Well, there's another motherboard upgrade, I bet. I figured my X58 would only be good for the 45nm cpu's, and I'm sure that will end up being true.

Can't keep up anymore, as soon as you buy a system, it goes out of style in six months. :-)

way to go intel.. produce the bast cpu's and then cripple it with suck ass graphics controllers..

Only 2 cores?

They aren't offering Enthusiast models with the 32nm?

Pretty much, Hop. I'm stopping with my Q9650 and settling down until this all stops. Which... might be never, but I'll be that much more rich.

I don't think these models are attempts to beat out the Current Core i7s. They're just here to start filling in the i7 line with more mainstream products.

If you are on X58 you are going backwards by going to 32nm at this time. It seems that some people don't understand that not every new product that comes out is better than the one they have now, and that Intel markets parts to many different segments of the market. Did people not even read the part of the article that talked about these chips using integrated graphics and having 2 cores? Do people read ANYTHING anymore??????????????????????????????????????

I was hoping for 4+ core 32nm cpu :< Kinda cool that they integrate gpu on it so MAYBE you can power off the big graphic cards and use the integrated while you surf the internet....

Why is the on die memory controller 2 channel if Westmere is a 3 channel cpu? Is Westmere not like the current Nehalem processors?

This would be saddening...

Hey, I read it. And I also note that it's not necessarily raw power that keeps people upgrading. Efficiency is another thing that is looked at. The move to a smaller process will probably lead to cooler processors - and in this case something interesting in die size, where they can add particular integrated chipsets. This is a boon to the HTPC market. However, just buying the die shrunk 45nm Core 2 Duo last year for an HTPC... it makes one wonder how much money idle costs are causing them to throw out the window.

The dual cores, and the socket 1066 processors are not suppose to have an on die IMC. If they do it that way they can still produce I5's and what not that use DDR2 memory. Or as it appears put a modified Penryn core on the same package as a memory controller and gpu.

Actually I'm pretty sure I read just yesterday that there was supposed to be a dual core 45nm Nahlem that was scrapped due to huge C2D inventories. Instead, the article said, Intel will release a westemere dual core - which will be THE GAMING ENTHUSIAST CPU! People don't seem to understand that these new 4x and future octa-core CPUs have zero application outside of digital content creation and server environments. For every "average" user out there, a dual core is enough. For any GAMER who is seeking max frame rates, quad core is absolutely useless. Take a dual core, and you can overclock it further (only 2 cores instead of 4 = less heat), get yourself more GHz and hence more frame rates. Considering Intel just recently put up the C2D E8700 at 3.5GHz, I'm hoping to build a Westmere system with a CPU that will clock close to 4GHz at stock, which will hopefully allow me to push it into the 5.5GHz+ territory.

Now, the two chips mentioned in the article aren't it. THey have intergrated graphics so for a gamer, quickly forgettable. Scrap the graphics controller. Push the clock far. Stick in 1-2MBs of L2 Cache per core (but don't forget the L3 please). Unlock the multipler. If I could get me a CPU like that, I'd be set until the end of the world (2013 in case you were wandering).

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Lots of misinformation - this is the mainstream/value chip, so for those enthusiasts who are whining about buying an x58 chip and thinking it will not be compatible with the 32nm gen, you need to turn in your enthusiast card. There will be a 32nm version of the Core i7 as well (a quad core) and that will replace the current 45nm quads and use the same socket (and I have to think will be compatible with the x58)

For those who have a quad core i7 -why would you want to replace a quad core chip like that with a dual core and integrated graphics? Just doesn't make sense... Think... think again... then type your comment. (not the other way around)

I will probably wait 18 months until I upgrade my rig. I figure by then ddr3 memory will be cheap, windows 7 will come out, and an i7 entry level processor motherboard/cpu will cost less than $200.

Dang it. I just can never figure out when to buy a new computer now. Every time, there's another, better system around the corner. I guess I will have to wait after 32nm and before 22nm, because 22nm is supposed to take a little bit longer I believe.

These aren't going to be better than the current processors, they'll be the mainstream processors for everyday people.

The fact that a common user may be ripping and encoding dvd's completely puts to bed the idea that a common user doesn't have a need for 4 or more cores. Do you realize that a blu ray rip takes hours even on a high end 4 core machine. To rip and encode my blu ray discs for my portable media player takes ages. I need more and faster cores and so do alot of other people.

The idea that people aren't using their 4 core machines is a load of hogwash.

But with a smaller manufacturing method, don't these processors run with less energy, faster speeds, and on smaller chips?

Wouldn't a Core i7 920 perform better as a 32nm chip rather than a 45nm chip?

I'm totally open to whatever you have to say, I'm just beginning to learn more about processors and manufacturing technology.

It does, and you're right.

But, these initial 32nm processors are going to be made for the mainstream and for laptops. So far, Intel only has Enthusiast i7 processors, meant for high performance. But it needs to populate the Core i7 line with mainstream processors.

At some point Intel will release Enthusiast processors at 32nm, meant for high performance, but these are going to be low power, cheap, and efficient.

LOL

Integrating crappy Intel integrated graphics into the CPU instead of the Northbridge. Yeah, let's move the GPU to the CPU, that way we can waste some of the heatsink's thermal dissipation. Of course, this offers no value vs. leaving it in the northbridge, but hey, they might just beat AMD to market with an integrated CPU/GPU, even if it is teh suck.

What you need is a hardware accelerated (GPU) encoder.

I see, thanks for the clarification. I believe I really meant that the 32nm processors - to be released in early 2010 - will be much better than any of which I buy now. So since I do not frequently upgrade my computer, I don't want my technology to be "out of date" in just a year. Plus, I probably wouldn't be upgrading to a 45nm until around Christmas, so that's even more reason to wait a few more months or so after that.

And so it goes. Buy now, out of date tomorrow. If you wait till the 32nm comes and get one, then in the first quarter of 2010 they will have quad core 32nm, then they will mention that 22nm is right around the corner with 16 cores and 32 threads with integrated GPUs. Nice isnt it.

All of which is why you should buy now, it's going to be outdated anyway, but it's always going to be faster than what you already have.

And I doubt this is going to blow the 965 out of it's position on top. I'd bet money on it.

intel pushing out new chips as fast as that lady pushing out kids

and the fire marshal was called to shut her vagina.

BTW: looking forward to those Clarksfield notebooks later in the year.

What can I say... Intel just wants to make money and does it so very well. Lynnfield guns down Phenom II, Phenom II 3ghz gets to $170, Then Intel introduces dual cores with IGC's that defeat them (I think it will defeat the Phenom II.) instead of high end CPU's. Arrandale and Lynnfield would sell great. Also, Intel is protecting it's X58 CPU's with high end mobo's by giving hexa cores only on X58. Thus making Lynnfield more mainstream. I was expecting a 32nm Lynnfield hexa core. Intel gains market and completes tick-tock. How ingenious.

Please, AMD, bring the loooooong awaited Bulldozer FAST and surprise us...

If you think that the average user is encoding blue rays, you are way off. Average user doesn't even have a blue ray player, and if they do, they sure as hell don't have a blue ray burner. I'm not saying that people don't. You are an example. A friend of mine is another. And you do in fact have a use for a high core count. The rest of computer users on the other hand, that do not do some sort of digital content creation, are throwing their money away on quad-core machines.

Here we have more total conjecture. Market data from Nielsen January 25th indicated that 17% of all media sales were Blu Ray. To say most people don't have Blu Ray is way off base. Do a majority of people not have Blu Ray, sure, but following the curve we are probably only 24 months from the majority of sales being Blu Ray, give or take a little for the economy. You provide no facts, only speculation. Riping Blu Rays will be very common sooner than you think.

Of course we all used Windows 95 at one time too, or at least some of us did, or did we? That's total conjecture, cause I pulled it out of my ass.

Do you realize you just told me what I told you? Majority just OWN a blue ray player - they aren't encoding their own. In fact, I can think of two major users of blue ray encoding. Small scale professionals which can't be a large user base. The second is pirates. And even these are abandoning Blue Ray in lieu of hard disk storage, so blue ray becoming common is arguable at best. I already have no need for blue rays ever - my PC streams full HD content to my HDTV with no need for physical media - and THAT my friend is the future. Physical storage in 24 months will be irrelevant. I mean common. Straight economics here. Buy an expensive blue ray burner and keep paying to feed it disks, which I then need to store and cataloge. OR I keep all my movies and media on a 2TB drive which cost less then the BR burner to begin with.

You provide raw statistics with no thought as to their possible meaning, followed by your own speculation, so please, lets stop with the pot calling the kettle black. The POINT is, as you've agreed to with your own little tid bit is that most users are not using their computers for video encoding or digital content creation - which is what quad cores are really good for. The other 80 percent of us or so will get all we need from a dual core.

The small portion of us that are gamers couldn't care less about quad cores - we want max frame rates and quick load times. THat means fast, overclocked CPUS. Which is why I am excited about an i7 dual core, which I will be able to push much further then I would a quad core due to heat issues.

Will the 32nm chip fit in existing boards? or do we wait?