3GHz Quad coming?

[r0ck]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36902

9x multiplier (compared to the 8x of the 2.66GHz), 12.8% clock boost for 3GHz. I wonder how much they'll be able to push the quad.

 

[epsilon84]

The main thing holding back 65nm quads is power consumption. The QX6700 has a TDP of 130W already, so a 3GHz QC will be pushing close to 150W.

If AMD actually had anything to challenge QX6700 I'm sure Intel would've released a 3GHz (or 2.93GHz, as with the X6800) quad core for desktop. Right now there is simply no need, from Intel's perspective anyway. Of course, we want faster quads to push down the prices of current quads.

 

[BaronMatrix]

The main thing holding back 65nm quads is power consumption. The QX6700 has a TDP of 130W already, so a 3GHz QC will be pushing close to 150W.

If AMD actually had anything to challenge QX6700 I'm sure Intel would've released a 3GHz (or 2.93GHz, as with the X6800) quad core for desktop. Right now there is simply no need, from Intel's perspective anyway. Of course, we want faster quads to push down the prices of current quads.

Not to be funny but now people can see why AMD didn't NEED to push to a new arch(see verndewd's post) for 3 years. I guess cost of transition may also be a factor with retooling and new masks.

 

[epsilon84]

The main thing holding back 65nm quads is power consumption. The QX6700 has a TDP of 130W already, so a 3GHz QC will be pushing close to 150W.

If AMD actually had anything to challenge QX6700 I'm sure Intel would've released a 3GHz (or 2.93GHz, as with the X6800) quad core for desktop. Right now there is simply no need, from Intel's perspective anyway. Of course, we want faster quads to push down the prices of current quads.

Not to be funny but now people can see why AMD didn't NEED to push to a new arch(see verndewd's post) for 3 years. I guess cost of transition may also be a factor with retooling and new masks.

AMD certainly did milk Intel's incompetence for all it's worth, but they sort of got caught with their pants down in regards to C2D.

 

[tool_462]

I am somewhat curious why the stock speed is blacked out... I know the multiplier says 6-9 but that could have been some sort of CPU-Z glitch with a certain motherboard.

 

[r0ck]

TGDaily says Intel told them too. Funny that they don't tell the same INQ hacks too though :lol:

 

[ajfink]

Yeah, quads are dishing out a lot of heat and taking a lot of power as they are. It will take another process shrink and a monolithic die to change (or at least help) that.

 

[DavidC1]

Yeah, quads are dishing out a lot of heat and taking a lot of power as they are. It will take another process shrink and a monolithic die to change (or at least help) that.

Or a revision. Later this year ALL quad-cores that's going for mainstream is being aimed for 95W, at same process. Of course, its different for extreme versions. It'll end up same as mainstream Barcelona for power consumption.

The reason Monolithic die gives power advantage over seperate dies like Smithfield/Kentsfield its not because its monolithic, its because they get through extra optimizations while they are being moved to a single die.

 

[DavidC1]

It's good to see you posting again.

jack

Hello to you too .

 

[knowsitall]

cant wait for q6600 to drop to 500$ hopefully this summer

 

[gOJDO]

1. it is from the_INQ!
2. it is not for desktop!