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
Postoasted - Sunday, January 30, 2005 - link
Heat dissipation and power consumption are my main concerns.GiantPandaMan - Sunday, January 30, 2005 - link
Oops,Anyhow I was just gonna say, who cares who comes out on top?
Without AMD we'd be using Pentium 166's?
Without Intel we'd be using Apples.
I hope both AMD and Intel are around for a very long time and they keep pushing each other to make better processors faster and cheaper. Same as Nvidia and ATI.
After all, what's gonna power Doom 6 and Half-Life 4?
The PS3 Cell "4.6" Ghz processor?
GiantPandaMan - Sunday, January 30, 2005 - link
JarredWalton - Sunday, January 30, 2005 - link
^^ Don't we all, AtaStrumf?Don't underestimate Intel, though. AMD's power usage on 90nm was substantially less than their 130nm. Part of that is almost certainly due to the lower clock speeds, but regardless we can be sure that Intel isn't going to be underestimating power/heat concerns.
Prescott 2M is really the first major redesign of a 90nm core since the release of the Prescott. Dothan has shown that Intel can get very good power and heat results, and I'm certainly curious to see how Prescott 2M compares to the original. We might assume that it will use more power and produce more heat, but depending on what other tweaks have been made, it may not be so bad.
There's a LOT going on at Intel right now behind the scenes (including some serious consideration of Pentium M on the desktop, I think). Don't just blindly stick with a company because of one or two good products, but wait for actual availability before coming to a conclusion. Also, don't just blindly hate a company for one or two mistakes. If we all did that, AMD would have never even lasted this long. K6 and earlier CPUs were thoroughly outclassed by Intel chips. Only K7 and K8 have been competitive designs, and only K8 has truly beaten Intel's counterpart.
To draw a parallel, look at the GPU market. The FX line was a disaster for NVIDIA, and the R3xx ATI parts completely outclassed it. The latest NVIDIA chips, however, are arguably the better chip - not in small part due to their actual retail availability. These are two competitors that are very close together in price, performance, and market share. The AMD/Intel match-up is not nearly as close. If NVIDIA could make a "comeback" if sorts, how much easier would it be for a company with the resources of Intel to address some of their problems?
As we've said before, only time will truly answer that question.
AtaStrumf - Sunday, January 30, 2005 - link
OMG, how much hype over even more power leaking, room heating, inefficient transistors. If you think 65 nm is gonna be any better/easier/faster transition than 90 nm was, you're, well, khm, how do I put it ... WRONG. It'll be even worse! I see nothing for me from Intel in 2005 or 2006. If they offered me Dothan in desktop, then maybe I’d think about it, but MORE preshott, no thanks!!!Nice to see Intel in action once again though. Hopefully it will get AMD off their arses and start putting out something NEW. They seem to have fallen asleep since Intel got themselves in Prescott trouble. I wonna see high volume 2nd generation 90 nm SS SOI chips with SSE3, with dual core following shortly thereafter.
fitten - Saturday, January 29, 2005 - link
Actually, AMD doesn't have plenty of headroom on frequency as seen by the major overclocks only reaching 2.7GHz. If you think that clock frequency is tied to process technology (as in 90nm means that the Athlon can hit 3.8GHz just like the P4) then I'd suggest some study in processor/circuit design. Just a little food for thought is that some P4s have double clocked adders (2.6GHz P4 has a 5.2GHz adder, for example).karlreading - Saturday, January 29, 2005 - link
BTW, scuse the typos, thats cause me mum braught me a nasty TRUST keyboard for xmas, ill have to sneek a decent one in the house soon. as for the spelling, poor british education LOLkarlos
karlreading - Saturday, January 29, 2005 - link
I use mainly AMD processors, i would almost call myself a slight fanboi!! but i cant help but deel thers some amd fans on here showing themselves up.personally i dont understand why intel do continue with netburts. 65nm might help them get some more frequency from it, prhaps 4.2ghz? but generally i dont see that helping much. AMD64 (em64T) is welecome, but i doubt we will see the benefits of 64bit till all the software developers pull ther fingures out. IMHO pentium M is very strong, overclock one a bit on a oldskool platform i.e AGP4x / pc2700 / 400fsb) and it can frighten a athlon fx55. If i was intel id be binning netburst and getting the pM acheteture ramped up and on the desktop ( althouhg i know the design dosent scale well per core variation, its not ment to )
one last thing, yes, intel going for non compatibility on current chipsets regarding smithfield dose allow them to bring platform / performance benefits, whils amds upgradable stance does allow for a cheaper alternative. this dosent have to be seen as a weekness for AMD. Remeber, Intel wanted the whole world and his dog to go 64 bit there way, via Itaniums EPIC archetecture. EPIC on optimised code can probably cain x86-64 hands down. But AMD pushed x86-64 and eventually one the day. Why, ease of upgrade, cost effectivness. so by allowing opteron / a64 users a cheap dual core upgrade, all AMD are doing is repeating a act that has previously done them well.
Lets face it, to lead the desktop market into x86-64, make the 800IB gorilla conceed and bring out a product, push a product ( EM64T ) that a few month ago they even denide a said they would never consider, is a achievment AMD should be proud of.
as for these road maps, very good, certainly better than i expected for 2005, thaught it would be stagnent, but, more Pentium M actio is whats needed form intel.
karlos
justbrowzing - Friday, January 28, 2005 - link
I read these roadmap articles and gosh they always sound like intel/amd is just about to launch sliced bread in Q-X of 200Y--and occasionally they do. Northwood and Athlon 64 were great products. But this time you kinda wonder just when (if ever)it'll pay off like that with all these prescott iterations.Seems like waiting for the sweetspot--when to upgrade an intel platform for performance & longevity from the intro of Prescott & into the foreseeable future--is & will be a very long, confusing wait indeed.
StriderGT - Friday, January 28, 2005 - link
What really strikes me is why intel keeps trying to keep the clearly sinking P4/netburst afloat... ? More cache, more FSB, more DDR2 more laughable stuff, that would really benefit database servers... and power bills.I can not understand the reason they do not promote dothan/derivatives as their desktop solution and put there all their latest hype/duo letters. The only reason I can think of is that they might be working on something bigger for dothan, like on-die controller (ala AMD) and keep it under wraps for a later launch
PS1 Dual core in, HT out for the desktop or to put it otherwise: our HT did fail miserably...
PS2 Those lads that bought the 925, well you need to upgrade in less than 6-9 months (dual), because intel is always thinking with the customer in mind and changes the chipsets/sockets like T-shirts. Don't you love to change T-shirts?:-)
PS3 Same applies to DDR2, why don't they launch tech stuff when they are ready to be launched?!? What is the point of having a memory tech we do not take advantage of.
What would be the difference if they launched DDR2 with the 955 or the next chipset, where it could actually make some difference? Answer:
Pure marketing hype...