Intel Finally Has a Real 4 GHz CPU

[rohitbaran]

There appear to be signs that both Intel and AMD are engaging in a careful gigahertz race again

Here we go!

 

[alexanderl]

Intel says Ivy Bridge, which supposed to be out by the end of this year will be 25% faster for same power consumption. This means we'll see some kind of i7-3700 or whatever the name will be, running at 4.5GHz without turbo some time 2012H1 or even 2011Q4, if we are lucky.

 

[JimmiG]

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

True. It would probably be easier for Intel to release a 4 GHz processor now, than it was for them to get the 3.8 GHz P4 into production all those years ago. But why bother? Their 3.x GHz models are already way ahead of anything AMD has released or will release any time soon.

 

[Miharu]

On Tom's, Intel ... 4ghz.
Few hours after at E3, AMD Bulldozer 8-core 4.2ghz.

Someone wanted the news...

But only a real benchmark will rules them all.

And like everyone said... "Turbo *Burst*.... aren't real 4ghz. Sorry."

 

[robochump]

Lets not forget Intel got the multi-core idea from Sun Micro back in the day. I am more interested in how Intel will continue to develop smaller transistors but good to see speed and not just more cores is still a goal for Intel.

 

[Guest]

Man this is a slow race not that it is a race. I masturbate at 6 gig.

 

[stevelord]

[citation][nom]jasonpwns[/nom]Troll, you do realize in game bench marks that the 3.7GHZ amd beat out the core i7 2600k in a majority of games at the higher resolutions? Nice try though.[/citation]

What? The X4 980BE gets spanked by the 2600k. Even the 1100T is outmatched.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=287

 

[geekapproved]

How is it a 4ghz cpu???? It runs on ONE core at 4ghz. This is amazing news. LOL

Even a Phenom II can run ALL it's cores at 4ghz with a simple overclock.

What a joke.

 

[rantoc]

Sandy Bridge's are both really cool running and have screaming performance, and are easily over-clockable - Everything i'm looking for!

Running my 2600k at a "low" 4.4 overclock. Running it 24/7 and stress tested it for over a week with every stress tester there is (like linx, prime95 ect)- guess what? no issues at all so I have faith in intel's engineering and production capability. I'm not surprised that they choose to release a speedier version especially with the new 3gate that will improve both performance and efficiency.

The only downside i see in their progress is that there don't look like there will be any real competition in the enthusiast segment. That means Intel will stop their crusade for better cpu's and instead focus on a new crusade like they always have - the crusade to milk their customers as much as they can.

Intel need competition or they stop their product evolution and instead become fat and decadent with tiny upgrades (much like they did when amd came and kicked them in the ass with the excellent athlon).

I hope they will have competition in the x86 arena! No i don't care about lightweight processors - I'm the type that like to run a Ferrari - not a smart car!

 

[wild9]

Tom's, is there any way you can combine the US and UK comments sections? The UK version of this article has nowhere near as many comments. Thanks.

 

[Area51]

Intel quitely ships 4.4 GHz Xeon X5698
http://www.cpuworld.com/news_2011/2011031101_Intel_quitely_ships_4_4_GHz_Xeon_X5698.html

 

[11796pcs]

Unfortunately, this article really doesn't mean anything. Though, can I get someone's opinion on how optimized games like DiRT 2 and Total War: Shogun 2 are for multi-core processors considering they use DX11. Supposedly DX11 is supposed to bring lots of multi-core enhancements, but if it's so great why aren't many people talking about it?

 

[edilee]

My stepfather had the Pentium 4 4ghz chip so it was out there so not sure if they were yanked after release or somehow some got through the cracks. Actually he still has that system laying around somewhere.

 

[livebriand]

I guess they didn't really learn their lesson with the Pentium 4s at 3.8Ghz eh? Come on, that means heat and power consumption. Instead, add more cores at a lower clock. You're going backwards Intel. Rather than seeing, say, a quad-core i7 (with HT) at 4.0GHz, I'd prefer a 8-core i7 (w/ or w/o HT) at 2.8GHz.

 

[eddieroolz]

Turbo-ing to 4.0GHz on a single core isn't really the same as having a "4GHz CPU" though. In reality it runs at 3.6GHz stock.

Wake me up when there's a native 4.0GHz CPU.

 

[cj_online]

I have a feeling this might be Douglas' last article.

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]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.[/citation]
Definitely. An old Pentium 4 3.2GHz northwood machine with 1GB RAM and onboard graphics can't play a fullscreen 720p youtube video smoothly (on a 1280x1024 screen, so the video is native resolution). Meanwhile, my AMD Zacate netbook does that easily enough. Man how times have changed.

 

[computertech82]

Think it's a bit stupid these days trying to compare cpus by ghz, as cpus REAL performance is about how many cycles per second it needs to perform task. There's a reason RISC cpus were 2-3 times FASTER then CISC cpus over double the speed in mhz/ghz. And newer cpus faster then old cpus at the same speed, etc, etc, etc.
I would rather see a cycle per second race then how "hot" you can run a cpu.....lol.

 

[bit_user]

[citation][nom]computertech82[/nom]There's a reason RISC cpus were 2-3 times FASTER then CISC cpus over double the speed in mhz/ghz.[/citation]
No they weren't. Ever. Quit making stuff up.

You also just contradicted yourself. The whole point of RISC CPUs was to make them simple so they could clock really high, in order to compensate for doing LESS work per cycle.

 

[WR2]

[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]IMO its not a real 4ghz cpu if its only 4ghz turbo boost. False advertising.[/citation]I don't think Intel claims or advertises it as a 4Ghz CPU. Don't blame Intel for the media for making something up for a news byte.

 

[mckibbon17]

I have the 990x and its running 4ghz like a champ and its great

 

[David 617]

wow, 4ghz will be like an oven!

 

[Guest]

But it will probably overclock to 5500GHZ on air. (since you can do that with water on SB )
This is where Bulldozer and Opeteron fails no single thread performance, the speed of a ten year old computer. Big time fail since 99.99% of all the appz is still single threaded and even multi threading needs a fast single thread since it can switch between single and multi in between calculations.