Related articles

• Intel Core i7 (Nehalem): Architecture By AMD?

  Two years ago, Intel pulled off a coup with the introduction of its Conroe architecture, which surfaced as the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad. With this move, the company won back the performance crown after losing a bit of favor in the debacle that was its Pentium 4 "Prescott" design. At that time, Intel announced an ambitious plan to return to evolving its processor architectures at a rapid pace, as they had done in the mid-1990s. The first phase of the plan was the release of a “refresh” of the architecture 12 months after its introduction, to take advantage of progress in fabrication processes. That was done with Penryn. Then a whole new architecture was set to arrive 24 months later, with the code name Nehalem. That new architecture is the subject of this article. The Conroe architecture offered first-rate performance and very reasonable power consumption, but it was far from perfect. Admittedly, the conditions under which it was developed weren’t ideal. When Intel realized its Pentium 4 was a dead-end, it had to reinvent an architecture in a hurry—something that’s far from easy for a company the size of Intel. The team of engineers in Haifa, Israel that, up until then had had responsibility for mobile architectures, was suddenly responsible for providing a design that’d power the entire new line of Intel processors. It was a challenging task for the team, which now bore Intel’s future on its shoulders. Given those conditions—with the tight schedule they had to stick to and the pressure they were under—the results that the Intel engineers achieved are remarkable. The situation also explains why the team had to make some compromises. Although it was a serious reworking of the Pentium M, the Conroe architecture still sometimes betrayed its mobile roots. For one thing, the architecture wasn’t really modular. It had to cover the entire Intel range, from notebooks to servers. But in practice, it was practically the same chip in each case; the only place for variation was in the L2 cache memory. The architecture was also clearly designed to be dual-core, and moving to a quad-core version required the same kind of trick that Intel had resorted to for its first dual-core processors—two dies in a single package. The presence of the FSB also hampered the development of configurations using several processors, since it was a bottleneck in terms of memory access. And a final little giveaway: one of the new features introduced with the Conroe architecture—macro-ops fusion—which combines two x86 instructions into a single one, didn’t work in 64-bit mode, the standard operating mode for servers. These compromises were understandable two years ago, but today Intel can no longer justify them—especially when faced with its rival AMD and the Opteron processor still a compelling play for enterprise environments. With Nehalem, Intel needed to remedy its last weaknesses by designing a modular architecture that could adapt to the differing needs of the all three major markets: mobile, desktop and server.

• Eurocom’s Core i7 Notebook: Walking The Panther

  What, exactly, is a workstation-class notebook computer? We’ve long seen desktop replacement notebooks with big screens and lower-efficiency (but higher-performance) desktop processors, but those have often targeted mainstream users who were looking for only a hint of portability. And then there are gaming notebooks, most of which now use top-model mobile processors to reduce heat, power consumption, and by proxy, cooling requirements. For as long as any of us can remember, the only way to approach the level of performance offered in high-end desktops was to buy a high end desktop. Eurocom has other ideas, though. Designed to serve as either a portable replacement for a mid-range graphics workstation or a high-end game machine, the D900F Panther features Intel’s fastest Core i7 Extreme desktop processors, RAID support for up to four drives and, purportedly, the user’s choice of Nvidia’s latest GeForce or Quadro graphics. It appears that the only thing blocking legitimacy to Eurocom’s mobile workstation designation is that the Quadro graphics solution isn’t available from Eurocom yet (though the company is offering Xeon 5500-series CPUs in the machine). Today’s test system uses the Intel Core i7-965 Extreme and GeForce GTX 280M. Because this notebook uses the second-fastest desktop processor available, we wanted to compare the second-fastest “mobile” CPU. Likewise, we wanted to see how Nvidia’s fastest mobile graphics solution would stand up to AMD’s. Unfortunately, most notebook companies have discontinued their short-lived Radeon Mobility HD 4870 solutions, including Asus’ CrossFire version, leaving us scrambling to find the closest possible contender. MSI stepped in with its 512MB Radeon Mobility 4850 configuration. Notebook ConfigurationsModelEurocom D900F PantherMSI GT725-212USCPUIntel Core i7-965 Extreme (3.20 GHz)Intel Core 2 Quad Q9000 (2.00 GHz)ChipsetIntel X58/ICH10RIntel PM45/ICH9MMemory6.0 GB DDR3-1333 (as listed)4.0 GB DDR2-800GraphicsNvidia GeForce GTX 280M 1.0 GB ATI Radeon HD 4850 512 MBDisplay17" WUXGA (1920x1200)17" WUXGA (1920x1200)Hard Drive2 x Seagate 7200.4 500 GB RAID 0WD Scorpio Black 320 GBSoundIntegrated HD AudioIntegrated HD AudioWired LANIntegrated Gigabit LANIntegrated Gigabit LANWireless LANIntel WiFi Link 5300 802.11nAtheros AR928X 802.11nTelephonyIntegrated 56k Fax ModemIntegrated 56k Fax ModemBluetoothInternal Bluetooth ModuleInternal Bluetooth ModuleOpticalPanasonic UJ-130 BD-ROM DVD±RWOptiarc BC-5500S BD-ROM DVD±RWMedia ReaderMulti-format flash card interfaceMulti-format flash card interfaceWebcam2.0 Megapixel2.0 MegapixelExpansionExpressCard/54ExpressCard/54USB 2.0Four Ports (right-side)Four Ports (2-left, 2-right)IEEE 13941 x FireWire 400 (left-side)1 x FireWire 400 (right-side)eSATA1 x eSATA 3.0 Gb/s (left-side)1 x eSATA 3.0 Gb/s (right-side)Audio I/OLine-In, Digital Out, Microphone, Headphone (front edge)Headphone, Digital Out, Line-In, Microphone (right-side)Video Output1 x DVI (rear), 1 x HDMI (left-side)1 x VGA, 1 x HDMI (rear)Battery12-cell 14.4V 6600mAh9-cell 10.8V 7800mAhWeightNotebook 11.8 lbs, Power Adapter 2.6 lbs, Total 14.4 poundsNotebook 7.8 lbs, Power Adapter 1.3 lbs, Total 9.1 poundsWarrantyOne-year return serviceThree-year electronics parts/labor One-year LCD/BatteryServiceOne-year online and telephoneThree-year online tech supportTotal Price:$5,354 $1,600 The use of AMD’s second-fastest mobile GPU with only 512 MB graphics RAM forces us to emphasize the lower price of MSI’s GT725-212US, with value considerations taken throughout today’s review. Desktop gamers seeking increased system portability will find details beyond the scope of a notebook review in today’s GTX 280M/GTX 280 editorial.

• Editor's Corner: Overclocking Core i7

  A Little Perspective On i7 Tuning No doubt you already know that Intel’s Core i7 unofficially launched yesterday—it was unofficial because the company lifted its veil on benchmarks, but won’t be shipping product until later this month. Even still, it was nice to get a feel for how the platform performs. In our launch coverage, Bert Toepelt observed that the 965 Extreme is able to circumvent Intel’s Overspeed Protection mechanism by altering the thresholds for wattage and amperage under which the processor would throttle itself. These settings are apparent in Intel’s own DX58SO BIOS. The Core i7 920 and 940 CPUs, on the other hand, were limited to 100A and 130W on the same motherboard, which was used to conduct our early tests. To an overclocker, these artificially-imposed limits would be a hindrance in realizing a very well-made core’s overclocking potential. Already, many Core 2 Duo E8600 owners are able to push the heck out of Intel’s 45nm manufacturing process, easily surpassing the 4 GHz mark with air cooling. According to our subsequent discussions with Intel, the Overspeed Protection mechanism added to Core i7 was intended more as a safety precaution in server, low-power desktop, and mobile applications—all environments where the Nehalem micro-architecture will find itself in the next year. The company knows it has a contingent of overclocking fans, now that 45nm has so much headroom built into it (and Intel has no real incentive to sell faster parts, eating into headroom it could sell for more in the future). This isn’t a knock against AMD, either—with the advent of the SB750 southbridge, we’ve seen plenty of mid-3 GHz milestones from its aging 65 nm process, too. But the fact of the matter is that Intel is the one rocking and rolling in enthusiast circles. So, right at launch, you can expect most motherboard vendors (even Intel) to include an override of that Overspeed Protection function. On the DX58SO, it’s called CPU VR Current Limit Override. In ASUS’ Rampage II Extreme, it’s the CPU TM Function, which engages throttling based on TM2. Let’s get into the effect of this setting turned on or off. Hitting The Switches To Make i7 Bounce With more detail from Intel on the Overspeed Protection function and how an overclocker in the know can get around it, I set up a platform that differed from the hardware available to our German office. I used the aforementioned ASUS Rampage II Extreme motherboard, three 2 GB modules of Corsair’s DDR3-1600 8-8-8 memory, and a Core i7 920 engineering sample with its locked multiplier. The first test was booting the 920 with Turbo mode on and off, confirming that these lower-end chips indeed support the clock speed-enhancing feature. Indeed, it worked as expected, and—under no load—I got a 1x multiplier bump up to 2.8 GHz from 2.66. Leaving Turbo mode enabled, I started tweaking with the Bclk—the base clock, which determines core frequency, memory frequency, and QuickPath frequency. The fastest bootable frequency was 190 MHz, up from 133 MHz, which yielded just under 4 GHz. A 1.525 Vcore, 1.65 DRAM voltage, and 1.35V QPI voltage were as high as we pushed the chip and modules using Thermalright’s Ultra 120 eXtreme cooler. Then I tried it with Turbo mode disabled and a 200 MHz Bclk, yielding a straight 4 GHz. The setting was stable enough for a screenshot, but not solid enough for a Cinebench run. And so I scaled back to 3.8 GHz for our little throttling experiment. With Turbo off, the CPU TM Function turned on, and a 1.475V Vcore, I fired up Cinebench. The benchmark got about halfway through and then stepped back to a 19.5x multiplier briefly. I restarted, set a 1.5V Vcore and repeated the procedure, this time catching multipliers as low as 18x. So there’s Intel’s Overspeed Protection kicking in, just as Bert reported. Leave it on, and the processor will gradually step back its multiplier to keep you within its hard-wired “safe” boundaries. Now for the good news. Switch off the CPU TM Function in ASUS’ BIOS (or the CPU VR Current Limit Override in Intel’s), and the capability stops interfering—I looped Cinebench runs without ever encountering a power-induced throttling state. The Bottom Line On i7 Overclocking Intel has added an Overspeed Protection to its Core i7 processors, keeping them from exceeding 130W or 100A. The company says it’s a safeguard in environments where that much power or current could result in a problem. The workaround is a BIOS switch. Overclockers will want to disable it before trying their hand at faster frequencies. Our Core i7 920 sample is stable at 3.8 GHz and with a bit more tweaking would likely stabilize at 4 GHz as well. We didn’t really have any better luck with the 965 Extreme, which could be tweaked through its multiplier settings versus the Bclk-only, like the 920. But then again, this brief editorial was more a personal effort to address some of the comments brought up in our initial launch story. Overclocking on Core i7 is still young, and as Intel’s Francois Piednoel points out, esteemed overclocker Fugger has already hit 5+ GHz with his 965 engineering sample. With a way around Intel’s on-chip thermal thresholds and an assumption that retail processors scale as well as our early samples, the thought of a sub-$300 Core i7 920 cruising along at 4 GHz is juicier (and more feasible) than we might have previously thought.