Intel's 65nm Processors: Overclocking Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 25, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Introducing Cedar Mill and Presler
Intel's 65nm desktop processors in the first half of next year fall into two categories: Cedar Mill and Presler. Cedar Mill is nothing more than the current Pentium 4 600 series, shrunk down due to the use of the 65nm process. That means that Cedar Mill based Pentium 4s will have the same 2MB L2 cache and architectural configuration of the current Pentium 4 600 CPUs, and that they should perform no differently. The only tangible differences between Cedar Mill and today's 90nm Prescott will be a lower operating voltage and lower power consumption.
Today's Prescotts vary in their operation voltage, but the chip to which we are comparing our Cedar Mill sample has a 1.400V core voltage. The 65nm Cedar Mill sample has a 1.300V core voltage.
Intel's Presler CPU is the successor to their dual-core Smithfield processor, and does have one major architectural improvement: each core features a 2MB L2 cache, instead of the 1MB L2 cache per core on Smithfield. So, although we won't be investigating it here today, there is a performance benefit that Presler holds over Intel's current dual-core processors.
From a manufacturing standpoint, Presler is physically two separate dice on a shared package, while Smithfield was a single die that housed both cores. The difference between the two is that it is easier to achieve higher yields on two smaller dice than one large die, which is why Intel went to this arrangement with Presler.
Intel's 65nm desktop processors in the first half of next year fall into two categories: Cedar Mill and Presler. Cedar Mill is nothing more than the current Pentium 4 600 series, shrunk down due to the use of the 65nm process. That means that Cedar Mill based Pentium 4s will have the same 2MB L2 cache and architectural configuration of the current Pentium 4 600 CPUs, and that they should perform no differently. The only tangible differences between Cedar Mill and today's 90nm Prescott will be a lower operating voltage and lower power consumption.
Today's Prescotts vary in their operation voltage, but the chip to which we are comparing our Cedar Mill sample has a 1.400V core voltage. The 65nm Cedar Mill sample has a 1.300V core voltage.
Intel's Presler CPU is the successor to their dual-core Smithfield processor, and does have one major architectural improvement: each core features a 2MB L2 cache, instead of the 1MB L2 cache per core on Smithfield. So, although we won't be investigating it here today, there is a performance benefit that Presler holds over Intel's current dual-core processors.
From a manufacturing standpoint, Presler is physically two separate dice on a shared package, while Smithfield was a single die that housed both cores. The difference between the two is that it is easier to achieve higher yields on two smaller dice than one large die, which is why Intel went to this arrangement with Presler.
The chip at the bottom of the image is Presler; note the two individual processor dice.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
43 Comments
View All Comments
Beenthere - Friday, October 28, 2005 - link
In my not so humble opinion, one could write a doctorate thesis on the mistakes Intel has made in design and execution of it's PC products over the past 6 years. With today's announcement that Intel is canceling "White powder up Hotellini's nose" and "Tuck it up your butt Willy", you know the fools on the hill have no clue. As anyone in the IT industry knows, Intel does not respond well to competition let alone superior products by the competition. Intel has made one blunder after the other since AMD launched Athlon years ago. Intel has had repeated defective products, canceled products, delayed products, missed delivery dates, factory closings, chipset shortages requiring them to buy ATI chipsets, etc. The list of BLUNDERS by Intel is almost endless and continues as I write.http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/29/intel_xeon_2...">http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/29/intel_xeon_2...
Having a marginal 65 nano process at best, which actually just about competes on power consumption with AMD's 90 nano process, shows quite clearly that Intel is WAY behind the eightball despite the media hype! As history has shown, despite the years of denial, the P4 was a defective design rushed to market to try and kill Athlon, which it never accomplished. Now with Intel's most recent chip "delays" which will turn to cancellations next year, you will see some more cobbled crap from Intel that only losers would even consider buying.
So once again just as with their 90 nano process, that was according to Intel: "ahead of their development schedule", and then showed up in the marketplace over a year LATE and it was STILL a defective design as released with massive voltage leakage that required special cooling, cases, etc. Intel's 65 nano process hasn't even allowed them to catch up to AMD's existing products. It's all just hype and no substance, as usual for Intel.
What we have is Intel's PR machine spinning overtime as usual and no competitive products ANYWHERE in Intel's product line. They even lost their minimal advantage with the Pentium M in the laptop segment as the 25W and 35W Turions have stolen Intel's lunch. Bottom line is only a fool would buy any Intel product in the foreseeable future when AMD's products, by virtually all industry standards and reports, are far, far superior. It's encouraging to see consumers voting with their wallets. At least some consumers and industry sources have seen thru Intel's deception and purchased AMD products. Intel's days of extortion are pretty much over now that the cat is outta the bag.
IntelUser2000 - Friday, November 4, 2005 - link
Beenthere, how is having bad processor equate to having bad process technology??? Are most people that uninformed and stupid??? If Intel introduced Dothan for their first 90nm part, then people would have been praising Intel's 90nm process. Intel rather put Prescott out first, so people thought badly about it. If you DO read about what happened, focus has been all shifted to Merom/Conroe, OUT OF CEDARMILL/PRESLER PROJECTS. What happens then?? All the speedpath optimizations and low power optimizations that are supposed to go to Cedarmill/Presler went to Merom/Conroe. Merom will be ~30W DESPITE the fact its dual core, 4-wide architecture. Does Pentium M have low power compared to Prescott because its on a better process technology??? No.Intel has one of the best 90nm process, if not THE best.
Thatguy97 - Monday, May 25, 2015 - link
conroe proved you an idioteljefeII - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - link
hehehe, yeah! yeah! intel s-s-smokes! yeah yeah!65 nm did like, um, a lot, yea, hhehhe. I don't see anything heheh, hehehhe. hehehhe.
Shut up beavis. Just like buy it and stuff.
hehhe yeah! buy it BUY IT BUY IT!!!
Zebo - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link
It's nice to see this will be a decent enthusiast chip.. Guys should get 1500-2000Mhz overclocks which will put some excitment into to the overclocking scene again. Sure stock they will suck but people I know don't run that way. A 4.5Ghz Cedar is fast no doubt about it probably equates to a 3Ghz A64 in a round table of benchmarks. As it happens 3Ghz seems pretty normal these days especially with the new Opteron 939's. So it would be great to hold a "overclockers shootout" of some sort when you guys have time. Say a 144 Opteron vs. Pentium 631 :DOne small error PP: 2 "Presler is physically two separate dice on a shared package,"
Die
danidentity - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - link
The correct term is actually 'dies'. Dice is the plural form of die only when referring to the cube you play board games with. ;)yacoub - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - link
This man is correct.coldpower27 - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link
Isn't Dice the plural form of Die though?GonzoDaGr8 - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link
DiesZebo - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link
Edit I meant presler and 930 respectivly.