Intel said to slip Core i5 platform to September, competition needed
By Thomas Ricker 
posted May 26th 2009 4:15AM
posted May 26th 2009 4:15AM
[Via PC Perspective]
posted May 26th 2009 4:15AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
K sorry for the ignorant question.. but why is i5 coming out after i7 and how does it compare performance wise?
It is my understanding, and a quick search of Google, i5 is the desktop variant of i7, which is more focused on workstation and higher end computing.
Intel usually release the highest-end of their new generation first, since it's primarily enthusiasts who buy those processors. Afterwards, they can evaluate their real-world performance and make small design changes, ready for the mainstream desktop processors. An example of this is the new D0 stepping for the current i7 series.
I'm a bit peeved though, was looking forward to nabbing an i5 system this summer :/
i7 - high-end, more expensive, LGA 1366
i5 - middle-end, slower, less expensive (was supposed to be... like up to $600, instead of $1000-1500) LGA 1156
i3?
They're not compatible. i5 has cheaper CPUs and motherboards (I think).
@Shinigami
Sounds like BMW's nomenclature, the 3 series, 5 series, 7 series. Last time it was the MB. E class, C class, M class.
I guess they are not very creative.
pfft i was hoping the i7 stuff was going to get cheaper.
still expensive when compared to the price/performance ratio of something like the E5300 which for most tasks is perfectly adequate.
i7 has a triple channel IMC (Integrated Memory Controller) whereas i5 will not use an IMC and will go back to the old Northbridge design.
New Northbridge chips like the P55 and G55 will also be released to support the new processor.
This is the main reason for the difference in socket (1366 vs 1156)
Expect i7 to stay in devices like the XPS, Firebird, etc whereas the i5 will be mainstream and will end up in normal desktops everywhere.
I am hoping that Intel will speed up the release of USB 3 and then will release an ICH11 in time for Core i5 that will contain USB3 and SATA3.
But I am guessing that they will simply re-use the ICH10/ICH10R Southbridge Chip which means only USB 2.0 even though 3.0 will be ready less than a year later.
Perhaps we will see boards next year with P55 and ICH11 running USB3/SATA3.
And then just in time for the i7 Tick (Die Shrink to 32nm) we will have X58 boards also using ICH11R
Gotta love this stuff even though it is maddening how things keep changing.
Casper42:
That's incorrect.
Core i5 uses an internal memory controller, but it is two channel not three. It does not return to FSB.
Also, Core i5 also integrates the PCIe controller into the chip too. Doing this removed the last need for a super fast external processor bus, so the hyper-transport-like QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) is also removed. It instead has a somewhat slower connection to the north and south bridges.
Core i5 will produce benchmark performance within 10% of Core i7 clock-for-clock. Some very memory-intensive operations may be slower due to the lack of a 3rd memory channel.
Well, son of a bitch !
@Casper42
That is totally incorrect. Please don't write responses if you don't know WTF you are talking about
Whereas the Core i7 had a quickpath connection to the X58 northbridge (where the PCIe controller is), The Core i5 (Lynnfield) gets rid of the northbridge chip completely, instead having the PCIexpress controller integrated directly into the processor along with the integrated memory controller (thus removing need for a FSB or quickpath) It then uses a DMI (basically PCIexpress) connection directly to the Ibexpeak southbridge --- Thus a two chip solution in comparison to Core i7's three chips.
The only other real difference is the fact that the Core i5's memory controller is only dual-channel compared to the triple channel in the Core i7. Despite that, it should have very good performance not far from the i7. The Core i5 platform also uses a lot less power than i7.
This could still be seen as a good thing. Intel spent billions on the fabs and development for this as well as the current i7 iteration. By delaying they can recoup more money, which in turn, will go back into development.
No doubt some will simply dismiss that, claiming how Intel is abusing their dominance in the market and will point to this as them being stagnant without competition.
Intel is still hard at work, developing the next generation, and the generation after that.
Just because they are ahead without much competition doesn't mean they gave their engineers vacation time so Intel could sit around, collect money and wait for a rebuttal by AMD.
The only downside is yes, we will not get to see the benefits of Intel's undoubtedly remarkable efforts just yet, but they are still out there and they are still hard at work and soon enough, we will reap what they have sown.
@ Iam9376
Do you work for Intel or something? Or have you not been following the news? Nobody is much interested in Intel's justification for their business practices, not after the EU's monumental fine against them for stifling competition.
@Gad Get
No I don't, stifling competition doesn't stifle innovation, not in any real sense; and that is the point I was attempting to get across.
Intel is still 'looking ahead', innovating and developing, and that's all that matters. My point being, they are not stagnant even though they are on top.
I did not bring their business practices into the conversation, as you felt was necessary, I do not. What happened happened, they were penalized. That, however, is not my concern.
--
AMD's situation is their own doing, even while they had a superior product they failed to properly market their product and gain marketshare. Now while your rebuttal will be due to the EU's finding, it does not change the fact. They failed to beat Intel where it mattered, and what's worse is they have fallen behind in the technology they so desperately need to excel in to survive. To make matters worse, AMD's only respite is their 'break free' campaign, which obviously hasn't helped.
With that said, I don't care to get into the semantics of the Intel bad, AMD good argument. Intel produces the technology I want, and continues to push the envelope, AMD has failed to do so. If Intel's shady business tactics have insured their continued evolution, improvement and innovation then so be it; We still benefit.
But, that's just my opinion, I'm more for the advancement than the politics.
Cheers.
...
Superhobo makes an excellent point.
Except for the small fact that Intel's "shady business practices" have caused AMD to be no real competition, which has kept their prices higher than they would have otherwise been. So no, we don't really benefit /as much/ as we could.
I totally agree with Iam9376 - if this was 2 years ago, I'd say... competition needed but since everything expecting recovery in about 6 months or more, Intel's move is the right move and this is what makes Intel different to AMD, AMD jumped into cold water with ATi before acquiring the capital to manage it and it almost destroyed them.
in other words the world has lots of extra waiting time to wait for the good stuff.
I agree with Iam9376. What some of these "pro-competition" folks really seem to want is government-managed competition, or socialized competition. Who cares how hard you worked for your market share! You get x% just like everyone else! You can't leverage your position in the market just because you have a better product! You have to charge the same price as Via does!
I am just waiting for a company to stand up to the EU's litigative garbage and just stop doing business there on principle.
Big Businesses' primary responsibility is to: Increase stockholder value. Everything else is secondary.
If you have a product better than your competitors', spending more money on R&D will not increase stockholder value. It also will not buy you vacation estates in the Bahamas.
Close competition causes higher R&D budgets, because they are either trying to catch up or stay ahead.
increased R&D will increase shareholder value, you have more weapons in your arsenal for when the inevitable competition or something else arises - it could also reduce the cost of manufacturing etc and increase profits that way, its shortsighted to say otherwise.
Chris is a moron. The whole point of government intervention in anti-trust is to ensure fair competition which strengthens the free market, not hinders it. It is as far from "socialized competition" -- whatever the **** that means as it gets.
If you read the details of the case, Intel was clearly in the wrong abusing their strong position in the market to keep AMD from having a fair chance through shady tactics they used with OEMs. They should be competing on who has the best technology for the best price, not who can best manipulate Dell and HP to screw the other guy.
Intel doesn't need a strong competitor, it's needs to stop putting the letter "i" in front of the name of their products, that's what it needs.
Yes because that never works....
yea, i just read that new scientist page before i saw it here. Its quite an interesting technique that they use. If anyone wants to understand it, without getting into too much jargon then head over to New Scientist and read the article.
Im sorry engadget, but this didn't have enough detail for me.
Otherwise, great reporting and i look forward to seeing "10TB/inch" F*** that big.
yea, i just read that new scientist page before i saw it here. Its quite an interesting technique that they use. If anyone wants to understand it, without getting into too much jargon then head over to New Scientist and read the article.
Im sorry engadget, but this didn't have enough detail for me.
Otherwise, great reporting and i look forward to seeing "10TB/inch" F*** that big.
what article was that... i just read the last 2 weeks copies back to back.
If this is slower than i7s then isn't the competition already out? Phenom 2 doesn't win over i7, but it comes quite close.
@ patriotsn1
No, it doesn't work. Not when companies beat it mercilessly into the ground by putting it on every product made from processors to George Forman grills for over a decade.
They aren't even beating a dead horse now. There is just smacking a smoldering crater a hundred feet wide where the horse once was.
Enough.
They can't sit around and wait for very long anyway. They will always be haunted by the fact AMD have pulled things out of the bag in the past i.e Athlon 64.
AMD won that one because a) it was a simple x86 derivative (as opposed to the awful P4 clusterfuck) and b) it exploited the performance benefits of a 64-bit computer processing 32-bit instructions.
As 128-bit is still many many many years off, I can't see them pulling that one out of the bag again...
Or, alternatively, Intel could be putting the switch off because if they don't then the resellers are going to be left with a large volume of 4-series hardware that they can't sell, thus losing them lots of money. A great way to annoy your retailers is to leave them with piles of obsolete hardware they can't shift.
Or, if they released the i5 hardware while there's still loads of 4-series stuff about then they'd put the 4-series hardware on sale to get rid of it. Seeing as it's actually still pretty decent hardware this would severely dent the sales of the i5.
Sure, they're maybe not under too much pressure to get stuff out the door at the moment but it's not like it's all AMD's fault.
Besides, arguing that AMD can't compete for the same price point is pointless until the platform has been thoroughly benched. For all we know it could kick Phenom II's arse or it could be a disappointing flop. Price and GHz don't really tell you much these days.
apologies guys, im not sure what came over my computer with that post. i tried to auto login using lastpass and it posted that.....
You had us all pretty confused for a bit!
Supplication to the chip makers:
Fancy £300 CPUs are nice
But budget wise about thrice
As much as i would like to spend
So what if the performance makes my mind bend?
So reign in the prices
Its an economic crisis!
So come on, release Core 3
I will buy 10... probably
26th May
Oli Dipple
Witty, yet so frickin' gay at the same time. No offense.
Needs moar crumpets.
OLIOLIOLIOLIOLIOLIOLIOOOOO
@serious Yeah i know :(
I felt like some poetry
@Superhobo, i believe you call them English Muffins?
Also, technically Core 3 has been released. the energy efficient Core 2 Quads are the first of the new platform.
Wait, crumpets and English muffins are the same thing?! It appears I'm a crumpet-lover then. Hmmm, never woulda thought...
No its a common US misconception, Muffins are more like a light bread, whereas Crumpets have more gelatin in them. The two are often conflated into a single carbohydrate based delight by Bakery-ignorant Americans.
I'm not American.
"Of course, if AMD or... well, AMD could muster the silicon to compete with Intel"
Or maybe VIA!
x86 is just one instruction set. There are like 4 companies that can make x85 cpus, legally. If you want competition, you want to give alternative architectures a serious shot, and that won't happen until open source software is the norm. Robust competition in the cpu industry may not be seen for another ten to twenty years.
In other news, engadget still doesn't have post edits.
If this is slower than i7s then isn't the competition already out? Phenom 2 doesn't win over i7, but it comes quite close.
Performance wise, yes, [Phenom II] may equal/trounce the i5 series, but will it beat Intel on price?
They could undercut AMDs chip by a significant amount and still make money through volume sales to OEMs and brand identity alone - hell, the reworked el-cheapo Pentium D processors can be overclocked a hefty amount to nip at the Core 2's heels, let alone the equivalent AMD chip.
It is not revolution, it is evolution.
Lynnfield just integrates memory controller, which was on the 3- or 4- series chipsets before. So you cannot use older chipsets with new processors. I think even the socket is quite different. This means that you need to get motherboards to the market, and you have to wait for mobo manufacturers to dump their old stock.
And like superhobo said, competition is already out. Phenom II is close to Lynnfield in architechture than current Core2 architechture. Lynnfield is essentially a slower i7, so I wouldn't be too excited over it, seeing that AMD seems to be cheaper now, when there is no word about motherboard pricing.
But processors need to evolve and this a nice step for intel to new processor architechture. Now all we need to do is wait until the prices of these come down to reasonable level. Early adopters need to pay quite a fee over Phenom II to buy these.
I don't think it changes very much at all, it probably just got delayed for intel's own internal reasons with what's more cost effective to produce and what's selling. As pointed out, it's slower than i7 so it's mostly a question of when Intel is going to stop producing Core 2 CPUs (and the requisite chipsets for motherboards) and make both the low and high end based on i7-type CPUs.
Without AMD around intel would certainly charge higher prices, but at the end of the day they'd still have to convince you to upgrade your processors once in a while and that would always require them to compete against themselves at the very least. And if AMD fails there's always the increasing pressure from nVidia, etc.
I suppose it is no longer for internet hippies to rally against "big oil", "big pharma", and "big agro". It's time to find another successful corporation to blame for the world's problems! Fuck big chipmaker!
Fight the power!
...or something.