Yonah and Monticeto

Next up is 65nm Yonah:

And although this last one isn't based off of Intel's new architecture, it is quite impressive. Below we have Intel's Monticeto based Itanium 2 with a full 24MB of L3 cache on die:

Note that the Monticeto core itself is bigger than the actual Conroe chip, packaging and all.

Index
POST A COMMENT

23 Comments

View All Comments

  • Questar - Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - link

    Why doesn't Anand give the details of these CPU's? How many in flight instructions? How deep are the buffers? Do the 14 stages include fetch and decode? Micro ops fusion. Instruction cracking and grouping. Branch prediction.

    All these are significant to overall processor performance, but the talk is still about Ghz and FSB.

    Other sites analyze this info, why not Anand?
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Sunday, September 11, 2005 - link

    BTW, I am not sure if I am posting a little too late but I hope the editors notice.

    The last pic is Montecito, not Monticeto. Its funny how you guys exactly copied the typo that Intel had.
    Reply
  • Jeff7181 - Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - link

    The Monticeto being such a huge piece of silicon is impressive. All that silicon, and it all has to work. I guess that explains the huge price tag. Reply
  • sprockkets - Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - link

    Even though we know Intel rushed dual core out, at least I thought they were both together on one die.


    But Intel really did just slap on two cores right together for the Pentium; both are separate dies! Is this the first time we get to see the actual die? Probably because I would be embarassed!

    Wait, that is also the 65nm Pentium D. They still will make it like that? Sad.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - link

    Slapping two Cedar Mill cores together instead of having to use 2 Prescott that are next to each other will enahnce yeids for the Dual Core Pentium D processors on 65nm, not to mention the decreases in costs for producing these reduced die size cores on 65nm, were looking at 150mm2 max probably for Dual Core Pentium D on 65nm, with 80mm2 or somewhere in that area for Single Core Pentium 4 on 65nm. Rememeber the experience on 65nm process used by these processors including Yonah will help with Conroe as well. So it's not all lost.

    They still need to produce NetBurst up till the release of this new architecture, hence a few more cores on 65nm for NetBurst.
    Reply
  • bob661 - Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - link

    I'll wait for the new architecture. Oh wait, I already have the "new" architecture. it's called AMD. :p Reply
  • Hacp - Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - link

    Looks good. This should be able to get 3.4 with 65 NM process.......... Reply
  • Beenthere - Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - link

    As expected, Intel is just Jive Talking about future tech and products they can't deliver for years at the earliest. SOS, DD. About the only thing Intel is good at is pulling the wool over the eyes of naive consumers and cheerleading journalists. At least Wall Street is starting to wise up to Intel's bogus claims and obsolete product line. Have you noticed Intel execs have been dumping Intel stock lately??? Gee, I wonder why they'd do that... Reply
  • stateofbeasley - Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - link

    You're an f'ing moron. Intel had working demos of Woodcrest at 2.16 GHz, and if you look at the roadmaps, the release of the products is about a year away, not "years" away.

    Clockspeeds of the demos mentioned here:

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25638">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25638

    What the f is it with you and Intel anyways? Did they kill your dog or something? God damn you are stupid.
    Reply
  • Zirconium - Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Did [Intel] kill your dog or something?

    I almost sh*t myself when I read that.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now