prices! :P


I love it.
By B166ER on 12/20/2006 12:12:16 AM , Rating: 5
Can you really complain about having more options??? I do realize that it does make things more complicated in a sense, but I'd rather have choices than not have choices, even if there were a few choices to begin with. By covering a whole range of price points Intel makes themselves a fiscal juggernaut, and leaves AMD to step, no, JUMP up if they can. Unfortunately it might lead to the another Intel stronghold where the quality of the products drop (read: Netburst), but, if history does indeed repeat itself, then it gives DAMMIT a chance to regain market share. Yeah, gotta love options...




FSB
By Etern205 on 12/19/2006 10:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
Why can't Intel make their quad cores with a
1333FSB?
Are they planning to run a octo-core with 1333FSB instead?
:o




RE: FSB
By webdawg77 on 12/20/2006 8:18:49 AM , Rating: 2
They do. They are in the higher end of 5300 series Xeon CPU's :) *2 GHz+*


Question
By Dfere on 12/20/2006 8:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
I have not been following the quad core buzz recently. Can anyone give me a brief rundown of the main bottleneck for SOHO or gaming rigs and Quad core? I know most regular apps are not written for anything like this yet. I am talking hardware. Thanks.




RE: Question
By therealnickdanger on 12/20/2006 10:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about about bottlenecks, but the Q-core CPUs sacrifice some frames due to their lower clock-speed. So for the "OMGXTREEM!!1" gamer who needs 145fps instead of 122fps in Quake4 is more likely to purchase a higher-clocked dual-core. However, despite the current shortage or multi-threaded games, there are quite a few on the horizon and patches being devised for current ones. I've got an E6300 C2D which is more than enough for me until UT2K7 drops, then I'll snag a "low-end" quad-core and drop it in.


wow e6400 FOR WHAT?????
By ipwn on 12/21/2006 12:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
so this basically means because i bought a e6400 this month for nothing because 1. it will drop about 40 bucks soon, 2. it has a 2mb cache!

that is retarded to put a 4mb cache on the e6420! i lost 2mb cache because i felt like it was a good time to buy a E-series processor.





RE: wow e6400 FOR WHAT?????
By Tedtalker1 on 12/22/2006 6:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the new chips will be locked and you'll be glad you bought when you did.


$113 fit my budget nicely
By rqle on 12/19/2006 5:56:55 PM , Rating: 1
Ill be very happy if E4300 can reach 2.4ghz, should relieve my pain of tryin to get my athlon up to 2.9ghz to match roommate 2.4ghz intel.




RE: $113 fit my budget nicely
By jackalsmith on 12/20/2006 9:43:37 AM , Rating: 2
I've already seen the e4300 pass 3.5 ghz on air.


RE: $113 fit my budget nicely
By nurbsenvi on 12/20/06, Rating: -1
Q2/2007 Pricing?
By Griswold on 12/20/2006 7:14:00 AM , Rating: 1
Where did you get that Q2/2007 pricing from? I've first seen this at HKEPC and still think its humbug. Having such a information leak in a company like Intel is troublesome at best and harms the quarter figures bottom line at worst, which makes this hard to believe.

HKEPC has their usual "mobo makers" as source for this.

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=714230&sta...




RE: Q2/2007 Pricing?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/20/2006 10:50:26 AM , Rating: 1
The 1,000 unit pricing is published in Intel's WW update roadmaps. These are the roadmaps the company distributes to its partners, and are not the actual internal roadmaps. Some would say these roadmaps are actually seeded, but that's another story.

If you look back, DailyTech (and even AnandTech when I used to work there) has a long history of divulging the pricing from these roadmaps.


5ghz on Air
By jackalsmith on 12/20/06, Rating: -1
RE: 5ghz on Air
By kg4alb on 12/20/2006 10:17:34 AM , Rating: 3
What the hell are you talking about?


RE: 5ghz on Air
By nurbsenvi on 12/20/2006 4:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
5000Thz on carbon nanotube cooler easy. 60000Thz on quad stage

2sec 1million pornsites

100m 9dm 2080


RE: 5ghz on Air
By Hoser McMoose on 12/20/2006 11:25:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
2sec 1million pornsites


Sweet damn! What program did you use to benchmark that though? I mean, the speed of browsing porn is probably the most important performance metric out there for most of us geeks, but I've been looking high and low for reviews that bench this. Sadly no one seems to care about this critical measure of processor performance!


RE: 5ghz on Air
By Borat Sagdiyev on 12/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: 5ghz on Air
By encryptkeeper on 12/21/2006 12:45:33 PM , Rating: 1
I care...oh yes, I care.


RE: 5ghz on Air
By StevoLincolnite on 12/22/06, Rating: 0
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles
"Conroe" Refresh Details Unveiled
October 17, 2006, 2:05 PM
Intel Q4 Desktop & Server Launch Plans
September 21, 2006, 8:17 PM













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