New 45nm Pentium Dual core, E5xxx series

[AussieHusky]

Hi folks, looks like Intel has gotten around to upgrading their pentium dual core series, the new E5200 is 2.5Ghz, has 2MB of L2 cache, its still got an 800mhz FSB, and uses 1.162-1.312v (Same as the last generation) Its based off the Wolfdale core and is built under the 45nm architecture.

[QuietOC]

Hi folks, looks like Intel has gotten around to upgrading their pentium dual core series, the new E5200 is 2.5Ghz, has 2MB of L2 cache, its still got an 800mhz FSB, and uses 1.162-1.312v (Same as the last generation) Its based off the Wolfdale core and is built under the 45nm architecture.

I wonder what the pricing will be like with the E7200 still around $120. Intel has always managed to find ways to make the cheap models somewhat undesireable. Hard to beat $50 for a retail box X2 4400+. Intel could really help the environment by lowering voltages instead of just cutting cache on their cheap models.

[smilingcrow]

Intel could really help the environment by lowering voltages instead of just cutting cache on their cheap models.

Ideally they could cut the cache and lower the voltage.

Intel has always managed to find ways to make the cheap models somewhat undesirable. Hard to beat $50 for a retail box X2 4400+

The entry level Intel dual-cores were compromised by having 1MB or less cache but with the new ones having 2MB they look a lot more competitive especially as they are 45nm and have a high multiplier. I might buy one of these as a replacement for my E4500 and over-clock it using the stock voltage range which should give decent idle power draw and hopefully manage 3GHz. This is my idea of a good budget CPU.

[line]

Does anyone know if the E5xxx series retains the SSE 4.1 instruction set?

[QuietOC]

The entry level Intel dual-cores were compromised by having 1MB or less cache but with the new ones having 2MB they look a lot more competitive especially as they are 45nm and have a high multiplier... This is my idea of a good budget CPU.

Well, I already bought an E7200 to replace my E2140, but found out there was little difference between the two. Sure, the E7200 at 3.8GHz with 3MB of L2 is faster than the the E2140 at 3.2GHz with 1MB of L2, but it didn't show up in the programs I've been using at home. It certainly isn't worth twice as much money.

Decreasing clockspeed allows much lower voltages to be used. Disabling part of the cache kills performance and doesn't decrease the power use much, so as a whole it stinks. Maybe Intel's process technology is just so bad that almost none of their CPUs have the full L2 working.

[smilingcrow]

Does anyone know if the E5xxx series retains the SSE 4.1 instruction set?

According to the data at Wikipedia it does support SSE 4.1.

Well, I already bought an E7200 to replace my E2140, but found out there was little difference between the two. Sure, the E7200 at 3.8GHz with 3MB of L2 is faster than the the E2140 at 3.2GHz with 1MB of L2, but it didn't show up in the programs I've been using at home. It certainly isn't worth twice as much money.

If you aren’t running CPU intensive programs then it’s generally not worth paying the extra money.

Disabling part of the cache kills performance and doesn't decrease the power use much, so as a whole it stinks. Maybe Intel's process technology is just so bad that almost none of their CPUs have the full L2 working.

Aren’t those two statements contradictory! If the extra cache didn’t work then the smaller cache chips wouldn’t be so heavily penalised.

[line]

According to the data at Wikipedia it does support SSE 4.1.

That's a good thing. Thanks.

[QuietOC]

They are successful at making lemonaide out of fine wine and selling it. I'd rather have some cheaper wine, and I can't see why anyone would want the lemons.

[smilingcrow]

They are successful at making lemonaide out of fine wine and selling it. I'd rather have some cheaper wine, and I can't see why anyone would want the lemons.

Didn’t AMD use the code name Thunderbird for one of their chips?

[CA_Steve]

I had 2 Athlon T-Bird set ups. They were very fortified at the time

[Holy-Fire]

Decreasing clockspeed allows much lower voltages to be used. Disabling part of the cache kills performance and doesn't decrease the power use much, so as a whole it stinks. Maybe Intel's process technology is just so bad that almost none of their CPUs have the full L2 working.

Have you never heard of market segmentation? It means Intel wants "rich" people (those able and willing to spend a lot of money on CPUs) to give them lots of money, and "poor" people to still give them some. If Intel put more cache in their cheap CPUs, people would buy them instead of the expensive ones. If they didn't offer cheap CPUs at all, "poor" people would tend not to buy anything.

[QuietOC]

Have you never heard of market segmentation?

Yes, Intel has done well to single handedly segment their "market. They are so nice to offer the poor masses Celerons with disabled power saving and artificially cripped performance. At least the new Atom is designed to perform like crap and be very cheap to make.

Intel desktop chips are almost decent deals compared to the same silicon sold as mobile processors. They have a bunch of 5/5.5W TDP 65nm "Ultra Low Voltage" processors that would be great for real power savings for poor folk, but they are >$200 each piece of glassy dirt.

[smilingcrow]

I see the E5200 is starting to show up on Google Products from $95 upwards so hopefully it will be available soon.

They are so nice to offer the poor masses Celerons with disabled power saving and artificially cripped performance.

Intel had to find some way to compete with AMD in making low performance CPUs. Admittedly AMD have the edge as they built their poor performance into the design so it’s ‘natively’ a poor performing CPU whereas Intel had to cheat by crippling their design to compete with AMD.

BTW, the Celeron dual-core desktop CPUs support Speedstep; I think the only Intel CPUs that don’t support Speedstep these days are the Celeron single core mobile CPUs.

[QuietOC]

Intel had to find some way to compete with AMD in making low performance CPUs.

Really, then why are Celerons and even Pentium Dual Cores slower than AMD's chips?

My $50 X2 4400+ is considerably faster than my $75 E2140 (until the latter is overclocked 100%.)

[jaganath]

QuietOC, everyone knows AMD are still competitive in the budget segment; so what exactly are you trying to prove? yes, AMD's chips are slightly faster at stock, but Intel's chips overclock better; purely on a value proposition, AMD still wins at the low-end. Besides, at this end of the market, who cares how the chips perform? 90% of people are only going to use it for email, instant messaging and spreadsheets etc, which will probably not even use 20% of the CPU capacity. By the same token, the Atom may well "perform like crap" but with a <5W TDP is it stupid to expect mammoth performance? this chip fits perfectly into its market niche, which is cheap, quiet netbooks like the Eee PC/MSI Wind/Eee Box etc.

[smilingcrow]

My $50 X2 4400+ is considerably faster than my $75 E2140

I should hope so as you’re comparing a cache diminished 1.6GHz Intel versus a 2.3GHz AMD. Intel plainly doesn’t want to bottom feed so they price their chips accordingly and leave the bargain basement for AMD. I’m grateful that Intel doesn’t compete in this sector too aggressively as that would possibly help finish AMD off if they don’t get back on track soon.

Fingers crossed that 45nm works for AMD. Nehalem shouldn’t impact AMD’s desktop chips as its performance and pricing will likely put it in a sector of its own. Until they release the mainstream version of Nehalem in roughly 12 months time AMD has a long window to be more competitive with Intel in the sub $250 sector. That should be good for everyone.

[QuietOC]

Hi folks, looks like Intel has gotten around to upgrading their pentium dual core series, the new E5200 is 2.5Ghz, has 2MB of L2 cache, its still got an 800mhz FSB, and uses 1.162-1.312v (Same as the last generation) Its based off the Wolfdale core and is built under the 45nm architecture.

Okay, I figured it out. This isn't an OEM chip. It is an appeal to budget overclockers. It is for use with low-end motherboards where you can change FSB but not CPU voltage.

Let's see:

12.5 x 267 MHz = 3.33 GHz
12.5 x 333 MHz = 4.17 GHz
12.5 x 400 MHz = 5.0 GHz!

So, with my E2140 I needed a P35 motherboard that allowed 1:1 memory ratio with 200 MHz processors to get 3.2 GHz. Now I could spend more on the CPU and run 3.33 GHz on any crappy LGA775 motherboard.

[smilingcrow]

Okay, I figured it out. This isn't an OEM chip. It is an appeal to budget overclockers. It is for use with low-end motherboards where you can change FSB but not CPU voltage.

I doubt that Intel would produce a whole series of CPUs just for that market although I’m sure they are happily received by budget over-clockers. Surely it’s just an extension of the Pentium Dual Core range built on the 45nm process!

[AussieHusky]

I doubt that Intel would produce a whole series of CPUs just for that market although I’m sure they are happily received by budget over-clockers. Surely it’s just an extension of the Pentium Dual Core range built on the 45nm process!

I would agree with this, Same FSB, Same Voltage, the only difference is higher clocks, and a smaller fab process.

The last series of PD cores were very well suited to undervolting, Mine (E2160) currently runs at 0.975v on my G33 chipset, Id be very interested in seeing how low these can go as they should require even less voltage.

[line]

I see the E5200 is starting to show up on Google Products from $95 upwards so hopefully it will be available soon.

It's now listed in my area too.

[AussieHusky]

Yup, Its available in Australia to for about ~$100 AUD

[smilingcrow]

It’s now in stock in the UK for about £56.

According to the previews it doesn’t support SSE 4.1 but seems to over-clock pretty well. One preview even tried under-volting and managed 1.032V at stock speed which isn’t particularly low – Link.

[smilingcrow]

I ordered one from Ebuyer at £56.60 delivered which is the best price that I could find. They had about 30 or 40 but they sold out in a day and it’s not even listed on their site at the moment. I’ll post some data when I’ve had a chance to check it out.

[smilingcrow]

It’s finally showing on Intel’s Spec Finder and it supports Intel Virtualization Technology which is a surprise. My order was cancelled but I have another due for delivery so we’ll see how it goes.

[Rewdoalb]

Its about $80 USD in units of one thousand. Sounds like a nice price point; beats the more expensive 4xxx handily.

[yuu]

undervolted to 1.15V 2500Mhz worked, but 1.125V didn't.

at default VID 1.25 it is seen as 25Watts CPU by the EP45. linpak running
1,05V 2200Mhz 15 watts.

2.90Ghz 1.25 VID,
3.125Ghz 1.35V is linpack stable.