Intel 32 nm Clarkdale Chip Brought Forward to Q4 2009

[btarunr]

While the bulk of Intel's upcoming Nehalem and Westmere derived products include quad-core processors, the company hasn't left out dual-core processors just as yet. The dual-core Core i5 desktop processor will be based on the new Clarkdale core, built on the 32 nm Westmere architecture. Originally slated for a Q1 2010 launch, the new chip seems to have been pulled into the Q4 2009 launch schedule, deep enough to make for a significant amount of projected sales, according to sources in the Taiwanese motherboard industry.

The sales projections for Q4 look particularly interesting. Core i5 "Clarkdale" dual-core is projected to amount for 10% of Intel's sales, while Core i7 "Bloomfield" at 1%, Core i5 "Lynnfield" at 2% (Core i7 "Lynnfield" is slated for Q1 2010), Core 2 Quad at 9%, Core 2 Duo E7000/E8000 at 35%, Pentium E5000/E6000 at 31%, Celeron E3000 and Atom together at 9%, Pentium E2000 and Celeron 400 together at 4%. In the following quarter, Clarkdale's sales share is expected to rise to 20%. The numbers prove just how large the market for dual-core processors is, even four years into the introduction of quad-core chips.

Source: DigiTimes

[Laurijan]

Thats small 32nm! I wonder where the limit of silicon is

Edit: So do anyone know where the limit it?

[FordGT90Concept]

Intel didn't want us guessing what their response would be to a theoretical Phenom X4 "995."

At this rate, Intel might beat AMD to 4.0 GHz.

[laszlo]

Intel please give AMD a break... let's say 2 years..

[Kantastic]

Intel is firing up the pressure gun and aiming it at AMD in point blank range.

[Tatty_One]

I am sure that finally AMD "might" come up with a product that will be the performance leader in the mainstream Desktop CPU market before too long, however it it takes them too long, well.....If you "google" around THE www, you might find the odd article or two from very senior global IT Hardware people actually suggesting there might not be an AMD beyond about 2013

[lemonadesoda]

Interesting to see how Intel predicts Q4 sales. i3/i5/i7/i9 are a FRACTION of what the "old tech" Core 2 and Pentium brands are achieving and will still be selling.

[mtosev]

nothing new. INTEL ahead, AMD behind about a year as always.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Intel didn't want us guessing what their response would be to a theoretical Phenom X4 "995."

At this rate, Intel might beat AMD to 4.0 GHz.

Just more proof to me that the people in charge of Intel don't give two shits about giving the consumer the best product, and instead have the ability to release shit whenever they want to.

Originally Posted by mtosev

nothing new. INTEL ahead, AMD behind about a year as always.

Nothing new -- Intel having countless times more money than AMD does, yet still only releasing products that are a few times faster...

[wolf]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

Just more proof to me that the people in charge of Intel don't give two shits about giving the consumer the best product, and instead have the ability to release shit whenever they want to.

do you mean to say they should deliberately hold back releasing current technology and research in order to fall in line with AMD? and that will be better for the consumer??

[Easo]

If AMD repeats success of Phenom II, mainstream will be for AMD... New Intel procs will proly cost too much initially to compete with AMD.

[mtosev]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

Just more proof to me that the people in charge of Intel don't give two shits about giving the consumer the best product, and instead have the ability to release shit whenever they want to.



Nothing new -- Intel having countless times more money than AMD does, yet still only releasing products that are a few times faster...

its quite simple if you have better products you get more money. if you dont then you get less money and have less money to make better products.

Time waits for no one.

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by Easo

If AMD repeats success of Phenom II, mainstream will be for AMD... New Intel procs will proly cost too much initially to compete with AMD.

I agree with you certainly for the higher end but I think their more mid to lower priced mainstream chips may well be more price competative, what would be interesting to me to find out, say a year down the road is how much profit Intel are making on each i5/i3 CPU they are selling in comparision to how much profit per PII CPU AMD sells.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by wolf

do you mean to say they should deliberately hold back releasing current technology and research in order to fall in line with AMD? and that will be better for the consumer??

I'm not saying they should -- I'm saying they do. It would be better (in the short term) for the consumer if they released their fastest technology as soon as they could -- it would be worse (in the long term) if AMD went out of business because they could no longer compete.

Not taking a side this time -- just stating a fact.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by lemonadesoda

Interesting to see how Intel predicts Q4 sales. i3/i5/i7/i9 are a FRACTION of what the "old tech" Core 2 and Pentium brands are achieving and will still be selling.

Core i7 are expensive.
Core i5 will barely hit the shelves before Q4 is over (price will be high, sales will be low).

The Core i# (excluding i7) won't hit its stride until some time in 2010. There's no mention of Core i3 but I suspect it will be a winner when it comes out.

[mtosev]

Originally Posted by mdm-adph

I'm not saying they should -- I'm saying they do. It would be better (in the short term) for the consumer if they released their fastest technology as soon as they could -- it would be worse (in the long term) if AMD went out of business because they could no longer compete.

Not taking a side this time -- just stating a fact.

i dont think that putting all of their money in product development would be such a good idea. having money in the bank in these rainy times is a good idea. if AMD comes close they release a new product and AMD is at bay for the next 6 mounths.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by mtosev

its quite simple if you have better products you get more money. if you dont then you get less money and have less money to make better products.

Time waits for no one.

i assume you lived in a cave during the whole pentium 4 vs athlon 64 debacle

[mtosev]

Originally Posted by cdawall

i assume you lived in a cave during the whole pentium 4 vs athlon 64 debacle

the only thing AMD was secessful in years. and Intel beat AMD with Core 2 in 2006 and from then the situation didnt change. Intel 1st, AMD 2nd.

[FordGT90Concept]

AMD got a lot of money from Athlon 64 and X2. They were at about 30% of the consumer market and rapidly climbing. Then Core 2 Duo/Quad came along and completely wiped AMDs lead out virtually overnight.

AMD had their shot and blew it. Intel stumbled very, very badly by trying to push Pentium 4, a practically failed product, for far too long.

Intel fixed that bug in their system disallowing a failed product from staying on the market for too long. Will AMD be able to rise again? Yes, just like Via, there's a big market for cheap. Will they take the performance crown again? Not too likely. AMD would have to pull a rabit out of a hat to pull that off.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by mtosev

the only thing AMD was secessful in years. and Intel beat AMD with Core 2 in 2006 and from then the situation didnt change. Intel 1st, AMD 2nd.

thing is intel still controlled the market with the less powerful product yes AMD made some headway however OEM's which are 90% of the business with intel and AMD were still going with intel products during this time period.

[mdm-adph]

Originally Posted by mtosev

i dont think that putting all of their money in product development would be such a good idea. having money in the bank in these rainy times is a good idea. if AMD comes close they release a new product and AMD is at bay for the next 6 mounths.

They don't need to put anymore money into R&D. They've got the technology now -- they just sit on it until a competitor (well, the competitor) is about to make a comeback, and then Intel releases a just-slightly faster chip.

Like I say, I'm just stating facts, I'm not taking sides here.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

AMD got a lot of money from Athlon 64 and X2. They were at about 30% of the consumer market and rapidly climbing. Then Core 2 Duo/Quad came along and completely wiped AMDs lead out virtually overnight.

Though I agree with you, I have to add that Intel's shady deals with vendors (forcing them to buy only from Intel and not from anyone else) that they've been convicted of doing in both the EU and in Japan back in the day, had a lot to do with that, too.

I'd almost say it was more of the reason why AMD's lead vanished, since the majority of computer users are buying for value, not speed. Even though AMD had chips that were a better value, you had to buy Intel, since hardly anyone was selling pre-built computers with AMD chips.

[KieranD]

AMD didn't have a completely new architecture like Intel did at core 2 vs AM2. Intel developed this new architecture for pentium 4 and AMD created athlon 64, everything AMD has made is based off Athlon 64, not sure about phenom.

Intel decided that they didnt want to continue using the pentium 4 architecture and went back pentium 3, they souped it to hell not the most technologically efficient feat but it was developing quads and i7 and i5 at the time core 2 came out, core 2 was not the most technologically pretty but it was dam fast and thats all that the hardcore and enthusiast cared about. A lot of offices where and are still using low end celeron and pentium 4.

phenom 2 was a long time in the making and it will take it a while to get the juice from it, AMD speciality is refining and efficiency.

amd dosnt have the capacity to create new cpus for its current line and fed research and development for future architeure and cpu lines

Intel is older and thus has had a larger head start, it was already established in the market and it makes and did make more cash than AMD due to this fact.

Its hard for AMD to catch up but its doing it fine, i think that the ATi acquisition was a little to much for AMD it couldn't cope with it financially and in terms of work and knowledge in that sector, now its started to adjust to ATi due to years of integrating it into the company.


This 32nm line of cpu was probly being planned for a slow release because intel could afford to do that, in terms of cash and in terms of development, now AMD is speeding up its like okay we can push it out faster now because they can also afford to do that.

[a_ump]

i don't see core i5/i3 taking off as much as they say. I mean the general public still runs LGA775, and i can't see it just vanishing or ending anytime soon. It's been around for a long time and then there's the drawback of getting an i5 with LGA 1156? and not being able to upgrade to an i7/i9 should one get the money to afford an upgrade down the road. I personally won't buy i5/i3 untill my q6600 starts to let me down, which if anythin i can see it satisfying me more since games are going to be much better coded for multi cores(quad). The idea of purchasing i5 and not being able to upgrade to a better processor without upgrading my mobo just doesn't appeal to me and i dout i'm alone on that.

[tastegw]

enough with the vs talk,

i wonder how well this 32nm dually will clock.

[Darren]

Originally Posted by mtosev

nothing new. INTEL ahead, AMD behind about a year as always.

AMD have been behind for around 3 years. But how long were Intel behind before that? longer than 3 years I would presume

Originally Posted by mtosev

the only thing AMD was secessful in years. and Intel beat AMD with Core 2 in 2006 and from then the situation didnt change. Intel 1st, AMD 2nd.

Remember there was the Athlon XP vs the Pentium 4, AMD had the better architecture.

There was the Athlon MP vs the P4 Xeon, AMD had the better architecture.

There was the AMD Duron vs the Celeron, AMD had the better architecture.

There was the Athlon FX vs the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, AMD had the better architecture

There was the Celeron D vs empron, AMD had the better architecture.

There was the Athlon 64 vs the Pentium D, AMD had the better architecture

There was the Athlon X2 64 vs the Pentium D, AMD had the better architecture.


My point AMD has been dominating the performance for a long time, Intel’s 3 year reign has been very short in comparison to AMDs. Even with Intel’s slower architectures Intel still overpriced their CPUs but some how managed to maintain a larger market share than AMD.


Edit:

Originally Posted by mtosev

its quite simple if you have better products you get more money. if you dont then you get less money and have less money to make better products.

Time waits for no one.

Not true, if it were true the Core i7 965 and 975 Extreme Edition would be selling like hot cakes, but its not.