Seven months have passed since Intel officially launched its Core i7 processors, and for seven months they have remained at the top of our performance charts. Albeit pricey, Nehalem can’t be beat; it is the world’s fastest desktop microprocessor.

Just last week we previewed Intel’s upcoming more mainstream Nehalem, codenamed Lynnfield. Based on our early results and leaked Intel roadmaps, I’m expecting Lynnfield to pretty much negate the need for low end LGA-1366 Core i7 parts. Rather than allow Lynnfield to cannibalize Intel’s high-end LGA-1366 Core i7 platform, Intel is raising the performance bar with two new i7 CPUs: the Core i7 975 Extreme and the Core i7 950.

Processor Clock Speed Cores / Threads Maximum Single Core Turbo Frequency TDP Price
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme 3.33GHz 4 / 8 3.60GHz 130W $999
Intel Core i7-965 Extreme 3.20GHz 4 / 8 3.46GHz 130W $999
Intel Core i7-950 3.06GHz 4 / 8 3.33GHz 130W $562
Intel Core i7-940 2.93GHz 4 / 8 3.20GHz 130W $562
Intel Lynnfield 2.93GHz 2.93GHz 4 / 8 3.60GHz 95W $562
Intel Core i7-920 2.66GHz 4 / 8 2.93GHz 130W $284
Intel Lynnfield 2.80GHz 2.80GHz 4 / 8 3.46GHz 95W $284
Intel Lynnfield 2.66GHz 2.66GHz 4 / 4 3.20GHz 95W $196

 

The 975 replaces the 965 and is priced at $999 while the 950 replaces the i7-940 and is priced at $562. The chips run at 3.33GHz and 3.06GHz, respectively, with maximum turbo frequencies topping out at 3.6GHz and 3.33GHz. Intel really has no other external motivation to push for higher frequency parts, so we only see a bare minimum increase in specs here.

The Core i7 Extreme part, like its predecessor, ships unlocked so you can easily overclock it. Its un-core (L3 cache + memory controller) operates at 2.66GHz, just like the i7-965. The i7-950 is locked and runs its uncore at 2.13GHz, just like all other non-Extreme i7s.

Both of these chips use Intel’s new D0 stepping so they should clock up a bit higher than the original i7s.

The Fastest Processor for Single Threaded Tasks
POST A COMMENT

44 Comments

View All Comments

  • silver250 - Friday, June 05, 2009 - link

    Maybe I missed it but last time I saw a review with the Phenom II CPU's they ran better with DDR3, all the boards for AMD listed are only DDR2 boards.
    So whats the deal? Or did I just miss a reason somewhere in other reviews?
    Reply
  • Tunnah - Thursday, June 04, 2009 - link

    would it be possible at all to get the power usage stats of the overclocked version ? A while ago I was reading an article (not sure if here or elsewhere) and it gave the power usage per overclock step and was a great way of working out where to find the balance of power usage vs overclocking amount. Also I'd love to see the power this beast sucks up at 4.6ghz ha Reply
  • tygrus - Thursday, June 04, 2009 - link

    Are you able to measure the CPU clock freq while running the benchmarks to see the affect of the Turbo mode. Labelling as 3.2GHz when it could actually be 3.46GHz.

    Can we also see results with the Intel Turbo On & Off ?

    Does Intel use core activity to determine Turbo limits or does the on-die temperature sensor allow using higher speeds at any time ?
    Intel claimed a bit of both, but it seems very pre-set (1core max, 2core max, 4core max). Can it be overridden ?

    How hot can the case temp be before the CPU is prevented from using higher speeds ?

    How much activity on other cores will prevent the fastest setting of single core task ?
    Reply
  • Hrel - Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - link

    This article is kind of pointless beyond page 1 just cause you don't include ANY of the processors that used to be the best bang for the buck. Where's the E6600? the E8400? E6420?? the E7650??? Q6600? Seriously, showing us performance for new CPU's is pointless if you're not going to include the processors that sold the best in the past. I mean seriously, the E8400 is STILL the best bang for the buck around for many people and you didn't even include that... sad, just sad. Reply
  • Gary Key - Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - link

    You can compare any of those processors to the 975 using our Bench tool - http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2">http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=2 . :) Reply
  • lpcap - Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - link

    I think for the world's most powerful laptop with the Core i7 975 go to:

    http://www.lpc-digital.com/store/3302695/product/c...">http://www.lpc-digital.com/store/3302695/product/c...

    Reply
  • aigomorla - Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - link

    :)

    I dont have anything bad to say about it.

    Monster overclocker, im doing about 4.4ghz with 1.35vcore with full stability.

    When i showed the 975 off a couple of months ago on the cpu and overclocking section, i told everyone the D0's were gonna be HOT.
    Reply
  • Fulle - Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - link

    Interesting... most 920s only can OC to about 4GHz at that voltage... even with the D0 stepping. Either you got lucky with your chip, or the 975 isn't as bad as I thought. Reply
  • Fulle - Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - link

    Its fortunate for AMD that the vast majority of the games out there are NOT multithreaded, like FarCry 2... and for the majority of games out currently, they don't even scale with CPUs beyond 3 cores... which is evident if you look at the Phenom II X3 720's performance in Anand's benchies.

    It cracks me up to see some enthusiasts bashing Lynnfield. All things considered, the Lynnfield 2.8GHz CPU with HT will be the one to have for the best gaming frame rates. It has excellent 2 core performance with turbo mode, which will allow for top FPS in most games, and for those that are highly threaded, Graphics bottlenecks considered, it'll hang in pretty darn close to the i7s. Its almost as if Intel designed the chip specifically for hardcore gamers.

    This 975/950 business seems lazy, however. Intel doesn't even try when AMD falls too far behind.
    Reply
  • lifeblood - Wednesday, June 03, 2009 - link

    "Intel really has no other external motivation to push for higher frequency parts, so we only see a bare minimum increase in specs here."

    If AMD fails the we will very quickly return to the days of overpriced and underpowered Pentium trash. When Intel has no competition they quit trying.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now