Intel Finally Has a Real 4 GHz CPU
Intel has quietly introduced its first CPU that is capable of running at 4 GHz clock speed off the shelf.
An updated spec sheet reveals that the recently introduced Xeon E3-1290 runs at 3.6 GHz with four cores, but the chip's turbo boost will scale the clock speed to 4.0 GHz when running on only one core. What makes this processor particularly interesting is the fact that it is closely related to the i7-2000 Sandy Bridge series, which would indicate that Intel could be launching a 4 GHz desktop processor as well.
Intel pulled a single core 4 GHz processor back in October 2004 due to the increasingly high power consumption and current leakage in its 90 nm Netburst architecture. The highest clock speed reached by its Pentium family was 3.8 GHz, which was posted by its Pentium 4 HT 570/571 models, which were based on the 90 nm Prescott core. Back then Intel drastically changed its strategy from clock speed scaling to lower power processors that were largely based on technology introduced with the Banias Pentium M processor in 2003. That new strategy resulted in Intel's Core 2 Duo processors with Conroe core in 2006. With a look at power consumption, I should note that the Pentium 4 570 was rated at a thermal design power of 115 watts, while the E3-1290 runs at a maximum of 95 watts. The first dual-core processors, which were available up to 3.6 GHz (Pentium D 900 series), consumed as much as 130 watts.
There appear to be signs that both Intel and AMD are engaging in a careful gigahertz race again. AMD currently tops out at 3.7 GHz and we would expect its Zambezi desktop processors to easily reach 4 GHz later this year.
- StarCraft MMO ''Likely'' Thanks to ''Universe'' Mod
- Intel Says It WILL Command the Respect of ARM
- SilverStone Displays Case Lineup and 1350W PSU
- OCZ RevoDrive Hybrid vs. Intel Z68 SSD Caching
- Corsair's Carbide Cases, Vengeance RAM, SSD
- Intel is Stepping on the Gas for Atom CPU Plans
- Seasonic's New Power Supply Lineup for Sept.
- InWin Gives Us a Peek at Its Prototype Cases
- Deals for June 3: 15% Off Herman Miller Chairs
- AMD Reviving FX Brand For High-End Platforms
- Win8 Will Push ARM into 40% of Netbooks By 2015
- Dungeon Siege 3 Demo Launched on Steam
- Mass Effect 3, Far Cry 3 Dated for 2012
- It's A Fanless Cooler For Your 2.5" Drive
- Deals June 7: Alienware Aurora Rig Bundle $1699
- EA Booth Hands-On: Battlefield 3, Star Wars: The Old Republic
- The Crowds of E3: Welcome Back E3 of Old
- Razer Star Wars Keyboard Made for Jedi and Sith
As long as the TDP stays below 95W, I'll go for it.
Increase clock speed is still kinda cool...
Not really surprising, as SB can easily clock that high. I'd be a little surprised if they didn't eventually make a higher clocked model to replace the original (like i5 750 -> i5 760 and i7 920 -> i7 930).
IMO its not a real 4ghz cpu if its only 4ghz turbo boost. False advertising.
I doubt there is much changed at all with the chip, everybody knows the high-end SB series consumer market processors can happily run 4GHz on all 4 cores all day long with minimal voltage increase (and no need for especially eloborate cooling).
I agree with iam2thecrow... It doesn't run at 4Ghz... It boost to that speed and according to article only when running 1 core.. so AMD at 3.6Ghz on Quad core..
But to be honest.. Intels chip doesn't need to run at 4Ghz to destroy the X4 975... but you wouldn't catch me spending a grand on it... Go AMD
Intel won't bump desktop speeds until August or September. Not psychic but it seems logical since nothing comes close to what they have now and when bulldozer comes out they will bump clocks. Plus by then I would expect a new stepping to allow faster clocks in the same power envelope.
I agree. It is not a "real" 4 GHz CPU. But that is only because Intel hasn't chosen to make one.
might only be on turbo boost but it is progress as far as Intel goes.
Looks like it's finally time to upgrade my P4, this year! I know performance is about so much more than raw clock speed, but it just didn't feel right to replace my CPU with one running at a lower clock. Especially after so long.
Out of all of the clever code names companies have used in the past and present, "Zambezi" is by far the best.
"Yo bro, check out my Bezi". (Bee-Z)
Looks like it's finally time to upgrade my P4, this year! I know performance is about so much more than raw clock speed, but it just didn't feel right to replace my CPU with one running at a lower clock. Especially after so long.
What?
You do know people have been nailing over 4GHz EASILY on many Intel chips with little to no effort.....that's just on air cooling.
I mean, It's cool that they're releasing a potential 4Ghz chip, but how much overclocking headroom does this thing have? Will it push past the others, or did Intel just OC it themselves, knowing how effortlessly their chips are to OC.
What? You do know people have been nailing over 4GHz EASILY on many Intel chips with little to no effort.....that's just on air cooling.
Yes, I was comparing stock to stock. I don't mess with OC.
I've been over 4Ghz for a long time just on air cooling. Stable and no heat issues at all.
BTW, last Sept. IBM released a 5.2 GHz CPU. Search the news for z196. It sounds comparable, in complexity, to x86.
I can't believe they still have a large enough market for those things to justify all the effort. If Intel put the same resources into Itanium, it might not be the butt of so many jokes.
This is NOT A 4GHZ PROCESSOR!!! Don't even start feeding us that crap. If it doesn't run all the time (excluding power saving modes) at a solid 4ghz on all 4 of its cores then it doesn't count as a 4ghz chip. It's simply a temporary 4ghz overclock that disables 3/4 of the cores.
News fail.
I agree with iam2thecrow... It doesn't run at 4Ghz... It boost to that speed and according to article only when running 1 core.. so AMD at 3.6Ghz on Quad core.. But to be honest.. Intels chip doesn't need to run at 4Ghz to destroy the X4 975... but you wouldn't catch me spending a grand on it... Go AMD
You're right. You can beat the AMD with most mid range intels
The 4.40GHz Xeon X5698 has been shipping for a while. It is a dual-core Westmere.
Ugh, come on Intel just make us a CPU with higher clock speed. It's obvious that applications don't give a crap how many cores/threads are available and developers STILL aren't heading in that direction very well.
I wonder if this is a form of response for the unknown-to-us performance of BD? Like in the P4-Athlon64 and Core2/i-PhII era: if you can't beat it with design, beat it with raw power, lol.
Cheers!
Looks like it's finally time to upgrade my P4, this year! I know performance is about so much more than raw clock speed, but it just didn't feel right to replace my CPU with one running at a lower clock. Especially after so long.
lol i remember when i thought that way too...
than i built my little brother a quad core at 2.4 or 2.6ghz and it played a 1080p video with little to no preformace loss noticeable (p4 couldnt dream of that, and barely played 720p with optimized codecs)
so when my computer kicked off, i got a phenom 955 black and cant BELIEVE i waited that long to upgrade...
anyway when you do upgrade, you will be in for a treat.
Ugh, come on Intel just make us a CPU with higher clock speed. It's obvious that applications don't give a crap how many cores/threads are available and developers STILL aren't heading in that direction very well.
because not many programs need multi cores to run good. however most programs that do bennifit from it use it. to me, multi core just gives me more headroom to multitask, i dont have to close programs to work in new ones.
Intel Xeon E3 is nothing more that a Sandy Bridge i7 series with ECC memory support, the price difference is merely $30 from an i7 2600k and an Xeon E3-1275 except the i7 2600k can be over-clocked!
The E3-1290 and E3-1280 it's all about gigahertz it will cost an additional $300 for the .2ghz more speed and you lose HD3000 graphics processing.
I'm definetely in line for Ivy. Sandy's just too hot.
As a unit in the Red Alert series puts it......"Let's see some action".
Sounds familiar?
4Ghz is too little, too late.
Moore's law hasn't held for last ~4years IMO, and I'm surprised nobody on computer sites or product magazines points out that the latest CPUs on sale aren't even +50% in performance than core-2-duos which came out many years ago, nevermind double or triple which would actually be worth upgrading.
People keep saying more & more apps/games in the future will surely be coded to take better advantage of i-series and multiple-cores ... etc but it's been years now and there are not enough real benchmarks I see to warrant an upgrade. It's still just a limited number of games where you would see significant improvement of i5 vs C2duo. Let everyone stick to their old products and give a message to Intel that we're not dumb enough to upgrade ~10% faster cpus which are hardly different from our old ones except for the snazzy model name change and that it's been 'optimized' for , umm, video editiing??
AMD AthlonII X2 240e @1.35V 3.98GHz stable for two weeks on air, Arctic Cooling, maxes at 68W. The catch is in memory selection and the cooling of the chipset. I guess it almost qualifies for a 4 GHz processor.
Yes, I was comparing stock to stock. I don't mess with OC.
You don't mess with OC? Funny thing, THEY do.
There have been so many GPUs and CPUs released that were made with the same specs, but just underclocked and relabeled as a different model. You could OC it yourself and It'd literally be at "Stock" speeds.
With the way Sandy Bridge is, and pretty much most of the Intel chips for the last 5 years, you can safely overclock to a significant level, without sacrificing a single thing. Maybe an extra 50 cents on your electricity bill at the end of the month. By the time the extra heat and etc take it's toll, It'll be the year 2015.
Overclocking has changed. It used to be a risk, without not much of a gain, unless you went to extensive amounts of aftermarket cooling and voltage tweaks. Now, you can keep the stock cooler, stock voltage and basically just profit without much risk. If It's unstable, It resets itself and you're back at square one. Hell, they have programs now that you just click once, and It'll optimize your speeds without you doing a single thing.
At this point, OC is just icing on the cake. We're really at the point where CPUs have gotten faster than the programs actually need them. Don't come back at that as me saying you won't benefit from OC'ing, but instead of 115 FPS in the random game, you now get 120 FPS. You see, an extra 5 FPS is cool, but when you're at such a high, useless number, it makes no difference.
Coding and etc will get faster though, so there is *some* use to OC the piss out of CPUs still. Besides that, It's just a bragging and accomplishment thing. Most stock speeds are overkill as is. Then again, you're prolonging your CPUs use, by squeezing more performance out of, making you not need to upgrade for another 1-2 years.
A good processor is the one which will finish the End Turn in Empire Total War and Heroes of Might and Magic 5 with more than 4 players in less than 5 seconds.
Imagine my disappointment when I upgraded my PC from a 1.8 GHz Athlon XP to a 3.0 GHz Core2 Duo just to see that the End Turn time in Heroes 5 decreased only slightly. Now, I know that Heroes 5 is among the worst optimized games when it comes to AI, but still, raw clock speed should've made for that.
You know what, I put "2015" in as a year, thinking It actually was a decent time away, but now that my head isn't in the clouds, I realize It's 2011 and 2015 is only 4 years away.
Make that 2020 instead. Haha.
I'm surprised nobody on computer sites or product magazines points out that the latest CPUs on sale aren't even +50% in performance than core-2-duos which came out many years ago, nevermind double or triple which would actually be worth upgrading.
True dat. Well, I'm not going to sign onto the specific number of 50%, but that's why I've been holding off my upgrade.
Most things I do are bottlenecked by a single thread. Sure, it's nice to have cores for OS and multitasking, but I'm betting that most apps used by most people (gaming & video aside), are bottlenecked by one thread, most of the time.
I'm actually betting on a 2x speed up per-clock on single-threaded non-multimedia tasks, vs my P4. Some of that will be due to RAM bandwidth & latency improvements, some to cache size increases, some to micro/macro op fusion, some to shorter pipelines, and some down to just plain focus on efficiency. I was completely amazed at the alleged 17% speed-up of Sandy Bridge over its predecessor.
People keep saying more & more apps/games in the future will surely be coded to take better advantage of i-series and multiple-cores ... etc
Again, there is much truth to that. There has been a slow evolution of development tools from Intel, MS, and even GCC now has some optional auto-parallelization features.
I think we need more revolutionary developments in programming languages and models. There's been more than enough research. What we need is for this stuff to go mainstream. And it has to go beyond SMP-type parallelism. It needs to scale to NUMA GPU-like architectures.
In the meantime, we can hope that more and more libraries and support tools will get good parallelization, so that programmers using existing languages and toolchains can gain some benefits of parallelization essentially for free.
Serial performance improvements and clock-speed gains will come at an ever slower pace. Like it or not, the way forward is parallel. The challenge is how to make it happen.
4Ghz is too little, too late.Moore's law hasn't held for last ~4years IMO, and I'm surprised nobody on computer sites or product magazines points out that the latest CPUs on sale aren't even +50% in performance than core-2-duos which came out many years ago, nevermind double or triple which would actually be worth upgrading.People keep saying more & more apps/games in the future will surely be coded to take better advantage of i-series and multiple-cores ... etc but it's been years now and there are not enough real benchmarks I see to warrant an upgrade. It's still just a limited number of games where you would see significant improvement of i5 vs C2duo. Let everyone stick to their old products and give a message to Intel that we're not dumb enough to upgrade ~10% faster cpus which are hardly different from our old ones except for the snazzy model name change and that it's been 'optimized' for , umm, video editiing??
Moore's law isn't about performance but about the number of transistors.