Intel Core i7 Processor Models and Pricing Revealed!

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hwbox.gr%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D2300&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




:kaola: :sol: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :sol:


*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

85 answers Last reply
More about intel core processor models pricing revealed
  1. How can a 2.66GHz chip be at the same TDP as a 3.2GHz chip?
  2. 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
  3. Getting 3.2 to 3.3 on the 920 wont be worth it. A Penryn would be better
  4. the only real difference i see here is the clock speed. does that justify the huge price gapping?
  5. Wish they would make a nehalem chip for lga775
  6. godmode said:
    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
  7. blackwidow_rsa said:
    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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. BaronMatrix said:
    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.
  11. warezme said:
    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.
  12. @Zen:
    :lol: You can't add :P
  13. Single threaded theyre maybe 2-7% faster. They inckude "automatic" overclocking, and it appears the more affordable mid'low end doesnt oc that high
  14. Shadow703793 said:
    @Zen:
    :lol: You can't add :P

    You do not add!!! you multiply!!!! :P

    I just wanted to belong.
  15. 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 :D
  16. zenmaster said:
    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 :)
  17. 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
  18. rabidbunny said:
    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 :D


    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.
  19. Too expensive. It can't be over $220 for me to consider it any better than my trusty E6600. :D
  20. BaronMatrix said:
    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.
  21. yomamafor1 said:
    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.
  22. BaronMatrix said:
    How can a 2.66GHz chip be at the same TDP as a 3.2GHz chip?

    Maybe they can all OC the same :D

    It's up to you to decide if that's good or bad.
  23. 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
  24. I won't buy into the hype because I want my wallet to remain in its current shape.
  25. With the way the U.S. stock market is crashing I think building a new PC will be put on hold for a lot of people.Yes this will hurt both Intel and AMD.
    If you have built a recent system feel lucky because you will be using your current system for quite a while unless your rich.
  26. Its nothing more than a market adjustment that was created awhile ago. All those losses had to show up at some point in time. This problem has existed for over a year, and its just now becoming either unbearable to the idiots that let this happen, or someones rescuing those idiots, which is bad news in itself, but better than what happened to those who crumbled. Itll all settle out before Christmas, as we should see a steady increase by then
  27. randomizer said:
    I won't buy into the hype because I want my wallet to remain in its current shape.



    Empty??? :kaola:
  28. yomamafor1 said:
    When Intel accounts for the massive overclock each Nehalem chip would likely endure, and capable of.



    How dare you! Nehalem wont overclock!! Fuddo said so and Thunderman verified!!

    Broodmember
  29. Just wait till tomorrow.I expect the stock market to plunge quite a bit further.
    As for me I've just pulled money out of the banks today (a run on the bank) and am stocking up on food for the winter months.I grow my own crops in my yard too.
  30. BaronMatrix said:
    How can a 2.66GHz chip be at the same TDP as a 3.2GHz chip?



    I though you were leaving? Couldnt figure out how to work the door?
  31. turpit, the doors here are automated and run on P4s, of course he didn't know how to work them.
  32. I keep all my money at the ChickenLittle Bank of America. All good here so far
  33. randomizer said:
    turpit, the doors here are automated and run on P4s, of course he didn't know how to work them.



    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
    What was I thinking
  34. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Getting 3.2 to 3.3 on the 920 wont be worth it. A Penryn would be better


    The Penryn is a piece of junk. Look at the chip closely, Intel chose to cram all of its circuitry on one side and its cache on the other. There's also quite a bit of wasted space on the die.

    Why is this bad? It means the heat signature of the Penryn is one-sided. It is not evenly dispersed over the die. Bad design on Intel's part.
  35. Id hate to like/love something so much, and see it struggle, like a kid in ccu. But people need to realise, is its not a kid in ccu but only a poor old cpu heheh
  36. enigma067 said:
    The Penryn is a piece of junk. Look at the chip closely, Intel chose to cram all of its circuitry on one side and its cache on the other. There's also quite a bit of wasted space on the die.

    Why is this bad? It means the heat signature of the Penryn is one-sided. It is not evenly dispersed over the die. Bad design on Intel's part.


    Yet this 'badly designed piece of junk' is capable of overclocking to 4.5GHz on air and putting AMD's 'well designed piece of brilliance' aka Phenom to utter shame. ;) :lol:
  37. Give me mah dooble cheezaburger anytime!
  38. I'd rather choose AMD's "'well designed piece of brilliance" over inHell anyday. CPU speed is not the be all and end all of PC performance. Of course, clueless twits like you wouldn't understand that.
  39. FPS and seconds to encode are the be all and end all! Oops, the monolethargic die fails again.
  40. bitrate said:
    I'd rather choose AMD's "'well designed piece of brilliance" over inHell anyday. CPU speed is not the be all and end all of PC performance. Of course, clueless twits like you wouldn't understand that.


    LOL @ inHell. Where'd you get that from, AMDZone? :lol:

    Well, as they say, whatever floats your boat... if slower and hotter does it for you, who are we to argue? ;)
  41. MU_Engineer said:
    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.


    I agree that information is very scarce at the moment. However according to those familiar with Nehalem's development (meaning those who participated in it), Nehalem will overclock very well, regardless of multiplier lock. Of course the EE version will overclock much further, but the rest can also achieve decent overclocks too.
  42. spathotan said:
    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.


    Such negativity you know. You do realize that the last chip Intel rated this high (the QX9650 @ 135w TDP) barely reached 95w TDP @ 3GHz and just about hit 136w TDP @ 3.6GHz. So that part of your argument fails.

    Low closk speeds don't always mean anything, AMD showed us that with the Athlon 64 series and you have a Q6600 thats stock speed is lower than the lowest one there by 266MHz yet it OCed higher.... weird that you complain about that.

    Well lets see, you move the memory controller and add a lot of L3 cache along with tri channel DDR3 support and you want them to show it into a LGA775 which would also conflict with the already on northbridge memory controller? Jeeze.

    L2 became less important since the IMC is now there. The only reason for the gobs of L2 ws to help lower the need for the CPU to access the memory which was slower on Intel chips than AMD chips. So now with a IMC, the CPU can access the memory much much faster and does not need the L2 to compensate.

    L3 is useful depending on the application. I have a Pentium 4 EE 3.4GHz (the old 130nm PGA478 for $150 on EBay) that has 2MB of L3 and my DVDShrink ripping from a dual layer to single layer DVD went from 30 minutes to 4 minutes. So thats one benefit from L3. others are to be seen.

    I wouldn't buy a Nehalem system just yet. I would give it about 6 months to a year. That way mobo and DDR3 prices can lower much more.

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


    Single threaded is very dependant. I have seen a few higher than 10%, of course the sources are not as good and I am stil waiting for a formal review from THG and the others. But we have no idea what the mid-low range will do as Intel has yet to release any info on them or even the full specs. I do know thatmost low end Nehalem based CPUs will only have a dual channel DDR3 support which is why its on a different socket.

    enigma067 said:
    The Penryn is a piece of junk. Look at the chip closely, Intel chose to cram all of its circuitry on one side and its cache on the other. There's also quite a bit of wasted space on the die.

    Why is this bad? It means the heat signature of the Penryn is one-sided. It is not evenly dispersed over the die. Bad design on Intel's part.


    Um Penryn is a great chip. OCs very well, produces very little heat and performs great. Don't hate it because you prefer one company.

    bitrate said:
    I'd rather choose AMD's "'well designed piece of brilliance" over inHell anyday. CPU speed is not the be all and end all of PC performance. Of course, clueless twits like you wouldn't understand that.


    Well the day this "Well designed piace of brilliance" performs better than the "double cheeseburger" I have right now is the day I will buy AMDs chips. Until then they can make a freaking Mona Lisa CPU and I wont buy it if its performance is not better.

    The only "twit" I see here is a fanboy whos so stuck on what he likes that he has to lower himself to insults in order to feel better about himself. You my good sir, are a nothing. Take your insults elsewhere. If you want to rave about your "brilliantly designed" chip go to AMDZone where thats what they dream about. Here you will find mainly people who want the best performance for their dollar, not some brand over preference.

    And why is it AMD gets this "Brilliant Design" label and Intel does not? I mean every CPU to date has been a brilliant design. They are all taken from freaking sand and made into something that gives us fun and connectivity. In my mind, not only is AMDs CPU a brilliant design but so is Intels and yes even IBMs Cell and Power CPU.
  43. spathotan said:
    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.


    Such negativity you know. You do realize that the last chip Intel rated this high (the QX9650 @ 135w TDP) barely reached 95w TDP @ 3GHz and just about hit 136w TDP @ 3.6GHz. So that part of your argument fails.

    Low closk speeds don't always mean anything, AMD showed us that with the Athlon 64 series and you have a Q6600 thats stock speed is lower than the lowest one there by 266MHz yet it OCed higher.... weird that you complain about that.

    Well lets see, you move the memory controller and add a lot of L3 cache along with tri channel DDR3 support and you want them to show it into a LGA775 which would also conflict with the already on northbridge memory controller? Jeeze.

    L2 became less important since the IMC is now there. The only reason for the gobs of L2 ws to help lower the need for the CPU to access the memory which was slower on Intel chips than AMD chips. So now with a IMC, the CPU can access the memory much much faster and does not need the L2 to compensate.

    L3 is useful depending on the application. I have a Pentium 4 EE 3.4GHz (the old 130nm PGA478 for $150 on EBay) that has 2MB of L3 and my DVDShrink ripping from a dual layer to single layer DVD went from 30 minutes to 4 minutes. So thats one benefit from L3. others are to be seen.

    I wouldn't buy a Nehalem system just yet. I would give it about 6 months to a year. That way mobo and DDR3 prices can lower much more.

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


    Single threaded is very dependant. I have seen a few higher than 10%, of course the sources are not as good and I am stil waiting for a formal review from THG and the others. But we have no idea what the mid-low range will do as Intel has yet to release any info on them or even the full specs. I do know that most low end Nehalem based CPUs will only have a dual channel DDR3 support which is why its on a different socket.

    enigma067 said:
    The Penryn is a piece of junk. Look at the chip closely, Intel chose to cram all of its circuitry on one side and its cache on the other. There's also quite a bit of wasted space on the die.

    Why is this bad? It means the heat signature of the Penryn is one-sided. It is not evenly dispersed over the die. Bad design on Intel's part.


    Um Penryn is a great chip. OCs very well, produces very little heat and performs great. Don't hate it because you prefer one company.

    bitrate said:
    I'd rather choose AMD's "'well designed piece of brilliance" over inHell anyday. CPU speed is not the be all and end all of PC performance. Of course, clueless twits like you wouldn't understand that.


    Well the day this "Well designed piece of brilliance" performs better than the "double cheeseburger" I have right now is the day I will buy AMDs chips. Until then they can make a freaking Mona Lisa CPU and I wont buy it if its performance is not better.

    The only "twit" I see here is a fanboy whos so stuck on what he likes that he has to lower himself to insults in order to feel better about himself. You my good sir, are a nothing. Take your insults elsewhere. If you want to rave about your "brilliantly designed" chip go to AMDZone where thats what they dream about. Here you will find mainly people who want the best performance for their dollar, not some brand due to preference.

    And why is it AMD gets this "Brilliant Design" label and Intel does not? I mean every CPU to date has been a brilliant design. They are all taken from freaking sand and made into something that gives us fun and connectivity. In my mind, not only is AMDs CPU a brilliant design but so is Intels and yes even IBMs Cell and Power CPU.
  44. OK, thunderman needs to upgrade his act. Maybe something like this : AMD is manlier. AMD is sexier. I have proof, its slower and hotter AMD4life!
  45. zenmaster said:
    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.


    No, you can't add cores for a sum total just like you can't add the memory of two video cards in SLI-Xfire or stuck together in X2. The base value is the main value plus I was speaking of average Mhz, 2.66 and 3.2 actually average less than 3.
  46. So, in other words, cpus dont scale any better than gpus. Sometimes youll see 100% in games using cf/sli, and sometimes youll see 100% going from dual to quad....hmmmm
  47. ^There is very rarely few games that will scale 100% with CF/SLI let alone 10-30% and normally those that do are not the ones people want.

    Its interesting though because unlike a multicore CPU CF/SLI takes a much different approach. The images are easily pulled into two parts, where as advanced code of say the game engine cannot be so easily unless preprogrammed.

    Peopl tak about how advanced a GPU is, and it is, but reall compared to CPU code it isnt and thats what makes it seem like multi-GPU scales better than multicore CPUs.

    Just because its harder to pull something complex apart at the CPU level and put it back together.
  48. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    So, in other words, cpus dont scale any better than gpus. Sometimes youll see 100% in games using cf/sli, and sometimes youll see 100% going from dual to quad....hmmmm


    So all those benchmarks showing worst perfromance under games in CF and SLI don't mean anything.

    Word, Playa.
  49. So all benches of cpus ever done dont mean anything? Show me twice the performance per core in apps or games using double cpus.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs QPI Intel i7 Intel Processors Product