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

[btarunr]

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.

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/09-01-31/3a_thm.jpg (http://www.techpowerup.com/img/09-01-31/3a.jpg)

Source: Theo's Bright Side of IT (http://theovalich.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/exclusive-intels-cans-45nm-auburndale-and-havendale-fusion-cpus/intel_havendaleauburndale/)

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

i wonder why ....

[wolf2009]

i'm not sure of how much to believe theo

[Weer]

Finally people realize how useless dual-core CPU's are.

[ShadowFold]

_FBi;1188490']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?

[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 ?

[zithe]

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.

[erocker]

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.

[CDdude55]

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.

[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.

[trickson]

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 .

[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.

[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.

[Fiery]

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 ;)

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

but i dont want them to die :(

[J-Man]

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.

[trickson]

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:

[newtekie1]

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.

[J-Man]

Back to your Q6600, trick?

[Paulieg]

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:

[trickson]

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 .

[Paulieg]

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.

[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.

[trickson]

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 .

[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.

[newtekie1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[AltecV1]

I just bought a E8400:rockout:and im very happy.Belive me dual cores are here to stay for a while(32nm ULPC prossesors);)AND HOW SAID THAT THERE IS NO MARKET FOR SINGEL CORES ANYMORE:wtf:Thase ATOM ring-a-bell(ONE OF THE BEST SELLING PROSSESORS OF THE YEAR)you NUB:shadedshu
peace out tech geeks;)

[BarbaricSoul]

I'm extremely happy with my e8400. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a I7 system, but I just dont see the need to spend the money considering how happy I am with my wolfdales performance.

[Darren]

I just bought a E8400:rockout:and im very happy.Belive me dual cores are here to stay for a while(32nm ULPC prossesors);)AND HOW SAID THAT THERE IS NO MARKET FOR SINGEL CORES ANYMORE:wtf:Thase ATOM ring-a-bell(ONE OF THE BEST SELLING PROSSESORS OF THE YEAR)you NUB:shadedshu
peace out tech geeks;)

Indeed, half the time the E8400 is faster than those quadcores in applications and games :)

Edit:

We have to remember in developed countries there is at least one computer in each home.


Most homes would have probably have a Dell system prebuilt with an average spec for web browsing, using Microsoft office etc, and hence wouldn't need to upgrade for years. A single core Sempron or Pentium 4 Prescott is enough.

A lot of professional video editors or animators use Mac systems for software support.

Statistics also show that in the USA at least one home has a gaming console (whether for games or DVD usage)

The majority of casual gamers use consoles, although PC is a huge gaming community chunk respectably.

Therefore, if we can establish that gamers tend to use consoles and that there is a console and PC in almost every home we can establish that the highest end quad core or GPU isn't required for every household.

Because once you factor in the house holds which use purely office software or browse the net casually, or the gamers that opt for consoles. Even the so called "fake enthusiasts" that think the 8400 GS is a high end gaming card just because they were mislead and failed to do their research, they are the type of people that will stick with their single core Pentium 4 Prescott because of the high clock rating regardless of the new quad cores with better architectures (with lower clocks)

My point is the PC community is massive, us real enthusiasts are a small community in comparison the "fake enthusiast", or "office software or web browsers" - You cant expect Intel or AMD to cater for us, we make them little money in comparison.

[1Kurgan1]

Interesting, I was wondering how the i7 duals would be seeing as the E series especially the e8xxx's were so good.

[mtosev]

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.

VIA also has X86 CPUs. ;)

[trickson]

VIA also has X86 CPUs. ;)

Are they any good ?

[spearman914]

Dual cores are still kicking today. but By the time they release it, almost all games will support 4-8 threads so cancelling Nehalem dual cores is not as bad.

[mtosev]

Are they any good ?

in the british (pc plus) magazine Via's cpu beat intel's Atom cpu. in performance. in low power intel wins. :)

test: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=14776

[btarunr]

Once again, please stay on topic. We will be handing out infractions.

[Sasqui]

Given the demand picture and bloated inventory reports for CPU's, chipsets and motherboards, this isn't surprising.

Intel has flat-lined in the performance department with Core2's (and Quads). Not counting the i7 .

[PP Mguire]

No more than 2 cores is currently being used by games. The only thing quads are good for is benching and encoding and the sort.

As a gamer, i see no need for anything more than 2. And with SLI/Tri SLI at my disposal i need more megahurtz then i need more cores.

[farlex85]

Yeah this makes sense. With the way AMD and the needs of normal internet use are doing, there don't really see a need for any of intel's planned procs, including i5 or the havendales. Core 2 is still going strong and really more than most people need, and AMD is just now catching up to that tech. In some ways core 2 performs similarly to i7 as well (games). So in effect releasing new procs where there is absolutely no demand is simply going to saturate the market. Perhaps AMD can pull a punch in soon and get things rolling, but until then things will likely remain fairly stagnant in the cpu sector for a bit.

[newtekie1]

Dual cores are still kicking today. but By the time they release it, almost all games will support 4-8 threads so cancelling Nehalem dual cores is not as bad.

Again, them cancelling this doesn't mean they are cancelling their dual-core plans.

Basically the plan was:

Quad-Cores:
45nm Nahelem -> 32nm Westmere

Dual-Cores:
45nm Havendale and Auburndale -> 32nm Arandale

Now they are just cutting out the 45nm Dual-Core phase and skipping to the 32nm Dual-Cores. I don't know where people are getting that they aren't releasing Dual-Cores anymore.:banghead:

[OnBoard]

Not a bad idea at all, we all ready have 45nm Duals and by the time the i5 32nm Duals come out DDR3 will be cheap :)

[AltecV1]

Not a bad idea at all, we all ready have 45nm Duals and by the time the i5 32nm Duals come out DDR3 will be cheap :)

Now that is the best comment so far and you are absolutle right my man:toast:higer clocked(~4Ghz) duals with HT what more to gamers need:D

[R_1]

The real stupidity is to build native quad core CPU and to disable it's two working cores (and half or more of the cache) just to sell it as dual core CPU.

[Nick89]

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 ;)

If AMD or VIA die then intel will sell for stupid prices. Lets say 500$ for a celeron @ 1ghz.:shadedshu

There would be no more innovation because intel would have no competition. Why would intel waste money to make a new processor if the only competition they have is from themselves..:shadedshu

Thats why I hope AMD comes out with something to kick Intels ass.:rockout:

[hat]

What's with all this talk of dual core being crap now?

I'll continue to buy dual cores for some time now. As a gamer, quad core doesn't benefit me. Also, considering the cheapest quad core is $150 on newegg, and the cheapest dual core doesn't even touch $40... I'm led to believe that I could take that $150 I had planned for the quad core and buy a really fast dual core for $150 and be much better off.

There is virtually no reason to buy a single core anymore, and that's because:
1.dual core has a much greater advantage over single core than quad core has over dual core, and
2.dual core processors have virtually replaced single core processors mostly because of #1, and they are cheap (cheapest dual isn't even $40)

[newtekie1]

The real stupidity is to build native quad core CPU and to disable it's two working cores (and half or more of the cache) just to sell it as dual core CPU.

Well it actually makes perfect sense once you realize that the two cores or cache they disable are usually not working.

However, in this case, they are not disabling cores in the natve quads, they are making native duals based on the same technology as the quads.

Yields are never 100%, there are always processors that have damaged parts after production. It has been the practice for ages to disable those damaged parts and sell them as cheaper processors. It is either that or throw them out.

[pr0n Inspector]

some people seem to have forgotten about the scalability of Intel's new CPUs. they don't need to disable a quad to make a dual.

[Hayder_Master]

that's better , no place for dual core

[Joe Public]

Saying everyone should have a quad core is like saying everyone should drive high powered sports cars instead of regular consumer cars. Which is completely unrealistic and unnecessary.

[zithe]

Saying everyone should have a quad core is like saying everyone should drive high powered sports cars instead of regular consumer cars. Which is completely unrealistic and unnecessary.

And so is making a new series of dual cores. :D