Printable View
Nice. It looks like The performance is similar to I7.
is this the one that's locked so there is no overclocking??
Wow, Lynnfield is Intel Core i5! :)
I guess Havendale will be Core i3 then. :D
Can u run latest beta of HWiNFO32 (http://www.hwinfo.com) there? It should already fully support this platform.
how do these perform compared to last gen? I'm kinda curious if they are even worth it besides the OC potential.
Is there OC potential if thy are locked?
Seems like all that FUD about "locked overclocking" starts again. I don't get it - how can CPU lock clock generator which is an external chip placed on motherboard.
Would be awesome to have an i7/i5 comparison benchmark
wow first time i've seen i5. is it same tech as i7, except only 4 threads?
Who wants to bet against i9 being the 8-core/16-thread version? :)
my e4600 does 1m in 18 seconds.. does that mean its faster than this processor ? curious and clueless
Lynnfield can OC like Bloomfield. Please lets not have the idiotic talk like with i7 before release. Where alot of sites and people was shown to have produced alot of FUD.
No, its 100% identical to bloomfield, 4 cores, 8 threads (With HT). Besides only having dualchannel. Also instead of QPI to X58. You have ondie PCIe.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon
this proc is running at 2.2ghz and Spi 1m is a single thread clockspead bench :fact:
screens a re showing 6GB of RAM... that only makes sense with tri-channel...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
what's main difference between Bloomfield and Linnfield besides socket?
Because 2x1GB and 2x2GB is so impossible? :rolleyes: (And look at CPU-Z..channels..DUAL)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Read the difference above...
Lynnfield prototype board:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/images/new...ard_IDF_01.jpg
weak in regard to the cpu
nice write up though, gotta show off all the goods
timeframe? Q3 2K9?
Memory config 4G+2G dual channel ddr3 1066.
Thats interesting.Quote:
Power source: 135W 19.5V 6.9A notebook AC Adapter
Just in case anybody that has not read the link decides to ask already answered questions...Quote:
CPU： Intel Lynnfield 2.13G
内存： 笔记本的DDR3-1066 （4G+2G）
硬盘： 笔记本的ST 7200.2 160G （ATA模式）
显卡： PCI-E X1 的 NVS290
电源： 135W 19.5V 6.9A 笔记本AC Adapter
OS： Vista U 64bit
Sounds like a good stock CPU to put in "Chinese Sweatshop" environments and render for me. :rotf:
Yes and no. You're running at 2.4GHz stock and this CPU is 2.13GHz so clock for clock your CPU is probably still a bit slower. Also the i5 has 4 cores (via hyperthreading) where you only have 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by saveus222
8 via hypertheading ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinas
nice.. thought you had a typo in thread title at first hehe
thanks for sharing :)
Intel is smart, sell as much i7 as possible till Q3 2009 and only then release i5 :) If you crave nehalem no point waiting really. I highly doubt i5 will have much higher clocks, if it did then it would be worth :)
The point of i5 is basicly price and size. I think mATX will be the new norm with i5. Plus the boards gonna be very cheap as you can also imagine from the prototype one. However it does restrict abit as in 2 x8 or 1 x16 only. But we can just aswell get used to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi
Opps! Yes 4 cores, 8 threads, thanks for pointing that out!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinas
interesting.. so is there any specific reason one would ditch the e4600 and get the corei5 ? i mean what are the improvements. ??
Good to know whats on the horizon, but i5 seems less like an upgrade than i7 does.
Plenty... its all depends on the enduser though. Do you need 4 cores? Do you render/encode video, etc etc. Not to mention clock per clock it is more powerful and more efficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by saveus222
So it's i5, I wonder why it's not i6 though, higher is better for marketing unless there's space left between for future (lowend die shrinked chip for instance). I have no problem with it being dual channel, makes it easier for me to pick RAM => 2x2GB. So what are the planned SKU's for i5 you think, what will be the highest clocked part at launch? 3GHz? Don't tell me all will be so low clocked like this ES here. I want at least a 3.8GHz clock to satisfy from upgrading from a C2D CPU and I don't expect these low clocked SKUs like this ES to reach that (on air 24/7 stable). :p:
Hmmm, have you not read the specifications of i5 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by saveus222
We 're talking about a quad core processor which means in case you mess with video editing, rendering and generally multi-threaded applications (or if you play GTA IV the worst game ever optimizing-wise :D), then you are going to be glad for that upgrade ;)
Higher performance, with less wattage than kentsfields/yorkfields ...
Greater clock per clock performance :up:
I'm out ... :p:
Not 3Ghz at launch i think. but something like 2.83Ghz should be fairly sure. At at sub 300$ for the "top bin" i5.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
Perhaps 32nm will be i6, i8 etc? ;)
Now the question is do you GTA4? :D
Waiting like 8 months just to get it cheaper is kinda, well, retarded :p: 45nm was more or less fine, it was like 2 months in between 45nm QX and dual cores. But more than half year, no way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
mATX, hmm, not for me - vga with accelero S1 (with 120mm fan) + xfi card is already 4 slots :D
Yea I think so too, but 2.83GHz part is fine as long as it clocks to 3.7~3.8GHz on air and price is sub 300 EUR which I'm sure it is as it's quite a while until Lynnfield launch still and i7 920 2.66GHz is sub 300 EUR so 2.83GHz i5 I'd really expect to at least match the one step lower clocked i7 920 in price by then. Hope we can expect to see such overclocks though, I have a feeling they'll come close in average to like 3.5 ~ 3.7GHz but not quite 3.8GHz other than on golden samples or going very excessive on cpu voltage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
i5 would OC just as good/bad as i7. Nothing different there, no extra voltage etc. Its simply a contest between 2-3way SLI/Crossfire and trichannel. Vs single card or "lowend" crossfire and dualchannel in those terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi
8 months retarded? Ooooo you just called all those folks talking about Deneb for the last 13 months or waiting even longer than 8 months retarded. Now you take it back right now:yepp::rofl:
Blauhung did substantiate the Lynnfield OC woes rumors somewhat, so who knows. If it turns out it does overclock it should be a great buy, triple channel is quite pointless. PCI-E on-die is also way cool.
uhh no thanks. Not a fan of microATX boards, and the lack of PCIe channels could be a real problem, as more stuff (slowly it seems) moves from PCI to PCIe. Oh and define "cheap" because it seems one person's "cheap" is another persons "pricey" or somewhere in between or whatever. A solid number would be helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
That prototype board is hideously ugly and bare, but I'm assuming being a prototype the final product would be a bit more filled out?
The 16/2x8 pcie lanes on the ondie controller are only for the gfx, there are another 8 pcie lanes on Ibexpeak.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
I'm wondering how 3D performance will compare to X58--someone should do a single-card comparison (x16 slot) and a taped-off SLI and CFX (x8-x8) comparison. Same clock speed, dual-channel memory, but how's performance with on-die PCIe?
Anyways--looks interesting. If I get the money, I'll probably go for i7 though.
If anything it should be faster , lower latencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobsama
The only point in waiting is for revisions and bug fixes. Also as time passes the prices always seem to go down as well :) Sometimes waiting is a good idea if you don't absolutely NEED a new setup. If you can do what you need to with your current rig there's really no need to step it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi
Oh my god this thread is moving beyond fast lol...
Duh, but how much faster? 1% 10% My question is whether or not PCIe communications saturates QPI enough to get a speed boost by moving the controller on-die. We'll see.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Graphics aint latency dependent. It wouldnt be that much of a change either in latency due to the already far traces I guess. So honestly I would say 0 difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobsama
Forget about overclocking Havendale/Lynnfield same as Bloomfield. It's different here since BCLK is routed (and controlled) a different way......
Here they probably only sold Phenom 2 this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi
Q3 is late.:mad:
No thanks , i will pass , LGA775 FTW ....
Its perfect for people like me who wont upgrade this year, doesnt need many slots (M-ATX is enough), wont ever use more than 1 video card, and does not need much Bandwidth (dual channel is more than enough for games and most common apps).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I would like to see M-ATX going mainstream big time, while ATX being more of an workstation/enthusiast solution :)
Are you sure it's not the same FUD that was spread prior to i7 launch? I thought Intel's take is that motherboard manufacturers have to decide whether to enable or disable overclocking features. In fact I expect i5 to be just a lower binned i7, when it comes to overclocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Blauhung works at Intel so I doubt he'd want to spread negative misinformation about Intel products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=90
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=164
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=11
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...2&postcount=68
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=102
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=104
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...94&postcount=5
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=119
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=119
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...87&postcount=8
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...3&postcount=70
If that doesn't convince anyone that there's a serious potential for these chips being solely candidates for Dells and laptops.. I don't really know what will.
I ran some comparisons with my i7 920 at the i5 settings. In 2 of the 3 benchmarks that I ran my 920 lost.
CPU Multi: 16
BCLK Freq: 133
DRAM Freq: DDR3-1066
Timing: (Auto) 7-7-7-20-1T
SuperPi 1M
i5: 19.017s
i7: 19.350s
Attachment 90471Quote:
Originally Posted by sxs112
wPrime
i5 32M: 11.42 sec
i7 32M: 12.013 sec
i5 1024M: 352.199 sec
i7 1024M: 363.435 sec
Attachment 90473Quote:
Originally Posted by sxs112
3DMark Vantage
CPU Test #1
i5: 1842.19
i7: 1858.49
CPU Test #2
i5: 17.45
i7: 112.03
CPU Score
i5: 13271
i7: 33061
Attachment 90472Quote:
Originally Posted by sxs112
This is great news :)
the real question is.....will it play gta4...i want bech marks if dosnt run gta4 at 55+ frames i aint buying...,,:rofl:
ok this is confusing for me to decide buy a i7 or wait i5. i understand the technical differences but what is that all vantage cpu test 3# point difference.
Do you disable PHYSX in driver for vantage test?Quote:
Originally Posted by msgclb
Obviously not, those points are impossible at those clocks without PhysX.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemaster
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
This image explain the situacion (this is with no PHYSX driver)
http://spacemaster.sx-team.com/Testo...%20Vantage.jpg
Now you know why Intel is shipping them 7 months later. Their biggest competition is themselves. Not i7 vs. i5, but i5 vs. Yorky and etc...........Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
Multi-Quote edit!Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
He did say "could lock" and not have locked. He also said he couldn't disclose any real info that wasn't already known. One comment nailed it! It went something like, who cases since we're not a large enough part of the market to matter anyway.
i920's biggest problem is most folks selling stuff to us thinks that enthusiasts means; "Folks with more money than Brains". I stand by comments made in that other threads as well. Once we were spoiled by post Dot-Bomb crash prices. Now they (the companies) are spoiled, They got that way from folks running out an buying $400 single socked motherboards.
$200 sound cards,
$250 Killer NICs,
$750 Video card and saying $500 video cards are acceptable
Yes and AMD's sales of X2 without a model selling for less that $350 until Intel forced them to. That's a fact, not a Fanboy comment of opinion.
I just priced one from Newegg for a friend. 6GB of DDR3-1333 for $190, MSI Mobo $224 and $299 for the C-i7. Newegg prices from Dec-9-2008 1508hrs. RAM being the same and one VAR told me, AMD-PII $225 and $130 for the Board, sorry, I'm on the Phenom 2 wagon if I didn't just say screw both and get a Q9550 LOL!
I completely forgot about the PhysX driver. I knew there had to be some reason for those Vantage CPU scores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemaster
3DMark Vantage
CPU Test #1
i5: 1842.19
i7: 1844.89 (no PhysX)
i7: 1858.49 (with PhysX)
CPU Test #2
i5: 17.45
i7: 17.27 (no PhysX)
i7: 112.03 (with PhysX)
CPU Score
i5: 13271
i7: 13249 (no PhysX)
i7: 33061 (with PhysX)
Attachment 90477
Dang!:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by msgclb
Now is ok! :) It appears to me that i5 will bee nice CPU :)
WTF ? I went carefully through these photos, like 10 times ! :confused: i5 is faster than i7 in SPi 1M / WPrime 32M & 1024M / Vantage CPU test ? :confused:
Is that normal ?
It seems likely :)Quote:
Originally Posted by George_o/c
so my answer is wait for i5 then
I think that most important question now is "how much i5 can overclock"?
But why is that happening ? ... Shouldn't it be the exact opposite ?
i7 gets my vote and i think Q-3 the price of i7 will be good :)
whats the small slot beside the DIMM?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
The die is also physically different then Nehalem (Bloomfield/Gainstown). Slightly different memory controller with the 2 channels, and QPI is removed and replaced with the PCIe controller. Die is approximately the same size.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon
Well not just shorter traces, but 1 fewer hop as all the data is sent from the die directly to the card. But still I agree with you on the fact that any difference should be well within the error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
It's still all about finding a lever to push up a reference frequency.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
SO-DIMM, laptop memory i believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by dduckquack
It's a validation board so they are testing everything.
I'm confused as to the purpose of this chip, the bottom line Ci7 is not all that expensive, and prices will drop as time goes. Not to mention the Ci7's performance is much better for a slightly higer cost.
The price difference is probably going to be big enough, just not on launch day. It will be the mainstream solution to slowly replace core 2 quads. Give it a few weeks/month after release and you will see the price difference in mobos, cpu and mem. Cheaper platform all around, without alot of compromises.
Ci5 will replace the P45-P43 S775 boards. I doubt you will see many Ci7 boards below 200€, and for the mainstream especial for the OEMs thats to much money to spend only on a motherboard. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by fiveprime
Ci5 boards will be in the 100-200€ range and everything above will be for Ci7. (Bling bling editions are an exception ;) )
What he said, i5 boards (was that P55?) only require a single "bridge" chip (Ibex Peak) that pretty much only has functions of a south bridge. There is no longer any north bridge. This reduces the total cost of silicon per board. Add the fact that it's only using 2 channel memmory and then you can reduce the ammount of DIMM slots and traces from/to the socket. Also with far less components on board, the power delivery requirements are dropped way down and you need far fewer expenditures in the way of power delivery circuitry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Finally, with all these reductions, mobo makers can do this all on 6 layer PCB's rather then 8 cutting costs by a final huge ammount.
So even though the cost per die to manufacture Lynnsfield/Clarksfield is pretty much the same as Bloomfield/Gainstown. The cost of the core i5 platform as a whole is greatly reduced from the end user standpoint.
edit: Oh yeah, and one more thing. I will be willing to bet that at the platform level, we will see on the order of a 10% power reduction between i7 and i5 at equal clock speed's and performance.
Core i5 looks great so far. Definitely awesome to see competitive products all around from Intel and AMD.
Let's bring on Q9650 price drops first though! I want a $350 one!
Not me:up: I'm looking at a 920 but the AMD version. Unlike a few others I don't have any allusions of grandeur. I know it will NOT be faster. I do think it will be close enough that the price difference will make that moot. I was just saying that I RESPECT those folks waiting for whatever they want to spend their money on.Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
That doesn't mean I'm going trash out AMD or Intel to justify what I buy. I like Blauhung and Dr Who, thanks guys! To those guys. With the markets in it current condition, Intel and AMD have more problems than each other. I'd hope they pull another Northwood April Fool's day surprise! Instead, I was told more like 2 years to the days Conroe launched.:( I'm not waiting that long but don't think those who do are retarded:up:
It will NOT drop anytime soon:( I'd like to have seen a $239 Q9550:D But it is still at $319 at Newegg!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
But why noone answers my question ... ? i5 is less expensive than i7, and still it performs better in the benchmarks we saw ... It simply, doesn't make sense ... :shrug:
Core i7 was designed for tripple-channel and has some memory latency "problems" (dual-channel performs about on par and sometimes it's faster). I guess that for a single socket platform a dual-channel design might be slightly better. Plus, there could be some general tweaks in this new chips, who knows? Remember the Intel TLB "bug"? Well, CPUs have many of such bugs all the time. It could be that they ironed out some kinks in the i7 design to make the i5 slightly faster clock for clock.
Things are looking good :)
you must have missed my post at the bottom of the last page....Quote:
Originally Posted by George_o/c
as a platform, i5 will be cheaper.
No I've read every post of this thead thoroughly ... every word maybe twice :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
I know it will be cheaper as a platform than i7 ... but why it's cheaper than i7 yet performs better than i7 ?
This is just outstanding! This company never ceases to amaze me at how on the ball they are. They are taking the PC Desktop market by storm, and are now positioned to take the low power chip maket by storm, along with the server market as well. It's awesome. The people who develop this stuff are getting it done, their marketing department has a cake walk with this stuff because it basically sells itself with a helpful nudge from them. No shady ad gimmicks or anything from them. Just first class all the way. They have the capital to weather this economic crisis we're in, and their R&D is just complete and total domination! :clap:
Intel! Dang people! You ROCK! Keep it up. :yepp:
ah, sorry, It's late and I'm still stuck at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_o/c
Most likely this is due to the fact that there's just less components to the platform. The i5 removes several unnecessary layers of hardware that just don't need to be there on a single socket board with the current arch.
Also, Core i7 is the server platform shoehorned into the single socket high end consumer market. Server platforms always tend to make sacrifices on performance to compromise and improve reliability and efficiency on specific work loads.
Ok thanks for your answer man - makes sense now :up:
Yeah, I even had doubts my self about my previous post, because I have't slept in like 24 hours and everything's kind of ... :p: :D
T_Flight: Man, you are literally worshipping Intel :ROTF: Are you looking for sponsorships or what ? :p: :rofl:
j/k man, it's just like your post, is so revolutionary ... :lol:
Call me hard to please, but I think the last year has been more about AMD failing to execute than Intel performing in a stellar fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
I think Intel have been good, but not outstanding in recent times.
I would call the introduction of Conroe as an outstanding achievement, but i7 and i5 aren't that significant an improvement over Conroe/Penryn for the time that has elapsed since Conroe's introduction.
PCI-E controller is on die on the i5 and is NOT on the i7 but i7 has more PCI-E lanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_o/c
It's how you use it maybe. i7 is made to do lots more of a server chip made for multi-tasking, Vitalization, connect to other chip (disable sections) and etc.... It also has more PCI-E lanes. Sure there are little or smaller gains to be seen now . It is just like comparing Dual core compared to Quad core about 18 months ago. As more and more threads are ran, bandwidth is chewed up or used. So sure one test at time might not show much difference, let's put it to work on more than one thing at time and see what happens?
So I wasted my money on i7? AAHHH
Note: this similar to x48 vs P45, same processors, just different PCI-E lanes, and of course the other architectural differences, but thats mainly it.
and we all know how good the P45's performed
I'm kinda blown away. Seriously. I do go overboard sometimes. :) I just found something with my system a few days ago and have found it's a processing beast. Basically I found out we don;t really have the proper benchmarking programs to fully test it with except for a couple...one in particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_o/c
This i5 thread comes out of nowhere and dang if it ain;t showing scores I never would've believed had I not seen them. That is a lower clocked, low power chip! I read the thread and had to post about it.
It's like what are they gonna do next? Roll out an 8 core 16 threaded monster and call it i10? :ROTF: I can't contain myself anymore.
Kind of ... I've said it a lot of times ... Upgrade early (once the new technology is out) ONLY if it's urgent ... if you have a workstation full of servers for example, or work with an hdd that has virtualization with 2 OSs ... If not though, wait for the new technology to mature, and then upgrade ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ap4lifetn
I also hear some guys, suggesting others to buy i7 in order to play GTA IV ... Are we nuts here ? :D This game doesn't need i7 so that you play normally ... it needs a proper "face-lifting" from Rockstar® - I'm talking about the patch here of course ...
But that's enough off-topic, let's end it here :)
I find it odd how this test was conducted using laptop DDR3, and a notebook power adapter...i mean i know its a development system, but are they really that broke?
What clock speeds are these supposed to hit on launch? Seeing as how these have the same L3 Cache as i7, they will probably be limited to 222BCLK also, so lower multipliers won't let them overclock too high.
Yeah, I can fully understand you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
You are describing it with nothing but enthusiasm, but you 're right, nehalem's fast ...
But you know what ... Maybe it's not as fast, as we initially thought it would be ... I saw specific people posting on forums right after their upgrade to Conroe (mostly E6600 and E6700) : "I'm not buying anything else for my pc, I'm waiting for nehalem @ early 2009" ... I now see the same people posting : "I'm ok with my Q6600 @ 3.6GHz (yeah they upgraded when Q6600s were insanely cheap :D), I'm gonna wait for the REAL technology, 32nm here we come" ...
What's happening here ? Maybe these people aren't satisfied with the progress Intel made ? I mean it's clearly not the progress we noticed from Pentium D to Conroe, or Kentsfield to Yorkfield ...
Nehalem are fast and perform really really well ... But, I reckon, they don't dazzle us ... they don't jump off the page :cool:
We can't be a 100% sure about i5's overclocking potential, 'cause well ... it's too early :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by ap4lifetn
But yeah, I suppose that they are going to be something like 920 or 940, overclocking wise :)
That's only my personal opinion though, not based on facts or anything ... And I'd appreciate it, if anyone here knows sth about i5 overclocking capabillities :)
You didn't wasted your money on i7 ; you bought the highest performing combo available on the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by ap4lifetn
Intel has no intention to rapidly ramp the i series ; they are milking Core ( Penryn/Yorkfield ).The yields are simply excellent , the designs are true and tested , performance is within I7 range in desktop apps.Why bother with a design which is 2.3x larger and comes with DDR3 ?
I series are needed in servers and high end workstations ( basically from 2P up ) and that's where the push will come early next year.
I5s are set for release in Q3/early Q4 from rumors , that's 10 months from now.
I don't see why ppl are hating on nehalem's performance, or at least the not that huge boost in speed.. there's clearly no need at the moment for intel to produce another monster of a chip aka conroe style when their chips already outperform amd's best offerings by a mile.
I would say that it depends on the application. i7 is a workstation so it will perform better on those apps. i5 is desktop so it will perform better on desktop apps. As far as price well it's cheaper to fab i5 i.e. die size? yields?Quote:
Originally Posted by George_o/c
i7 is as much of a jump in performance as Core was.Just that people looking through game centric glasses ( and desktops too )forget that games are not centrum mundi.Quote:
Originally Posted by noinimod
Other than games ( once that new graphic drivers are optimized for I7 , not to mention games, things will change here too ) i7 pretty much stomps Core 20-50% across the board.
What's more , in workstation apps and servers it will simply trash the current Harpertowns.That's what it was designed for after all.
They are identical except I5 has PCI-E and lacks QPI , a small change to the uncore part.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
You didnt waste money buying i7 over i5 as such. unless you bought something you wouldnt use.
i7=trichannel, SLi/Crossfire up to 3 GFX cards.
i5=dualchannel, "lowend" x8 crossfire or only single card.
The cores are 100% identical. Same quadcore with HT and 8MB L3.
i5 and i7 basicly cost (close to) the same to make. Its all about the rest of the platform.
Question is what about multiplier, can we expect higher multiplier than i7, or same like i7 for the start? 16 is ok, but 20, 22, 24 is more interesting for overclock. :)