New Intel Core i7 CPUs show up unannounced

Intel's Core i7 has become somewhat of a mainstay in the most recent wave of gaming rigs, but it's been quite awhile (in processor years, anyway) since we've seen any new siblings join the launch gang. We'd heard faint whispers that a new crew was set to steal the stage on May 31st, and those rumors are looking all the more likely now that a few heretofore unheard of chips have appeared online. The 3.06GHz Core i7 950 is shown over at PCs For Everyone with 8MB of shared L3 cache and a $649 price tag, and it's expected that said chip will replace the aging Core i7 940. Moving on up, there's the luscious 3.33GHz Core i7 Extreme 975, which is also listed with 8MB of shared L3 cache but packs a staggering price tag well above the $1,100 mark. If all this pans out, this CPU will replace the Core i7 Extreme 965 as Intel fastest Core i7 product. Just a few more days to wait, right?

[Via PCWorld]

Read - Core i7 Extreme 975 listing
Read - Core i7 950 listing

[alexster404 @ May 27th 2009 8:13PM]

4 real?!

[Shinigami @ May 27th 2009 8:43PM]

Yeah. No affordable i7 CPU yet.

[Game_playa @ May 27th 2009 9:20PM]

Are you high? The Core i7 920 has been $229 at microcenter for ages now, and good mobos from Gigabyte and such are $200. Just $50 more than a normal setup, but with all the added benefits of i7. So take your whining(and possibly trolling) somewhere else

[Jamie @ May 27th 2009 9:27PM]

Yeah right. If I can get a Quad Core AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition, a great mobo, and DDR2 or DDR3 RAM for under $400 or a Core i7 920, an expensive mobo, and DDR3 RAM for over $600, I would choose the AMD over the i7. And seriously, their both quad cores. There's not much of a difference.

[Game_playa @ May 27th 2009 9:45PM]

Core i7:
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=10200445 + Core i7 from Microcenter for $230 = $460
PHII:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.190735 + http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145200 = 490
PWNT. Even if you get DDR2 ram for $40 less, it would still be less powerful than the i7 build.
IDK about you, but the i7 seems pretty competitive(Price and Performance wise) to me.

But to each their own.

[Game_playa @ May 27th 2009 9:47PM]

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0302727
The link to microcenter. DAMN YOU 3 URL LIMIT!

[Richard @ May 27th 2009 9:47PM]

"There's not much of a difference."

Performance reviews say hi.

[Jamie @ May 27th 2009 9:57PM]

@game_playa

You didn't have the same specs for the RAM. You chose cheap 3GB 1333 RAM for the i7 and more expensive 4GB 1600 RAM for the Phenom II. And the combo deal for the Phenom II and the mobo was $325 + $100 for the RAM = $425, not $460. So it is still cheaper. And I'm building a computer with an AMD Phenom II 955 Black Edition with a great mobo and 8GB of DDR3 RAM for $460. So when comparing the 2, the AMD is the better deal.

[Game_playa @ May 27th 2009 10:13PM]

Yes, my bad, I was looking a diff combo then when I added the prices. But look at these: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/260318-28-phenom-benchmarks
Do you see that the cheapest i7 (920) comes out better in almost all the tests than the highest end AMD cpu(955).
THAT is what I talking about, and would not let 50-60 dollars get in the way of better performance.

[Game_playa @ May 27th 2009 10:16PM]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145223
There ya go 1600MHZ 3GB ram from the same company for the same price as before (54). Triple channel is cheaper and faster(In this case)

[Jamie @ May 27th 2009 10:16PM]

@Game_playa

Also, the mobo that you chose for the i7 isn't an i7 motherboard "smarts".

[Game_playa @ May 27th 2009 10:34PM]

? Its an LGA 1366 board. As far as I know 1366 is Core i7 socket.

[The Walrus @ May 27th 2009 10:40PM]

AMD isn't a better deal if you get better performance out of the i7 and the ability to run tri channel

[iphonerulez @ May 27th 2009 11:24PM]

That 3.06 GHz bad boy processor is just begging for Snow Leopard and an iMac. That is some damn fine hardware Intel is turning out.

[The Walrus @ May 28th 2009 12:03AM]

Yeah, because Apple always puts decent processors at reasonable in their machines.

What is begging for, however, is a machine that can be upgraded by the user easily so it can make friends with some nice tri-channel DDR3 and up to date videocard

[Amrosorma @ May 28th 2009 12:14AM]

How many Phenom motherboards support both SLI and CrossFire?

[poematik14 @ May 28th 2009 12:35AM]

Jamie: AMD chips are inferior to Intel's in nearly every department except for price. Check the benchmarks and performance tests, and take your piss broke, ignorant ass somewhere else.

[ZER0Hz @ May 28th 2009 1:06AM]

poematik, thanks for pointing that out. *no homo hug*

I saw a comment in there that said something like "they're both quad core, not much difference"
last time I checked the i7 was the first processor with 8 total (physical and logical) cores. which means the AMD phenom II x4 wowthisisalongprocessorname black edition only has 4. and I iirc, amd piI x4's lost to intels core 2 quads. my core2 quad lost to an i7.
do the math, trolling dude

if amd didn't own ati (not going into why I prefer nvidia), amd would be dead.

[tekd @ May 28th 2009 1:27AM]

They're all quad cores so there's not much difference?!? Wow...ok, you go buy a regular Phenom (I) system then and keep telling yourself that while even dual-core Core 2's run circles around your computer.

The Phenom II gets absolutely annihilated by i7. Have you guys even seen the kind of overclocks i7 can pull off? You have to be lucky and pull out all the tops to overclock Phenom II to levels that any idiot with any i7 can do-the overclocking headroom is huge. Intel could bin all their chips at much higher speeds but why bother when AMD can't even beat the i7s at the lower clocks.

Face it, Phenom II is relegated to battling Core 2 Quads.
But whatever, if you want to live under the delusion that Phenom II is just as fast as i7 that's your choice, but don't try to convince other people it makes objective sense to spend virtually the same amount of money on a much slower system.

[Matt @ May 28th 2009 8:25AM]

Yeah. Core i7 is brilliantly fast, but it can make your money goes really fast too...

[exelan @ May 28th 2009 10:59AM]

T

[Dafrety @ May 27th 2009 8:14PM]

Now if only these would start really dropping in price. My 3 GHz Pentium 4 with a Nvidia 7600 GT is looking very old now.

[Shinigami @ May 27th 2009 8:45PM]

New gaming PC based on Core i7 will cost around $1300. Will make GTA4 fly - 60+ fps.

[blueangel00100 @ May 27th 2009 8:17PM]

Time to go back to newegg!

[Shugaazer @ May 27th 2009 8:21PM]

In before the 'AMD vs Intel rage,' and the 'BUT U CAN OVERCLOX TEH 920 4 LESS' crowds.

[barc0de @ May 27th 2009 8:47PM]

You didn't get in before. And they have a point.

[crescentdavid @ May 27th 2009 11:15PM]

They have a massive point. The 920 is being overclocked at unbelievable speeds with standard gear or even better with after market cooling, etc. This chip has a lot of overhead. And the mobos are making it super easy to overclock. It ain't rocket science.

[Fede @ May 27th 2009 8:22PM]

What about a replacement for the i7 920?
(and a drop in price of the latter... ;-)

[insky @ May 27th 2009 8:20PM]

$650?!
I think the next time I upgrade, it will be with AMD again. At least I can use the Phenom with my current motherboard...of course at that time I'll probably want to upgrade to a motherboard that can handle more than 4GB of RAM. I don't need the biggest and fastest that's out there...my penis isn't that small.

[patriotsn1 @ May 27th 2009 8:24PM]

someone's overly defensive!

[hexydes @ May 27th 2009 8:26PM]

Agreed. Intel might have the fastest chip on the block, but only if you feel like building a $1500+ system. Pretty much the only reason to go with the i7 is if you're doing video production/3D design, or heavy mathematical number crunching. Otherwise, just go with the $150 Phenom II and put your money into a better/second video card.

[why not the LS2LS7? @ May 27th 2009 8:31PM]

Hmm? Core 920s have been selling for $200 (retail, boxed) many times at Microcenter over the last month.

It outperforms the cheapest Phenom II at only a small price increase.

[pball_inuyaha @ May 27th 2009 8:32PM]

$1500 would only get you the best intel cpu and a good mobo for it probably, lol

I really wish amd could get some higher end stuff out, doesn't have kick intells a@@ just something better.

[mirakutea @ May 27th 2009 8:40PM]

$650 for just a consumer/prosumer grade cpu is pretty ridiculous... and its not even top of the line.

[mirakutea @ May 27th 2009 8:41PM]

Many wallets are cowering in fear at the mighty intel.

[Shinigami @ May 27th 2009 8:50PM]

For $1500 I can build myself a top-of-the-line gaming PC. One GTX 285 can take all you throw at it, doesn't cost as much now.
i7 includes 920, which costs around $200 (or so some say, since it sells for $300 here), mobo will cost another $200, $100 for memory, $330 for video, $70 for CPU cooling, $500 for the rest of bits (more than enough if you ask me).
This ($1500 PC) will get you a PC that runs GTA 4 at 60+ fps. If you want more, word "benchmark" means more than "girlfriend" to you (not good)...

[ChaosEntity17 @ May 27th 2009 8:22PM]

No replacement for the 920? I can't really say I'm surprised.

[The Angry Intern @ May 27th 2009 8:44PM]

the 930 is probably coming soon, they tend to release the higher level ones first

[Shinigami @ May 27th 2009 8:51PM]

Ok, where's my 910?

[strider_mt2k @ May 27th 2009 8:25PM]

Don't look, my beautiful buttery 920!

We'll just overclock you on up and everything'll be FINE!

(bastards)

[ca36gtp @ May 27th 2009 8:39PM]

That 950 is pretty much perfect in the newness/power/value trifecta. That said, Intel still needs to bring their prices down. For people who run programs that benefit highly from advanced SSE sets, they are great, but otherwise AMD is cheaper for 95% of the power.

[Shinigami @ May 27th 2009 9:10PM]

950 has a good value?
950 = $600 and 920 = $300. Half the price, same speed (OCed).
The only reason for 950 (and 940) to exist is to fill the gap between a $200-300 and a $1000+ CPUs.

950 is perfectly new but with damaged price. IMO.

[The Walrus @ May 27th 2009 10:44PM]

Shinigami: If you are going to OC the 920, why wouldn't you OC the 950?

[why not the LS2LS7? @ May 28th 2009 12:45AM]

Walrus:
The thing is people have found that the higher chips in the series don't really overclock any better than the 920.

[The Walrus @ May 28th 2009 12:49AM]

I see and by better you are saying that they both overclock to the same speed safely, right?

[windblownmonkey @ May 27th 2009 10:29PM]

The i7 doesn't make a lot of sense for gaming, if that is your purpose. The benefit is much smaller than say, dumping an extra 200 bucks into a video card instead(dual HD 4890's anyone?)
You may squeeze an extra 5 frames per second out of using the i7 over the Phenom II, or you could squeeze out another...I don't know...30 to 120 frames(depending on the game) out of doubling the video cards up.

If you do a lot of video encoding and such on a daily basis, then the i7 is a decent deal. Otherwise, you're throwing away your money. Video games aren't that CPU intensive really. Even a dual core is just fine for gaming.

[Joe @ May 28th 2009 12:07PM]

It really depends on the game... Using nVIDIA's SLI meter, I'm able to see just how hard my video cards are working in various games, and on the whole, you're right. However, because the 2 main consoles get by with very powerful CPUs with a focus on multithreading and mediocre video cards, I've seen a few console ports that don't optimize for video cards, but leave your CPU hurting.

GTA IV is the worst offender... My SLI meter shows that I'm never using more than 75% of my graphics processing power, but my CPU meter is pinned at 100% from the moment I start a game to the moment I quit. The same applies to Mass Effect, though not nearly so badly. After upgrading my videocard, I got a small increase in framerate. With the CPU, I got a lot more.

[tuaamin13 @ May 28th 2009 11:06PM]

Some of us like folding@home.

Other than that, you do get a bit more performance increase with the i7 when you do SLI/CF with higher end cards.

Core 2 Quads are non-native quads while the i7s are, so there's some architecture improvements in the i7, plus the integrated memory controller.

It's a very nice platform.

[Freddie @ May 27th 2009 11:28PM]

I've got my 920 running at 4.2 on air. Why upgrade?

[Gregorian @ May 27th 2009 11:35PM]

When are we going to see a 4Ghz processor? It's been years since the 3Ghz mark was cracked.