Leaked Intel roadmap details Sandy Bridge CPUs, expands SSD lineup?
By Sean Hollister 
posted August 14th 2010 5:01PM
posted August 14th 2010 5:01PM
On the processor front things are a little more iffy, but it seems safe to say that the naming scheme has changed, as the silicon wafers you'll slot into a Q67 Express motherboard will have an extra digit (and often a letter) affixed to the end. Instead of a Core i7-870, you'll see the likes of Core i7-2600, i7-2600S, i7-2600K and i5-2500T, with the K (as in the past) affording you an unlocked multiplier for overclocking and the S equaling reduced power consumption, or vastly reduced for the T models. German publication ComputerBase -- which found and subsequently pulled the slides -- somehow managed to dig up nearly full specs for desktop and laptop CPUs as well, and though we can't verify their legitimacy, you're welcome to marvel at the idea of a 3.5GHz processor running on just 35 watts by visiting the source link below.
[Thanks, Aristo]
Just as long as I get mah quad core fix, I'm happy xD
But still no Core i9?
@Almo
Sigh, intel makes such awesome processors, and ssds, why cant they put that same intelligence into making discrete graphics cards? Is it a patent dispute with companies like Nvidia, and Amd, i dont know, can someone explain?
@Hell Angel
Why? I don't see any reason for them to go into the discrete graphics card business.
@EnergyPigeon
Does that mean my new i7-930 will be obsolete in a few quarters?
@bravokiloromeo
According to this roadmap, no - there is no direct successor to it.
However, it looks like these 'semi-midrange "best" CPUs' might be better than it
@Almo : i3/5/7 mean good/better/best. What could be better than best? ;-)
@Hell Angel
I think Intel is more interested in keeping all graphics on the processor, which is why you see a lot of "integrated/onboard graphics" coupled with Intel processing hardware.
Right now, they don't compete very well with NVidia or ATI cards, but I imagine over time we will see vast improvements on this front. Currently, high-end dedicated graphics cards also have dedicated processors for improved floating point operations. These functions aren't necessarily exclusive to graphical applications, so it would make sense that this ability to sit within the scope the main processor and farmed out to the graphics infrastructure when it's needed.
@EnergyPigeon I'm hating that extra number and letter on the model name. *blech*
@bravokiloromeo People always confuse 'obsolete' with 'outdated'. No, your 930 won't be obsolete, it won't be for a couple years yet. It is getting replaced in (probably) Q3 2011 when LGA1366 gets replaced with LGA2011. No one really yet knows if the 1S and 2S high-end Sandy Bridge processors will be 6-cores or 8-cores. I've heard conflicting reports both ways, I'm thinking 6-cores is more likely. Maybe 8-cores on 22nm (Ivy Bridge).
@radarskiy
Well we could have i3/i5/i7 in good/better/best and add something more powerful than i7, call it i9 and it will be the bestest lol
@Almo
I think what buffles me the most is the fact that they still don't offer full support for USB 3.0 I mean come on!
@EnergyPigeon
400 GB SLC NAND equipped SSDs. That sounds amazing to my ears and bad for my old HDD.
I only have to get those 2000$ for that thing.
@Peytral your avatar is smoking hot!! Do tell where its from.
@hero785
Lightpeak...maybe this is why they arent into USB 3.0
http://techresearch.intel.com/articles/None/1813.htm
The more SSD space we can have for a reasonable price, the happier I am. Bring it, Intel.
1tb ssd= 99 bucks
in your dreams
@Cainhunpi
If I could get a 256GB SSD for under 250 bucks I would be ok.
@Bearpowers
I'd imagine that drive prices won't drop according to that chart, but size values will double.
So, a 160gb SSD should be half as expensive (approximately) as it is currently today. (300 GB for around $400). So it will be close.
*these are my guesses, though, I have been following the computing industry for around the last 15 years... so I tend to know how to guess well.
@Bearpowers
Here's hoping Intel can get SSD costs down within the next year so that we can buy more GBs for a dollar than how it is right now (more dollars for a GB).
@Cainhunpi
1tb ssd for 99 bucks is too expensive. i want it to be 60 bucks at the very least...
dat postville
Intel, it would be rude to change the sockets on the i3, i5, i7....
@voomik Intel changes sockets like most women change shoes...
I'll be sticking with my hard drives thank you very much. If I can get an SSD that's at least 200GB for less than $200 then I'll start caring. Until then I wont bother. These things are way too expensive. No speed or reliability boost is worth these prices with hard drives being so cheap.
@kenny goo you're looking at it completely wrong. SSD's are not about $/gb, it's about putting your OS on a SSD big enough to run everything, and then putting everything else on your cheap, 5cent/gb drisk drive.
My laptop running a 2.0ghz dual core with a 80gb x-25m runs just as fast as my desktop running a 2.8ghz quad-core. buy all the cheap geebee's you want, it will never make your computer run as fast as mine.
@xeren
No. I am looking at it the right way. It's exactly what I just said. The speed and reliability isn't worth the costs. At all. You'd be stupid to spend hundreds of dollars for such a small amount of storage space. Period.
@kenny goo If you havent worked with (assuming you do work with your computer...) a system based on a SSD, you are not qualified to make an educated comment about the matter. So why dont you keep your warped opinion about $/GB to yourself and keep padding yourself on the back for it?
@Bahumbug
If I'm not stupid enough to spend hundreds of dollars on and SSD I'm not qualified to state how that's a stupid investment? Oh please. Do shut up.
I've seen the benchmarks. I've seen the differences in start up times. It's not worth a multi-hundred dollar investment. It's not warped, it's smart. It's really not worth the monetary investment. At all. If you have money to blow, by all means, but if you're on a budget it's smart to invest your money elsewhere.
Hmmm. Buy MacBook pro now or wait for sandy bridge?
@Apple Fan
to wait for that from apple ( you fanboy) it will be old news by the time you get it
irrelevant
outdated
and not up to par with then current standards
@Apple Fan
You'll likely have to wait for Q'3 2011 for Apple to release a MBP with a Sandy Bridge processor. Can you wait over a year to get one?
@Hobowhiteside
I was about to say just because he would like to get a Mac doesn't make him a fanboy.
Then I read his name.
Now I feel stupid.
Sounds good to me.
Will be building my next computer February-May next year and will surely be looking at stucking some SDDs inside.
Please learn the difference between "than" and "then". You're supposed to be a journalist. It's not hard.
that's what she said
Put this stuff into a Macbook Pro? Dreaming? Yes I am dreaming.
I dunno if I like the idea of MLC in the enterprise drive, even if they say 'Enterprise MLC'
@KO
That definitely caught my eye too.
@KO
People said the same thing about SATA drives, and a year later were happily using using it because of the storage density.
LOL@Cougar Point name
and
Where are the i7 920-980x replacements??? :(
Those slides look more like posters to me... so many details and footer notes
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legitimacy to all of this.
Last year at Microsoft PDC, the seminar I attended on developing multi-threaded apps warned of processors coming out in the near future featuring a significant number of cores.
However, to keep cost and temperature down on these CPUs, each of the CPUs are based on significantly less powerful infrastructure. (i.e. something like 32 cores, but each one running less than 1 ghz).
This means that apps designed to be single-threaded will end up running significantly slower. But if an app is built with multi-threading it's transactions in mind (it turns out that farming simple functions concurrently across several low-powered CPUs works out very well), there is tremendous through-put in efficiency on nearly all levels. We'll see if Intel can pull this off. This is nearly identical to the development methods Sony was promoting when targetting Cell/PS3.
SO.. don't get your hopes up that this will magically make your existing apps run faster (unless the developers in the apps you use have acknowledged CPU scalability in their implementation)
@Polymorphic Ninja
Wasn't that what Larrabee was supposed to be?
@Old fogie late bloomer
You're right. I mistook Sandy Bridge for that.
Probably for the better anyway. There is a lot of software out there that isn't ready for processing scalability like that. (This was all but admitted to us at PDC, including many of Microsoft's own applications). I guess Intel found a way of cooling things down while continuing to speed things up, thus extending the life of that software. Hopefully they will be able to leverage this technology into whatever Larrabee becomes.
From the summary: "bring up to 400GB of "enterprise-grade" multi-level cell memory to the enterprise space"
Shouldn't that read "single-level cell memory" (as a direct successor to the X25-E family)?
Support for SATA 6Gbps but no USB3.0...
what are they trying to do? kill it?
probably they are happy with usb2.0 more
@SeVeNcE I have to admit Intel is building up a very bad reputation by not doing squat to support USB 3.0. I realize they want their ludacrous speed technology to be all that but is there a reason they can't just have USB 3.0 on board support until their wonderful technology comes out. IF it is that wonderful USB 3.0 will go away quickly but I would like to charge my phone, my headset, use my thumbdrive etc with USB 3.0 right NOW not a year or 2 from now and evern then will I be able to charge my phone with lightspeed technology? If not it is not going to that significant to many people I know who charge many of their devices off their laptop when they travel.
Those capacities look kinda weird. Quite possibly because of a new controller.
It's about freaking time that they update the SSD's I hope this new lineup can compete with the Sandforce based drives again. Nice would be something like the new OCZ Revodrive that's in the mid 500MB/s read and write, but with the reliability of the Intel drives.
Interesting that the X25-E says "enhanced write performance" and the X25-M says "enhanced performance". I would expect both drives to come out as the fastest on the market in read and write performance like the originals.