Are we at the absolute end of Single Core Intel Processors?

T

TheBluePill

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
3,773
Not counting Mobile platforms, but are the Days of High End Single Core Over?

I realize Dual Cores will come in to play for gamers over the next year or so, but there still is a real advantage to be had by high end single core performance. (Although I was an X2 Early Adopter..)

I would like to have seen a "Core 2 Solo" like Conroe based single core desktop processor in the 3.8-4.6 ghz range at an affordable price. I think for a lot of current applications this would be a boon. One would assume that some C2D's had one faulty core off the line, why not just disable it completely and up the speed since you have added thermal room from only running one core? Hell, at $299 - $399 you could sell a load of them to gamers.
 
Intel is launching at least two new processor lines next year that are single core. Core 2 Solo (starting with the E4200 or E4300) and some sort of derivitive of Conroe called Conroe-L.

Conroe-L will take on the Pentium brand have 800FSB and 1MB L2 Cache.


I think they are also launching a new Celeron line, but I'm may be wrong.
 
dont forget that a 1 fast core will always be faster than 2 slower cores.

eg

If Intel could make a 4Ghz Single core CPU based on the Core2 CPU it would be far faster than a 3.0Ghz Duo Cpu.
 
Jay_oasis said:
dont forget that a 1 fast core will always be faster than 2 slower cores.

eg

If Intel could make a 4Ghz Single core CPU based on the Core2 CPU it would be far faster than a 3.0Ghz Duo Cpu.
Click to expand...
just make a 4ghz dual core how bouts?
 
Jay_oasis said:
dont forget that a 1 fast core will always be faster than 2 slower cores.

eg

If Intel could make a 4Ghz Single core CPU based on the Core2 CPU it would be far faster than a 3.0Ghz Duo Cpu.
Click to expand...

For single threaded apps yes, but multithreaded apps will eat up the dual core goodness. Just look at some reviews. And now that games are starting to become multithreaded, it'll just make multicore processors even more cemented into the market.
 
ryan_975 said:
Intel is launching at least two new processor lines next year that are single core. Core 2 Solo (starting with the E4200 or E4300) and some sort of derivitive of Conroe called Conroe-L.

Conroe-L will take on the Pentium brand have 800FSB and 1MB L2 Cache.


I think they are also launching a new Celeron line, but I'm may be wrong.
Click to expand...

both the E4200 and E4300 are dual core procs. the E4200 has been cancelled though anyways.

E4300 - 1.8GHz - 800MHz FSB - 2mb cache

Q2 i believe is when the Core Solo procs are coming out.
 
i'm sure single core will be out for a long time from now...it's not like it aint useless..
Most familes are fine with a single core cpu for home/office use.
 
TheBluePill said:
Why is it thought Core Solo's were Mobile only parts?
Click to expand...

For the same reason Pentium-M's and Celeron-M 3xx/4xx's are. Intel wanted to market them in the mobile segment.
 
ASUDevil83 said:
both the E4200 and E4300 are dual core procs. the E4200 has been cancelled though anyways.

E4300 - 1.8GHz - 800MHz FSB - 2mb cache

Q2 i believe is when the Core Solo procs are coming out.
Click to expand...

I read that the E4300 is coming out on January 20. Pretty sure that's right.
 
YES, the life of single core parts will be over soon. How long, that really depends on when Intel stops its 90nm production.

The problem is Intel has plenty of 90nm P4/Celeron dies probably lying around still in production, that they'll need to make cheap P4's or Celerons out of for the next 6+ months.

After that I don't see any reason why they don't go all dual core.

The only reason I'd say not to is for power conservation (ie: mobile), but the Core 2 Duo is so efficient its already in laptops (with good battery life). So there goes that excuse. I think its just a matter of the 90nm production.

B/c the 65nm Core 2 Duo chip is small (die wise) and very efficient (power conserving) already. No reason not to use it for everything.
Granted they'll need a budget version, there are some ES's floating around with like 512Kb of cache, which will probably be the next Celeron / Conroe-L, but its still dual core.
 
chrisf6969 said:
YES, the life of single core parts will be over soon. How long, that really depends on when Intel stops its 90nm production.

The problem is Intel has plenty of 90nm P4/Celeron dies probably lying around still in production, that they'll need to make cheap P4's or Celerons out of for the next 6+ months.

After that I don't see any reason why they don't go all dual core.

The only reason I'd say not to is for power conservation (ie: mobile), but the Core 2 Duo is so efficient its already in laptops (with good battery life). So there goes that excuse. I think its just a matter of the 90nm production.

B/c the 65nm Core 2 Duo chip is small (die wise) and very efficient (power conserving) already. No reason not to use it for everything.
Granted they'll need a budget version, there are some ES's floating around with like 512Kb of cache, which will probably be the next Celeron / Conroe-L, but its still dual core.
Click to expand...

on the business end of this single core will be around for quite a while....especially on the bulk purchases for corporate offices. there really isnt all that much need for dual core procs with employees using simple programs and the internet. the ONLY way dual core completely eliminates single core is IF the costs to businesses are the same for dual core as single core. buying 200 comps where the processor cost to a business is $120 for a dual core and $70 for a single core adds up to a good amount of savings.

but for the home user, multi-core will soon overshadow single core by a wide margin.
 
Well, it will depend on how long it takes to phase out NetBurst technology, Prescott as well as Cedar Mill derivatives, are still a decent part of Intel's inventory.

Intel will be moving to mostly Dual Core for the rest of their lineup, except for Celeron which in the future will move to the Conroe-L core.

So everything else will like move to Dual Core. You will have this pecking order, for Core based products.

Celeron 4xx with 1MB of Cache Single Core
Pentium E2xxx with 1MB of Cache Dual Core
Core 2 E4xxx with 2MB of Cache Dual Core
Core 2 E6xxx with 2MB/4MB of Cache Dual Core
Core 2 Q6xxx with 2x4MB of Cache Quad Core.
Core 2 Extreme

You still have these leftover products though to continue to sell:

Celeron 3xx with 256KB/512KB Single Core 90nm/65nm
Pentium 4 5xx/6xx/6x1 1MB/2MB Single Core 90nm/65nm
Pentium D 9xx 2x2MB Dual Core 65nm
 
I really don't see the need nor the marketing potential of a 'high-end' single core CPU. The _only_ place high-end single core CPUs shine is in gaming, and given that even a mid-range dual-core CPU is video card limited at the moment, there is no reason to release a high end single core part.
 
by the way, from some roadmaps I've seen, they state that Intel will come out with a dual core Wolfsdale processor, which is, from people i've talked to, just a heavily revised conroe core debuting at 3.5 - 4.0Ghz retail. =) Maybe there will be a 4.0Ghz stock processor coming soon? The wolfsdale debuts in Q3, along with the yorksfield
 
Single is not dead but is on life support.

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=698063&starttime=0&endtime=0

That should be the English version.

Just in case it is not:)

Acquaintance from manufacturers reported that Intel has canceled Pentium E1000 previously planned to release in Q207. Instead, a new dual core Pentium E2000 family is introduced, enlarging the popularity of dual core processor.

In the previous plan, Pentium E1000 (Conroe-L) family are single-core processors which include E1020 (1.4GHz/1MB L2/800MHz FSB), E1040 (1.6GHz/1MB L2/800MHz FSB), and E1060 (1.8GHz/1MB L2/800MHz FSB). They are set to replace the market of single-core Netburst. However, as dual core is already popular, single core hasn’t got much room to live, and hence Pentium E2000 family now bears the mission to replace the market instead. Conroe-L is kept for Celeron only.

According to the latest road map from Intel, Pentium E2000 is based on native L2 stepping 2MB Conroe core, in which 1MB of the L2 cached is disabled. This family is available from Q307 including E2140 (1.6GHz/1MB L2/800MHz FSB) and E2160 (1.8GHz/1MB L2/800MHz FSB). Enhanced Intel SpeedStep (EIST), Intel 64 (I64) and Execute Disable Bit (XD Bit) are supported like Core 2 Duo. Yet Intel Virtualization (VT), ViiV and vPRO are excluded for separating the market.

In addition, Intel has updated its shipment estimation. In Q107, Pentium 4 single core share about 18% of the total shipment for Desktop computer. The proportion is expected to slip gradually. As 90nm Pentium 4500 and 600 family are cut in Q207, the only left will be 65nm Pentium 4 6x1 where the shipment share has dropped to 7% or lower.

Stepping in Q307, the Era of Netburst comes to the end as Pentium D and Pentium 4 are both terminated at that time already. The vacancies of market are replaced by Core 2 Duo E4000 and Pentium E2000. Intel expects Pentium E2000 will share 18% of the total shipment when launched.
Click to expand...

This is hearsay but these guys don't miss much.

January Price cuts have been announced by Intel as well.
 
Single core processors will never end here is why:

Every time a new level of cpu silicon wafer comes out it comes out in the single core variety first time around. So we will see single cores for the following:

45nm
32nm
22nm

That is at least 10 years worht of single core procs coming out... so no Single cores are not in anyway shape or form dead!
 
I really hope Intel completely scraps the Pentium idea, it'll just create too many segments. I see this as best, but I'm not an expert:

$800-$1000 Core 2 Extreme
$300-$700 Core 2 Quad Q6xxx
$200-$600 Core 2 Duo E6xxx
$100-$200 Core 2 Duo E4xxx
sub-$100 Core 2 Duo E2xxx

That would seem good to me, and leave alot of confusion out. But oh well who am I to say.
 
ryan_975 said:
I really hope Intel completely scraps the Pentium idea, it'll just create too many segments. I see this as best, but I'm not an expert:

$800-$1000 Core 2 Extreme
$300-$700 Core 2 Quad Q6xxx
$200-$600 Core 2 Duo E6xxx
$100-$200 Core 2 Duo E4xxx
sub-$100 Core 2 Duo E2xxx

That would seem good to me, and leave alot of confusion out. But oh well who am I to say.
Click to expand...

But there are tons of markets for sub $90 processors around the world.
 
ryan_975 said:
you lost me.
Click to expand...

Every Country on the Planet Earth is not as rich as the U.S. A. They might be happy with something a 10th as fast or powerful as what we might take for granted.
 
Donnie27 said:
Every Country on the Planet Earth is not as rich as U.S. A. They might be happy with something a 10th as fast or powerful as when we might take for granted.
Click to expand...

completely true. i have few hundreds of blank cdr's and dvdr's; my relatives can only afford to buy cdr's one at a time in my home country. they're still at a pentium 3 computer and it's one of the more expensive ones in their neighborhood.

i think it's a decent idea to separate the pentium line and core2 even just for marketing. afterall, if they named everything Core 2, the average computer user (let's face, most are not the brightest - which we all were at one point - i used to install Realplayer thinking it was the coolest :() wouldn't see any reason to go up to the higher models. they'd simply think Core2s are all pretty equal since they have the same name. This way they would probably think Pentium = mid, Core2 = best.

as for the thread, single core will be here for quite a bit i think.. afterall, regular business workers that use their computers to type word/excel documents dont really need the extra power provided by dual cores.
 
FanZ said:
This way they would probably think Pentium = mid, Core2 = best.
.
Click to expand...

That's not going to happend though. Pentium = Best, Celeron = Value, Core 2 = WTFIT?

So a completely new brand is going to be hindered because people are going to think Pentiums are better than Core 2's because they always have been in the past.

Core 2's will be separated by model number, you see E2xxx and think what's the difference between E4xxx, higher is better so the E4xxx is better than the E2xxx, and the E6xxx is better than the E4xxx and E2xxx. It removes all brand confusion. E2xxx would be the value (sub-$100) processor line. Meaning that the lower E2xxx would be about $55, the next up E2xxx would be 65, then 75 then 85 and so on. Just like how it's segmented now. The cheapest Celeron in production is about $55, the most expensive one is about $90.
 
ryan_975 said:
That's not going to happend though. Pentium = Best, Celeron = Value, Core 2 = WTFIT?

So a completely new brand is going to be hindered because people are going to think Pentiums are better than Core 2's because they always have been in the past.
Click to expand...

even though i can clearly see where you're getting at; putting everything under one new name would just lower the marketing recognition they've built in the past, for good or bad.
you said so yourself, if people still think pentiums are the best, then shouldn't intel keep the brand even more? quite honestly, i dont blame intel for moving their best processors to Core 2 instead of Pentium, which still reminds me of the netburst processors and how Athlons were the more favorable choice for many.

just so it doesnt get completely offtopic: so are new pentiums all going to be dual core? with only celeron being single?

meh, either way, i'm just going to wait it out to see the final products.
 
TheBluePill said:
Not counting Mobile platforms, but are the Days of High End Single Core Over?
Click to expand...

God I hope so, I'd hate to see the processor market take a step backwards.

I realize that games do not take advantage of dual cores, but they never will if the industry doesn't move forward. The install base of multi-core processors needs to get larger. If the hardware isn't out there, then software companies have little reason to take advantage of it.
 
The absolute end of single core processors is when the most budget of the budget CPU's is dual core. When a $50 Celeron gets 2 cores, then single core is dead.
 
ryan_975 said:
I really hope Intel completely scraps the Pentium idea, it'll just create too many segments. I see this as best, but I'm not an expert:

$800-$1000 Core 2 Extreme
$300-$700 Core 2 Quad Q6xxx
$200-$600 Core 2 Duo E6xxx
$100-$200 Core 2 Duo E4xxx
sub-$100 Core 2 Duo E2xxx

That would seem good to me, and leave alot of confusion out. But oh well who am I to say.
Click to expand...
This won't happen as you forgot to insert Celeron into the equation.

It's morel likely going to be this way.

$999USD Core 2 Extreme
$650-$851USD Core 2 Quad Q6xxx
$183-$650 USD Core 2 Duo E6xxx
$133-$183 USD Core 2 Duo E4xxx
$84 - $133 USD Pentium E2xxx
less then $84USD Celeron 4xx

The Quad pricing really depends if 4x4 becomes a threat and also how competitive the Agena K8L/K10 CPU is in price and performance when it arrives in Q3 2007.
 
ryan_975 said:
That's not going to happend though. Pentium = Best, Celeron = Value, Core 2 = WTFIT?

So a completely new brand is going to be hindered because people are going to think Pentiums are better than Core 2's because they always have been in the past.

Core 2's will be separated by model number, you see E2xxx and think what's the difference between E4xxx, higher is better so the E4xxx is better than the E2xxx, and the E6xxx is better than the E4xxx and E2xxx. It removes all brand confusion. E2xxx would be the value (sub-$100) processor line. Meaning that the lower E2xxx would be about $55, the next up E2xxx would be 65, then 75 then 85 and so on. Just like how it's segmented now. The cheapest Celeron in production is about $55, the most expensive one is about $90.
Click to expand...
The only thing wrong with this is that the Celeron line is still going to be alive and kicking and isn't being replace by the Pentium line, Celerons will be going to Core based technology as well and will be lower in pecking order then the Pentium line.

The Pentium E2xxx is a replacement for Single Core Pentium's, while the Core 2 Duo E4xxx line is a replacement for the Pentium D 9x5 line. Then you have as well the Celeron 4xx line replacing the Celeron 3xx line, they aren't going to dump Celeron.

Though on another note, I am glad the overlap on Intel is not too horredous like AMD's where currently the Athlon 64's 3200+ or 3500+ and 3800+ represent a better deal. Currently the Sempron 3500+, 3600+ and 3800+ make no sense considering their pricing in relation to full fledged Athlon 64's.

The cheapest Celeron in production now is 34USD, while the most expensive is 69USD. So it's very cheap in price actually, the Pentium E2xxx will not be there in pricing considering it's a Dual Core product, and considering Intel isn't discontinuing the Celeron line.
 
coldpower27 said:
The only thing wrong with this is that the Celeron line is still going to be alive and kicking and isn't being replace by the Pentium line, Celerons will be going to Core based technology as well and will be lower in pecking order then the Pentium line.

The Pentium E2xxx is a replacement for Single Core Pentium's, while the Core 2 Duo E4xxx line is a replacement for the Pentium D 9x5 line. Then you have as well the Celeron 4xx line replacing the Celeron 3xx line, they aren't going to dump Celeron.

Though on another note, I am glad the overlap on Intel is not too horredous like AMD's where currently the Athlon 64's 3200+ or 3500+ and 3800+ represent a better deal. Currently the Sempron 3500+, 3600+ and 3800+ make no sense considering their pricing in relation to full fledged Athlon 64's.

The cheapest Celeron in production now is 34USD, while the most expensive is 69USD. So it's very cheap in price actually, the Pentium E2xxx will not be there in pricing considering it's a Dual Core product, and considering Intel isn't discontinuing the Celeron line.
Click to expand...


Pentium E2xxx is Dual Core though.

All I'm saying is that carrying on a brand name like Pentium is going to create a lot of market confusion for a while. Pentium has been around since 1992, it has since then been associated with the best line of Intel processor for the desktop. Now there's Core 2 and people are going to have to learn that Core 2 is best and Pentium isn't anymore. I can't count how many times I've seen people asking "Is Core 2 Duo as good as a Pentium D?" or how many times I've tried to express to people that Core 2 Duo's are more efficient than the Pentiums are. The MHz myth is still prevalent in the consumers mind. Even cross company confusion exists. I was trying to sell my Athlon 3000+ 1.8GHz a while back and I had numerous people tell me that they would buy it if it had a clock speed like the Pentium 4's did.

So yeah, go ahead keep the Celeron brand since it's already associated with value. But kill the Pentium brand already as it'll just keep people from buying Core 2 because Pentium = best.
 
ryan_975 said:
Pentium E2xxx is Dual Core though.

All I'm saying is that carrying on a brand name like Pentium is going to create a lot of market confusion for a while. Pentium has been around since 1992, it has since then been associated with the best line of Intel processor for the desktop. Now there's Core 2 and people are going to have to learn that Core 2 is best and Pentium isn't anymore. I can't count how many times I've seen people asking "Is Core 2 Duo as good as a Pentium D?" or how many times I've tried to express to people that Core 2 Duo's are more efficient than the Pentiums are. The MHz myth is still prevalent in the consumers mind. Even cross company confusion exists. I was trying to sell my Athlon 3000+ 1.8GHz a while back and I had numerous people tell me that they would buy it if it had a clock speed like the Pentium 4's did.

So yeah, go ahead keep the Celeron brand since it's already associated with value. But kill the Pentium brand already as it'll just keep people from buying Core 2 because Pentium = best.
Click to expand...
Yes, which I already mentioned the Single Core Pentium 4's with HT are going to be replaced by Dual Cores, so the only Single Core left will be the Celeron line.

There is always going to be market confusion, some people think the Celeron brand is another company in itself. It will take quite sometime for the Pentium brand to fade out of people's heads, so having the Pentium brand as a value option at least gurantees sales for Intel for people who want Pentium's and over time people will discover, that Core 2 Duo's are the best instead of Pentium. It will also take sometime for people to discover that the MHZ isn't all there is to processor performance, hell AMD has been fighting that uphill battle since the release of the Pentium 4 with their Athlon cores, with Intel joining the party, this battle may now be waged effectively, though it still takes time to change people's way of thinking.

The MHZ myth won't be an issue, if NetBurst doesn't get any more GHZ, when Intel's moves to 45nm based Core 2's which can clock up as high as the Pentium 4's did.
 
ryan_975 said:
That's not going to happend though. Pentium = Best, Celeron = Value, Core 2 = WTFIT?

So a completely new brand is going to be hindered because people are going to think Pentiums are better than Core 2's because they always have been in the past.

Core 2's will be separated by model number, you see E2xxx and think what's the difference between E4xxx, higher is better so the E4xxx is better than the E2xxx, and the E6xxx is better than the E4xxx and E2xxx. It removes all brand confusion. E2xxx would be the value (sub-$100) processor line. Meaning that the lower E2xxx would be about $55, the next up E2xxx would be 65, then 75 then 85 and so on. Just like how it's segmented now. The cheapest Celeron in production is about $55, the most expensive one is about $90.
Click to expand...


But think about it? Just because folks in some of these Countries may not have money, doesn't mean they're dumb or stupid. Most of the world knows Core has replaced Pentium and is in fact faster. You don't see folks buying Pentium over Centrino for laptops and you'll not see them buying Pentium over Core. Geesh I talked a guy from Africa who asked about lower priced Conroe Ls and how will they perform?????

They have something in common with the US, Businesses buy the bulk of these processors. IMHO, more choice is good.
 
FanZ said:
completely true. i have few hundreds of blank cdr's and dvdr's; my relatives can only afford to buy cdr's one at a time in my home country. they're still at a pentium 3 computer and it's one of the more expensive ones in their neighborhood.

i think it's a decent idea to separate the pentium line and core2 even just for marketing. afterall, if they named everything Core 2, the average computer user (let's face, most are not the brightest - which we all were at one point - i used to install Realplayer thinking it was the coolest :() wouldn't see any reason to go up to the higher models. they'd simply think Core2s are all pretty equal since they have the same name. This way they would probably think Pentium = mid, Core2 = best.

as for the thread, single core will be here for quite a bit i think.. afterall, regular business workers that use their computers to type word/excel documents dont really need the extra power provided by dual cores.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Single Core Processors will go the way of the P3. The same will happen with Single Core. Yet millions of them still need to be sold, from Intel and AMD. Some folks just don't need cutting edge and just can't afford it. These will be good deals for them.
 
Donnie27 said:
But think about it? Just because folks in some of these Countries may not have money, doesn't mean they're dumb or stupid. Most of the world knows Core has replaced Pentium and is in fact faster. You don't see folks buying Pentium over Centrino for laptops and you'll not see them buying Pentium over Core. Geesh I talked a guy from Africa who asked about lower priced Conroe Ls and how will they perform?????

They have something in common with the US, Businesses buy the bulk of these processors. IMHO, more choice is good.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about choices, I'm talking about branding. The same processors just with different branding.
 
ryan_975 said:
I'm not talking about choices, I'm talking about branding. The same processors just with different branding.
Click to expand...


I know but many folks will not Confuse the branding. The price per branding will not look like it does in the US either. Some products might not even make it in some Countries.
 
There will always be a market for cheap chips, especially with the economic disparity + growing population of the US alone.

Until software developers design to make hardware obsolete, as they have managed to do in gaming, you will always have the "cheaper option."

I m fairly sure you could put together a duron 1200 system w/ 64vga and 512ddr incl PSU, kB, and Monitor, for under 150.00. This would take care of almost any work or school function in a non-engineering, non IT sector.

I know, our hospital run's on Pentium 3s.
 
I recall when the "H" started, the hot thing was overclocking a Celeron 300A.

A very cheap CPU that could jump up to high performance.

Where is the Celeron now? I see everyone out buying $200+ units. A sub-$100 CPU makes a lot of sense to me too, I'll wait until they make one.
 
.

Where is the Celeron now? I see everyone out buying $200+ units. A sub-$100 CPU makes a lot of sense to me too, I'll wait until they make one.
Click to expand...

Back in '98 the Celeron 300A was a $180 dollar processor, the same as the current E6300. People forget that computers cost a lot more back then. The day the improved Celerons were released I ordered a Gatway 333C, That machine had the 333mhz Celeron and it was a $1500 dollar machine.
 
kendo26 said:
.

Back in '98 the Celeron 300A was a $180 dollar processor, the same as the current E6300. People forget that computers cost a lot more back then. The day the improved Celerons were released I ordered a Gatway 333C, That machine had the 333mhz Celeron and it was a $1500 dollar machine.
Click to expand...

That's always missed when many folks have memories of the wonder proc. I got my 300A for $215 from ATAcom.com. Even the $48 alpha cooler wouldn't let it get past about 433MHz. One of my buds bought the rig 4 days later so I barely count it as one of the rigs I've owned.

Compared to what was gained after the overclock? I was more impressed by the 2.4C at 3.6GHz with Dual Channel and Hyperthreading enabled. That is until Conroe laid the smack-down on everything out there LOL!
 
the x6700, x6800, and the qx6700 are all e6700 chips that have been speed bined<sp>, and number wise the the x6800 are not selling at 3k they are selling at 1k, and the quadcores as they get tested in render machines are getting gobbled up by the DCC field so much that. I would not be surprised to see Intel raise the price on them, with only the fact they have a consumer processer selling like hot cakes and that they are about to rollout the xeon quads shortly being the only good reasons I can see them not. Also quad cores are Intel Core Extreme Processor. Well my two cents...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top