Intel to launch 45nm dual core 'Wolfdale' Q3/07

Discussion in 'Intel x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by The OC, Oct 13, 2006.

  1. The OC

    The OC Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,594
    Location:
    Melbourne
    According to VR-ZONE:
    [​IMG]

    3.5 - 4GHz, 6MB L2, 1333FSB and 57W TDP! Looks pretty impressive on paper, will see how it stacks up to K8L before making final judgement. :thumbup:
     
  2. Wongle

    Wongle (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    107
    So youve already made a preliminary judgement?
    What would this judgement be?
     
  3. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    103,014
    Location:
    Tokyo
    That roadmap is from the recent Intel IDF a few weeks ago and has already been discussed. The shrinking of the transistors to 45nm will NOT provide any performance gain, in the same ay as AMD will not gain any performance from going from 90 to 65 nm - unless there are changes to the microarchitecure as such. As already discussed, the upcoming 45 nm core is based in the same CORE microarchtecture as the current 65nm C2D Conroe/Allendale cores. 45nmm will probably reduce power consumption and heat, and increase the oc headroom a bit, - but that's it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2006
  4. OP
    OP
    The OC

    The OC Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,594
    Location:
    Melbourne
    My judgement is that it will (obviously) be significantly faster than current Conroes, and cooler too. Hopefully that leads to some decent overclocks.

    I can't judge how it will compare to AMD's offerings at this point in time, obviously.
     
  5. OP
    OP
    The OC

    The OC Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,594
    Location:
    Melbourne
    So you expect 6MB L2/1333FSB to provide NO performance benefit compared to 4MB L2/1066FSB? :confused:

    So Intel just decided to slap on more cache for fun? :p

    I guess the majority of the performance boost will come from the higher clockspeeds. 3.5 - 4GHz stock, 5GHz+ after overclocking?
     
  6. mr_mordred2095

    mr_mordred2095 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,903
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Already been and done mate ;)

    They're up to 5.6ghz at the moment :)
     
  7. OP
    OP
    The OC

    The OC Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,594
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm talking mainstream overclocking. ;)
     
  8. mr_mordred2095

    mr_mordred2095 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,903
    Location:
    Brisbane
    2 x 6MB FOCK ME

    g0t.cache? SURE DO :p

    Imagine how hard that thing would fold :p
     
  9. wwwww

    wwwww Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,987
    Location:
    Melbourne
    6MB on a mainstream CPU>>>....!!!!!
     
  10. R3xx

    R3xx (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,453
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yeh that's the shit! Total overkill, just the way I like it! :D
     
  11. wesley5781

    wesley5781 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Messages:
    223
    Location:
    melbourne
    well i'm sure the die shrink would have an probable good impact on the cpu prices too, having an smaller process means lower costs and cheaper products for us. I reckon because of this the product line of intel's should be cheaper than the K8L line overall. It also makes sense because intel is charging a lot more than AMD for motherboard support for current processors. So that when K8L comes out and intel's wolfdale we should see an very competitive market.
     
  12. R3xx

    R3xx (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,453
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Yeh I'm guessing AMD will get owned again unless they pull something magical out of their ass.
     
  13. lazyboy1984

    lazyboy1984 Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    2,225
    Location:
    SE Melbourne
    curious that AMD is stepping away from more L2 cache and wacking on big L3 instead.
     
  14. wesley5781

    wesley5781 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Messages:
    223
    Location:
    melbourne
    lol i can hardly agree that 'amd will get owned' by just an die shrink...considering intel .45nm according to current sources from Vr-zone indicate an 3.0ghz 'or more'. 45nm quad core part from intel. ANd amd will have an better core design by than compared with core2.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2006
  15. Beavy

    Beavy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,100
    Location:
    Melbourne 3056
    I reckon AMD will side step the whole thing and do another AMD-64 move on intel. They can't remain competitive so they'll just remain innovative (time will tell if they die off though). What is the significance of L3 cache anyway?
     
  16. R3xx

    R3xx (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,453
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Again, it's more than just a die shrink, more MHz, higher FSB and more cache. And re this roumored K8L shit... we're all still waiting. Better core design? How do you figure that?
     
  17. graham_h

    graham_h Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,092
    Location:
    Brisbane
    damn so my E6600 is junk soon ?? :rolleyes:
     
  18. nVIDIAxp

    nVIDIAxp Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,161
    Location:
    North Shore, Sydney
    i wont call one year "soon" :leet:
     
  19. z2177199

    z2177199 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,994
    Location:
    Sydney
    Not really, one year on you can still resell it for $50 :)
     
  20. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    103,014
    Location:
    Tokyo
    This is all very sexy, highly welcome, and will certainly improve performance.

    BUT it has nothing to do with 45nm production technology. They could do this with a 65nm core as well.

    My statement was aiming at those who permanently misunderstand the meaning and impact of shrinking the transistor size. It's main purpose is to REDUCE production cost.
     

Share This Page