Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OMG! Intel confirms 3.2ghz EE!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 31, 2006 11:56:59 PM

Link.

Quote:
Intel representatives just contacted DailyTech with the following information:

The Core 2 Extreme processor (Conroe based) will ship at 2.93GHz at Core 2 Duo launch. We will also have a 3.2GHz version by end of the year. And as you know, the Quad Core enthusiast SKU, Kentsfield, is planned for Q1'07.


Take that AMD fanboys!
May 31, 2006 11:59:51 PM

Quote:
Link.

Intel representatives just contacted DailyTech with the following information:

The Core 2 Extreme processor (Conroe based) will ship at 2.93GHz at Core 2 Duo launch. We will also have a 3.2GHz version by end of the year. And as you know, the Quad Core enthusiast SKU, Kentsfield, is planned for Q1'07.


Take that AMD fanboys!

Hold Up! before you start bashing AMD fan boys!!

Why Do they run at 1066Mhz Instead of 1333Mhz? they are also loosing 100Mhz so it won't be the "AMD Bashing" FSB Extreme Edition as everyone thought

They are slowing from 1333mhz X 2.5= 3332.5Mhz
to 1066 X 3= 3198Mhz A total of a 134.5Mhz in speed loss and about 267Mhz in FSB
June 1, 2006 12:02:30 AM

975 and 965 chipsets don't support it.
Related resources
June 1, 2006 12:04:24 AM

Quote:
975 and 965 chipsets don't support it.


How Sad :cry:  :cry:  :cry:  But you can Just Overclock beyond 3.6Ghz right?? because i so badly want a Conroe over 1333MHz and a speed uncompared to with a Regular Non EE Conroe
June 1, 2006 12:06:43 AM

They'll probably release it next to the 985 chipset which I believe supports it (well it better!) and yes you could just overclock it.
June 1, 2006 12:09:28 AM

All of your posts start with "OMG". You might aswell post in caps to, 9-Inch style.
June 1, 2006 12:12:23 AM

Why? That would be hypocritical of myself and just plain stupid.
June 1, 2006 12:13:40 AM

Thats what im trying to point out. You get up people for using all caps yet you start all your posts with "OMG". How is that so detracted from using all caps.
June 1, 2006 12:14:41 AM

Quote:
They'll probably release it next to the 985 chipset which I believe supports it (well it better!) and yes you could just overclock it.


YAY! That's why i Love being a Overclocking Nerd! I want to get that System and then Just overclock that Monster!! Anyone Else in Toronto Getting that System?? IF not I'll be the fastest Thing In Toronto Until NewYears Eve 2007
June 1, 2006 12:16:14 AM

Are you serious? Because thats just plain stupid.
June 1, 2006 12:16:51 AM

Looks like it'll be a nice core, but I can't help but wondering what the TDP is. (Whatver it is, it'll be lower than my current core)
June 1, 2006 12:19:03 AM

Quote:
Looks like it'll be a nice core, but I can't help but wondering what the TDP is. (Whatver it is, it'll be lower than my current core)


It's most likely at 89W, because the Non-Extreme Edition are at 65W and the Memroms are touted to be at 35W right?? Correct me if im wrong about the Memrom TDP
June 1, 2006 12:21:34 AM

I'm betting ~ 70watts.

Quote:
because the Non-Extreme Edition are at 65W and the Memroms are touted to be at 35W right?? Correct me if im wrong about the Memrom TDP


Correct.
June 1, 2006 1:11:43 AM

Quote:
They only announced it today because they've seen what AMD are doing with their Rev.G 65nm SOI.
It's a good indication that 2.93Ghz at launch has a lot more poential for us to squeeze out(and current proven data says so).

Well I'm glad that they are at least acknoledging that AMD might have something scary in the works and are binning higher chips. Too bad about the 1333mhz chipset issue. Anyone remember when I joked about Intel having to build themselves a super-pipelined northbridge to keep up with bandwidth demand in the next few years :wink:
June 1, 2006 1:29:57 AM

Maybe I am just old and cynical, but what Intel is doing makes perfect sense.

People who buy the FX and EE chips do so for bragging rights - pure and simple.

To pay $700 for a chip that real world is maybe 5 or 6% faster is just nuts.

AMDs FX60 is, objectively speaking, on balance looking at all benchmarks (and not just cherry picking a few bandwidth sensitive gaming tests) about 6% faster than a 3.73 ghz 965 EE - but look at all the huge press, fanboy support, etc it has earned AMD.

Intel will release a 2.93 ghz Conroe, and quietly stockpile split bin 3.2s till needed, and sell every 2.93 at a premium they can...

Untill they need the 3.2, which they will sell at a premium while quietly stockpiling split bin 3.46 ghz parts....

Untill they need the 3.46 parts...

Rinse.. lather... repeat...

AMD almost ceratinly could have cherrypicked 3.0, maybe 3.2 ghz parts long ago for their FX series...

They didn't, because they didn't have to...

END OF STORY....
June 1, 2006 1:45:28 AM

The shear fact of the matter is that AMD cannot get too 3.2 ghz or 3.0 for that matter their fastest chip will be the FX 62 @ 2.8 ghz, and if you buy that chip theres almost no overclocking headroom.
June 1, 2006 2:31:39 AM

Quote:
Link.

Intel representatives just contacted DailyTech with the following information:

The Core 2 Extreme processor (Conroe based) will ship at 2.93GHz at Core 2 Duo launch. We will also have a 3.2GHz version by end of the year. And as you know, the Quad Core enthusiast SKU, Kentsfield, is planned for Q1'07.


Take that AMD fanboys!

Intel fanboys unite!!!!!! :p 
June 1, 2006 2:41:19 AM

Quote:
Link.

Intel representatives just contacted DailyTech with the following information:

The Core 2 Extreme processor (Conroe based) will ship at 2.93GHz at Core 2 Duo launch. We will also have a 3.2GHz version by end of the year. And as you know, the Quad Core enthusiast SKU, Kentsfield, is planned for Q1'07.


Take that AMD fanboys!

Intel fanboys unite!!!!!! :p  :roll: Fanboys disgrace the very company they support. Would you like to have thousands of: "iNTEL iS tEH rOXXORZ nAD tEHY pWN tEH AmdzORZ bECUZ,,,,, tEHY r tEH ROXXOR2!!!!!11onene," behind you?
June 1, 2006 2:46:22 AM

It was a joke, lighten up man.
June 1, 2006 2:48:38 AM

Quote:
It was a joke, lighten up man.
Righty.
June 1, 2006 2:49:36 AM

Quote:
Link.

Intel representatives just contacted DailyTech with the following information:

The Core 2 Extreme processor (Conroe based) will ship at 2.93GHz at Core 2 Duo launch. We will also have a 3.2GHz version by end of the year. And as you know, the Quad Core enthusiast SKU, Kentsfield, is planned for Q1'07.


Take that AMD fanboys!

Intel fanboys unite!!!!!! :p  :roll: Fanboys disgrace the very company they support. Would you like to have thousands of: "iNTEL iS tEH rOXXORZ nAD tEHY pWN tEH AmdzORZ bECUZ,,,,, tEHY r tEH ROXXOR2!!!!!11onene," behind you?

I should have used the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags :p 

Anyway I would never buy AMD. My 2.8c is oVeRCLoXXoRReD to 37Ghz and beats even the highest spec Cray supercomputer :p 

OMFG I am teh 1337!!!!!!

*shudders* I hate fanboi's. I would never become one or genuinely post like one myself 8O
June 1, 2006 3:25:54 AM

Quote:
They'll probably release it next to the 985 chipset which I believe supports it (well it better!) and yes you could just overclock it.


no 985 chipset yet, it was planned to introduce after Q2 of 07. for the mean while. the Intel 975xbx 2 will handle the revised conroe and the 1st quad-core kentsfield.

[Intel's Secret Weapon For Kentsfield : Bad Axe 2][/i]
June 1, 2006 3:31:48 AM

Thanks for that. Bearlake better be badass.
June 1, 2006 3:41:34 AM

Quote:
Thanks for that. Bearlake better be badass.


And if not????? What are you gonna do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you? :p 
June 1, 2006 3:44:46 AM

*closes the door and locks it*
June 1, 2006 4:14:55 AM

Yeah this didnt surprise me at all honestly with the different OCing results I have read it realy seemed like Intel was holding it back a bit (why not?) The thing that does surprise me is the 1333 bus I think they may be running into some data corruption issues ? well I hope they get it ironed out :)  they need to get that bus up to speed :) 
June 1, 2006 4:17:49 AM

Woodcrest runs at 1333 fsb with no issues like I said before, chipset issue.
June 1, 2006 4:26:09 AM

Quote:
Woodcrest runs at 1333 fsb with no issues like I said before, chipset issue.


Agree. It's probably a matter of them wanting to not play their cards too soon. Why play your cards straight up when you can hold back and over a period of time and be seen to be making progress. Also releasing products on a 1333Mhz FSB would also mean that the processors will use RAM that's even more expensive. I'm sure there are no "issues" as such and it's Intel just holding back :) 
June 1, 2006 5:03:42 AM

I find it interesting that everyone is going back to believing the "megahertz myth" again.

Just an observation. I'm far from a fanboy of either :D 
June 1, 2006 5:04:21 AM

Quote:
*closes the door and locks it*

Hanging out with Cruise,Travolta, and R Kelly again AM?
June 1, 2006 5:10:36 AM

Quote:
Lame.


:lol: 
June 1, 2006 7:04:51 AM

Quote:
All of your posts start with "OMG". You might aswell post in caps to, 9-Inch style.


this isnt the normal pics that are posted (dos keyboard + slinky)

but its pretty danm close

June 1, 2006 9:53:32 AM

Quote:
I find it interesting that everyone is going back to believing the "megahertz myth" again.


It's not a myth...per se. A 3.2 GHz Conroe WILL be faster than a 2.93Ghz

Conroe, all else being equal. No myth. :wink:
June 1, 2006 10:27:33 AM

Thanks but I've already got a warehouse full of the things.
June 1, 2006 10:56:39 AM

Quote:
Thanks but I've already got a warehouse full of the things.



I thought you might appreciate the joke :lol:  :lol: 
June 1, 2006 7:35:57 PM

lol linux
!