Core i5 Cranks up to 3.6 GHz?
Hkpc.net is reporting that Intel has optimized the processor's Turbo Mode, cranking up the clock speed to 3.6 GHz
Set for a launch in Q3 2009, Intel's 45nm Core i5 (Lynnfield) processor will come in three flavors: 2.66 GHz, 2.8 GHz, and 2.93 GHz. All three versions will feature four cores (4 threads for the 2.66 GHz version, 8 threads for the other two), 8 MB of L3 cache, a TDP of 95 watts, and will fit snug into the LGA-1156 socket. Additionally, all three versions feature 731 million transistors, an integrated DD3 memory controller, an integrated PCI-Express graphics controller, and support for Turbo Boost. As of today, Intel plans to price the 2.66 GHz version around $196 USD; the 2.96 GHz Core i5 will cost around $562 USD.
However, according to a report over on the Chinese website HKEPC, Intel optimized the Nehalem core as well as its Turbo Mode technology, thus giving the Core i5 a significant 5-step boost while staying within the 95 watt TDP. When set in turbo, Intel's 2.66 GHz version will speed up to 3.2 GHz, whereas the 2.8 GHz version will boost to 3.46 GHz and the 2.93 GHz to 3.6 GHz. The site also said that the two current Core i7 processors--specifically the 2.66 GHz and 2.93 GHz versions originally released in November 2008--will climb two steps as well while remaining within the 130 watt TDP.
HKEPC also confirmed that the Clarksfield quad-core processor for mobile devices will feature Hyper-Threading technology and a TDP of 35 watts; it was speculated that the processor would require a TDP of 45 or 55 watts. Additionally, the processor will come in three flavors--1.6 GHz, 1.73 GHz, and 2.0 GHz--and will also be available in Q3 2009. However, unlike the core i5, the three Clarksfield processors will be a bit more costly, ranging from $364 USD to $1054 USD.
I'm planning on upgrading to an i7 soon, but I find it silly that they offer benefits so fit to overclocking to people who probably aren't going to use it, and who probably aren't going to care (or know) quite as much about power consumption. I certainly hope they release more i7's soon.
Annoyed, but not unexpected. Consumer line is where the money is, they won't keep releasing top end processors to satisfy the tiny amount of enthusiasts.
not really the prices are way too high when you factor price to performance ratio you will see that the phenom 2's would still compete,even with all the cool things these processors can do...not everyone is going to rush in and spend that kind of money when they could get something that would provide similar performance for a lot less elsewhere there difference between lynnfield and the phenom 2 line isn't as wide as the difference between core s duo and athlon x2/ phenom 1...this time they won't be as dominant unless their prices are more competitive but then again i like it because it gives us a many more options....by the way another thing you have to consider is that the phenom 2 line of processors for the most part is backward compatible with ddr2 and am2+ boards so one could upgrade to without spending too much money whereas all the intel ppl who would want to upgrade to the i5 would have to change almost all of the core components mobo/ram/cpu and that will cost quite a lot of money,something that won't affect amd as much,i am not hating on intel or anything but i am just pointing out common sense i would love an i5 myself but if financially it makes more sense to buy amd (especially if the performance is not that different) then i see no point in spending all that money for an i5...just my two cents
yeah, sell to oracle ;-) ok no fooling, sell to the red communist chinese.
I understand that, but why go 32nm? Why not start with a 45nm i5's, then make 32nm i7's? Average Joe doesn't care about overclocking, die shrinks, or TDP. Why would you give him the benefits when he wouldn't know the difference?
i7 outperforms the i5 by some, the i5 series is meant to bring some of the i7 performance to mainstream.
The i5's aren't going to be more powerful than the i7's. i5's are for the lower and mid level consumers, as is the LGA 1156 platform.
Exactly. You don't use a more expensive process if it is financially viable to use a cheaper one. These guys aren't out to make enthusiasts happy about their i7s, they're out to make money.
That's the problem with the prices. They aren't attractive when Phenom II is a pretty good chip and will probably have cheaper motherboards too.
Did you just miss what I said?
The difference this gen is Intel is going in a more segmented approach. They have the LGA 1156 for their low to mid end and they have LGA 1366 for the mid to high range. So the higher end processors be LGA 1366 and the lower end will be LGA 1156.