Intel's 32nm Clarkdale CPUs moved up to Q4, a full year ahead of AMD?

It's just a rumor, but DigiTimes has pretty decent sources within Taiwan's motherboard industry. So what was a Q1 2010 mass production launch of Clarkdale CPUs is now rumored to be coming in Q4, notable as the first Intel CPU to use its new 32nm process technology with an integrated memory controller and graphics core built on a 45nm process. This jibes with what DailyTECH and others were reporting back in Feburary. DigiTimes adds that Intel expects Clarkdale CPUs to account for 10% of its total desktop CPU shipments in Q4 rising to 20% in Q1 2010. That means we should see the chips well before the holiday shopping season (near the October 22nd launch of Windows 7 makes sense) if true. As for AMD, well, last we heard they're still looking to "ramp up" production in the middle of 2010 with mass production capabilities arriving around Q4. Yeah, we know.

Read -- DigiTimes
Read -- DailyTECH

[B3astofthe3ast @ Jun 29th 2009 6:26AM]

Is intel trying to put amd out of business?

[richb93 @ Jun 29th 2009 6:33AM]

Isn't that what EVERY competitor tries to do to their competition?

[Code.Red @ Jun 29th 2009 6:36AM]

Yes.

[ishism @ Jun 29th 2009 6:41AM]

Why so surprised?

[Intrepid @ Jun 29th 2009 8:24AM]

They really can't... if they kill AMD they'll become a monopoly and then they face all sorts of Microsoftesque problems.

[Zane @ Jun 29th 2009 8:28AM]

This question belongs to Y! Answers, not Engadget.

[Excelsium @ Jun 29th 2009 8:53AM]

22nm within 48months, yay :>.

[OneLove @ Jun 29th 2009 9:52AM]

No cloverfield?? More confusing processors and specs, yeah!

[jon @ Jun 29th 2009 1:09PM]

"22nm within 48months, yay :>."

30 months, tops.

45nm-> Q3 2007
32nm-> Q3 2009
22nm~> Q4 2011

[Avuton Olrich @ Jun 29th 2009 6:39AM]

Intel's great... blah blah blah... Intel, faster chip, more efficient, blah blah. We get it. AMD's getting trounced and while I use everything Intel now back before Intel had good competition they were more or less a monopolist and I, for one, won't forget it. I'm really hoping AMD is going to pull through and be competitive again. Somewhere AMD's engineers are plotting the war, hopefully (should have done this better years ago).

[joseph le brech @ Jun 29th 2009 7:00AM]

Back when Intel was more of a monopoly, computers used to be able to play the latest game even if they were 2 year old.

Nowadays if its older that 6 months, you may need an upgrade to play the latest games.

The upside is that computers have gotten faster quick now that there's competition.

[OneLove @ Jun 29th 2009 9:53AM]

Intel® is the Future!

[Harry Wagstaff @ Jun 29th 2009 10:10AM]

@joseph

That's simply not true. My mobo packed up and I had to swap out to a new one which is incompatible with it or broken or something so I'm back to an Athlon X2 5000+ - a 2 year old processor - and I'm still playing Far Cry 2, Crysis and GTA4 at respectable settings and framerates. This is with a pair of 9600GTs, over a year old, before you go all 'omg GTX280 or something' on me.

[Spike (WT) @ Jul 8th 2009 5:02AM]

That's honestly more the fault of graphics cards as you can keep a CPU (if you didn't buy to cheap to begin with) for 3-5 years after you get it.

[Haikibutsu @ Jun 29th 2009 6:45AM]

I HAVE AN i7 CHIP AND I LOVE IT MORE THAN GIRLS BECAUSE I AM NOT INTERESTED IN GIRLS I LIKE MY RIG ITS COOL.

also RIP billy mays :(

[Kulahan @ Jun 29th 2009 6:54AM]

You're an idiot. Anyways, I agree with the general consensus here. AMD really needs to make a come-back. I like competition in the market.

[John @ Jun 29th 2009 8:00AM]

...and 'rip' the several hundred people who die every hour of every day somewhere on this planet that capitalism never forced the names of down our throat.

[nukee @ Jun 29th 2009 9:59AM]

IN HONOR OF BILLY MAYS, I DECLARE THE 29TH OF JUNE TO BE ALL CAPS LOCK DAY.

[G @ Jun 29th 2009 12:20PM]

who is/was billy mays?

[G @ Jun 29th 2009 3:14PM]

why did i get low ranked? i have honestly never heard of billy mays

[nukee @ Jun 29th 2009 4:21PM]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=billy+mays

[gerrrg @ Jun 29th 2009 7:02AM]

I love competition. Were it not for IBM pushing for 28nm for next year, I don't think Intel would have freaked out and skipped 45nm over to 32nm, and then push it up a quarter.

[Erik @ Jun 29th 2009 7:16AM]

Intel FTW !

[sk @ Jun 29th 2009 7:44AM]

AMD is back. when you compare CPU's in the same price segment. In most cases AMD is even cheaper. AMD's problem is in the high performance market where Intel still is king, but its also a small market.
Our company has switched back to AMD systems because of budget reasons. We just got all new Phenom II X2 550 3.1GHz systems and they beat the crap out of the old Intel Pentiums. A comparable Intel system would have cost us $125 more per unit. Sound's not like much but if you have to replace 50 units at the time its a saving $6,250.

[Erik @ Jun 29th 2009 7:53AM]

Intell innovates while AMD follows.

Sounds like another 2 companies we know

[MG76 @ Jun 29th 2009 10:00AM]

"We just got all new Phenom II X2 550 3.1GHz systems and they beat the crap out of the old Intel Pentiums."

I would certainly hope so.

[Soulsaber @ Jun 29th 2009 11:54AM]

Of course AMD is cheaper, if they were more expensive than Intel then they would be dead by now.

[boomerz @ Jun 29th 2009 2:27PM]

Lol Erik you have no clue. AMD made 64 bit processors first, Intel followed. AMD had integrated memory controllers, Intel finally followed with core i7. Hmm who innovates again? lulz

[sk @ Jun 29th 2009 3:09PM]

boomerz, AMD is not the inventor for integrated memory controller and 64bit processing units. This honor belongs the the DEC Alpha 21364. When DEC fell apart most of the engineers that used to work on the Alpha CPU's went to AMD and some went to Intel. Intel copied simultaneous multithreading from the unreleased Alpha 21464. AMD took also the idea for the HyperTransport from DEC were it was called FutureBus.

[Bradwart @ Jul 1st 2009 11:54PM]

Please. A properly configured Pentium 4 HT can smoke most processors thanks to the highly advanced HyperThreading tech. Maybe not a Corei7, but definitely most of AMD's stuff.
If your AMD is so grand, why has ATI gone into the toilet after AMD acquired the company? They've completely missed the boat as far as GPGPU is concerned.

[sk @ Jul 2nd 2009 8:17AM]

Bradwart, are you ok? A P4 with HT enabled is smoking the new Phenom II X2 550? I want to see that. The AMD CPU is more than double as fast as the best P4 from Intel. And what about ATI missed the boat? The last time I checked ATI's Radeon HD 4890 was slightly ahead of the GeForce GTX 275 in performance. And in the mid to lower end ATI is owning Nvidia in every price performance comparison.

[ED @ Jun 29th 2009 7:53AM]

What about Arranfield? (given that Lynndale does exist)

[pedro @ Jun 29th 2009 8:21AM]

Socket Fail...

FUUU Intel, socket 1156 for Clarkdale?? Or is it 1155 or 1567??

What about 1366??

Not able to screw its customers over enough with many different chipsets, Intel decided to use many different sockets instead.

I am glad I switched to AMD.

[OneLove @ Jun 29th 2009 9:56AM]

we got screwed on i7. :)

[Aaronage @ Jun 29th 2009 8:21AM]

Are we surprised? No, Intel have always moved to smaller dies before AMD.

AMD is competitive in the market right now, Phenom II X2/X3/X4 are fantastic chips, the increases in market share they've seen shows this! Plus, they'll have the 3.4GHz Phenom II 965 out the door in the next few weeks, which will keep them competitive with low end i7.

Neo is finally taking off in the netbook space (no matter what they say, they netbooks lol)

Whoever said Intel is "trouncing" AMD in all respects needs to catch up, unless you're looking at workstations using i7/Xeon, AMD has a good option out on the market :)

[Excelsium @ Jun 29th 2009 9:44AM]

Ability to use DDR2, a cheap motherboard and a chip that compares well with a Core i7 920, this is probably the best budget option.

[Arnie @ Jun 29th 2009 9:48AM]

I cant believe some lawyer is not looking into this. It is clear that Intel is using its crazy dominance in the chip market to stamp out whatever little competition there is left in the integrated graphics market. I really dont want this. Intel has never cared about graphics and this might be bad for consumer in the long run as this will slow down the adoption of good graphics with low power. Intel will continue delivering low power/low performance for a long time. The Core line are very good processors but their dominance should not come at a cost of graphics improvements.

[Sisyphus @ Jun 29th 2009 11:10AM]

"I cant believe some lawyer is not looking into this."

Looking into what, exactly?

Is Intel supposed to wait for competition to catch up before it invents something new?

[rells009 @ Jun 29th 2009 9:53AM]

I guess the real question is how significant the gains will be.

[Transonic @ Jun 30th 2009 1:12PM]

AMD is lagging behind Intel as usual. Thank goodness I've never used an AMD chip and probably never will since Intel has always been better. I hope they put AMD out of business so we can Stop worrying about when Intel will put them out of business.

[freakdiablo @ Jun 30th 2009 4:53PM]

Always? Athlon XPs/Athlon 64s vs Pentium 4s anyone?

[Spike (WT) @ Jul 1st 2009 5:35AM]

I remember that. That was when I first started building PC's. It was basically unanimous to get AMD back than.

@Transonic
That's the last thing you want if what I heard about when Intel was basic a monopoly is true.

[Aaronage @ Jul 1st 2009 7:28PM]

@Transonic
You sir are a fool :P

[nick @ Jun 29th 2009 11:07AM]

Intel is going through a tough time right now though, not financially so much as long term strategy. DSP and GPU solutions are hitting a lot of the field intel used to count on for regular expensive upgrades. AMD/ATI is finally starting to get running again and slowly eating away at intels low end. Then you have IBM and Toshiba and them making a pack to hit lower dies quickly. Intel certainly isn't in any real risk of getting pushed out of the market, not by a long shot, but they could be put in the uncomfortable position of competing with a lot of specialized companies in different segments.

[mike @ Jun 29th 2009 1:56PM]

While we are all here thinking about the poor, poor state of AMD at the moment.
Let's remember that if it wasn't for, mainly, that company - intel would be on about pentium 6 right now... which have 32k more than pentium 5 of memory, and cost about $12000 each.

OK... I exaggerate.
But you get my point.
And I'm really not exaggerating all that much even.

- mike

[radarskiy @ Jun 30th 2009 12:09AM]

"intel would be on about pentium 6 right now"

Actually, Intel is on the Pentium 6 architecture. Core/Core 2 /Core i7 comes from the Pentium mobile, which goes back to the PII/PIII and originates with the Pentium Pro, i.e. the P6. PIV was the non-P6 architecture, and it was crap.

[NoobSlayer @ Jun 29th 2009 2:38PM]

Wow breaking news- Intel doing something a year ahead of Advanced Micro Defeat. In other news the sun came out today.

[NoobSlayer @ Jul 10th 2009 8:42PM]

Wow- Intel doing something way before Advanced Micro Defeat. There's a breaking story. In other news, the sun came out today, and the grass grew.

[Zune Claus @ Jun 29th 2009 2:46PM]

What is with Engadget on these cpu articles? Why are you mad that AMD won't have a particular technology as soon as intel?
* Looks at intels prices * Oh thats why.

[BigD145 @ Jun 29th 2009 2:49PM]

AMD will still do it cheaper.