Intel's 65nm Processors: Overclocking Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 25, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
NetBurst is dead, as are the days of Intel's 31+ stage pipelines, leaving us with a much more power-efficient architecture in the second half of 2006 for all of Intel's microprocessors. From servers to notebooks, Intel's next-generation micro-architecture derived from the Pentium M's architecture is supposed to mark Intel's return to being competitive with AMD in terms of performance.
Not since Intel's Northwood Pentium 4 core has Intel really been performance-competitive with AMD. These days, the majority of Pentium 4s are just not very interesting. They are too hot, more expensive and under-performing compared to their AMD counterparts. And while Intel continues to have the lowest price on an entry-level dual core processor, the rest of their desktop product line is made up of processors that we can't recommend.
Between now and the second half of 2006, Intel does have one last card up their sleeves to send NetBurst to its grave with a proper farewell - the migration to Intel's 65nm process. At 65nm, the cores get smaller, the chips get cooler, and the clocks get higher. However, with Intel's next-generation architecture around the corner, Intel won't take their new 65nm chips too far, as they want to avoid a repeat of the Pentium 4's launch, where the new architecture is outperformed by its predecessor. So, despite what Intel's 65nm process may be capable of, the first 65nm Pentium 4s won't offer any increase in clock speeds.
As we've reported before, the 65nm line still won't break 4.0GHz. Instead, we'll see a re-release of 3.8GHz and slower parts. The tables below describe Intel's current roadmaps for the Pentium 4:
While AMD just celebrated the grand opening of Fab 36, they are still at a minimum of half a year behind Intel when it comes to 65nm production. Intel's 65nm CPUs have been sent to their partners in preparation for a launch early next year. Of course, whenever anything leaves Intel, whether it is information or a CPU, it's not too hard for us to get a hold of it. And thus today, we're able to bring you a quick preview of Intel's 65nm processors.
We will of course be focusing on performance and competitiveness with AMD parts when these CPUs actually launch, but today, we are focusing on two elements alone: power consumption and overclocking potential. As we said, at 65nm, everything gets cooler and faster, but how cool and how fast are what we are here to find out.
Not since Intel's Northwood Pentium 4 core has Intel really been performance-competitive with AMD. These days, the majority of Pentium 4s are just not very interesting. They are too hot, more expensive and under-performing compared to their AMD counterparts. And while Intel continues to have the lowest price on an entry-level dual core processor, the rest of their desktop product line is made up of processors that we can't recommend.
Between now and the second half of 2006, Intel does have one last card up their sleeves to send NetBurst to its grave with a proper farewell - the migration to Intel's 65nm process. At 65nm, the cores get smaller, the chips get cooler, and the clocks get higher. However, with Intel's next-generation architecture around the corner, Intel won't take their new 65nm chips too far, as they want to avoid a repeat of the Pentium 4's launch, where the new architecture is outperformed by its predecessor. So, despite what Intel's 65nm process may be capable of, the first 65nm Pentium 4s won't offer any increase in clock speeds.
As we've reported before, the 65nm line still won't break 4.0GHz. Instead, we'll see a re-release of 3.8GHz and slower parts. The tables below describe Intel's current roadmaps for the Pentium 4:
| Intel Extreme Edition | ||||
| CPU | Core | Clock | FSB | Mass Production |
| EE 955 | Presler | 3.46GHz | 1066MHz | Q1'06 |
| EE 840 | Smithfield | 3.2GHz | 800MHz | Now |
| EE 3.73 | Prescott | 3.73GHz | 1066MHz | Now |
| Intel Dual Core Desktop | ||||
| CPU | Core | Clock | FSB | L2 Cache |
| ??? | Conroe | ??? | ??? | 4MB |
| ??? | Conroe | ??? | ??? | 2MB |
| 950 | Presler | 3.4GHz | 800MHz | 2x2MB |
| 940 | Presler | 3.2GHz | 800MHz | 2x2MB |
| 930 | Presler | 3.0GHz | 800MHz | 2x2MB |
| 920 | Presler | 2.8GHz | 800MHz | 2x2MB |
| Intel Desktop Performance Roadmap | ||||
| Processor | Core Name | Clock Speed | Socket | Launch Date |
| Pentium 672 | Prescott 2M + VT | 3.8 2MB | LGA 775 | Q4'05 |
| Pentium 671 | Cedar Mill | 3.8 2MB | LGA 775 | 2H'06 |
| Pentium 662 | Prescott 2M + VT | 3.6 2MB | LGA 775 | Q1'06 |
| Pentium 661 | Cedar Mill | 3.6 2MB | LGA 775 | Q1'06 |
| Pentium 651 | Cedar Mill | 3.4 2MB | LGA 775 | Q1'06 |
| Pentium 641 | Cedar Mill | 3.2 2MB | LGA 775 | Q1'06 |
| Pentium 631 | Cedar Mill | 3.0 2MB | LGA 775 | Q2'06 |
| Pentium 670 | Prescott 2M | 3.8 2MB | LGA 775 | Now |
While AMD just celebrated the grand opening of Fab 36, they are still at a minimum of half a year behind Intel when it comes to 65nm production. Intel's 65nm CPUs have been sent to their partners in preparation for a launch early next year. Of course, whenever anything leaves Intel, whether it is information or a CPU, it's not too hard for us to get a hold of it. And thus today, we're able to bring you a quick preview of Intel's 65nm processors.
We will of course be focusing on performance and competitiveness with AMD parts when these CPUs actually launch, but today, we are focusing on two elements alone: power consumption and overclocking potential. As we said, at 65nm, everything gets cooler and faster, but how cool and how fast are what we are here to find out.
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.