backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by Targon.. on Aug 24 at 5:26 AM

Intel prepares boxed quad-core "Penryn" based Xeon processors for November 11

Intel has set the launch date for its Penryn based quad-core Xeon processor family. The company intends to launch seven new Harpertown based models ranging from 2.0-to-3.16 GHz on November 11, according to a posting on Intel’s reseller webpage. Standard “E” bin and performance “X” bin processors launch on November 11.

Intel Xeon processors carrying the “E” designation feature 80-watt TDP ratings while the “X” bin processors have higher 120-watt TDP ratings. Intel does not plan to launch the low-power “L” models until Q1’08, with two models in the pipeline. 

Strangely, Intel never issued a formal announcement for the launch of Penryn nor has the November 11 date showed up on roadmaps. Instead, the launch date popped up on a public webpage for resellers.

Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP

Model
Core
Frequency
TDP
L2 Cache
Launch Price

X54603.16 GHz 120W12MB
$1,172

E54503.00 GHz 80W12MB
$851
E5440
2.83 GHz 80W 12MB
$690
E54302.66 GHz 80W12MB
$455
E5420
2.50 GHz 80W12MB
$316
E54102.33 GHz 80W 12MB
$256
E5405
2.00 GHz
80W12MB
$209

Pricing for Penryn-based Intel Xeon processors begin at $209 for the entry-level E5405 to $1,172 for the top-end X5460. Although Intel set the launch dates for quad-core Xeon based Penryn processors, the company remains silent on the launch date of the desktop and mobile counterparts.

Intel’s Penryn architecture is the next evolution of the Core 2 micro architecture that made its debut with Woodcrest and Conroe processors. Penryn introduces a 45nm fabrication process with a few additional performance enhancements. Most notably, Penryn introduces new SSE4 instructions for enhanced multimedia performance.


Comments     Threshold


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

overboard
By omnicronx on 8/14/2007 6:17:21 PM , Rating: -1
anyone else think 12MB cache is a little much




RE: overboard
By afkrotch on 8/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: overboard
By Targon on 8/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: overboard
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 6:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With the B2 stepping able to hit 3GHz, it is possible that AMD could move up their launch of Phenom X4 to steal Intel's thunder. We shall see how it goes.

Has this been confirmed by any reliable sources? I think you're engaging in idle daydreaming.


RE: overboard
By deeznuts on 8/14/2007 6:58:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Has this been confirmed by any reliable sources? I think you're engaging in idle daydreaming.
Last I heard of a Barsy 3.0 it was one machine which nobody was allowed to touch. Has this changed?


RE: overboard
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/14/2007 7:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Some people were allowed to use the machines. But they were not allowed to benchmark on it.


RE: overboard
By TheDoc9 on 8/14/2007 9:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
I've been out of the Intel loop, what does this processor do that justifies the $1200 vs. the $300 Q6600?


RE: overboard
By retrospooty on 8/14/2007 10:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
Its a server CPU. This is not the retail desktop processor.


RE: overboard
By darkpaw on 8/15/2007 9:09:36 AM , Rating: 2
The real question is what does it do over the other much cheaper Xeon processors from the same family. Short answer is its only slightly faster. The likely market for these overpriced but only slightly faster processors is for rendering/CAD systems. Every little bit will increase performance, and the additional few grand spent on processors is nothing compared to the tens of thousands spent on the software running on those systems.

If you can spend a bit more on the hardware and get more out of the software its a good investment.


RE: overboard
By MonkeyPaw on 8/14/2007 8:33:27 PM , Rating: 3
AMD also reportedly used a different 3.0ghz K10 in a demo in Japan, so there are at least 2 of them out there. ;)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/200708130...

That would be something if AMD could almost match Intel in clockspeed (and IPC, of course) being an entire process behind. My guess is that Intel is being conservative with their launch with room for faster quad cores later on. I guess how much faster depends on how much more IPC penryn has over conroe, and that looks to hinge on the adoption of SSE4. I can see encoding software quickly being adjusted for SSE4 to make penryn look better.


RE: overboard
By lompocus on 8/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: overboard
By Amiga500 on 8/15/2007 3:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say it limits AMD to a small market niche at all.

How many universities are there that do HPC work [be it engineering, maths or computer science]? engineering companies? Medical companies?

While media decoding may be of more use to the desktop market, I'm not sure whether it gets widespread use on servers.

Rendering doesn't rely on SSE4 does it? Even media companies might not see a significant need to get a Penryn over a K10.


RE: overboard
By 16nm on 8/15/2007 12:45:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
How many universities are there that do HPC work [be it engineering, maths or computer science]? engineering companies? Medical companies?


Not many. That's a very small piece of the market. Then again, AMD are very small compared to the behemoth that we like to call Chipzilla. So if they can corner this part of the market then it does them good.


RE: overboard
By Setsunayaki on 8/15/2007 4:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
To add on to what you said....

When you overclock, you are also stating that you want more pipelines to be filled by the higher bus frequencies....In order for processors to do more and more...One needs higher caches to keep those pipelines fed...

One proof of cache performance is the overclocking performance....an E6300 at 3ghz ends up in some benchmarks doing as well as a E6700...and when overclocked to say 500 x 7 for 3.5ghz, your performance gets limited by present L2 cache...

The extra 2MB of cache actually allowed performance to increase by as much as 10% of many applications. The presence was important.....the E6320s overclocked beat out the X6800 because of the same cache and higher clock speed achieved overclocked.

Xeon Processors are for servers and the cache is extremely important because of the high level of Input/Output operations that a server must make per second dealing with many clients simultaneosly.

Now I would like to see AMD release their Desktop Quad Core Processor because I want to see a Quad Core price war with Intel. ^_^


RE: overboard
By Falloutboy on 8/14/2007 6:25:19 PM , Rating: 3
not for a serverchip these are xeons.

but at 45nm I'm sure intel has a bit more diespace to playwith but would be surprised the desktop chips have this much


RE: overboard
By TomZ on 8/14/2007 6:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
anyone else think 12MB cache is a little much

For quad-core, I think it's good. I'm also sure Intel simulated different cache sizes to arrive at the 12MB size.


RE: overboard
By Jason Clark on 8/14/2007 6:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
When you are bound by your front side bus, you want to stay as far away from memory as you can... thus larger cache.


RE: overboard
By Anonymous Freak on 8/14/2007 7:16:11 PM , Rating: 1
Yes indeed. I can't wait for CSI to come out and alleviate some of the FSB issues. At least they are finally putting each socket on its own bus. (Yeah, it was in mid '06, but it was a long time coming.)


RE: overboard
By Targon on 8/15/2007 7:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
That is pretty much what I said in my post that was knocked down to a 0. Without an integrated memory controller, to keep the CPU happy, Intel processors NEED the huge caches we are seeing here. The Integrated memory controller that AMD uses improves the access to memory by such a large amount that a huge cache size isn't needed(though cache is still faster and will improve performance).


RE: overboard
By sonoran on 8/14/2007 7:39:24 PM , Rating: 5
Just an amusing historical footnote - the original IBM PC had a 10MB hard drive. That's smaller than the cache on these chips. ;)


RE: overboard
By Polynikes on 8/14/2007 8:26:56 PM , Rating: 1
That's pretty funny.


RE: overboard
By Alpha4 on 8/14/2007 8:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
Haha. Too true. The thought of that much cache conjures up memories of my 486dx2 with 12MB of PC66 SD-ram.


RE: overboard
By deeznuts on 8/15/2007 12:52:07 PM , Rating: 2
I had a computer where my dad's college professor colleague came over and doubled the ram on our computer. I was a very very young fool back then, and the computer was a bit dated, but let's just say I believe he doubled it to like 128K or something.


RE: overboard
By bhigh on 8/15/2007 1:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
It was plain old DRAM or EDO DRAM in the 486 days. SDRAM wasn't available until about 1997, well into the Pentium and K6 days.

My 90 MHz P5 used EDO DRAM, my 200 MHz K6 had SDRAM.


RE: overboard
By boffo on 8/14/2007 11:28:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Just an amusing historical footnote - the original IBM PC had a 10MB hard drive. That's smaller than the cache on these chips. ;)


Not true, and it's even more extreme than that. You're thinking of the PC-XT, which was the second generation. The first IBM PC only had a couple of 5.25" floppy drives. Oh, those were the days.


RE: overboard
By Regs on 8/15/2007 12:02:55 AM , Rating: 3
It is scary. I only wonder what the future brings. Nano's and data traveling through light (photons) and what not. Maybe then can we make man travel to mars possible.

Then of course colonize mars with research labs. Then opening up portals and gateways for extra-dimensional travel. Of course...hell will then start to take over so we can't go too fast.


RE: overboard
By wordsworm on 8/15/2007 12:09:48 AM , Rating: 2
Or better yet... remember the movie Weird Science? Who cares about traveling to Mars. What's the big deal in that?


RE: overboard
By porkpie on 8/15/2007 7:45:25 AM , Rating: 4
Fantasizing about running off a few copies of Kelly LeBrock on our inkjet printer, are we?


RE: overboard
By Polynikes on 8/15/2007 6:49:50 PM , Rating: 3
As long as our fearless hero from Doom 3 is there on Mars to stop the incoming invasion... :D


RE: overboard
By erikejw on 8/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: overboard
By nofumble62 on 8/15/2007 12:21:06 AM , Rating: 2
Large cache, larger task.

How many larger tasks do you encounter? Don't know. But there are 4 cores that need to be fed constantly. A farmer can tell you that you don't want to carry food for a herd in a small container, or you will need many trips back and forth.

This is the reason why AMD has not achieved any performance gain with their large memory bandwidth yet.


RE: overboard
By uzum4ki on 8/15/2007 7:03:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
This is the reason why AMD has not achieved any performance gain with their large memory bandwidth yet.

While cache may make a large difference in latency on Intel's chips, it's less of a concern on AMD's due to the on-die memory controller. I therefore call shens on you, /gg sir.


RE: overboard
By maroon1 on 8/15/2007 12:43:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
While cache may make a large difference in latency on Intel's chips


Really ?!

Have you read this article
http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Sheds+Light+on+Penr...

Intel upcoming "Penryn" will have faster cache, and it will have lower latency than the current processors.


RE: overboard
By uzum4ki on 8/15/2007 6:28:10 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps I should have said "cache size" and if the newer cache is faster, that's fantastic, I plan on getting one at release. However your reply is irrelevant to my comment as it is still true that on AMDs chips, cache size is less of a concern.


RE: overboard
By akyp on 8/14/2007 11:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
640kB RAM was considered too much, once upon a time.


RE: overboard
By sirius4k on 8/15/2007 1:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
LOL ^^ That is correct.

Let's just stop those too-much posts, shall we ? :)

There's never too much processing power
There's never too much memory
There's never too much dataspace
There's never too much graphics power
Specially when it comes to serving hundreds/thousands of ppl. M'kay?
And we ARE discussing about Intels heavyweight-class here.

Just because some of you surf in internet, read your everyday mail, watch movies and occasionally play maybe even Solitare doesn't mean that something out there that has much much more power then your machine does, is pointless.

People who think like that are holding back the evolution of technology :P
And that's no good.<EOF>


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles
Intel Prices "Penryn" Xeons
July 17, 2007, 4:06 PM













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