Everybody sans the "intel"igent? fanatics seems to be really yawning with every next new spectacular intel river, whose bottom seems well bottomless...
Moderate speed bumps, astronomical caches hiding the bandwidth limitation problems, no intergrated mem controllers (double the same problem with each stiched core), lack of 64bits (I remember the "who needs the 32bit" moto by the now defunct 3dfx in the 3d arenas), DDR2 that never delivered and now forced on us all since the memory foundries need to cater for the ignorant everyday intel shoppers. Well its sad but intel's enthusiast room is really empty nowadays...
I know we must repent for defying the allmighty intel lord, but what can we do with such procs?
We can feed them to the beasts of incredulity and pander then unto those ignorant masses. Lo unto thee, for Dell is among you, and his mouth is vast and terrible to behold.
AMD is working on clockrate. Nobody yet has seen a Dothan go past 2.8 (assuredly) yet and frankly don't believe that Merom is going to suddenly allow Intel to beat that. Merom will up the complexity, aim at a wider (more operations per clock) method of operation and Intel (Itanium) hasn't done well in getting such designs up in clockspeed.
That said, a current Dothan about equals an equivalemt 1mb cache A64 of the same clockspeed. So at 2.33ghz, you'd have to have a 2.4 (4800 x2 equiv) in a mobile format for AMD to keep up. They'll probably do that, but don't expect that AMD is going to have so much easier of a time than Intel. On the desktop AMD will be pushing 2.8 - 3.0 out of dual cores, which with the higher 667 bus should do quite well against a Conroe @ say 2.67 (remember Intel always clocks conservatively). So the only thing Intel is going to do on the desktop is "catch up" really, and you're going to have to wait till about a year from now to see it. Sorry, not very impressive for the size and resource rich company they are.
As for chipsets changing, Intel will change Napa again, in H2 (which we currently understand is far into the last quarter of 2006) when they bring Merom. So their chipset change cycles are going to be less than a year, and yes, that qualifies as "frequent changing" especially since there is zero upgrade path for older chipsets. 1 speed grade self upgradeable is not an "upgrade path" but for some it is I guess. Oh well.
Yonah will be quite the spritely chip and quite a few dual core aware apps should be hitting the shelves during 2006, so inevitably most users will find a use for it. That's one thing you can count on both companies to promote, software that can make each one's dual cores shine. However, Yonah is 32 bit. That saves energy, which is precious to a mobile user, but if current schedules maintain, you are going to be looking at less than 9 months before a "64 bit first, 32 bit as an afterthought" operating system will be introduced. That being Vista. So you'll have to ask yourself, is is worth the 1500-4k to spend on a system that in 9 months will look like last year's news? Many will argue that 64 bit won't be a big deal. Having watched the 16-32 bit revolution the first time, I've heard that argument before and it was bogus. Current tests on hastily written 64 bit software don't show tons of differences. Same for many apps on dual cores, no difference. However give dev's a year or bit more to sit and work on new 64 bit apps for Vista (written, according to MS, from the ground up for 64 bit machines) and you can bet the revolution will be swift and absolute.
I just guess it's going to depend on how people want to spend their money, but honestly, underestimating the need for 64 bit on any pc purchase after Jan 2006, would be a grave mistake.
Uh-huh. Conroe!!=Yonah. Plus, indications are that Conroe will run up to 2.93GHz initially. Conroe is wider, higher clocked, better architecture. We'll see how it turns out.
667FSB on AMD CPUs won't do much, as that's HTT speed, and as some may know, HTT increase did nothing. There is DDR2 support, but we'll see whether X2's need more bandwidth.
Intel only clocks conservatively for laptop chips, and mostly for Pentium M's.
(1) Raising complexity does NOT mean that clockspeed will be lower. Compare the K7 Athlon to the Katmai P6. At 0.25u, the Athlon smoked the Pentium III in clockspeed, despite having a far wider execution engine and 4x the L1 cache. Again, wider execution DOES NOT necessarily mean lower clockspeed.
(2) Napa/'s chipest will not change. The 945xM chipset was already modified some time ago to support 64-bit. (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21666">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21666, reporting in March that prototype Napa64 boards were already up and running).
(3) Vista cannot be considered 32-bit as afterthought, given that x86 and x64 builds are concurrent.
People need to check their facts before posting. This area of the site is starting to look like the P&N forum, with ignorance becoming widespread among the population.
For the enthusiast, a Yonah machine may not satisfy the irrational craving for the latest and greatest, but by and large the average user does not care. 64-bit will not make Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer go any faster.
You attack my source, and provide no source of your own, which is not very credible.
Napa is NOT a chipset, it is a platform which uses the 945PM/GM series of chipset. The 945 chipset remains constant for Napa and Napa64.
The general proposition is that Wider doesn't mean Slower. P6 was much wider than P5, but it was able to clock much higher. This defeats your proposition that for Intel, wider = slower.
Your statements are factually incorrect, your conclusions are inaccurate, and you cite no sources. Therefore, your post is entirely lacking in credibility.
Ok wider = slower
um not to refute your 10 year old "P5" comparison but how about something oh a bit more recent, say Itanium?
Napa is the reference to the chipset, however it can refer to the whole platform, but only when its brought to market, such as centrino. For now, all references are to the Yonah cpu running on the Napa platform. Don't know, but guess that would be a bit advanced for you.
Quoting sources was only done by you to add weight to your arguments. Sadly your arguments are years out of date and supported by very little.
Wider = slower implies that Wider ALWAYS = slower. The burden of proving this false requires only one counterexample. I've provided two examples. P6 clocked higher than P5, and K7 clocked higher than P6. In each case, a CPU with wider execution core clocked higher than a CPU with narrower execution core. Therefore, the assertion is false. Itanium is irrelevant to the argument because only ONE counterexample will destroy the sweeping generalization.
Napa is the platform, not the chipset (http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/ngma/)">http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/ngma/) "Intel is developing a mobility-optimized, dual-core processor based on next generation microarchitecture, codenamed Merom, targeted for introduction in the second half of 2006. ****The Merom processor will work within the Napa Platform that is planned to launch in early 2006.****"
See the emphasized part. Merom will be compatible with the platform. This defeats the argument that Intel will change the chipset in midyear 2006.
Anemone's claims are supported by nothing. It's obvious he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Sorry I should not have responded when tired. We disagree, and I should not have been so unkind in my responses. In the fullness of time we'll just have to see, and I guess I could be wrong. Sorry if I upset you. Next time I'll be wise enough to just let you speak your piece in peace and leave a difference of opinion as exactly that.
I've heard that merom is going to use 1/10th the power of current cpu's when idle. That, and the promise of 64 bit makes merom much more apealing to me than yonah. I want to buy a lappy, and i really dont care much about dualcore(pinmodding a singlecore to 2ghz is cheaper and faster than a 1.6ghz DC, at least for gaming) but i think it will be worth waiting till january if it means a possible upgrade in the future to merom. anyone know if these new chipsets are going to be compatible with it?
quote: If you aren't aware, Merom is really just the mobile version of the new Conroe architecture that Intel recently announced, so it will have all of the other architectural changes planned for Conroe, and likely some low power performance tweaks as well.
No, its the other way around. Conroe is the desktop version of Merom. Merom was only the one in the beginning, now its Conroe too. Conroe just takes out the power constraints and puts higher TDP limit.
Do you know if these new Yonahs will be pin compatible with the older Pentium M and Dothan? And therefore also the Asus ct479 adapter? I would simply love to have one of those Yonahs hooked up to my P4C800E ;-)
I'm currently running my 1,73 GHz 740 Dothan stable at 2,86 GHz with quiet aircooling and you must know it sure pack a punch! An even improved Yonah would be stunning :-)
2.86 GHz!? Ummm... I have a 2.0 GHz Dothan that won't run above 2.3 GHz without issues. Granted, I'm not using the CT479 adapter, but I can't see that getting me an extra 400 MHz. Maybe I'm wrong, though....
As for the new Yonah parts, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of the Yonah cores are moving to socket 775. I'm almost sure of it (which is why there's a change in chipset support). I looked through the last Intel roadmap I got, though, and while Dothan was clearly listed as socket 479, there was no mention of socket for Yonah. That said, every 945 chipset at present is listed as LGA775.
The 7x0 series Dothans with 533 bus are generally very good overclockers when coupled with the ct479 adapter and a compatible motherboard. They are also said to be faster clock for clock than the FX's in games. Fitting anything other than the supplied HSF for cooling could be troublesome, but it's absolutely worth it!
If the Yonahs will use the s775 socket I guess Intel will upgrade its Centrino platform in January as well.. That might be interesting enough (for some people), but I want kickass desktop performance through my lovely little adapter!! :-D
The 2,86 GHz overclock really isn't that special, as most people can reach 2,50 - 2,75 GHz without much trouble with the same hardware. :-) I'm surprised you didn't know of the fastest gaming processor around, Mr. hardware reviewer ;-)
The cost of Pentium M relative to Venice is difficult for me to justify, particularly when the available platforms for Pentium M are limited. I've got a single Pentium M chip, the 755 20x100 version. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the newer 533 FSB models do better, though. The 855 chipset is also very limiting, and that's the only thing I've used it with.
Anyway, there area quite a few games that will do very well on the Dothan chips. 2MB of very fast L2 cache helps many games out. If I remember correctly, the Dothan L2 latencies are quite a bit lower than Prescott 2M latencies.
Bottom line, though: I'm really looking forward to a "unified" Intel socket. If Yonah and Conroe all run in socket 775, perhaps even using the same chipset (975?), that would be great!
Looks like there's a typo somewhere in the article. The main chart shows
756 Yonah 1.83 1 667 2H'06
766 Yonah 1.66 1 667 Jan'06
But later on the text says
"starting with the Pentium M 756 (1.66GHz) scheduled to be released in January, followed by the Pentium M 756 (1.83GHz) in H2 '06"
According to www.m-w.com, both are correct, though "imbed" is listed as a variant of "embed". In other words, spellcheckers don't catch this, but then there's really nothing to "catch". Meh. I've always used "imbed" I think.
Doh. So much for upgrading my Inspiron 700m, looks like a new chipset is needed for all dual core processors. It sucks with the exception of the ULV part, all dual core chips run 667mhz FSB. That really dents upgradability. Intel changes chipsets more than I change clothing.
Not true, and I hope that people on this site would stop the mindless Intel bashing. Your Inspiron 700m uses an 855GM chipset that has been around since mid-2003. I sincerely hope you have changed your clothing in the meantime.
Intel's last chipset instroduction on the mobile front was the 915 series in January 2005. I would hardly categorize a new series of chipset after a year as excessive.
This is pretty nice... laptop dual cores. I just have to wonder if the average office laptop even needs this kind of power. The real consern I have is battery life. My P-III 1MHZ runs everything fine... but I can't stand the sick 3.5 hour (on 2 3800mAh batts) life before shutdown (of course they are 3 years old and far beyond the 500 discharge cycle "life" that dell advertized). I think the ULV chip is probably a better bet for the office. Hopefully we will start seeing them soon.
I'm getting upgraded (end of lease) this month... so I guess I'll have to wait 3 years before I find out what dual core laptop goodness is all about.
I think the bigger feature is that it will power down parts of cache when not needed. Nothing like shutting off half your transistors if youre just IMing.
I both telecommute and work from the office, using my laptop. I develop Java code, and having extra power would certainly improve things for me.
I suppose I'm a "power" user. Currently I have 9 IM conversations, Thunderbird, four Word docs, three Excel docs, itunes, cygwin, 16 gvim windows, two WAP phone simulators, five Firefox windows and the Resin servlet container (a Java web server) running on a 1.6GHz P-M Thinkpad T40p.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
34 Comments
Back to Article
StriderGT - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Everybody sans the "intel"igent? fanatics seems to be really yawning with every next new spectacular intel river, whose bottom seems well bottomless...Moderate speed bumps, astronomical caches hiding the bandwidth limitation problems, no intergrated mem controllers (double the same problem with each stiched core), lack of 64bits (I remember the "who needs the 32bit" moto by the now defunct 3dfx in the 3d arenas), DDR2 that never delivered and now forced on us all since the memory foundries need to cater for the ignorant everyday intel shoppers. Well its sad but intel's enthusiast room is really empty nowadays...
I know we must repent for defying the allmighty intel lord, but what can we do with such procs?
Xenoterranos - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
We can feed them to the beasts of incredulity and pander then unto those ignorant masses. Lo unto thee, for Dell is among you, and his mouth is vast and terrible to behold.Anemone - Saturday, October 8, 2005 - link
AMD is working on clockrate. Nobody yet has seen a Dothan go past 2.8 (assuredly) yet and frankly don't believe that Merom is going to suddenly allow Intel to beat that. Merom will up the complexity, aim at a wider (more operations per clock) method of operation and Intel (Itanium) hasn't done well in getting such designs up in clockspeed.That said, a current Dothan about equals an equivalemt 1mb cache A64 of the same clockspeed. So at 2.33ghz, you'd have to have a 2.4 (4800 x2 equiv) in a mobile format for AMD to keep up. They'll probably do that, but don't expect that AMD is going to have so much easier of a time than Intel. On the desktop AMD will be pushing 2.8 - 3.0 out of dual cores, which with the higher 667 bus should do quite well against a Conroe @ say 2.67 (remember Intel always clocks conservatively). So the only thing Intel is going to do on the desktop is "catch up" really, and you're going to have to wait till about a year from now to see it. Sorry, not very impressive for the size and resource rich company they are.
As for chipsets changing, Intel will change Napa again, in H2 (which we currently understand is far into the last quarter of 2006) when they bring Merom. So their chipset change cycles are going to be less than a year, and yes, that qualifies as "frequent changing" especially since there is zero upgrade path for older chipsets. 1 speed grade self upgradeable is not an "upgrade path" but for some it is I guess. Oh well.
Yonah will be quite the spritely chip and quite a few dual core aware apps should be hitting the shelves during 2006, so inevitably most users will find a use for it. That's one thing you can count on both companies to promote, software that can make each one's dual cores shine. However, Yonah is 32 bit. That saves energy, which is precious to a mobile user, but if current schedules maintain, you are going to be looking at less than 9 months before a "64 bit first, 32 bit as an afterthought" operating system will be introduced. That being Vista. So you'll have to ask yourself, is is worth the 1500-4k to spend on a system that in 9 months will look like last year's news? Many will argue that 64 bit won't be a big deal. Having watched the 16-32 bit revolution the first time, I've heard that argument before and it was bogus. Current tests on hastily written 64 bit software don't show tons of differences. Same for many apps on dual cores, no difference. However give dev's a year or bit more to sit and work on new 64 bit apps for Vista (written, according to MS, from the ground up for 64 bit machines) and you can bet the revolution will be swift and absolute.
I just guess it's going to depend on how people want to spend their money, but honestly, underestimating the need for 64 bit on any pc purchase after Jan 2006, would be a grave mistake.
:)
IntelUser2000 - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Uh-huh. Conroe!!=Yonah. Plus, indications are that Conroe will run up to 2.93GHz initially. Conroe is wider, higher clocked, better architecture. We'll see how it turns out.667FSB on AMD CPUs won't do much, as that's HTT speed, and as some may know, HTT increase did nothing. There is DDR2 support, but we'll see whether X2's need more bandwidth.
Intel only clocks conservatively for laptop chips, and mostly for Pentium M's.
Merom: ~2GHz
Conroe: Close to ~3GHz
stateofbeasley - Sunday, October 9, 2005 - link
(1) Raising complexity does NOT mean that clockspeed will be lower. Compare the K7 Athlon to the Katmai P6. At 0.25u, the Athlon smoked the Pentium III in clockspeed, despite having a far wider execution engine and 4x the L1 cache. Again, wider execution DOES NOT necessarily mean lower clockspeed.(2) Napa/'s chipest will not change. The 945xM chipset was already modified some time ago to support 64-bit. (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21666">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21666, reporting in March that prototype Napa64 boards were already up and running).
(3) Vista cannot be considered 32-bit as afterthought, given that x86 and x64 builds are concurrent.
People need to check their facts before posting. This area of the site is starting to look like the P&N forum, with ignorance becoming widespread among the population.
For the enthusiast, a Yonah machine may not satisfy the irrational craving for the latest and greatest, but by and large the average user does not care. 64-bit will not make Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer go any faster.
Anemone - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Conroe @ 3ghz not in '06.Napa64 and Napa32 are two different chipsets.
For Vista 32 bit is a "secondary consideration".
I'd be careful quoting a year old Inquirer article as "fact"
Comparing wider is not slower across AMD and Intel is not the statement I made. For INTEL, wider is always slower.
If you are going to contradict facts, try using ones that make sense. And please don't quote your source as a rumour mag.
thanks :)
stateofbeasley - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
You attack my source, and provide no source of your own, which is not very credible.Napa is NOT a chipset, it is a platform which uses the 945PM/GM series of chipset. The 945 chipset remains constant for Napa and Napa64.
The general proposition is that Wider doesn't mean Slower. P6 was much wider than P5, but it was able to clock much higher. This defeats your proposition that for Intel, wider = slower.
Your statements are factually incorrect, your conclusions are inaccurate, and you cite no sources. Therefore, your post is entirely lacking in credibility.
Anemone - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
Ok wider = slowerum not to refute your 10 year old "P5" comparison but how about something oh a bit more recent, say Itanium?
Napa is the reference to the chipset, however it can refer to the whole platform, but only when its brought to market, such as centrino. For now, all references are to the Yonah cpu running on the Napa platform. Don't know, but guess that would be a bit advanced for you.
Quoting sources was only done by you to add weight to your arguments. Sadly your arguments are years out of date and supported by very little.
Oh well.
IntelUser2000 - Thursday, October 13, 2005 - link
Yes. Look at this though.
Pipeline Stages:
P5: 5 stages, 2-wide
P6: 10 stages, 3-wide
IA-64: 8 stages, 6-wide
P5, the Pentium, clocked at highest 233MHz at 0.35 micron, with 5 stages
P6, the Pentium II, clocked at 300MHz at 0.35 micron, with 10 stages]
P6, with Pentium III, reached 1.1GHz with 0.18 micron on 10 stages(or higher according to some, Intel says otherwise: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
P6, with Pentium M iteration, and with at LEAST 12 stage pipeline(much as 14 stages) reached 1.7GHz on 0.13 micron.
IA-64, with Itanium 2, reached 1GHz with 0.18 micron on 8 stage pipeline.
Itanium 2, reached 1.66GHz with 0.13 micron on 8 stage pipeline.
Shintai - Saturday, October 15, 2005 - link
Dont use a bigtin CPU to compare. Intel (and others) clocks a servercpu under what it does for a desktop or even "small servers".It´s all about extra reliability and safeguards.
stateofbeasley - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
Wider = slower implies that Wider ALWAYS = slower. The burden of proving this false requires only one counterexample. I've provided two examples. P6 clocked higher than P5, and K7 clocked higher than P6. In each case, a CPU with wider execution core clocked higher than a CPU with narrower execution core. Therefore, the assertion is false. Itanium is irrelevant to the argument because only ONE counterexample will destroy the sweeping generalization.Napa is the platform, not the chipset (http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/ngma/)">http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/ngma/) "Intel is developing a mobility-optimized, dual-core processor based on next generation microarchitecture, codenamed Merom, targeted for introduction in the second half of 2006. ****The Merom processor will work within the Napa Platform that is planned to launch in early 2006.****"
See the emphasized part. Merom will be compatible with the platform. This defeats the argument that Intel will change the chipset in midyear 2006.
Anemone's claims are supported by nothing. It's obvious he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Anemone - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link
Sorry I should not have responded when tired. We disagree, and I should not have been so unkind in my responses. In the fullness of time we'll just have to see, and I guess I could be wrong. Sorry if I upset you. Next time I'll be wise enough to just let you speak your piece in peace and leave a difference of opinion as exactly that.Again, I do apologize :)
stateofbeasley - Thursday, October 13, 2005 - link
I accept your olive branch, and there will be peace in this thread.photoguy99 - Saturday, October 8, 2005 - link
Dothan already wasn't far away from being competitive with AMD's best chips in terms of power and performance.Then over the next year Intel will build on that with better SSE and floating point, better power efficiency, 64-bit, etc.
What's AMD working on to maintain their lead?
drizek - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
I've heard that merom is going to use 1/10th the power of current cpu's when idle. That, and the promise of 64 bit makes merom much more apealing to me than yonah. I want to buy a lappy, and i really dont care much about dualcore(pinmodding a singlecore to 2ghz is cheaper and faster than a 1.6ghz DC, at least for gaming) but i think it will be worth waiting till january if it means a possible upgrade in the future to merom. anyone know if these new chipsets are going to be compatible with it?IntelUser2000 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
No, its the other way around. Conroe is the desktop version of Merom. Merom was only the one in the beginning, now its Conroe too. Conroe just takes out the power constraints and puts higher TDP limit.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
It's the same thing.Merom + Vcc == Conroe
Conroe - Vcc == Merom
Since at present Intel is talking more about Conroe than Merom, we've taken the same approach.
Marlowe - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Do you know if these new Yonahs will be pin compatible with the older Pentium M and Dothan? And therefore also the Asus ct479 adapter? I would simply love to have one of those Yonahs hooked up to my P4C800E ;-)I'm currently running my 1,73 GHz 740 Dothan stable at 2,86 GHz with quiet aircooling and you must know it sure pack a punch! An even improved Yonah would be stunning :-)
JarredWalton - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
2.86 GHz!? Ummm... I have a 2.0 GHz Dothan that won't run above 2.3 GHz without issues. Granted, I'm not using the CT479 adapter, but I can't see that getting me an extra 400 MHz. Maybe I'm wrong, though....As for the new Yonah parts, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of the Yonah cores are moving to socket 775. I'm almost sure of it (which is why there's a change in chipset support). I looked through the last Intel roadmap I got, though, and while Dothan was clearly listed as socket 479, there was no mention of socket for Yonah. That said, every 945 chipset at present is listed as LGA775.
Marlowe - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
The 7x0 series Dothans with 533 bus are generally very good overclockers when coupled with the ct479 adapter and a compatible motherboard. They are also said to be faster clock for clock than the FX's in games. Fitting anything other than the supplied HSF for cooling could be troublesome, but it's absolutely worth it!If the Yonahs will use the s775 socket I guess Intel will upgrade its Centrino platform in January as well.. That might be interesting enough (for some people), but I want kickass desktop performance through my lovely little adapter!! :-D
The 2,86 GHz overclock really isn't that special, as most people can reach 2,50 - 2,75 GHz without much trouble with the same hardware. :-) I'm surprised you didn't know of the fastest gaming processor around, Mr. hardware reviewer ;-)
JarredWalton - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
The cost of Pentium M relative to Venice is difficult for me to justify, particularly when the available platforms for Pentium M are limited. I've got a single Pentium M chip, the 755 20x100 version. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the newer 533 FSB models do better, though. The 855 chipset is also very limiting, and that's the only thing I've used it with.Anyway, there area quite a few games that will do very well on the Dothan chips. 2MB of very fast L2 cache helps many games out. If I remember correctly, the Dothan L2 latencies are quite a bit lower than Prescott 2M latencies.
Bottom line, though: I'm really looking forward to a "unified" Intel socket. If Yonah and Conroe all run in socket 775, perhaps even using the same chipset (975?), that would be great!
Doormat - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
to have an x20 or x30 in my Mac Mini. And a 423 in my iBook. Hopefully those ship in Jan/Feb.BigLan - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Looks like there's a typo somewhere in the article. The main chart shows756 Yonah 1.83 1 667 2H'06
766 Yonah 1.66 1 667 Jan'06
But later on the text says
"starting with the Pentium M 756 (1.66GHz) scheduled to be released in January, followed by the Pentium M 756 (1.83GHz) in H2 '06"
So is the 766 1.66 or 1.83 ?
JarredWalton - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Fixed. The 756 is the 1.66 and the 766 is the 1.83. There were a couple other typos as well. Oops. :)stephenbrooks - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
the "imbedded" market? :)JarredWalton - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
According to www.m-w.com, both are correct, though "imbed" is listed as a variant of "embed". In other words, spellcheckers don't catch this, but then there's really nothing to "catch". Meh. I've always used "imbed" I think.Samus - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Doh. So much for upgrading my Inspiron 700m, looks like a new chipset is needed for all dual core processors. It sucks with the exception of the ULV part, all dual core chips run 667mhz FSB. That really dents upgradability. Intel changes chipsets more than I change clothing.stateofbeasley - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
Not true, and I hope that people on this site would stop the mindless Intel bashing. Your Inspiron 700m uses an 855GM chipset that has been around since mid-2003. I sincerely hope you have changed your clothing in the meantime.Intel's last chipset instroduction on the mobile front was the 915 series in January 2005. I would hardly categorize a new series of chipset after a year as excessive.
bob661 - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
We're just spolied by the Athlon XP days.xsilver - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
cant leave out the s939 amd64's either -- we'll just have to wait and see when m2 spoils the partykleinwl - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
This is pretty nice... laptop dual cores. I just have to wonder if the average office laptop even needs this kind of power. The real consern I have is battery life. My P-III 1MHZ runs everything fine... but I can't stand the sick 3.5 hour (on 2 3800mAh batts) life before shutdown (of course they are 3 years old and far beyond the 500 discharge cycle "life" that dell advertized). I think the ULV chip is probably a better bet for the office. Hopefully we will start seeing them soon.I'm getting upgraded (end of lease) this month... so I guess I'll have to wait 3 years before I find out what dual core laptop goodness is all about.
DigitalFreak - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
The dual core Pentium M chips will have the ability to power off one of the cores if it's not needed, if I recall correctly.KristopherKubicki - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
I think the bigger feature is that it will power down parts of cache when not needed. Nothing like shutting off half your transistors if youre just IMing.Kristopher
plinden - Thursday, October 6, 2005 - link
I both telecommute and work from the office, using my laptop. I develop Java code, and having extra power would certainly improve things for me.I suppose I'm a "power" user. Currently I have 9 IM conversations, Thunderbird, four Word docs, three Excel docs, itunes, cygwin, 16 gvim windows, two WAP phone simulators, five Firefox windows and the Resin servlet container (a Java web server) running on a 1.6GHz P-M Thinkpad T40p.