Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Intel: Lynnfield Core i5/i7 Not for OCing, i7 9xx price no change

Intel: Lynnfield Core i5/i7 Not for OCing, i7 9xx price no change

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Intel: Lynnfield Core i5/i7 Not for OCing, i7 9xx price no change

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
r_manic   09-10-2009 at 09:41:27 AM

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g36/verbosity_2006/P1060952.jpg

Just came from a media event where executives from Intel were showcasing the new Lynnfield processors: the Core i5 750, and the Core i7 860 and 870. Here are some salient points, as stated/demonstrated by the folks from Intel:

  • Lynnfield isn't really designed for overclocking; pushing the clock speed higher will limit or even eliminate benefits from Turbo Boost.
  • Turbo Boost can push the clock speed up of the i5 750 (2.66GHz) to 2.8GHz when all four cores are working in tandem.
  • Setting the Core i5 750 to use only one core (through the BIOS) allows a max clock speed of 3.2GHz—thanks to Turbo Boost—but you lose the benefits of multi-core processing.
  • Based on how the Intel team kept on pitting a system running the i5 750 against a Q9400 system, and making it a point to show that the 750 performed better in every sense, think they're planning to phase out the LGA 775 platform soon?
  • i7 9xx prices won't change, since that line still maintains its supremacy due to its triple-channel capability (Lynnfield is dual-channel) and ability to manage two x16 PCIe streams (compared to Lynnfield's max of two x8 streams).
  • They also maddeningly refused to comment on future plans for LGA 1366, again implying the i7 9xx series' current relevancy lay in its positioning as the high-end setup, compared to Lynnfield's marketing as "mainstream performance".


Sorry if any (or all) of this/these isn't news to you, just wanted to share. :D


Message edited by r_manic on 09-10-2009 at 09:48:11 AM
Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
PsychoSaysDie   09-10-2009 at 09:47:34 AM

I really like the I5 but i'm waiting for Gulftown :)

------------------------------ Core I7 920 D0 @ 4.2Ghz
MSI X58 Pro-E
32GB SSD, WD Blacks In R0
Sapphire HD 5870's In XFire
 Reply to PsychoSaysDie
Bronze CPUs badge jsc   09-10-2009 at 09:59:39 AM

" ... pushing the clock speed higher will limit or even eliminate benefits from Turbo Boost. Turbo Boost can push the clock speed up of the i5 750 (2.66GHz) to 2.8GHz when all four cores are working in tandem. "

 

Wow. :( I think that I can learn to live without Turbo Boost.


Message edited by jsc on 09-10-2009 at 10:00:12 AM
Reply to jsc
Bronze CPUs badge Twoboxer   09-10-2009 at 10:05:46 AM

[quotemsg=1980330,1,379062

  • Lynnfield isn't really designed for overclocking; pushing the clock speed higher will limit or even eliminate benefits from Turbo Boost.[/quotemsg]


After looking at several benchmark reviews, I don't think this tells the whole story. Apparently, the third option is to OC it midway yet retain all of Turbo boost.

Reply to Twoboxer
randomizer   09-10-2009 at 10:18:43 AM

The "benefits" of Turbo Boost? If I overclock all cores to the speed that Turbo would normally overclock some core to then I've negated any need for Turbo.

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to randomizer
Bronze CPUs badge Twoboxer   09-10-2009 at 10:24:51 AM

The vast majority of folks do not OC their PCs. Regardless of how you or I view Turbo, those folks will see it as the best of both worlds. Unless someone like AMD can figure out how to tell them its meaningless.

Good luck with that lol.

And for those folks, at current pricing, the performance is actually there to back it up. It's not simply a marketing claim.

Reply to Twoboxer
croc   09-10-2009 at 10:31:56 AM

"They also maddeningly refused to comment on future plans for LGA 1366, again implying the i7 9xx series' current relevancy lay in its positioning as the high-end setup, compared to Lynnfield's marketing as "mainstream performance".

Curious. Wonder what that means, as there are no i9's available, and no pricing?

Message quoted 1 times
------------------------------ Badges? We don' need no stinkin' badges...!
 Reply to croc
PsychoSaysDie   09-10-2009 at 10:41:18 AM

croc wrote :

"They also maddeningly refused to comment on future plans for LGA 1366, again implying the i7 9xx series' current relevancy lay in its positioning as the high-end setup, compared to Lynnfield's marketing as "mainstream performance".

Curious. Wonder what that means, as there are no i9's available, and no pricing?



The I9 exists.

http://global.hkepc.com/database/images/2009081015564707405292968.jpg

Message quoted 1 times
------------------------------ Core I7 920 D0 @ 4.2Ghz
MSI X58 Pro-E
32GB SSD, WD Blacks In R0
Sapphire HD 5870's In XFire
 Reply to PsychoSaysDie
croc   09-10-2009 at 10:52:04 AM

PsychoSaysDie wrote :

The I9 exists.

http://global.hkepc.com/database/i [...] 292968.jpg



And you got this where?

------------------------------ Badges? We don' need no stinkin' badges...!
 Reply to croc
croc   09-10-2009 at 11:05:26 AM

randomizer wrote :

hkepc based on the image location.



(I knew that) Point still going back to the fact that no one at this point in time can really say that the i9 'exists'. No one knows yet what it will do, nor how it will be priced. So I found the purported statements regarding this chip to be 'curious'.

When HP can get tray lot supplies, and I can actually buy one, THEN it will exist. As of now, looks like q4 this year or q1 next year.

Message quoted 1 times
------------------------------ Badges? We don' need no stinkin' badges...!
 Reply to croc
MarkG   09-10-2009 at 05:04:29 PM

randomizer wrote :

The "benefits" of Turbo Boost? If I overclock all cores to the speed that Turbo would normally overclock some core to then I've negated any need for Turbo.

 

Except you'll probably have to raise voltages, change bus frequencies and improve cooling to do so; if 'Turbo boost' is supposed to increase clock frequencies while remaining within expected limits on heat, etc, then it's going to exceed them if you push all four cores to the same maximum frequency that it would normally run a single core. Plus the 'Turbo boost' increases frequency by increasing the multiplier, rather than maintaining the same multiplier and increasing the base frequency (presumably that will also mean increasing RAM clocks, etc).


Message edited by MarkG on 09-10-2009 at 05:05:29 PM
Reply to MarkG
PsychoSaysDie   09-10-2009 at 07:03:26 PM

croc wrote :

(I knew that) Point still going back to the fact that no one at this point in time can really say that the i9 'exists'. No one knows yet what it will do, nor how it will be priced. So I found the purported statements regarding this chip to be 'curious'.

When HP can get tray lot supplies, and I can actually buy one, THEN it will exist. As of now, looks like q4 this year or q1 next year.



Intel wouldn't be retarded{I hope} and price 1 and only chip at 999. We're all praying for a 2.4Ghz Gulftown at the 399.99 price point

------------------------------ Core I7 920 D0 @ 4.2Ghz
MSI X58 Pro-E
32GB SSD, WD Blacks In R0
Sapphire HD 5870's In XFire
 Reply to PsychoSaysDie
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Intel: Lynnfield Core i5/i7 Not for OCing, i7 9xx price no change
Go to:

There are 707 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.484 seconds
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them