Upcoming 45nm Xeon Processors from Intel

[MacRumors]

DailyTech.com reports on an internal memo from Intel listing the speeds for Intel's upcoming 45nm Xeon ("Penryn") processors due in late 2007.

"Penryn" is the next chip family based on the Core micro-architecture and will include a number of enhancements along with a die-shrink to 45nm. The upcoming Penryn chips will be marketed under both the "Core" and "Xeon" brand names and encompass the entire spectrum of products (mobile, desktop, server).

The internal memo revealed that the 45nm Xeons (server class chips) will feature a 1333 MHz front-side bus and 6MB of L2 Cache per core. Processor speeds for the 45nm Quad-Core Xeons range from 2.33GHz - 3.16GHz. While Dual-core Xeons will also be produced, they will take a more "auxiliary role" with bulk of production focusing on the Quad-core chips.

One Intel engineer, who asked to not be named, claimed this focus on quad-core is a typical reaction to the market in general. "In the server space, there isn't much need for dual-core when we can go quad ... If your [applications] are threaded, there's no reason to use two cores when four are available."

Apple currently uses Intel's server-class chips (Xeons) in their Mac Pro and Xservers. The Mac Pro uses Intel's Xeon processor in 2.0 GHz - 3.0 GHz Dual Dual-Core (4 core total) configurations or 3.0 GHz Dual Quad-Core (8 core) configurations.

Despite the comparable clock speeds, the Penryn chip is said to include a number of performance boosts over similarly clocked processors.

Article Link

[Avicdar]

I remember when IBM was talking about getting a groundbreaking thin (measured in nm) process and never seemed to manage it. Does anyone know if they ever managed to achieve it in the G5 class processors that are used in PS3's, etc?

[Badandy]

Less heat = good news.

[mcarnes]

Still too slow.

[Eidorian]

Might as well just until MWSF 2008 and live with my D800.

[DoFoT9]

not bad not bad. im presuming the macpro will eventually have a dual quad core version of these in the next updates, or the following updates. would be a nice addition to the family

[Royale w/cheese]

Oh, so these are the wolfdales.

[CalBoy]

It's amazing, Moore's Law just keeps beating itself! By the time my brand new mbp gets old, Apple will be selling laptops with the ability to make breakfast and do all my housework

[ricgnzlzcr]

Mmm.....I want now

[RBilRamZ]

Honestly, how would this merit a negative rating?

[ajhill]

We should get some insight into Apple's Mac sales numbers when Intel reports earnings today. Most think the numbers will be very good, which would bode well for Apple. With as over hyped as the iPhone was it should prove to be boost to Mac sales and iPod sales and that's a very good thing.

The iPhone is great and all, but just remember that Mac and iPod sales are the biggest factors for profit, at least for now. It's going to be one heck of a week between now and next week when Apple's earnings come out.

Posted from an iPhone

[isgoed]

holy guacamoly! An actual mac rumor on macrumors!

Have you seen www.apple.com 's main page lately? iPhone all over the place? Like macs don't exist any more.

[samh004]

I know this detailed just Xeon's, but you think the mobile variants will also be mainly focused on quad-core too ?

That could be good news for Apple, if you think about it, a quad-core MBP line-up and a dual-core MB line-up. The lines would be finally in their own spaces, with a clear difference.

Either way, looks all right for the Mac Pro owners of the future.

I guess this could be rated negative because the fastest quad-core right now is 3.0GHz and this update will only increase it by 160MHz (for each core), so it's not much compared to what it's at already.

[CalBoy]

Originally Posted by samh004

I know this detailed just Xeon's, but you think the mobile variants will also be mainly focused on quad-core too ?

I don't think this will happen soon. Notebooks have to be designed with power in mind. A quad-core would drain a lot more power than a dual-core. Unless Intel is able to drop the power consumption of its quad-cores in half, don't count on this within the next mbp update.

Originally Posted by samh004

That could be good news for Apple, if you think about it, a quad-core MBP line-up and a dual-core MB line-up. The lines would be finally in their own spaces, with a clear difference.

Ever since the G4, the difference has been shrinking dramatically. Frankly, I think that Apple thinks that the SR/C2D differnce is good enough. MBP sales obviously aren't that bad, as the base 2.2 seems to be sold out in a lot of places.

[mhar4]

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

[MrCrowbar]

Originally Posted by CalBoy

I don't think this will happen soon. Notebooks have to be designed with power in mind. A quad-core would drain a lot more power than a dual-core. Unless Intel is able to drop the power consumption of its quad-cores in half, don't count on this within the next mbp update.

Actually, using more cores is better. You can use lower clocked quad core chore to do the work of a high end dual core. Heat dissipation is better too, since the eork is spread on multiple cores. Just try disabling on of your Macbooks cores with the developer tools: It gets 5 to 10 °C warmer, just when idling.

Originally Posted by mhar4

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

6 GHz = badass power consumption and heat. Apple did good.

[CalBoy]

Originally Posted by mhar4

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

If there's anything that should have been learned during the PPC days, Ghz does not matter as much as how much the chip can do. Intel was the right move for Apple.

[skellener]

Originally Posted by RBilRamZ

Honestly, how would this merit a negative rating?

Well, the chip news is great. When will Apple put it in the machines? How long must we wait? That's the only negative. It's been almost a year with no iMac or mini updates. The Mac Pro was last updated in April and all they did was add the Octo. Don't get me wrong...that's a slammin' machine! I don't have that kind of dough though. If Apple is still going to take so long between chip bumps, I'd like to see some price drops inbetween. We used to think it was because of the PPC architecture. Who are they going to blame now? The need too take a break from all the iPhone/AppleTV distractions and get back to the Mac. They've been ignoring it all year!

[CalBoy]

Originally Posted by MrCrowbar

Actually, using more cores is better. You can use lower clocked quad core chore to do the work of a high end dual core. Heat dissipation is better too, since the eork is spread on multiple cores. Just try disabling on of your Macbooks cores with the developer tools: It gets 5 to 10 °C warmer, just when idling.

Hmmm...hadn't thought of that. I guess that does have benefits for notebooks. I still don't think notebooks will see them for up to a year...too high of a cost.

[Lone Deranger]

The opening post does make mention of Penryn "encompassing the entire spectrum". So that includes their mobile line of processors.
Less power draw, less heat, faster clock speeds, more cores. Quad core in a new MBP? Yes please.

I really like Intel's philosophy in regards to cores. Why use two when you can have four, eight, sixteen etc... My multi-threaded rendering engines will be very grateful.

And I agree with skellener, the only unknown that remains is how fast Apple will move to adopt these new procs.

Originally Posted by CalBoy

Hmmm...hadn't thought of that. I guess that does have benefits for notebooks. I still don't think notebooks will see them for up to a year...too high of a cost.

[rjc]

Originally Posted by Lone Deranger

The opening post does make mention of Penryn "encompassing the entire spectrum". So that includes their mobile line of processors. Less power draw, less heat, faster clock speeds, more cores. Quad core in a new MBP? Yes please.

Intel decided to make the Penryn name encompass their entire line of 45nm products, but my understanding is that the Penryn mobile chips aren't any more like the Xeon than Merom is like Xeon. It's just a shared code name. So don't expect four cores in the mobile chips, but expect a 45nm shrink of Merom with some important improvements, mostly in terms of power consumption & heat loss.

It looks like the mobile Penryn chips aren't coming out until Q1 2008. Does anyone have more information on those?

As for the differences between the Mac mobile lines: Santa Rosa is a big difference, and presumably the MBP will get Penryn around the same time the MB gets Santa Rosa. Most people who need the Pro version will know enough to realize that there's a substantial difference between the two.

I *think* the "intel was the worst decision Apple ever made" comment was a joke, but look at it this way: I bought a Powerbook G4 in 2005 with a G4 chip that was YEARS past its prime. Intel comes out with a new chip line every 2 years, with significant improvements (e.g. chipset, architecture) every year. At least for the mobile end of the lineup (and the iMac uses mobile chips too), Intel was the way to go. The bulk of Apples sales come from that end of the lineup. You can have the fastest G6 Power Mac in the world, but if Apple can't make competitive notebooks, you won't have any Macs for long.

[luckyluke]

Originally Posted by mhar4

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

The Power 6 processor, not the PowerPC. Reminder:
PowerPC G5 = derivative of Power 4
all earlier PowerPC's = based on the Power 1 architecture

Actually the Power 5 already smokes any Intel processor found in a Mac. It even beats the workstation class processor in Intel lineup, the Itanium (see for example [1]).

This is what we are talking about here, workstation class processors. No way to put any of those even in a Mac Pro enclosure. Too much power consumption and heat as MrCrowbar answered you.

With your reasoning, Apple's move to RISC processor in the 90's would not have been toward PowerPC but toward the Alpha processors from Digital because they smoked the competition at the time. And the move to Intel would have resulted in putting Itaniums in the mac pro's.

Apple does not target that market at all…

[1] http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2872

[Bye Bye Baby]

Originally Posted by mhar4

Unbelievable. With PowerPC heading towards 6Ghz, could these so-called "Penryns" be any clearer statement that moving to Intel was the worst decision Apple ever made?

And maybe you would like to point out where the mobile road map of a 6 ghz chip is please. At least you wouldn't have to worry about heating, hot water and ovens in a house with one of those babies. Come to think of it a house with one of those babies is likely to be a collection of carbon molecules!

[Cfour]

I don't think that we'll see any updates to the mobile market for at least a year, maybe 2.
And also I feel that the move to Intel was the best descision Apple has made in recent times.

[Cloudsurfer]

Whoops, here they go again with the irregular decimal speeds! 2,33, 3,16... The MacBook Pro has such a clean lineup right now with 2,2 and 2,4.