Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Conroe gets E4200/E6000 naming, clock speeds up to 2.66 GHz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 11, 2006 7:31:57 AM

One more piece of news about Intel for this week: We have received the first detailed information - from our industry sources - about Intel's upcoming next-gen processor. Despite it is based on the mobile Merom core, Conroe will have the honor to debut Intel's new processor architecture in Q3.

The data that is available so far - FSB and memory speeds, clock speeds and naming - may give a first impression of what to expect from Intel later this year. Is it worth to wait?

Looking forward to read your opinion!

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/11/intel_conroe_to_launc...
February 11, 2006 7:47:53 AM

Jeez, it's getting late - yes I meant GHz. Will have to change that headline :-) Thanks for the note!
February 11, 2006 9:22:36 AM

Quote:
E6300: 2.86 GHz / FSB 1066/ 2 MB shared L2 cache


I guess it's not 2.86 GHz but 1.86 GHz, isn't it ? Or Intel's numbers are still more confusing... :) 
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 11, 2006 1:07:51 PM

2.4Ghz conroe for $300~ will be tempting for me when i upgrade this fall. AMD will hopefully have a 4400+ or a 4600+ at that price to compete. A 2.4GHz Athlon X2 is just barely faster than a 2.4Ghz Conroe, based on benchmarks of the Pentium M/Core Duo i've seen.
February 11, 2006 1:17:32 PM

It's great to be updated about Intel's plans since I am about to get a new motherboard.

But i didn't understand this part:

"[...]there is no indication at this time that users will be able to simply swap a Pentium D 800/900 processor with a Conroe chip"

Why not?

Will the latest motherboards for socket 775 like Asus P5N32 SLI Deluxe or
the ones based on the 975x chipset not be compatible with a Conroe processor?
February 11, 2006 1:30:10 PM

Yeah I read the same thing. Apparently, the current X series chipsets Intel has now, will not be able to handle the new conroe platform. Not sure why or even if that's true. Sucks too because I just got a new gigabyte board with the 975 chipset which I've set aside in hopes of dropping a conroe chip in it. Hard to say at this point what Intel is up to as far as that goes.
February 11, 2006 6:19:28 PM

Quote:
2.4Ghz conroe for $300~ will be tempting for me when i upgrade this fall. AMD will hopefully have a 4400+ or a 4600+ at that price to compete. A 2.4GHz Athlon X2 is just barely faster than a 2.4Ghz Conroe, based on benchmarks of the Pentium M/Core Duo i've seen.

At games that is.
February 11, 2006 7:30:55 PM

If you have a i975X then you should be able to handle Conroe with a BIOS update. The i975X was built to support dual cores with a 1066MHz FSB which is exactly what Conroe will be. The i975X also appears to be able to support a 1333MHz FSB, which is a BIOS option in some Intel boards, so that may be for future Conroe XEs. The motherboards that don't look to support Conroe are the i945 and i955 which will be replaced with the i965. Since no replacement for the i975 has been announced it will likely remain although it may be refreshed.
February 11, 2006 8:19:47 PM

Quote:
2.4Ghz conroe for $300~ will be tempting for me when i upgrade this fall. AMD will hopefully have a 4400+ or a 4600+ at that price to compete. A 2.4GHz Athlon X2 is just barely faster than a 2.4Ghz Conroe, based on benchmarks of the Pentium M/Core Duo i've seen.

At games that is.

WRONG
February 11, 2006 9:01:47 PM

How about Asus P5N32 SLI Deluxe?

Will that board support Conroe?
February 11, 2006 9:03:14 PM

You are correct, it is 1.86 GHz.

About the swap issue: This roadmap update is very preliminary but credible information. Typically, such a simple upgrade is a major marketable feature of a platform, however, such a feature has not been pointed out yet. So it is fair to say that you may not be able to simply throw out a Pentium D and replace it with a Conroe CPU. As soon as there is an official answer from Intel, we of course will publish an update.

The future of i975X is interesting. And even if we received our information from industry sources, we are fairly certain that this chipset won't be able to support FSB 1333. As far as we know, we will have to wait well into the transition to DDR3 to see FSB 1333 support. The information we received suggests that Intel will actually launch 1333 MHz support in Q2 2008 in the performance and mainstream segment. FSB 1600 will follow in Q2 2009.

Wolfgang
February 11, 2006 9:12:10 PM

I personally will wait to see. This is a new process and a new marcgitecture sort of and I will be surprised to see ti outdistance what AMD will have out then. I am by no means an AMD fanboy but I get so sick of unreleased products being the savior of any company.

This is worse than ATINVidia.

I will be glad to see some benchmarks on the chip though. Intel has been thoroughly embarassed for the last few years. I think to be fair you should mention that AMD is planning to increase to 333 HyperTransport and DDR2-667 should enable their on die controller to offset a lot of Conroe's advantages. WIth proper tweaking, I think their 90nm will get to 3GHz and with the aforementioned improvements, it will be a real fight.

It looks to me like AMD is being very tight-lipped on purpose but if the past is an indication, the Opteron will be the first 65nm chip. It is supposedly going to use DDR3 and should get to 3.4GHz at least. That will be a monster. Again I am for neither company but Intel is always given the benefit of the doubt but the last 3 years have seen them struggling as if they were Cyrix.

If AMD just keeps their current rate of increase, Intel will not catch up using Conroe.
February 11, 2006 9:26:43 PM

AMD is very quiet these days, but we know that the company is very confident that it will be able to keep its lead with the transition to DDR2. You can read our interview to get an idea how much AMD is willing to publically say today:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/20/tgdaily_interviews_am...

It is too early to speculate which company may have an advantage by the end of this year. But we do know, that Intel will do everything it can to catch up with AMD - while AMD at least indicates that it has enough headroom left to be able to react. So there's a good chance that we will see much more progress in this industry than what we have seen in the past several years.
February 11, 2006 10:52:16 PM

It has been my opinion (and I think, that of many others here) that, in the not too distant past, THG showed a clear and distinct bias towards Intel's offerings.
I have noticed that, in the last few months, a real effort has been made to rectify that situation.
I wish to say, that I am pleased with this transition, and hope that those efforts are continued.
February 11, 2006 11:38:28 PM

That's good to know and thanks for the info. Ya know, I gotta tell ya, there sure is a storm brewing around the conroe platform. I read the review on my board, which is very highly rated and yet, I read another article saying that it won't support conroe. I'm so confused!!!

I honestly think Intel should send me a free Conroe chip for all this aggravation, pain and suffering i'm experiencing because of their marketing department! :wink:
February 11, 2006 11:41:10 PM

I really do agree with that. Unfortuneatly, if they sent a free chip to everyone who was driven to distraction by thier PR department, they wouldn't have any left to sell.
February 12, 2006 12:04:55 AM

Yeah this will be a good year for consumers. Intel should make up some ground but AMD has a lock on the server space right now and probably will for a few years. No one can touch the Opteron 880 and I'm kinda glad because it's not about who does it, but these chips are just catching up to the snappiness of the Alpha, my favorite chip in the world.

I think Intel has gotten the message that AMD is not going anywhere and they have realized that they can't keep 80% share for that much longer. Fortunately the amount of PCs sold every year actually goes up so 60% market share now is worth more than 80% share 5 years ago.

Maybe now the PC manuf's will actually be able to raise their margins. It's a shame when you look at how much money HP makes in comparison to Intel on PC sales.
February 12, 2006 12:22:33 AM

Too bad that doesn't work in the real world. Intel sold more chips than ever last year. Thier profit margin is incredable. Why is it then that thier $/share is so low. They have lost ony a couple of % in market share, yet thier value is down 1/4.
February 12, 2006 12:30:56 AM

So true and also I might add, the end users are the ones who have created this 'beast' within. If it weren't for the guys like us who like to speak our minds and ultimately buy the better products, Intel would be the only chip maker around these days. Of course, look who's talking and has Intel guilt written all over his face. Referring to me of course.
February 12, 2006 12:56:15 AM

intel is cool for making new shit and all, but the gayest thing is that u need a new chipset/mobo everytime a new cpu comes out...
February 12, 2006 1:12:07 AM

Quote:
The future of i975X is interesting. And even if we received our information from industry sources, we are fairly certain that this chipset won't be able to support FSB 1333.

Are you sure that the i975X won't support 1333MHz FSB. From the reviews that I've seen of the Intel D975XBX "Bad-Axe" they already have the feature.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2681&p=2

If you look at the picture at the bottom, 1333MHz FSB is available in the BIOS.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28412

Analysis by The Inquirer also showed that 1333MHz FSB is available, as seen in the second picture from the bottom, but of course no current processor can boot with it enabled.

I was hoping you could clarify some issues about the new processors. First I was wondering what the E4xxx series was exactly. Are they the middle-end Allendale dual cores to replace the 6xx series or are they single core processors, possibly reject Conroes with one core disabled? They probably aren't Millville since those seem to be Celeron D replacements with only 1MB of L2. I suppose the E6300 and E6400 could be Allendale.

On a side note, physically the new processors are looking good, but then next time you talk to Intel representatives maybe you could suggest that they find less confusing names. It would also be nice if they used some of their extra digits to differentiate L2 cache amounts making the 2MB 1.86GHz processor the E6300 and the 4MB 2.67GHz processor the E6750 for example. A designation like E6320 with the cache amount in the second digit would be even less obtuse although it may not look as clean. It would then allow the 2MB cache models to scale without overlapping the names of the 4MB models. Just something to suggest to Intel, of course their marketing department no doubt already has their own ingenius ideas.
February 12, 2006 2:01:12 AM

Those are good points. The one thing Intel did with the P4s was increase clock speeds. Everybody thought, wow, they're much higher in clock speeds and that appealed to some but in all reality, they were flawed, generated more heat because of the higher clock speeds thereby creating heat indexes more or less and less efficiency. I hope they're not going down that same path by taking the FSB up high in hopes of keeping the latency problems down and make them seem like their chips are better and more appealing because they're higher bus speeds. Make sense?
February 12, 2006 3:05:58 AM

At least the roadmap information that is available to us right now does not indicate that i975X will support FSB 1333. So I wouldn't necessarily count on this FSB to be available with Conroe in general.

Let me word it this way: I am not saying that there isn't a feature that could bring 1333, for example in the Conroe XE whose spec we do not know. But it's not in the roadmap yet and that at least indicates that Intel hasn't finalized the specs of the chip. Don't forget, we are just the news guys here - I am sure that Patrick Schmid, our tech whiz, will run a story on FSB 1333, if it is possible :-) By the way, the situation looks a bit different in the server space - the Blackford chipset, which will be released to run along Woodcrest, will integrate 1066 and 1333 right away.

Yes, the 4000 series as well as the 2 MB L2 cache 6000-series CPUs are very likely based on the Allendale core (there's an overview of all upcoming 65 nm processors here: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel...)

Allendale is a dual-core chip that will be priced for the mainstream market right away and for sure will help to accelerate the phasing out of the NetBurst architecture. Single-cores will be slowly disappearing and will be limited to 1) the corporate space (Pentium 4 600 series) and 2) the entry-level market (Celeron). Additionally, there will be mobile segments for single-cores - check back for an update on mobile processors on TG Daily early next week.

Millville is still a bit out in the future, but the specs indicate that it may be a great fit for a replacement of the current Celeron.

I absolutely agree on the naming issue. If you look at the mess in Intel's product protfolio - to be fair, let's also mention that AMD isn't much better at naming its products - the trend to potentially assemble all processors under the "Core" brand is a step into the right direction clear up the confusion and make the products and its features more transparent than today.

We did not not make a secret out of our opinion that the current naming strategy is inappropriate (see for example: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/10/25/pentium/). Reducing the main mobile and desktop processors to four sub-families certainly would make buying a computer with a specific processor much easier than it is today.
February 12, 2006 3:11:50 AM

Well, we'll find out the 975X chipset because I have a board here with that chipset on it. I'm so freakin curious about this whole FSB thing, I may take my scotty and drop it in there just to fire it up and look for myself.

As far as the name game goes, I couldn't agree with you more about that. I don't know what Intel was thinking when they came up with the naming scheme for their processors. I think they all sat around a campfire one night all tanked up and said, screw it, lets mess with everybody and confuse the crap out of them.

One more point, their P4 prescott architecture didn't make any sense so, why should their naming scheme? :wink:
February 12, 2006 3:13:02 AM

So, it the 6600 the 6th or 7th Intel desktop chip that runs @ 2.4ghz?
February 12, 2006 6:43:07 AM

Quote:
I really do agree with that. Unfortuneatly, if they sent a free chip to everyone who was driven to distraction by thier PR department, they wouldn't have any left to sell.

must......resist......putting quote in sig....... :lol: 
February 12, 2006 6:46:39 AM

Will the NVIDIA nForce4 SLI X16 chipset support Conroe?
February 12, 2006 6:47:23 AM

No, you cant, unless of course you want to.
February 12, 2006 9:04:48 AM

Read this review:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=264...
As you can clearly see Intel Duo wins most of the benchies (gaming is the only part in which it's inferior) against the X2 3800.
And considering this is a laptop CPU we can say that clock per clock Intel will be at least the equal of AMD with the gaming exception.
February 12, 2006 12:19:44 PM

Wuzy, it's finally time Intel Started to Compete for better processing efficiency. Everyone knew that AMD got this level of efficiency with out trying very hard, and now that Intel finally realized that their processors are gas guzzler American engine, they've juts added Hybrid type technology to catch up to the Japanese Motor type engines Industry standard fuel efficiency(AMD) but still know that sooner or later AMD will eventually try and then do Megaflops better than Intel and their Mariah Carrey and their Apple Merging will ever get them.
February 12, 2006 12:48:18 PM

I'm not sure 2.66 will be enough though as AMD is able to reach that today with their FX-60 . And let's not forget AMD has not made the transition to 65 nm yet so ...
True , the Pentium M is a good architecture ( well at least compared to the P4 :)  ) but with the AM2 and DDR2 O think they will be about the same clock for clock .
Anyway a little real competiotion is good and even though I like AMD I would buy a good and cheap Intel CPU but that would be a first :lol:  .
Can't wait to see the Conrons though :lol:  .
February 12, 2006 2:07:03 PM

As I have read, the problem with todays motherboards(nF4, i975) is voiltage regulation for Vcore. Conroe will have a much lower voltage and small changes will be neccessary. I'd hope nvidia had this working with thier new chipset motherboards, but with Intel I'd bet you need a new motherboard.

Intels parters did recieve Conroes right before nVidia's newest stuff came to market. They may have waited to test with a Conroe. But who in thier right mind would buy a nForce mobo for a Intel CPU?
February 12, 2006 3:30:46 PM

If Intelllllllllllllllllllllll has had conroooooooooooooooooooooooooe taped out for so looooooooooooooooooooooooooong then whyyyyyyyyyyy wont any of these braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand new motherboooooooooooooooooords released in the past couple of months not work with theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem?
dont ask
February 12, 2006 4:26:07 PM

Quote:
Too bad that doesn't work in the real world. Intel sold more chips than ever last year. Thier profit margin is incredable. Why is it then that thier $/share is so low. They have lost ony a couple of % in market share, yet thier value is down 1/4.



The STock Market is too confusing. It's not just share but growth, consumer confidence, etc.
February 12, 2006 4:41:03 PM

Why not buy nForce mobo for a Intel CPU?
February 12, 2006 4:48:47 PM

I think Conroe will take the trophy away from AMD.... I don't see how AMD is going to scale their power consumption down to Conroe, and speed theirs up sufficiently to beat a Conroe... XE anyway :D  I really look forward to Intel's new proc... and I'm glad that AMD was around to inspire them to compete
February 12, 2006 5:03:42 PM

Quote:
intel is cool for making new shit and all, but the gayest thing is that u need a new chipset/mobo everytime a new cpu comes out...


Not just Intel, AMD and VIA had a wild time in socket a
KT 133 good for 100 mhz cpu
KT 133A good for 133 mhz cpu
KT 266 ddr and 100 mhz cpu
KT 266A ddr and 133 mhz cpu
KT 333 133 mhz cpu
KT 333A 166 mhz cpu
KT 400 166 mhz cpu
KT 600 200 mhz cpu

Nvidia had the nforce2 for the 166 mhz cpus and had to release a chipset revision for the 200 mhz cpus

AMD 64 needed the new socket 754 for its high end release, but then they decided 939 will be the new high end cpu and 754 was moved to bargain pcs, and here comes a new socket 940 the M2 which will even need new cpu coolers as the retention mechanism has changed.

All in all though, I dislike this stalemate in performance causing them to require replacing more than just one of two peices in order to make money from the people that cant upgrade any faster than one or two year cycles. I had a SL2W8 P2 and a geforce 2 mx then upgraded to SL4KL P3 and geforce 4ti 4200. Built a 2.4c with so many new parts and had boot trouble and no way to test it other than process of elimination, RMA'd the motherboard and all has been running well. Was considering a Pentium D however the prohibitive expense has convinced me to wait to see what Conroe offers.
February 12, 2006 5:11:04 PM

I've often said that myself. Tests have shown that Intel works best with Intel chipsets.
February 12, 2006 5:58:38 PM

some ppl on here claim that using an Intel chipset means you can't overclock as much, and is slower... and just plain crappier. Mind you, it was one of those anti-Intel AMD fanboys.... However, all the experts say that Intel chipsets are better, right?
February 12, 2006 6:14:27 PM

Quote:
Too bad that doesn't work in the real world. Intel sold more chips than ever last year. Thier profit margin is incredable. Why is it then that thier $/share is so low. They have lost ony a couple of % in market share, yet thier value is down 1/4.



The STock Market is too confusing. It's not just share but growth, consumer confidence, etc.

I came across an article on the net somewhere (can't remember where), that said that Intel actually lost money in the Desktop market last year, but that their great sales in the mobile market more than made up for the small loss.

I am not sure how true this is, but it makes sense, when shown in the light of them transitioning to the architecture designed by the Isreali mobile team.
February 12, 2006 6:14:29 PM

Oh yes, Intel does make a very good board chipset and they do work well with their processors. Almost too well in most cases. It really wasn't until the X series chipset came along that propelled them. Like I've said in other posts, you can have the fastest processor in the world, if the board can't move it from point A to point B, that pretty much renders any processor, AMD or Intel, useless.
February 12, 2006 6:20:25 PM

All too True. Thats why I stick with ECS and Biostar :lol:  [Sarcasm]
February 13, 2006 5:34:23 AM

:twisted: [/b]I think Intel will take this round. I'm curious what the extreme edition is going to be like.
February 13, 2006 6:56:37 AM

Quote:
some ppl on here claim that using an Intel chipset means you can't overclock as much, and is slower... and just plain crappier.

Are you sure they didn't say motherboard?
It's been my experience that while Intel chipsets are good, they can become great when used by a mobo maker like Abit, DFI or Asus (if you dont mind sometimes flakey vcore)
Intel boards do tend to limit OCing, and other "tweaking" features.
a b à CPUs
February 13, 2006 7:01:49 AM

i wonder if conroe will be anything like a Tualatin VS Thunderbird - Intel's colder, equaly clocked cpu with twice the cache and half the fsb of the AMD (and the 130nm vs 180nm).

Intels P6 isnt fsb hungry compared to amds design - yonah with FSB667 takes on AMD quite well with the same clock speeds and cache, conroe will come out with 50% -100% more fsb to work with, twice the cache and higher clock speeds - this will be interesting, and to think, the initial speed of release is 2.66ghz? must have good batches, and as for the motherboards - prescott grade regulators for pentium m's - overkill.
February 13, 2006 10:25:19 AM

Quote:
prescott grade regulators for pentium m's - overkill.


That could be a bad omen too, if they are requiring some large ass regulators that they use to run Prescotts to run a Pentium M... What's that telling you... They are chewing more power...

I build a few custom electronics at times, Mostfet speed controllers and some microprocessor based boards. The only time I'll use an overkill component is when I know that the overkill loads could happen easily.

No use going over kill and using a TO-3 15amp 12v regulator to run a cluster of LEDs, a TO-220 7812 1Amp regulator will do it easily instead.... :p 
February 13, 2006 4:16:14 PM

xbit: The Extreme Edition of the Conroe processor will operate at 3.33GHz, sport 1333MHz processor system bus and 4MB cache. Thermal envelope of the part should be 95W.

So maybe this is known.
February 13, 2006 7:58:09 PM

Quote:
some ppl on here claim that using an Intel chipset means you can't overclock as much, and is slower... and just plain crappier.

Are you sure they didn't say motherboard?
It's been my experience that while Intel chipsets are good, they can become great when used by a mobo maker like Abit, DFI or Asus (if you dont mind sometimes flakey vcore)
Intel boards do tend to limit OCing, and other "tweaking" features.

they said chipset, it was in a blanket Intel statement, including motherboard and chipset, mentioning Intel chipsets as sucking real bad... I know and agree that Intel motherboards are definitely not the way to go, especially if you want to overclock. Intel chipsets?? All the way! They are the best.
February 20, 2006 7:42:23 PM

I think we here are smart enough not to click those links.
Stop spamming.
!