Skip to main content

Core i5 Cranks up to 3.6 GHz?

Set for a launch in Q3 2009, Intel's 45nm Core i5 (Lynnfield) processor will come in three flavors: 2.66 GHz, 2.8 GHz, and 2.93 GHz. All three versions will feature four cores (4 threads for the 2.66 GHz version, 8 threads for the other two), 8 MB of L3 cache, a TDP of 95 watts, and will fit snug into the LGA-1156 socket. Additionally, all three versions feature 731 million transistors, an integrated DD3 memory controller, an integrated PCI-Express graphics controller, and support for Turbo Boost. As of today, Intel plans to price the 2.66 GHz version around $196 USD; the 2.96 GHz Core i5 will cost around $562 USD.

However, according to a report over on the Chinese website HKEPC, Intel optimized the Nehalem core as well as its Turbo Mode technology, thus giving the Core i5 a significant 5-step boost while staying within the 95 watt TDP. When set in turbo, Intel's 2.66 GHz version will speed up to 3.2 GHz, whereas the 2.8 GHz version will boost to 3.46 GHz and the 2.93 GHz to 3.6 GHz. The site also said that the two current Core i7 processors--specifically the 2.66 GHz and 2.93 GHz versions originally released in November 2008--will climb two steps as well while remaining within the 130 watt TDP.

HKEPC also confirmed that the Clarksfield quad-core processor for mobile devices will feature Hyper-Threading technology and a TDP of 35 watts; it was speculated that the processor would require a TDP of 45 or 55 watts. Additionally, the processor will come in three flavors--1.6 GHz, 1.73 GHz, and 2.0 GHz--and will also be available in Q3 2009. However, unlike the core i5, the three Clarksfield processors will be a bit more costly, ranging from $364 USD to $1054 USD.

  • Tech-Boy
    These i5 are going to hurt amd's phenom II very badly.
    Reply
  • The Third Level
    i5 is gonna make Intel the winner again....AMD really needs a new plan.
    Reply
  • Tindytim
    Am I the only one annoyed that Intel decides to make it's first line of 45nm consumer, rather than performance processors?

    I'm planning on upgrading to an i7 soon, but I find it silly that they offer benefits so fit to overclocking to people who probably aren't going to use it, and who probably aren't going to care (or know) quite as much about power consumption. I certainly hope they release more i7's soon.
    Reply
  • Tindytim
    I meant 32nm not 45nm.
    Reply
  • The Third Level
    TindytimAm I the only one annoyed that Intel decides to make it's first line of 45nm consumer, rather than performance processors?I'm planning on upgrading to an i7 soon, but I find it silly that they offer benefits so fit to overclocking to people who probably aren't going to use it, and who probably aren't going to care (or know) quite as much about power consumption. I certainly hope they release more i7's soon.
    Annoyed, but not unexpected. Consumer line is where the money is, they won't keep releasing top end processors to satisfy the tiny amount of enthusiasts.
    Reply
  • rooseveltdon
    Tech-BoyThese i5 are going to hurt amd's phenom II very badly. not really the prices are way too high when you factor price to performance ratio you will see that the phenom 2's would still compete,even with all the cool things these processors can do...not everyone is going to rush in and spend that kind of money when they could get something that would provide similar performance for a lot less elsewhere there difference between lynnfield and the phenom 2 line isn't as wide as the difference between core s duo and athlon x2/ phenom 1...this time they won't be as dominant unless their prices are more competitive but then again i like it because it gives us a many more options....by the way another thing you have to consider is that the phenom 2 line of processors for the most part is backward compatible with ddr2 and am2+ boards so one could upgrade to without spending too much money whereas all the intel ppl who would want to upgrade to the i5 would have to change almost all of the core components mobo/ram/cpu and that will cost quite a lot of money,something that won't affect amd as much,i am not hating on intel or anything but i am just pointing out common sense i would love an i5 myself but if financially it makes more sense to buy amd (especially if the performance is not that different) then i see no point in spending all that money for an i5...just my two cents
    Reply
  • Stupid Stupid Stupid, two different socket configurations now for running an Intel Processor( yes for different performance levels and pricing strategies,which wont be that far apart, between C2Q and I7) Why two sockets Intel, lga775 was a bit of a mess to start but with bios updates even older 1333 fsb Mobos will take new C2D chips, now splitting the sockets two ways is just a nightmare, I am glad I spent far less on p45 and C2D and not on I7 or waiting for I5, my machine will go along nicely till the all around approach from AMD's chipset/processor/graphics matures in the 8 series boards and phenom 2/3 (in the future) processors without the hefty price attached and compatibility issues present (Dragon is looking good as an all round approach!), they have done well to allow cross compatibility so far and see that as a point to take forward with their consumer base. And I am no fanboy for either of the two chip makers, just want logical thinking from them!
    Reply
  • jsloan
    The Third Leveli5 is gonna make Intel the winner again....AMD really needs a new plan.
    yeah, sell to oracle ;-) ok no fooling, sell to the red communist chinese.
    Reply
  • Nik_I
    the enthusiast line makes up such a small part of intel's sales that it only makes sense to introduce the new consumer parts first.
    Reply
  • Tindytim
    The Third LevelAnnoyed, but not unexpected. Consumer line is where the money is, they won't keep releasing top end processors to satisfy the tiny amount of enthusiasts.Nik_Ithe enthusiast line makes up such a small part of intel's sales that it only makes sense to introduce the new consumer parts first.
    I understand that, but why go 32nm? Why not start with a 45nm i5's, then make 32nm i7's? Average Joe doesn't care about overclocking, die shrinks, or TDP. Why would you give him the benefits when he wouldn't know the difference?
    Reply