Would these then require a shared L3 cache ?
Would these then require a shared L3 cache ?
Although they have 2MB L2 and 4MB L2 versions, the 2MB one is made by only disabling half of the L2 Cache.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/index.x?pg=1You'll find plenty of sources that will tell you the code name for these 2MB Core 2 Duo processors is "Allendale," but Intel says otherwise. These CPUs are still code-named "Conroe," which makes sense since they're the same physical chips with half of their L2 cache disabled. Intel may well be cooking up a chip code-named Allendale with 2MB of L2 cache natively, but this is not that chip.
That explains why Intel doesn't particularly want to release the E4300 now.
I previously talked about this here:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Intel-Core-uArch-coming-MPftopic-205600-days0-orderasc-25.html
So I'll just copy my comments over again:
The current E6300 and E6400 are actually disabled Conroe parts which explains why availability was fairly slow during launch and probably contributed lower Q3 results than would otherwise be possible.
That doesn't make sense. If the E6300 and E6400 are actually full 4MB Conroe dies, Intel can tune the mix all the want to optimize yields for the lower clock speeds, but the resulting dies are still larger than the need to be since you only need half the cache. So they are still not making as much as they could be with a 2MB L2 native die. Right now using full 4MB dies for the E6300 and E6400 is fine since the large size of the Conroe die means they probably have a lot of defective parts that they would otherwise have to through away. But, as the yields improve there are less defective Conroe parts that can have half their cache economically disabled which is why Intel is transferring to a true 2MB Allendale.I don't see this as the reason.
Intel can tune the product mix from E6600 to E6400 / E6300.
Just the same as AMD.
The Xeon 3000 series use Conroe cores and they correspond exactly to Core 2 Duos. Both the 3040 and 3050 have 2MB L2 caches just like the E6300 and E6400. It's only in the Xeon 5100 Woodcrests that even the lower end 1067MHz FSB parts still have 4MB L2 caches.I thought the 3040 and 3050 Xeon had 4MB L2? At least that´s what newegg said and i believe the intel specs did mention that too. What´s right and what´s wrong?
That doesn't make sense. If the E6300 and E6400 are actually full 4MB Conroe dies, Intel can tune the mix all the want to optimize yields for the lower clock speeds, but the resulting dies are still larger than the need to be since you only need half the cache. So they are still not making as much as they could be with a 2MB L2 native die. Right now using full 4MB dies for the E6300 and E6400 is fine since the large size of the Conroe die means they probably have a lot of defective parts that they would otherwise have to through away. But, as the yields improve there are less defective Conroe parts that can have half their cache economically disabled which is why Intel is transferring to a true 2MB Allendale.Yeah, this makes sense. Makes me wonder though, if they create a specific Allendale wafer, will everything else(except cache amount)be the same and if not.....will this hurt Allendales awesome overclocking abilities? I guess this is where they are expecting the E4300's to come from....E6300/E6400's not making the grade. If that's the case, the E4300 might not be the stellar overclocker that everyone is anticipating.I don't see this as the reason.
Intel can tune the product mix from E6600 to E6400 / E6300.
Just the same as AMD.