What do you think about Conroe-L?

[joefriday]

Reading about the Conroe-L CPUs over at HKEPC:

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=671970

It has me wondering how much of a demand these chips are going to generate, and how well the Conroe architecture will scale down on just one core. With release speeds of 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8GHz, they are hardly tearing up the competition. How will these Conroe-L processors compare to AMD's current Athlon 64 line? How do they stack up against the current Netburst Pentium 4s?

I suppose overclockers might find them interesting, as a small bump up to the 1066 fsb should yield some impressive results (a 1.8GHz Conroe-L at 1066fsb is 2.4GHz). If you're really feeling lucky, a jump up to the 1333fsb would yield a 3GHz Conroe-L.

Overall, I really wonder about the necessity of a chip like this. With the mass-migration to multicore processing, a new single core chip seems obsolete before it even hits the shelves. The old Netburst line of single and dual core chips are price-slashed so aggressively that it will be hard to sell these newer chips IF the Netburst products are still around. Since these Conroe-L chips aren't supposed to be released until Q2 of 2007, there may be a chance that most of the old netburst stock will be cleared out by then, giving Intel the green light to mark up these processors into the $100-$130 dollar range. The Celeron variants of these same processors will then likely fill their traditional pricing spot at $75-$100, and the below $75 area will be only Cedermill Celeron Ds.

So, what does everyone else have to say about the Conroe-L?

 

[evilr00t]

Good for laptops and HTPCs

 

[zarooch]

i can't understand wots the point in having the Celeron D processors then when you have a low priced single core Conroe-L, I don't think so any one would buy these single core Conroe-L, instead they should produce more dual-cores and price them competitively againt the alternatives if any.

 

[qcmadness]

Conroe-L: 2007 Q2
Sempron x2: 2007 Q3

I would like to see how they compete. Since Intel will drop Netburst products, Conroe-L probably will be a dirt cheap part (<US$100).

 

[cxl]

i can't understand wots the point in having the Celeron D processors then when you have a low priced single core Conroe-L, I don't

I think Conroe-L is supposed to replace Celeron-D as budget solution. Acutally, quite good idea IMHO. Perfect for many tasks, better than Celeron-D in performance/watt. In fact, necessary to compete with AMD at low-end.

 

[skud]

something has to replace the celeron

 

[Grimmy]

I just had a re-thought of Intel.

Conroe was the name to replace Pentium.

Intel wanted to get away from that name. So, I guess they may want to get away from the name, celeron?

 

[evilr00t]

On the contrary, Intel should be fire selling as much of their Netburst stock as they can... replacing the crippled Celeron D series with single cores of Presler / Smithfield and reducing their clock speed

 

[cxl]

On the contrary, Intel should be fire selling as much of their Netburst stock as they can... replacing the crippled Celeron D series with single cores of Presler / Smithfield and reducing their clock speed

Yes. That is late 2006 begining 2007. But they should (will) eol netburst ASAP and then they will need budget solution. I think single-core Conroe with 1MB L2 cache is as expensive to build as Presler, so it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[1Tanker]

Reading about the Conroe-L CPUs over at HKEPC:

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=671970

It has me wondering how much of a demand these chips are going to generate, and how well the Conroe architecture will scale down on just one core. With release speeds of 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8GHz, they are hardly tearing up the competition. How will these Conroe-L processors compare to AMD's current Athlon 64 line? How do they stack up against the current Netburst Pentium 4s?

I suppose overclockers might find them interesting, as a small bump up to the 1066 fsb should yield some impressive results (a 1.8GHz Conroe-L at 1066fsb is 2.4GHz). If you're really feeling lucky, a jump up to the 1333fsb would yield a 3GHz Conroe-L.

Overall, I really wonder about the necessity of a chip like this. With the mass-migration to multicore processing, a new single core chip seems obsolete before it even hits the shelves. The old Netburst line of single and dual core chips are price-slashed so aggressively that it will be hard to sell these newer chips IF the Netburst products are still around. Since these Conroe-L chips aren't supposed to be released until Q2 of 2007, there may be a chance that most of the old netburst stock will be cleared out by then, giving Intel the green light to mark up these processors into the $100-$130 dollar range. The Celeron variants of these same processors will then likely fill their traditional pricing spot at $75-$100, and the below $75 area will be only Cedermill Celeron Ds.

So, what does everyone else have to say about the Conroe-L?

I don't think they will need the Celeron 400 series, as the Pentium 1000 series will fill the budget sector. Maybe if the Celeron was an ULV model, then it could make sense...but not with a TDP of 65w. I question their decision in staying with the Celeron and Pentium names? :?

 

[joefriday]

That TDP also has me questioning Intel's decision on this one. Hopefully that won't be the TDP of the chips when they are released, but if the TDP remains at 65 watt, I think Intel made a big mistake disabling the power-saving features. In this day and age, I would consider power savings as a mandatory part of a new chip, not a luxery item afforded only by those who purchase the flagship models. AMD even puts CNQ on there Semprons (at least on the 3000 and up versions of their socket 754s, not sure about AM2). Intel missed the boat on this one.

I think these chips would be excellent if there TDP was at a more realistic 35-45 watts.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Reading about the Conroe-L CPUs over at HKEPC:

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=671970

It has me wondering how much of a demand these chips are going to generate, and how well the Conroe architecture will scale down on just one core. With release speeds of 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8GHz, they are hardly tearing up the competition. How will these Conroe-L processors compare to AMD's current Athlon 64 line? How do they stack up against the current Netburst Pentium 4s?

I suppose overclockers might find them interesting, as a small bump up to the 1066 fsb should yield some impressive results (a 1.8GHz Conroe-L at 1066fsb is 2.4GHz). If you're really feeling lucky, a jump up to the 1333fsb would yield a 3GHz Conroe-L.

Overall, I really wonder about the necessity of a chip like this. With the mass-migration to multicore processing, a new single core chip seems obsolete before it even hits the shelves. The old Netburst line of single and dual core chips are price-slashed so aggressively that it will be hard to sell these newer chips IF the Netburst products are still around. Since these Conroe-L chips aren't supposed to be released until Q2 of 2007, there may be a chance that most of the old netburst stock will be cleared out by then, giving Intel the green light to mark up these processors into the $100-$130 dollar range. The Celeron variants of these same processors will then likely fill their traditional pricing spot at $75-$100, and the below $75 area will be only Cedermill Celeron Ds.

So, what does everyone else have to say about the Conroe-L?

Anad did a test with one core and the difference between one Core 2 core and two is

85%


That means that Core 2 L will be 85% slower than Core 2. That means it will be the new Celeron.

 

[Ycon]

And suddenly Anand is right, eh?

 

[joefriday]

Anad did a test with one core and the difference between one Core 2 core and two is 85%

That means that Core 2 L will be 85% slower than Core 2. That means it will be the new Celeron.

When you state facts like this, it should be customary to link to the article of which you're quoting this information. I just tried searching over at anandtech for this piece of information in their various Core 2 Duo articles, and I wasn't able to find it. Would you mind providing a link to the article that contains this information? Thanks.

 

[dasickninja]

The link isn't going to come...

 

[m25]

Anad did a test with one core and the difference between one Core 2 core and two is 85%

That means that Core 2 L will be 85% slower than Core 2. That means it will be the new Celeron.

When you state facts like this, it should be customary to link to the article of which you're quoting this information. I just tried searching over at anandtech for this piece of information in their various Core 2 Duo articles, and I wasn't able to find it. Would you mind providing a link to the article that contains this information? Thanks.
One thing is sure; They're currently boasting 4.5+ GHz CeleronDs everywhere. Looks like Intel is willing to clear the shelves from CeleronDs before introducing the new value line.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Anad did a test with one core and the difference between one Core 2 core and two is 85%

That means that Core 2 L will be 85% slower than Core 2. That means it will be the new Celeron.

When you state facts like this, it should be customary to link to the article of which you're quoting this information. I just tried searching over at anandtech for this piece of information in their various Core 2 Duo articles, and I wasn't able to find it. Would you mind providing a link to the article that contains this information? Thanks.


I thought about it and it may have been here. I wish I could remember every review I read. Jack and I had an argument about it. The test was based on disabling one core at 1.83 and 2.93. The difference between 1.83 and 2.93 was 35% while the difference between one 1.83GHz core and two was 85%.

I'll look for it for a few minutes.


Besides that's not in the Terms of Use.

 

[gOJDO]

I thought about it and it may have been here. I wish I could remember every review I read. Jack and I had an argument about it. The test was based on disabling one core at 1.83 and 2.93. The difference between 1.83 and 2.93 was 35% while the difference between one 1.83GHz core and two was 85%.

I'll look for it for a few minutes.


Besides that's not in the Terms of Use.

 

[BaronMatrix]

I thought about it and it may have been here. I wish I could remember every review I read. Jack and I had an argument about it. The test was based on disabling one core at 1.83 and 2.93. The difference between 1.83 and 2.93 was 35% while the difference between one 1.83GHz core and two was 85%.

I'll look for it for a few minutes.


Besides that's not in the Terms of Use.

So how does it feel to not have a life? I can't imagine searching for pics about someone I don't like.

 

[dasickninja]

It takes Google approximately 0.14 seconds to search for the 326 result of the words "donkey + jackass". Yep. I could go on but, I don't want to get banned.

 

[BaronMatrix]

It takes Google approximately 0.14 seconds to search for the 326 result of the words "donkey + jackass". Yep. I could go on but, I don't want to get banned.

The problem is the effort and not the time. You have no life if you consistently search for pics about someone you don't like.

But at any rate I think Anad took th ereview down because it makes Conroe-L look bad. Ask JagOff if we didn't argue about that 85% from turning of one core.

 

[1Tanker]

It takes Google approximately 0.14 seconds to search for the 326 result of the words "donkey + jackass". Yep. I could go on but, I don't want to get banned.

The problem is the effort and not the time. You have no life if you consistently search for pics about someone you don't like.

But at any rate I think Anad took th ereview down because it makes Conroe-L look bad. Ask JagOff if we didn't argue about that 85% from turning of one core.He wastes less time and effort searching for/posting pics referring to you, than you do bragging about yourself endlessly in almost every one of your posts. I don't know how you can walk through a doorway with a head that big. :roll:

 

[BaronMatrix]

It takes Google approximately 0.14 seconds to search for the 326 result of the words "donkey + jackass". Yep. I could go on but, I don't want to get banned.

The problem is the effort and not the time. You have no life if you consistently search for pics about someone you don't like.

But at any rate I think Anad took th ereview down because it makes Conroe-L look bad. Ask JagOff if we didn't argue about that 85% from turning of one core.He wastes less time and effort searching for/posting pics referring to you, than you do bragging about yourself endlessly in almost every one of your posts. I don't know how you can walk through a doorway with a head that big. :roll:


I just have self confidence and belief in myself. I hope to never sound conceited unless talking to Intel ho s. If I do a certain job how is it bragging to say I have shown to be good at it?

If a-holes would stop with the janitor and unemployment jokes, then I wouldn't do that.

 

[zenmaster]

I am sure you can come up with certain test scenarios in which there is a 85% loss in performance.

However, If you were to average a number of tasks and uses, it would not be that high.

It would be possible to run two tasks that each pushed the cpu full load or very well written multi-tasking software etc...

However, the folks using this chip are gonna be surfing the web, running MS Word, etc.....

These tasks are going to be limited by HDD speed, internet connectivity speed, etc.. etc...

Sure a faster processor would help, but if Granny only wants to drive 55 then a Porsche will not get her there any faster than a Civic.

Seems people forget that 75%+ of computer users make little use of their computers power today - even with old processors and even a new bottom of the line CPU would be faster than what they have.

When testing Celeron's and other low end CPUs, they should be rated on Power Usage, Office Applications and Web Surfing. If you want to toss in a high end test to show the tasks they are not designed for that is fine but I know lots of people who can't afford or can barely afford a new $300-$400 system. So if they can get a $75 Conroe-L instead of a $175 Conroe 6300 they go from not getting a system to getting a system that repalces their PIII 800.

 

[RichPLS]

But at any rate I think Anad took th ereview down because it makes Conroe-L look bad. Ask JagOff if we didn't argue about that 85% from turning of one core.

No links to back up your claims... besides, you have stated that bungholiomarks are not what defines performance... :roll:

I just have self confidence and belief in myself. I hope to never sound conceited unless talking to Intel ho s. If I do a certain job how is it bragging to say I have shown to be good at it?

This fits pretty close to the definition of conceited... :roll: