Intel Core i7 Processor Models and Pricing Revealed!

[AuDioFreaK39]

http://translate.google.com/transla...wthread.php?t=2300&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=el&tl=en

The news is finally here! According to HWBox, the new Intel Core i7 processors will be labeled and priced as follows:

Core i7 965 Extreme Edition
Product Code: BX80601965
3.20GHz
8MB L3 Cache
QPI Speed: 6.4GT/sec
MSRP (per 1000): $999

Core i7 940
Product Code: BX80601940
2.93GHz
8MB L3 Cache
QPI Speed: 4.8GT/sec
MSRP (per 1000): $562

Core i7 920
Product Code: BX80601920
2.66GHz
8MB L3 Cache
QPI Speed: 4.8GT/sec
MSRP (per 1000): $284

*update*

the Core i7 model numbers have been confirmed with Intel's September 2008 Roadmap Chart:

http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2008-09-16/1221564352d10023.html

 

[BaronMatrix]

How can a 2.66GHz chip be at the same TDP as a 3.2GHz chip?

 

[spuddyt]

soooo.... I wonder how well they overclock? cos that seems to be the only difference between the 920 and 940... other than the MONSTROUS price difference

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Getting 3.2 to 3.3 on the 920 wont be worth it. A Penryn would be better

 

[godmode]

the only real difference i see here is the clock speed. does that justify the huge price gapping?

 

[blackwidow_rsa]

Wish they would make a nehalem chip for lga775

 

[AuDioFreaK39]

the only real difference i see here is the clock speed. does that justify the huge price gapping?

Well do you remember when the Q9550 2.83GHz was first launched? I sure do (I waited 7 months for it before caving on a QX9650..)

It was $584 at launch - while the Q9450 2.66GHz was only $364.. major price difference for only 166MHz.....

Now look at the price difference between the two, only $10 bucks

 

[jimmysmitty]

Wish they would make a nehalem chip for lga775

Not possible. All LGA775 mobos have a northbridge with the memory controller thus this would not only conflict it wouldn't work. Also because of the IMC they had to add more pins to the CPU. That and it supports triple channel DDR3.

As for the TDP only two things I can think of. 1 this is wrong on the TDP or 2 Intel is purposley setting them higher for the Turbo Mode self overclocking. Remember Turbo mode is set to stay within a certain TDP so if the chip is really say 65w TDP and they set it to 65w it wont self OC much. But setiting it to 130w TDP means it can OC much more.

 

[warezme]

anyone else annoyed that every new processor released in that last 3-4 years can't seem to average over 3.0Ghz when even the old Heatburst made it to 4.0Ghz

 

[spathotan]

Price for "mid level", pass.
130W absurdity, pass.
Low clock speeds, pass.
Needing a new motherboard, pass.
Needing DDR3 memory, pass.
Low L2, pass.
High L3 with its usefullness still in question, pass.

pass.pass.

 

[zenmaster]

How can a 2.66GHz chip be at the same TDP as a 3.2GHz chip?

Very simple, Intel's TDP rating is not an estimate of the power a CPU uses.
Rather, it's the power they request designers plan on being able to dissipate for a class of processors.

Instead of asking everyone to certify everything for every different CPU, they tend to rate a whole line of processors with the same TDP. Frequently even the highest rated CPU does not come close to using the listed TDP.

In fact, early testing shows these CPUs use about the same power as the previous generation 95w Quad Cores.
Seems they are building even more Overclocking values into their ratings.

 

[zenmaster]

anyone else annoyed that every new processor released in that last 3-4 years can't seem to average over 3.0Ghz when even the old Heatburst made it to 4.0Ghz

But they have the i965 Processor has 4 cores @ 3.2 Ghz.
That is the same as a 12.8Ghz Processor because there are 4 cores.

Now, some would say you can't do that.
But then again others seem to think Mhz are a meaningless way to rate a processor.

 

[Shadow703793]

@Zen:
:lol: You can't add

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Single threaded theyre maybe 2-7% faster. They inckude "automatic" overclocking, and it appears the more affordable mid'low end doesnt oc that high

 

[nukemaster]

@Zen:
:lol: You can't add

You do not add!!! you multiply!!!!

I just wanted to belong.

 

[rabidbunny]

so it sounds like the new cpus won't be bounds ahead of teh current tech. that's good to hear sorta..means I won't be outpaced for a while

 

[AuDioFreaK39]

Very simple, Intel's TDP rating is not an estimate of the power a CPU uses.
Rather, it's the power they request designers plan on being able to dissipate for a class of processors.

Instead of asking everyone to certify everything for every different CPU, they tend to rate a whole line of processors with the same TDP. Frequently even the highest rated CPU does not come close to using the listed TDP.

In fact, early testing shows these CPUs use about the same power as the previous generation 95w Quad Cores.
Seems they are building even more Overclocking values into their ratings.

That's an interesting point. It seems as if Intel rated this Bloomfield lineup with overclockers specifically in mind. By setting a high TDP across the board, motherboard manufacturers can in turn add more OC features to their motherboards, making our jobs easier and our stability concerns easier to deal with

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Actually, it all comes down to the internal clock, and how well it responds to frequency increases vs stability. This is the mystery, as no one knows how well itll respond, and if we will ever see these 920s at 4Ghz

 

[zenmaster]

so it sounds like the new cpus won't be bounds ahead of teh current tech. that's good to hear sorta..means I won't be outpaced for a while

Well, I've seen some threads showing a 20% boost Clock for Clock in many tasks.
But depending on what you are doing, its not likely you are close to being truly CPU Bound for much of what you do.

I know I won't be seeing a Nehalem in my Office for at least a year.
I just bought a nice Q6600 system earlier this year and I will be pulling the trigger on a new laptop in the next month or two.

Doesn't mean I don't really really want a new system.
I just don't want my wife to C_STR_TE me.

 

[randomizer]

Too expensive. It can't be over $220 for me to consider it any better than my trusty E6600.

 

[yomamafor1]

How can a 2.66GHz chip be at the same TDP as a 3.2GHz chip?

When Intel accounts for the massive overclock each Nehalem chip would likely endure, and capable of.

 

[MU_Engineer]

When Intel accounts for the massive overclock each Nehalem chip would likely endure, and capable of.

The 965EE will likely be overclocked to high heaven if it'll go there but nobody knows how well the locked-multiplier models will fare. The one report I've heard of an overlclocked locked-multiplier Nehalem was the 940, which got its 133 MHz bus raised to a whopping 140 MHz before it became unstable. Could that be an early platform? Perhaps. Could it be that they are very unfriendly to overclock? Perhaps. We just don't really know yet and won't until the chips ship.

My two cents are on that they won't OC very well unless the QPI link multiplier is downward-adjustable. AMD K8s hated it when the HT link speed got over 1.00 GHz but they would OC reasonably well when you dropped the HT multiplier to 3x or 4x and kept the HT link under 1.00 GHz. Intel has given their boilerplate "overclocking a multiplier-locked processor can be dangerous" spiel with QPI link speed on Nehalem as well, so I can't tell if it's just smoke or if there's fire.

 

[randomizer]

How can a 2.66GHz chip be at the same TDP as a 3.2GHz chip?

Maybe they can all OC the same

It's up to you to decide if that's good or bad.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Without going the internal clock raising, thats true, they will all oc the same, just ones stock clock is higher than the others. Having the same TDP says nothing more than Intel is playing it safe, and unless the internal clock can increase well, maybe too safe, but Im more of a positive person, and still hoping for good news, but I wont get my hopes up either, and buy into the hype, because we simply dont know yet

 

[randomizer]

I won't buy into the hype because I want my wallet to remain in its current shape.