Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Intel's 2.93GHz "Bloomfield" to be named "Core i7 940"?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel i7
  • Bloomfield
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
September 8, 2008 6:45:49 AM

In a recent sighting of more Gigabyte X58-DS4 pictures, Hardspell posted a CPU-Z screenshot of the board running the 2.93GHz "Bloomfield" chip, which the program identifies as "Intel Core i7 940." Could this in fact be true? I'm still confused with the heirarchy and "identifiers" of the upcoming Nehalem lineup..

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=4008



On a second note, Wiki says otherwise - that the 2.93GHz "Bloomfield" will be dubbed "Core i7 900"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_i7


original Wiki source (translated):
Hardware-Infos.com - Intel Core i7 Processors from mid-October (August 11, 2008)

==========================================================

*MAJOR EDIT* - is the "Core i7 940" name still under NDA?


Oh WOW, our original source on the Core i7 940 (Hardware-Infos.com) apparently edited their "Core i7 Processors in mid-October" article (under the same original posting date - August 11, 2008....) to rename the "Core i7 940" back to just "Core i7 900"

more accurate translation:

"Behind the scenes, the Core i7 900 Extreme edition traded names with the 2.93GHz model, which will be known as Core i7 900."

(this still doesn't point to an absolute name for the "Extreme Edition." Perhaps it will share the Core i7 900 name but with an "Extreme Edition" identifier?)

And now if you point your browsers to the Core i7 Wikipedia article, you'll find that Source [6] (the source for all the Core i7 processor models) in fact cites the same Hardware-Infos link. Conspiracy? I think more like NDA :)  :) 


looks like Intel's being doing some reediting work on me behind the scenes. They don't want me to distribute this info...oh well, I'm going to say it:


THE CORE i7 2.93GHZ MODEL WILL BE KNOWN AS CORE i7 940! :kaola: 

More about : intel 93ghz bloomfield named core 940

a b à CPUs
September 8, 2008 8:13:32 AM



Even Monica Lewinsky would find this name a mouthful..


Doesnt even sound right does it...Time will tell
September 8, 2008 8:29:29 AM

The people at AMD probably already have a name for it: OH ****
Related resources
September 8, 2008 11:08:24 AM

lmfao at the oh **** comment, PLUS 1 FOR HUMOR

and it wouldn't be surprising if it was sub intervals of 900, like 930, 940 etc etc...
September 8, 2008 2:12:21 PM

but what about the next series? Core i8 or Core i7 1xxx?
sounds like what amd did with phenom...9950, cant go much higher
September 8, 2008 4:59:01 PM

blackwidow_rsa said:
with phenom...9950, cant go much higher


Count in HEX.

9A50
9B50
9C50
9D50
9E50
9F50

And if they go base 36 they could go up to Z.

...
9Z50
a c 201 à CPUs
a b å Intel
September 9, 2008 12:36:36 AM

kitsilencer said:
The people at AMD probably already have a name for it: OH ****


LMAO..... Thats just funny

Naming schemes for CPUs have never made much sense really to use end consumers. Normally the only ones who will know what it means are the Intel workers themselves.

Either way we always know that higher number means better.

So I am guessing that the 3.2GHz Core i7 will be a Core i7 950....
September 9, 2008 6:08:53 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Naming schemes for CPUs have never made much sense really to use end consumers.


I disagree: 'Pentium-3 550MHz' vs 'Pentium-4 3GHz' was pretty self-explanatory. Obviously there were crossover points where a low-end P4 was slower than a high-end P3, and then there was the Celeron mess to be aware of, but back in those days you largely just had to look at the numbers, at least when comparing to other Intel CPUs. Similarly, AMD CPUs were comparable with their 'equivalent MHz' numbers, even if they couldn't be directly compared to Intel CPUs.

Whereas even as someone who uses PCs every day and sometimes builds his own, I know very little about what these numbers mean; if I don't, then how is Joe Sixpack supposed to choose between 'Core 2 Duo E2100' and 'Core i7 940'? I mean, the Core 2 has bigger numbers, so it must be faster, right?

I can see that Intel had to get away from MHz when the switched to increasing core numbers and IPC, but the system they now have is pretty awful. At least AMD stuck with the 'equivalent MHz' for quite a while, giving some immediate idea of how fast the chips were.
September 9, 2008 6:28:14 AM

Sounds like directions to me. Something like take the i7 to the 940 cutoff
a b à CPUs
September 9, 2008 8:29:11 AM

It can always be a fake - you never know.
September 12, 2008 4:02:47 AM

Oh WOW, our original source on the Core i7 940 (Hardware-Infos.com) apparently edited their "Core i7 Processors in mid-October" article (under the same original posting date - August 11, 2008....) to rename the "Core i7 940" back to just "Core i7 900"

more accurate translation:

"Behind the scenes, the Core i7 900 Extreme edition traded names with the 2.93GHz model, which will be known as Core i7 900."

(this still doesn't point to an absolute name for the "Extreme Edition." Perhaps it will share the Core i7 900 name but with an "Extreme Edition" identifier?)

And now if you point your browsers to the Core i7 Wikipedia article, you'll find that Source [6] (the source for all the Core i7 processor models) in fact cites the same Hardware-Infos link. Conspiracy? I think more like NDA :)  :) 


looks like Intel's being doing some reediting work on me behind the scenes. They don't want me to distribute this info...oh well, I'm going to say it:


THE CORE i7 2.93GHZ MODEL WILL BE KNOWN AS CORE i7 940! :kaola: