Intel Corp.’s Paul Otellini disclosed some of the details concerning the company’s forthcoming dual-core desktop processors. Apparently, the chips’ clock-speed will increase in future even despite “more aggressive” thermal envelopes, but in the long-term desktop chips may become less power hungry. Still, the first 65nm chips will fit into current thermal specifications.
Thermal Specs of Desktop Chips to Come Down
“As we move dual-core in the desktop, particularly in the Extreme Edition, you’ll see us continue to drive the clock-speed within a more aggressive power envelope than those machines can handle. I don’t think 4.00GHz is necessarily a fundamental limit… The thermal envelope is the key and I do believe that it’ll come down even in the desktops,” said Intel’s President and COO.
When asked about thermal envelope for dual-core desktop and mobile processors made using 65nm process technology, the company’s executive said they would fit into existing thermal envelopes, but eventually thermal design power of such chips will be reduced from the current level of 130W.
“The initial products will fit inside existing mobile and desktop power envelopes. Then will try to bring out derivative versions and take that down over time as we crank up architectural features… We are certainly not trying to take that up,” Mr. Otellini said.
Numerous 65nm Designs Are Prepared
Intel Corp. has a number of 65nm processors for desktops and mobiles planned to be introduced in 2006. For the desktop the firm is expected to release code-named Presler, Cedar Mill and Conroe microprocessors. For the mobile market the world’s largest chipmaker preps dual-core processor internally called Yonah.
According to recently released information, Intel’s 2006 desktop platform known as Averill will support processors code-named Presler, Cedar Mill and Conroe along with Intel virtualization technology, Intel’s LaGrande technology as well as EM64T, EDB, EIST and iAMT2.
Intel’s next-generation desktop dual-core processor is called Presler, which will be made using 65nm process technology and will have die size of about 140 square millimeters, according to some sources. The Presler chips, which are claimed to be branded as Intel Pentium D 900-series, are expected to be clocked at 2.80GHz, 3.00GHz, 3.20GHz and 3.40GHz and use 800MHz processor system bus. The chip will have 4MB of cache in total, or 2MB per core. CedarMill is single-core flavour of the Presler. Intel officials did not confirm the specs of Presler.
The Yonah processor for mobiles is a successor of the Dothan with two cores and without any substantial architectural improvements. Intel Merom processor itself reportedly is not a yet another Banias-like architecture, like Dothan and Yonah, but, as some sources proclaimed, “completely revamped” dual-core product also intended for mobile computers with relatively low power consumption, but still with rather high performance per clock, about 20% - 30% higher than that of predecessors, according to the claims.
Intel’s microprocessor code-named Conroe is expected to remove certain power constraints and probably widen thermal envelope of the Merom. Additional performance tweaks are also possible to bring extra speed, but the conception of a chip will still remain – a low-power highly efficient central processing unit. In addition, the Conroe, and probably Merom, will have to support the whole breed of desktop features, including virtualization capabilities, LaGrande technology, 64-bit capability in addition to EDB, EIST and iAMT2.
Comments currently: 14
Discussion started: 04/21/05 01:31:06 AM
Latest comment: 07/14/06 11:13:04 PM
No changes to Yonah? Despite several rumours of a stronger FP unit..? I'm doubtful that EM64T will be in Yonah, despite the fact that AMD will have dual core mobile 64 bit cpu's out long before Intel. But the lack of any improvements in the P-M's weak areas seems a bit strange.
04/21/05 01:31:06 AM]
Suspect that Merom might be a super Yonah, expanding the thermal envelope and thus the clockspeed since that chip has such a good performance/clock.
Its rather funny to see Intel using words that sound at first like "65nm products will fit into current mobos" which is not, as we know, what is being said. But the wording tries to make you feel that way I think, and I doubt that is unintentional. Dual core Athlons really are looking quite good, with Intel competing on price rather than pure performance, at least on the desktop.
Yonah with no 64bit will be nice if it arrives early. If it arrives late or even on time early 06, it will be a flop IF Turion 64 bit becomes a strong market sell (does 64 bit show useful gains in a variety of apps) having no 64 bit on the mobile side could be a serious market issue. I think the "wish list" of Yonah has been trimmed because I would think Intel knows it would help them if they were to bring it earlier to market than planned.
04/21/05 09:32:50 AM]
In thinking today I wonder, are they keeping the changes to Yonah simple so the single core version would be a plugin upgrade in the current 915 chipset?
If you kept things simple "enough" it might be a bios upgrade, plug in the new chip kind of thing.
I'm not super familiar with how that worked out on the move to Banias so if I'm wrong I'll take the "you're wrong!" humbly of course.
04/21/05 04:54:52 PM]
Anemone, you are pretty much way off when it comes to any of the future Pentium-M variants.
* Comes in beginning 2006
* 65nm process
* Six variants will come
(a) Regular voltaged dual-core Pentium-M
Codenames : X50, X40, X30, and X20.
(b) Low voltage dual-core Pentium-M
Codenames : X48 and X39
* 667MHz front side buses (likely)
* 2MB L2 Cache (shared between the 2 cores)
* Enhanced Speedstep
* Digital Media Boost (to Improve FP performance)
* Execute Disable Bit support
* Vanderpool Technology (or VT for short)
* Chipsets : i945GM, i945PM and i955XM Express
* Wireless "Golan" Pro Wireless 3945 a/b/g.
Merom will then come with EMT64 support.
As for the comment, "65nm products will fit into current mobos". I think you've completely missed the point.
Intel is tooting their 65nm process as being virtually troublefree for them. Its so good, that Intel has made fully working dual-core Yonah prototypes without trouble. (If you check the various IDF 2005 reports on hardware sites, you see the dual-core Yonah is very much alive and kicking.)
Intel is really talking about the thermal envelope. The 65nm process allows them to keep the thermal characteristics the same or lower, but with increased speed in future CPUs. So in the future, 3.8Ghz limitation will be surpassed. Its now obvious that they were perfecting the 65nm process before pushing on. And if you're curious, the 65nm process is in Oregon (USA), at Intel's D1D Fab.
Their engineers have worked very hard, and you won't see the disaster that was the 90nm Prescott. Which pretty much affect all CPU manufacturers...AMD and Apple relied on IBM's Fishkill facility in New York. The zero speed increases which with both AMD and PowerPC CPUs was because everyone was waiting for IBM to improve the 90nm SOI. IBM did that late last year, and the result is the recently reviewed "E-revision" A64 and Sempron CPUs. (And faster G5 CPUs for Apple).
The biggest thing EVERYONE has missed regarding dual-core...Have you noticed the pricing of Athlon64 X2 and Pentium-D?
Notice how the A64 X2 pricing starts where Pentium-D ends?
Do you know why A64 X2 are more expensive?
Its because they're for the "Enthusiasts" market! You know that market where AMD and Intel sell CPUs at ridiculous prices! (Extreme Edition and FX). That is it!
If you don't believe, look on AMD's official roadmap..."Toledo" (which is now Athlon64 X2) is in the same market segment as Athlon64 FX! You wonder why they're damn expensive!
Now, you compare that with Pentium-D...Slower and more affordable...Why?
Because these are marketed as "mainstream" desktop CPUs! This is part of the market that is below the "Enthusiasts" segment.
So now, look at this...Pentium-D vs Athlon64 X2.
This isn't a fair comparison. Why? Mainstream Desktop vs High-end Enthusiast product.
It isn't fair for AMD, because A64 X2 is NOT in the same price bracket as Pentium-D. And it isn't fair to Intel, because Pentium-D is a mainstream desktop CPU. Have a look at Anandtech's articles and overclockers.com on prices. You see AMD is going after the high-end consumer/enthusiast first, while Intel is going straight for the mainstream desktop user with a more affordable solution.
So far, I like the A64 X2 because it takes less of a performance hit in a multitasking scenario, it seems faster than having to spend $$$$ on a pair of Opteron 2xx CPUs, and it consumes 100W LESS power than the Pentium-D AND a dual CPU Opteron setup.
The problem is, it won't sell as fast as Pentium-Ds...Why? Because it ain't CHEAP! If you look at the general market, you see that budget gear sells far more than high-end stuff. Valve's recent survey of Half Life 2 gamers has shown the good old GF4MX/FX5200/Radeon9200 lines are mostly used.
BUt why has AMD done this? Because AMD does not have the capacity to produce alot of CPUs in a short period. They have to spread it out, until their manufacturing resources are capable of producing dual-core to meet demand. What they're doing is a repeat of how the A64 was introduced. They release CPUs with a high price, and gradually bring in cheaper ones as they produce more.
Intel, on the other hand, has the capacity to produce alot of CPUs in a short time. So they can meet the demand without too much issue. This is why they push dual-core in mainstream market first! Its cheaper, so more people would adopt it. That's how the real world works...Consumers mainly judge with their wallets.
04/22/05 03:59:24 PM]
Add your Comment
Enter your username and e-mail address. Password will be sent to you.