Leaked Intel roadmap reveals additional details about upcoming processors

By on November 27, 2009, 2:24 PM
A leaked roadmap has revealed a few more details about the timeframe in which Intel will launch its new Core i3, i5 and i7 processors. Among the upcoming launches are two low-powered "S" versions of the Core i5 750 and i7 860 Lynnfield chips, which will be clocked at 2.4GHz and 2.53GHz (and scale up to 3.2GHz/3.46GHz). The new S chips consume only 82W of power versus 95W, both feature 8MB of L2 cache and should appear in the first quarter of 2010.


It wouldn't be much of a leak if it didn't provide a glimpse at the Clarkdale products to come. If the roadmap is legit, Intel will roll out a new Clarkdale-based Pentium G6950 clocked at 2.8GHz with 3MB of L2 cache. The Core i3 530 and 540 will be introduced with frequencies of 3.06GHz and 2.93GHz, and 4MB of L2 cache.

A few dual-core Clarkdale Core i5 processors are also slated for Q1. The i5 650, 660/661, and 670 will boast clocks of 3.2-3.46GHz, 3.33-3.6GHz, and 3.46-3.73GHz -- much higher than the presently available quad-core i5 750's 2.66GHz. All of the mentioned Clarkdale i5 chips will have a thermal envelope of 73W, except the 661, which will consume 87W.


The roadmap lists Gulftown for release in the second quarter of 2010 -- though, that's not exactly breaking news.




User Comments: 39

Got something to say? Post a comment
Rapidhic said:

Oh god! are we rdy for this horsepower?

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Too bad this doesn't list anything for the i7 9xx series of chips, the lower end stuff is nice but its more fun to look at ridiculous 12 core beast that make babies cry and benchmarks quiver.

EXCellR8 EXCellR8, The Conservative, said:

the only processors worth getting leaked information on are i9 series cpus... even though the platform doesn't really exist yet...

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Wow looks like intel is phasing out the core 2 line of cpus finally. im sure if the road map is right that those i5 cpus will destroy any core 2 duo or quad plus anything AMD has currently. i mean look at those clock speeds wow 3.6 Ghz that is nice for a stock speed. hopefully amd is working on something nice to compete with intel or we may see really high prices from the intel camp.

bitMorph3r said:

this is great for intel , low power, huge L2 cache for i7 but for amd ..... more hard work

its only hope is thuban, maybe, .

EXCellR8 EXCellR8, The Conservative, said:

heard rumors of more AMD Phenoms to come along but i haven't seen anything that's more than 4 cores... not like you would need any more than that but i like the sounds of a six core. i do a lot of 3D rendering so that would help me immensely using mental ray.

Fada said:

most software can handle 2 maybe 4 cores, anything more than that is a waste of time, the software just isnt built to take advantage of it yet, its like when dual core cpu's first came along they were being wasted to be honest.

EXCellR8 EXCellR8, The Conservative, said:

most mainstream software isn't optimized just because a small corner of the market is multicore. most people still have single core systems. there is a lot of commercial stuff that can use more processing horsepower though. for example, mental ray rendering i use in 3ds Max can use up to 8+ cores at once to render images or video. there are also other 2D and 3D apps that will use the multicore architecture. i don't think you will ever see programs like Photoshop being optimized for more than 2-4 cores, because it simply doesn't need to be.

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

i think 4 cores is plenty of power there are what a handfull of products that can use 4 cores much less 2 cores its almost laughable that they want us to buy there more expensive lower clocked versions they come out with.

BlackIrish said:

I have my eye on that i5 660/670.

I saw somewhere a leaked screenshot, which if it's true, show that the CPU used 0.8V Vcore @ 4Ghz, meaning it has a LOT of room for overclocking (like 5Ghz clocks or more). In comparasion, I think a Core 2 Duo used 1.350V for like 2.8Ghz.

And it makes sense - the same 32nm technology which is used to make 6-core cpu's, is used to make dual core cpu's!

So, who needs quad cores, when you can have two cores running at 4-5Ghz

TorturedChaos, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

now I might have to think really hard about whether to buy a ps3 or upgrade my computer come next year.....

stwongbad85 said:

isnt the i9 scheduled for Q1 2010? I know it is only for specialists, but i would like to see the benchmarks compared to prices on these.

harby said:

Interesting. They really need to push really cheap and efficient i's so they can compete with AMD in the low-end segment.

lfg18 said:

Wow they are geting more monsters ready, the core i7 is very impressive, I hope they can get this procesors affordable, that will also depend on what AMD does next, the marked need to be competitive so we can all benefit from it.

Razerblade said:

I cannot believe how quickly they are bringing out more and more powerful processors! I cannot wait to see the i9 series when it is released! That is going to be a beast of a processor!

Serag said:

good to see..Intel really needs those to compete with AMD on the low-level processors..

kodrutz kodrutz said:

Dooh, they should stop and breathe! I am not only thinking about Intel here. For example, I had my Athlon X2 Brisbane 4000+@2.4GHz for almost two years, then my hard drive and PSU blew up.

Now I have no time to install all the stuff needed in Windows on that machine (I got a new PSU+case+HDD+CPU cooler), so I am using an "ancient" machine with 512MB of DDR memory, Athlon XP 1700+@2000+ processor, a GeForce 4 MX440 video card and a tiny 8.4GB HDD (with 512kb cache, lol) running Linux!

Basically, this old machine uses less power, works like a charm, and helps me get the job done. I think that, as time goes by, a very interesting niche appears - low power CPUs for office tasks, and CHEAP ones. When I say "cheap," I think about $20 the most, retail price. I know a lot of users using their computers for office/Internet tasks that won't be bothered at all to use some really low-end machine, since the bottleneck of the user-computer combo is, in their case, the one behind the keyboard...

buttus said:

Impressive roadmap. Intel seems to have speed to spare but I still find their architecture to be way over priced and I for one support AMD as I am not preparred to pay the premium for an Intel solution.

Still though....these speeds are pretty impressive.

saintbodhisatva said:

Wikipedia had this "leaked" data for quite a while now.

kaonis92 said:

I wonder when they will launch something in the i7 category. There have to satisfy s1366 motherboard owners too!

timljh said:

Hopefully all these won't be as overpriced as the i7 when it was just out, then i might have the chance to upgrade =P

Nirkon said:

Aren't these things always leaked? haha...

but on a more serious note, these are some very specific details

about each CPU, branding, fsb, cache, clock etc...

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

well as long as amd gets some quality stuff out we should see competitive pricing from both sides but as this looks amd will have there hands full.

claycc said:

It looks like Intel is planning to continue pushing out solid processors and now they seem to be attacking the mainstream to budget markets which is really going to hurt AMD if they can't come up with something decent to counter.

Vicenarian said:

claycc said:

It looks like Intel is planning to continue pushing out solid processors and now they seem to be attacking the mainstream to budget markets which is really going to hurt AMD if they can't come up with something decent to counter.

Exactly. AMD really seemed to have their stronghold in the area of budget processors, so yeah, if Intel can compete more in that area, it will definately boost their sales. I for one, am interested in the new core i5 line.

Vicenarian said:

Oh...nobody posted this yet but...

Will the i9 play crysis?

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

dude crysis only uses 2 cores at most why would a 6 core processor help? its heavily dependent on the video card not the cpu.

Afenix said:

Hahah im so happy with my i7 920. As i see absolutely everyone firstly released VERY POWERFUL devices, and then they move on to lower, mid devices. For example i7 920, 950, 965, then i7 860, i5.. now i3.. and ATI released the 5000 series cards, the most powerful 5970, now they will be releasing energy efficient, mid quality cards.

Basher said:

Man, poor AMD. They're being "attacked" by the lack of 40nm GPU yield and now Intel is setting their sites on the lower end AMD CPU stronghold. Here's to hoping AMD get's their 5xxx series GPU supplies up...

Inioch said:

Here's me thinking, should I try the i5's when they come down in thermal and price.

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

The i5 cpus are great and they are replacing the core 2 line plus there almost as powerful as the i7 cpus for a cheaper price the only thing i dont like is the intergrated pci e on the cpu which limits sli snd crossfire to one 16x and one 8x lane for graphics.

lupinnktp said:

finally a move towards higher fsb. kudos to intel for that. maybe there is a good reason to stick to it after all, despite all its dirty trick to downplay competitors

IvanAwfulitch IvanAwfulitch said:

Vicenarian said:

Oh...nobody posted this yet but...

Will the i9 play crysis?

You need a lot more than a processor to play Crysis buddy.... My E6750 can play it, but I've got a 9800gtx+ and 2 gigs of 1066 DDR3 to help it along.

More on topic, I'm interested in the i7 line and perhaps the i9 when it gets a lot cheaper. Right now, that stuff is more along the lines of "techie toys" that aren't mainstreamed enough just yet. Once more people start upgrading and buying them they'll be a worthwhile upgrade and a cheaper purchase.

And as far as Intel competing with AMD goes, there really isn't much competition going on. AMD has their niche, and Intel has theirs. For the most part though, Intel's parts have been higher quality and higher performance. And while I do have a softspot for AMD, Intel is still the leader when it comes to new and improved technology in the processing core field.

PUTALE said:

mmh, looks like Intel will still maintain a fairly large lead over AMD. From the look of the things Intel is just revamp a little bit on the 9xx cpu with 1333 FSB. I guess AMD's 6 core could potentially getting some performance increase but I think the compnay won't be able to catch up with intel until probably the CPU/GPU where the company can have an eadge with AMD's technology.

manintech said:

the naming is very confusing, they should use something like core i2/i4/i6 to indicate dual/quad/hex cores

levar said:

I'm sure AMD will have some fun looking at this.

Zenphic said:

I'm just looking for Intel to release a Core CPU <$100! Otherwise, AMD is holding strong with their triple and quad cores at that price segment.

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I'm always interested at the low end, and I'll be waiting for these Pentiums and i3's to be benchmarked.

AbsolutGaloot said:

I'm surprised that most software hasn't caught on to using multi-core scaling. With the way that technology is rocketing ahead, one would imagine that software companies would start looking into some sort of scaling mechanism for their product to be able to use how ever many cores are available.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.