backtop


Print 10 comment(s) - last by DeepBlue1975.. on May 2 at 9:47 AM

With the G0 stepping of the Kentsfield CPU core, Intel will lower the TDP of several quad-core products by 10W.

Intel recently notified its customers about a future stepping change of several quad-core processors based on the Kentsfield core. Current Xeon X3220 and X3210 processors as well as the Core 2 Quad Q6600 model are based on the CPU core codenamed Kentsfield (consisting of two Conroe dice combined to a multi-chip module) in B3 stepping. Their TDP is currently specified ad 105W.

In the PCN 107463-00 Intel explains that on the 16th of July the company will be able to supply a new G0 stepping of this core which allows to cut the TDP down to 95W. This allows the use of the new CPUs in environments qualified for the "2005 Mainstream FMB" (up to 95W) as opposed to the "2005 Performance FMB" (up to 130W).

Apart from the fact that the new CPUs will feature different CPUIDs and S-spec codes, Intel doesn't expect any impact on customers, as the featureset remains unchanged and electrical, mechanical and thermal specifications remain within current specifications. A BIOS update will be required to recognize the new CPU.


Comments     Threshold


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

should run cooler = better oc
By theteamaqua on 4/28/2007 5:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
should run cooler = better oc ... i am hoping to get Q6600 at Q3 when it drops price... is there any way to tell what stepping it without open it??




RE: should run cooler = better oc
By vze4z7nx on 4/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: should run cooler = better oc
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/28/2007 8:12:24 PM , Rating: 5
The reason the Pentium D was a problem was because of the Netburst architecture. It had nothing to do with having 2 die on a single package. In fact, AMD and Intel both state that multi packaging their chips is the best way to go -- the latencies are low, the costs are cheaper and the defect rate is lower (you can just throw out part of the chip).


RE: should run cooler = better oc
By someguy123 on 4/28/2007 10:01:33 PM , Rating: 3
exactly

not exactly sure what he ment by "real quad" when two die on a single chip is quad and probably better than multisocket solutions due to lower latencies, unless he ment a double socket motherboard with two duals...but then again with that logic two dualcore would be "fake" dualcore so it'd have to be a four socket motherboard.

anyway the Q6600 and future core2duo quads look to be great buys unless AMD comes up with something soon.


RE: should run cooler = better oc
By Ratwar on 4/28/2007 10:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
It is quite simple, he meant that he is an AMD fanboy who can only take comfort in bashing Intel for using a different setup for Quad cores (which he deems less worthy than AMD's setup, even though their real world performance hasn't been measured on the record yet) because his chosen company currently lacks the performance crown.

This state of mind (some would call it his disease) is closely associated with overpaying for computer hardware, but the exact reason for this remains unknown.


RE: should run cooler = better oc
By Shintai on 4/29/2007 6:20:51 AM , Rating: 2
I just take the one with the highest performance. true quadcore or not. I dont care, only about performance and power consumption.


By mountcarlmore on 4/28/2007 10:26:23 PM , Rating: 3
what he meant by "real" quad is four cores on one die... regardless, two or one dies, it makes no real difference.


By DeepBlue1975 on 5/2/2007 9:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
Nevertheless, I think he has a point.
I wouldn't by a Kentsfield based QC when penryn is supposed to be just around the corner and will include several architectural enhancements.

When Penryn comes out, if Barcelona IS out (AMD is having quite a hard time to get their launches on a timely fashion... a real pitty, as if this continues, we'll have no competition at all as for what CPU market matters), I'll get the best performing part (well, at least if the "money delta" isn't way too higher than the performance delta, I'm no millionaire, unfortunately for me :D :D ).

If Barcelona isn't out, I'll get the best one between Penryn and Kentsfield, as my 2 year-old, single core machine is asking for an upgrade and I couldn't wait AMD for ever just to see if it brings something competitive (I'm optimistically assuming that Barcelona will be competitive to what Intel has going out of the oven by then, but this assumption of mine could turn to be quite wrong)


RE: should run cooler = better oc
By gus6464 on 4/29/2007 5:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by vze4z7nx on April 28, 2007 at 7:40 PM

Don't get the Q6600.

Remember the Pentium D's? They were supposed to create a revolution in PC performance when multitasking but didn't quite do that. In other words, why is a Pentium D worse than an Intel Core 2 Duo in multitasking? Because the Pentium D was built the same way as the Q6600 - two chips on one die.

Wait for a "real" quad-core and get it in Q3 of 2007.


I smell a fanboy.


RE: should run cooler = better oc
By Roy2001 on 4/30/2007 6:42:11 PM , Rating: 3
I only trust benchmarks, not AMD's hyped statement. Benchmarks would tell the whole story.

Fanboy = unreasonable purchase + overpay.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Latest By Marcus Pollice
AMD Talks Details on K10
April 14, 2007, 11:46 AM
Intel Readies Merom-L Core
April 7, 2007, 9:16 PM
NVIDIA Holds Back "G84, G86" Cards
March 23, 2007, 7:08 PM
CeBIT 2007: GeForce 8600 Spotted
March 14, 2007, 1:19 PM
NVIDIA Not Present CeBIT
February 25, 2007, 7:36 PM
NVIDIA's Current Driver Mess
February 12, 2007, 7:32 AM













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