Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Officially Launches 32nm Core i3, i5, i7

Tags:
  • Core
  • Intel i7
  • Intel
  • Intel i5
  • Nehalem
Last response: in News comments
Share
January 7, 2010 9:21:42 PM

still no quad cores for around 100 bucks no thank you
Score
3
January 7, 2010 9:36:02 PM

^ Right - wish Intel would release the i7-930 on 32nm, not 45nm..
Score
9
Related resources
January 7, 2010 9:43:31 PM

amd still has the lower price points, though i would like to see a comparison of the two i3's against the Athlon II x4 and the Phenom II x2 as they are priced similarly and im curious if intels cheaper models can maintain good performance or if they are so much cheaper that they fall short of their direct AMD competition.
Score
4
Anonymous
January 7, 2010 10:33:07 PM

Damn... i hope my buyer wont see this news... or he wont buy my used e7400 for 120$ lol
Score
-2
January 7, 2010 10:48:01 PM

meh im happy with my q6600@3.4gz and i wont be upgrading till 2011
Score
2
January 7, 2010 10:56:47 PM

Yessir, we are getting mighty close to the physical threshold.
Can you feel it, slowly creeping behind you?
Score
2
January 7, 2010 11:21:42 PM

I'm writing this on a well used 3 year old Dell D820 with a Core 2 2.00Ghz processor and discrete graphics. More speed would be nice but the machine has gotten the job done. I vowed I wouldn't consider a new machine until a whole new generation of processors appeared. Now it's the same familiar problem, how to figure out the differences between what I've got and the new stuff.
Score
6
January 7, 2010 11:47:53 PM

what is the socket type for these new processors? 1156?
Score
-1
January 7, 2010 11:49:14 PM

They're calling the top-end dual cores i7 now? Sad.
Score
13
January 8, 2010 12:19:56 AM

caparcI'm writing this on a well used 3 year old Dell D820 with a Core 2 2.00Ghz processor and discrete graphics. More speed would be nice but the machine has gotten the job done. I vowed I wouldn't consider a new machine until a whole new generation of processors appeared. Now it's the same familiar problem, how to figure out the differences between what I've got and the new stuff.



4.5 year old Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 939, with an upgraded 8800GTX. This thing has only recently started to show its age. Dragon Age @ 1920x1200 with everything turned up was stuttering a bit (okay, more then a bit).

Perhaps 2010 is the year to upgrade. I got my tax return burning a hole in my pocket and I don't even have it yet. I sure would like to see Fermi come out before I make some decisions though.
Score
0
January 8, 2010 12:26:32 AM

Sigh, I was hoping for an upgrade to the i7 architecture. :( 
Score
0
January 8, 2010 12:28:55 AM

hunter315amd still has the lower price points, though i would like to see a comparison of the two i3's against the Athlon II x4 and the Phenom II x2 as they are priced similarly and im curious if intels cheaper models can maintain good performance or if they are so much cheaper that they fall short of their direct AMD competition.

Found a review that compares the new Intel cpus with quite a few core 2 and phenom II/athlon II processors.
Even though that review doesn't have Core i3 530, it has Core i3 540, Core i5 661, Pentium G6950, Athlon II X3 435, Athlon II X4 630, Phenom II X2 550, Phenom II X4 925 and quite a few more.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/clarkdale-...
Score
0
Anonymous
January 8, 2010 12:51:51 AM

"For the first time, there's a new family of Intel processors with the industry's most advanced technology available immediately at virtually every PC price point,"

At every price point from $200 to $1000 that is.

Granted, I spotted three processors in that list that were priced lower than ~$200 but I feel the point makes itself.

Much as they are great processors, in all but price, I'd rather buy an AMD 965 BE or an Intel i5 750 for far less than these glorified dual-cores. 32nm or not, despte the on-package IGP, Intel has to realize that there's no such thing as a high-end dual-core anymore.

The S1156, 32nm 2.8GHz Pentium G6950 seems to be the only winner at ~$90 from local e-tailers. No idea what the MSRP is though.
Score
0
Anonymous
January 8, 2010 1:26:36 AM

The desktop i5 660 and 661 are looking to be very close.
at first sight the 661 seems better as the graphics frequency is at 900 vs the 660 has the Gfreq at 700.
I wonder for application if the CPU on the 661 would be slower than the 660 or not in turbo boost, since the graphics chip is clocked higher and therefor probably is emitting more heat!
Score
0
January 8, 2010 1:50:17 AM

As things gets smaller and better performance, the 32nm CPU will have shorter or even much shorter lifespan than those higher nm CPUs because of diffusion. I remember 10 years ago, a laptop can usually last more than 10 years old. But now, a laptop can hardly last more than 3 years. Although lifespan is not a serious concern as technology advances rapidly, but it should neither be too much neglected.
Score
0
January 8, 2010 1:54:16 AM

Damn, just look at those TDPs for the i7s! 4-4.3Ghz may be very easy on air now....

Also, where are the i9s?
Score
1
January 8, 2010 2:00:09 AM

NICE..
Score
-1
January 8, 2010 4:40:09 AM

tortnotes:They're calling the top-end dual cores i7 now? Sad.

Quite usual tactics, work in a brand as high end then slowly push it to the budget sector fooling customers on the way thinking they bought the ferrari. Then the next generation products show up with a new name and cycle repeats... Tic-Toc anyone ? =)
Score
1
January 8, 2010 6:59:57 AM

Shadow703793Also, where are the i9s?


I was wondering the same thing...
Score
0
January 8, 2010 10:06:42 AM

JasonAkkerman4.5 year old Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 939, with an upgraded 8800GTX. This thing has only recently started to show its age. Dragon Age @ 1920x1200 with everything turned up was stuttering a bit (okay, more then a bit). Perhaps 2010 is the year to upgrade.


Todays prices on powerful CPUs is very nice. Things will happen faster (loading, windows, scans). A $100 CPU with $100 AMD CPU of 4GB DDR3 memory, a new SATA drive, maybe a $150 SSD just for Windows7 OS along with an ATI 5700 or 5800 video card... should last you a while :) 

Score
0
January 8, 2010 12:10:09 PM

JasonAkkerman4.5 year old Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 939, with an upgraded 8800GTX. This thing has only recently started to show its age. Dragon Age @ 1920x1200 with everything turned up was stuttering a bit (okay, more then a bit). Perhaps 2010 is the year to upgrade. I got my tax return burning a hole in my pocket and I don't even have it yet. I sure would like to see Fermi come out before I make some decisions though.


Well, I got my Athlon64 X2 4400+ (@2.5-ish Ghz, FSB225, 2GB RAM, DFI LanParty UT nF4 SLI-D) with a Radeon 4890 and nothing seems to slow down for me @1920x1080. Just squeeze a little more juice from it and you'll be fine :p 

Cheers!
Score
0
January 8, 2010 12:11:05 PM

4GB? Up that to...6-8 on a 64 bit system and the RAM would keep up for a couple of years at most. Yes, I actually do mean couple, as in, 2.
Score
0
January 8, 2010 12:57:50 PM

My 3.0 Ghz Pentium D is still kicking. My problem with Intel lately is the haziness on what the sockets are going to be and if they will be the standard for a few years (like the 775 socket). They have the 1156 now but they talk about 1155 taking over soon. I'll wait and see. Another few months isn't going to kill me.
Score
1
January 8, 2010 1:22:52 PM

alvinemeh im happy with my q6600@3.4gz and i wont be upgrading till 2011

Same here. My Q6600 @ 3.0GHz @ 1.2v is still fast and cool enough for me. I'll wait until the 32nm i7 or Sandybridge before upgrading.
Score
0
January 8, 2010 4:09:31 PM

Very nice.
I can only hope the dual cores with an integrated GPU will help dramatically lower the price of motherboards to compensate.

I wish they would be gentle with the price on their mobile processors, or else people will just stick to core 2 duos.
Score
0
January 8, 2010 6:05:45 PM

The title of this article led me to believe a 32nm refresh of the i7 920 had been launched. Darn it to heck!
Score
1
January 9, 2010 4:07:52 AM

Soldier37Not impressed, I'll keep my x4 quad 955 at 3.8 ghz and 5870 gpu I'm good for a while!

exactly what i have and exactly my thoughts.
Score
0
Anonymous
January 10, 2010 4:26:39 AM

why couldnt they have released the i3/i5 series first, THEN the higher i7 series?
it seems backwards for intel's newer developments to be slower, worse products.

it only confuses the consumer: how does the first gen. i7 series stack now against these NEWER, yet "lower model" cpus?

they should make the i7 9 series in 32nm now to make up for it.
screw it, ill probably end up buying AMD anyways for its value/performance
Score
0
a b å Intel
January 10, 2010 3:41:03 PM

Every price point? I don't see a $99.00 cpu for those on a very tight budget!
Score
0
January 13, 2010 2:18:18 AM

YukaWell, I got my Athlon64 X2 4400+ (@2.5-ish Ghz, FSB225, 2GB RAM, DFI LanParty UT nF4 SLI-D) with a Radeon 4890 and nothing seems to slow down for me @1920x1080. Just squeeze a little more juice from it and you'll be fine Cheers!



Ive got a 3800x2 @2.7 939 socket on a8n-sli. Things are adequate but I am looking to upgrade this year, 1st quarter. But I am waiting to see what the options will be from intel. I'm leaning to the i7 930 but I don't know what the prices are going to be.

Btw, am I missing something or is the amount of attention to the HiDef graphics lacking? and why don't we know the sockets? throw me a bone intel!
Score
0
Anonymous
January 30, 2010 3:38:50 PM

Alot of people posting on this page mentioned the i7 as a dual core, it's not. It's a quad core, and the way it's designed allows it to act like it has 8 virtual cores. So alost of applications will be able to take advantage of this technology. And the cheapest i3 is $130, which acts like 4 virtual cores, but has only dual core. Battery and power consumption reduced, performance increased.. Job well done intel!
Score
0
Anonymous
May 14, 2010 4:38:06 AM

i7 is a gud step by Intel......hope it wil go ahd 4 long tm...!!!
Score
0
!