News
 

Bookmark and Share

(15) 

The highly-anticipated low-cost dual-core microprocessor from Intel Corp. is now available in the U.S. and Japan for the price well-below of $200, an anticipated price-point. While the new chip is not a performance champion, the product will still allow users to enjoy more robust multi-tasking.

Intel Pentium D processor 805 2.66GHz, uses 533MHz processor system bus and sports 2MB level-two cache (1MB per core). The processor was originally expected to become available in March, 2006, but the plans may have changed and the new central processing units (CPUs) are available for purchase even now.

In Tokyo, Japan, several stores sell the new Pentium D 805 for the price between $144 (?16 980) to $159 (?18 690), Akiba2Go web-site reports. In the U.S. the new chip is available at Newegg.com for $146.

Up to now, the least expensive Pentium D 820 dual-core chip costs $241 in 1000-unit quantities at Intel, the price-point not suitable for the mainstream market. By offering Intel Pentium D 805 for less than $200, the company will be able to sell more dual-core chips. The Pentium D 805 processor with low-speed processor system bus as well as moderate frequency is likely to receive lackluster welcome by computer enthusiasts, still users who demand general-purpose performance and deal with a lot of applications at once are expected to like the new product.

Discussion

Comments currently: 15
Discussion started: 02/23/06 02:59:54 PM
Latest comment: 04/07/06 09:39:15 AM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-3]

1. 
While it may be clear to people knowledgeable about Intel product lines, the lithography used to make these processors will not be to everyone.

I think it is worth mentioning that these are the 90nm version of the processor, as some people will be wondering if they are low cost 65nm version.

Considering that the 65nm processors are clearly better chips, it's probably an important point to make.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/23/06 02:59:54 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
I don't know what the concern about these being 90nm chips is. The low clock speed combined with the low 533MHz FSB will probably make these chips even cooler than the 9xx series even under load. What's more, the chips are supposed to maintain EIST functionality, which means that with 14x as the lowest multiplier, they will downclock to 1.86GHz. The current 9xx series doesn't even have EIST enabled, and even when stepping C1 is released they will only drop down to 2.4GHz. I don't really see heat or power being a major concern for the 805D, which was the main disadvantage of 90nm vs 65nm. The 805D is also a B0 stepping part meaning they have the latest 64-bit support with the added instructions.

I hope X-bit Labs can get one soon, I'd love to see how they actually perform. They're supposed to be great overclockers too with HKEPC reaching 3.7GHz.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/23/06 05:09:11 PM]
Reply
 
Data,

It's not so much a concern, but a distinction. If you are saying the 90nm are the equal to the 65nm, you're clearly wrong. I assume that's not your argument, and while you may happy enough with the 90nm, there are others that are not. Power is a difference, and for people, me in particular, it's a big concern.

I think it's important that they be as clear as possible with things like this so people can make their own decisions. While I respect your decision to go with a 90nm since you find it more than adequate, I expect you should respect other people's to pass on this chip if they find the 65nm enhancements more to their liking. Information wouldn't impact your choice, but it would give other people the background they would need to better decide if this processor were relevant to them or not.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/24/06 11:14:07 AM]
Reply
 
People who care about the difference between 90nm and 65nm would know which one the 805 uses.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/25/06 08:39:08 PM]
Reply

2. 
If they were 65nm they would be great overclockers, most would hit at least 3.6ghz, and might be good CPUs.

But 90nm is no good.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/23/06 06:40:48 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Actually, many number of people are hitting 4+ GHz with 805. I guess 90nm is just good enough?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/23/06 11:31:31 PM]
Reply

3. 
It's simple, really.

Last time I checked, this is a 805D

8xx series -> 90nm
9xx series -> 65nm

I always thought this was obvious to everyone... They do not need to explicitly state, that this is a 90nm technology processor, since it belongs to the 8xx family.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/25/06 09:15:40 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Qbah,

So you think every person who read that review knows that news item knows that 8xx series is 90nm and 9xx series is 65nm? If you do, you're wrong, not everyone is going to remember everything they are exposed to, even if they are at all. It's easy to include, and would, minimally reinforce what people know and maximally clear up a major concern someone reading it might have.

It's basic journalism. You try to anticipate questions that someone without an extensive knowledge might have so to inform them. You can't assume complete knowledge, because that assumption is often wrong and the omission of information can make an otherwise informative article unclear and confusing. I'm not talking about this one specifically, but as a generality.

Put another way,do you know all the clock speeds for these model numbers? Should Xbit not even bother putting them, since everyone should know them already? Where do you draw the line? If they go this approach, they'll only appeal to a very narrow audience and never expand it to encompass other people who could otherwise benefit from reading their articles (and benefit them with the additional traffic).

As I said, it's just basic journalism and common sense. You don't assume everyone knows everything you do, especially with regards to these crazy numbering schemes Intel and AMD use. It would be nice if they went back to just using GHz, but we're stuck with this horsecrap 805 number. Why do they use numbers like that anyway when they are not so different from their chipset numbers? 805 is a processor, 810 is a chipset, 815 is a chipset ... What sense does all this make? Did they run out of other numbers and couldn't figure out how to use alphabetical names? It seems intent on confusing, so clarity with respect to processor details is kind of important, because after a while the names all blur.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/25/06 12:40:06 PM]
Reply

[1-3]

Add your Comment




Related news

Latest News

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

8:52 pm | Lisa Su Appointed as New CEO of Advanced Micro Devices. Rory Read Steps Down, Lisa Su Becomes New CEO of AMD

Thursday, August 28, 2014

12:22 pm | AMD Has No Plans to Reconsider Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Cards. AMD Will Not Lower Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Solutions

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

9:09 pm | Samsung Begins to Produce 2.13GHz 64GB DDR4 Memory Modules. Samsung Uses TSV DRAMs for 64GB DDR4 RDIMMs

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

6:41 pm | AMD Quietly Reveals Third Iteration of GCN Architecture with Tonga GPU. AMD Unleashes Radeon R9 285 Graphics Cards, Tonga GPU, GCN 1.2 Architecture

Monday, August 25, 2014

6:05 pm | Chinese Inspur to Sell Mission-Critical Servers with AMD Software, Power 8 Processors. IBM to Enter Chinese Big Data Market with the Help from Inspur