bit-tech.net

Yorkfield to launch at 3GHz

Yorkfield to launch at 3GHz

Intel's first 45nm desktop part will be the Core 2 Extreme QX9650 at 3.00GHz.

We already know that Penryn will launch on November 12th but we’ve now learned what clock speed it will launch at. Or at least, what it will launch at on the desktop, as Intel hasn’t confirmed whether the desktop is the launch platform yet.

The first 45nm desktop processor will be a quad-core Yorkfield chip clocked at 3.00GHz using a 1333MHz front side bus – exactly the same speed as Intel’s current flagship, the Core 2 Extreme QX6850.

It’ll be called the Core 2 Extreme QX9650 and, according to Intel, it will be the world’s first lead-free processor. The chip will have 12MB of L2 cache, which will be split into two 6MB shared L2 caches as this is still a dual dual-core design, and with it being an Extreme edition, the multiplier will be completely unlocked.

Despite using a smaller manufacturing process, the chip’s thermal design power will still be 130W. Intel has three TDP bands that its processors fit into – 65W, 95W and 130W that its processors fit into for simplicity purposes. Therefore, we’re still expecting the Wolfdale to use less power at the wall than a Kentsfield at the same frequency.

Although Intel hasn’t released pricing details, we’re expecting the chip to come in at US$999 per 1,000 chips – the same price as Intel’s current flagship processor.


Click to enlarge

Intel has also disclosed some preliminary performance numbers in several of its presentations too. In scenarios that aren’t SSE4-optimised, we can expect to see a 7 to 13 percent performance increase over Kensfield at the same clock speed. In SSE4-optimised scenarios, the differential shoots up to a massive 63 percent when encoding video using DivX 6.6, which features experimental SSE4 support.

By the time these processors are launched, we may see even larger performance differentials – I guess we’ll have to wait until we’ve got one of the new chips in the bit-tech labs.

Discuss in the forums

14 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
samkiller42 20th September 2007, 14:41 Quote
I want, I want, I want. And at just under £500 that aint too bad.

Sam
DarkLord7854 20th September 2007, 15:00 Quote
Up to 63% improvements? O.O

Just wish it wasn't an Extreme edition, they're always overpriced at 999$ :(
mclean007 20th September 2007, 15:17 Quote
"$999 per 1,000 chips" - less than $1 each? Bargain! :D
chrisb2e9 20th September 2007, 15:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
"$999 per 1,000 chips" - less than $1 each? Bargain! :D

hahaha, bargin bin is more like it!
yakyb 20th September 2007, 15:30 Quote
i honestly may have to buy one of these i cant wait until january for one :-(
willyolio 20th September 2007, 17:09 Quote
it's a bad time to be an AMD fan... i'm planning on building myself a new system this summer, but with stuff like this coming out, barcelona performance, and no info on the R700 GPU... i'll probably end up building a completely non-AMD system.
willyolio 20th September 2007, 17:12 Quote
it's a bad time to be an AMD fan... i'm planning on building myself a new system this summer, but with stuff like this coming out (well, the lower-power variants are more attractive), barcelona performance, and no info on the R700 GPU... i'll probably end up building a completely non-AMD system.

whoops, double post. how do you delete a post?
eek 20th September 2007, 17:55 Quote
typo: "Kensfield" :)

Looking good... I'm still holding out though for the Nehalem though!
Cheap Mod Wannabe 21st September 2007, 14:13 Quote
Having had less time this half year I did not follow the cpu market closely... And now I come back and it looks like you're all talking about fantasy MMORPG or something.... Yo dude, the Kensfields are so great... but Nehalem and Yorkfield will blow your mind away. Oh and it's easy to mine gold in the Yorkfields since noobs can't get there due t....
8igdave 21st September 2007, 14:51 Quote
For gaming do you really need anything more powerful then an overclocked Q6600 Go? I mean really a Q6600 running at 3.5 or 3.6 should be able to handle games for at least a year and a bit surely?

Dont see the need to get any of the new intel chips. Might as well wait a year or two for when games will achually need a fast quad core.
Cheap Mod Wannabe 22nd September 2007, 06:00 Quote
Most people nowadays 8igdave don't use their PC specifically for gaming. They might still play games, but CPU market is much more focused for servers and strong media production machines.
leexgx 25th September 2007, 11:07 Quote
130W little warm ? as Intels TDP not max MAX its avg ant it, so it be like 160W

i got an customer that mite want an quad with 8gb of ram (3DS) so market is there
Tim S 25th September 2007, 11:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leexgx
130W little warm ? as Intels TDP not max MAX its avg ant it, so it be like 160W

i got an customer that mite want an quad with 8gb of ram (3DS) so market is there

it's the same TDP as the QX6700, QX6800 and QX6850. :)
Stephen Brooks 30th September 2007, 23:34 Quote
I got initially excited about the -650 naming, but on second thoughts maybe we won't see these getting much faster.

There's already an X-class Xeon coming out at 3.16/1333, with the 3.0/1333 in a the "E" thermal band, so expect this QX9650 to turn into a plain Q9650 and there to be a QX9750 at 3.16/1333. Intel will release the new chipset (X48 I think) supporting 1600 so expect them to do the funny "interleaving" thing with the brand numbers. You'll get a Q9700 at 3.0/1600 and a new QX9800 at 3.2/1600 under this assumption.

They could go higher, or advance in full rather than half-multipliers (though they've gone in halfs in the Xeon roadmap I saw on teh Inquirer), but perhaps there's no point given they're not being beaten up by AMD yet.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums