Inquirer: Intel's conroe chips are fake and die yields low..

[306maxi]

I'm up for that. Woot riot!

I'll lay waste to Perth. You lay waste to whatever part of this big brown land you're from. Muwhahahaha

 

[RichPLS]

The chip will carry the designation "X6800" and will be priced at $999. Surprisingly, the slide indicates a clock speed of only 2.93 GHz for the chip - in contrast to the 3.33 GHz that was previously rumored

While it maybe fake it adds to the fire this information on tomshardware. The EE conroe's GHz moving down from 3.33 to 2.93 GHz points to yields being low. The conroe has a more complex design than the K8 so it would stand to reason of a low GHz max without throwing out the low Watt promised.

I guess only time will tell!

I suspect that Intel has not a yield problem, but decided on this for a marketing reason... since it will undoubtedly be the fastest desktop CPU on release either way, and will give them an easy performance boost when needed to be released in case of rebuttal by AMD, if they unexpectedly release another speed bump in retaliation... all the while reserving the right to tweak and insure stability at 1333MHz fsb.
Also, I suspect the 2.93GHz EE chips will easily overclock on stock air well past the 3.33GHz mark...
Besides... it seems to me that for the enthusiast, the lower fsb insures an easier task of overclocking the CPU higher, since 1333MHz is pretty high for memory to begin with, imo...

 

[dwave]

Back on subject, the inquirer must have nothing better to do than make up stories. Just because Intel only has a few machines means low yields? For example: I urinate 3 to 4 times a day. Does this prove that my urination has low yield rates for piss? No, you don't have all the facts, if I said that every time I take a leak I piss out 1 cup of urine, then you could say I have a low yield rate.

(example was for fun and does not show my actual urinating habits) 😀

LOL! very funny analogy!

Thanks, I thought I would add a little humor to this thread.

 

[elbert]

I suspect that Intel has not a yield problem, but decided on this for a marketing reason... since it will undoubtedly be the fastest desktop CPU on release either way, and will give them an easy performance boost when needed to be released in case of rebuttal by AMD, if they unexpectedly release another speed bump in retaliation... all the while reserving the right to tweak and insure stability at 1333MHz fsb.
Also, I suspect the 2.93GHz EE chips will easily overclock on stock air well past the 3.33GHz mark...
Besides... it seems to me that for the enthusiast, the lower fsb insures an easier task of overclocking the CPU higher, since 1333MHz is pretty high for memory to begin with, imo...

While true many of the 2.93GHz EE chips may overclock to 3.33GHz doesn't mean all 2.93GHz will. 2.93GHz I suspect would produce more usable chips and greatly reduce fail rate to a profitable percent.

Intel may always tweak the performance of their chips but the tweaks are for the most part from production refinements and or reduction in size. Production refinements and reductions in size takes time and Intel is pushing these CPU's release date up and the EE chip wasn't to ship until sometime after the old release date. Is Intel afraid of AMD meeting the E6700's perfomance?

 

[gr8mikey]

I suspect that Intel has not a yield problem, but decided on this for a marketing reason... since it will undoubtedly be the fastest desktop CPU on release either way, and will give them an easy performance boost when needed to be released in case of rebuttal by AMD, if they unexpectedly release another speed bump in retaliation... all the while reserving the right to tweak and insure stability at 1333MHz fsb.
Also, I suspect the 2.93GHz EE chips will easily overclock on stock air well past the 3.33GHz mark...
Besides... it seems to me that for the enthusiast, the lower fsb insures an easier task of overclocking the CPU higher, since 1333MHz is pretty high for memory to begin with, imo...

While true many of the 2.93GHz EE chips may overclock to 3.33GHz doesn't mean all 2.93GHz will. 2.93GHz I suspect would produce more usable chips and greatly reduce fail rate to a profitable percent.

Intel may always tweak the performance of their chips but the tweaks are for the most part from production refinements and or reduction in size. Production refinements and reductions in size takes time and Intel is pushing these CPU's release date up and the EE chip wasn't to ship until sometime after the old release date. Is Intel afraid of AMD meeting the E6700's perfomance?

Elbert if you havent done so already, I suggest you read through the collection of conroe, core 2 duo , core 2 extreme thread. The 2.67 ghz B0 stepping samples that they have over at Extreme Systems were able to be overclocked up to 4 Ghz on air cooling and stock volts. I think it would be extremely unlikely that an extreme edition with unlocked multipliers could not easily do the same.

Face it, AMD is running scared right now. But Im sure they are burning all the midnight oil they can to come up with something soon. They have always come through with an answer (well at least for the last 5 years or so anyway)

 

[hergieburbur]

I love the fact that even though most people with a brain realize that the Inquirer is 90+ % garbage, it is still capable of generating this much activity on a thread on a daily basis. 😀

 

[elbert]

Elbert if you havent done so already, I suggest you read through the collection of conroe, core 2 duo , core 2 extreme thread. The 2.67 ghz B0 stepping samples that they have over at Extreme Systems were able to be overclocked up to 4 Ghz on air cooling and stock volts. I think it would be extremely unlikely that an extreme edition with unlocked multipliers could not easily do the same.

Face it, AMD is running scared right now. But Im sure they are burning all the midnight oil they can to come up with something soon. They have always come through with an answer (well at least for the last 5 years or so anyway)

Intel unlike overclockers have to compete for market and I dont see how Intel could possibly sale an overclocked CPU for a marketable price. OC'ers have uped the P4 to 6GHz but Intel only pushes to 4GHz I wonder why? Maybe they can't stay competitive having to pay for OCing. How long could you warranty an OC'ed CPU? OCing cuts into the life of CPU no matter if its stable.

AMD is running but only to increase the 65nm process which will give them room for higher clocks while staying competitive.

So what was AMD doing for the first 15 or so years prier to the last 5 or so years of comming through? I think AMD has been at the CPU business long enough to stay in the game.