Conroes are out .... so how about Kentsfield and K8L?

[hemmy]

While I'm jumping to the Core2 bandwagon too, anyone who thinks that this performance difference between core2 and athlonAM2 is something to cheer about, think again. AMD has a very small market share and it will shrink even further. Monopoly is never a good think. It slows down development, and allows the dominant force to introduce technology at will and at any price point that brings them maximum money. In the worst case scenario, Intel will keep their prices unchanged until AMD reaches or surpasses them in performance. That could be in a year and a half, as someone in IDF said. :(


5 years ago yes, but AMDs share has grown every day

[a12ctic]

amd probobly owns 40% of the desktop share at the moment, if not higher, although they arent as dominant in the laptop sector, i think that amd will become bigger than intel in less than 2 years, they constistantly release better chips than them... amd releases althlon which owns p2, to counter intel release p3, amd releases althlon xp which owns the p3 for a few years, intel releases p4 to beat xp, a year later amd releases amd64 which tears apart the p4, i bet conroe will be the same thing, a transition chip between amd's current gen and next gen

[jAkUp]

amd probobly owns 40% of the desktop share at the moment, if not higher, although they arent as dominant in the laptop sector, i think that amd will become bigger than intel in less than 2 years, they constistantly release better chips than them... amd releases althlon which owns p2, to counter intel release p3, amd releases althlon xp which owns the p3 for a few years, intel releases p4 to beat xp, a year later amd releases amd64 which tears apart the p4, i bet conroe will be the same thing, a transition chip between amd's current gen and next gen

Your looking at it with AMD BIAS.

I could say the AMD64 was a transition chip between Intel's current gen and next gen.

Undoubtly AMD will have a CPU to counter Conroe, however, from hearing AMD talk about it, I do not believe it will come as soon as people believe.

You buy whats a good buy at the time, its always a waiting game. The next chip from either side will almost always be faster than anything previous gen.

[a12ctic]

except for the fact that amd has been on top more like 5 years in this cycle when intels been on top less than 2

[Banko]

except for the fact that amd has been on top more like 5 years in this cycle when intels been on top less than 2
Well Intel was on top for over 10 years before the Athlon 64.

[a12ctic]

that was before amd was a real competetor, and not really, intel was on top for like 15 years before the athlon, once the athlon was released that whole lead was reversed

[Banko]

that was before amd was a real competetor, and not really, intel was on top for like 15 years before the athlon, once the athlon was released that whole lead was reversed
Actually the P3 was faster then the Athlon T-Bird, and the P4 was also faster then the Athlon-XP.

[Carbon Unit]

Kentsfield Q4 2006

Conroe E6900 (3.2ghz) Q4 2006

FX-64 Q1 2007

AMD Athlon X2 (Brisbane) K8 Revision G core 1H 2007

Intel Wolfdale new architecture 3mb cache 2008

Intel Ridgefield 6mb cache 2008

AMD Athlon 64 (Greyhound) the first K8L based CPU 1H 2008

Intel Yorkfield desktop CPU is expected to be released around 2009. Yorkfield is expected to be based on a 45nm process and contain 8 CPU cores in a multi die package. Yorkfield is also expected to contain 12MB of shared L2 and may comprise of 4xWolfdale chips in a single package.


Intel 32nm process is expected to come online in 2009.


Intel 22nm process is expected to come online in 2011.

[ToxicTaZ]

Kentsfield Q4 2006

Conroe E6900 (3.2ghz) Q4 2006

FX-64 Q1 2007

AMD Athlon X2 (Brisbane) K8 Revision G core 1H 2007

Intel Wolfdale new architecture 3mb cache 2008

Intel Ridgefield 6mb cache 2008

AMD Athlon 64 (Greyhound) the first K8L based CPU 1H 2008

Intel Yorkfield desktop CPU is expected to be released around 2009. Yorkfield is expected to be based on a 45nm process and contain 8 CPU cores in a multi die package. Yorkfield is also expected to contain 12MB of shared L2 and may comprise of 4xWolfdale chips in a single package.


Intel 32nm process is expected to come online in 2009.


Intel 22nm process is expected to come online in 2011.


I think it looks more like this...
AMD FX-64 2MB 3.00GHz SOI 90nm AM2 Q4 2006
AMD FX-66 2MB 3.20GHz SOI 90nm AM2 Q1 2007 + new L3
AMD FX-68 4MB 3.40GHz SOI 65nm AM3 Q3 2007 Dual-Core + new L3
AMD FX-xx 4MB 3.60GHz SOI 65nm AM3 Q4 2007 Quad-Core + new L3

Intel Conroe E6800 4MB 2.93GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 2006
Intel Conroe E6900 4MB 3.20GHz 1066MHz FSB Q1 2007

Intel Conroe XE 65nm Dual-Core (Core 2 Extreme) ===2007=== Intel Kentsfield XE 65nm Quad-Core
Intel Conroe X6800 4MB 2.93GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 (75 Watts) ===Q1 2007=== Xxx00ES 65nm Quad-Core 8MB 3.46GHz 1066MHz FSB
Intel Conroe X6900 4MB 3.20GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 (85 Watts) ===Q2 2007=== Xxx00ES 65nm Quad-Core 8MB 3.73GHz 1066MHz FSB

Intel XEON 5170 (65nm Woodcrest) 4MB Dual-Core 3.33GHz 1333MHz FSB Q4 ===Q1 2007=== Intel Clovertown 65nm 8MB Quad-Core 3.66GHz 1333MHz FSB

Intel Allendale 65nm 2MB Dual-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Wolfdale 45nm 4MB Dual-Core
Intel Conroe 65nm 4MB Dual-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Ridgefield 45nm 8MB Dual-Core
Intel Kentsfield 65nm 8MB Quad-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Bloomsfield 45nm 8MB Quad-Core 4GHz (New Intel Core 3)

Next summer is Intel new core tech comming out called Intel Core 3.....at the same time AMD will have AM3 K8L/K9 out!

Intel Core 3 45nm processor's will have a new BUS system to vs AMD's AM3 HTv3.

[Bearclaw]

I think it looks more like this...
AMD FX-64 2MB 3.00GHz SOI 90nm AM2 Q4 2006
AMD FX-66 2MB 3.20GHz SOI 90nm AM2 Q1 2007 + new L3
AMD FX-68 4MB 3.40GHz SOI 65nm AM3 Q3 2007 Dual-Core + new L3
AMD FX-xx 4MB 3.60GHz SOI 65nm AM3 Q4 2007 Quad-Core + new L3

Intel Conroe E6800 4MB 2.93GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 2006
Intel Conroe E6900 4MB 3.20GHz 1066MHz FSB Q1 2007

Intel Conroe XE 65nm Dual-Core (Core 2 Extreme) ===2007=== Intel Kentsfield XE 65nm Quad-Core
Intel Conroe X6800 4MB 2.93GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 (75 Watts) ===Q1 2007=== Xxx00ES 65nm Quad-Core 8MB 3.46GHz 1066MHz FSB
Intel Conroe X6900 4MB 3.20GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 (85 Watts) ===Q2 2007=== Xxx00ES 65nm Quad-Core 8MB 3.73GHz 1066MHz FSB

Intel XEON 5170 (65nm Woodcrest) 4MB Dual-Core 3.33GHz 1333MHz FSB Q4 ===Q1 2007=== Intel Clovertown 65nm 8MB Quad-Core 3.66GHz 1333MHz FSB

Intel Allendale 65nm 2MB Dual-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Wolfdale 45nm 4MB Dual-Core
Intel Conroe 65nm 4MB Dual-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Ridgefield 45nm 8MB Dual-Core
Intel Kentsfield 65nm 8MB Quad-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Bloomsfield 45nm 8MB Quad-Core 4GHz (New Intel Core 3)

Next summer is Intel new core tech comming out called Intel Core 3.....at the same time AMD will have AM3 K8L/K9 out!

Intel Core 3 45nm processor's will have a new BUS system to vs AMD's AM3 HTv3.

Doesn't matter who is right in this thread. We all know it be a kickass summer 2007.

[jAkUp]

Actually the P3 was faster then the Athlon T-Bird, and the P4 was also faster then the Athlon-XP.

I'm not sure if the original P4 was faster than the AMDXP, but the 800FSB parts surely were.

[Mesce]

I think it looks more like this...
AMD FX-64 2MB 3.00GHz SOI 90nm AM2 Q4 2006
AMD FX-66 2MB 3.20GHz SOI 90nm AM2 Q1 2007 + new L3
AMD FX-68 4MB 3.40GHz SOI 65nm AM3 Q3 2007 Dual-Core + new L3
AMD FX-xx 4MB 3.60GHz SOI 65nm AM3 Q4 2007 Quad-Core + new L3

Intel Conroe E6800 4MB 2.93GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 2006
Intel Conroe E6900 4MB 3.20GHz 1066MHz FSB Q1 2007

Intel Conroe XE 65nm Dual-Core (Core 2 Extreme) ===2007=== Intel Kentsfield XE 65nm Quad-Core
Intel Conroe X6800 4MB 2.93GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 (75 Watts) ===Q1 2007=== Xxx00ES 65nm Quad-Core 8MB 3.46GHz 1066MHz FSB
Intel Conroe X6900 4MB 3.20GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 (85 Watts) ===Q2 2007=== Xxx00ES 65nm Quad-Core 8MB 3.73GHz 1066MHz FSB

Intel XEON 5170 (65nm Woodcrest) 4MB Dual-Core 3.33GHz 1333MHz FSB Q4 ===Q1 2007=== Intel Clovertown 65nm 8MB Quad-Core 3.66GHz 1333MHz FSB

Intel Allendale 65nm 2MB Dual-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Wolfdale 45nm 4MB Dual-Core
Intel Conroe 65nm 4MB Dual-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Ridgefield 45nm 8MB Dual-Core
Intel Kentsfield 65nm 8MB Quad-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Bloomsfield 45nm 8MB Quad-Core 4GHz (New Intel Core 3)

Next summer is Intel new core tech comming out called Intel Core 3.....at the same time AMD will have AM3 K8L/K9 out!

Intel Core 3 45nm processor's will have a new BUS system to vs AMD's AM3 HTv3.

Yah your right, but you are forgetting yorksfield. Yorksfield will be a 45nm octal core cpu around this time next year. First we will see conroe 45nm then kentsfield 45nm and then yorksfield.

KEntsfield was originally scheduled for first production as a 45nm part but Intel found a way of being able with 65nm (the reason it isnt a "true" quad core) but when 45nm comes around it will be "true" quad core with the octal core yorksfield being 2, 45nm Kentsfields communicating with one another.

At the moment, kentsfield is basically just 2 conroe's on one die.

[Mr_LoL]

Thats a long time to wait for the k8l to release. I thought it was coming out in 2007.

[ToxicTaZ]

Thats a long time to wait for the k8l to release. I thought it was coming out in 2007.

AMD has no Quad-Core processor's in 2007!

Ya I forgot to put Intel Yorkfield (Core 3 Octal) up on my chart sorry.

65nm 1H 2007
Intel Kentsfield 4MB is two 2MB Intel Allendale's on one die.
Intel Kentsfield 8MB is two 4MB Intel Conroe's on one die.

Intel Kentsfield name is Core 2 Quattro / Core 2 Quattro Extreme

45nm 1H 2008
Intel Yorkfield 16MB is two 8MB Intel Bloomsfield's on one die.

45nm 2H 2007
Intel Bloomsfield is a true Quad-Core!
Intel Bloomsfield name is Core 3 Quattro

Intel Core 3 name code is Nehalem (nineth-generation) 986

Any more info I can give? or I forgot?

[coldpower27]

I think it looks more like this...
AMD FX-64 2MB 3.00GHz SOI 90nm AM2 Q4 2006
AMD FX-66 2MB 3.20GHz SOI 90nm AM2 Q1 2007 + new L3
AMD FX-68 4MB 3.40GHz SOI 65nm AM3 Q3 2007 Dual-Core + new L3
AMD FX-xx 4MB 3.60GHz SOI 65nm AM3 Q4 2007 Quad-Core + new L3

Intel Conroe E6800 4MB 2.93GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 2006
Intel Conroe E6900 4MB 3.20GHz 1066MHz FSB Q1 2007

Intel Conroe XE 65nm Dual-Core (Core 2 Extreme) ===2007=== Intel Kentsfield XE 65nm Quad-Core
Intel Conroe X6800 4MB 2.93GHz 1066MHz FSB Q3 (75 Watts) ===Q1 2007=== Xxx00ES 65nm Quad-Core 8MB 3.46GHz 1066MHz FSB
Intel Conroe X6900 4MB 3.20GHz 1066MHz FSB Q4 (85 Watts) ===Q2 2007=== Xxx00ES 65nm Quad-Core 8MB 3.73GHz 1066MHz FSB

Intel XEON 5170 (65nm Woodcrest) 4MB Dual-Core 3.33GHz 1333MHz FSB Q4 ===Q1 2007=== Intel Clovertown 65nm 8MB Quad-Core 3.66GHz 1333MHz FSB

Intel Allendale 65nm 2MB Dual-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Wolfdale 45nm 4MB Dual-Core
Intel Conroe 65nm 4MB Dual-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Ridgefield 45nm 8MB Dual-Core
Intel Kentsfield 65nm 8MB Quad-Core ===Q3 2007=== Intel Bloomsfield 45nm 8MB Quad-Core 4GHz (New Intel Core 3)

Next summer is Intel new core tech comming out called Intel Core 3.....at the same time AMD will have AM3 K8L/K9 out!

Intel Core 3 45nm processor's will have a new BUS system to vs AMD's AM3 HTv3.

Sorry, this is pretty off for AMD.

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/2008_large_amd_q307.jpg

AMD won't have performance parts that will compete and be on par with the Core 2 Extreme line.

Also present roadmaps indicate that AMD won't have a desktop Quad Core till H1 2008.

I am unsure of whether or not we will get higher binned Woodcrest, those are unnecessary as they are pulling in the launch of Clovertown which is two Woodcrest dies on a Single package for a Quad Core. Since server apps are more multiprocessing aware more clock frequency for Woodcrest won't be as necessary.

Core 2 Extreme X6900 (Q4 2006)
Core 2 Extreme (Kentsfield based) (Q4 2006) 95w TDP Target

Xeon (Clovertown based) (Q4 2006)

And no Intel won't be doubling cache for the next generation of microprocessors on the 45nm process they will simply be going to 1.5x so they can save a bit on die area. Not that Core 2 based products need tons of cache, while it helps, they have plenty already.

45nm Wolfdale 3MB (H2 2007?) sucessor to 65nm Allendale 2MB
45nm Ridgefield 6MB (H2 2007?) sucessor to 65nm Conroe 4MB

45nm Bloomfield ??MB sucessor to 65nm Kentsfield (Monolithic Quad Core vs MCM nature of Kentsfield) There are no clockspeed targets for the processor at this time.

Therei s also no reason to believe that TDP will rise another 10 watts with the X6900.

It is heavily unlikely Intel will produce a new architecture revivision till they get their 45nm process down to mature levels, hence look for products based on Nehalem based architecture in 2008. After we have done the optical shrinks.

Bloomfield is still based on FSB technology as it is still based on Core 2 technology, Nehalem is the first of Intel next generation architecture after Conroe. It will probably debut as a Monolithic Quad Core.

AMD's 65nm transistion right now looks like it will be "Winchester" like, as it is lower binned processors only. High clock frequency processors will have to remain on 90nm till they can ramp clockspeed on 65nm.

[coldpower27]

All I can say is show us the money! Have any of you tried to get a WoodCrest CPU. If you think preorder for Conroe is bad, try getting a WoodCrest!

Then you have to consider the motherboards, Come on Nvidia show us the goods. Heck getting a workstation board ie more than one cpu slot, for WoodCrest is harder then getting the cpu.

What I really want to know is where is the multithreaded apps? What good is all this super hardware without the software?

How many of you still play Oblivion, as that seems to be the only game that stresses the dual gpus, dual core systems. As far as 4x4 is concerned, I like the idea, might not be as fast as a similar WoodCrest system, but show me a motherboard that allows dual Conroes for that targeted price range?

What it comes down to is the software, do you really think most games will stress a 4x4 system? After all you still have to consider the IO, such as harddrives and load times.

Then you have to consider price/performance all I can say is it's a good time to be a consummer, as I win with both systems.

I just have to wonder why any of you guys aren't spouting more about WoodCrest. Surley two WoodCrest's would be better then a single Conroe. I am sure that at some point sli, and Xfire will be available.

AMD's 4x4 intiative is unlikely to provide benefits for games at this time, even at this point only a handful of games take advantage of Dual Core well, Quake 4 being the best, with probably Oblivion getting some benefit.

A Dual Woodcrest system is quite expensive, and since it's targeted at Servers is unlikely to support CF or SLI.

When that some point occurs, we should evaluate the platform then, you also need to use FB-DIMM's with Woodcrest, so it will be an expensive venture for anyone that wishes to use that platform.

Hence why Intel is targeting Kentsfield as an EE for now. 4 Core has it's uses but on the whole not for gamers in 2006 and unlikely in 2007 as well.

[coldpower27]

amd probobly owns 40% of the desktop share at the moment, if not higher, although they arent as dominant in the laptop sector, i think that amd will become bigger than intel in less than 2 years, they constistantly release better chips than them... amd releases althlon which owns p2, to counter intel release p3, amd releases althlon xp which owns the p3 for a few years, intel releases p4 to beat xp, a year later amd releases amd64 which tears apart the p4, i bet conroe will be the same thing, a transition chip between amd's current gen and next gen

No 40% is so off it's not even funny. AMD own's about 22% total x86 marketshare.

They own about 26% of the server marketshare and about 13% of notebook marketshare. Now with these figures you have an idea of how much marketshare AMD has for desktops.

They will not become bigger then Intel in 2 years, that is completely AMD fanboy drivel. AMD is nowhere near what Intel makes right now. While Intel brought in 33 Billion in revenue last year, AMD brought in 5 Billion.

AMD hasn't consistently released chips better then Intels over the past several years, periodically yes, consistently no.

Pentium 4 was released as a competitor to the K7 architecture, and we know who won that eventually, as well we know that Core 2, Intel 8th generation architecture will beat out K8 and at launch I might add.

Your post reeks so much of AMD bias to the extreme it's not even funny. :thumbdwn:

[coldpower27]

Yah your right, but you are forgetting yorksfield. Yorksfield will be a 45nm octal core cpu around this time next year. First we will see conroe 45nm then kentsfield 45nm and then yorksfield.

KEntsfield was originally scheduled for first production as a 45nm part but Intel found a way of being able with 65nm (the reason it isnt a "true" quad core) but when 45nm comes around it will be "true" quad core with the octal core yorksfield being 2, 45nm Kentsfields communicating with one another.

At the moment, kentsfield is basically just 2 conroe's on one die.

I suggest you stop with the "true" terminology as that is a subjective and poor wording.

Kentsfield is a true Quad Core, but it is of MCM design like Presler. Bloomfield will be Intel first Monolithic Quad Core on the 45nm process. You could argue that AMD has a better designed Quad Core with the shared memory controller between 4 cores and shared LV3, but that doesn't make Kentsfield not a "true" Quad Core.

[Mr_LoL]

No 40% is so off it's not even funny. AMD own's about 22% total x86 marketshare.

They own about 26% of the server marketshare and about 13% of notebook marketshare. Now with these figures you have an idea of how much marketshare AMD has for desktops.

They will not become bigger then Intel in 2 years, that is completely AMD fanboy drivel. AMD is nowhere near what Intel makes right now. While Intel brought in 33 Billion in revenue last year, AMD brought in 5 Billion.

AMD hasn't consistently released chips better then Intels over the past several years, periodically yes, consistently no.

Pentium 4 was released as a competitor to the K7 architecture, and we know who won that eventually, as well we know that Core 2, Intel 8th generation architecture will beat out K8 and at launch I might add.

Your post reeks so much of AMD bias to the extreme it's not even funny. :thumbdwn:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/7782/127finepostyc4.jpg

[ShiningArcanine]

No, Kentsfield is 2 Woodcrest cores slapped together like the Pentium D, expect more of the same congested bus I/O and even poorer scaling beyond 2P as 4 cores thrash the front-side bus fighting over bandwidth. Thankfully the Opteron K8L will not suffer this fate as it will be a true 4 core design and will also have an L3 shared cache and most importantly, the cache-coherent Hypertransport bus.

AMD doesn't have anything to counter Conroe with??? Haha! You think they are just going to rest on their laurels as Conroe finally gets out the door? What about 4x4, or AM2 Rev. G, the Turion X2 rev. (codename Bulldozer) or later on, K8L??? The real story is we don't know yet who is going to "own" who in about a year as it's all conjecture at this point in time. I'm sure however, it's safe to say AMD is not going to let Intel's response go unanswered or uncontested for too long, as thier market share on the desktop and notebooks is at stake.

The recent AMD Developer's Conference shed alot of light on the K8L and it's shaping up to be more than a worthy adversary for Conroe. Even AM2 rev. G could have improved IPC (implementing some K8L features?) when released at 65nm in December and close the gap with Conroe. Go Google the K8L for yourself though, or go hit up AMDzone.com.

Ignoring the fanboyism, there is one mistake in your conjecture. Intel desktop boards have had dual bus technology since Presler, so Kentsfield should be no more FSB limited than Conroe is, and Conroe is not FSB limited.