Print 39 comment(s) - last by roastmules.. on Oct 29 at 3:22 PM

Hark! Today marks the arrival of Intel's first 45nm desktop processor

To coincide with the NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GT launch scheduled for later today, Intel jumped the gun today with its immediate embargo lift on its high end 3.0 GHz 45nm quad-core Penryn QX9650 processor.

The Extreme Edition QX9650 desktop processor is Intel's first 45nm offering. True to Intel's "tick-tock" approach to processor design, all initial 45nm processor offerings will be process node shrinks of the Core 2 Duo architecture.  The only feature difference between these processors and the Core 2 Duo Kentsfield processors announced last year is the inclusion of additional L2 cache, SSE4 instructions and higher clock frequencies.

The QX6950 features 12MB of L2 cache, a 1333 MHz front-side bus and a 130W thermal envelope. 

The QX9650 will remain Intel's halo processor for the better part of 2008 until the introduction of the next, and possibly last, Core 2 Duo frequency bump.  In last 2008, Intel will replace its server and desktop architectures in favor of its next-generation architecture, dubbed Nehalem.

Intel representatives claim all media information about the QX9650 is now available for the public domain with the exception of the price.  Reviewers are allowed to post all embargoed information at midnight tonight. 

Previously leaked Intel roadmaps already indicated that the 45nm Extreme Edition will launch with the standard Extreme Edition price tag, $999.  Intel memos forwarded to DailyTech indicate the hard ship date for these new processors still remains November 12, 2007.  On this date, the company will lift the embargo on all 45nm desktop offerings.

Intel's 45nm offerings are not the only processors expected to launch this November.  AMD roadmaps also indicate the company's 65nm native quad-core Phenom processors will launch late November.  In addition to the new processors, AMD will also announce its RV670 graphics processor and RD790 chipset.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Good-googley-goo
By SunAngel on 10/29/2007 1:52:30 AM , Rating: -1
Someone is not telling you the truth.

The Q6950 also has a 130W envelope same as the Q6850.

Dude, you gotta stop quoting tech sites and go to the source (Intel) for credible info. Your dying by noobs.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By Arneh on 10/29/2007 2:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
I just told you the facts. Intel are giving it a 130W rating but it is extremely extremely conservative. Just look at ALL the reviews, they'll say the same thing.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By Arneh on 10/29/2007 2:05:32 AM , Rating: 2
That being, power consumption has dropped dramatically. This no mere 1-2W in difference which could be an experimental difference. You're actually consuming less power by using this chip than using a 65nm dual core Core 2 Duo with a slower clock speed.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By twjr on 10/29/2007 4:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
Agree totally. Just look at the Anandtech article. The QX9650 comsumes roughly as much power at load as the QX6850 does at idle. If nothing that shows that the 130W TDP is overly conservitive.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By IntelUser2000 on 10/29/2007 7:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
Agree totally. Just look at the Anandtech article. The QX9650 comsumes roughly as much power at load as the QX6850 does at idle. If nothing that shows that the 130W TDP is overly conservitive.

This very likely means faster clocked models are purposely held back. Look at how all E6000 models have same TDP, yet consume different amounts of power. The 130W represents the highest model, which isn't here and may never be.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By The Jedi on 10/29/2007 9:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
That's pretty exciting when you think about runing dual LGA771 extreme's in a V8 Skulltrail system.

But, these are thousand dollar CPU's, so who really ever buys these anyway? Good googley goo.

RE: Good-googley-goo
By crystal clear on 10/29/2007 8:53:30 AM , Rating: 3
This from a review-

We used a plug-in power monitor to check the power draw for our test system and found that Penryn was consistently more frugal with the juice. At idle, Penryn uses 45W less than Kentsfield at 3GHz, although the gap is reduced when you overclock. That’s a huge percentage of the total power draw, dropping the figure from 155W (minus display) to 110W.

In PCMark05, the system is loaded fairly evenly and once again the difference was 30-45W in favour of Penryn. Finally, we come to POV-Ray where the quad-core processors were running flat-out and the power draw was highest of all with a difference in power consumption of 55W at a 3GHz clock speed. When we overclocked the difference was, once again, 30W.

Penryn is a step forward from Kentsfield that offers moderately better performance in day-to-day tasks but when you give it a sniff of SSE 4 it shows a distinct benefit. The much-reduced power draw is very encouraging too. You’d be crazy to spend £649 on the Core 2 Extreme QX9650, but you should most definitely choose a Penryn-based Core 2 Duo or Quad over an older, 65nm model

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis
Related Articles
Intel Slates "Nehalem" for Q4 2008
October 26, 2007, 10:58 AM
AMD Sheds Additional Phenom Details
October 15, 2007, 10:48 AM
Intel Preps 45nm Quad-core Desktop Launch
September 28, 2007, 4:44 AM
"Nehalem" Taped-out and Running Windows
September 18, 2007, 12:04 PM

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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