Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core i9

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 22, 2009 2:12:16 AM

Hey guys. I was wondering when the core i9 was going to be released and if it is a big improvement form the core i7. I heard it has 6 cores.

Tell me when it comes out and your opinions.

Thanks guys

More about : core

a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 2:20:03 AM

not this year.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 22, 2009 8:35:29 AM

would that mean you have to buy a whole new motherboard?
July 22, 2009 8:53:41 AM

According to Wikipedia, i7 and i9 use the same socket 1366 so no you wouldn't have to buy a new MB if you already own a a motherboard for i7.
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 8:54:18 AM

elo820 said:
would that mean you have to buy a whole new motherboard?

Greatly possible! Intel's gonna rape those rich guys again soon. LOL
July 22, 2009 9:21:12 AM

^ no, Intel has said the 6 cores will be X58 only so no change in mobo :) 

they will however be EE cpu's so $999 per cpu. Anyone complaining about the price should think about who LGA1366 i7 was aimed at. Or I could sum it up now, Gamers who change their PC every year, and for a Cheaper Workstation that was just as powerful.

so the Gamers will just upgrade the CPU and video card since they have the money and the Workstation folk will either keep on going with their i7 or if they want that extra speed they'll upgrade to i9.
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 10:25:38 AM

Helloworld_98 said:
^ no, Intel has said the 6 cores will be X58 only so no change in mobo :) 

they will however be EE cpu's so $999 per cpu. Anyone complaining about the price should think about who LGA1366 i7 was aimed at. Or I could sum it up now, Gamers who change their PC every year, and for a Cheaper Workstation that was just as powerful.

so the Gamers will just upgrade the CPU and video card since they have the money and the Workstation folk will either keep on going with their i7 or if they want that extra speed they'll upgrade to i9.

I would abandon the x58(and therefore the LGA1366 i7) if EE cpus are the only one for it. In this case, I will just wait and get the upcoming i5.

I am not interested in getting raped by Intel. Hot chicks are welcome, LOL!
July 22, 2009 10:40:01 AM

andy5174 said:
I would abandon the x58(and therefore the LGA1366 i7) if EE cpus are the only one for it. In this case, I will just wait and get the upcoming i5.

I am not interested in getting raped by Intel. Hot chicks are welcome, LOL!


There's also the phenom 2 and from what I read they are great for gaming if that's what you are after. I have an i7 920 and trust me unless you oc it real high you would be better with a phenom 2 for gaming due to lower price which allows you a better graphics card.
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 10:47:38 AM

sam91 said:
There's also the phenom 2 and from what I read they are great for gaming if that's what you are after. I have an i7 920 and trust me unless you oc it real high you would be better with a phenom 2 for gaming due to lower price which allows you a better graphics card.

AMD CPUs run really hot, whereas, the intel, for example the e7400 is just 25C with stock cooler.

I don't want the heat to reduce the life of my PC, so AMD is not considered.
July 22, 2009 11:53:00 AM

I don't know where you get that from. My X3 710 has never gone above 32 degrees when I've been monitoring it, using stock settings and cooler and with CnQ off, plus my case has three 80mm fans which don't exactly spin very fast. It also has an extra core and a lot more cache than the E7400 PLUS the integrated memory controller so naturally they're going to require more power and thus kick out more heat. It's entirely possible that my PC is in relatively cool conditions anyway but I'm very happy with how quiet my PC is compared to when I used a Barton 2500 @ 3200 clocks.

As for Intel, i7s can run hot but that doesn't stop people overclocking them to 4GHz. :) 

I've been using AMD CPUs for the last 10 years and whilst I don't OC massively, I've never had a single CPU issue. Intel may have a more mature 45nm process as well as more efficient technology but AMD aren't too far behind, plus there's low power versions of some models which are priced cheaper than the competing Intel offerings, so you can have a cool and relatively cheap and capable AMD CPU with little effort. Add in one of the usual featureful boards that we've been seeing for some time now and you can have a good little gaming system or even a nice HTPC.

As people keep saying, AMD's general appeal is for the budget sector, and stretches on a lesser scale into the enthusiast market. You don't generally see $999 AMD desktop CPUs anymore.
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 12:20:08 PM

andy5174 said:
AMD CPUs run really hot, whereas, the intel, for example the e7400 is just 25C with stock cooler.

I don't want the heat to reduce the life of my PC, so AMD is not considered.



Can you back that up with data? I had an AMD Duron 750 that worked its backside off for 10 years with no trouble at all. If the CPU operates within its thermal design specs, then there should be no impact on lifetime.

a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 1:09:40 PM

Herr_Koos said:
Can you back that up with data? I had an AMD Duron 750 that worked its backside off for 10 years with no trouble at all. If the CPU operates within its thermal design specs, then there should be no impact on lifetime.

Many of my friends whose PCs are with Anthlon x2 5x00+ CPU got shut down when playing COD5 due to overheating of the CPU! Besides, they said that AMD will never be in their consideration anymore.
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 1:26:20 PM

andy5174 said:
AMD CPUs run really hot, whereas, the intel, for example the e7400 is just 25C with stock cooler.

I don't want the heat to reduce the life of my PC, so AMD is not considered.




ooooooooooooooo NEVER say amd is running hot when old intel netburst ran near 100 C!!!!

this would be so much a troll post if it was the netburst days.....


err Athlon x2 5xxx are all business CPUs (the ones that are offered as extended lifecycle stuff so companies can upgrade after something is out of style), they are not exactly the cream of latest tech....

get PhIIs and then see, if they expected kickass performance from IT lifecycle crap (usually meant for larger company whom can't turn their IT around fast enough for new stuff) for gaming, then they are barking up the wrong tree. This is akin to use last gen tech to run cur gen games, and at a price usually not that great (compared to the new lower end stuff that is)
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 1:34:33 PM

theholylancer said:
ooooooooooooooo NEVER say amd is running hot when old intel netburst ran near 100 C!!!!

this would be so much a troll post if it was the netburst days.....

You can't compare a dual core Anthlon X2 with a single core P4 just as people won't compare, for instance, E5200 with i7-920.

In addition, you can't deny that the latest AMD(P II 955) runs much warmer than the i7s as well, can you?
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 1:41:44 PM

???

the i7s can run hot or cool depending on how you push them, if you talking stock then maybe since AMD is really pissing people off with stock cooler of not so greatness, whereas intel is putting in some nicer stocks in. Both will work for stock speeds

now when you talk about OCing, my i7 920 at 4 Ghz w 1.33V runs at 85 C under full load in Linx, I have TRUE installed with one fan (and the other side is close to the system back fan, so it is like a push pull) and that is pretty hot.

I would want some temp data on Ph 955 OC cooling before I can comment tho, since most people seems to be happy with 3.5ish OC rather than the max that I see of 3.8-4 OCs
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 1:45:13 PM

Also TDP of amd is 125w, 130 for i7, that is under load of course
July 22, 2009 1:46:04 PM

Then buy a new dual AMD. They run extremely cool.
If someones had a bad experience, it may put them off from a brand, this I can understand, but as other have pointed out, Intel too had its day with heatburst. Those days are past both of them now, and the closest one is i7 currently, as its the hottest
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 1:50:11 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Then buy a new dual AMD. They run extremely cool.
If someones had a bad experience, it may put them off from a brand, this I can understand, but as other have pointed out, Intel too had its day with heatburst. Those days are past both of them now, and the closest one is i7 currently, as its the hottest



I must point out that you can lower the heat of the i7 significantly if you under volt and stay at stock. use of better cooler works too, but that is usually more for OCing
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 1:50:19 PM

Actually Intel are skipping i8 as it is too fat to fit on the die ....
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 1:53:06 PM

theholylancer said:
???

the i7s can run hot or cool depending on how you push them, if you talking stock then maybe since AMD is really pissing people off with stock cooler of not so greatness, whereas intel is putting in some nicer stocks in.

now when you talk about OCing, my i7 920 at 4 Ghz w 1.33V runs at 85 C under full load in Linx, I have TRUE installed with one fan (and the other side is close to the system back fan, so it is like a push pull) and that is pretty hot.

I would want some temp data on Ph 955 OC cooling before I can comment tho, since most people seems to be happy with 3.5ish OC rather than the max that I see of 3.8-4 OCs

Yeah, I was talking about the temp at stock frequency. Besides, I don't want to pull out the potential of my CPU too hard as it will reduce its life.

AMD running warmer might be due to its bad stock cooler, but a good cooler will cost a lot which would make their prices very the same as or even higher than i7s in the end.
Same case for OC, an E8400 OCed to 3.33GHz will need a better cooler which will end up with a total price higher than E8600 and that's the reason why I don't OC my CPUs.
July 22, 2009 1:56:51 PM

i7 runs significantly warmer than a 955. the 955 actually amazed me how cool it stayed overclocked to 4Ghz.
btw..this same 955 was overclocked to 3.6 with the stock cooler and temps were ok. threw the True on an the idle and load temps resemble that of stock settings. not to mention the fact they are super easy to overclock lol
strictly gaming, single card setup a i7 is a waste IMO when you consider the combo deals available for the 955's right now.
July 22, 2009 2:02:06 PM

Oh, I understand i7s abilities, but its those same abilities (turbo) that make it run hotter.
Theres not 1 thing wrong with that. I dont see anyone coming in here saying their i7 or P2 is shutting down because of heat.
Its just having opinions based on old stuff thats not relevent anymore that seens so out of place. Arent we enthusiasts first? This brand thing outpaces reality sometimes
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 2:03:54 PM

yeah comparing the i7 and x4s atm is like comparing apples with an exotic fruit like say err (someone please insert a exotic fruit for me, I don't know much beyond watermelon.....)

the thermal thing is completely a non-issue since it all depends on how far you push it and what cooler you got in there, stock for stock the i7 may be cooler on average with a better cooler design and perhaps better thermal management, but that is not exactly a fair comparison, esp if amd has a lower TDP

EDIT: I think jay up one post has put it better than me, for something like heat aside form TDP data, it is all coming from personal experience and brand loyalty, and as a old intel netburst basher, I know the feeling lol
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 2:04:08 PM

roofus said:
i7 runs significantly warmer than a 955. the 955 actually amazed me how cool it stayed overclocked to 4Ghz.
btw..this same 955 was overclocked to 3.6 with the stock cooler and temps were ok. threw the True on an the idle and load temps resemble that of stock settings. not to mention the fact they are super easy to overclock lol
strictly gaming, single card setup a i7 is a waste IMO when you consider the combo deals available for the 955's right now.

LOL, It looks like AMD have a lot of followers. No more arguments today. 2 o'clock in NZ now, time to sleep!

BTW, can you tell me what's the temp of your P II 955 at stock frequency with stock cooler? I will definite consider 955 if it is under 40C.
I will check it tomorrow. Thanks
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 2:11:32 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Oh, I understand i7s abilities, but its those same abilities (turbo) that make it run hotter.
Theres not 1 thing wrong with that. I dont see anyone coming in here saying their i7 or P2 is shutting down because of heat.
Its just having opinions based on old stuff thats not relevent anymore that seens so out of place. Arent we enthusiasts first? This brand thing outpaces reality sometimes

I hands up! I didn't mean to give a troll post...
July 22, 2009 2:24:39 PM

Sorry, didnt mean to make it sound that way. The new AMDs are much like the new Intels, cooler, faster, and lower powered. The differences are there, as seen by benchmarks, but TDP, thermals etc are hardly anywheres near the main focus on their simliarities or differences.
They each have their place, for certain usage, and affordability
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 2:34:44 PM

andy5174 said:
LOL, It looks like AMD have a lot of followers. No more arguments today. 2 o'clock in NZ now, time to sleep!

BTW, can you tell me what's the temp of your P II 955 at stock frequency with stock cooler? I will definite consider 955 if it is under 40C.
I will check it tomorrow. Thanks



reports like this usually means they got them selves a low leakage chip that clocks to the moon with air and hits a hard wall that can't be fixed with extreme cooling like LH2 or something, there are reports of 5Ghz intel i7, it is a frigging cherry picked part that did it on air (Prolima Tech Megahalems w/ 150CFM Delta lol, them deltas are the SCREAMERS) with like 1.45V or something........


http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=100738237&mpage=1&k...

and later on (or was it b4?) same guy with it passing superpi 32M lol with *only* 4.9 on same setup.....

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=100716036
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 2:43:05 PM

My PII x3 710 on stock clocks and cooler runs 25 idle, 38 max underload. OC's to 3.1 it is up to 30 idle, 44 under load. Stock cooler, 4 case fans, proper cable management. My last rig with 4800+ dual and x1650 PRO, would idle at 30, load at 45ish, never OC'd, or cleaned the case (smokers with cats). My Sempron 1.8 was almost identical heat profile as my 4800+, and I was pretty negligent about cleaning that one too. I clean my case every saturday morning now, while having my morning coffee and flipping through the paper. It is a nice routine that makes me feel like an old man sometimes, but an old man with cool and clean computer :D .

The only gen I skipped was the Phenom1, and I have never experienced any heat issues. Though from the few friends that had those (all upgraded to PIIs since) it was a hot CPU that was basically crap. Glad I waited for the PIIs, heh.

To sum up, as an unintended AMD fanboy (just happened to be the best bang for the buck at the exact moment of building a new rig) I have never had a heat issue, with the caveat of having never owned a Phenom1.
July 22, 2009 3:59:28 PM

andy5174 said:
LOL, It looks like AMD have a lot of followers. No more arguments today. 2 o'clock in NZ now, time to sleep!

BTW, can you tell me what's the temp of your P II 955 at stock frequency with stock cooler? I will definite consider 955 if it is under 40C.
I will check it tomorrow. Thanks


actually,
i have the last pieces to my i7 build showing up today. i praise a product when it deserves it and will criticize it when it deserves it equally. BTW the stock cooler temp @ 3.6 was 30c flat. It maintained that temp at 4.0 with a True sitting on top. After a Vantage run it climbed to 40 and dropped back down to 33c. I am impressed. No need for anyone else to be but understand how cheap you can have a 4Ghz quad core setup. Nothing to do with Intel vs AMD.
July 22, 2009 4:17:50 PM

roofus said:
actually,
i have the last pieces to my i7 build showing up today. i praise a product when it deserves it and will criticize it when it deserves it equally. BTW the stock cooler temp @ 3.6 was 30c flat. It maintained that temp at 4.0 with a True sitting on top. After a Vantage run it climbed to 40 and dropped back down to 33c. I am impressed. No need for anyone else to be but understand how cheap you can have a 4Ghz quad core setup. Nothing to do with Intel vs AMD.


Is there a noticeable difference between core i7, core 2 quad, and phenom 2.

What speed could I get away with on the stock cooler and fan on the i7 920. 3.2?
July 22, 2009 5:19:05 PM

^ some get as high as 3.8GHz and 3.2GHz seems to be easy on the stock cooler.
July 22, 2009 7:00:21 PM

Helloworld_98 said:
^ some get as high as 3.8GHz and 3.2GHz seems to be easy on the stock cooler.

Thanks. Is there a noticeable difference between core i7 phenom 2 and core 2 quad
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 7:04:29 PM

yes if you do multi media editing, if for gaming only, then only if you got beefy gfx or else no difference other than price.

i7 is really a server chip that is in desktop, it does not offer advantage for gaming unless you are getting quad sli/CF or some top end cf/sli setup that needs it. but for things that server does well like say multi media edition or photoshop or something like that, then it is killer
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 7:05:29 PM

biggest heatsink i ever saw was on a P4. it was so big, it had its own brace.
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 8:09:59 PM

andy5174 said:
You can't compare a dual core Anthlon X2 with a single core P4 just as people won't compare, for instance, E5200 with i7-920.

In addition, you can't deny that the latest AMD(P II 955) runs much warmer than the i7s as well, can you?


Actually, as a happy owner of an i7, I will happily admit that the i7 runs hot. Really hot. It's fast, but I'd be rather surprised if the Phenom II wasn't a cooler running CPU. Oh, and 40C stock cooler? That's not a reasonable expectation - even the Intel 45nm Core 2 Quads won't usually do that, and they run pretty cool, all things considered. My i7 hit between 69 and 72C, stock cooler, stock clocks. On my TRUE, it hits 58-60C stock clocked.
July 22, 2009 8:26:29 PM

I feel like this is PIII vs Spitfire all over again T_T.

Phe II fine for gaming,(so it i7) but i rather run a i7 for mutli-thread operations like transcoding/encoding. Which for me i do a ton more.
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 8:38:43 PM

i have a Phenom II 810 @ 1.1625v and it hits 38c at load on a stock cooler (from a TDP125w part aka Athlon X2 6000+)
July 22, 2009 8:57:18 PM

Reynod said:
Actually Intel are skipping i8 as it is too fat to fit on the die ....


LOL!!!
a b à CPUs
July 22, 2009 9:09:51 PM

andy5174 said:
Many of my friends whose PCs are with Anthlon x2 5x00+ CPU got shut down when playing COD5 due to overheating of the CPU! Besides, they said that AMD will never be in their consideration anymore.


that processor is what 2, maybe 3 generations old? completely irrelevant to the phenom 2
July 23, 2009 1:23:55 AM

Reynod said:
Actually Intel are skipping i8 as it is too fat to fit on the die ....

Shouldn't they have skipped 7 because 7 8 9. So 7 is the fat one.
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2009 4:25:33 AM

cjl said:
Actually, as a happy owner of an i7, I will happily admit that the i7 runs hot. Really hot. It's fast, but I'd be rather surprised if the Phenom II wasn't a cooler running CPU. Oh, and 40C stock cooler? That's not a reasonable expectation - even the Intel 45nm Core 2 Quads won't usually do that, and they run pretty cool, all things considered. My i7 hit between 69 and 72C, stock cooler, stock clocks. On my TRUE, it hits 58-60C stock clocked.

How is it possible for your i7 to run at 69C to 72C?!!! The thermal design power(TDP) for i7 is just 67.9C @ 0.80V-1.375V if I am not mistaken.
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2009 4:37:14 AM

That's not a thermal design power. That's a rated temperature. It's also pretty conservative. In addition, that is the rated CPU temperature, wheras mine are core temperatures (which are around 5C higher than the CPU temp). The TDP is 130 watts, which shows how much they use, since most Core 2 Quads are 95W, and even the higher powered Phenom II CPUs are 125W. Don't think the i7 runs cool though - it is probably Intel's hottest CPU since Prescott.
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2009 8:47:42 AM

cjl is a patient man .... lucky he didn't call you grasshopper.
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2009 8:56:20 AM

Reynod said:
cjl is a patient man .... lucky he didn't call you grasshopper.

Why are you so mean? :( 
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2009 2:02:34 PM

whats this whole grasshopper thing anyways? I remember some guy named grasshopper from way back but....
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2009 2:32:46 PM

The i7 desktop part is quite leaky and Intel acknowledge that ... comparedto the 95watt server nehalems.

However its advanced power saving features help quite a bit at both idle and under load.

As a leaky part it also overclocks easier ... hence the decision to enable a reasonably agressive turbo function. Quite clever I think.

I'd imagine it would have a better thermal throttling function than the older Pentium designs ... interestingly nobody has put that to the test yet.

THG reviewers ... here is a topic for a good review ... overheat some new CPU's and tell us what is going on please?

aplogies andy ... I was only joking.
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2009 2:43:46 PM

Reynod said:
aplogies andy ... I was only joking.


I didn't take it seriously too. Anyway, I take your apology. :) 
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2009 2:55:28 PM

theholylancer said:
whats this whole grasshopper thing anyways? I remember some guy named grasshopper from way back but....

See: Wikipedia - Kung Fu (TV Series)

The wise old teacher calls the inexperienced young student "grasshopper".
a b à CPUs
July 23, 2009 3:01:16 PM

O.o lol ok

and about over heating protection, I think it is set either really high or something, but I can hit 87 C in Linux under full load on a hot day.... or it measures delta and actual temp, and only shut it down on spike....
!