- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (85) |
- Share
With Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Duo, you had a general idea of what you were dealing with upfront. Adding a Q8000- or E7000-series designator wasn’t particularly descriptive, but at least there was one tangible identifier in there for the layman to digest.
When Intel introduced Core i7 last year, the fact that there was only one Nehalem-based desktop family made it easy to say “Core i7—yeah, high-end stuff,” regardless of whether you were actually talking about the $300 i7-920 or the $1,000 i7-965.
Now you have Core i5 and another strain of Core i7; at this point the nomenclature is just jargon for everyone except for the power users who live and breathe this stuff. Let’s break it down in a neat little table, though.
| Core i7 (LGA 1366) | Core i7 (LGA 1156) | Core i5 | Core 2 Quad | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Processor Interface | LGA 1366 | LGA 1156 | LGA 1156 | LGA 775 |
| Number of Cores | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Turbo Boost | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Hyper-Threading | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| L1 Cache | 32KB/32KB per core | 32KB/32KB per core | 32KB/32KB per core | 32KB/32KB per core |
| L2 Cache | 256KB per core | 256KB per core | 256KB per core | Up to 12MB shared |
| L3 Cache | 8MB shared | 8MB shared | 8MB shared | No |
| Memory Channels | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Max. Memory Rate | DDR3-1066 | DDR3-1333 | DDR3-1333 | DDR3-1600 |
| Chipset | X58 | P55 | P55 | X48 |
| Price | $284-$999 | $285-$555 | $199 | $163-$316 |
As you can see, Core i7 for LGA 1366 remains the enthusiast-class offering, sporting the most PCI Express 2.0 connectivity via Intel’s X58 Express chipset, up to three available channels of DDR3 memory support, Intel’s first generation of Turbo Boost, and Hyper-Threading.
Core i7 for LGA 1156 integrates the PCI Express connectivity (albeit 16 lanes instead of 36), sheds one memory channel, incorporates an updated implementation of Turbo Boost, and maintains Hyper-Threading support.
Core i5 includes the same on-board PCI Express subsystem and dual-channel integrated memory controller. It employs Intel’s improved Turbo Boost (though it’s slightly less aggressive than i7’s). What it lacks, however, is Hyper-Threading—apparently a noteworthy-enough capability to turn an i7 into an i5. Of course, descending the stack also results in lower base clock rates.
The Making Of A Core i5/i7
Architecturally, most of what you get in a Core i5 or Core i7 processor is borrowed from technology already found in Intel’s LGA 1366-based Core i7 and Xeon 3500-series processors. The Lynnfield die is different from Bloomfield though, estimated at 774 million transistors packed into 296 square millimeters (versus 731 million in 263 millimeters for the first Core i7s). More than 400 million of those transistors make up the CPU's cache.
As with Bloomfield, Lynnfield is a monolithic design divided into four cores (execution pipelines, L1 data/instruction cache, TLBs) and the uncore (L3 cache, integrated PCI Express, the memory controller, QPI, and the PLLs). The power for these two “halves” remains separate, independently adjustable in your motherboard's BIOS.
Each of the four cores retains its 32KB L1 data cache (still 8-way set-associative), 32KB L1 instruction cache (still 4-way set-associative), and 256KB L2 cache (you guessed it—still 8-way set associative). An inclusive 8MB L3 cache 16-way set-associative) should look familiar as well.
With nothing really new to report in the cores themselves, we move to the uncore, where Intel has added PCI Express 2.0 connectivity, axed a single memory channel, dropping the total to two, and altered QPI.
- Is the Intel Core i5 - 750 stock cooling any good for oc-ing [Overclocking]
- Good non sli/crossfire mobo for intel core i5 [Motherboards & Memory]
- Intel Core I5 or i7? [CPU & Components]
- Intel® Core™ i5- vs core 2 duo [CPU & Components]
- Intel’s Latest 32nm Clarkdale Platform - Core i5 661 With BIOSTAR H55 [Overclocking]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
- 1 / 5
- Next
-
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- Intel Pentium Dual Core E5400 VS. AMD Athlon II X2 250 BE
- Phenom II X6 is finally coming
- Buying Core 2 Duo or quad core
- What are i7 920 Normal Temps?
- I7 920 load temps
- OverClocking Core i7 on the default fan
- My i5 build
- Should I overclock?
- Need Advice on a wolfdale E6300 Pentium 1066fsb
- Help with E7500, Asus P5Q, and 4Gb Corsair XMS PC6400 1066Mhz
- Boot up problem
- DDR3 24GB ram
- Question about HP pavilion Elite e9180t motherboard.
- Typical Motherboard temperature for ASUS
Related articles
-
Before we dig into the complete Phenom II X4 965 BE review, let's look at our approximated Core i5 comparison: We’re used to seeing big bandwidth numbers from Core i7’s integrated memory controller and triple-channel DDR3 configurations. Pull one...
-
Zalman is a Korean company that specializes in higher-end cooling solutions and cases. You’ll also find thermal grease, power supplies, mice, and even monitors in Zalman’s portfolio. But the company’s core business is still coolers, and we selected one...
-
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Review
There is nothing wrong with an incremental update—especially an update that adds performance without affecting pricing. Such is the case with AMD’s new Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition, which arrived at our performance lab running at 3.4 GHz—200 MHz...
Best offers
|
Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor... | $310.00 STAPLES More info |
|
Core i5 750 Qaud Core Processor... | $199.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad... | $169.99 TigerDirect More info |
|
Phenom II X2 550 Dual Core Processor... | $90.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Core i7-860 Quad Core Processor... | $279.99 Newegg.com More info |
All performance charts
- Intel, Microsoft Show More Win 7 CPU Efficiency
- Rumor: Intel Launching Core i5, i7 September 8
- Asus to Launch Ultra-thin Notebooks, 45nm CULV
- intel lynnfield
- core i5 versus core i7
- what is i7 turbo boost
- intel core i7 versus core 2 quad
- how many transistors in core i7
- intel core i5 versus core i7
- xeon versus core i7
- whats better i7 or xeon
- core 2 duo versus core 2 quad
- core i5 hyperthreading
- core 2 duo versus i7
- core i5 versus core 2 duo
- intel lga 1156 or lga 1366
- intel lga 1366
- architecture of core i7
Dang! AMD better get their $4iT together. Now I need to decided between i7, i5 or phenom II when I do my next upgrade........technology happens too fast. Looking forward to more reviews on the i5 and mb prices.
People need to be careful when comparing the i7-870 to a i7-920, alot of people pre-release were worried that the 1156 platform was going to dominate the 1366. However when you see the 870 out perform the 920 people need to remember that a 870 is double the price of a 920, and even when you factor in a motherboard a 920 setup comes out cheaper than a 870.
Now the i5 750 on the other hand is great performance at a great price, and would certainly be the budget gamers new weapon of choice.
I currently have an i7-920 setup which is my main rig and am very happy with it and not at all upset to the see the 870 outperform it (since the 870 would cost me twice as much). I also have had an i5 750 setup now for over a week (the 1156 processors and motherboards have been available here in Australia for nearly 2 weeks now) and it is an amazing processor for the price of it.
So what am I trying to say? 1366 is still a good platform for the top end of the market. The i5 are fantastic new processors for their price, and the 1156 i7's are just confusing and I'm not really sure who they are going to appeal to? I could understand it if Intel launched the 1156 i7's in 6months time when alot of users are already using the 1156 platform and are looking to upgrade their CPU without a new mobo. But to anyone looking at getting a 870, just get an 920 and use the extra cash on the mobo and ram to go with it.
A little confusing the charts.
I would prefer a bench with HD4890. They scale better in CF.
I can tell, I'm gonna fall in love with the i5 processor
Intel needs to come up with a simplified naming system for their products. They are as bad as NVIDIA is right now in terms of naming their products.
There is sooo much to learn and there is so much information here.... I feel confused!!
Well, I just hope that the Core 2 Quads will drop in prices significantly so that I could grab the high-end one for my final LGA775 upgrade!
Well this is good news for consumers. I'm not certain why it took so long for Intel to make some mainstream proc like i5, but for intel fans it seems worth the wait.
This will also compel AMD to bring some more value to the market. Nice article.
damn, 150 watts at idle?? Is that just the cpu? I hope the gaming rigs built on these processors are not left on 24/7. My old AMD X2 3800 system including the monitor uses less than 150 watts at idle (50 of which is the 22" LCD).
i7 Turbo is a good tool to monitor the multiplier of Core i5/i7 CPUs.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/ [...] /Turbo.zip
It uses the method that Intel recommends in their November 2008 Turbo White Paper.
"Intel Core i7-920 Extreme (Bloomfield) 2.66 GHz, LGA 1366, 4.8 GT/s QPI, 8 MB L3, Power-savings enabled"
Since when has the I7-920 become an extreme?
damn, 150 watts at idle?? Is that just the cpu? I hope the gaming rigs built on these processors are not left on 24/7. My old AMD X2 3800 system including the monitor uses less than 150 watts at idle (50 of which is the 22" LCD).
The power readings are for the whole system, not just the CPU. And their readings are a bit higher than yours because their video cards are almost certainly more power-hungry than yours, and they have a quad-core cpu, running significantly faster than your dual-core (4 cores at ~3Ghz vs. 2 at ~2Ghz, which SHOULD use more power?)
Nice article as always THG rules! Ouch amd!
hey guys some tests done at the same cpu speed would be helpfull! thx!
Thanks Dragon--check out the In Theory piece that also went up today. It has i5, i7, i7 LGA1366, Core 2, and Phenom II at 2.8 GHz in a bunch of games!
alot of people pre-release were worried that the 1156 platform was going to dominate the 1366.
Who was "worried"? It would've been AWESOME (although not to expect of Intel) if the lower-price platform would've outperformed the high-end item.
"Intel Core i7-920 Extreme (Bloomfield) 2.66 GHz, LGA 1366, 4.8 GT/s QPI, 8 MB L3, Power-savings enabled"Since when has the I7-920 become an extreme?
Typo--thanks for the catch evolve. Pulled that table from a previous review and missed the Extreme!
Also - this address people above too and the article.
When you set up an i7 system you turn off the HT and turn up the speed! Turning off a core might even be an upgrade for some. But i agree, the i5 is really a good plateform the mid-mid high level people and at a lower price.
above - too long for intel? for main stream? you could buy a 8400 and run it 3.8 in any system and it rocks.
people have to learn that overclocking is not what it once was, intel does not build all that into the procesor and chipset for nothing so use it! core 2 is still a good main steam system, abit, no upgrading
Where is the i7 860?
Great read, by the way
All the mixed rumors were really misleading
FYI: All of the Lynnfield-based parts are here:
http://bit.ly/Lynnfield
And a side-by-side comparison with all the key stats are here:
http://bit.ly/LFDcomparison
The problem with Intel no matter how special they make they CPU's is they have absolute crap when it comes to motherboards.
AMD is feature packed, Intel is feature lacked.
Intel make good chipsets yes, Intel make good reliable boards (proper intel boards) yes, intel make good CPU's yes.
But Intel have worthless motherboard line ups.... I am happily an AMD fan, I will take my Phenom II with the slower speed for the quality of board I can buy to run it.
Intel & Motherboards = Fail.
Until they improve there, numbers mean zero to me. Why pay more when you get less?
PS. We used to sell all Intel at my work, we now sell 99% AMD. Price, value as a packaged. If Intel had better feature motherboards things might change until then. AMD builds a platform not just a CPU.
The AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE is running at 3.4Ghz.............I can remember only a few years ago AMD bragged about getting 'more work done per cycle' where as Intel responded by increasing the clockrate. It now looks like the tables have completely turned and it's AMD that has to keep increasing the CPU frequency to stay competitive.