DailyTech - Intel Readies 1600 MHz Front-Side Bus Xeons

Submit News

Hardware Intel Readies 1600 MHz Front-Side Bus Xeons
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - August 29, 2007 6:36 PM

40 comment(s) - last by ceefka.. on Aug 31 at 5:51 AM

Three new Xeons added to the Q4 launch lineup

Intel’s latest roadmap reveals three new Penryn based Xeon models with a higher front-side bus speed – 1600 MHz. The three new 1600 MHz front-side bus processors are available in dual-core and quad-core models. Quad-core Xeon E5472 and E5462 are the first quad-core models to receive the 1600 MHz front-side bus treatment.

The Xeon E5472 features a 3.0 GHz clock speed while the E5462 features a 2.8 GHz clock speed. These models feature 80-watt thermal ratings as designated with the E moniker. Intel plans to release these 1600 MHz front-side bus processors in Q4 2007 with the rest of the Penryn family.

Pricing for the 1600 MHz front-side bus processor starts at $797 for the E5462 and $958 for the E5472, per processor, in 1,000 unit quantities. As far as pricing goes, the Xeon E5472 slots below the 3.16 GHz X5460 while the E5462 slots below the 3.0 GHz, E5450.

Intel has one 1600 MHz dual-core Penryn based Xeon processor ready for launch – the E5272. The Xeon E5272 features a 3.4 GHz clock speed and is priced at $1,172. Intel has also pulled in the launch of all dual-core Xeon processors to Q4 2007, with the quad-core processors. The dual-core Xeon E5260 and E5205 will also launch in Q4, not the Q1 2008 date earlier roadmaps showed.

Intel 1600 MHz front-side bus Xeon processors will drop into the upcoming Seaburg chipset. Seaburg features support for dual PCIe 2.0 x16 slots and up to 128GB of memory.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

RE: Intel Intel Intel...

By StevoLincolnite on 8/29/2007 11:51:16 PM , Rating: 2

Its no where near the same, the Athlon and the Pentium 3 were incredibly competitive, and as AMD and Intel got closer to the 1ghz mark that competitiveness grew, As of late its been pretty one sided.

Parent

RE: Intel Intel Intel...

By mindless1 on 8/30/2007 2:51:55 AM , Rating: 4

No, it's been quite competitive. The winner is not the one who has the faster part at any given moment, it's the one who has the offering most of the market wants. That's the sub-$200 processor market, and in that Intel only has a select few processors worth having, with practically no performance advantage until they're overclocked. Overclocking, they are clear victors, but the average consumer isn't going to take advantage of that difference.

Also, the Athlon and P3 weren't all that competitive, recall that Intel tried to push their coppermine process to 1.13GHz which was later proven instable, just to attempt to keep up. Recall also they then tried to counter with the P4 which in early models had such poor performance that there was a class action lawsuit about it.

What I just wrote could be misconstrued, P3 was a fine processor for it's time and I'd have rather had one than an Athlon in the <=1GHz speeds. There was a difference though in that Intel was wearing the other shoe, they were the ones trying to keep up at that point, stretching their current product until they could get the next gen out the door. Today, that's what AMD is doing.

We keep trying to think in terms of company X vs Y, but it's really just a timetable upon which their own development dictates the future except for the pricing. Once we consider the pricing, we're back to my original comment that most people are looking for low cost systems, in which a post $150 CPU is a luxury for email, web surfing, office, etc.

Parent

RE: Intel Intel Intel...

By Spoelie on 8/30/2007 5:22:16 AM , Rating: 2

I'd rather have a thunderbird tho at those speeds, their fpu speed was phenomenal.. You're right that pre-thunderbird vs coppermine, the P3 was the better processor tho.

Parent

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs