backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on Jul 23 at 11:49 PM

Intel gears up for AMD's Barcelona launch with a slew of new quad-core CPUs

Hot on the heels of the second generation Intel Core 2 Duo launch, an internal memo began making the rounds with Intel's 45nm Xeon core frequencies. 

These 45nm Xeons, based on the Penryn generation of processors, also feature the 1333 MHz front-side bus found on the new Core 2 Duo stepping.  Each die features 6MB of L2 cache -- giving the two dice quad-core Harpertown Xeons a total of 12MB of L2 cache

45nm Quad-Core Xeons
Model
Core
Frequency
TDP
FSB L2 Cache
X54603.16 GHz 120W1333 MHz
12MB
E54503.00 GHz 80W 1333 MHz
12MB
E5440
2.83 GHz 80W 1333 MHz
12MB
E54302.66 GHz 80W 1333 MHz
12MB
E5420
2.50 GHz 80W 1333 MHz
12MB
E54102.33 GHz 80W 1333 MHz
12MB
E5405
??? 80W???
12MB
L54302.66 GHz 50W 1333 MHz
12MB
L5410
2.33 GHz 50W 1333 MHz
12MB

Unlike the desktop roadmap, dual-core Xeons take a more auxiliary role.  Intel only laid out plans for three dual-core SKUs at launch; one of which is a low-power CPU.  These dual-core 45nm processors, dubbed Wolfdale, will only consist of a small amount of shipped 45nm Xeon processors.

Intel also uses the Wolfdale codename to describe dual-core 45nm desktop offerings.

45nm Dual-Core Xeons
Model
Core
Frequency
TDP
FSB L2 Cache
E52603.33 GHz 65W1333 MHz
6MB
E52051.86 GHz 65W 1066 MHz
6MB
L5250
3.16 GHz 40W 1333 MHz
6MB

One Intel engineer, who asked to not be named, claimed this focus on quad-core is a typical reaction to the market in general.  "In the server space, there isn't much need for dual-core when we can go quad ... If your [applications] are threaded, there's no reason to use two cores when four are available."

Intel did not release pricing on the new Xeons, but comparable 65nm CPUs are expected to get as low as $266 over the next few weeks when Intel officially cuts prices on all its existing dual and quad-core processors.

The next-generation AMD Barcelona family is expected to directly compete with the Intel 45nm quad-core Xeons.  AMD is expected to launch Barcelona in the last week of August, with top-out frequencies of 2.0 GHz.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Holy consumption!
By Operandi on 7/16/2007 1:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The X5640 looks quite tasty, but 120W TDP? I know at 45nm it would reduce heat, but not sure how much at 120w!


120 watts peak if you manage to load all four cores to 100%. Under lower loads the power consumption will be far more reasonable.


RE: Holy consumption!
By omnicronx on 7/16/2007 1:56:24 PM , Rating: 1
still the jump of 0.13ghz does not justify the 40w tdp difference. It could theoretically also draw up to 1/3 more power even not at idle. Although with intels stupid tdp system they probably measure the tdp by the average of the whole series of cpu's (excluding the X version) so the chances are the 3ghz version draws a higher tdp than it is rated.

also on another not.. i doubt quad cores will overclock as easily is dual core systems. 4 cores = more incosistancies between cores.


RE: Holy consumption!
By Thorburn on 7/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Holy consumption!
By omnicronx on 7/16/2007 3:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
Heh i am in no way disputing the way tdp is rated or what it means. What i am saying is the way intel measures their tdp between different models is flawed.

and the point i was trying to get across is the 40wtdp for a 0.13ghz increase makes no sense, the meaning of tdp aside, the processor with 120tdp will probably draw more power than its 80tdp counterpart. just go look at wiki :
quote:
The TDP is typically set not to be the most power the chip could ever draw , but rather the maximum power that it would draw when running real applications


RE: Holy consumption!
By Thorburn on 7/16/2007 3:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
It makes sense in the sense that VR-Zone's numbers aren't accurate.

Of course people are right in saying that with TDP being set at certain levels (eg. 50w, 80w, 120w) that even if its only 1 or 2w above it goes up to the next grade, the actual rating isn't given (and this allows say a core which would be marginal for an 85w TDP to still fit comfortably within the 120w window).

What is wrong is saying that a chip will draw above its TDP, and as for that Wikipedia quote, I'd dispute it.


RE: Holy consumption!
By omnicronx on 7/16/2007 4:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
and thats why i did not want to get into tdp ;) every source I have seen has something different to say.

but as far as i understand it, a chip can draw above its tdp as they never give out the maximum draw (whether or be over a millisecond or a minute).

i think what you are basing your statement on is sustained wattage not burst. so in effect a 80wtdp chip will at load over a period of time handle up to 80wtdp safely but could burst higher.


RE: Holy consumption!
By PlasmaBomb on 7/16/2007 5:26:56 PM , Rating: 4
Intel stat that there TDP is "Not 100% tested. Specified by design/characterization." It is what is expected to be consumed at 100% load under specified conditions.


RE: Holy consumption!
By Shintai on 7/16/2007 5:32:26 PM , Rating: 1
Ye right, you cant find a single P-M, Core or Core 2 that is even near their TDP under max load. The only ones you can is the P4s.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2...

And this is even with the VRM aswell.


RE: Holy consumption!
By GlassHouse69 on 7/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: Holy consumption!
By Hawkido on 7/18/2007 1:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't Intel advertise Average Load TDP Ratings, whereas, AMD always uses Full Load TDP Ratings. That's what I have been told. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true the the TDP could be Higher under Max Load.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














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