The Consequence of Waking Up a Sleeping Giant: Intel Roadmaps Inside
by Kristopher Kubicki on January 25, 2005 7:44 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Mobility
Although we get real annoyed with paper launches and PR vaporware, the Centrino lineup never struck us as a set of hardware that didn't show up when promised (at least in the OEM sector). In fact, Sonoma based notebooks with Dothan 2.1GHz processors are already shipping from at least two of the Tier 1 notebook manufacturers although the launch was just last week. This gets us particularly excited since dual core, 65nm Yonah processors are scheduled to launch with the third generation Centrino platform, Napa. And given how reliable Centrino's track record has been, it could be very possible for us to review a 65nm, dual core notebook 365 days from now.
| Intel Dual Core Performance Desktop Lineup LGA775 | ||||
| Processor | Speed | L2 Cache | FSB | Launch |
| Pentium M 780 | 2.26GHz | 2MB | 533MHz | Q3'05 |
| Pentium M 770 | 2.13GHz | 2MB | 533MHz | Now |
| Pentium M X50 | ??? | 2MB (Shared) | ??? | Q1'06 |
| Pentium M X40 | ??? | 2MB (Shared) | ??? | Q1'06 |
| Pentium M X30 | ??? | 2MB (Shared) | ??? | Q1'06 |
| Pentium M X20 | ??? | 2MB (Shared) | ??? | Q1'06 |
| Pentium M X48 | ??? | 2MB (Shared) | ??? | Q1'06 |
| Pentium M X38 | ??? | 2MB (Shared) | ??? | Q1'06 |
To quote Bender from Futurama, "... the X makes it sound cool." When Yonah hits the retail market it seems fairly likely that Intel will drop the X in favor of a number - although it seems like all the good ones thus far are used up. Well, X is the Roman numeral for 10...
One of the first things we knew about Yonah when we first saw the preliminary work in Taipei for Computex 2004 was that it uses a shared L2 cache between the two cores. While the Smithfield dual core processors separate their cache per core, Yonah is unique as arbitrating the cache for both processors. We also know a bit about the further enhancements on EIST utilized in the processor, including a technology that dynamically throttles power from unused portions of the cache. Feel free to check out or IDF 2004 coverage for that announcement. Another interesting tidbit on the roadmap reveals that the Napa platform will utilize both the 945 and the 955 chipsets in production models. Why a notebook would need ECC support is beyond me, but perhaps there are some features in 955X that haven't been fully leaked yet.
Unfortunately thermals are a huge piece of the pie, and we don't have any confirmed behind the scenes details on that yet. It looks like you'll just have to wait until launch dates for Prescott 2M, Dempsey and Yonah for that scoop.
Though Intel's roadmap reveals a gung-ho attitude for EM64T, the mobility platform looks completely devoid of any such notion. Even the much famed Yonah doesn't explicitly mention any 64-bit support, which may give AMD the upper hand in that match up. AMD's Turion platform will have 64-bit support - will their competition?
Unannounced Secret Stuff
The very forward looking stuff on Intel's roadmap, Q1'06, shows more promise than we had also originally anticipated. First off - get used to the names Presler and Cedar Mill. We had mentioned Cedar Mill before as a single core Pentium 4 evolution. While probably not a direct NetBurst revision, don't be surprised if some of those wonderful projects scrapped with Tejas show up in Cedar Mill instead. Cedar Mill utilizes 2MB of L2 cache, Socket 775 architecture and a 65nm process. On the enterprise portion of the roadmaps Intel is very careful to separate Cedar Mill from the rest of the Prescott 2M SKUs so perhaps there is more to meets the eye for this little processor.
Presler is a whole different animal. On the roadmaps Intel marks Presler as the eventual dual core replacement for Smithfield albeit with an extra megabyte of cache per core. Since this is the first we have heard of the processor in official circles, details were pretty light.
We talked real casually in the past about Dempsey - the dual core Xeon. From the roadmaps Dempsey doesn't look similar to any Pentium 4 or Xeon processor we know about. For starters, expect 1066FSB, dual core, and HyperThreading. If four logical processors per socket didn't seem to catch your attention the addition of Fully Buffered DIMM (FB-DIMM) and iAMT will also show up on the chip platform. Intel also refers quite often to its "Diamond Peak" technology - which they loosely describe as:
Platform level LAN acceleration based on improvements in processor, MCH and ESB-2
Like the desktop platforms, the next generation server core logic will also feature Vanderpool Technology. This leads to a real lot of promise for those who rely on User Mode Linux or VMWare for their enterprise solutions. Rather than placing separate operating systems in different machines, VT opens the door to putting different operating systems on the same processor. The roadmap stresses this sort of configuration makes sense for high availability; if one OS crashes, its OK because we have 2 running.
"Blackford," the E7520 replacement for Xeon, will utilize ESB-2 and will become Dempsey's chariot in the server market. A cheaper, stripped down version of Blackford dubbed Bensley will perform the task of Dempsey's value platform, Greencreek is the workstation variant.
Final Thoughts
Generally we do not get to write this much about the Intel world, so today's opportunity to look at everything Intel has to offer is quite refreshing. While a lot of people have looked at Intel's recent reorganization as a sign of weakness, we feel the company is just trimming itself back to the main arteries it does best. We are at least optimistic that 2005 will be a better year for consumers than the last one - now we just need to see if AMD has enough up their sleeves to make things interesting.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
Ozenmacher - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
Naw, I have nothing wrong with writing a positive article for Intel or AMD. I mean, I understand both companies have great chips, so I don't care if a positive article is written. But yeah, I still don't understand where sleazes came from, lol.JarredWalton - Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - link
Learn to type very fast (80 WPM or more) and write a lot of articles. You get all sorts of interesting slips. I would correct the "sleazes" for Kris, but unfortunately I can't. (Not enough access.)As for Kris being an Intel "fanboy", give it a rest. So he writes a relatively positive article on the latest Intel roadmap, what's the big deal? Does a relatively postitive AMD roadmap article make me an AMD fanboy? (Obviously not, since I get accused of being an Intel supporter just as often when I provide my own take on the market.)
We're all just interested in performance - price/performance for many of us. Competition from Intel is great, because AMD needs it just as much as Intel does. Given that the last few Intel roadmaps had little information on Smithfield and it looked like it would slip to late 2005 or 2006 instead of launching earlier, how can this revised roadmap be anything but good news? We'll still give a critical look at the final performance when all the products launch, and hopefully XP-64 will even become a factor some time this decade.
Ozenmacher - Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - link
Very good point #61, how could you "accidentally" type sleazes instead of sleeves? lolRoosterKooster - Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - link
Kris, "sleazes" can't be a typo. Even it it was, how did it escape the proofing?Perhaps you've been in a daze, but Intel has hardly been napping - just a bit on the back side of the power curve. Put all the vaporware aside and let's see what spring has in the air. Just tell the folks here, you are 100% pro-Intel.
EglsFly - Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - link
Wow, that article had Intel fanboy written all over it. To sum up: "Intel Better, and it gets better, need to see if AMD has enough up their sleazes ...."Give me a break!
Regs - Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - link
Good article Zebo. I agree with it.Intel has to slowly adapt the Pentium-M into the market. If they came out with a desk top CPU based on the PM, what would they say? "Look at this amazing CPU with twice the power with less the clock cycle!" While AMD just sits back and goes, "Hey, we've been doing this for years" Wouldn't look good.
Regs - Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - link
The reason why I think Intel won't scrap their Netburst Northwood's is because they sold the market on High Clock Speeds while also selling the mobile market with less power hungry yet more clock efficient processors. If they came out with something like AMD's processor, what would that make them look like? It seems like Intel's marketing department is running the course for Intel in the future other than their engineering department.When 939's come out with strained silicon that could possibly push through the 3.0 GHz barrier with SEE3, Intel's NetBurst processors will be looking pretty desolate.
Intel needs a knight-in-shinning armor and a 4.GHz Prescott with 2MB L2 cache is not going to do it. They would need to bring out a entire new line of CPU's to match performance with all A64's instead of pushing out one new CPU every 6 months that costs over 500 dollars.
Quanticles - Monday, January 31, 2005 - link
I liked Anandtech's point that Microsoft was delaying Windows64 until Intel was ready.Peter - Monday, January 31, 2005 - link
#38, I wouldn't say things were "even" before the Pentium-M showed up. Before that, Intel's speed step always required a deep-sleep transition and had only max and min states, while AMD's were quicker and more versatile, even the original implementation on K6-2+ (where transition time was even fine tuneable to the voltage regulator's needs).What happened at AMD for the last two years? They kept the power down in general, something Intel quite miserably failed to do on the desktop.
Note that I'm completely with you in that the Pentium-M is a very fine part, and that AMD has some catching up to do in the mobile arena. On the desktop, it's the other way around, and it's exactly this catching up that we see documented in your article.
We're both wrong on who did it first anyway. Guess what, it was Cyrix. Their 5x86 could do live transitions from its native (2x or 3x) multiplier down to 1x and even 1/2x and back up. And it actually worked. In 1995. (Separate voltage regulators for the CPU core were nonexistant back then.)
regards,
Peter
johnsonx - Monday, January 31, 2005 - link
Anytime the socket-754 Sempron has been discussed, I've said it makes little sense for AMD to purposely cripple a 64-bit processor down to 32-bits, as it leaves them no competitive advantage over Intel.With Intel extending EM64T all the way down the Celeron D line, now we see that AMD will now be at a competitive DISADVANTAGE vs. Intel because of their foolish crippling of the 754 Sempron. Dumb, AMD, dumb...
And before anyone comments, no I don't think Semprons are just a way for AMD to sell bad A64 cores that won't do 64-bit, but run 32-bit fine... that just isn't going to be a common enough failure mode. Cores with some bad cache? Sure. Cores with a malfunctioning HT link? Maybe. Cores with one memory channel on the fritz? Perhaps. 64-bit extensions not working? Nope.