Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Rumoured Desktop Processor Roadmap of Intel / AMD for 2007 - Page 2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 19, 2006 6:32:01 PM

Quote:
lol the processors..i know lots chispets..and stuff. but the precessors..what will be the cheapest with an fsb of 1066?

It would be difficult to tell you which chipset is the cheapest exactly in the moment.
November 19, 2006 6:34:52 PM

noo i mean processor which is the cheapest processor with 1066 fsb
November 19, 2006 6:35:21 PM

Quote:
noo i mean processor which is the cheapest processor with 1066 fsb

It should be E6390.
Related resources
November 19, 2006 6:42:59 PM

Once again, I must swear damnation upon Intel for their crappy naming scheme.
One a better note, afternoon everyone. People finally stopped getting shot for their PS3's here in CT. :D 
November 19, 2006 6:56:13 PM

Quote:
Once again, I must swear damnation upon Intel for their crappy naming scheme.
One a better note, afternoon everyone. People finally stopped getting shot for their PS3's here in CT. :D 


It took me nearly an hour to summarize the upcoming Intel products. :?
I did the same for half an hour for AMD products. :wink:
December 8, 2006 6:54:58 AM

Updated E6800 and AMD 65nm launch.
December 8, 2006 7:06:25 AM

Quote:
What you should do is ask Jake to sticky this thread, change the title to Intel/AMD roadmaps and rumor mill information.

Update it say monthly, this would be useful.

Title changed :wink:
December 8, 2006 12:24:41 PM

Quote:
The one thing I would say is that I wouldn't expect the Pentium E's/Celeron 400's to have a significant margin over their competing Sempron parts (I suspect that AMD will launch Sempron X2's to counter the Pentium E's). I would suspect that the further reduced cache might hurt the Core architecture quite a bit when you consider the drop in performance from the additional cache of the Conroes to Allendales. This plays into the hands of the K8's IMC. I would expect these chips to overclock like hell however, so I see Intel totally dominating the enthusiast market from top to bottom until K8L, when things may change. On the low end for the average consumer market though, where price is important and overclocking isn't a factor i see AMD holding on - just.


The difference between 4MB L2 and 2MB L2 C2D is a mere 3.5%.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=...

I don't expect the difference between 2MB and 1MB to be too drastic either.

Semprons only have 256KB L2 (as opposed to 512KB/1MB on X2s and FXs), so even with an IMC it's going to struggle clock for clock against a Core2 Celeron. In fact I think that the Core2 Celeron would even be slightly faster clock for clock than an A64.

AMD is totally at Intel's mercy in the low end once they decide to migrate the entire lineup to Core2.

If Intel really wanted to piss AMD off they could easily release a 2GHz+ Core2 Celeron that would make all current grades of Semprons and Athlon64s obsolete.
December 8, 2006 5:33:10 PM

Quote:
The difference between 4MB L2 and 2MB L2 C2D is a mere 3.5%.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=...

I don't expect the difference between 2MB and 1MB to be too drastic either.

Semprons only have 256KB L2 (as opposed to 512KB/1MB on X2s and FXs), so even with an IMC it's going to struggle clock for clock against a Core2 Celeron. In fact I think that the Core2 Celeron would even be slightly faster clock for clock than an A64.

AMD is totally at Intel's mercy in the low end once they decide to migrate the entire lineup to Core2.

If Intel really wanted to piss AMD off they could easily release a 2GHz+ Core2 Celeron that would make all current grades of Semprons and Athlon64s obsolete.


I can expect a 10% drop in clock-for-clock performance for 2MB L2 / 1066MHz FSB => 1MB L2 / 800MHz FSB since the reduction of cache size will increase the dependency of a fast front side bus.

Also Sempron has a smaller die size than a Celeron 400.
December 8, 2006 9:52:06 PM

Quote:
The difference between 4MB L2 and 2MB L2 C2D is a mere 3.5%.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=...

I don't expect the difference between 2MB and 1MB to be too drastic either.

Semprons only have 256KB L2 (as opposed to 512KB/1MB on X2s and FXs), so even with an IMC it's going to struggle clock for clock against a Core2 Celeron. In fact I think that the Core2 Celeron would even be slightly faster clock for clock than an A64.

AMD is totally at Intel's mercy in the low end once they decide to migrate the entire lineup to Core2.

If Intel really wanted to piss AMD off they could easily release a 2GHz+ Core2 Celeron that would make all current grades of Semprons and Athlon64s obsolete.


I can expect a 10% drop in clock-for-clock performance for 2MB L2 / 1066MHz FSB => 1MB L2 / 800MHz FSB since the reduction of cache size will increase the dependency of a fast front side bus.

Also Sempron has a smaller die size than a Celeron 400.

Yeah, 10% sounds reasonable, but that still puts it slightly ahead of an A64.

AMD should really count their blessings that Intel has so much Netburst inventory to clear. It certainly gives them some breathing space in order to launch their own budget lineup under the K8L architecture.
December 9, 2006 12:54:20 AM

Quote:
Yeah, 10% sounds reasonable, but that still puts it slightly ahead of an A64.

AMD should really count their blessings that Intel has so much Netburst inventory to clear. It certainly gives them some breathing space in order to launch their own budget lineup under the K8L architecture.


From what I know, Celeron 400 series will not get over 2GHz in 2007.
A Sempron at 2.4GHz is sufficient to beat it. :wink:
December 9, 2006 4:55:59 AM

DAMN Intel for giving their processors shit names.

For a second, I thought you were talking about the Mendocino 400MHz Celeron.
December 9, 2006 6:43:50 AM

Quote:
DAMN Intel for giving their processors **** names.

For a second, I thought you were talking about the Mendocino 400MHz Celeron.


Looking at the vintage of your sig system, I can understand why you are so familiar with parts that era. :lol: 
December 9, 2006 9:30:17 AM

Quote:
DAMN Intel for giving their processors **** names.

For a second, I thought you were talking about the Mendocino 400MHz Celeron.


I have to tell you that just sorting out the new Intel models took me about 15 minutes. 8O
December 9, 2006 10:53:30 AM

Hence thats why I mentioned until K8L, when the first quad core processors come out, giving you 8 cores potentially. We will have to wait and see if this will be able to retake the performance crown.
December 9, 2006 11:44:37 AM

Call this a gut feeling of instinct for now, but chances are all 65nm AMD64 processors will be based on K8L, just the core count will range from 1 to 4 cores per die.

A single core K8L will provide good performance, Sempron or Athlon 64. They need all the IPC they can get at 65nm just to compete. Intel will be pushing 45nm before AMD can counter it too.

8) - Tabris:D arkPeace

"Common sense is instinct, and enough of it is genius." - Josh Billings
December 9, 2006 2:13:10 PM

Quote:
Call this a gut feeling of instinct for now, but chances are all 65nm AMD64 processors will be based on K8L, just the core count will range from 1 to 4 cores per die.

A single core K8L will provide good performance, Sempron or Athlon 64. They need all the IPC they can get at 65nm just to compete. Intel will be pushing 45nm before AMD can counter it too.

8) - Tabris:D arkPeace

"Common sense is instinct, and enough of it is genius." - Josh Billings


I don't think so :wink:
Barcelona is scheduled for Q2 launch.
December 9, 2006 4:25:00 PM

Yeah you're right there.

"all 65nm AMD64 processors will be based on K8L"
should really read:
"all 65nm AMD64 processors will eventually be based on K8L"

Too bad for AMD, will reduce competition.
December 9, 2006 4:34:25 PM

Quote:
Yeah you're right there.

"all 65nm AMD64 processors will be based on K8L"
should really read:
"all 65nm AMD64 processors will eventually be based on K8L"

Too bad for AMD, will reduce competition.


K8L is not ready now.
K8 was also delayed for months. :?
December 10, 2006 7:04:06 AM

Quote:
Hence thats why I mentioned until K8L, when the first quad core processors come out, giving you 8 cores potentially. We will have to wait and see if this will be able to retake the performance crown.


The price would not be so low for the beginning. :?
December 18, 2006 6:07:34 PM

Updated.
December 22, 2006 3:36:56 PM

Updated again.
December 22, 2006 4:29:46 PM

Whatever happened to the x2 3600 that was supposed to be out months ago?
December 22, 2006 4:52:50 PM

The 5600+ should add a little competition to the mid-range market. I'm looking forward to that.
December 23, 2006 1:21:32 AM

Quote:
The 5600+ should add a little competition to the mid-range market. I'm looking forward to that.


You can buy a E6600 in that price range.
From the performance benchmarks, a FX-62 can't beat E6600.
January 5, 2007 2:24:39 PM

Updated again :wink:
January 5, 2007 9:41:01 PM

Quote:
Q6600 will be priced at $531 from launch instead of in Q2.


Huh??? The Q6600 isnt launching at $530?! Gimme a link ...
January 5, 2007 11:11:58 PM

Quote:
Q6600 will be priced at $531 from launch instead of in Q2.


Huh??? The Q6600 isnt launching at $530?! Gimme a link ...

It's launching at $851, coming down to $530 in Q2. I'm too lazy to look for the link, sorry. Google it. :wink:
January 6, 2007 4:59:53 AM

Quote:
Q6600 will be priced at $531 from launch instead of in Q2.


Huh??? The Q6600 isnt launching at $530?! Gimme a link ...

You got it right.
I have fixed it :wink:
January 6, 2007 12:10:19 PM

Quote:
Q6600 will be priced at $531 from launch instead of in Q2.


Huh??? The Q6600 isnt launching at $530?! Gimme a link ...

You got it right.
I have fixed it :wink:

8)

You know what Barron is like, he would have skreetched like a stuck AMD fanboi if he saw that.
January 6, 2007 1:46:09 PM

Quote:
You know what Barron is like, he would have skreetched like a stuck AMD fanboi if he saw that.


I have URLs as backup :wink:
January 22, 2007 5:23:53 AM

Quote:


i. Core 2 Duo series (45nm products)
Release time: unknown, probably starting from Q3
Specifications: unknown, may be the same as the 65nm ones.
Clock speeds: same as above
Expected price: unknown
Expected market position: To replace the 65nm products
My commemt: The 45nm versions of Core 2 Duo series. They should be cooler than overclock better than 65nm ones. Also the clock speeds may increase.


yo! i spotted a typo there. might wanna change it. :wink:
January 22, 2007 7:45:27 AM

EDIT:
Quote:
1. Intel:
c. Core 2 Duo E6800
Release time: 1H
Specifications: 4MB shared L2 Cache, 1066MHz FSB
Clock speeds: 2.93GHz
Expected price: $500 (current price of E6700)
Expected market position: To replace E6700
My commemt: Not much to mention here. Just a locked-multiplier version of X6800.
EDIT: May be cancelled (information from author of HKEPC)

h. Core 2 Quad series (45nm products)
Release time: unknown, probably Q3
Specifications: 2x6MB L2, 1333MHz FSB, SSE4
Clock speeds: above 3GHz
Expected price: unknown
Expected market position: To replace 65nm Core 2 Quad series
My commemt: A revised Core 2 Quad product. It should be faster, cooler and more energy efficient than the current series. It will be clocked higher.

i. Core 2 Duo series (45nm products)
Release time: unknown, probably starting from Q3
Specifications: 1333MHz FSB, 3MB/6MB shared L2, SSE4
Clock speeds: higher than current
Expected price: unknown
Expected market position: To replace the 65nm products
My commemt: The 45nm versions of Core 2 Duo series. They should be faster, cooler and overclock better than the 65nm ones. Also the clock speeds will increase.

2. AMD:
a. QuadFX series
Release time: FX-70 / FX-72 / FX-74 (November 2006)
Specifications: 2CPUs, 2 blocks of 2x1MB L2 Cache
Clock speeds: 2.6GHz (FX-70), 2.8GHz (FX-72), 3.0GHz (FX-74)
Expected price: $599/$799/$999
Expected market position: New position
My commemt: Knee-jerk reaction with Intel quad-core processors. Not even a peep at them.

b. Athlon64 x2 series (65nm products)
Release time: X2 4000+, X2 4400+, X2 4800+, X2 5000+ (5th Dec 2006), others (unconfirmed, Q2)
Specifications: 2 blocks of 512KB L2 Cache
Clock speeds: 1.9GHz(X2 3600+), 2.0GHz (X2 3800+), 2.1GHz (X2 4000+), 2.2GHz (X2 4200+), 2.3GHz (X2 4400+), 2.4GHz (X2 4600+), 2.5GHz (X2 4800+), 2.6GHz (X2 5000+), 2.7GHz (X2 5200+), 2.8GHz (X2 5400+)
Expected price: unknown, probably the same or below the current price of 90nm versions
Expected market position: To replace the 90nm products
My commemt: The 65nm versions of Athlon x2 series. They should be cooler, but overclock less than the 90nm ones. The clock speeds will not increase. The new introduction of 0.5x multiplier helps AMD to have more products within the small speed bins.
Update: The first batch of 65nm products are actually slower than the 90nm ones as they have higher L2 latency.
January 22, 2007 1:17:55 PM

Updated :wink:
January 26, 2007 3:07:58 PM

Updated again :wink:
January 26, 2007 3:46:02 PM

Quote:
Updated again :wink:


You should add the xeon x3220 and x3210 as lower clocked X6700 equivalents. They are a good way to buy cheaper 775 quad cores right now.
January 26, 2007 3:51:10 PM

Quote:
Updated again :wink:


You should add the xeon x3220 and x3210 as lower clocked X6700 equivalents. They are a good way to buy cheaper 775 quad cores right now.

I will add those processors as reminder along the next update :wink:
January 26, 2007 3:52:19 PM

Quote:
Updated again :wink:


You should add the xeon x3220 and x3210 as lower clocked X6700 equivalents. They are a good way to buy cheaper 775 quad cores right now.

I will add those processors as reminder along the next update :wink:

8)
January 26, 2007 4:59:24 PM

Kudos dude :lol:  ....thats what i call doing some homework...I appreciate people like you who save me the time of looking up the stats(even tho some are other peoples opinion),dont pay attention to those who have but idle time on their hands to ridicule thoughlessly against your good doings :wink: ...it has sticky potential...thanx
January 30, 2007 7:01:40 PM

Most recent update: Celeron and Pentium series :wink:
February 20, 2007 2:28:37 PM

Updated. :wink:

But without A64x2 6000+ (90nm version)
February 20, 2007 9:03:01 PM

IMHO from reading your post I perceive "THIS IS WHAT INTEL IS DOING" and by the way "amd is trying to survive".

nuff said


________________
In answer to that eternal question, Booze is the answer. But now I don't remember the question. Everyone needs belief in something. I believe I'll have another beer!
February 21, 2007 7:32:14 AM

Quote:
IMHO from reading your post I perceive "THIS IS WHAT INTEL IS DOING" and by the way "amd is trying to survive".

nuff said


These are their rumoured roadmaps, not my perceptions :wink:
March 3, 2007 5:31:25 AM

A minor update. :wink:
March 3, 2007 6:05:27 AM

lolz... i think this will be become a sticky soon XD
March 3, 2007 6:12:50 AM

I really like the idea of the E6550, higher FSB(1333) and should have a decent price around $270...that's just my guess since it's between the E6400 and E6600.

The only thing that gets me right now is that Intel is supposed to come out with a new socket design, PCI-E 2.0 is supposed to come out, and DDR3 is supposed to come out too. I'm guessing we'll all start to rebuild about Xmas time of next year. Bummer :( 
March 3, 2007 6:18:52 AM

Thanks for all your work keeping this updated QC. IMO, this is one of the most useful threads in the forum.

Rob
March 3, 2007 1:53:28 PM

Quote:
I really like the idea of the E6550, higher FSB(1333) and should have a decent price around $270...that's just my guess since it's between the E6400 and E6600.

The only thing that gets me right now is that Intel is supposed to come out with a new socket design, PCI-E 2.0 is supposed to come out, and DDR3 is supposed to come out too. I'm guessing we'll all start to rebuild about Xmas time of next year. Bummer :( 


The higher FSB will not affect the performance much. :wink:
March 10, 2007 2:02:44 PM

updated again. :wink:
!