Intel’s latest roadmap reveals three new Penryn based Xeon models with a higher front-side bus speed – 1600 MHz. The three new 1600 MHz front-side bus processors are available in dual-core and quad-core models. Quad-core Xeon E5472 and E5462 are the first quad-core models to receive the 1600 MHz front-side bus treatment.
The Xeon E5472 features a 3.0 GHz clock speed while the E5462 features a 2.8 GHz clock speed. These models feature 80-watt thermal ratings as designated with the E moniker. Intel plans to release these 1600 MHz front-side bus processors in Q4 2007 with the rest of the Penryn family.
Pricing for the 1600 MHz front-side bus processor starts at $797 for the E5462 and $958 for the E5472, per processor, in 1,000 unit quantities. As far as pricing goes, the Xeon E5472 slots below the 3.16 GHz X5460 while the E5462 slots below the 3.0 GHz, E5450.
Intel has one 1600 MHz dual-core Penryn based Xeon processor ready for launch – the E5272. The Xeon E5272 features a 3.4 GHz clock speed and is priced at $1,172. Intel has also pulled in the launch of all dual-core Xeon processors to Q4 2007, with the quad-core processors. The dual-core Xeon E5260 and E5205 will also launch in Q4, not the Q1 2008 date earlier roadmaps showed.
Intel 1600 MHz front-side bus Xeon processors will drop into the upcoming Seaburg chipset. Seaburg features support for dual PCIe 2.0 x16 slots and up to 128GB of memory.
I don't think the FSB has anything to do with AMD.
Two likely reasons.
1) Limit Overclockability of lower end Chips. Example - The E6550 is rarely recommended for extreme overclockability because it will hit a FSB wall due to the high starting FSB and relatively low starting speed. Most people are now recommending a E6750's for OC'ers and not the cheapest exx50 Chip. If Intel had released all of the Exx50 Chips with a 1066 FSB, then the E6550 would likely stolen many sales from the E6750 and E6850.
2) The higher FSB may be needed by the Dual and perhaps Quad 4-Core servers with the new perfofrmance being given by the new XEONs. I doubt the desktop Chips need that performance, but with Intel already making the XEONs with that FSB it made sense to make it available on the Pennryns as well.
Appreciate if a techy person could offer some advice on the likely improvement on the increase in FSB please?
Intel uses FSB to communicate with memory and (in some cases) between the cores. As the cores get quicker, they need more bandwidth to avoid a bottleneck. Eventually they will have to abandon FSB as it will not be able to transfer enough data between the increasing amount of cores.
AMD is using the more efficient HyperTransport for this purpose.
Seaburg chipset will be able to use faster FB-DIMMS and why put a gameing system on it as well FB-DIMMS cost a lot and have more lag as well as giveing off more heat and useing more power and even they only 2 x16 pci-e 2.0 slots and the rest being pci-e 1.0 / 1.1.
Intels high end "Skulltrail" with FB-dimms will look real bad next and cost a lot more to a AMD 4x4 system with DDR2 / DDR3 non ecc ram with all slots being pci-e 2.0.
Why produce new dual cores? I would have thought that the evolution of the market would be eliminating the dual core for new quads, thus preparing the market for 8 or more cores by mid 08.
Also, isn't the IMC the reason AMD has to make native multi-core chips? I know Intel plans on removing the FSB in favor of an IMC, but making chips with 2 dual cores in 1 package has seemed to give Intel the upper hand in getting products to the market quickly. Will be interesting what chips are available when both companies have to run native cores. With Intels cash I'd bet they will be able to get R&D done faster, but AMD might pulll a rabbit out, change the game again and Intel plays catch-up. It really is like a boxing match, what round we on?