Print 69 comment(s) - last by jlewis223.. on Oct 10 at 2:52 PM

Intel's Extreme Edition "Yorkfield" processor will launch on November 12; sub-3.0 GHz variants will launch in the first half of January 2008

Intel’s latest roadmap reveals upcoming additions to its desktop processor lineup. Unfortunately, anybody awaiting a straightforward naming convention will need to hold out a bit longer as the processor numbers for desktop Yorkfield and Wolfdale chips complicate the naming situation even further.

The launch of an Extreme Edition version of a chip before mainstream offerings follows Intel’s modus operandi, and as such the rest of the Penryn family will not be seen until the first half of January 2008. The company ambiguously names January 2nd through 20th as the slated launch date for the processors, though companies generally tend to time launch events with trade shows.  The 2008 International Consumer Electronics Show starts on January 7, 2008.

Yorkfield Quad-Core Desktop - 1333 MHz FSB

L2 Cache
Launch Price

QX96503.0 GHz 130W

2.83 GHz 95W
2.66 GHz 95W
2.50 GHz 95W

The first of the new desktop processors, the quad-core Yorkfield-based QX9650, will be released on November 12 at an expected price of $999. The operating frequency of Intel's highest end 45nm quad-core at launch will be 3.0 GHz.

Desktop Penryn processors will not launch with the 1600 MHz front-side bus.  Intel's halo enthusiast Skulltrail V8 platform uses 1600 MHz workstation processors on a server-class motherboard and chipset.

The Intel Q9550, Q9450 and Q9300 will be the first of the mainstream Yorkfield offerings. At $266, the 45nm 2.50 GHz Q9300 replaces the 65nm 2.4 GHz Q6600.

Wolfdale Dual-Core Desktop - 1333 MHz FSB

L2 Cache
Launch Price

E85003.16 GHz 65W6MB

E84003.00 GHz 65W6MB
2.66 GHz 65W6MB

Intel guidance also suggests an intermediate SKU between E8400 and E8200, aptly named the E8300. This processor will eventually replace the 2.83 GHz dual-core processor previously named E8200.  Since the E8300 and E8200 specifications are not set in stone, neither is the final pricing.  Intel's lowest price-point for dual-core 65nm is $163, and it's safe to wager that the E8300 or E8200 will also carry the same pricing.

Before Intel's media-blitz on November 12, the company will silently launch the 65nm 2.4 GHz dual-core E4600 Conroe processor on October 21, 2007.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By Misty Dingos on 9/28/2007 7:55:05 AM , Rating: 2
I hope it will be an interesting year. It would be great if AMD can get back in the game fully. If they can't get a truly competitive processor out there we are likely to have to wait another 18 months for them to try and catch up again.

But all the super processor talk aside. I am really starting to think that hardware is so far ahead of the software now that it now a real factor in whether or not I would think about building a new system. How many programs can effectively make use of two let alone a four core processor? And it is my understanding that game software is even farther back.

But one cannot slow down the hardware guys. I really don't want to either. Catch up soft heads!

RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By FITCamaro on 9/28/2007 8:26:18 AM , Rating: 5
For the average consumer, very little. But for people into video encoding, 3D animation, gaming, etc. quad core processors are a godsend.

RE: AMD is only six months or so behind Intel
By omnicronx on 9/28/2007 10:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
So true, I can hardly ever get 2 cores at load let alone 4. And most games are not multithreaded either, which in my mind is the only use for 4 cores for the average consumer.

By Pirks on 9/28/2007 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't Crysis supposed to change that? I heard it scales beyond two cores. Has anyone heard something concrete about this game's CPU scalability?

By sdsdv10 on 9/28/2007 9:32:21 PM , Rating: 2
And most games are not multithreaded either, which in my mind is the only use for 4 cores for the average consumer.

I don't know about that. I consider myself an average consumer using the $95 Sony Movie Studio software for editing digital home videos. The program can generate 4 threads and load 4 cores (as I believe can Pinnacles editor).

By DeepBlue1975 on 9/28/2007 1:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
So true.
I went from an a64 3200+ to a q6600...

Now I can decode whatever I want in just a few minutes(decoded 4 1gb ratdvd files into full blown 4gb dvds, all at the same time, in less than an hour... the amd machine took more than that to reach half a single file and then ratdvd crashed, could never decode a single ratdvd file on the athlon)

Winrar seems instantaenous in comparison, I no longer get bored of waiting to decompress a 2gb file compressed and split into 150+ files, it just takes something like 2 minutes or even less to do that now and the machine keeps being as responsive as if it were doing nothing at all, while the AMD machine not only took a much longer time, but also rendered my machine almost unusable unless I put the process in the lowest priority, running in background, and hence taking an eternity to complete...

As for games, I don't know yet as I haven't played any... Seems I'm becoming too old for games, but I do play very old DOS games in my PDA :D

By Targon on 9/28/2007 9:45:32 AM , Rating: 3
While multi-threaded applications are still few and far between, there is more of a use for dual and quad core processors than many people realize.

There are two factors, the speed of individual applications, and then you have system performance. Even if most applications are single threaded, a multi-core processor will allow the different applications to run on different cores.

So, your anti-virus might sit on one core, other background applications might be spread out on other cores, and the main application you want to run will then have a larger percentage of whatever core it may run on(if it is single-threaded). In the past, with only a single processor core, your anti-virus, background applications, and the main program you want to run were all forced to share the same core. This might leave you with only 80 percent of the CPU resources for the program you really want to run. With dual-core, this might get bumped up to 90 percent available(with a single-threaded program), or higher.

Going to Windows Vista adds a LOT more to what goes on in the background, so everything seems a little slower. So, quad-core would more than balance out the increased operating system demands on the CPU.

If we were in an age of lean and mean operating systems that didn't do much behind the scenes, then dual and quad core processors would be overkill for most people. As time goes on though, it seems that we NEED the extra cores just to handle all the excess garbage that Microsoft puts into their operating systems.

It also takes roughly four to six years for a modern application to be designed from scratch. As a result, the move to multi-threaded application design even if it started when the Athlon 64 X2 and Pentium D first were released would only start showing up at around this time. Most applications are based on previous work as well when it comes to game engines and updated versions of software. So, did Office 2007 start as an all new project, or was it based on Office 2003, which was based on 2001, etc. Since so much of the new versions are based on single-threaded applications from years ago, there is a great chance that the new versions are also only single-threaded.

"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki