Intel's 45nm roadmap revealed

[maroon1]

AMD may be planning tri-cores but until those will be released, arch-rival Intel will have its new, 45nm processor line-up already in stores. With 45nm production set to begin soon the desktop parts, that will follow the new Xeons is closing in fast and will be ready to give AMD a big slap even before the end of the year.

The first wave of 45nm desktop CPUs is set to include no less than 8 (eight) releases, all depicted below. First to arrive will be the QX9650, an Extreme Edition part featuring four cores clocked at 3 Ghz, 12MB of L2 cache (6MB per die) and a 130W TDP. This one will be launched in November and will hit the stores soon after. With 2007 gone and 2008 young and naive, Intel will have seven more CPUs, four dual-cores and three quad-cores ready. The highest-end non-Extreme quad-core is the Q9550, with 12MB of L2 cache, a frequency of 2.83GHz and a TDP of 95W.

The cheapest 45nm quad, the Q9300 will be clocked at 2.5GHz and will have only 6MB of L2 cache (3MB per die). As for the dual-cores, Intel will release the E8500, E8400, E8300 and E8200, clocked from 3.16Ghz to 2.66GHz and all with a 65W TDP. All processors (including the QX9650) will have a 1333 MHz FSB. Intel is probably saving the 1600FSB for later.

I can't wait for the prices. I hope the price of Q9300 is under $200


TechConnect Magazine - Intel's 45nm roadmap revealed

 

[Andyf]

Sorry if this is an idiotic question, but what is good about the new chipsets? There is the 1333 FSB speed, but what else make a chip 'good'? How will the Q9300 compare with the Q6600 for instance (higher clock, higher fsb, lower cache)? How does that affect performance?

 

[b1gapl]

These are the 45nm chips, based on the Penryn. Basically a 45nm shrink of the C2Ds. They are the desktop versions of Penryn. The dual core is the Wolfdale, and the quad core is Yorkfield. What makes them better is not the FSB, but they have more cache, smaller die size=less power consumption, and the addition of instruction set SSE4.

 

[Riznarf]

good lord....a 3.0ghz quad core...FTW!!!!

btw, is a 6mb->12mb cache a large noticeable difference in performance? (basically im looking at the q9300 vs. q9450)

btw, qx9650 supposed to hit $1k USD, but I suppose thats not totally outrageous for a new cpu thats top of the line, especially an extreme...
I wouldnt expect the q9300 to be sub $200, especially for a launch price.

 

[b1gapl]

I'm guessing the $300-500 range, for the quads.

 

[veedubfreak]

From the look of it, you'd have to go to the 9450 to be comperable to the current q6600 because the 9300 only has 6mb of cache and roughly the same clockspeed and TDP. Makes me glad i went ahead and bought a q6600, should easily last until the next architecture comes out. Something tells me the 9450 wont be nearly as good of a deal as the q6600s have been.

 

[maroon1]

veedubfreak,

Having the same TDP does not mean that the power consumption is the same. TDP is just the maximum power that it would draw when running real applications I pretty sure that those new 45nm consume less power and overclocks better than the current one

I pretty sure that Q9300 would be better than Q6600 because it has higher clock speed, and it is more efficient per clock as well

 

[krazyq]

im glad i didnt get the q6600...
my next upgrade will be the q9450, thats a crap load of cache, not sure if thats necessary.

 

[Wildside]

I'm guessing the $300-500 range, for the quads.

i could say the same for AMD's quad-cores as well.

 

[veedubfreak]

veedubfreak,

Having the same TDP does not mean that the power consumption is the same. TDP is just the maximum power that it would draw when running real applications I pretty sure that those new 45nm consume less power and overclocks better than the current one

I pretty sure that Q9300 would be better than Q6600 because it has higher clock speed, and it is more efficient per clock as well

Ya but what i was meaning is they all share the same TDP, the actual amount of power consumed isnt really that much of a deal for the average enthusiast. I can understand companies wanting lower power consumption. But the 9300 only has 6mb of cache compared to the 8mb on the 6600. It seems wierd that the lower end chips would have less cache than current quads, but the higher end have even more than older quads. Still it'll be fun to see what kind of numbers people can get out of the 45nms. Heck if they drop low enough i might be tempted to upgrade to one and just sell the old q66.