Lost Circuits predicts 35W TDP for Penryn

[wickedmonster]

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_penryn/

Seems like lost circuits predicts 35W for dual core version of penryn with a top speed of 3.6ghz and 70W for quadcore. I don't know how reliable Lost Circuits is, but if they're correct, then AMD doesn't stand a chance! Penryn will OC like crazy!

 

[mr_fnord]

All of the articles coming out about IBM/Intel high-k metal transistors say power consumption decreases by 10x in off state and 1.5-2x in on state, and on the entire chip a 30-40% decrease in energy consumption or increase in clock rates should be expected. It is unclear if the improved efficiency is for 65nm or 45nm process, but if the metal process allows 30% increase in speed at 65nm, the shrink would also add to the speed.

There are all of these little unsourced one-liners in articles talking about how Conroe isn't close to maxed out on performance, and how Intel labs have C2D's at 4Ghz at 65nm (though most likely not < 65W), so that would give metal gate 45nm chips lots of room to run.

Of course, why would Intel release the chips at their fastest functional speed when it has no pressure from AMD? As long as Intel has no pressure on the high end, they can hold that 1 Ghz of headroom for when AMD releases a competitive product, then have a 'breakthrough' that suddenly boosts their entire product line by 20%. That's the only reason we see these $180 e6300 (and soon to be cheaper e4300) that overclock well past the $1000 chips.

 

[Ranman68k]

This is going to be a great year for CPUs!

I may finally upgrade from my 1.8 GHz P4-M laptop.

 

[BaldEagle]

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_penryn/

Seems like lost circuits predicts 35W for dual core version of penryn with a top speed of 3.6ghz and 70W for quadcore. I don't know how reliable Lost Circuits is, but if they're correct, then AMD doesn't stand a chance! Penryn will OC like crazy!

I think this is abit much, 40-45 watts. Top speed though will be significantly higher if they stick to the 65 Watt bucket. The lower thermals, and smaller design will likely allow them to push clock up much higher. 4 Ghz is not out of the ball park for a dual core and 3.4-3.6 for quad.

Without pressure from AMD I would expect that Intel is going to drop the power below 65 watts and set their multiplier to limit the overclock speed with the FSB. This gives them the leverage to instantly clock up the chips to 65 watts and beat AMD back down again.

 

[cryogenic]

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_penryn/

Seems like lost circuits predicts 35W for dual core version of penryn with a top speed of 3.6ghz and 70W for quadcore. I don't know how reliable Lost Circuits is, but if they're correct, then AMD doesn't stand a chance! Penryn will OC like crazy!

I think this is abit much, 40-45 watts. Top speed though will be significantly higher if they stick to the 65 Watt bucket. The lower thermals, and smaller design will likely allow them to push clock up much higher. 4 Ghz is not out of the ball park for a dual core and 3.4-3.6 for quad.

Ok ... but can Intel's FSB handle 3.6 GHz quad core or 4 GHz dual core ? Current tests don't show linear scaling for quad cores compared to dual cores ... I mean are we going to see performance improvements? yea sure, but if they are going to be 10-15% compared to Core 2 Duo/Quad because of fsb then Intel should settle to making lower power cpus and not go much higher with frequencies.

 

[the_vorlon]

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_penryn/

Seems like lost circuits predicts 35W for dual core version of penryn with a top speed of 3.6ghz and 70W for quadcore. I don't know how reliable Lost Circuits is, but if they're correct, then AMD doesn't stand a chance! Penryn will OC like crazy!

There are lots of sites getting current Conroe quads to 3.33+ ghz on air cooling, so 3.6 for 45 nano with metal gates is certainly not a stretch, and is likely conservative it anything.

Anybody not living under a rock knows Intel has vast potential left in Conroe (The lowest bin parts routinely hit 3.3 ghz on Air at stock voltage)and that they are not releasing faster bins because, well, they don't have to.

Even with the new AMD 6000+ out Intel is still a good two speed bins faster than AMD, and will "magically" release new parts as needed.

We NEED AMD's Barcelona to rock, so Intel is FORCED to release 4 ghz penryns to keep the lead.

Go AMD !!!

 

[wickedmonster]

It looks like Penryn will be an overclockers dream. I thought the results with conroe were good but Penryn I think will set new records. We may see the first 5Ghz processor by the end of the year.

 

[epsilon84]

It looks like Penryn will be an overclockers dream. I thought the results with conroe were good but Penryn I think will set new records. We may see the first 5Ghz processor by the end of the year.

Whether any overclocking records are broken depends on how low Intel will scale Penryn to in the budget end. If it scales downs to ~2GHz as the lowest speed part, then we may very well see >100% 4GHz+ overclocks on such chips.