Saturday, January 31st 2009

Intel Scraps 45 nm Nehalem Dual-Core Chips, Plans Replacement

Grappling with a deteriorating world economy, and overstocked inventories with current-generation Core 2 platforms, Intel seems to have had a change of plans with regards to its dual-core Nehalem-derivatives. Company roadmaps originally pointed at two chips, codenamed Havendale and Auburndale to be the dual-core MCM implementations of the Nehalem architecture, for desktops and notebooks respectively. The "MCM" (multi-chip module) part comes to light in the way the chips were originally conceived: two dice on a package, one holding the CPU complex and the other holding the northbridge, consisting of a memory controller, PCI-Express root complex, and a graphics controller.

Theo Valich, noted industry commentator, in his latest blog post in Theo's Bright Side of IT, mentions that Intel scrapped Havendale and Auburndale in its conceived form. The two were set to make possible Intel Core i4 and i3 SKUs. Instead, Intel is working to push forward the launch of their common successor by six months: the Arandale core. Arandale features in the future series of Nehalem-derived processors to be built on the 32nm high-K silicon process, slated for 2010. Arandale from all that is known thus far is the dual-core Nehalem implementation on 32nm lithography, apart from speculation of it holding a higher amount of L3 cache: possibly 6 MB against 4 MB on the Havendale/Auburndale. The Arandale core was originally slated for "back to school" season, 2010 (around September~October). After rescheduling the launch, it could arrive by March.

Source: Theo's Bright Side of IT
Add your own comment

48 Comments on Intel Scraps 45 nm Nehalem Dual-Core Chips, Plans Replacement

#2

i'm not sure of how much to believe theo
Posted on Edit | Reply
#3
Weer
Finally people realize how useless dual-core CPU's are.
Posted on Reply
#4
ShadowFold
by: [I.R.A]_FBi
i wonder why ....
Core 2's are already really good.. Why waste money on making these when they know their core 2's will sell well?
Posted on Reply
#5
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
What it sounds like is the final nail to the coffin of AMD ! AMD is going to play the MHZ game and Intel is going to blast so far ahead of them with the octo-core and going 35NM with more and more innovation and more and more leaps forward Intel is taking us into the future at a very fast rate .
I can hardly wait to see the new line of Intel CPU's the economy is going to be fine it will take some time but then again Intel is not going to let it slow them down and instead of keeping a dual core CPU around that is clearly not as nice to own as a quad core hence the back log of dual cores Intel is doing the right thing and hey intel doesn't even bother with tri cores at all do they ?
Posted on Reply
#6
zithe
by: ShadowFold
Core 2's are already really good.. Why waste money on making these when they know their core 2's will sell well?
And they won't have to blow a crap load advertising the stuff.
Posted on Reply
#7
erocker
by: trickson
What it sounds like is the final nail to the coffin of AMD ! AMD is going to play the MHZ game and Intel is going to blast so far ahead of them with the octo-core and going 35NM with more and more innovation and more and more leaps forward Intel is taking us into the future at a very fast rate .
I can hardly wait to see the new line of Intel CPU's the economy is going to be fine it will take some time but then again Intel is not going to let it slow them down and instead of keeping a dual core CPU around that is clearly not as nice to own as a quad core hence the back log of dual cores Intel is doing the right thing and hey intel doesn't even bother with tri cores at all do they ?
Awesome, I can't wait untill we have only one company to buy our processors from!:rockout: What a sweet deal that's going to be.:rolleyes: That was sarcasm, now once again sir, please stay on topic.
Posted on Reply
#8
CDdude55
Crazy 4 TPU!!!
Sticking with Core 2 for a while, and am glad they are releasing new chips for 775(like E8700).

As a gamer its really all i need.
Posted on Reply
#9
Nitro-Max
There profits are down from last year might have somthing to do with the change of plan plus they didnt expect people to hold on to there love for the Q6600 which is now purposly made to overclock pretty rubbish to faze it out and force 45nm sales.
Posted on Reply
#10
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
I think that every one is going to be rethinking things at least till things get going once again .
But it is still good news never the less .
Posted on Reply
#11
Exavier
I'm still thinking in the UK at least £500 for just the mobo + proc is prohibitive in terms of upgrade;
the only thing I'm considering is changing out my pretty much golden q6600 for a q9650 which I can clock faster and will run cooler...even so, it's a hard decision to justify.
Posted on Reply
#12
Jansku07
No thanks, I won't believe anything that Theo "Phenom will do 30k 3dmark06s +3 GHz" Valich claims..

I don't think this is a valid source.
Posted on Reply
#13
Fiery
FinalWire / AIDA64 Developer
It is true. Multiple sources confirmed it.

We've already got EVEREST report of an Arrandale-based mobile test platform. All I can tell you: it works, and it works very well. It is definiately manufactured on a 32nm process, and it packs more features than Auburndale (the 45nm variant that got cancelled). It will not only kill AMD, but also VIA -- if those companies survive 2009 ;)
Posted on Reply
#15
J-Man
by: Weer
Finally people realize how useless dual-core CPU's are.
Single and duals are old now yes. I think it's time for people to own quads instead of duals now.
Posted on Reply
#16
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
Well I think it is all about progress . Why would you want them to continue to make a product that is not being bought up ? Not a wise thing to do seeing that they have a back log sitting on the selves and when the market is now wanting Quad cores not dual cores then making the dual core seems dumber than a bag of diapers ! :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Weer
Finally people realize how useless dual-core CPU's are.
Read the article. They are just cancelling the intermediate Dual-Core and moving up the launch of the 32nm replacement. They are still releasing dual-cores.:slap:

And Quad-cores in the current consumer market are useless. No average consumer needs a Quad-Core processor.
Posted on Reply
#18
J-Man
Back to your Q6600, trick?
Posted on Reply
#19
Paulieg
The Mad Moderator
by: erocker
Awesome, I can't wait untill we have only one company to buy our processors from!:rockout: What a sweet deal that's going to be.:rolleyes: That was sarcasm, now once again sir, please stay on topic.
I'm so glad you posted this. If you hadn't, I was seriously considering a custom infraction for stupidity. :slap:
Posted on Reply
#20
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: J-Man
Back to your Q6600, trick?
Well till Monday then the Q9650 comes in . :rockout:

Won't this now put even more pressure on AMD ? I mean Intel can now focus in on there octo cores and quads with out being hampered by dual core manufacturing . Moving from 45nm right to 35nm faster than any time in history .
Posted on Reply
#21
Paulieg
The Mad Moderator
by: trickson
Well till Monday then the Q9650 comes in . :rockout:

Won't this now put even more pressure on AMD ? I mean Intel can now focus in on there octo cores and quads with out being hampered by dual core manufacturing . Moving from 45nm right to 35nm faster than any time in history .
There will always be a market for dual core processors, especially for budget systems. As stated above, the average consumer has no need for a Quad. The average consumer outnumbers us enthusiasts by 1000 to 1, I would guess.
Posted on Reply
#22
J-Man
I'll trade my Q9550 for the Q9650 when you get it?

Haha, nah. I'm happy with my quad and I'll be more happy if I hit 4GHz on water next week sometime on my quad radiator along with my watercooled 4870 x2 :).

If I hit 4GHz, my PC would kickass for another year and a half or so anyway.
Posted on Reply
#23
trickson
OH, I have such a headache
by: Paulieg
There will always be a market for dual core processors, especially for budget systems. As stated above, the average consumer has no need for a Quad. The average consumer outnumbers us enthusiasts by 1000 to 1, I would guess.
Well if that were really true then why are there no more single core CPU's ? And why is Intel saying they are going to cut production due to the over stock and lack of sales on dual cores ? I mean with that kind of reasoning then no one would need any thing more than a single core CPU , But marketing wise why would the average joe even need a dual core CPU ?
I think that you are right but when the average joe looks at the Spec's and sees one has a Dual core ( for about the same price) and the other has a Quad core what do you think joe is going to get ? I see more quads leaving the shelf's at stores than dual cores .
Posted on Reply
#24
BarbaricSoul
I don't know about your uses for a computer trickson, but for me, my 8400 does everything I ask it to do and asks for more. I have NEVER been able to bog it down(granted, I don't do auto-cad or any video editing). If I thought a quad would actually do me any good, I'd have a q9450 in my computer now. I came real close to buying one right before they were discontinued. But to be honest, I didn't see the need. I'm not knocking quad-core owners. All I'm saying is duals can still do the job quite nicely.
Posted on Reply
#25
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: trickson
Well if that were really true then why are there no more single core CPU's ?
There are still single core processors, not so much on the desktop side, but more so on the laptop side. Hell, there are people getting by with nettops/netbooks running extremely weak Atom single core processors.

Though single core processors have nothing to do with this discussion really. We are talking about dual-cores, not single-cores. The industry moving away from single core processors =/= dual cores are useless.

Single core processors being phased out is more of an economic move caused by the dies moving to native dual core, and now quad-core, designs. It doesn't make sense to make a dual-core die, then disable half of it to make a single core processor.

by: trickson
And why is Intel saying they are going to cut production due to the over stock and lack of sales on dual cores ?
Well actually, they are cutting production due to the over stock of Core 2 processors, both dual and quad.

by: trickson
I mean with that kind of reasoning then no one would need any thing more than a single core CPU , But marketing wise why would the average joe even need a dual core CPU ?
They don't. Most are still surviving on single cores. The old Celerons, Semprons, and Athlon 64s are still in use more than anything. The average joe isn't really looking to even upgrade to a new computer right now due to the economy, which is why there is such a large overstock in the first place.

by: trickson
I think that you are right but when the average joe looks at the Spec's and sees one has a Dual core ( for about the same price) and the other has a Quad core what do you think joe is going to get ? I see more quads leaving the shelf's at stores than dual cores .
This is correct, for the most part. However, most of them won't make use of the quad-core processor. They just think it is better and buy it. Just because more people are buying Quads, that doesn't mean they are actually using them to their potential. For and average Joe, a E8400 would be far better than say a Q8200. The higher clock speed would benefit the average joe far more. The average joe is not running multi-threaded apps, so the slower quad-core would hurt them more than anything.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment