Intel Core i7 Processors [models & pricing] ! !

[Shintai]

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

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

[Slovnaft]

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.

[Sesto Sento]

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...

[Slovnaft]

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.

[informal]

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).

[Donnie27]

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? Where QPI and SMT will help on the desktop is VT and Multitasking.