Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

check the new intel conroe-L

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
  • Sempron
  • Intel
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 27, 2007 7:19:18 PM

core 2 duo e4800
Just for $55 - $75 and good bye AMD SINGLE CORE :D 
Our new intel sempron :D 

More about : check intel conroe

March 27, 2007 7:22:41 PM

All i can say is 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O 8O i cant belive this wow lol 8O 8O
Related resources
March 27, 2007 7:31:46 PM

Quote:
core 2 duo e4800
Just for $55 - $75 and good bye AMD SINGLE CORE :D 
Our new intel sempron :D 


From what I know, the highest new Celeron series will be topped at about 2GHz as in Q2 or Q3. :wink:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...


Quote:
According to the Relatively fresh road map , in this year the pentium e2xxx frequency will not rise more than 1.8 GHz, but for processors celeron 4xx it will achieve the 2.0 GHz frequency .


True. this was also noted in the link posted above :D 
March 27, 2007 7:50:03 PM

The E4800 looks decent. I don't know why they dropped the E4600 to 512k L2. Will be interesting to see what the retail price ends up being. Could be a real "bargoon". :wink:
March 27, 2007 7:55:57 PM

It look like that the e4800 will be a pentium e2xxx and e4600 will be a Celeron 4xx :wink:
March 27, 2007 8:03:44 PM

holy crap, this provides a perfect upgrade path for users who are on an extremely tight budget. They can transition to core2 with this and then later get rid of it or give it away since its super cheap and then upgrade to something better when they have money


wooo
March 27, 2007 8:08:21 PM

Quote:
holy crap, this provides a perfect upgrade path for users who are on an extremely tight budget. They can transition to core2 with this and then later get rid of it or give it away since its super cheap and then upgrade to something better when they have money wooo

Not only that, but as was pretty predictable, these things, easily OCed @ 5GHz will probably have the best single threaded performance around.
March 27, 2007 8:21:30 PM

Quote:
holy crap, this provides a perfect upgrade path for users who are on an extremely tight budget. They can transition to core2 with this and then later get rid of it or give it away since its super cheap and then upgrade to something better when they have money wooo

Not only that, but as was pretty predictable, these things, easily OCed @ 5GHz will probably have the best single threaded performance around.
according to the source those cpu are not big clocker :evil:  . only 3.2 ghz
March 27, 2007 8:45:10 PM

Why do the chips say "Core 2 Duo"

Shouldn't they "Core 2 Solo"

?
March 27, 2007 9:08:59 PM

Quote:
Why do the chips say "Core 2 Duo"

Shouldn't they "Core 2 Solo"

?


Was wondering the same thing. Hate the modeling numbers too.
March 27, 2007 9:45:31 PM

Looks pretty sweet :) 
Squeezing AMD from both sides of the market now...
March 27, 2007 9:54:46 PM

Quote:
8O Crap,,,,,I certainly hope AMD has a great chip on hand. Those are nice scores.

I'd not see it much dark on this sector; Performance has definitely moved to dual core and at the end of this year will be even quad core so at the end, no one seeking performance will start with a single core, even if it performs this good.
These chips will be perfect for home PCs, HTPC, small factor, cheap laptops. However, the minimum recommended today for performance is X2 3600+ or E4300 and I doubt we will go any lower. You go dual core or higher; no other way.
March 27, 2007 9:59:22 PM

I thought i saw a bench a while ago where they turned off one core of a conroe and it lost like 70-80% performance, are thse new things different arch or something, or did they just imploy a fix on the other conroes?
March 27, 2007 10:02:25 PM

Quote:
Why do the chips say "Core 2 Duo"

Shouldn't they "Core 2 Solo"

?


More like Core 1 Solo. :) 
March 27, 2007 10:03:07 PM

Turn one off?
Wow, didn't know you could even do that :?
March 27, 2007 10:12:53 PM

Quote:
Turn one off?
Wow, didn't know you could even do that :?


Well i guess they managed to :) 
March 27, 2007 10:18:35 PM

Hmm... hard-modding a E4800 with a soldering iron and a microscope, anyone? :wink:
March 27, 2007 10:23:23 PM

Quote:
Hmm... hard-modding a E4800 with a soldering iron and a microscope, anyone? :wink:

count me on :D 
March 27, 2007 10:28:13 PM

since when E4X00 series is not about dual core Allendales ?

E4300 - 1.8 GHz, 9x200 FSB, 2 MB cache L2, dual core
E4400 - 2.0 GHz, 10x200 FSB, 2 MB cache L2, dual core
from article:
E4600 - 2.4 GHz, 12*200 FSB, 512 KB cache L2, single core
E4800 - 2.8 GHz, 14*200 FSB, 1 MB cache L2, single core

well... this just doesn't make sense at all

Conroe-L is Celeron 4X0, single core
E2X00, E4X00, T5X00, E6X00, T7X00 - Conroe/Allendale/Merom (others maybe) based, dual core (1-4 MB cache L2)

why would intel screw that ?
March 27, 2007 10:33:57 PM

Quote:
Hmm... hard-modding a E4800 with a soldering iron and a microscope, anyone? :wink:

You can "turn off" one core by simply setting an otherwise multithreaded program to use one core only.
to corvetteguy:
What you have seen is completely normal; going from a single core to an equally clocked dual core makes makes you gain only about 80% instead of 100% and going from 1 to 4 cores is not 4x1 but something like 3.6x1.
March 27, 2007 10:41:10 PM

Quote:
8O Crap,,,,,I certainly hope AMD has a great chip on hand. Those are nice scores.


Do we celebrate or mourn now this has finally put an end to Netburst but we will have to wait and see if AMD is next.
March 27, 2007 10:48:51 PM

Quote:
since when E4X00 series is not about dual core Allendales ?

E4300 - 1.8 GHz, 9x200 FSB, 2 MB cache L2, dual core
E4400 - 2.0 GHz, 10x200 FSB, 2 MB cache L2, dual core
from article:
E4600 - 2.4 GHz, 12*200 FSB, 512 KB cache L2, single core
E4800 - 2.8 GHz, 14*200 FSB, 1 MB cache L2, single core

well... this just doesn't make sense at all

Conroe-L is Celeron 4X0, single core
E2X00, E4X00, T5X00, E6X00, T7X00 - Conroe/Allendale/Merom (others maybe) based, dual core (1-4 MB cache L2)
why would intel screw that ?


CPUs and Software marketing is WIERD. Like they are all the same expect for disabled features/parts. I rather just pay for what I get without the bloated features I can't use anyway.
(I am a programmer, so I know how much easier it is to just have one version of everything and just make new versions just by disabling features. I hate this anyway)
March 27, 2007 11:19:47 PM

Quote:
since when E4X00 series is not about dual core Allendales ?

E4300 - 1.8 GHz, 9x200 FSB, 2 MB cache L2, dual core
E4400 - 2.0 GHz, 10x200 FSB, 2 MB cache L2, dual core
from article:
E4600 - 2.4 GHz, 12*200 FSB, 512 KB cache L2, single core
E4800 - 2.8 GHz, 14*200 FSB, 1 MB cache L2, single core

well... this just doesn't make sense at all

Conroe-L is Celeron 4X0, single core
E2X00, E4X00, T5X00, E6X00, T7X00 - Conroe/Allendale/Merom (others maybe) based, dual core (1-4 MB cache L2)
why would intel screw that ?


CPUs and Software marketing is WIERD. Like they are all the same expect for disabled features/parts. I rather just pay for what I get without the bloated features I can't use anyway.
(I am a programmer, so I know how much easier it is to just have one version of everything and just make new versions just by disabling features. I hate this anyway)

of course it is wierd, but just not that weird. imagine a lineup:
Celeron 440, single core, Conroe-L
Pentium E2160, dual core, Allendale,
E4300, E4400, dual core, Allendale
E4600, E4800, single core, Conroe-L
and then back to dual/quad cores

that just makes absolutely no sense. E4600 and E4800 probably exist as engineering samples or on some roadmaps and they fit the numbering scheme, but they can't be single cores. if E4600 was a single core than what name would 2.2 GHz allendale get ? E4700 ? I see 4 explanations:
1) the CPUs only have 4600/4800 on them and it stands for Celeron 460/480 (C430 is 1.8 GHz, C440 is 2.0 GHz, they're on the roadmap. so C450 - 2.2, 460 - 2.4, 470 - 2.6, 480 - 2.8, makes perfect sense, doesn't it ?). Core 2 Duo only refers to microarch type used
2) photos are real, they present ES of E4600 and E4800 but screens from CPU-Z refer to other processors (celerons) that "accidentaly" have same CPU speeds
3) photoshop :)  (notice no model numbering on the CPU-Z screens, they don't show that those are E4600/E4800)
4) too much weed at intel office :) 

(I'm a programmer too :)  )
March 27, 2007 11:54:49 PM

Quote:
Why do the chips say "Core 2 Duo"

Shouldn't they "Core 2 Solo"

?


This just reminds of how dumb the name "Core 2 Duo" is, since Duo is two in Latin it basically means Core 2 2. And seriously a processor called core, ROFL. :roll:
March 27, 2007 11:59:16 PM

As long as Intel doesn't end creating the Central Consciousness for the Core Empire, they can call it whatever they like :lol: 
March 28, 2007 1:03:15 AM

Wow, I like the look of that!

The bargain market looked a whole lot stronger now. :D 
March 28, 2007 1:09:17 AM

Quote:
Why do the chips say "Core 2 Duo"

Shouldn't they "Core 2 Solo"

?


This just reminds of how dumb the name "Core 2 Duo" is, since Duo is two in Latin it basically means Core 2 2. And seriously a processor called core, ROFL. :roll:

It is Core 2 so it distinguishes itself from the original core cpu's. Kinda like pentium, pentium 2, and so on. The original core cpu is a mobile cpu. The duo means dual core. Thats why I don't think that those are real pics because it would be core 2 solo.

BTW, you have a better name?
March 28, 2007 3:19:08 AM

Reading this makes me wonder about what if the original Nehalem came to fruitation.

How good would a 10.2ghz Netburst be? Would a 3.4ghz Conroe-L beat the snot out of it? :D 
March 28, 2007 3:32:41 AM

why would intel take so long is releasing this single core variant...it seems like they are trying to liquidate their C2D's now with all these upcoming releases/budget cuts...amazing how 65nm is going to be such a joke...these are probably just 4300's that had one core die...when they were first building them :p 
March 28, 2007 4:37:42 AM

Quote:
since when E4X00 series is not about dual core Allendales ?

E4300 - 1.8 GHz, 9x200 FSB, 2 MB cache L2, dual core
E4400 - 2.0 GHz, 10x200 FSB, 2 MB cache L2, dual core
from article:
E4600 - 2.4 GHz, 12*200 FSB, 512 KB cache L2, single core
E4800 - 2.8 GHz, 14*200 FSB, 1 MB cache L2, single core

well... this just doesn't make sense at all


I think this review is bogus. These new processors will probably be called E2600, E2800 or Celeron, not 4600 or 4800.

The 4000 series is for dual-core processors, including the upcoming E4500 - 2.2GHz 11x200 FSB, this summer.
March 28, 2007 12:55:26 PM

Quote:
since when E4X00 series is not about dual core Allendales ?

E4300 - 1.8 GHz, 9x200 FSB, 2 MB cache L2, dual core
E4400 - 2.0 GHz, 10x200 FSB, 2 MB cache L2, dual core
from article:
E4600 - 2.4 GHz, 12*200 FSB, 512 KB cache L2, single core
E4800 - 2.8 GHz, 14*200 FSB, 1 MB cache L2, single core

well... this just doesn't make sense at all


I think this review is bogus. These new processors will probably be called E2600, E2800 or Celeron, not 4600 or 4800.

The 4000 series is for dual-core processors, including the upcoming E4500 - 2.2GHz 11x200 FSB, this summer.

No.... Pentium E21x0 are still dual-cores. :wink:
And from HKEPC, E4500 will boast 1066MHz FSB (which is not so good indeed 8O ).

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam...
!