Intel’s Nehalem architecture is partially based on an advanced Core design. These flexible 45 nm desktop CPUs are available as Core i3, i5, and i7 versions, and include two, four, or six cores.
The first Nehalem-based CPUs hit the market in 2008 under the code name Bloomfield. The quad-core family of CPUs sold as Core i7 and dropped into Intel's LGA 1366 interface. The company followed up with a mainstream incarnation code-named Lynnfield toward the end of 2009. Lynnfield-based chips also sported four cores, but surfaced under the Core i5 Core i7 brands, and leveraged an LGA 1156 interface.
Nehalem at 45 nm was succeeded by Westmere (32 nm) at the beginning of 2010. The architectural update materialized as the dual-core Clarkdale design for mainstream desktops and the hexa-core Gulftown configuration for enthusiasts.
Westmere was replaced by Sandy Bridge in 2011.
More information:
- The Intel Core i7-990X Extreme Edition Processor Review
- Intel Core i7-980X Extreme: Hello, Six-Core Computing
- Does Turbo Boost Help Or Hurt Core i5/i7's Power Efficiency?
- Intel Core i5 And Core i7: Intel’s Mainstream Magnum Opus
Benchmarked Intel Nehalem-Based CPUs:
| Nehalem | Code Name | Rev. | Manufacturing Process | Socket | Number of Cores | Clock Frequency | L2 Cache | L3 Cache | Memory Controller | TDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Core i3-530 | Clarkdale | C2 | 32 nm | 1156 | 2 | 2.93 GHz | 2 x 256 KB | 4 MB | on-package up to DDR3-1333 | 73 W |
Core i5-661 | Clarkdale | C2 | 32 nm | 1156 | 2 | 3.33 GHz | 2 x 256 KB | 4 MB | on-package up to DDR3-1333 | 87 W |
Core i5-670 | Clarkdale | C2 | 32 nm | 1156 | 2 | 3.47 GHz | 2 x 256 KB | 4 MB | on-package up to DDR3-1333 | 73 W |
Core i5-750 | Lynnfield | B1 | 45 nm | 1156 | 4 | 2.67 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1333 | 95 W |
Core i5-750S | Lynnfield | B1 | 45 nm | 1156 | 4 | 2.4 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1333 | 82 W |
Core i5-760 | Lynnfield | B1 | 45 nm | 1156 | 4 | 2.8 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1333 | 95 W |
Core i7-860 | Lynnfield | B1 | 45 nm | 1156 | 4 | 2.8 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1333 | 95 W |
Core i7-870 | Lynnfield | B1 | 45 nm | 1156 | 4 | 2.93 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1333 | 95 W |
Core i7-875K | Lynnfield | B1 | 45 nm | 1156 | 4 | 2.93 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1333 | 95 W |
Core i7-880 | Lynnfield | B1 | 45 nm | 1156 | 4 | 3.07 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1333 | 95 W |
Core i7-920 | Bloomfield | C1 | 45 nm | 1366 | 4 | 2.67 Ghz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1066 | 130 W |
Core i7-930 | Bloomfield | D0 | 45 nm | 1366 | 4 | 2.8 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1066 | 130 W |
Core i7-960 | Bloomfield | D0 | 45 nm | 1366 | 4 | 3.2 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1066 | 130 W |
Core i7-970 | Gulftown | B1 | 32 nm | 1366 | 6 | 3.2 GHz | 6 x 256 KB | 12 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1066 | 130 W |
Core i7-975 Extreme Edition | Bloomfield | D0 | 45 nm | 1366 | 4 | 3.33 GHz | 4 x 256 KB | 8 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1066 | 130 W |
Core i7-980 | Gulftown | B1 | 32 nm | 1366 | 6 | 3.33 GHz | 6 x 256 KB | 12 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1066 | 130 W |
Core i7-980X | Gulftown | B1 | 32 nm | 1366 | 6 | 3.33 GHz | 6 x 256 KB | 12 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1066 | 130 W |
Core i7-990X | Gulftown | B1 | 32 nm | 1366 | 6 | 3.47 GHz | 6 x 256 KB | 12 MB | integrated up to DDR3-1066 | 130 W |
- Tom's Hardware: CPU Benchmark Charts, Updated
- AMD: Bulldozer
- AMD: A-Series APUs (Trinity/Llano)
- AMD: K10 (Stars)
- Intel: Nehalem
- Intel: Sandy Bridge
- Intel: Ivy Bridge
- CPU Charts: AMD Processor Overview
- CPU Charts: Intel Processor Overview
- Benchmark Hardware And Software
- PCMark 7
- SiSoftware Sandra 2012
- Adobe Creative Suite 6
- Professional Applications
- Audio/Video And File Compression
- 3DMark 11 And Games
- Power Consumption
- No Surprise: Intel Takes The Performance Crown, AMD Represents Value
But i want some processors which were legendary overclockers, and representatives of their generation of CPU's, included with a nominal OC :
intel C2D E7300 : 2.66- > 3.33
Intel C2Q Q6600 : 2.4- > 3.0ghz
Intel i5-750 : 2.66 - >3.33
Its highly likely that a person has owned at least one of these CPU's. I want to know how well these compare to modern processors.
But i want some processors which were legendary overclockers, and representatives of their generation of CPU's, included with a nominal OC :
intel C2D E7300 : 2.66- > 3.33
Intel C2Q Q6600 : 2.4- > 3.0ghz
Intel i5-750 : 2.66 - >3.33
Its highly likely that a person has owned at least one of these CPU's. I want to know how well these compare to modern processors.
I always wish this. Beyond that the AM3 Athlon X2's are still being sold at newegg and the Phenom X2's are not...
Agreed, maybe just one dual core and one quad? q9550 and e6850? not that I still own both of those or anything...
But let's do some math. Just for a rough order of magnitude I figure an average of 15% increase in performance per clock cycle, per generation (not including clock speed, number of cores, etc.). So if we start back at Conroe and work our way to present day Ivy Bridge, that's 5 new generations of processors. 1.15^5 = 2.01
Which means that an Ivy Bridge CPU at the same speed as a Conroe CPU (2006ish) is about 2x as fast per clock cycle, on average. Once you take into account faster clock speeds, number of cores, cache sizes, integrated memory controllers, etc. and more importantly what software will be used with the CPUs the real world performance difference could be almost nothing to somewhere around 10-15x as fast.
I digress. The point being, is I would like to see some more benchies Tom's! Prove me wrong!
Yes! Core 2 Duo E6750 CPU owner here.
i'll skip ivy and Haswell as well with this Sensational Cpu at 4.6Ghz
There should be i3 3220 too. Really wanted to know about that.
Throw in a Pentium 4 as a reminder to those folks who still think they can run BF3 on a 1.8 GHz Willamette.
And as for fun, there should've been a CPU rendering test. Windows 7 has a function that allows a CPU do to DX10 graphics, completely bypassing the GPU. The only obviously issue that CPUs are terrible compared to GPUs when it comes to graphics.
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20081126/direct3d-warp10-to-enable-you-to-play-dx10-crysis-using-software-renderer-only-albeit-slowly/
There is no need to bench 2600K/2700K & Core i5-2300/Core i5-2310, just one of the 2 set will do, because we all know their performance is close to identical.
Sorry, didn't get to read that