Upcoming Calpella platform

Probably you already know this but it will be good to have a thread on this as well.

Last Updated: 1st December 2009:

Calpella is the upcoming mobile platform from Intel, the successor of Montevina.

There are two CPU families in the new platform Clarksfield & Arrandale:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Clarksfield has already been released there is not much to talk about it now.

- info as October 2009

Clarksfield is supposed to be made on 45nm and set to lunch in late September 2009. It has been confirmed that the official commercial designation of Clarksfield will be Core i7 Mobile. There are 3 CPUs from this familly known until now. One at 1.66 GHz, one at 1.73 GHz and one at 2.0 GHz. All these CPUs will use the new Intel Chipset P55, which supports SO-DIMM DDR3 at 800, 1066 MHz and 1333 MHz. The P55 does not support Braidwood, the successor of Intel's Turbo Memory. Also the socket used by the Core i7 Mobile is rPGA socket G1 (before Montevina the socket used was PPGA478 and for Montevina it is PGA478).

All Clarksfield CPUs are just like the desktop i7, having 4 cores and 8 threads.

The 45nm Clarksfield will not have the Integrated Graphic Processor in the CPU. Intel's IGP allows for switchable graphics, thus, greatly improving battery life.

It looks like Clarksfield CPUs will also support that Turbo boost Intel has been advertising.This means that one of the four cores can be pushed to work at a higher frequency. Virtually transforming the 8 threaded CPU into a highly clocked single core with HT (dual core).

The lowest entrant in the upcoming Calpella - Clarksfield platform is at 1.6 GHz - 8 threads 4 cores and consuming about 45 W. With Turbo boost, in this CPU, one core can be pushed to 2.8 GHz.

The 1.73 GHz version also has 45W, supports 8 MB of cache and can push one core to 3.06 GHz.

The 2.0 GHz versions is also called Core i7 Mobile Extreme and has been confirmed to be top of the line. Has 8Mb of cache, is multiplier unlocked, can have one core pushed to 3.2 Ghz and has a TDP of 55W. Regarding pricing, it costs more than $1000.

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14264/1/
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14294/1/

There are some unconfirmed rumours that in Q2 2010 there will be a refresh of the Clarksfield CPUs, moving them from 45nm to 32nm. This should translate into higher clocks, better prices and less TDP. (thanx Phinagle). These Clarksfields should definitely have IGP.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arrandale CPUs will have 2 cores/4 threads (dual core with HT) and be made on the 32nm technology, they should consume around 25W. They will be officially lunched on the 3rd of January and are aimed at replacing the current dual core Montevina CPUs. Currently, there should be 7 CPUs commercially available in the Arrandale platform.

The top Arrandale will be called Core i7 620M and will work at 2.66GHz being able to Turbo Boost one core to 3.33GHz, it has 4Mb of L3 cache and uses 1066 DDR3.
The GPU will work at 500MHz.
The overall TDP will be 35W, including the IGP.
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15175/41/

Two upcoming ultra low voltage Intel CPUs will end up branded as Core i7 640UM and 620UM. The 6x0 series remains reserved for Core i7 dual-core Arrandale in Calpella platform, while the 5x0 designation will be reserved for Core i5 series that has 3MB of cache.

Core i7 620UM runs at 1.06 GHz has 4MB of cache and can turbo boost to 2.13 Ghz. It is is aimed at replacing the current SU9400 (SU9400 is 1.4 Ghz, 2 cores/2 threads, 10W TDP). However due to the Arrandale's CPU Integrated Graphics, it consumes around 18W. The graphics is still stuck at 45nm and will run at 166MHz, but with a "little bit" of Turbo it will be able to get all the way to 500MHz. Will cost $278.

All Arrandale CPUs will have an Integrated Graphic Processor, which will allow for switchable graphics, thus greatly improving battery life.
Arrandale will use a different chipset than Clarksfield - the H55. But unlike the P55, it will only support SO-DIMM DDR3 up to 1066 MHz. However, the H55 chipset will take advantage of the upcoming Braidwood turbo memory and of the IGP of the Arrandale CPUs. It also appears at this time that the H55 Chipset will be able to use the current Clarksfield CPUs and that the P55 Chipset of current Clarksfields will also be able to use Arrandale CPUs but without IGP. Another interesting feature of Arrandale is its native HD Audio support, as Fudzilla reports "they will process Dolby True HD and DTS HD master audio content protection protocols".

Given that the official designation of Clarksfield is Core i7 Mobile, it is likely that Arrandale will be named Core i3 Mobile and Core i5 Mobile but this is still open to speculation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Braidwood is the the successor of the current Turbo Memory. Intel claims that "Braidwood will deliver better responsiveness and faster boot time and at this time, Intel plans to release 4GB , 8GB and 16GB modules" - "SSD like performance".

However, Braidwood will only begin its commercial life under the P57/H55 chipset which is scheduled for Q1 2010, along side with Arrandale. Braidwood is not supported on the P55 chipset.

This is how Calpella looks like in the end... (1st of July 2010)

High Performance
Processor Number	Intel® Smart Cache	Base Frequency	Maximum Turbo Frequency	Max TDP	DDR3 Speed	Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology	Number of Cores	Price	Available Since
Intel® Core™ i7-940XM	8MB	2.13GHz	3.33 GHz	55W	1333/1066MHz	Yes	4	$1096	Q3'10
Intel® Core™ i7-920XM	8MB	2.00GHz	3.20 GHz	55W	1333/1066MHz	Yes	4	$1054	Q3'09
Intel® Core™ i7-840QM	8MB	1.86GHz	3.20 GHz	45W	1333/1066MHz	Yes	4	$568	Q3'10
Intel® Core™ i7-820QM	8MB	1.73 GHz	3.06 GHz	45W	1333/1066 MHz	Yes	4	$546	Q3'09
Intel® Core™ i7-740QM	6MB	1.73GHz	2.93GHz	45W	1333/1066MHz	Yes	4	$378	Q3'10
Intel® Core™ i7-720QM	6MB	1.60 GHz	2.80 GHz	45W	1333/1066 MHz	Yes	4	$364	Q3'09

[/TR]

Mainstream
Processor Number	Intel® Smart Cache	Base Frequency	Maximum Turbo Frequency	Max TDP	DDR3 Speed	Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology	Number of Cores	Price	Available Since
Intel® Core™ i7-640M	4MB	2.80 GHz	3.46 GHz	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q4'10
Intel® Core™ i7-620M	4MB	2.66 GHz	3.33 GHz	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	$332	Q1'10
Intel® Core™ i5-580M	3MB	2.66 GHz	3.33 GHz	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q4'10
Intel® Core™ i5-560M	3MB	2.66 GHz	3.20 GHz	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q4'10
Intel® Core™ i5-540M	3MB	2.53 GHz	3.06 GHz	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	$257	Q1'10
Intel® Core™ i5-520M	3MB	2.4 GHz	2.93 GHz	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	$225	Q1'10
Intel® Core™ i5-450M	3MB	2.4 GHz	2.66 GHz	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q2'10
Intel® Core™ i5-430M	3MB	2.26 GHz	2.53 GHz	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q1'10
Intel® Core™ i3-370M	3MB	2.4 GHz	NA	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q3'10
Intel® Core™ i3-350M	3MB	2.26 GHz	NA	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q1'10
Intel® Core™ i3-330M	3MB	2.13 GHz	NA	35W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q1'10
Intel® Celeron™ P4500	2MB	1.86 GHz	NA	35W	1066/800 MHz	No	2	$86	Q2'10

Power Efficient
Processor Number	Intel® Smart Cache	Base Frequency	Maximum Turbo Frequency	Max TDP	DDR3 Speed	Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology	Number of Cores	Price	Available Since
Intel® Core™ i7-660LM	4MB	2.26 GHz	3.06 GHz	25W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q4'10
Intel® Core™ i7-640LM	4MB	2.13 GHz	2.93 GHz	25W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	$332	Q1'10
Intel® Core™ i7-620LM	4MB	2.00 GHz	2.80 GHz	25W	1066/800 MHz	Yes	2	$300	Q1'10
Intel® Core™ i7-680UM	4MB	1.46 GHz	2.53 GHz	18W	800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q4'10
Intel® Core™ i7-660UM	4MB	1.33 GHz	2.40 GHz	18W	800 MHz	Yes	2	$317	Q2'10
Intel® Core™ i7-640UM	4MB	1.20 GHz	2.26 GHz	18W	800 MHz	Yes	2	$305	Q1'10
Intel® Core™ i7-620UM	4MB	1.06 GHz	2.13 GHz	18W	800 MHz	Yes	2	$278	Q1'10
Intel® Core™ i5-560UM	3MB	1.33 GHz	2.13 GHz	18W	800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q4'10
Intel® Core™ i5-540UM	3MB	1.20 GHz	2.00 GHz	18W	800 MHz	Yes	2	$250	Q2'10
Intel® Core™ i5-520UM	3MB	1.06 GHz	1.86 GHz	18W	800 MHz	Yes	2	$241	Q1'10
Intel® Core™ i5-430UM	3MB	1.20 GHz	1.73 GHz	18W	800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q2'10
Intel® Core™ i3-330UM	3MB	1.20 GHz	N/A	18W	800 MHz	Yes	2	N/A	Q2'10

 

that's strange i thought intel was going to make quad processors with lower temps.
thanxs blacky for the news

 

I'm sure a lot of people here a sighing with relief if this is what to expect. No real reason to be upgrading until 2010 unless you really want the newest rigs then. See ya in a year if that'll be.

 

Think i'm missing something here?

Are these suppose to be better than the I7's or the Q9xxx's?

 

I will try to keep you up to date. But if you know anything more please do share.

KY_Bullet: These are notebook CPUs, I think they are designed to be better tban the current Quad mobile offerings.

 

I'm so sick of Intel's monopoly allowing them to charge these ridiculous prices for mobile chips.

 

Clarksfield is pretty much a transition chip to make some extra cash.

Arrandale Duos will come out in Q1 2010 with 32-nm and the built in IGP followed later in 2010 by the good 32-nm Quads with built in IGP + lower TDP.

 

It looks like Clarksfield CPUs also support that Turbo mode Intel has been advertising.

This means that one of the four cores can be pushed to work at a higher frequency.
In the case of the 1.6 Ghz one this will be 2.8 Ghz and for the 2.0 ghz one this will be 3.2 Ghz. Virtually transforming the 8 threaded CPU into a highly clocked single core CPU with HT (dual core).

I am not entirely sure how this actually works though.

Phinagle: Intel has had this policy for some time now. Actually ever since they got almost full monopoly of the notebook CPU market. It looks as their philosophy is not to have satisfied costumers but earn as much money as possible and they seem to be more and more greedy. But this is how monopoly works in market economy, can't blame them for that.

 

Right and that's why people shouldn't get overly excited about it.

Personally what's got me most interested in seeing these chips released is how the built-in overclocking reacts with user overclocking. Ive seen mention that the 2.0Ghz Quad is an Extreme which by today's standard should mean it has BIOS OC ability. How that affects the 3.2Ghz clock under single-core load will be interesting.

 

You mean "shouldn't" get overly excited ?

I would assume that if you can push one core to 3 Ghz you should be able to push the whole set. The problem however may lay in how you can cool down the thing, it already eats more than 45 W.

 

AMD needs to get their act together. Man I miss the days of the Athlon K7s and the first bath of Athlon 64 processors...

 

Considering that Intel has the pre-eminent position (today) largely due to AMD's propensity to shoot itself in the foot, this is hardly due to any nefarious behaviour on Intel's part. If you don't like the results, take over AMD and run it better, or start your own company.

 

The successor to the i7 series (Bloomfield) specifically, I believe, is Westmere's Gulftown (both of them are LGA 1366 sockets). Westmere is the die shrink variant of Nehalem architecture, going from 45nm to 32nm.

Arrandale (mobile), Clarkdale (desktop) and Gulftown (desktop) are the new Westmere 32nm processors in the Nehalem architecture and after that Nehalem is replaced by Sandy Bridge.

Clarksfield and Lynnfield are 45nm Nehalem processors (mobile and desktop respectively), but it seems like Clarksfield and Arrandale are coming out pretty close together, like Phinagle said, Clarksfield would be a transition processor.

I can't imagine that Arrandale, Clarkdale, Clarksfield or Lynnfield will be able to compete with the i7, but I don't know about beating the Q9XXX series.

Clarksfield is a quad-core but with lower cycles than some of the Q9XXX series and Arrandale is a dual-core. The QX9100 and QX9300 chips aren't bad (especially if your manufacturer allows to overclock them - are you reading this Dell?) My guess is that Clarksfield and Arrandale are more in line to replace the non-XE/QC Penryn's.

Personally, i7 or a Q9XXX is fine for me until Sandy Bridge comes out. It would be nice to upgrade to Gulftown on the NP9280 since it is supposed to be supported by the X58 chipset, though whether or not it will work in the NP9280 is another question. Looks expensive though, 6 cores and 12MB L3 cache at the same TDP (130W).

Btw, another question for anyone using the NP9280 ... does Intel Desktop Control Center work on it?

 

Actually that's not entirely true.

Intel has been paying retailers not to sell AMD CPUs for quite some time now. If I recall correctly what I've read some time ago, it all became obvious a couple of years ago when AMD wanted to give a couple of thousand of free CPUs to retailers part of a marketing program, and the retailers refused the CPUs. Apparently the money they were getting from Intel under the "do not sell AMDs" program was better than what they could get from selling AMD Cpus, even if they were free.

I do agree AMD has been shooting itself in the foot but that's just half of the story.

However, I don''t want to get in any more details as it will become offtopic.

 

Thanks. Fixed my typo.

 

Guess there's no reason to worry then...not until maybe mid 2010

 

Performance of Lynnfield vs. Q9650 vs. i7.

How that equates to Clarksfield vs. mobile Quads is only up for loose interpretation but what I notice is the Lynnfield tested was 2.93Ghz vs. 3Ghz Core 2 Quad while the mobile chips will be 2.0Ghz Clarksfield vs. 2.53Ghz Core 2 Quad.

 

Regardless of how Intel gained its foothold on the market, does anything you've said justify the prices Intel charges us? That was the crux of my statement.

 

Thanks for the link, Phinagle, an interesting read. Seems like the i7 950 at 3.06 GHz is equal to or a bit better than the Lynnfield at 2.93GHz. That Lynnfield seems to be priced around the same as the 950 at inception, with lower TDP and equivalent cache, though whether or not the chip is unlocked, I don't know. I'm guessing Lynnfield will be marketed between Clarkdale and Gulftown/Bloomfield as a mid-range desktop CPU. Depending on how aggressively Intel is going to market Clarksdale, I'm not sure where Arrandale comes into the picture. Also, Intel plans on shrinking 45nm Clarksdale and Lynnfield to 32nm in 2010 (or whenever).

 

In their position they don't need to justify it. We all know that CPU's don't cost that much to make (though I'd imagine other areas such as research are quite costly) but when your one of only two specialists who can supply then you can charge as much as you like for services without threat of competition taking advantage. Even the EU has tried to charge them for pro-monopoly practices and they still go at it because they can force those costs straight back on the customer without worries.

This market is always going to have a demand. The best thing we can ALL do is sit on out backsides, give Intel the finger and tell them we're happy with what we have rather than throw the wallet out each time the newest thing comes around.

 

I'm not going to derail this thread with a long essay here; suffice it to say that your statement was entirely beside the point.

 

High temps. Low clocks.

 

Looks like Intel is giving up on its idea of Centrino platform branding.

http://www.intel.com/consumer/brand.htm

From 2010 onwards, Centrino will refer only the Wifi and Wimax products, not the whole system.

 

Yeah, the more I read the more I am not impressed and anyone who was on the fence about going with a Core 2 laptop might as well get it. If you just bought one, be happy.

The clarksdale is:

Hotter
Lower clocks
Clock for clock is equal if not less than Core 2 for many games
65w vs. 45w

No thanks. I won't be Intel's, "proof of concept," test dummy while they get it together and delivery real chips with real advantages. I am sure a year down the line, we will see chips that have better thermals, consumption and performance that are Quad across the board (32nm).

For an industry that is moving and pushing for multi-core architectures (Look! 4 cores and with HT, 8 threads!!!), it seems backwards for Intel to focus on rewarding double and single threaded apps with Turbo mode. I know WHY they are doing, but I'd rather see the focus on balanced clock speeds across all four cores. But that's just me.

Anyone with a QX9300 or X9100 knows how much heat and power the 45w chips can already munch and spit. 65w for a Quad is going to be brutal.

So Intel is at a crossroads with the Core 2 finally hitting a real wall on the desktop and laptop parts (QX9300 and T9900 will probably be the end of the road), and limping into mobile parts with their next generation platforms to succeed their scorching, head-to-wall banging Core 2 mobile architecture.

 

In further news regarding Calpella:

The upcoming platform that is scheduled for Q3 2009 will use Intel's chipset P55.
However, Intel's chipset P55 will not support Braidwood, the successor of the current Turbo Memory. Intel claims that Braidwood will deliver better responsiveness and faster boot time and at this time, Intel plans to release 4GB to 16GB modules that should make the difference.

However, Braidwood will be supported on the P57 chipset which is scheduled for Q1 2010, along side with Arrandale.

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14308/1/

Regarding the 2009 Clarksfield release, until now there are 3 processors confirmed from this platform. Their respective clocks are 1.6 GHz, 1.73 and 2.0 GHz. The 2.0 GHz is an extreme version and should have the multipliers unlocked while consuming 65W.

The other 2 processors Intel claims will have the 45W TDP.

The 2.0 and 1.73 GHz CPU should both have 8mb of cache (it is still not known for the 1.6 GHz one).
The Turbo Boost on the 1.73 GHz CPU will push one core to 3.06 GHz.

The socket used by these CPUs is a new rPGA socket G1 (before Motevina the socket used was PPGA478 and for Montevina it's PGA478).

The P55 supports DDR3 SO-DIMMS of 800, 1066 MHz and 1333 MHz.

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14294/1/

I will update the initial post.

 

Initial post updated with the new information. Also it looks like the official name for Clarksfield will be Mobile core i7.

 

Competition between companies enable the consumers to be the gainers. I want AMD to come up with something ridiculously fast and kick intel in the n**s. If AMD dies, so do we. Only competition will let us have cheaper products.

 

Exactly - but zombifying AMD by "protecting" it from having to fight tooth-and-nail with Intel will not benefit anyone other than the lawyers and the government leeches (that's redundant, I believe ).

 

If only AMD can come up with a core i7 nutcracker, it can regain the crown and i7 will come to mainstream.

The mobile iX's are rated at higher TDP, That means more problem for Apple Macbook Pros for adapting them, unless they move to IONization based fanless blowers.... [ ]

 

As far as I know AMD has yet to master the Hyper-Threading or to have any technology similar to it, so catching up on i7 seems out of the question. They might show promise in the dual core section though.

Ionization blowers are supposedly a killer for notebook battery life as far as I know, but I might be wrong, so it will take a while until they will become a solution.

 

For Apple desktops, it is no problem. The Mac pros are build like metallic tanks and the cooling is great IMHO.

But these mobile parts for their ultra thin, super light, "Daahhhhling, the yacht is in the shoppe this week," models is going to be a problem.

Even the 35W T9800 runs pretty hot in the Macbook Pros and they are dual core. I haven't had a chance to see how a T9900 does.

Now, imagine a 65w Quad-Core in there that, well, quite honestly will perform WORSE in many tasks at 2.0ghz vs. the 2.66-3.06ghz Core 2 range in there now.

I suspect the next refresh won't be these mobile chips coming up. If Intel can some how get a 35W Q9000 going or they can work on some of the heat issues (or both), I see Apple refreshing the Macbook Pro 17" with a Quad Core Q9000.

Like I said....

Too Hot
Too slow
Too power hungry
Too reliant on single/dual threaded tasks to hopefully get "turbo" (!) mode to kick in.

 

what amd needs to do is to configure a new core and stop using the old tech. intel has yet to refresh the core series since pentuim D vs athlon x2 and they are still outperforming amd.

 

Overall this seems like a big step backward, but I'll wait until Arrandale specs for the real consensus.

Don, you're pretty stubborn if you think C2D is anything like Pentium D. Nehalem may as well be alien tech compared to P-D... I need sleep <.<

 

Agreed, that is what I was alluding to in a previous post with the 32nm.

Some even say the initial i7 (920/940/065 c0 steppings) were hot and heavy proof of concepts.

Look at some of the Nehalem i7 class Xeon chips showing up now with 60, 80 and 95W TDPs.

d0 steppings are a smidge better.

i5 is shaping up nicely.

Give Intel a good year while the Core 2 architecture burns brightly and then start to make the switch (and save a bundle in the process).

But hey, if someone wants to give me a 9280, I'm not going to say no.

 

i never said C2D was garbage did you read my post. i maybe did make it clear enough(to lazy)

i may be alittle off with release dates but a little summary

basically
pentuim 4 vs amd xp. a amd 1.5ghz was equal to a P4 1.8ghz and out performance the overpriced intel. amd won this round and because amd prices are lower, why not go with them.(my t5250 outperformed all)

P4 with HT vs athlon x2(i don't remember which was released first) because intel had a "fake" dual core setup(i know what hyperthreading technology is but it isn't a real dual core in the end) amd again kill the P4's in runs. (t5250 outperformed my P4 3.2ghz with HT) amd also redid there cpu by removed there FSB and replacing it with HTT(hyper transsport techonology)

Pentuim dual core vs athlonx2. the pentium dual core i think was garbage. my old t5250 c2d 1.5ghz was equal to a 2.8ghz pentuim dual core, i heard somewhere that intel bascially glued them together. they ran very hot and again amd was the way to go.


now the Core series came out which intel redid the whole cpu and the prices were alittle high but it was a very big step in there cpu's.

(i don't have my facts straight when they came out but to summarize)

intel made core 2 with was a another change to there cpu line up with amd couldn't out perform. a amd 2.8ghz was out performed by a c2d 2.4ghz. amd overclocking was no where as good as intels.

the 5800 (i believe was 2.8ghz) could not pass 3.01 ghz was with out crashing and rendering it unstable. now the c2d as you know(again not sure of the release dates) my e8600 i have read can hit 4.0ghz stable and undervolt at the same time.

(skip some time)

amd phemon vs intel core 2 quad. again intel killed them in everything. i don't think amd did anything to there cpu except HTT 3.0 and added a quad.

intel also tweak there cpu more but instead of going with the core 2 naming. there called it core i7.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Core-i7-Will-Be-the-Name-for-Intel-039-s-Nehalems-91691.shtml

now amd came out with the same core just optimzed for a very high overclock and was cheaper but
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Phenom-II-Vs-Core-i7-The-Battle-of-Names-99024.shtml

hey it set a record in 3dmark06
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-Sets-New-3DMark06-World-Record-104790.shtml

i can't find the link but it can overclock to 6.5ghz according to amd. but again the results of intel winning amd againhttp://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-phenom-ii,2119.html

and again
http://www.product-reviews.net/2009/01/13/intel-core-i7-920-vs-amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-overclocking/

and again

http://www.itnews.com.au/Tools/Print.aspx?CIID=139091

and here an update because we are in a notebook forum
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2334518,00.asp

lol


the point that i am making is that none of the manufatures moved from the design(i can't spell artichure that's why i didn't use it lol) and intel is riding core until there's nothing left in them or until amd comes out with something better. which by the looks of it, there focusing on ati first.

so i love c2d and i'll stay with them because they are the best on the market. i never said they were crap.

 

Yea this doesn't seem promising. I think I will be happy with my QX9300 a long way ahead.

 

yup i was very happy with mu qx9300. the only thing i didn't like from it which i think intel should of fixed for an extreme cpu. is lower the amount of heat drawn, use a true quad instead of a quad and tweak the voltage alittle. but hey it's a great cpu and by happy that you have the faster mobile cpu out.

 

Ok, I have more news from Fudzilla that I will add to the initial post:

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14363/1/

There will be 7 Arrandale SKUs (CPUs). Each one of them has 2 cores and 4 threads. Yes they also support HT (remember they are made on 32nm and have 25W TDP), as mentioned earlier Arrandale will have an integrated IGP which will support switchable graphics. Given that Clarksfield is officially named Mobile Core i7, it is likely that Arrandale will be called Mobile Core i3 or i5 (Fudzilla speculation).

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14369/1/

In other news from Fudzilla on which I am rather sceptic, although until now Fudzilla has proved to be almost entirely accurate on almost all information:

They say that the lowest entrant of the Arrandale CPUs will be aimed at replacing the SU9400 (the SU9400 has 1.4 Ghz, 2 cored/2 threads) and is rumoured that the cost will be similar to the SU9400 - $260. The SU9400 consumes about 10W so the Arrandale should consume a bit more, around 12-15W due to the Integrated Graphics in the CPU. I will need to further look into this to speculate other Arrandale prices.

The current lowest entrant in the Montevina Platform is at $210 so the pricing remains similar to the current offerings.

 

sweet this is making me feel a lot better about getting a qx9300

 

dondadah88: There is quite a lot of change in the architectural design of the i7 compared to the C2D. If you think they are basically the same beast you obviously haven't really looked into it. For a start don't let the reusing of the name Hyper Threading fool you, it's nothing to do with the terrible function with the same name you had on the P4. I really can't be bothered to refresh myself of all the differences and repeat them here, I'm sure you're intelligent to use a search engine and read.

 

Just a small update. The top of the line 2.0 Ghz CPU from the Clarksfield 4cores/8threads generation is going to have a TDP of 55W not 65W. Still pretty damn hot if you ask me.

 

Hahaha, oh Intel. You'll only start to get somewhere when you get them down to 45W and you'll only start to impress us when you get under that.

 

55W @ 2ghz is still too hot. Like I said, no thanks to ponying up my coin for their proof of concept in crippled, slow i7 mobility.

 

makes no sense...the switch to clarksfield was supposed to provide smaller, efficient, and less power consuming processors....

...is there something I'm missing? xD

 

It seems that none of the Calpella CPUs will offer less power consumption. What they all seem to have is hyper-threading which is compensated for with the 32nm manf. technology, but this will only be the case for Arrandale CPUs, which will be out in Q1 2010.

Clarksfield are still on the 45nm tech so.... you are right about them, until at least Q2 2010 when the 32nm clarksfield will be out, they will not be " smaller, efficient, and less power consuming processors...."

It's all detailed in the initial post.

 

Apparently Clarksfield will be lunched in late September 2009.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20090713PD203.html

 

Why is Intel keeping the Core 2 name for Clarksfield?

 

As incredulous as you may find some people here claiming Intel has an unfair monolopy on the market, I think it's equally questionable that you think Intel has not engaged in otherwise nefarious business behavior. The EUU has just recently found them guilty of anti-trust violations, and the final steps of a federal lawsuit against Intel by the FTC is being processed now. I don't think many long time advanced computer users here need a court verdict to tell them Intel has a monolopy.. It's clear AMD made some mistakes and fell down, but Intel broke both of their legs while they were down and won't let them back up, and with the EUU verdict there is precedent to say they have engaged in illegal business tactics against AMD.

 

I don't know where they got that in the article. But I'm pretty sure they will be called Core I7 Mobile or something on those lines. That si what Intel said so time ago...

 

Intel detailed roadmap here fore mobile and desktop CPU

i7-720qm (1.6-2.8ghz) seems not bad although a bit high