Intel Squeezes Six-core Processor Into 65 Watt Power Envelope

 

San Francisco (CA) - Intel is currently preparing the launch of its final Core-architecture processor design, the six-core server CPU Dunnington. Sources indicate that Intel was able to create product versions for all major power envelope levels in this segment, including a low-power 65 watt chip: Six cores and 65 watts sounds like a winner to us.

If there were still any doubts that over the scalability of the Core architecture, Dunnington should put any of those to rest. Like the quad-core Harpertown design, the multi-socket Dunnington will be targeting all three major server segments, covering the 130 watt, 95 watt and 65 watt power envelopes.

Considering that some Harpertown CPUs were rated at a 150 watt power envelope recently (updated to a 120 watt rating last week) and the fact that the 45 nm Dunnington will add two more cores, 9 MB L2 cache and a massive 16 MB L3 cache, the power achievement is impressive by any standard.

The Dunnington flagship, the X7460 model, will run at 2.66 GHz and will carry a thermal design power of 130 watt. The 65 watt version, which could become a major hit in blade-server designs will be clocked at 1.83 GHz. All Dunnington processors will be using FSB1066.

Our colleagues over at Fudzilla previously AMD recently announced that it will also be offering six-core processor, code-named Istanbul, in the first half of 2009. The socket F processor will feature a dual-die design and according to AMD, debut a lower clock speeds than the company’s quad-core processors. A monolithic AMD six-core processor based on a new micro-architecture is expected to be available in 2010.

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
10 comments
    Your comment
  • Pei-chen
    Wow, this make Phenom 9100e look like a Pentium 4.
    -4
  • Turas
    I think it is stupid that even the high end one is not using theFSB1600.
    3
  • KyleSTL
    +1 on the comment about using the archaic 1066FSB. Why? especially considering you're taking a performance hit on the memory by using FBDIMMS anyway.
    3