POST A COMMENT

56 Comments

Back to Article

  • red77star - Thursday, July 23, 2009 - link

    This move will bite Intel big time. They should kept LGA 1366 socket and introduce x56 mobo with less features. Introduce LGA 1366 socket i8xx series supporting only dual channel, with or without HT in quad and dual core version.

    Introducing new socket and then also making i7 variant for 1156 socket is one big mess.

    AMD did similar mistake by not having 1207 socket on desktop. AMD could have been running now 6 core CPUs on desktop having good advantage over Intel.

    Both companies made one the most stupid decisions i have seen in the past 10 years of IT industry.
    Reply
  • red77star - Thursday, July 23, 2009 - link

    $284 Core i7 860 2.8GHz with 95W TDP.
    $337 Core i7 860s 2.53GHz with 82W TDP.

    $196 Core i5 750 2.66GHz no HT, 95W TDP.
    $259 Core i5 750s 2.4GHz no HT, 82W TDP.

    If you decide to buy any of these processors you are an 'idiot', cause you can get i7 i920 1366 socket for $280 which overclocks to 4.0Ghz (D0 revision), and x58 mobos are in price range from $180, decent $199. LGA 1156 socket mobo will be about same price. Also you don't need to run triple channel on x58, dual channel works too. LGA 1156 socket will never get 6 or 8 core CPUs, but LGA 1366 will 6 cores for sure.

    Don't buy any socket 1156 variant Intel CPU, it's freaking waste of money. I know people will jump into LGA 1156 socket wagon, and i will just shake head.
    Reply
  • epobirs - Saturday, June 27, 2009 - link

    My major app is highly CPU bound. Loves lots of hardware threads and RAM. Gaming and high-end graphics from multiple video boards is not needed. But apparently to get the most processing performance without getting into mondo expensive workstation hardware, I'll still have to spend a lot more for an i7 with a lot of support for stuff I don't need.

    Can't we have a cheaper version of the X58 chipset and less expensive motherboards to give me the performance I need without the other stuff I don't need?
    Reply
  • Denithor - Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - link

    That's exactly what the "new" i7 socket 1156 will offer.

    4 cores w/HT for 8 threads
    Dual channel memory
    Single x16 PCIe for GPU
    All on a P55 motherboard (which are rumored to start around $100)

    Basically the i7 8xxx chips will be replacing the i7 920 at a lower price point on cheaper motherboards boards with dual channel instead of triple channel memory. And a beefier Turbo mode to go faster without being overclocked than the i7 920 could manage.
    Reply
  • yajivtech - Thursday, June 25, 2009 - link

    Nice information. which one is best? intel or amd? Reply
  • wheelnut53 - Saturday, June 20, 2009 - link

    dont matter to me everytime I think of switching to AMD intel comes along with something new. I dont game, webhost,or photoshop none of that stuff for me I just want a reliable PC with excellent cooling. Reply
  • swaaye - Saturday, June 20, 2009 - link

    Well it's not really that hard to figure this stuff out, but I wonder if going with "Core 3" would've have been the better way to go.

    What is refreshing is that we're not on Pentium 6 or some such. :)
    Reply
  • RagingDragon - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    Two different sockets for current production Core i7 brand? Are they daft? Are they intentionally trying to confuse buyers?

    In the past two sockets for a single brand has only happened during socket transitions, and was only a temporary anomaly while old old model/socket was phased out.
    Reply
  • jakesbuddy4 - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    So does this mean that the only way to get 3-way sli or crossfire you have to buy the more expensive core i7 (9 series), since the pci express lanes are integrated into the chip for the i5 and I'm guessing i3, or will the mobo for the core i7 8 series in socket 1156 contain the controllers? If the mobo retains control, can you then upgrade from an i5 or i3 chip to an i7 8 series on the same motherboard? Confuses me just to type the question... Reply
  • westcamo - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Alright i just bought a CSD 7400 for a cool hundo, cheap IMO, but did i just make a stupid purchase, i thought these weren't coming out till 2010 anyway? Reply
  • taisingera - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    I agree with some here, these model numbers tell absolutely nothing of the specs of the cpu, unlike Q vs E with the Core2. I wonder what Intel will do with future cpus. A refresh might be i4, i6, i8, but then what? Core j{3,5,7} or something like ATI used to do, Core iX3,iX5,iX7 then iXI3,iXI5,iXI7. Yikes! Reply
  • wifiwolf - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    This is just Intel crippling their i7s as they aren't seeing much of a competition for it. That is the same reason they don't release a faster i7, they just don't need to. When AMD gets enough closer they can release a new line-up of champions with 3.2 3.5 and 3.7 GHz and voila.

    I dont see also why i5 don't have SIMD (Hiperthreading) it's a technology they have already researched so what's the point - crippling.
    Reply
  • marsspirit123 - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    This new cpu's i5 and i3 better have the same or at least 10% worst performance in games than i7.Or they won't be a hit.I mean there is many older cpu's now (c2d ,c2q ,phenomII)matching game performance of I7 920 in games.What would be the use of new cpu if it sucks in games?Of cource they would rock for less than a $100. Reply
  • supaxi - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    That won't be a problem because intel is getting rid of the 920 and 940 low end of the i7 line. They don't want people overclocking i7 processors which loses them sales of the $1000 chips. Enthusiast users will have to live with lower performing i5 processors at least until AMD can put more pressure on Intel.

    It would have been nice to see a 6 or 8 core desktop chip but they will probably be kept in the super high end and server lines for a long time.
    Reply
  • KLC - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    I have to agree that the purpose for this change seems to be to confuse the buyer.

    If they wanted to make it simple why didn't they match the core number to the series number? In other words,

    Core i8=8xxx series
    Core i7=7xxx series
    Core i5=5xxx series
    Core i3=3xxx series
    Reply
  • haukionkannel - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    It would have been too easy and clean aproach...
    Actually your model is much better than the intel one... So you will not be hired by Intel in the near future. Sorry!
    ;-)

    The problem is that intel wants to offer i7 products allso in 1156. So essentially it would have had allmost the same product twise only with different LGA. But still you idea is better. They could have named i7 8xxx series as an i6 and it would have been fine. Of cource if they are gonna make i6 later it is a different matter all together.
    Any idea how shrinked versions of this prosessor family are gonna be labelled? (tick and tock)

    Reply
  • bupkus - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    I just don't have the time to memorize all this stuff.
    Is it possible for someone to publish a table so I can just look up the features of each offering?
    Reply
  • greylica - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Seems Intel is experimenting processors, numbering then and sending to the people with a lottery, I guess they took the Microsoft Vista approach of splitting the line into a confusing way.
    They love that MESS....
    (New stick for computers - Unknown processor, X.XX GHZ, XX Threads, Variable socket )
    Reply
  • frozentundra123456 - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Seems like an unnecessarily complicated lineup to me. Wish they would just simplify and try to increase clock speed. Anyway, the naming is still better than nvidia. At least they arent renaming previous generation technology with new numbers to try to make it seem new. Reply
  • umbrel - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Doesn't seem that complex:
    i3: no turbo, cheap (crippled?) version
    i5: turbo, normal (full? -4 threads-) version
    i7: expensive (boosted -8 threads-) version

    The mobile segments seems tricky though since by Anand's table i5 and i7 can have the same features.

    There is also if it is more relevant the number of cores (marketing emphasis until now) or the number of threads (new marketing emphasis)
    Reply
  • bbruzzes - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    So there's now going to be 2 series of core i7s, each requiring a completely different socket? I know Intel this has done this in the past (Pentium III, 4, Celeron) but it does make things rather confusing for the customer. I guess it will keep the people with Core i3 and i5s happy knowing they have an upgrade path. Reply
  • lianparma - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    So it´s something like this:

    LGA-1366
    Desktop Core i7 = 3 mem channels + 4 cores + HT + Turbo mode


    LGA-1156
    Desktop Core i7 = 2 mem channels + 4 cores + HT + Turbo mode
    Desktop Core i5 = 2 mem channels + 2 or 4 cores + Turbo mode (no HT)
    Desktop Core i3 = 2 mem channels + 2 or 4 cores (no HT, no Turbo mode)
    Mobile Core i7 = 2 mem channels + 2 or 4 cores + HT + Turbo mode
    Mobile Core i5 = 2 mem channels + 2 or 4 cores + Turbo mode (no HT)
    Mobile Core i3 = 2 mem channels + 2 or 4 cores (no HT, no Turbo mode)
    Reply
  • umbrel - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    I think it's more like

    LGA-1366
    Desktop Core i7 9xx = 3 mem channels + 4 cores + HT + Turbo mode

    LGA-1156
    Desktop Core i7 8xx = 2 mem channels + 4 cores + HT + Turbo mode
    Mobile Core i7 ?xx= 2 mem channels + 2 cores (+ HT) or 4 cores (with or without HT) + Turbo mode

    Core i5 7xx = 2 mem channels + 2 cores (+ HT) or 4 cores (no HT) + Turbo mode
    Core i3 5xx = 2 mem channels 2 cores (+ HT) or 4 cores (no HT) no Turbo mode
    Reply
  • Rike - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    If that is correct, then the key questions for anyone who is looking at performance and value for the entire Core lineup are the following:

    1) What is the performance of 3 channel memory vs. 2 channel memory?
    2) What is the performance of HT vs. no HT?
    3) What is the performance of Turbo vs. no Turbo?
    4) What is the performance of 4 cores no HT vs. 2 cores with HT?
    And finally, 5) How does price interact with all of the above answers?

    It will be loads of fun figuring all of this out.
    Reply
  • umbrel - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Yeap loads of fun :)
    for AT readers, the average buyer will ask the vendor and who knows what will be told.

    1) 3 channel memory requires a diferent socket so I guess it's a no go if you care for value, just valid for bragging rights (and performance? according to AT reviews it doesn't matter much)

    2) By the reviews HT is 10% to 40% increase in performance, how much the price difference is gonna be it's another matter.

    3) Turbo should be ~10% performance gain for single thread intesive applications, but I can't see that helping in multitasking OSs. According to AT it almost always is working so its like buying a faster processor, if the price difference is higher than buying the next faster processor it's a no go.

    4) Since Intel marketing seems to put enphasis on the number of threads, I would expect the price difference to be negligible (perhaps sell it as 4 threads product and thats it), but the reviews says real cores give better performance than HT.

    5) Yeah, I want to figure out that too.
    Reply
  • Xzylvador - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Using these new names, won't it be incredibly difficult to guess which processor goes into which motherboard/socket?
    It was going to be simple: Core 2 Duo/Quad= Socket 775, i7 = socket 1366, i5 = socket(i forgot).
    Now you'll have new Lynnfields appearing in i7 name but requiring a different socket, maybe the same for the current Core 2 Duo/Quad Extremes... Any info on this?
    Reply
  • Roland00 - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    If it is a core i7 900 series then it will be socket 1366
    If it is a core i7 800 series then it will be socket 1166
    Reply
  • CompOne - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    The marketing people at Intel should be severely beaten. A core i5 should have five cores, a core i7 should have 7 cores etc. A Core2Duo on the other hand means the marketing people should have had the skin peeled from their bodies while living. What a load of worthless excrement. Reply
  • Exar3342 - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Your a fool. Reply
  • plewis00 - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    ^^ Says the man with awful grammar - nice one... Reply
  • RadnorHarkonnen - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Diferent sockets, sometimes same arquitecture, sometimes not.

    Seems to me the perfect retail scheme. Like Nvidia you don't know whats under the hood unless you read alot.

    Reply
  • plewis00 - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Can I just ask others out there, when you heard of the naming - did this remind anyone else of BMW's 3-series. 5-series and 7-series? It was the first thing I thought of when I heard of i5 and now i3 just reinforces that. Reply
  • bobbozzo - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Yes.
    I want an M3 or M6.
    Reply
  • bobbozzo - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    and I would never get a 7... they're gas-guzzling boats.
    Reply
  • Peroxyde - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    There is a car model named "iCore5"? Reply
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    No, it is something like the sDrive35i Reply
  • plewis00 - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    No, but that's why I said 'reminds me of'. A simple Google search would evidence that I'm not the only one that's thought this.

    There is also no 'car model' called a 5-series; unsurprisingly, it's a SERIES of car models.

    But if you want to be a tool about it, fine...
    Reply
  • Drazick - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    When will we get USB3 and SATA3?

    Thanks for the news.
    I hope AMD will be able to be around so the prices will be reasonable.
    Reply
  • tacoburrito - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    In a dual core i5 with turbo, I doubt its performance will be that much difference than a dual core i3 without turbo. Having only one core turns off during operations shouldn't increase the speed of the remaining core by that much, methinks. Reply
  • ltcommanderdata - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    So I wonder what will be the maximum clock speed with turbo boost for mobile Clarksfield? The rumoured stock clocks seem to max out at 1.73GHz which is disappointingly low. I'd think common applications/tasks on a notebook are less likely to be well-threaded so good single-threaded/dual-threaded performance or clock speed is critical. Otherwise the average user may well find a 1.73GHz Clarksfield being slower than a 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo. Reply
  • thewaveofthefuture - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    i7 is a wonderful processor but i have never seen it go to a 22X multiplier on a i7 920(i.e. only one core active and other cores are in C3 or C6 state). Its just darn hard with today's OS's to keep 2 cores inactive. If i understand turbo mode correctly it means that the core has to be atleast in C3 of C6 state to be considered inactive.

    So just a question?

    has there been a study on how much time on normal usage does the OS make 2 or 3 cores into inactive mode and thus enabling higher multiplier on the one (or two remaining core on lynnfield and bloomfield)

    all this enthusiasm of getting higher speed is of less usage if the OS won't allow it
    Reply
  • snakeoil - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    wow core i7, core i5, and now core i3.
    core i5 is a crippled version of core i7, and core i3 is a crippled version of the already crippled core i5
    what a humongous mess. poor intel fanboys.
    Reply
  • ltcommanderdata - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Um. Then what exactly is a Phenom X3 or Phenom X2 in relation to the Phenom X4? Reply
  • teko - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    With Phenom, the number means the total core. X2 = 2 cores, X3 = 3 cores, etc...

    With Intel the number doesn't represent the total core, but just to categorize them between high, med, and low-end CPUs.
    Reply
  • aeternitas - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Yeah, having so much choice sure does suck!! Calling people "intel fanboys" says more about you than anyone else. Go back to your lowend where AMD dominates. Reply
  • philosofool - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Intel makes the best processors, and "crippled" is just the wrong word. Processors are manufactured or harvested to meet certain price points. Reply
  • fyleow - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Anand,

    I see a lot of positive comments about Turbo mode but how much of this is just clever marketing vs honest to goodness engineering innovation?

    I think Intel has a lot more clock speed overhead than they are letting on and this is just a margin increasing marketing strategy. Why push the limit by releasing a 4.0ghz low yield $999 Extreme Edition when you can release a much higher yield 4.2 ghz for the same price? (4.2 ghz only on single core max turbo mode of course)

    I mean we can see that the 920 hits 4.0 ghz without any extreme cooling, and yet the 975 EE is only 3.3?

    I hope Intel doesn't have such a short memory. They should have learned their lesson on the dangers of falling behind during the NetBurst days. It wasn't long ago that AMD was dominating the game.

    Reply
  • nafhan - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    I think a lot of it has to do with power envelopes, too. Overclocking 4 cores takes a lot more power than stock speeds, whereas shutting down 2 cores and overclocking the other 2 probably stays in the same (or possibly a lower) power envelope. Reply
  • nafhan - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    I think a lot of it has to do with power envelopes, too. Overclocking 4 cores takes a lot more power than stock speeds, whereas shutting down 2 cores and overclocking the other 2 probably stays in the same (or possibly a lower) power envelope. Reply
  • philosofool - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    The processors aren't just for enthusiast gamers who will tolerate occasional failures: they must be rock solid in mission critical enterprise applicaitons, which is why they never meet the clock potential. Reply
  • iwodo - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    It is not easily understandable. People will always think i7 is better and faster when it could means just about the same. To add even more confusion they add some Series Number at the end which has Virtually No meaning at all.

    Previously At least you will know Q stands for Quad Core. Now you will never know if it is Quad Core or Quad Thread. And you will have to refer to your Product Table every time.

    While I understand these means very little to most users since they will just think i7 is better and faster. '

    To make the matter worst for System Builders, intel has managed to introduce a different socket in the same i7 brand.

    And then you now have CHEAP Brands like Pentium and Celeron....Atom

    So from top to bottom..

    Core i7
    Core i5
    Core i3
    Pentium
    Celeron
    Atom ( Although you could discount it since it is not in the same market )

    Oh, it really brings back good memory when i can just choose CPU by their Brand and Mhz. No more VT / HT / Core / Thread / Cache / FSB / derivative.

    Reply
  • drebo - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    Hopefully these make it into the server market very quickly. As it is, HP has discontinued all of their Core 2-based servers. They're moving to the Generation 6 ProLiants, which are all Core i7 or Core i5-based. I think they jumped the gun a little, though, as they currently do not have an offering in the low or middle market segments.

    Hopefully we'll see these to market within the next month.
    Reply
  • philosofool - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    This is a lot of branding and little substance from Intel. I suspect that people like Anand readers are going to pay very little attention to various brands and will instead know their stuff about the benefits involved with the various procs.

    It's going to be very interesting to see how hyperthreading affects performance.
    Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - link

    ... the Core i3 and i5 will come either as a dual core + hyperthreading, or a quad core - hyperthreading, thus 4 threads in both cases. I take it the product number will have rules that tells us which is a dual core and which is a quad core.

    Reply
  • IlllI - Thursday, June 18, 2009 - link

    gawd, thats not confusing at all, huh
    how is a person suppose to keep track of all these little nuances?

    i miss the days of the pentium and celeron. at least back then people *knew* celeron was crap and low end.

    i can't imagine a average joe person being able to figure out all the differences between i3, i5, i7.
    Reply
  • Klinky1984 - Friday, June 19, 2009 - link

    Celeron wasn't too bad, the 300A going to 500Mhz was hot stuff back then. Also the Celeron had 128KB of on die cache vs 512KB of half-speed off die cache. If you're talking about the Netburst era Celerons or the zero L2 Cache Celerons, then yes, those do suck. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now