Purported Intel Core i7 details leak out, 920, 940 and 965 models en route?
By Donald Melanson 
posted Sep 17th 2008 6:04PM
posted Sep 17th 2008 6:04PM
While some companies are already out there promising Core i7-based gear, we haven't yet heard many official specifics about the actual processors that'll be at the heart of them (at least not since their earlier Nehalem days). That's now changed in a pretty big way, however, with some supposedly authentic leaked materials revealing the complete spec list and some pricing details. Apparently, you can expect Core i7 920, 940 and 965 models to roll out in November, with 'em clocking in at 2.66GHz, 2.93GHz, and 3.2GHz, respectively. Each, as expected, are quad-core, 45nm processors, and each boast the same 8MB of shared L3 cache, 256kb of L2 cache per core, and TDP rating of 130W. No word on individual unit pricing just yet, but it looks like the Core i7 920 will run $284 in quantities of 1,000, with Core i7 940 upping things considerably to $562, and the "extreme" Core i7 965 demanding a hefty $999.[Thanks, kris120890]
cant you just overclock a 920 to the other two's speeds with the proper cooling?
erm not regular type computers with the average person who use it will be usefull. i mean air cooling will not be the same as liquid cooling. and people who dont know much about computers, they dont know either the liquid cooling system exists...
Where did liquid come into this?
You can overclock processors perfectly well on air - the current C2D's are renowned for having good overclocks without resorting to "exotic" cooling like peltier/water blocks.
For most people, the regular 920 will be fine. In most situations, including gaming, your performance will be bottlenecked by the graphics card anyway. For those who really want the extra performance, most of them are pretty savvy enough to overclock rather than buy new. Of course there are consumers who'll just buy the $900 processor just because it's got the highest number.
All the comments fairly unfounded about "not being able to overclock". Contrary to popular belief, intel are pretty much ok with people overclocking their chips - i mean they certainly support people who push them to 5-6Ghz using things like LN2 - obviously you void your warranty, but if they really didn't want people to do it then they would have prevented it a long time ago.
To back up that point:
http://techgage.com/news/more_details_on_overclocking_nehalem/
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-nehalem-overclock,5573.html
http://www.nehalemnews.com/2008/05/editorial-why-nehalem-overclockers-wont.html
Wow jon, you got annihilated.
2.4Q6600 running at 3.2. And thats the shitty B3 stepping. The G0 gets even more then that.
And all on a Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme that you can get for 40 bucks now.
And from initial reports, these are going to be excellent overclockers as well.
The Extreme 965 will most likely be the only one with an unlocked multiplier - making it *the* option to overclock with. But it's a $999+ chip most people won't buy. The 920 and 940 will more then likely have the multiplier locked, and since the QPI is NOT recommended to OC (this coming directly from Intel), we might not be able to clock them as much as we'd like. They probably had an Extreme 965 to showcase for Tom's Hardware.
Granted, we (still, sadly) don't all know that much about Nehalem, so all I (and many others) are saying today is mostly speculations, so we'll have to wait and see until we get retail samples to confirm what we need to know about the overclock-ability on this new platform.
October/November will be exciting for Intel fans, rest assured.
The Extreme 965 will most likely be the only one with an unlocked multiplier - making it *the* option to overclock with. But it's a $999+ chip most people won't buy. The 920 and 940 will more then likely have the multiplier locked, and since the QPI is NOT recommended to OC (this coming directly from Intel), we might not be able to clock them as much as we'd like. They probably had an Extreme 965 to showcase for Tom's Hardware.
Granted, we (still, sadly) don't all know that much about Nehalem, so all I (and many others) are saying today is mostly speculations, so we'll have to wait and see until we get retail samples to confirm what we need to know about the overclock-ability on this new platform.
October/November will be exciting for Intel fans, rest assured.
Seeing those prices, I'm glad I didn't wait for Nehalem to build my new computer. I got completely screwed when I bought a computer with an AMD 4800 X2 (right before they announced Core 2 Duo for the same price, grrrrrr) but I don't think that will be the case here. I've also got the Q6600 running at about 3.2 with a Zalman 9700 heatsink on it. It probably would have been fine on the stock intel cooler at 3.2 anyway (it idles at like 40, doesn't even hit 50 under load). I highly doubt that Nehalem is going to come anywhere close to the price/performance marks of either the Q6600 or the E8500, considering that those chips are 180 retail on newegg (and elsewhere) while Nehalem (according to this story, it could be wrong) will start at a minimum of 284 in quantities of a thousand (probably 350-400 retail. That's double the cost of the previously mentioned chips, for nowhere near double the performance).
I'm very interested to see some actual benchmarks for Nehalem. I know it's supposed to be all that and a bag of chips (for lack of a better term) but I wouldn't be surprised if my 3.2ghz OC'd quad core chip can atleast equal a stock 2.6 chip (probably with a locked multiplier). We shall see.
Maybe, I think these new CPU's don't use the same type of clock the current and older ones do. The memory controller is built in, so I'm not sure how it will work.
Put this in a Mac Book Pro please. Logo still fugly.
These are desktop chips...haven't heard much on laptop equivalents, but I imagine we won't hear about them untill we're into 2009 a ways.
Also, I kinda like the logo. Definately better than the old one at least.
agreed. but its the name thats gotta go. holy crap.
they have purposely made it so you cant overclock by having the memory controller built in...that way you cant buy a cheaper processor and get the same performance from a more expensive one.
And how does that work exactly? AMD has had their memory controller built-in for ages now, and they overclock just fine.
Sounds like Intel is run by a bunch of juice if you ask me.
I was expecting them to be a more hefty price. You can just get the low-end i7 and destroy anything that's currently out right now...
Those are bulk prices, not retail prices, you have to buy 1,000 to get those prices.
Core i7 is just taking what AMD did what... 8 years ago with Hyper Transport. QuickPath Interconnect, Bah!
*this is gonna have me instantly low ranked but i can't think of a better comparison*
Its like Apple and Microsoft. Apple implement something then a few years later Microsoft do something similar.
So are you saying Microsoft does a better Job than Apple when they finnaly get around to adding these features?
Because these Intels are faster than AMDs with the Core 2 Quad vs the Phenoms, and these i7s are faster than the Core 2 Quads.
Its clear from the absolute rave reviews of windows vista that i think Microsoft implement things better than its competitors /sarcasm
Sure, Intel score higher in benchmarks, its a fact! But you pay one helluva premium for it :P The Phenom 9950 is one excellent CPU and Intel doesn't offer anything at the price point that competes in bang for buck IMO :)
Anyway, that's not the point here :)
Hey, I'm just using your analogy to point that out.
Oh and the Q6600 beats out the 9950 HANDILY esp. because you can overclock it loads more and it's only 10 bucks more.
Never said the Q6600 wouldn't outperform when overclocked to oblivion but hey, that things not got long left if Intel's switching to a new socket :)
Since apple jumped from PowerPC to Intel (im sure its not just me on this) i have found stability and reliability to have degraded. Leopard on my powerbook is solid as a rock, but on my Alu iMac its been a complete bitch lol
Back to AMD/Intel - Every single AMD system i've used/owned has been solid and performed without a hitch, friends x2's, older 64's and Athlon XP's just never seem to give up :) Whereas the countless P4 boxes and even the newer Core 2's that have passed me seem great at doing one task, but as soon as a few app's are running they get all flaky.
I know that sounds like complete bull, but thats the experience i've had lol
Engadget, i can understand why you've added this Low Rank = Faded thing, but its really frustrating :)
so the fact that apple is using a GUI means nothing to you?
Frustrating? Then perhaps you shouldn't talk as though your own personal experiences speak for everyone else.
- P4 was never a great cpu family, no one is contesting that, not even Intel.
- AMD makes great products, but plenty of people have also had their share of frustration with AMD. Frequently switching socket designs just shows how incompatible AMD cpus are with continuously evolving hardware, and forces AMD users to buy completely new hardware when they want to just upgrade one component. Not to mention tons of driver issues (although Intel suffers the same from time to time).
- Unless you know exactly what caused your problems (not "just because it was an Intel chip"), please don't mix hardware and software issues together. The overwhelming majority of users have had a great experience with Core2, and while they do periodically encounter stability problems, they're almost always addressed with driver or firmware (software) updates.
Personally, if anyone just "passed me" a computer, I would automatically assume that there must be some problem, regardless of what brand of hardware is inside.
@Aaronage:
Well, in my case, ive had nothing but good experiences with my P4, C2D and C2Q, meanwhile my Athlon and Athlon X2 builds were absolute disasters.
What does the above tell you? Ones personal experience means fuck all.
If its enough for you to buy one brand over another, then so be it. Personally, i prefer to spend less money on an Intel chip and overclock the living hell out of it to get performance that no AMD processor can match, overclocked or not. And thats just a simple fact.
Until AMD has a cheap processor that can be scaled beyond that of highest end processors out there (that was once my Q6600), then ill stick with Intel.
And quite frankily, considering Apples track record for their recent PC's, i wouldnt lay the blame on Intel for the shit quality of your iMac. Thats Apples renouned "industrial design" at work right there.
I build about 15 computers a year. Not much, but they are mostly for personal use and some for friends. I've been using Core 2 Duos for the past two years and haven't had a problem other than two DOA motherboards.
I would wait for the reviews before opening one of these CPU's package. Sure, buy it on day one and buy as many as you can. See if the initial overclocking reports are good, otherwise, sell 'em!
What motherboards will support the i7?
The 'read' link says it's socket LGA1366. I assume it's a new socket? Any manufacturers announced i7-compatible boards, preferably with feature/price lists?
How do these compare to the Core 2 Quads? I assume we'll find out when they're released?
Definately a new socket. 775 is history.
Intel has announced that it's upcoming "X58" chipset will be compatable with Nehelem, but I haven't seen a real board yet, nor any announcements from Nvidia on their upcoming MB/chipsets.
The problem with the belief that you can get a lower mhz cpu and overclock it to run at the speed of the faster one is the fact that you can also overclock the faster one...
Higher stock speed chips don't generally have the clock differential that low end chips have. You have generally a greater overclock with a low end chip then with a high end, since that high end chip is already nearing its limit. They are all based on the same core (technically), its just that some are the pick of the litter.
But what can happen is that the process gets so good that all the chips end up being the same quality as the "pick of the litter" chips. They just purposely limit the speed of those top chips and sell them at the mainstream level/price. What you get is a processor that could have hit the "extreme" speeds anyways, but is clocked lower, thus you get one hell of an overclockable chip.
Take for example the Q6600 (i speak from experience). Initial versions could go from 2.4 to 3.0 - 3.2 without issue. Anything above is a stretch. The new stepping of that core could be taken right to 3.4 - 3.6 and beyond, and this is on a good air cooler. Meanwhile, 3.0 QX6850 extreme processors, on air, have trouble hitting 3.8. Give it water, and its awesome, but the same goes with the Q. The core is already at its limit. The extreme just lets you stretch the core more then stretching the north bridge.
How about mobos? would they require some specially 45nanos tailored boards?
How about mobos? would they require some specially 45nanos tailored boards?
Sounds awesome. Getting one. And it's a decent price!
The main difference between the "Extreme" edition of the i7 and the other two is the speed of the QPI. So simply overclocking isn't going to get you an 965 for the price of a 920.
And I'm not really sure what Intel is doing. It looks like they're phasing out the QPI and bringing back the FSB in future iterations of the mid-range Core i7's. And they're also shrinking the socket size for future models. So all these 1366 pin socks will not be backwards or forwards compatible.
I'm probably just going to build a Core 2 Quad system and wait for 32nm Core i7's in 2010.
so is this 08 or 09 release?
I never wanted the comments i left to appear arrogant as you found them, just my personal experiences with the two brands. I apologise if it comes across this way.
Low ranking grinds my gears anyway, understandable for spam and trolling not really for the majority who disagree with a comment left by the view of a minority. That defeats the point of leaving their views as no ones gonna give them any attention.
Both have there issues, of course, AMD's Athlon XP's were damn hot, Intel Net Burst architecture was crap etc. Not closed minded as to ignore that fact.
It's similar to what AMD was doing, sure. But QPI actually works. Early tests have shown that Core i7s are about 50% faster than similarly clocked Core 2 Quads. And we all know how much better Core 2 Quads are than Phenoms....
Does anybody think 130 watts is kind of high? The current high-end 4-core processors are 95 watts, and these new processors better have performance out of the stratosphere to justify P4-level power dissipation.
The dual-cores better be 65 watts!
I think it may have something to do with the integrated memory controller and QPI. It's not just the cores that are drawing power.
That's true, and it will be interesting to compare AMD's numbers to Intel's, since they will be much more comparable than they are now. And obviously, the P4 was a single core chip, while this is a quad core. It still seems like a lot of power consumption, and I hope the dual cores use much less.
decent prices, now can we have some specific motherboard announcements please Mr Manufacturers? I've got a case with a dead board and CPU and it needs some upgrading.
Can't slot an i7 into thin air.
Yep, I will be sad to see my Gigabyte DS3L with my e2180 @ 3.8ghz go away but Im ready for quad core. Looks like Im glad I waited. Now mobo pricing please!
Very exciting. I've hear about 4GHz easily. This processor will be a problem for AMD...
I saw here http://www.core-i7.com/ that this processor will be available at end october 2008. Is it true?
It looks like you're already available, actually.
The Core i7 900 series will ship October 31st, Overclockers UK opened them for pre-order, but have since removed them until a later date.
Many motherboards have been announced which support the X58 chipset with an LGA 1336, have a Google around for Gigabyte, MSI, DFI or Asus X58 boards.
Core i7s will have much higher TDPs than the C2Qs, because of the integrated memory controllers, but with this integration, we see massive increases in memory bandwidth and drastic reductions in latency. Also, Hyper Threading has been brought back, meaning that 2 threads can be run on each core, which will also contribute to this increase in heat dissipation.
Overclocking should be fairly easy with the Core i7 series... QPI can be overclocked to speeds in excess of 200MHz without ill effects, even though Intel doesn't recommend it (what would they know about their own product?? lol)... the only problem is RAM compatibility... Intel engineers have fried DDR3 DIMMs and damaged CPUs in several tests in which they increased the DRAM voltage beyond 1.65V in order to get tighter timings... this is a big problem, as most performance DDR3 RAM is currently specified for 1.7-1.9V (even though JEDEC standard is 1.5V)... Kingston, Mushkin, OCZ, Corsair (and possibly a few others) have or are currently retooling their performance DDR3 RAM to operate at these lower voltages (as far as I know, Kingston and Mushkin have finished this, but most others are still working on it).
In short, the new Nehalem architecture is an incredible leap forward for Intel and will greatly increase memory performance, but real world computing tasks will only be expediated due to the lower inter-core latency offered by QPI because the Nehalem line still uses the Intel64 set of instructions (Intel's transitional x86-x64 instruction set), and when it comes to gaming, Core i7 actually loses performance on some games, and will only run parallel to current CPUs of equal specs in others... so, for now, don't waste your money, wait until the Core i7 series comes out and reap the rewards of falling Core 2 Quad prices!
Check out this review of the core i7 with multi GPU's compared to core 2 duo and core 2 quads. The core i7 really shines in 3-way sli.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-multigpu-sli-crossfire-game-performance-review/