Intel roadmap reveals quad-core Xeon details

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Over the next several months, Intel Corp will introduce two families of quad-core Xeon processors -- one for servers and another for desktops -- with speeds that top out at 2.66GHz per core, company roadmaps have revealed.



Clovertown MP-capable quad-cores around the corner



According to documents obtained by DailyTech, the world's largest chipmaker later this year will introduce its Xeon 5000 series of DP server processors, currently code-named "Clovertown."



The quad-core and multi-processor-enabled chips will arrive in X5355, E5345, E5320 and E5310 models clocked at 2.66, 2.33, 1.86 and 1.60 GHz, according to the report. Models X5355 and E5345 will reportedly feature a 1,333 MHz front-side bus while the E5320 and E5310 will have a slightly slower 1,066 MHz front-side bus. Each of the chips will sport 8MB of L2 cache.



In lots of 1000, Clovertown processors will be priced at $1172, $851, $690 and $455 for models X5355, E5345, E5320 and E5310, respectively, DailyTech says.



Kentsfield quad-core desktop chips by Q107



According to the same report, Intel will proceed the launch of Clovertown with a Xeon 3000 line of quad-core desktop processors, code-named "Kentsfield."



The chips, which will carry processor numbers X3220 and X3210, are said to be identical to the recently named Intel Core 2 Quadro processors and share the same core.



"There will be no architectural or socket differences between desktop Core 2 Quadro and Xeon X3000 series processors, with the exception of product placement and marketing," DailyTech said. "The new Xeon X3220 and X3210 processors will arrive clocked at 2.4 and 2.13 GHz with a 1066 MHz front-side bus respectively."



Like the Clovertown family, both Kentsfield Xeon X3000 processors will feature 8MB of L2 cache. The chips are expected to fetch $851 and $690, respectively, when they make their debut around the first quarter of 2007.



In July, Intel said it was bumping the release of both Clovertown and Kentsfield to the fourth quarter of this year from their previous target date of early 2007.



It's unclear if Kentsfield's release has slipped back to "early 2007."



Update



Just to clarify: DailyTech in the cited report focuses on Intel's Xeon (server) family of chips. However, it appears chips based on the Kentsfield core will come in both a server variant and a high-end desktop variant (though they'll essentially be identical). The server model will be branded a Xeon and the desktop model a Core 2 Extreme. The aforementioned part numbers, pricing and specs are for the Xeon model.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 87
    Apple is going to have to learn how to update their product line more frequently... and Mac users are going to have to learn how to NOT complain when they buy a computer which falls from top-of-the-line within a few months.



    boo hoo...



    *newbie snort* "tee hee, first post, guys, first post!"



    -Clive
  • Reply 2 of 87
    kreshkresh Posts: 379member
    Apple's BTO strat on the Mac Pro will help bunches with these frequent processor updates. With everything being built to order when a new processor comes out it's simply another choice to pick from while spec'ing your machine.
  • Reply 3 of 87
    Reguardless of when clovertown ships, I imagine we won't see it until MWSF.
  • Reply 4 of 87
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,426member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jackbauer


    Reguardless of when clovertown ships, I imagine we won't see it until MWSF.



    The Woodcrest proved that theory. I find it acceptable to buy these in jan. I'm still not 100% sold on them being in mac pros though. Will kentsfield / clovertown be the same socket as conroe / woodcrest?



    Edited: Sorry I already knew the answer to that. I forgot anandtech had clovertown sample upgrades in the current mac pro. So they still should be socket 775 and socket 771 respectively.
  • Reply 5 of 87
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    So, what is the ceiling?



    - 4 cores per processor? 8 cores? 16 cores? 32 cores?



    That would mean twice as much cores on a dual processor Mac.



    And what next once the multicore reaches its LIMIT?
  • Reply 6 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zunx


    So, what is the ceiling?



    - 4 cores per processor? 8 cores? 16 cores? 32 cores?



    That would mean twice as much cores on a dual processor Mac.



    And what next once the multicore reaches its LIMIT?



    Intel will max out at 4 cpus. 2 quad-cores are likely to max out the FSB 4 quad-cores are likely to be a lot worse this is where AMD will kick a lot of a**.



    1066MHz are going to be a lot slower then the 1333MHz onecs
  • Reply 7 of 87
    what will go into what?
  • Reply 8 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon


    Intel will max out at 4 cpus. 2 quad-cores are likely to max out the FSB 4 quad-cores are likely to be a lot worse this is where AMD will kick a lot of a**.



    1066MHz are going to be a lot slower then the 1333MHz onecs



    each die has 2 cores


    HTML Code:
     ------------       ----------     -----------    -------------
    | ;;;;;;;;; | | ;;;;;;;;; | | ;;;;;;;;; | | ;;;;;;;;; |
    | / die / | | / die / | | / die / | | / die / |
    | ;;;;;;;; | | ;;;;;;;;; | | ;;;;;;; | | ;;;;;;;;; |
    | / die / | | / die / | | / die / | | / die / |
    | ;;;;;;;;; | |;;;;;;;;; | | ;;;;;;;;;| | ;;;;;;;;; |
    |------------------| |------------------|
    | |
    -----------
    ram--|chip set|----pci-e
    -----------
    |
    ----------
    io--|chip set|-----pci-e
    -----------
  • Reply 9 of 87
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zunx


    So, what is the ceiling?



    - 4 cores per processor? 8 cores? 16 cores? 32 cores?



    That would mean twice as much cores on a dual processor Mac.



    And what next once the multicore reaches its LIMIT?



    If the cores double every 18 months then I would expect 32 cores mid-2011. But that assumes a lot of things, but most of the assumptions are fairly reasonable. It's quite a bit easier to stuff more transistors on a die than it is to redirect development to alternative uses of those transistors that may be more effective. The biggest potential setback is if there's a choke in fab technology. AMD's really choking on the 65nm transition and there are transitions further down the line that have hurdles that need to be overcome in order for anyone to use it.
  • Reply 10 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon


    Intel will max out at 4 cpus.



    Maybe for the next year or so.
  • Reply 11 of 87
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 32,960member
    When Intel goes to 45nm, sometime at the end of 2007 to the beginning of 2008, they will begin their move to on die memory controllers. That will make the memory bus access easier for more cores. It will also allow more cores.



    These first quad core chips are like the first dual core chips Intel had. They will go to a single die for all four cores. this is the first step.
  • Reply 12 of 87
    Ugh, just another hack job by Intel to say "we beat you to it!"

    Two dual core processors glued together and using the same bus....

    Unles you really need 8 cores in your Mac Pro, stay away!
  • Reply 13 of 87
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by halo1982


    Ugh, just another hack job by Intel to say "we beat you to it!"

    Two dual core processors glued together and using the same bus....

    Unles you really need 8 cores in your Mac Pro, stay away!



    The dire predictions of the FSB choking these processors has been shown to be false.



    The thing is, if you have software to take advantage of it, you do get significant speed increases. The benchmark results shown at THG are pretty impressive, I suggest that you take a look at them than make statements like that again. Games are pretty much the only thing that doesn't benefit, but most of them don't even bother to scratch the third and fourth cores, otherwise there's a notable performance increase in everything else.
  • Reply 14 of 87
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    So when can I get a 4 core iMac? Is there a roadmap for lower power 4 core chips?
  • Reply 15 of 87
    as of now Core 2 Duo (mobile) version not going 4 core ... so we might see delay in 4 cores in iMac
  • Reply 16 of 87
    Is it my imagination or does Intel come up with new/faster processors every few months? It seems every other week, I read something about new chips from Intel that can be used in Macs. I hate to say it but it looks like Apple should have jumped to Intel years ago.



    The move to Intel was another bold move by Steve... I hope Gil Amelio is taking notes. THIS is how it’s done.
  • Reply 17 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by halo1982


    Ugh, just another hack job by Intel to say "we beat you to it!"

    Two dual core processors glued together and using the same bus....

    Unles you really need 8 cores in your Mac Pro, stay away!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM


    The dire predictions of the FSB choking these processors has been shown to be false...The thing is, if you have software to take advantage of it, you do get significant speed increases. The benchmark results shown at THG are pretty impressive, I suggest that you take a look at them than make statements like that again. Games are pretty much the only thing that doesn't benefit, but most of them don't even bother to scratch the third and fourth cores, otherwise there's a notable performance increase in everything else.



    I think it's a bit of both. Intel has gone a little too hard in trying to beat AMD, it's like beating the f*k out of a pinata, where you're kind of drunk and just bashing away hardcore until there's just like a little string of paper left and you're still bashing it, and all the kids by this stage are crying with the overperformance of violence.



    There are various stages of using more than one core, from multitasking, to dualcore-aware software, to rare software that picks up on 4 to 8 cores.



    IIRC Unreal Tournament 2007 should be at least dualcore-aware.



    It's a bit of Intel pushing real hard and software developers catching up. A Quad MacPro is mighty fine in and of itself. I would say the bottleneck is efficient coding, say for a single render or encode task, to make the most of 4 cores.
  • Reply 18 of 87
    "Keep in mind that these are not official requirements [for UT2007] from Epic, nor final. What we know is that the game will take advantage of technologies such as dual core processors, AGEIA compatible Physics chips and Shader Model 3.0."



    http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=32574
  • Reply 19 of 87
    I'll be interested to see the Mac's progression once Adobe announces CS3 Universal in Q2 2007 about the same time a New Mac Pro with these upgrades chips start to ship. How exciting!!! Faster Mac's and Universal CS at the same time!
  • Reply 20 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zunx


    So, what is the ceiling?



    - 4 cores per processor? 8 cores? 16 cores? 32 cores?



    That would mean twice as much cores on a dual processor Mac.



    And what next once the multicore reaches its LIMIT?





    I dont think Intel will do more than 4 cores until they release the CSI versions, which is an interconnect very much like Hypertransport that AMD uses, and the G5 used. Should also be 45nm and an integrated memory controller. Supposed to be out mid to late 2008.
Sign In or Register to comment.