Leaked Intel roadmap specs upcoming Core i5 and i7 'Lynnfield' CPUs

Looking for something to print out and put on your wall that demonstrates the full extent of your Intel dedication? PC Watch has some mighty high resolution charts of the company's desktop and mobile CPU roadmaps, including a handful of chips that we haven't seen before. On the Lynnfield / desktop side, there's the Core i7 870 (2.93 to 3.6GHz) and 860 (up to 3.46GHz), due out second half 2009, with the latter having a greater range in available clock speeds and a less power hungry, 82 watt version due out next year. Listed squarely in the Q3 2009 column is one of the first spec'd Core i5-branded chips we've seen, the 750 (up to 3.2GHz), which also boasts a more energy efficient iteration due out sometime in first third of 2010. Looking to mobile, the three Core i7 Clarksfield processors that were recently rumored for September are also listed here for Q4 of this year as 720QM, 820QM, and 920XM, and on the more value end of the charts, Intel's Atom / Pineview series (N450 for mobile and D410 / D510 for desktop) is listed for release just after the stroke of 2010. There's seriously a lot to digest here, so if reading over large multi-colored tables full of data is your idea of a fun time, hit up the read link for a veritable gold mine of delight.

[Via Electronista]

[Ben @ Jul 15th 2009 5:05AM]

right so does i7=lynnfield not bloomfield? Or is it a new design of the die?

[distantbody @ Jul 15th 2009 6:16AM]

desktop i7 = bloomfield + lynnfield

bloomfield = i7, LGA-1336

lynnfield = i7, i5, LGA-1156

gulftown = i9, six cores, twelve threads, LGA-1336


check this table out for details: http://www.hardware-infos.com/img/startseite/intel_core_i3_i5_i7_i9.jpg

Yeah, clear as mud, which I believe is Intels intention, for whatever reason; more confusion means more unnecessary purchases perhaps. Anyway, if AMD plays is cards right, it could take the Intel confusion as an advantage, but I guess AMD often doesn't play its cards right, I mean they don't even have an advertising campaign for gods sake.

[Li @ Jul 15th 2009 5:16AM]

save up for an i7 system......

[Orinjz @ Jul 15th 2009 6:02AM]

Does this post set the new Engadget record for the most tags associated with it?

[LondonConsultant @ Jul 15th 2009 6:09AM]

Too much data in one go for my brain...

[Doug @ Jul 15th 2009 6:54AM]

Leaked on purpose!

[Doug @ Jul 15th 2009 6:54AM]

Harry Potter kills Snape and in a pit of rage murders Dumbledore as well!?!??! WTF!?

[TimmyRaa @ Jul 15th 2009 7:41AM]

I may well get low-ranked for this, but does anyone really follow what the very latest and greatest chip is anymore, which will take you from 85fps to 86fps in Crysis or whatever, let alone actually buy them at their stupid prices?

Maybe I'm just getting old, or maybe the scene really has changed now, but I've not needed to buy a new CPU for about 5 years - my Athlon X2 is still going strong, and the only reason I'd change it anytime soon is if it or the motherboard dies. Then surely you just upgrade to something mid-range (nice balance of power and price) and you're set for another half a decade.

Yeah, it's nice that Intel (and AMD to a lesser extent) are always innovating and bringing new stuff out, but I can't really see any hype in it anymore.

[Andrew Timson @ Jul 15th 2009 7:45AM]

Personally, my CPU is 6 years old, and I'm finally looking to upgrade (to run Dragon Age later this year, and as an added bonus, actually get a modern GPU since my old board is AGP). Given that Intel's shifting to a new socket set, my plan is to get an i5 (their new midrange) when they come out, in hopes of the CPU upgradability lasting as long as possible.

So yeah, I'm following the latest and greatest, in hopes of maximizing the lifetime of my next CPU. :)

[neofolklore @ Jul 15th 2009 8:29AM]

Some of us actually create and render things, which could always use more processing power and more/faster RAM.

Whowouldathunk.

Personally I am MORE than satisfied with my i7 920 OC, I can render at 1920x1200 in about a minute now. Large enough for prints and for digital display (yay). Would have taken my previous computer 12 hours (pentium celeron D) to do the same thing.

[LondonConsultant @ Jul 15th 2009 8:35AM]

TimmyRaa - I guess you've never edited AVCHD video...

[TimmyRaa @ Jul 15th 2009 8:35AM]

@neofolklore

Whowouldathunk indeed. I realise there are some applications which require as much processing power as they can lay their hands on, but with the relatively small gains compared to the massively higher costs that comes with the very bleeding edge of processors, there can't be that many applications which makes that worth it.

And in fact, you proved my point by stating that your $300 processor is plenty for you - you can render stuff in a minute. For an extra $500 you could get the latest and greatest and shave maybe 5-10 seconds off that. Is that worth another $500?

[AnnoyingPoster @ Jul 15th 2009 8:58AM]

You just contradicted yourself by saying that its not worth it to care about NEW architectures, then agreed with the guy who said the Core i7 was a big improvement and worth the money, then started rambling about getting a higher clockspeed of the current gen i7...

Make up your mind, are you arguing the fact that its not worth it to buy higher end lines of current gen CPUs or that it is not worht it to upgrade at all to new platforms and architectures?

Either way you dont understand that people's needs are different than yours, and artists need a lot of CPU power to either transcode video or render animations.

Dont ever go against advancement of technology just because you dont have the money or need for it

[dan2600 @ Jul 15th 2009 10:59AM]

Nah, Timmy Makes a good point. from the years 1995-2003(ish) the most graphically advanced games required you to get a new computer every 2 years, and you would see MASSIVE jumps in performance...I remember upgrading from my P4 2.0 to a P4 3.4HTT...after only having the first for 2 years...WOW...massive jumps in performance. But now, I do video rendering in after effects...and my 5 (almost 6) year old P4 is still working great...I don't do that much HD work...but I can and my HD Render times aren't That bad (for me 5-15 extra minutes isn't a huge deal). I use a Xeno Quad core Mac at work...and once again...the render times are MAYBE 5 minutes faster. I can play MOST(like 97%) of new games that come out just fine at nearly full settings, the only thing I have ever had to upgrade was the GPU.

Now-in-days though a new processor isn't nearly as exciting...I just bought a new laptop recently (core 2 duo 2.4 GHz) and while i know it is a laptop and all...but my desktop is still faster then it (both running windows 7).

Yes, its great to see innovation, but in the majority of applications...we have the fundamental math processing in a good place now....I get far more excited when I see upgrades to specialized chips coming out (GPU, Physics cards), Personally would like to see more innovation in the integration of components arena then in actual CPU speed...because no matter how fast your CPU is, it can only be as fast as the components it is talking to.

[TimmyRaa @ Jul 15th 2009 8:37AM]

@LondonConsultant

Yes I have, my HD camera shoots it, and yes it's dog slow on my processor. And as I said above, the several-hundred dollar premium that the bleeding edge processor attracts still isn't worth the extra few % of speed.

[TimmyRaa @ Jul 15th 2009 8:38AM]

D'oh, not only did I not reply to myself, I didn't clarify that "the several-hundred dollar premium that the bleeding edge processor attracts still isn't worth the extra few % of speed" is over and above a newish but way cheaper processor.

[Vince @ Jul 15th 2009 12:50PM]

It's really not that much more expensive. It is consistently on sale monthly at a store called Micro Center for $200. The current core i7 is incredibly fast and by a significant enough margin for applications that have to do with things like encoding/rendering.

[Alex @ Jul 15th 2009 9:32AM]

Mmmmm... i7.

I just got myself a Dell Studio XPS with a Core i7 inside. Is nice.

[rells009 @ Jul 15th 2009 5:11PM]

Is there much of a difference between the Q9400s and the Q8400s?

[jon @ Jul 15th 2009 5:31PM]

The 9400s has 6MB(2x3) cache instead of 4MB(2x2),it also has Intel VT and TXT.

If those features don't mean anything to you, you'll probably be happy with the 8400s.

[Peter R. @ Jul 15th 2009 12:56PM]

Ah seriously, wth is it with the pineview atoms being released in Q1 2010!? I thought it was previously known to be set for a Q4 2009 release. So tried of waiting for something that might essentially not be that much of a improvement over the N280. Heh, screw it, I'll just bite the bullet and get a dell studio 14z.

I really wonder how much of a improvement the i7-960 is over the i7-950? Not that it matters much, since I already decided to build a system with the i7-920, i really don't more power than that. I really wish Intel would release more power efficient i7 CPUs that aren't underpowered compared to the i7-900s; like how the i7-800s compare to i7-900s.

[Ypoknons @ Jul 15th 2009 12:58PM]

Well CPUs don't really give you gaming performance, but if you do stuff in media you'll still want everything you can get. Generally, it's true that we've reached a point of diminishing returns on performance, hence the laptop boom, but there's still people who need it. The CPU race is powered by competition as much as need these days, so when you do need a new CPU, you'll get something better even if you weren't looking for it at first.

[dagamer43 @ Jul 15th 2009 1:34PM]

Sadly nothing about Arrendale (32nm mobile Nehalem-based chips).

[jon @ Jul 15th 2009 4:36PM]

Click the mobile cpu pic in the read link, 7 different Arrandale chips.

[socioecoboy @ Jul 15th 2009 7:35PM]

I just want my quadcore macbook.

[Nerdy Desi @ Jul 15th 2009 7:49PM]

So will the i7 920 be discontinued and now the i7 will only consist of $500+ processors? : (
I'm sure the 6 core Gulftown processors are Extreme Edition only, so price will be about $1000.

[Peter R. @ Jul 15th 2009 11:44PM]

Well according to the roadmap, i7-920 CPUs will be available until the second half of 2010. Also according to the roadmap, there seems to be one Gulftown CPU on path for realease, which would eventually replace the i7-975 for the Extreme Edition spot.

Now this is where I get confused: why the heck does Intel have so many different CPUs stated for release in Q1 2010. The i7-920 will continue to be available, while the i7-960 will replace the i7-950, so it doesn't seem like the i7-800s are meant to replace them. Then there's the i5 and i3 CPUs. Is it really necessary to have so many different varies on the market at the same time?! Well, it's good for the consumer but it seems like a bad decision (in terms of money) for Intel. Then again, I'm basing this off the roadmap.