facebook rss twitter

Intel readying 6-core 'Dunnington'?

by Parm Mann on 25 February 2008, 14:55

Tags: Intel (NASDAQ:INTC)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qalw2

Add to My Vault: x

Three dual-cores and a 16MB L3 cache - yes please!

As rival AMD gets its quad-core Barcelona chip out the door, it appears that Intel already has a six-core offering up its sleeve.

At a presentation in Austria last month, Intel discussed details of its upcoming server platforms with Sun and fortunately for the rest of us, slides supposedly from Intel's presentation found their way onto Sun's public web server over the weekend.

One slide, pictured below, outlines the successor to Intel's Tigerton Xeon; Dunnington. Based on its Penryn architecture, Dunnington could become Intel's first processor to feature three processor pairs, each sharing 3MBs L2 cache.

Intel Dunnington

In addition to the L2 cache, all cores will also be able to utilise the huge 16MB L3 cache. Intel's slide states that Dunnington will be pin-compatible with Tigerton and support Intel's existing Clarksboro chipset. If the slides are to be believed, we'll be seeing Dunnington-based processors in the second half of 2008.

However, although Dunnington could prove to be yet another sharp thorn in AMD's side, it is merely the interim to Intel's next potentially fatal blow; Nehalem. Using the 45nm manufacturing methods of Intel's current Penryn, Nehalem is the planned successor to the Core micro architecture and is expected to debut late 2008 or early 2009.

Intel Nehalem

A second leaked slide, pictured above, shows Intel's processor projections up to and including Nehalem. Although promising, it should be noted that these are indeed Intel's own projections and not actual benchmarks. Nonetheless, Nehalem's potential eight or more cores and integrated memory controllers hold plenty of potential. What, if anything, will AMD have to fight back?

Intel has so far declined to comment on the supposed leak of its presentation slides.



HEXUS Forums :: 10 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
I always thought the process would go 1, 2, 4, 8 etc cores.

Does 6 not seem an unnecessary half way house? Considering that very few programs make use of 4 or even 2 cores fully, is it not a waste of time?

Should the aim not be to focus on the 8 core chips, by which time software programming will have caught up to allow them to be used to their full potential?

The only situation that I can really see them being advantageous would be blade servers as an interim until 8 core processors are available?
I think they're hoping nehalem will arrive before the need for 8 cores.

This is a one die solution, so maybe the step from 2 to 8 cores is a bit ambitious.
With 16 MB of shared L3 and no need to go through the FSB to communicate between cores, I think that any advantages that Opteron had over Core CPU's has just been annihilated.

Now….. Core 2 Hextuplo Extreme edition :D

Or…. Skulltrail with 12 cores :crazy:
That'll make a nice machine with 8 idle cores at any time :rolleyes:
dave87
I always thought the process would go 1, 2, 4, 8 etc cores.

Does 6 not seem an unnecessary half way house? Considering that very few programs make use of 4 or even 2 cores fully, is it not a waste of time?

Should the aim not be to focus on the 8 core chips, by which time software programming will have caught up to allow them to be used to their full potential?

The only situation that I can really see them being advantageous would be blade servers as an interim until 8 core processors are available?
This is from a presentation to Sun, about Xeon processors… I'm thinking they'll be used almost entirely in servers, where there is definitely the ability to utilise the 6 cores.

Although, I to thought they'd go straight to 8 cores.
space is tight, probably all they could fit.

if you look at the current tasty end of the Xeons, they have 6meg cache, not 4, or 8.