Intel Core i7 Processors [models & pricing] ! !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slovnaft

guys the ongoing NDA is starting to scare me.
I haven't seen many meaningful data regarding nehalem other than intel-spawned misinformation and the one review site that did some video encoding (whuptydoo?), and there's certainly been nothing regarding QPI from an overclocking headroom standpoint.
My spideysenses tell me core i7 might be a huge let down especially in its infant stages, and worst of all for those not interested in dropping a grand on a silicon slab.
Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize my recent purchases in penryn, but I fear nehalem won't clock nearly as well as these chips have. I mean, what if Intel really is going the way of AMD with its barely OCable HT interface?
am I the only one experiencing these P4 HT pangs of wariness? is everyone else just creaming their jeans to get ahold of these chips and if so could you provide me some reasons for excitement?

---

No Data?

Well i guess you need to look a bit harder, ther are reveiws from Anad,Toms,Hexus + here some user ran benches, thats more we got then with the launch of core. :yepp:

Anandtech, tom's, hexus, jcornell (sp?) all benchmarked nehalem, but there was not much overclocking involved. If anything nehalem launch is much smoother and faster than penryn, or am I wrong?

I was more pointing out the problem of interpretation and incompletion.
Anandtech's review is hard to calibrate because of the odd benches, though the numbers seem indimidating i guess, tom's is incredibly incomplete--no more than a cpuz validation and a brief overview of what's there and the same goes for hexus.
I guess I should be happy that everyone seems to be giving the blanket statement "these chips are awesome" but that makes me wary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slovnaft

I was more pointing out the problem of interpretation and incompletion.
Anandtech's review is hard to calibrate because of the odd benches, though the numbers seem indimidating i guess, tom's is incredibly incomplete--no more than a cpuz validation and a brief overview of what's there and the same goes for hexus.
I guess I should be happy that everyone seems to be giving the blanket statement "these chips are awesome" but that makes me wary.

---

lol this are previews, you dont run a full benchmark course in previews, just a few selevted. If you want a full review you have to wait till t's released.

Hexus had quite a few numbers, but pulled it a view hours after it was released. Afaik they had the full sandra suite benched, hexus pi fast, games (ET, lost planet), pi, cinebench, and some stuff i forgot. :yepp:

Also toms clocked nehalem to 4ghz, which shows that even not so skilled ocers can clock nehalem, on the other hand whan i comapre this to the initial agane overclocking...

where is this OC? I didnt see that anywhere...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slovnaft

where is this OC? I didnt see that anywhere...

---

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...lem+4ghz&meta=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nosfer@tu

Well Donnie27 Im not trying to disrespect anybody. I just fell the thread has taken a turn of "Damm I have to spend alot" instead of WOW the smallest version is CHEAP.



Thats what I quoted you for.

I dont understand why you get sick of that ?

Just enjoy your self because new technoligy is on its way :D

And so what if the top model costs 2-3 times more than the low end model.
it always has :)

Im going to place some smilies in the end here. So you and others know im not in any way looking for a figth :D

Im just debating :D:D:D :yepp::):):D:D;):up: :D

Be happy, be Nehalem :D

---

Simple.

Post #3

Quote:

---

Not as bad as it could be.

Normaly they are released at 1100-1250 If I remember correct.

---

They'll be released at $999 because Intel releases them. NOt 1150 to 1250. I simply tried to explain that Intel is not responsible for folks like Newegg and others jacking the Prices up higher after the fact. If you made that point, I'm not even posting to you. If post #3 said;

Quote:

---

Not as bad as it could be.

Normaly they are released at $999 If I remember correct.

---

My reply is; "Yes, it has been stated as such.

No need for :rofl: or :rolleyes: or :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...lem+4ghz&meta=

---

Well...ok...

It seems the original snapshot has been removed, but there are plenty of paragraph-shaped blurbs about it.
I was about to eat my shoe when I saw that vcore was pushed to 1.576 to achieve this. Now, I'm not exactly sure what this means for Nehalem's arch., but I know that 1.45-1.5 just to bench was enough to kill my Q9450 after ~10hrs. And, since Nehalem runs on such low stock voltage, the assumption would be that it would tolerate lower max vcore than yorkfield. Now, this is just an assumption and I could be wrong, the new architecture could be incredibly tolerant of voltage, but it seems to me that 1.576vCore might be enough to kill a chip PDQ, especially under air.
I mean, I'm sure I couldve gotted 4.11 with my Q9450 with 1.576v, I was pushing 4080 at 1.45...

So it's mixed news imo. but i guess I'll shut my mouth until it comes out and we get some meaningful data.

^

just bad luck, i ran my QX9650 @ 1,66V for several hours for benching (4500mhz) and its still healthy and kicking, on my main ocing forum there are even guys that push 1,7V+ and the cores are still working without any problem.

Plus i think you put way to much voltage for 4ghz, cause most yorkfield can reach 4ghz with sub 1,4V stable. I run now 3,5ghz with 1,264V. But anything above 4GHz need insane voltages.

well it needed high voltage because it was really straining its fsb limitations at 510mhz.
I think it was when i got a little crazy and went to 1.55v to try for 520fsb many times that did it in.
Anyways, sovery OT.
Bottom line, I would certainly not consider a 45nm at 1.576 to be safe and 'stable'

I was going through Intel's August 20, 2008 Roadmap and I noticed the following slide:

http://download.intel.com/pressroom/...ng_roadmap.pdf

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5...65slideqo2.jpg

"Extreme SKU has overprotection removed for overclocking"


Does this mean the 965 will see even further overclocking advantages from just having an unlocked multiplier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39

"Extreme SKU has overprotection removed for overclocking"

---

That's like saying "I just the whole bottle!"

Hopefully they don't neuter the non XE chips too much

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39

Does this mean the 965 will see even further overclocking advantages from just having an unlocked multiplier?

---

Well, any chip will, the question is whether these chips will OC well without an unlocked multi, essentially, how flexible QPI is.
I mean, that impacts the extreme chips as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slovnaft

Well, any chip will, the question is whether these chips will OC well without an unlocked multi, essentially, how flexible QPI is.
I mean, that impacts the extreme chips as well.

---

Aren't Cores and QPI ran independently of eachother?

No, QPI is on-die.
take a look at the architecture:

http://chip-architect.com/news/Nehal...st_glance_.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

I ran a Northwood based PC from 03 to 05, and I didn't run into any computability or stability problems at all. From experience, HT was definitely beneficial for general desktop usage, and I had it enabled at all times.

The only issues HT had were with certain server based workloads, which may be what you're referring to. But you acted as if you KNEW Nehalem with HT would reduce performance in most cases which is just ridiculous since you have nothing to back that up except bogus claims about performance issues on P4s, which I soon debunked.

---

Hmmm.. a flawed interpretation of what I acted like would get you "pwned" in a frag-fest in an instant. "Soon" is not quick enough.

Seriously though, (since memory usually serves me correctly), there were quite a few articles on HT that it is not always desirable. If you are a "know-it-all", you would tell me the percentage of owners of such chips who disabled HT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

Hmmm.. a flawed interpretation of what I acted like would get you "pwned" in a frag-fest in an instant. "Soon" is not quick enough.

Seriously though, (since memory usually serves me correctly), there were quite a few articles on HT that it is not always desirable. If you are a "know-it-all", you would tell me the percentage of owners of such chips who disabled HT.

---

less then one percent. :rofl:

Since 90% of the useres dont even know what a bios was, or how to enter. Plus many of the enthusiats also ran HT, maybe disabled it for ocing, but for daily usage they enabled it.

HT gave one thing that was priceless on the P4. Nomatter if performance increased or dropped alittle. Creamy Smoothness(TM)
Dualcore smoothness without having one.

Yep, and at a time, if you did some CPU consuming tasks in the background there was no alternative. A64's were quick,
but no way you could do office work while rendering on them without having hiccups.
X2's changed that, but it was much much later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slovnaft

Well...ok...

It seems the original snapshot has been removed, but there are plenty of paragraph-shaped blurbs about it.
I was about to eat my shoe when I saw that vcore was pushed to 1.576 to achieve this. Now, I'm not exactly sure what this means for Nehalem's arch., but I know that 1.45-1.5 just to bench was enough to kill my Q9450 after ~10hrs. And, since Nehalem runs on such low stock voltage, the assumption would be that it would tolerate lower max vcore than yorkfield. Now, this is just an assumption and I could be wrong, the new architecture could be incredibly tolerant of voltage, but it seems to me that 1.576vCore might be enough to kill a chip PDQ, especially under air.
I mean, I'm sure I couldve gotted 4.11 with my Q9450 with 1.576v, I was pushing 4080 at 1.45...

So it's mixed news imo. but i guess I'll shut my mouth until it comes out and we get some meaningful data.

---

Strange that your Yorkfield died with such a low vcore...

I know it's not the same, but i've been runing my E8400 at 4320mhz (9x480) @ 1.475v (cheap Watercooling) for 11 months straight (24/7) now and still rock solid as if it was new...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

Hmmm.. a flawed interpretation of what I acted like would get you "pwned" in a frag-fest in an instant. "Soon" is not quick enough.

Seriously though, (since memory usually serves me correctly), there were quite a few articles on HT that it is not always desirable. If you are a "know-it-all", you would tell me the percentage of owners of such chips who disabled HT.

---

Sorry mate, I'm not the one who definitively stated that almost every single threaded app loses performance with HT on. You still haven't provided any evidence to prove that point, and I don't think you will anytime soon. ;)

The majority of articles on HT were more favourable than not, most focused on the improvement in general responsiveness during multitasking in the age before dual core CPUs.

If you could just provide a link to an article that shows HT having massive performance and stability issues as you claim, then I would debate it on those merits, but so far all you've been sprouting is hot air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sesto Sento

Strange that your Yorkfield died with such a low vcore...

I know it's not the same, but i've been runing my E8400 at 4320mhz (9x480) @ 1.475v (cheap Watercooling) for 11 months straight (24/7) now and still rock solid as if it was new...

---

Well in all fairness i did push it up to 1.55 for a few hours to make various 3d bench attempts, i think once i mightve even tried 1.6. I really wasn't too careful.
And this is all on air.


And back to nehalem, this is the first single die quad core isn't it?
all else aside i think nehalem is a miracle of microarchitecture.

yes indeed, it's the first single die quad core from intel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slovnaft

Well in all fairness i did push it up to 1.55 for a few hours to make various 3d bench attempts, i think once i mightve even tried 1.6. I really wasn't too careful.
And this is all on air.


And back to nehalem, this is the first single die quad core isn't it?
all else aside i think nehalem is a miracle of microarchitecture.

---

1.6V for a 45nm chip with high-K/mg is a bit of a stretch.

Nope,Nehalem is not a first single die quad core(generally speaking).As for a miracle,it's quite impressive and extremely complicated.That's why intel decided to make it @ 45nm and not @ 65nm.It's base line Penryn ,but with a lot of both small and big tweaks.The biggest change is ,for sure, the riddance of FSB.QPI+ IMC is going to help them a lot in multi socket server market.On desktop,i doubt it make a big difference(apart from SMT and IMC that will make a difference compared to C2Q).

But more than performance differences, i guess i was trying to get at intel's trend of bringing resources into on-die architecture. Between nehalem's IMC and whatever this Larabee BS turns out to be, it seems like intel is trying to bring as many tasks as possible onto low-latency structures on the CPU.
While in theory this seems like a somewhat logical progression, i guess nehalem and larabee will be our litmus test of whether it's "too soon". i think it's definitely to soon for on-die graphics engines.