Allendale?

[ThraX]

I know for a fact that the E6600,E6700,X6800 are Conroe. However, there has been confusion between me and some others about the E6300, E6400. Are the lower 2 Allendale? Can anyone provide some proof for it. I thought Allendale's were coming out next year in the E4xxx models.

 

[00ber_m00]

e6300 and e6400 are allendale

 

[mentok1982]

That is true but both CPUs will be included in my Conroe OC database because many think
they are Conroes.

 

[rayman2k2]

and for the most part, they are - all allendales are essentially conroes but with 2mb of L2 cache disabled...

 

[Boondock]

I didn't realize it had a disabled 2mb l2 cache. How long until someone figures out how to re-enable it...

 

[JackPack]

Not disabled - the Allendale die is actually smaller.

 

[coldpower27]

Not disabled - the Allendale die is actually smaller.

I would bet that it's both. Some E6300/E6400 will be disabled Conroe, while some will be native Allendales.

 

[BinarySynapse]

I didn't realize it had a disabled 2mb l2 cache. How long until someone figures out how to re-enable it...

Probably long after it's relevant. People are still trying to figure how to unlock things on early P4's/Celerons/and Celeron D's.

 

[burningrave101]

I didn't realize it had a disabled 2mb l2 cache. How long until someone figures out how to re-enable it...

Usually the reason it is disabled is because that portion of the cache is defective. If it worked then the processor would be an E6600, not an E6300/E6400.

 

[Cpt Twitchy]

Usually the reason it is disabled is because that portion of the cache is defective. If it worked then the processor would be an E6600, not an E6300/E6400.

QFT

Also occasionally such as the clawcastle 3500+'s they were FX55's essentially with half cache and locked multi, smae date codes and oc ability but I've rarely seen that.

 

[Russell]

The E6300 and E6400 are NOT Allendales. They are Conroes with half of their cache disabled, which just so happens to give them similar specifications to Allendale.

The E4x00 line that comes out next year are the Allendales. The Allendale core not only has half of the cache that Conroe has (it's manufactured that way, not 4MB with 2MB disabled) but it will also have a lower FSB (800mHz) and will not have the EIST (enhanced speedstep) or virtualization.

The differences are much more than 2MB of cache.

 

[coldpower27]

The E6300 and E6400 are NOT Allendales. They are Conroes with half of their cache disabled, which just so happens to give them similar specifications to Allendale.

The E4x00 line that comes out next year are the Allendales. The Allendale core not only has half of the cache that Conroe has (it's manufactured that way, not 4MB with 2MB disabled) but it will also have a lower FSB (800mHz) and will not have the EIST (enhanced speedstep) or virtualization.

The differences are much more than 2MB of cache.

Well at this point it can't be proven, since we won't know until someone takes the heeatspreader off a E6300 and checks to see it.

Though it is curious that there is information on the die size of both Conroe and Allendale right now.

I am going to reamin with my assumption that it's both situations, some SKU's are defective cache parts while some are native parts.

 

[JackPack]

The E6300 and E6400 are NOT Allendales. They are Conroes with half of their cache disabled, which just so happens to give them similar specifications to Allendale.

Is that why Intel indicates the 4 MB parts are 143 mm² while the 2 MB parts are 111mm²?

The E4x00 line that comes out next year are the Allendales. The Allendale core not only has half of the cache that Conroe has (it's manufactured that way, not 4MB with 2MB disabled) but it will also have a lower FSB (800mHz) and will not have the EIST (enhanced speedstep) or virtualization.

E4300 seems to have EIST.

 

[Donnie27]

Is that why Intel indicates the 4 MB parts are 143 mm² while the 2 MB parts are 111mm²?

Hehehe, could be! I thought I saw just that.

 

[schonsnow]

i checked wikipedia and this is what it said:
Allendale

Allendale is a codename for stripped down versions of the Conroe processors with only 2MB of L2 cache and an 800MHz FSB. The only known model of Allendale is the E4300 (1.8GHz, 800MHz FSB QDR).

The E4300 will be released in the 1st quarter of 2007.

 

[ThraX]

I don't think the E6300/E6400 are Allendale's. To me, it just makes more sense. Unless Intel is going to stop having a low budget processor line, such as the Celeron line.

 

[Russell]

Well at this point it can't be proven, since we won't know until someone takes the heeatspreader off a E6300 and checks to see it.

Yes we will. Intel themselves have stated not only that Allendale has not been released but also that E6300/E6400 are Conroe core. How complicated do you want to make this?

Is that why Intel indicates the 4 MB parts are 143 mm² while the 2 MB parts are 111mm²?

E4300 seems to have EIST.

Obviously because the 111mm² parts they are refering to are not the currently released E6300/E6400 parts. Disabled cache still takes up space.

As for EIST, all I know is what I've read. Nobody has their hands on an E4x00 chip yet, so I don't know how you can say that it 'seems' to have EIST.

i checked wikipedia and this is what it said:
Allendale

Allendale is a codename for stripped down versions of the Conroe processors with only 2MB of L2 cache and an 800MHz FSB. The only known model of Allendale is the E4300 (1.8GHz, 800MHz FSB QDR).

The E4300 will be released in the 1st quarter of 2007.

Exactly. Thank you.

Every single website that claims these chips are Allendale is wrong. Allendale does NOT support the 1066mHz FSB or virtualization tech. These things are certain. I'm not certain about EIST, but I don't believe Allendale supports that either. E6300/E6400 has all of these things, therefore it physically CANNOT be Allendale. VT is physically removed from Allendale's die mask to save cost during manufacturing. If it's there and it works, then it's obviously not physically removed. Different die.

 

[rayman2k2]

Yes we will. Intel themselves have stated not only that Allendale has not been released but also that E6300/E6400 are Conroe core. How complicated do you want to make this?




Obviously because the 111mm² parts they are refering to are not the currently released E6300/E6400 parts. Disabled cache still takes up space.

As for EIST, all I know is what I've read. Nobody has their hands on an E4x00 chip yet, so I don't know how you can say that it 'seems' to have EIST.









Exactly. Thank you.

Every single website that claims these chips are Allendale is wrong. Allendale does NOT support the 1066mHz FSB or virtualization tech. These things are certain. I'm not certain about EIST, but I don't believe Allendale supports that either. E6300/E6400 has all of these things, therefore it physically CANNOT be Allendale. VT is physically removed from Allendale's die mask to save cost during manufacturing. If it's there and it works, then it's obviously not physically removed. Different die.

He spits truth. Give this man a cookie

 

[empoy]

milville are the ones that will have smaller dies since they'll be single core with 2MB cache

 

[Donnie27]

milville are the ones that will have smaller dies since they'll be single core with 2MB cache

SO these are Core 2 Solo then? The Conroe L?

 

[Donnie27]

Yes we will. Intel themselves have stated not only that Allendale has not been released but also that E6300/E6400 are Conroe core. How complicated do you want to make this?

Obviously because the 111mm² parts they are refering to are not the currently released E6300/E6400 parts. Disabled cache still takes up space.

As for EIST, all I know is what I've read. Nobody has their hands on an E4x00 chip yet, so I don't know how you can say that it 'seems' to have EIST.

Exactly. Thank you.

Every single website that claims these chips are Allendale is wrong. Allendale does NOT support the 1066mHz FSB or virtualization tech. These things are certain. I'm not certain about EIST, but I don't believe Allendale supports that either. E6300/E6400 has all of these things, therefore it physically CANNOT be Allendale. VT is physically removed from Allendale's die mask to save cost during manufacturing. If it's there and it works, then it's obviously not physically removed. Different die.

Then the software is screwed up as well. The reason many keep calling E6300 and E6400 Allendale is because Cpuz, temp monitoring and etc.. IDs it them as Allendale.

This post.

 

[coldpower27]

Yes we will. Intel themselves have stated not only that Allendale has not been released but also that E6300/E6400 are Conroe core. How complicated do you want to make this?




Obviously because the 111mm² parts they are refering to are not the currently released E6300/E6400 parts. Disabled cache still takes up space.

As for EIST, all I know is what I've read. Nobody has their hands on an E4x00 chip yet, so I don't know how you can say that it 'seems' to have EIST.






Exactly. Thank you.

Every single website that claims these chips are Allendale is wrong. Allendale does NOT support the 1066mHz FSB or virtualization tech. These things are certain. I'm not certain about EIST, but I don't believe Allendale supports that either. E6300/E6400 has all of these things, therefore it physically CANNOT be Allendale. VT is physically removed from Allendale's die mask to save cost during manufacturing. If it's there and it works, then it's obviously not physically removed. Different die.

No, that doesn't work. Where did Intel say something to that effect that Allendale has not been released? I require a direct quote for verification, with a link on the web, until that time arises, then no, I can't accept your statements as truth. All we have now is that Core 2 Duo E4300 is not released.

Disabling cache doesn't save space at all, the cache is still physically on the die, so you still get the full 143mm2 of silicon.

Intel wouldn't report the die size of Allendale, if they didn't have it already released, like I said until we have a die shot of the heatspreader removed on the E6300/E6400 then there isn't enough proof to suggest either scenario.

Prove it, what evidence do YOU have to suggest that all these websites are incorrect, all you have provided are your thoughts on the issue, but no proof whatsoever.

 

[coldpower27]

i checked wikipedia and this is what it said:
Allendale

Allendale is a codename for stripped down versions of the Conroe processors with only 2MB of L2 cache and an 800MHz FSB. The only known model of Allendale is the E4300 (1.8GHz, 800MHz FSB QDR).

The E4300 will be released in the 1st quarter of 2007.

Absolutely worthless, as Wikipedia can be easily modified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors

Judging from this link E4300/E6300/E6400 are all Allendale processors. Though I don't submit this as proof in anyway to support what I believe only to say that anybody can modify this source so, it can't be the final word on the information we need to know.

 

[coldpower27]

He spits truth. Give this man a cookie

That remains to be seen, until we see the heatspreder removed on the Core 2 Duo E6300/E6400, we can't say for sure either way.

 

[coldpower27]

milville are the ones that will have smaller dies since they'll be single core with 2MB cache

Well last time I check Millville was suppose to be the "Celeron" version of Core processors with 1Mb of LV2 cache.

Conroe-L will most likely be based on Allendale. Like the current Core Solo T1300 is based on Yonah with the full die but 1 core disabled.

Though it would be interesting if they had a native core for this too.

 

[ThraX]

I too wanna see that quote from Intel saying Allendale has not been released. I've searched and searched for something like that.

 

[Donnie27]

Well last time I check Millville was suppose to be the "Celeron" version of Core processors with 1Mb of LV2 cache.

Conroe-L will most likely be based on Allendale. Like the current Core Duo T1300 is based on Yonah with the full die but 1 core disabled.

Though it would be interesting if they had a native core for this too.

Very interesting indeed!

 

[BinarySynapse]

Well last time I check Millville was suppose to be the "Celeron" version of Core processors with 1Mb of LV2 cache.

Conroe-L will most likely be based on Allendale. Like the current Core Duo T1300 is based on Yonah with the full die but 1 core disabled.

Though it would be interesting if they had a native core for this too.

No offense, but that would be Core Solo T1300

 

[coldpower27]

No offense, but that would be Core Solo T1300

Yeah, minor error on my part whoopies, fixed.

 

[JackPack]

Obviously because the 111mm² parts they are refering to are not the currently released E6300/E6400 parts. Disabled cache still takes up space..

Yeah, sure. They've released die size and transistor count on unreleased parts.

As for EIST, all I know is what I've read. Nobody has their hands on an E4x00 chip yet, so I don't know how you can say that it 'seems' to have EIST.

Leaked Intel slides. E4300 has checkmark in all except VT.

Exactly. Thank you..

Wikipedia? Ha.

Every single website that claims these chips are Allendale is wrong. Allendale does NOT support the 1066mHz FSB or virtualization tech. These things are certain. I'm not certain about EIST, but I don't believe Allendale supports that either. E6300/E6400 has all of these things, therefore it physically CANNOT be Allendale. VT is physically removed from Allendale's die mask to save cost during manufacturing. If it's there and it works, then it's obviously not physically removed. Different die.

How do you know Allendale isn't just a codename for 2 MB parts? Why does FSB and VT have to have to the differentiating factor?

Look at the Pentium D 945. It lacks VT. Do you think Intel spent at least a million dollars for a new mask set? Not to mention validation. VT also has to be on the edge of the die for any savings to occur.

 

[coldpower27]

Yeah, sure. They've released die size and transistor count on unreleased parts.

Leaked Intel slides. E4300 has checkmark in all except VT.


Wikipedia? Ha.

How do you know Allendale isn't just a codename for 2 MB parts? Why does FSB and VT have to have to the differentiating factor?

Look at the Pentium D 945. It lacks VT. Do you think Intel spent at least a million dollars for a new mask set? Not to mention validation. VT also has to be on the edge of the die for any savings to occur.

Good post.

Actually processor features are the least likely to get removed on a die, they are just simply disabled.

Prescott-2M has Virtualization as well, so we know Cedar Mill does to on it's die since it is an optical shrink, hence Presler will to..

The most likely scenario is that the Allendale cores has all processor features the Conroe has minus the 2MB of LV2 to reduce space, as that would allow it to cover 3 SKU's in Intel's line as opposed to only being used for E4300.

More flexibility makes sense over less.

Since Core 2 was born with Virtualization technology from the get go, all derivatives will likely have it, just it will be disabled on some SKU's. Like it's possible the Celeron derive Core processor won't have it enabled but it will physically be ther on the die, like the Celeron D 352/356, since those are based on Cedar Mill cores.

 

[empoy]

SO these are Core 2 Solo then? The Conroe L?

yup these are the L-step materials. was able to boot up a milville (mobile) unit 2days ago.

 

[Donnie27]

yup these are the L-step materials. was able to boot up a milville (mobile) unit 2days ago.

Sweeeeet!

 

[Donnie27]

Good post.

Actually processor features are the least likely to get removed on a die, they are just simply disabled.

Prescott-2M has Virtualization as well, so we know Cedar Mill does to on it's die since it is an optical shrink, hence Presler will to..

The most likely scenario is that the Allendale cores has all processor features the Conroe has minus the 2MB of LV2 to reduce space, as that would allow it to cover 3 SKU's in Intel's line as opposed to only being used for E4300.

More flexibility makes sense over less.

Since Core 2 was born with Virtualization technology from the get go, all derivatives will likely have it, just it will be disabled on some SKU's. Like it's possible the Celeron derive Core processor won't have it enabled but it will physically be ther on the die, like the Celeron D 352/356, since those are based on Cedar Mill cores.

But it is disabled on Cedar Mill, right?

 

[kocoman]

What program can check if your CPU supports eist and VT? I think allendale cores has 2M, EIST and VT removed.
All CPU-Z image captures doesn't show speed step (EIST), and virtualization technology (VT). flags. What program can accurately check it (Bypassing the bios)? Thanks

 

[Donnie27]

What program can check if your CPU supports eist and VT? I think allendale cores has 2M, EIST and VT removed.
All CPU-Z image captures doesn't show speed step (EIST), and virtualization technology (VT). flags. What program can accurately check it (Bypassing the bios)? Thanks

No, current Core 2 Duos have VT=P

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300
Architecture Features :
Enhanced SpeedStep technology
Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology
Execute Disable Bit capability
Intel Virtualization Technology

 

[Russell]

The most likely scenario is that the Allendale cores has all processor features the Conroe has minus the 2MB of LV2 to reduce space, as that would allow it to cover 3 SKU's in Intel's line as opposed to only being used for E4300.

More flexibility makes sense over less.

No. The more likely scenario is that they simply have not yet announced all of the upcoming E4x00 series processors. Do you honestly believe there will be only one?

No, current Core 2 Duos have VT=P

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300
Architecture Features :
Enhanced SpeedStep technology
Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology
Execute Disable Bit capability
Intel Virtualization Technology

Which is why they aren't Allendales. These chips are Conroes with cache disabled to increase yields. They've been doing this for years. Why is this concept new to you people?

 

[coldpower27]

No. The more likely scenario is that they simply have not yet announced all of the upcoming E4x00 series processors. Do you honestly believe there will be only one?




Which is why they aren't Allendales. These chips are Conroes with cache disabled to increase yields. They've been doing this for years. Why is this concept new to you people?

You haven't provide any proof to contrary my claims still, about Allendale not being released yet.

Like I said, with such exact information on the 2MB parts transistor count and die size, it is most likely released.

I am saying they are both, some will be Allendale and some will be Conroe. the E6300 could use either the full cache core with the die disabled, or the native 2MB die, this is the secnario which makes the most sense.

Intel never makes cores without hardware features once they are already implemented in the prior core, the unused features remain disabled.

This concept isn't new to me, I know Intel has been doing this for awhile now, if were talking about disabling cache and features.

 

[empoy]

I thought Allendale have been dropped. Previously, its supposed to be CWMA (Conroe Woodcrest Merom Allendale) but now its only CWM.

 

[JackPack]

I wonder if ATI would list compatiblity with an "unreleased" processor:

Supports the following Intel processors:
Desktop: Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium Extreme Edition, Prescott, Celeron, Celeron D, Cedar Mill, Presler, Conroe, Allendale