backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 18 comment(s) - last by glennpratt.. on Jan 31 at 12:24 PM
Notebook users will be introduced to Intel's high-end brand

Intel expects to introduce its high-end Core 2 Extreme branding to notebooks in Q3’2007 according to the latest roadmap. The upcoming Core 2 Extreme X7800 uses the same Merom core used by the Core 2 Duo mobile family of processors. Intel’s Core 2 Extreme X7800 will arrive clocked at 2.6 GHz, operate on an 800 MHz front-side bus and feature 4MB of L2 cache like the rest of the Core 2 Duo family. Intel technologies such as VT, EIST, EM64T and XD/NX bit are supported, though Intel has removed support for Intel Dynamic Acceleration.

Core 2 Extreme mobile
Processor
Number 		Core
Frequency 		Bus
Frequency 		L2
Cache
X7800 2.60GHz 800MHz 4MB
X7900 2.80GHz 800MHz 4MB

The Core 2 Extreme X7800 for mobile will remain at the top of Intel’s chain of mobile processors until the upcoming Core 2 Extreme X7900 dethrones it in Q4’2007. This new model clocks at a high 2.8 GHz while retaining the same feature-set as the Core 2 Extreme X7800. These processors are only available for socket P only, unlike the Core 2 Duo product family which features socket P and BGA packaged chips.

Core 2 Duo T7000-series
Processor
Number 		Core
Frequency 		Bus
Frequency 		L2
Cache
T7800 2.60GHz 800MHz 4MB
T7250 2.00GHz 800MHz 2MB

Joining the Core 2 Extreme X7900 in Q4’2007 is two new Core 2 Duo processors. As the Core 2 Extreme X7900 takes the flagship spot, Intel will release the Core 2 Duo T7800. The Core 2 Duo T7800 is identical to the Core 2 Extreme X7800, with the addition of Intel Dynamic Acceleration support. On the mainstream side of things, Intel will release the Core 2 Duo T7250 in Q4’2007 as well. This model is similar to the current Core 2 Duo T7300 except the L2 cache is halved to 2MB. The 2.0 GHz clock speed and 800 MHz front-side bus is identical to the Core 2 Duo T7300.

Expect Intel to pull the wraps off of its Core 2 Duo Extreme X7800 for notebooks in Q3’2007 with a $795 per-unit in 1,000-unit quantities price tag.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
OC
By Uncle C on 1/30/2007 6:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
Are these mobiles producing better performance per watt than their desktop counter parts?
If so, the overclocking community will have much rejoicing as the entire product line comes out.





RE: OC
By JoKeRr on 1/30/2007 7:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Intel was going to release Penryn in 2H of 2007, but those new mobile CPUs are based on Mermom core, so what's going on? Is the Penryn family (45nm chips) only going to be introduced for desktop & server in 07 or what?


RE: OC
By IntelUser2000 on 1/30/2007 8:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I thought Intel was going to release Penryn in 2H of 2007, but those new mobile CPUs are based on Mermom core, so what's going on? Is the Penryn family (45nm chips) only going to be introduced for desktop & server in 07 or what?


Typical timeline difference between two process technologies is at least 24 months. It has never been shorter than that for the longest time. Penryn based cores are coming at earliest Q4 2007, mobile versions will come later.


RE: OC
By miahallen on 1/31/2007 7:48:25 AM , Rating: 2
You must have missed the part about these chips being release for the socket P platform. Even if they were good OCers, we'd need a good OCing socket P mobo to find out.


Why?
By pauldovi on 1/30/2007 6:07:08 PM , Rating: 1
Buying the X7800 over the T7800 is like buying the extra-large drink when you get free refills...




RE: Why?
By Furen on 1/30/2007 6:18:17 PM , Rating: 3
The x7800 will be available one quarter before the t7800. After that the x7900 will be released.


RE: Why?
By rippleyaliens on 1/30/2007 8:31:51 PM , Rating: 3
Not when the boss is buying.


CPUs = GPUs?
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 1/30/2007 6:55:26 PM , Rating: 4
Anyone else starting to think that the latest CPU line-ups from both AMD and Intel are starting to get as confusing as GPU lineupes?

I mean for Intel we got the following for the regular user (to my knowledge):

quote:
Core 2 Quad
Core 2 Duo E6---
Core 2 Duo E4---
Core 2 Solo
Pentium E----
Celeron


And god knows between the different AMD cores that are numbered numbered the same (3800+ as the best example with three different cores).

I already gave up trying to keep track of the performance/price/etc of the GPU market, but the CPU market is following closely behind.

-------
Chillin




RE: CPUs = GPUs?
By Macuser89 on 1/30/2007 8:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed...

thats the same same thing I am beginning to see. They need to make the naming a little easier so i don't have to pull out a chart to see what processors the best.


RE: CPUs = GPUs?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/30/2007 9:08:30 PM , Rating: 1
Great observation. I've actually had people inside AMD and Intel both comment on this too.

Personally, I don't know why a lot of these companies don't follow the way cars are branded/named -- especially in the GPU market where there really are only a couple ASICs and everything else is just partner branding. For example, we could have the 2007 GeForce Hydrogen GPU, then the 2008, etc etc.

But then again I just write about this stuff. I'm sure there's good reasons some of this stuff is named the way it is.


Typo??
By IntelUser2000 on 1/30/2007 8:37:59 PM , Rating: 1
First it says:
quote:
Intel’s Core 2 Extreme X7800 will arrive clocked at 2.6 GHz, operate on an 800 MHz front-side bus and feature 4MB of L2 cache like the rest of the Core 2 Duo family. Intel technologies such as VT, EIST, EM64T and NX bit are supported, though Intel has removed support for Intel Dynamic Acceleration.

Then this:
quote:
The Core 2 Duo T7800 is identical to the Core 2 Extreme X7800, with the exception of Intel Dynamic Acceleration support.

Why couldn't they just say X7800 is equal to T7800?? Is it done purposefully to be the worst news report site on the internet??




RE: Typo??
By Anh Huynh on 1/30/2007 8:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
The Core 2 Duo T7800 has IDA.


RE: Typo??
By IntelUser2000 on 1/30/2007 9:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why couldn't they just say X7800 is equal to T7800?? Is it done purposefully to be the worst news report site on the internet??


Thanks for the reply Anh. But your wording seems it could work the either way.


NX bit...
By MDme on 1/30/2007 6:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually NX bit is an AMD name. It should be called XD (eXecute Disable) which is what Intel calls this feature.




RE: NX bit...
By glennpratt on 1/31/2007 12:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sun and AMD have called it NX for years. AMD processors aren't even the only ones. This is the same bull as EMT64 really, it's just petty marketeering and there is no reason the general public need listen to it.


Useful additions.....
By crystal clear on 1/31/2007 10:13:07 AM , Rating: 2
"Notebook users will be introduced to Intel's high-end brand"

Unquote-

On this subject goood to note the following-

"New Intel wireless solution likely to become mainstream in notebooks"

Intel's recently launched wireless network card based on draft 802.11n wireless specifications is expected to become the mainstream built-in WLAN technology for notebooks, as well as push sales of draft-n devices in 2007, according to market sources.

Napa platform-based notebooks launched by the end of January and new notebooks launched with the upcoming Santa Rosa platform all are expected to come with Intel's Wireless-N technology, said the sources.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20070131PD215.html




Mobile quad-core!
By therealnickdanger on 1/31/2007 10:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
I don't need a faster dual-core, I need more cores!




T7800 vs. X7800 TDPs
By geforcefly on 1/31/2007 11:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... makes me wonder about the TDP between the two 7800s. T7800 = 34.0W, X7800 = 75.0W? That would be a major difference (remember the letter indicates TDP) at the same clock speed.




"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki