Intel Core i7-930 arriving Q1 2010

[randomizer]

I just want a cheap 6-core, screw more quads.

[Sam_oslo]

Well with the 960 intel bumps the bus to 135 to reach 3.2GHz (24x135) on the 24 multiplier. so if the 930 is going to reach 2.88GHz and not 2.83GHZ (21x135) the end clock will be 2.877GHz (21x137) with intel rounding up to 2.88Ghz.

This sounds logical, but will en up at x22 (with turbo)?
If this is replacing the 920 (with the same prise?), then how can those "overpriced" CPU's like 950, 960, 975 survive this one?

Maybe vi are looking at a whole new range av 32nm quad-Core CPU's?

[zalbard]

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16178/1/
Well, here we go. 2.88 Ghz over 2.66 Ghz. Just as much point to buy as 950 or 960 right now...

[Anemic]

Common sense. They would have been shouting it from the rooftops by now if they had a 32nm quad ready for Q1. There is no change in nomenclature either, baring the one implicating a higher multi. It's a Bloomfield plain and simple.

Yep, if it 32nm there would be ALOT more talk about this CPU. I doubt it but I do hope its 32. Would give me a reason to get rid of my Q6600

[Sam_oslo]

If these are 32nm, then Intel could make some noise and score some good PR right now. But on the other hand, with an increasing annoying AMD (with cheep quad-cores which is getting closer to performance, and cheaper everyday), could Intel be preparing a surprise for AMD (with 32nm Quad-cores)?

If AMD keep up with this cheap-quad trend, then Intel will soon end up loosing on price/performance (if not yet). It is clear that Intel needs to put a good distance on performance to AMD-quads, and then the big question is if 45nm can do the job?

All these are just speculations for now, but there is a good chance for a 32nm 930 + a few more 32nm quads to follow. And all will come just from the clear sky as a big surprise too, I guess.

[zalbard]

If these are 32nm

Well, they are not...

[Sam_oslo]

Well, they are not...

According to who?
Nobody knows yet!

[zalbard]

According to who?
Nobody knows yet!

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16178/1/
Posted above.

[Sam_oslo]

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16178/1/
Posted above.

Fudz is not exactly the kind of reliable source I was looking for. There is no official statement from Intel yet. It's safe to say nobody knows.

As stated, I don't know if this is a 32nm, but if it is a 32nm, Intel could keep it secret to hit with surprise, was my point.

[ecidious]

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16178/1/
Posted above.

The only reference to the 45nm process is in reference to the 920, before the 930 is even mentioned so that isn't proof. 32nm would be a big win for them, but a very expensive win so who knows.

[proxis]

they bumped 940 to 950 and now to 960 (also 965 to 975) so there is finally a bump at the bottom of the range : 920 to 930

albeit i dont think theres any point to 930 , even multipliers (like 22 which you will get after turbo) just dont work well with 1366

[zalbard]

Don't think they'll want to hurt Gulftown sales which comes in Q2 tbh.

[highoctane]

I'm more interested in it possibly being either a newer/improved stepping or a smaller process.

[Sam_oslo]

Dropping a 930 with x21 multi will mess up the whole line up of existing CPU, unless 950 and 960 are getting a replacement too. But bumping these will mess up the sale of 975.

This is going to get expensive for Intel, no matter how you look at it, but that's where the good part for us kicks inn. I will put my bet on a new range of 32nm Quads from 930 to 985?.

[zalbard]

Well, they replaced 950 with 960, they will also replace 920 with 930. Doesn't mean you have to upgrade. Same effect as AMD bumping their chips' frequency by 200 Mhz now and then I guess. And we all know that it's not really important when it comes to overclocking. Just creates a 'false' feeling of progress.

[Sam_oslo]

I agree, those 200MHZ are mostly "fake". They are just the OC of the same CPU (with the same max-multi). But this 930 seams to be bumping the multi to x21, and up to x22 with the turbo?. This makes @4.6GHZ(210x22) easy on many motherboards, and on 45nm this seams to be what we can get on good water cooling for 24/4, and in case, it will be a great danger to the sale of the 960. Unless 960 will be getting replaced too?

[ajaidev]

I don't think this will be 32nm, i9 would suffer in sales if it is so. The reason is that if this is 32nm that means it will have a smaller footprint than the i9 that means lesser heat, means higher clocks at lower TDP/Power.

People who crunch would prefer a pair of cheap 32nm quads than a expensive i9 system.

[highoctane]

Just creates a 'false' feeling of progress.

Thats why I'm hoping 930 will at the very least bring a new stepping not just a clock bump, a new process would definitely make it a nice upgrade.

[Sam_oslo]

Intel dose not have a tradition to change the name with a "new stepping", it would call it 920 E0. 930 may have a new stepping too, but it won't be he most important part of it. There is a bit more "importance" in bumping the multi up.

[highoctane]

Intel dose not have a tradition to change the name with a "new stepping", it would call it 920 E0. 930 may have a new stepping too, but it won't be he most important part of it. There is a bit more "importance" in bumping the multi up.

Well I guess I see it slightly different, look at what G0 did for the Core2 series compared to B3 or even the changes to D0 for the i7 series. From what I've seen stepping improvements can sometimes not always lead to significant improvements in the finished product.

Just knowing what my C0/C1 i7 needs to run the same on avg compared to what D0's on avg it's a fairly significant difference.

[HamidFULL]

if this is 32nm im soooo gonna get one

32nm? impossible!! just MP 21x no more no less

[zalbard]

I don't think one can push much more out of Intel's current 45nm... So probably no significant stepping changes.

[rogueagent6]

That return policy on cpus and motherboards is no different than it has been. I pulled an old MC receipt I have from Feb. 2008 and the return policy is exactly the same as it is on the receipt from stuff I purchased at an MC last Friday....so there's been no change at all, really.

The policy changed in 2007 iirc.

[To(V)bo Co(V)bo]

Well with the 960 intel bumps the bus to 135 to reach 3.2GHz (24x135) on the 24 multiplier. so if the 930 is going to reach 2.88GHz and not 2.83GHZ (21x135) the end clock will be 2.877GHz (21x137) with intel rounding up to 2.88Ghz.

I agree, those 200MHZ are mostly "fake". They are just the OC of the same CPU (with the same max-multi). But this 930 seams to be bumping the multi to x21, and up to x22 with the turbo?. This makes @4.6GHZ(210x22) easy on many motherboards, and on 45nm this seams to be what we can get on good water cooling for 24/4, and in case, it will be a great danger to the sale of the 960. Unless 960 will be getting replaced too?

I really think this isnt going to happen. Intel has always been stingy with the multipliers on a value part. There is no way they will bump it to 21. This would kill the sales off the top end parts. Even with a 20 or 21 turbo multi on 920 we can almost get as high as possible, heat regardless. I will not be surprised if they took away a multiplier. Every 1336 chip has had a whole multiplier before, and there has never been a chip without 133 bclk.

20x144=2.88

19x150=2.85

21.5x133=2.86

[To(V)bo Co(V)bo]

your wrong, i7 960 is 24x133=3192. They just rounded to 3.2