Meet the Lynnfields - Inquirer article

Just a short article from the Inquirer. Prices are from the 1,000 unit lots to retailers, not the actual retail price expected.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1469068/meet-lynnfields

2 - i5 and 3 - i7 , all that fit in the LGA 1156 socket P55 motherboards.
10 answers Last reply
More about meet lynnfields inquirer article
  1. Why do they built a LGA 1156 socket for i5's.
    Can't they do it with LGA 1366?
  2. ummmm why do we still want dual cores?

    i7 is the same as the server chips but for desktop - HIGH END

    i5 is cheaper to make/produce systems for - less ram channels, pcie lanes etc and is for MAINSTREAM

    if i5 was for LGA1366 it would be the same price as an i7

    tri-channel was more a server need (memory capacity/performance for multisocket etc) rather then a desktop feature - doesnt really give much boost but does help none the less

    i5's may not have ht btw
  3. They just want their profit.
    They want us to buy a new mobo everytime we upgrade.
  4. shubham1401 said:
    They just want their profit.
    They want us to buy a new mobo everytime we upgrade.

    You made a point! I hope intel rots in hell sometime in the future
  5. Lynnfield carrying the i7 name can cost us more as well
  6. For DT, tri channel has none or very little usage. But its more costly in the mobo,arch and ram, so naming a Lynnfield which will perform as well as any Bloomfield will an i7 elevates its price, even tho its much cheaper to make.
    Intel had to come in with some kind of excuse for a lowly dual channel that performs as well as their supoosed "top" tri channel chips, so they call them i7s
  7. UltraO said:
    You made a point! I hope intel rots in hell sometime in the future


    we would all ike to see intel rot for their bullying practices, but we must agree that they are the ones really pushing the envelope in terms of innovation. and i doubt amds chips would be so affordable if it wernt for their bullying practices

    i think the classification is really confusing,

    it would have been alot easier if it was simply

    i7/i9=1366

    i5=1156

    i3=775

    i was looking at the chart,

    http://xtreview.com/images/Core%20i9%20intel.jpg

    and it seems like that was the original plan but someone decided that 1156 should have the option for eight threads, and 8 threads and up=i7
  8. Quote:
    I think tri-channel was a mistake period. The dual channel i5 has more bandwidth. Besides AMD is coming out with Quad channel, which makes a lot more sense.


    Wait..... what? Tri-Channel puts much more bandwidth out there.

    And Intel already has quad channel but I mean that kind of bandwidth is only useful in the server market where Intel has it.

    But I have yet to see a dual channel memory setup beat a tri channel memory setup.
  9. shubham1401 said:
    They just want their profit.
    They want us to buy a new mobo everytime we upgrade.


    And yet most P35 mobos support the full range of Core 2 Duos and Quads as do some P965/945s (depending on the mobo makers BIOS releases).

    Or it could be as we have always known. Intel is seperating the super extreme high end from the enthusiasts class, much like it is anyways. I mean how many extreme Intel CPUs or Quad FX AMD CPUs have you bought for their full price? None? Most people don't.

    Its like asking why they didn't just have a dual socket mobo all the time for Core 2 instead of making a special one like Skull Trail.

    UltraO said:
    You made a point! I hope intel rots in hell sometime in the future


    Well you know, it does take billions in R&D and manufacturing to create a processor. If they dom't make money it normally ends in them being bankrupt or even worse out of business. You know, like GM.
  10. My problem is, tri channel doesnt do a thing for DT. Its a waste of resources and money. Also, Im concerned with the 1366 upgrade path, as since both Intel and AMD has decided to go wider, and not faster, or higher IPC, the ultra highend for 1366 is more cores, which already having 8 potential threads on DT, and really barely being able to ever use them, having 12 is pointless, and will be for awhile to come.
    Most code can hopefully be done in parallel, tho at this point, we just dont know how much, and if its ever going to be most, and alot for sure will always be serial, and throwing more cores at serial code is like putting you know whats on bulls.
    Thing is, cpus arent as exciting anymore, and everyones hoping SW will be, but as others have pointed out, both Intel and AMD have taken up the server path, where more cores are better, as well as higher BW, but has yet to be proven cost effective, doable and performance driven in any way on DT, but for a few things
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs