Intel Core i7 Processors [models & pricing] ! !

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-19-2008, 05:37 AM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

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).

I agree but it seems some Geeks want to have it both ways. I'd said and been jumped by some for saying FSB and IMC on the Desktop isn't that big of a deal. I said then that Nehalem gains will be had from Core improvements, not just QPI and IMC that's meant for servers and 4 plus sockets, since Dual Socket Boards already use 2 FSB's with great results. Ask Movieman?:up: Where QPI and SMT will help on the desktop is VT and Multitasking.
09-19-2008, 08:46 AM
mascaras

Quote:

Core i7 overclock feature changed

There’s always a demand for overclock, not only the elite overclocking community but also mobo vendors want Intel to change the plan, not limiting Core i7’s OCbility any more.

So Intel changed ideas recently, going to unlock memory ratios adjustments on Core i7 940 and 920. Before September Intel want this feature only exist in Core i7-965 XE.

So what can we expect with a Core i7-940/920? Memory will not only running under 800/1066, you can tune up for higher frequency, because Core i7 940/920 now have the ability to change memory multipliers, so mobo maker can write a BIOS with option to increase memory frequency. Also, changes memory multipliers can also allows QPI speed to be changed, but documents pointed out that raise QPI speed will only gain little performance.

http://en.expreview.com/2008/09/19/c...nged/#more-927

regards
09-19-2008, 09:38 AM
xVeinx

I was under the impression that the multi-lock was hardware enabled, so how can they make a change like this so close to launch? Granted, they could probably find an outlet for those with locked multis, but even so.
09-19-2008, 09:57 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by xVeinx

I was under the impression that the multi-lock was hardware enabled, so how can they make a change like this so close to launch? Granted, they could probably find an outlet for those with locked multis, but even so.

If I got it right they're unlocking the memory ratios (dividers?), not the core multi.
09-19-2008, 10:06 AM
Donnie27

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

If I got it right they're unlocking the memory ratios (dividers?), not the core multi.

That's what it looked like to me too!
09-19-2008, 10:18 AM
informal

Even though this is a nice feature enabling higher memory clock speeds ,this still doesn't solve the "140MHz wall" with ref. QPI clock on locked(non XE) chips..Why intel doesn't unlock the multi up to a few steps, ie. 21,22,23 for the lowest model?This way you could at least hit 3.2GHz with 23x multi and 140Mhz ref clock which could be enough to a lot of people..
09-19-2008, 11:15 AM
Loque

to wait for i7 for gaming or buy a Q9550 ... that's the question..
09-19-2008, 11:37 AM
Blauhung

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

Even though this is a nice feature enabling higher memory clock speeds ,this still doesn't solve the "140MHz wall" with ref. QPI clock on locked(non XE) chips..Why intel doesn't unlock the multi up to a few steps, ie. 21,22,23 for the lowest model?This way you could at least hit 3.2GHz with 23x multi and 140Mhz ref clock which could be enough to a lot of people..

I forget, where did 140MHz come up as a wall?

And by just manipulating the turbo settings you can get the multi to stay at 22 permanently.

nevermind, found it.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1196

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBR

My first impressions with own Nehalem ...

1. BIOSes and whole platform is still very immature ...
2. Only little raised reference clock causes massive unstability ...
3. Ocing of locked-multi Nehalems will be a problem ... Reference clock of Bus is not like a FSB - my max stable clock is 140MHz from 133MHz :down:
4. If you want great clocking, you need a Extreme chip with unlocked multi
5. With these early BIOSes is Memory performance poor (or Everest dont know how to measure it?)
6. Power consuption is in idle with all power savings great, but in fully load is far away from 45nm Quads ...
7. Max stable ocing was on my chip about 3500MHz ...
8. Performance is various, read my previous posts in this thread ...
9. We have two months to launch, and i believe Intel will do many improvements to that date. Will see next month, with new BIOSes and maybe different mobo ...

I wouldn't trust the 140 value just yet. He was using a very early stepping of both Bloomfield and Tylersburg along with very immature BIOS.
09-19-2008, 11:48 AM
Blauhung

Quote:

Originally Posted by xVeinx

I was under the impression that the multi-lock was hardware enabled, so how can they make a change like this so close to launch? Granted, they could probably find an outlet for those with locked multis, but even so.

I'm unsure if the lock is package level or if this is one of the settings that get fused on die at sort. But I am under the impression that this was probably a decision made a bit ago that just hadn't hit the news yet.

But could be wrong
09-19-2008, 03:55 PM
GAR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loque

to wait for i7 for gaming or buy a Q9550 ... that's the question..

I wouldnt upgrade to a new platform just yet, wait about 6 months to let it mature a bit, it should be a good platform once it matures, lets see if AMD has an answer.
09-19-2008, 04:00 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAR

I wouldnt upgrade to a new platform just yet, wait about 6 months to let it mature a bit, it should be a good platform once it matures, lets see if AMD has an answer.

none we know off. :p:

Amds roadmaps are pretty much clear till the end of 2009 and i dont see anything that would "threat" nehalem.
09-19-2008, 05:58 PM
GAR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

none we know off. :p:

Amds roadmaps are pretty much clear till the end of 2009 and i dont see anything that would "threat" nehalem.

Seems like another year dominated by INTEL
09-19-2008, 06:09 PM
Nasgul

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAR

Seems like another year dominated by INTEL

20 out of 23 previously...........and now 3 for 3.

The one thing I don't get though, with the introduction to triple channel? Are G.Skill and the rest going to start shipping triple channel kits or are we going to be stuck buying two 4GB (2x2) kit of DDR3?

And how about having to move to 64-bit? With 6GB of DDR2 (2GB x 3), seems like it'd be inevitable.

We're forced (somewhat) to do a major upgrade overall, not just CPU.
09-19-2008, 06:51 PM
mikeyakame

http://en.expreview.com/2008/09/19/c...ature-changed/

looks like the non XE chips just got even better if this is in fact true!
09-19-2008, 07:33 PM
@@@@

Going to a nehalem CPU means a whole platform upgrade but if you are already in DDR3 modules with the current motherboards I think you only need to change motherboard + CPU and plug in the rest from you previous system but a lot of the quality motherboards not necessarily top of the range are expensive. I would take GAR's advice wait for the whole platform to mature not only the CPU but also consider the motherboards and RAM
09-20-2008, 01:19 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nasgul

20 out of 23 previously...........and now 3 for 3.

The one thing I don't get though, with the introduction to triple channel? Are G.Skill and the rest going to start shipping triple channel kits or are we going to be stuck buying two 4GB (2x2) kit of DDR3?

And how about having to move to 64-bit? With 6GB of DDR2 (2GB x 3), seems like it'd be inevitable.

We're forced (somewhat) to do a major upgrade overall, not just CPU.

You are not forced to do anything. And if you aint already at 64bit OS...its really about time!!

And you could also just run 3x1GB if you feel thats the fun of the day :p:

Matched memory is also a joke. Just get 3 sticks...but again. It will also work with both single and dualchannel.
09-20-2008, 01:23 AM
Bo_Fox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

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.

:rofl::clap: You just pwned me! LOL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

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.

Hot air? You mean BS? :p: I never said "massive"--you gotta stop making mountains out of mole-hills. It's just that when I were reading all those articles, there were "quite a few" articles that were not so positive about HT for general usage. The same thing applied for NCQ (Native Command Queuing) with hard drives. I guess as we adopt the new features, more and more applications are optimized to take advantage of them. I do not want to "obey" your demands by digging up for a link. Perhaps you could just argue back instead?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

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.

Whoa! Then why didnt those articles say it like you did, when HT was new? Pentium 4 was hardly helped by HT against the massively successfuly A64. After all, HT is nowhere as smooth as REAL MULTI-CORES (TM). HT might give like 10% improvement, but not 100% improvement scaling like dual cores.

Debate.. debate.. let's just drop it. I'll most likely leave this thread.
09-20-2008, 01:38 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

Whoa! Then why didnt those articles say it like you did, when HT was new? Pentium 4 was hardly helped by HT against the massively successfuly A64. After all, HT is nowhere as smooth as REAL MULTI-CORES (TM). HT might give like 10% improvement, but not 100% improvement scaling like dual cores.

Debate.. debate.. let's just drop it. I'll most likely leave this thread.

:rofl:

Nobody said 100%, and you fail again to show any of your "statements".

http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_4.html

HT worked, HT made it faster, HT made it smoother. You dont need a fulldualcore to make windows feels smoother. When your its just a 0-1% task that needs to run while another talls.

You gave me a good laugh tho :ROTF::ROTF::ROTF:
09-20-2008, 01:54 AM
Bo_Fox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

:rofl:

Nobody said 100%, and you fail again to show any of your "statements".

http://www.2cpu.com/articles/42_4.html

HT worked, HT made it faster, HT made it smoother. You dont need a fulldualcore to make windows feels smoother. When your its just a 0-1% task that needs to run while another talls.

You gave me a good laugh tho :ROTF::ROTF::ROTF:

You failed to answer me why it didnt help the P4 against A64 single cores (before the X2's were finally released much later). :ROTF::ROTF::ROTF:
09-20-2008, 02:00 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

You failed to answer me why it didnt help the P4 against A64 single cores (before the X2's were finally released much later). :ROTF::ROTF::ROTF:

Because games was and to a certain degree still is singlethreaded. But to say HT was a failure or didnt have a bonus is pretty retarded. And where is your proof?
09-20-2008, 02:22 AM
FischOderAal

I'm with Shintai on this one. HT definately brought some benefits, question is if the main reason was the architectual "failure" of Netburst. Atom benefits as well, but this is due to the In-Order-Architecture. The new architecture on the other hand doesn't seem to benefit much from HT (or SMT), as Intel abandoned that feature beginning from Banias. Banias was a mobile-chip though.
09-20-2008, 02:35 AM
mikeyakame

perhaps HT on netburst m-arch was simply born before its era. its era is now, not 5 or so years ago
09-20-2008, 03:21 AM
Nasgul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

You failed to answer me why it didnt help the P4 against A64 single cores (before the X2's were finally released much later).

Back in those days, the only success A64 had? were because everyone had only one word that mattered the most: "gaming", and thanks to that, A64s were supposedly better.

Except P4s were faster than A64s at multi-media, content creation, office apps and anything and everything that was not "gaming", so despite of all of that? We all knew that Intel still had the best "gaming" CPU, Dothan.

To this date, "gaming" is such, if not perhaps the most, an important part for buying a PC.
09-20-2008, 03:43 AM
mikeyakame

Hmnm why must people get so heated up over the past...we live in today, yesterday is a memory and tomorrow could bring anything. live for tomorrow not yesterday.
09-20-2008, 04:12 AM
Metroid

Quote:

Originally Posted by @@@@

Going to a nehalem CPU means a whole platform upgrade but if you are already in DDR3 modules with the current motherboards I think you only need to change motherboard + CPU and plug in the rest from you previous system but a lot of the quality motherboards not necessarily top of the range are expensive. I would take GAR's advice wait for the whole platform to mature not only the CPU but also consider the motherboards and RAM

I always thought that if we were to go for DDR3 using CD2 would be pretty pointless since DDR3 prices were/are still high and it is tad better compared to DDR2.

So since most of us knew dual channel would become extinct by the fact Intel did create a platform which wanted to show to everyone an intense memory gains regarding the only clearly seen weakness of its current platform 775 and its derivatives. It was very clear that only a matter of time would hold its use until tri-channel would be deployed in the new platform.

So The reality is, a tri-channel memory at 1066 will be much better than 2 DDR3 dual-channel at 1600, if the circumstances are given. So who used DDR3 in the previous or current platform lost a considerable amount of money because it might not be of any use in the next new platform.

Metroid.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page