POST A COMMENT

96 Comments

Back to Article

  • Wolfpup - Friday, October 16, 2009 - link

    Dual core CPUs in 2010, AFTER we've had quad core for three generations, and even have a fairly reasonably priced Core i7 in NOTEBOOKS now? Boooooring! Reply
  • cosminliteanu - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link

    Hi,
    anybody know when Intel will add support for USB 3 and SATA 6 GB? And most important in which chipset/platform will be ?
    Thanks.
    Reply
  • NeBlackCat - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link


    Once again AMD will be getting my money as I'm not being forced to buy two motherboards to get the CPU that I want now (Clarkdale) and it's immediate successor.

    I'm sure you're gutted.
    Reply
  • SFNR1 - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link

    what PSU was being used? Reply
  • IKeelU - Monday, September 28, 2009 - link

    I hope that mini-ITX is < 100$. I'll finally be able to upgrade from my existing atom board and its measly 2 SATA ports. Reply
  • cjs150 - Tuesday, September 29, 2009 - link

    Exactly. Personally I am excited by this. I need to build a couple of things for the home network

    1. HTPC - this needs to be very very quiet. This new CPU and Mini ITX board looks spot on if (and it is a big if) Intel actually delivers on HD acceleration for both video and audio

    2. Small home server to replace the ancient thing currently flogging its guts out. This looks close - low power is good but I have two big requirements. (a) standard PCI slot for my RAID card which is an 8 port SATA raid card (Broadcomm) which just works exactly as it should. (b) with all the HD streams 2 xGb ethernet ports would be nice to allow for future expansion (and yes I know it is overkill). Looks like the current minim-itx board fails on both
    Reply
  • CrimsonFury - Thursday, October 08, 2009 - link

    An 8 port SATA controller is very limited via standard PCI.

    Even a PCI-E x1 slot would double the bandwidth (x4 or or x8 would be better)

    Just use one of the mini-ITX boards that has a PCI-E x16 slot and check a PCI-E sata controller in there.
    Reply
  • Holy Smoke - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    Am I the only one who finds the tock-tick thingy retarded?

    It's the wrong sequence, dammit! It's like an army going 3-4-1-2 fer chrissakes!
    Reply
  • 2good2btrue - Monday, September 28, 2009 - link

    Okay, how is this the wrong sequence?

    They optimize the circuit design, from a known good/working design, then they optimize it at the smallest current size possible.

    How is this retarded?
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Monday, September 28, 2009 - link

    I'd guess he is arguing that the tick should be the new microarchitecture, and the tock should be the shrink of that. Reply
  • wagoo - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    ..with these 12 shaders you are really spoiling us! Reply
  • ClagMaster - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Clarksdale is not the spiritual successor of Conroe. If this is true then I fail to see it.

    Clarksdale with its dual core CPU and embedded graphics chip is obviously positioned for business and education Platforms. What Intel is attempting to do is include a high speed GPU with low latency interconnects to the CPU, memory and PCIe. To improve memory latency for the GPU and maximize its performance, the memory controller is placed on the GPU die instead of on the CPU die. This makes perfect sense for a business platform processor. But it makes no sense at all for a mainstream or enthusiast processor.

    Additional evidence that Clarksdale is positioned for business and education platforms is the much touted AES-NI encryption acceleration. This is wonderful for business and government, but generally worthless to high-end mainstream and enthusiast users. I certainly could not care less about these new instruction sets.

    I share TA152Hs disgust and horror over moving the memory controller from the CPU to the GPU.

    I am disappointed. Clarksdale is not a processor I would want. I would much rather have Lynnfield shrunk to 32nm with incremental improvements to the memory and PCIe controllers. The reason why this has not happened is because of that GPU included with Clarksdale. Two CPU’s with hyperthreading (4 threads) will never outperform four CPU’s with no hyperthreading. I would be better off with an i7 860 than with Clarksdale.

    Gulftown is evidently another server chip design with desktop versions available for enthusiasts (in the Samuel Johnson sense of the word) with plenty of cash to squander. I agree with the observation the X58 is a dead-end money pit.

    Intel may well be providing an opportunity for AMD. AMD will soon be providing a 32nm quad core Athlon II X4 CPU for high-end mainstream users that will challenge Lynnfield.
    Reply
  • v12v12 - Monday, October 05, 2009 - link

    I would much rather have Lynnfield shrunk to 32nm with incremental improvements to the memory and PCIe controllers. (Testing since the POS buttons don't EVER WORK!)

    I couldn't agree more... WTF, I like to consider myself a "smarter" shopper. Aka I like looking at road maps and plotting the best times to buy chips with most ground breaking innovations for my personal usage... And it WAS Lynnfield, UNTIL they balked at 32nm AND disabled (b/c they are greedy and AMD doesn't have a leg to stand on anyhow) HT... So now I'm stuck with a crippled 45nm Lynn Vs a Bloom-860 that SHOULDN'T even be on the market as far as I'm concerned... the Lynn 45nm PLUS HT = should be MY NEW CHIP (if I had to settle...) *Sigh* guess I'll be waiting some more on my old AMD rig... Thanks Intel...
    Reply
  • CrimsonFury - Thursday, October 08, 2009 - link

    The i7 860 is NOT Bloomfield based, its Lynnfield based (dual channel memory, intergrated PCI-E controller) on socket 1156. You want 4 cores and 8 threads (HT) in a more affordable package, there you have it.

    Personally I think Intel made a mistake creating the i5 750. They should have just called the 8xx series i5 to differentiate them from Bloomfield and left it at that until the i3 arrives.

    PS. To add to the branding confusion, just found out from an Intel conference yesterday than the Clarksdale's with with vPro enabled (Dual core CPUs with HT) will be branded Core i5 ^_^
    Reply
  • mozartrules - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    "I am disappointed. Clarksdale is not a processor I would want"

    Why did you ever think it would be. Most people on this site would not be interested in the Intel processor family that is just above the Atom. Lynnfield is the processor made for you. Of course it would have been nice to have a 32nm Lynnfield, but Intel cannot change all their factories at the same time.

    Intel has an obligation to the shareholders and I don't think we need to look at their business plan to realize that the vast majority of processors are sold to people who would not choose a four core processor. The reality is that the vast majority of people has no need for a four core processor and they are unwilling to pay for it.

    I am writing this on a 2GHz dual core laptop and that is overkill for what I do (I don't use games). I have a dual X5570 at work for Monte-Carlo simulations, but that is a completely different market. The latter will probably also point towards the expected Gulftown audience, $1000 is cheap when you were OK paying $1500 for the X5570!

    Also remember that AMDs survival is crucial for Intel. Not just to fend off the monopoly charge but also to make sure that nVidia has a competitor. Letting AMD compete in the reasonably small area of people who build their own computers and overclock (less profit for the CPU manufacturer) may well be a good business decision.
    Reply
  • ClagMaster - Monday, September 28, 2009 - link

    The business of Intel is Business. Thats why they developed Clarkdale to address business needs for an efficient high performance chip. Its perfect for Business and Home Theater platforms.

    Your right, the Lynnfield is for me. My next upgrade in the Summer of 2010 will feature an i750/P55.

    I too run Monte Carlo analysis (neutron/photon transport) on my PC at home and on superclusters featuring 100's of 4-processor servers. The i750/p55 is actually more capabile than the mainframe computers I was working with 25 years ago. Most of my CPU cycles are used for media conversion or monte carlo analysis. I use the power of overnight batch processing while I count sheep to get the most out of my PC. I get good statistics with the problems I run at home with my E6600/G965.

    I agree the survival of AMD is crucial for Intel for the reasons you described.
    Reply
  • smilingcrow - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    "AMD will soon be providing a 32nm quad core"

    Unfortunately this isn’t going to happen until early 2011 so it will be competing with whatever Intel has out by then.
    Reply
  • ClagMaster - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    What Intel will have out in 2011 is the pricey Gulftown for pricey LGA1366 motherboards.

    I think a 32nm shrink of Athlon II X4 or X6 will occur sooner than you think.
    Reply
  • Harry Lloyd - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Does the 24 Hz refresh rate finally work on Intel graphics? Will Clarkdale support it?
    Reply
  • MamiyaOtaru - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    This leaves me pretty flat. I was waiting for a 32nm Nehalem so i could maybe finally get a quad core without a larger TDP than my dual core. But 6? So much for TDP not increasing too much. And there's no way I am getting another processor with 2 cores, especially not with integrated graphics. I don't need a bunch of silicon sitting there that I'm never going to use.

    My plan to wait for Westmere seems to be fail. I'll just stick with what I've got I suppose.
    Reply
  • Arbie - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Is this true? Right when apps will begin to really use the quads, Intel is going to stop making new ones?

    That's amazing, but good news because it will give AMD a great opportunity to recover. They can sell a quad against any Intel dual as long as the base clocks have the same first digit. Nobody (statistically) is going figure that even a double-throwdown super-trick over-and-under hyperthreaded handshaking pair will beat four of a kind, across the board. It might be true, but it won't sell at Best Buy.

    Arbie
    Reply
  • Arbie - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Oh - now I see. No new quads until Sandy Bridge. Well, that will at least give AMD some time to make hay. They need it, and we need them. Reply
  • grimpr - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Unfortunately, Clarkdale is NOT the Conroe succesor, despite all the stiring of enthusiasm and feelings about Conroe that our dear Anand likes to provoke. As TAH152 points out, its a half baked product like Lynnfield, everyone thats taking a serious look at the platforms and products of 2011 will clearly see the complete and mature solutions that will arise in that year, cpu and platform wise, Sandy Bridge, the TRUE Conroe successor from Intel and a completely new architecture from AMD.

    Dont bite for just a piece of blue sky.

    Reply
  • gwolfman - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Ooooo, I want! I'll replace my Intel G45FC without even having to think about it! :) Reply
  • gwolfman - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    @Anand

    Any news on those 4 SATA + eSATA ports supporting RAID5? I hope so!
    Reply
  • vshin - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    The final piece of the puzzle has been revealed and now we can map out the right path to upgrade for the budget enthusiast PC gamer market (<$250 CPU budget, no SLI).

    Clarkdale is not the answer. This is a CPU for the casual non-gaming PC user and the HTPC market. On board graphics and 2 cores do not make this the ideal upgrade choice for the majority of us.

    Bloomfield was the answer. It's still a great CPU on a great chipset but it will cost more than a Lynnfield without a proportional payoff in gaming performance. Yes the X58 platform might be "future-proof" since Gulftown will be a drop-in upgrade. But Gulftown is rumored to start at $1000. This makes X58 a dead-end money-pit. Even if Gulftowns eventually drop in price, by that time Sandy Bridge will be out, along with USB 3.0, PCIe 3.0, and SATA III so you'll want to upgrade your motherboard anyways.

    Lynnfield may be a "crippled" Bloomfield but this is the least expensive option for us until Sandy Bridge. There might be a 32nm version but probably not until mid 2010. In any case, all we need is to build a system that will perform well until around 2011-12 since we'll want to upgrade our motherboards by then anyways. So go with a low budget system for now, perhaps a Lynnfield 750 (or 860 if you can find one for under $250), a non-SLI 1156 mobo (under $120), with 4GB DDR3 1600 ram (<$90). Throw in a decent heatsink and overclock this sucker as high as you can.

    I just want to make clear that I don't hate the Bloomfield. It's still better than Lynnfield but less bang-for-your-buck to the typical budget gamer. I suppose if you can spare the cash (>$250 for CPU) or plan on building an SLI setup, you wouldn't be wrong to go with a Core i7 920, especially if you can pick up a D0 stepping at the local Microcenter for $200. ASRock has a socket-1366 motherboard selling for $170 with SLI/Crossfire, which is probably the best deal you're going to get for this platform. I think decent 6GB DDR3 1600 triple-channel kits can be found for around $120.

    TLDR version:

    If you want to spend <$250 on a CPU, then go with Lynnfield.

    If you can spend >$250 on CPU and want to SLI, fold proteins, or encode video, then go with Bloomfield.
    Reply
  • bobbrb - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Is there any info available on sockets/chipsets spec for future 22nm processors? I've been waiting to build a monster rig for few months now and keep postponing with news of better chips coming out... but I set the deadline for Jan'10 and it looks like Clarkdale will be the winner for me. But... it looks like it will come out with only 2 cores (what's up with that???). So I'll be looking for good mobo with plenty room to grow and 2-core Clarkdale hoping to upgrade the chip once 22nm processors come out - that's if sockets/chipset support will allow. Reply
  • chizow - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Just seems like its going to be really short-lived. It'll capture the low-end, maybe $150 and lower because above that you have Lynnfield. On the high-end, 6-core and $1000 for Gulftown puts it out of reach for even most X58 users, and no 4-core Westmere part means no upgrade path for current Bloomfield owners.

    Then you have Sandy Bridge in late 2010....meaning Westmere will have a shelf-life of about a year? Or will 32nm Westmere low-end parts not see a refresh until Ivy Bridge? Almost seems like Intel is going away from its straight refresh approach and alternating high and low-end parts on their Tick and Tock and coordinating with the process shrinks.

    Better for the consumer I suppose, as it offers 2 year life cycles for their preferred performance bracket, but seemingly worst for Intel's bottom-line. Unless they think their bottom-line is best served pacing their progress due to lack of any real competition from AMD.
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Enthusiast irrelevance maybe, but it will probably be huge in laptops (which will probably make up over 50% of processor sales for most if not all of the life of these chips) and will also fill in the cheaper desktops from HP, Dell, etc. So yes, the Westmeres seem to be skipping the midrange market, but I imagine they will still sell plenty of them.

    Too bad, I'd love a 32nm 4 core/8 thread part for under $300, but they took so long releasing Lynnfield after Bloomfield that obviously they are not anxious to turn right around and replace the 45nm i7s with 32nm.
    Reply
  • chizow - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Yep but again, that all hinges on whether or not there's a 32nm Sandy Bridge refresh of this low-end, or not. I'm guessing not. 11-month life span would be short even by Intel's standard. I guess their new plan will be to space out generations further, especially as they venture into greater core plurality. Last I heard 8-core was going to be the baseline core # for Sandy Bridge. Reply
  • strikeback03 - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Remember, there was initially supposed to be a 45nm low end, it was axed and 32nm pulled up. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a 32nm Sandy Bridge, but probably a while after the higher-end versions launch, same as we saw with Nehalem. Reply
  • sunefred - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Thats a perfectly sized and nice looking case that the Clarkdale is housed in. Is that comercially available yet? Reply
  • MadAd - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    yeah third on that, what itx case is it? Reply
  • MadAd - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    nvr mind, its one of the travla series

    http://linitx.com/viewproduct.php?prodid=10314">http://linitx.com/viewproduct.php?prodid=10314
    Reply
  • cdalgard - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    does anyone know what case is used for the mini-itx system that is shown in this article? Reply
  • KompuKare - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    "Why not give all chipsets video out support? Intel is big on differentiation. The P55 chipset is a bit more overclocking friendly, a set of optimizations that you won't see in H57. Both types of motherboards will take Clarkdale processors."

    I do wish reviewers would be a bit harder on Intel with their artificial market segmentation.

    My personal pet hate is the game of which CPUs have Intel-VT and which do not. I see a lot of people being disappointed trying to run XP-mode in Windows 7 not to mention trying to run VirtualBox and VMWare properly.
    Reply
  • gstrickler - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    50%-60% faster than the lousy IGP in G45 when running 3DMark Vantage. The G45 had the X4500HD, so a 50%-60% improvement still puts it at about half the performance of the Nvidia 9400M (G) chipset IGP. Fast enough for daily tasks and maybe games from 4+ years ago. That makes it adequate for HTPC and the casual desktop PC or business PC, but it's still way behind the IGP in Nvidia or AMD chipsets.

    The whole idea of putting an IGP on the CPU just sounds like a bad idea to me. It's great for embedded SoC systems, but for a GP CPU, I think it's the wrong place for it. Don't want the Intel IGP? Too bad, since they moved the memory controller off the CPU die and onto the die with the IGP, you get it whether you want it or not. Intel is going to force their less lousy IGP into your machine. Hopefully the IGP is fully power gated so that if you're not using it, it at least doesn't cost you power.

    I'll wait for some independent tests before I bless or condemn it. 3.33GHz Clarksdale with Turbo Boost and HT enabled is estimated to be almost as fast as a 2.66GHz C2Q on SPEC*Int_rate2006. Let's see, that's 2 cores running at perhaps 3.66GHz + about 33% (for the HT threads) = 7.33GHz * 1.33 = 9.75GHz vs 10.66GHz (4 x 2.66GHz). Allowing a little extra for the IMC and other CPU improvements. Sounds about right on performance, and the power consumption should be down quite a bit.

    Aside from the IGP, it sounds pretty good if the price is right.
    Reply
  • Inkie - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    So, what you find wrong with the IGP is that it isn't very good for gaming? It's just a question of degree. No IGP out there is very good, from anyone. Serious (3D graphics) gamers buy graphics cards anyway. Reply
  • gstrickler - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    No, what I find wrong with the IGP is that it still sucks compared to the IGPs from Nvidia and ATI/AMD. With OpenCL (and maybe DirectCompute), the OS and some applications are starting to use the GPU to accelerate non graphics functions. Given that, putting in an IGP that is significantly lower performance is a performance impediment, even for non gamers.

    While I have no doubt that Intel will support OpenCL and/or DirectCompute on Larrabee, I don't remember seeing any indication of whether they will support it on this GPU. Even if they do, the performance is likely to be far lower than the performance you would get from an IGP from Nvidia or ATI/AMD.

    Like I said, it's "less lousy" than Intel's previous IGPs, and it should actually be adequate for most uses up to low end gaming, but it doesn't have the power to provide many of the benefits that an IGP can provide and there is no reason to build it into the CPU. It should be in the chipset, and like previous generations, you should be able to choose a chipset with it or without it.
    Reply
  • Inkie - Saturday, October 03, 2009 - link

    Anybody serious about OpenCL or DX 'Compute Shaders' will also buy a discrete GPU, for now. Reply
  • Penti - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    No IGP is good enough for gaming either way. It's a laptop/low end desktop chip. So it's good enough. And you still have a x16 PCI-e slot. Reply
  • ereavis - Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - link

    exactly. I'd estimate at least 4000 PCs in this building and guess that 95% or more of them would love this processor. Compiling software, running electrical engineering hardware simulations (when you leave open dedicated crunching servers for the big tasks) need the best processing available. Low end IGP is perfect for displaying the results, reading email, and other office tasks. Big companies doing bulk buys are aiming for low power without sacrificing performance. The gaming market drives video cards, not IGPs.

    Having said all that, I'd want my living room computer playing movies to support some gaming, but I'll sacrifice the case size for that.
    Reply
  • TA152H - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    I'm horrified by the idea of them moving the memory controller off the CPU and onto the GPU. What the Hell are they thinking? I was very much looking forward to this product, but like every Intel product, they find a way to marginalize it. Why not just leave the memory controller on the CPU die? Not everyone, especially people buying this platform, care about graphics performance, but, everyone uses a CPU.

    It's just so strange.
    Reply
  • vshin - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    You really shouldn't advocate Gulftown or Clarkdale over Lynnfield any more. There may actually be people who were swayed by your posts and now you've done them a disservice.

    For the budget enthusiast PC gamer who is upgrading from a C2D system or older, the best Intel CPU will be Lynnfield until Sandy Bridge. Gulftown will debut at $1000 and the current Bloomfield isn't significantly better to justify the extra cost for this segment. The X58 platform is basically a dead-end money pit. But hey, if all you do is fold proteins and encode video, then stick with it.

    Clarkdale isn't "the answer" either. I'm surprised Anandtech is calling this the spiritual successor to Conroe. It most certainly is not. This is a CPU for the HTPC market and LAN party builders. Maybe grandma would like Clarkdale too. You call Lynnfield crippled (which is true) but Clarkdale is half a Lynnfield with an obsolete (no DX11) IGP stapled onto its back.
    Reply
  • TA152H - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Based on what? You're unqualified opinion? You've offered zero evidence.

    From what I've seen, there's no upgrade for the Lynnfield. The only option is a dual core, which would qualify as a downgrade.

    On the other hand, there is an upgrade for the x58. So, what deranged thinking are you suffering from by thinking this validates someone buying a P55 more than before, when there's even less of an upgrade path.

    Not that the Gulftown is going to be feasible in the near future, it's just the P55 shows even worse upgradeability.
    Reply
  • vshin - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Wrong. X58 doesn't have a viable upgrade path if Gulftown will start at $1000. At least the P55 is cheaper and has the option to drop in a 32nm Lynnfield later on. Reply
  • jordanclock - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Could you provide some evidence that this will have a real-world impact on performance? Besides, the market segment this processor is aimed at will almost always be using integrated graphics. For those few cases where it won't be used, I'm sure it will be a simple matter of plugging your monitor into your discrete video card and the usual changes one makes when using a discrete card on an integrated motherboard. Reply
  • jonGhast - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    You also think going from 3 channel memory to 2 channel for Lynnfield was a horrible idea, despite plenty of evidence that it doesn't really matter.

    Can't we just agree that you don't really know what you're talking about, and move on?
    Reply
  • TA152H - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    What kind of an idiot are you?

    There are very real differences between the Lynnfield and the Bloomfield. Didn't you read Anand's apple to apple comparison? Can you read at all?

    I think we can agree you're an idiot, and move on.
    Reply
  • KaarlisK - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Actually, the impact from this will be higher. Memory latencies will be on the level of Core2 instead of Bloomfield/Lynnfield - basically, you're losing the IMC. Reply
  • jordanclock - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    I see you're privy to data we are not seeing. Could you please share where you received this information that moving the memory controller to another chip ON THE SAME SOCKET will somehow cause pre-IMC memory latencies? We'd all like to see some actual numbers instead of sensationalist guesses. Reply
  • KaarlisK - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    I remembered reading about it somewhere.
    It was from the benchmark here. http://global.hkepc.com/3878/page/5#view">http://global.hkepc.com/3878/page/5#view
    Though the latency in this review is higher than Core 2's, which makes it suspect.
    As to the why, there are smarter people than me who could answer whether there's any impact from locating the other die on the CPU package or in the chipset.
    Reply
  • GeorgeH - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    Hopefully more major manufacturers will offer Mini-ITX motherboards this generation. It's nice to see at least one Intel board, but if 775 is any indication it'll be almost ridiculously feature poor.

    I also hope PS and case manufacturers are paying attention - the current crop of mini-ITX options is pitiful.
    Reply
  • Mr Perfect - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    Absolutely.

    I'm impressed that the mITX has what looks to be an x16 PCIe slot on it though. In the past, Intel was always throwing a PCI or x1 slot on them. I think they where afraid that people would stop buying the bigger, more expensive boards. I know I would have.

    Hopefully Anand will take a good hard look at this sector.
    Reply
  • tomoyo - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    No kidding! There's a total lack of good mini-itx boards with undervolting features and only one server raid case for mini-itx at all. It's sad because I'm sure a ton of people would love to make a small DIY raid nas system and not deal with the low end parts and lack of OS choice in pre-built nas systems. Reply
  • Aquila76 - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    I was going to build an HTPC soon, but if this can really bitstream TrueHD & DTS-MA on a single, low-power chip then I can wait. Next year is going to kill my wallet, but at least I can start saving now! Reply
  • mgl888 - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    What's gonna happen after 22nm? 10nm?
    When are we gonna hit a brick wall and what's Intel plan to do next?
    Quantum computing?
    Reply
  • Zink - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    It looks like there is going to be a big delay after 22nm because the thickness of certain layers in the transistors can not be scaled thinner.
    Check out 16nm too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22_nanometer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22_nanometer
    Reply
  • jwilliams4200 - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    Each die shrink generation decreases the gate length by a factor of the square root of two (0.707), so that the die area decreases by a factor of two every shrink. To answer your questions, the gate lengths to expect are: 45nm, 32nm, 22nm, 16nm, 11nm, 8nm, 5.6nm ...

    As to how the lower ones can be achieved, or whether they will be achieved, I will not venture a guess.
    Reply
  • CurseTheSky - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    Thank you for clarifying that. I always wondered how they determined what the next process size would be. It seemed like they picked arbitrary numbers out of a hat, but now I see that:

    65 / 2^(1/2) = 45.96
    45 / 2^(1/2) = 31.82
    32 / 2^(1/2) = 22.63
    etc.
    Reply
  • Ryun - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    That Cinebench score doesn't look that great, though I don't know the price of Clarkdale (would this fit into the ~$50-$100 bracket?). Otherwise, I'm excited to see these processors bring on more mini-itx proliferation and they look very capable processors.

    It's a good thing AMD has something to combat these processors in the form of it's Athlon II X4 line. Otherwise I'd say these, not Lynnfield or Bloomfield, would be the nail in the coffin for them.
    Reply
  • yacoub - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    So to summarize the Intel options for buyers: Basically Intel is going to offer the new 32nm process for super-high-end 6core setups and for HTPC-level dual-core budget systems, but the average gamer and enthusiast who just wants a middle-of-the-road, solid, high-performing cpu is going to be limited to 45nm Lynnfield P55 or an aging i7 920 on an X58 board? Reply
  • tim851 - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    I'd reckon, that the entry level 6-core will be at the i7 920's price point, so that will be your sweet-spot CPU.

    Intel is probably pushing the Quads in the 100-200$ price segment and the Dual Cores below 100$.
    Reply
  • vshin - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Gulftown will start at $1k. Lynnfield will be the only Intel option for the budget gamer market segment (<$250 CPU, <$250 video card, no SLI) until Sandy Bridge. Stay away from the X58 platform, it's a dead-end money pit. Reply
  • MadMan007 - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    I reckon you need to put down the crack pipe :D There's no way Gulftown will be ~$300. Reply
  • yacoub - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Not only that but that would require an X58 platform. What if you're running a P55? No 32nm love with more than 2 cores until late 2010 if at all? :( Reply
  • archcommus - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    I agree as well. Although I'm not looking to upgrade right now anyway, I, like many others here I'm sure, have a Q6600 right now. I would want my next CPU to be a quad core with HT, preferrably 32nm, and have all the latest features like turbo mode and the on-die PCIe and memory controllers. Right now that option doesn't exist. If Westmere won't have a quad core option I guess we're just waiting for a Lynnfield die shrink. Reply
  • srue - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    I agree. I just want a 32nm Lynnfield. Reply
  • yacoub - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    Poor wording. Should replace "middle of the road" with "enthusiast overclocking system" because that's what I meant. I mean the type of CPU that's under $300 but more than 2 cores - what we've been building for the past couple years - there won't be a 32nm die shrink until SandyBridge and even then it will have more on the die than just a CPU.

    So for those of us building a gaming rig, who would rather not pay for an extra GPU or whatever on the die that we'd just end up disabling because we have a separate NVidia/AMD GPU on the PCIe bus, there is no 32nm die shrink on the horizon aside from a 6-core X58 chip?
    Reply
  • jonGhast - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    There are some rumblings that we might see bloomfield and lynnfield get 32nm shrinks around the middle of next year.

    No evidence or links but it's possible.
    Reply
  • mczak - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    Hmm, clarkdale beating c2q in specfp:
    "You can see that thanks to a competitive clock speed, aggressive turbo modes and Hyper Threading the 3.33GHz Clarkdale outperforms both the Q9400 and the E8500."

    I'll fix this for you:
    "Thanks to the low memory bandwidth available to the c2q due to FSB limitations, c2q scales terribly and is hardly any faster than c2d which allows clarkdale to beat c2q"...

    Still, performance is certainly solid. There's no way however that Clarkdale will beat this core 2 quad in more typical multithreaded applications which aren't as bandwidth limited as specfp, for instance video encoding. But at least it will be somewhat close.
    Reply
  • CajunArson - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    Wow, I'm so glad you are such a genius and are correcting those dumb Anandtech guys who waste all their time researching and benchmarking CPU technology! [/sarcasm]

    Seriously, the FSB has never been a bottleneck on consumer systems, particularly on notebooks where the CPU is not clocked up the wazoo to begin with. The FSB was a limitation in 2+ socket systems which is why Nehalem came out... as Anand and many others pointed out when Nehalem was new, the primary reason for abandoning the FSB was that it did not scale to multiple CPU sockets. Now the point-to-point architecture is superior, but it's like having 200mph racing tires on a car that can't take advantage of them anyway: nice to have, but they don't make you any faster.

    Just go back and look at the original benchmarks of the supposedly "superior" Barcelona when it came out: Using an on-die L3 cache to transfer data between cores on Barcelona was a blazing 2% (yes two whole percent) faster than the quad-core desktop conroes swapping data over the FSB... not much of a bottleneck.
    Reply
  • mczak - Sunday, September 27, 2009 - link

    I'm not saying FSB is really that much of a bottleneck on consumer systems, the problem is that IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE with specFP it is (of course, specfp isn't exactly relevant for consumer systems) indeed a problem. Hence clarkdale with its two cores will not, as specfp would indicate, beat c2q in more typical multithreaded workloads.
    Merely pointing out the comment about why clarkdale is faster than c2q in specFP indeed is bogus - sure clock rate, turbo (not much as specfp rate will use 4 threads) etc. help but fact is this would give the impression that clarkdale could achieve c2q performance which it will not (for multithreaded workloads) unless they are heavily memory limited like specfp, which is unlikely. Not that this is really a bad thing as that would be too good to be true anyway (the core of a core2 duo and clarkdale is very similar so this would be very much a miracle indeed).
    Reply
  • Inkie - Saturday, October 03, 2009 - link

    PCMark Vantage comparitive scores are even better than SFP... Reply
  • GeorgeOu - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    "Thanks to the low memory bandwidth available to the c2q due to FSB limitations, c2q scales terribly and is hardly any faster than c2d which allows clarkdale to beat c2q"...

    Even a Core 2 quad no matter the GHz with a single socket isn't going to flood a north bridge controller and the FSB. Even a sub 2 GHz dual-socket Harpertown quad-core isn't really hitting the FSB/NB wall for the most part. Where Intel gets into trouble with the FSB is when they're running two sockets with two high clocked quad-cores.
    Reply
  • mczak - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    That's generally true but not in all cases. In fact you can easily see some performance degradation even with dual-cores (the pentiums with only 800Mhz FSB) with specific apps (or of course any synthetic memory benchmark) so it's not surprising to see this issue come up with specfp. Fact is, if you've got enough memory bandwidth, specFP rate should scale perfectly with core count. According to results published at spec.org, a C2D E8400 scores ~30. A C2Q QX9650 (same clock) scores ~45. Clearly, that's not good scaling, and AFAIK this is solely due to lack of memory (or rather FSB) bandwidth.
    It is incorrect to say the cpu isn't going to saturate the FSB. Even a 2Ghz C2D can already do that very easily as any memory benchmark will show, thankfully most applications aren't really in need of that much memory bandwidth, but specFP IS a memory bandwidth hog.
    Reply
  • mdbusa - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    I dont know about anyone else but I am thoroughly confused by all the different nomenclature used by intel. We have thees nams clarksdale, etc... then we have chip names? I5, i7 etc...., then we have 45 nm etc. P55 etc. blah blah
    Now ill go read the article
    Reply
  • SenorB - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    Just guessing, but note that Field = 4, Dale = 2. Cloverfield was a quad-core proc too (before it was a monster movie). Reply
  • SenorB - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    My bad, it was Clovertown, not Cloverfield. Still, I always thought it was a sly little joke on Intel's part: quad core, clover... or am I giving them too much credit? Reply
  • the zorro - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    intel graphics?
    no thanks.
    Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Yeah, every new iteration of Intel graphics is always promised to be fully functional and competitive. Yet every time, they aren't. Their IGPs ship with stuff disabled or not supported by drivers. 3D is a joke thanks to what has to be a one-man driver team. 2D usually works great, but that was mastered that almost a decade ago. I really don't have high expectations of Larribee. From what I gather, it will require a 6 pin and an 8 pin power connector, and all Intel can do is show it raytracing QuakeWars. Raytracing is great, but developers are not going to abandon rasterization as long as game consoles use it! Reply
  • Camikazi - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    Intel BoxStation i3720, featuring Larrabee raytracing and i3 CPU, coming soon! That would take care of rasterization :P Reply
  • Ben90 - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    Yea its fairly annoying; especially in the forums when people arnt the most educated that there is a difference...

    I would love to be the person at intel responsible for creating their tick/tock drawings, must be the easiest, most secure job in the world...

    Intel: Drawing boy! we need another tick tock picture now!
    Drawing boy: Howbout we put some overlapping semi-circles
    Intel:Perfect! That will work for another 2 weeks
    Reply
  • Griswold - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    What happened to the original tick-tock drawing boy? The one way back in 2006 who made that penis shaped tick-tock pattern - was he fired? Reply
  • kiwik - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link

    You mean these tick-tock drawings?
    http://tweakers.net/ext/i/1190631924.png">http://tweakers.net/ext/i/1190631924.png
    Reply
  • VooDooAddict - Saturday, September 26, 2009 - link

    He went to work for Disney. Reply
  • MadMan007 - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Pat Gaysinger decided to go to a different company. Reply
  • the zorro - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    these days the tic-toc seems more like a tic tac. Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    hilarious Reply
  • mdbusa - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    the clarkdale processor includes nehelem and westmere features--
    that really clears things up for me.

    The problem is that when we go to buy a pc all we see is a processor name--i7 , i5, blah blah



    Reply
  • shortark - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    "The problem is that when we go to buy a pc all we see is a processor name--i7 , i5, blah blah"

    No offense meant, but since I found Anandtech, I have never had to "go to buy a pc".

    All the info you need in order to build your own pc, to whatever specifications is all right here. Anandtech has "roudups" for different budget levels to help clear things up.

    It is sort of funny though, because I found the site originally after getting caught not knowing the difference between a "williamette", and a "northwood" when I tried to upgrade my own motherboard.

    Since then I've overclocked the snot out of every chip I've bought.
    Reply
  • mdbusa - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Going to buy a pc for me means going to the it mall to a pc shop and choosing the mb cpu etc... and then the shop will put it together for me. and yes I agree that Anandtech has great advice on budget and other systems. the pc shops have pricelists of cpu's mb etc..--nowhere will those lists include terms like clarksdale or westmere or whatever--the wont even mention nm size.
    just choose your mb, cpu, video, ram etc...
    Reply
  • shortark - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    With a little patience you could build your own, with more power, better warranties, and best of all lower price. And to help, sites like Newegg, or Tigerdirect use the codenames in most of their product listings, and newegg can seperate by socket type. You sould give it a try it's fairly simple since SATA, you don't have to worry about hdd jumpers anymore, so it's pretty much just matching up similar connections. The real value though is in overclocking. ie 2.4 P4 @3.2, or 2.4 E6600@ 3.3, or a 2.4 Q6600 @ 3.6, or my newest 3.0 E8400 @ 3.6 it's free performance, and that is whats got me so excited about each die shrink. Every time the die gets smaller, the easy overclocking potential goes up.
    I'm looking forward to redoing and shrinking my HTPC, since my rig now is a full blown 680i Q6600 system, Not exactly efficient or quiet. sorry for the rant.
    Reply
  • taltamir - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    except, the article focuses on the laptop cpu... which, last I checked, you can't really build yourself. Reply
  • shortark - Friday, September 25, 2009 - link

    Evidentally you missed page 1. blah blah blah" Intel Clarkdale Desktop Processors"....."socket LGA 1156"...or maybe it was the title you missed."The Real Conroe Successor: Clarkdale & All You Need to Know about Westmere", or maybe it was in page 1 where a simple table states "Clarkdale | Desktop | 2 | 32nm"

    beside my response was agreeing that the code names are confusing.
    Reply
  • Electrician Conroe - Monday, July 23, 2012 - link

    That's amazing, but good news because it will give AMD a great opportunity to recover. They can sell a quad against any Intel dual as long as the base clocks have the same first digit. Nobody (statistically) is going figure that even a double-throwdown super-trick over-and-under hyperthreaded handshaking pair will beat four of a kind, across the board. It might be true, but it won't sell at Best Buy. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now