Intel: Lynnfield Core i5/i7 Not for OCing, i7 9xx price no change
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.
[quotemsg=1980330,1,379062Lynnfield isn't really designed for overclocking; pushing the clock speed higher will limit or even eliminate benefits from Turbo Boost.
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.
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.
"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?
And you got this where?
randomizer said: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.
randomizer said: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).