Intel Finally Has a Real 4 GHz CPU

[Guest]

Intel has quietly introduced its first CPU that is capable of running at 4 GHz clock speed off the shelf.

Intel Finally Has a Real 4 GHz CPU : Read more

 

[vaughn2k]

As long as the TDP stays below 95W, I'll go for it.
Increase clock speed is still kinda cool...

 

[EXT64]

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).

 

[iam2thecrowe]

IMO its not a real 4ghz cpu if its only 4ghz turbo boost. False advertising.

 

[Maximus_Delta]

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).

 

[the1kingbob]

but the chip's turbo boost will scale the clock speed to 4.0 GHz when running on only one core.

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

 

[JamesSneed]

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.

 

[jsc]

I agree. It is not a "real" 4 GHz CPU. But that is only because Intel hasn't chosen to make one.

 

[captaincharisma]

might only be on turbo boost but it is progress as far as Intel goes.

 

[bit_user]

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.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

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)

 

[whysobluepandabear]

[citation][nom]bit_user[/nom]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.[/citation]
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.

 

[bit_user]

[citation][nom]WhySoBluePandaBear[/nom]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.[/citation]
Yes, I was comparing stock to stock. I don't mess with OC.

 

[bit_user]

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.

 

[pocketdrummer]

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.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]the1kingbob[/nom]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[/citation]

You're right. You can beat the AMD with most mid range intels

 

[PowerHouse]

The 4.40GHz Xeon X5698 has been shipping for a while. It is a dual-core Westmere.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

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.

 

[-Fran-]

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!

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]bit_user[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.

 

[billj214]

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.

 

[gti88]

I'm definetely in line for Ivy. Sandy's just too hot.

 

[youssef 2010]

As a unit in the Red Alert series puts it......"Let's see some action".

Sounds familiar?

 

[s997863]

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??