Intel Roadmap Leaked, Shows Core i3, i5 Info

Status
Not open for further replies.

rags_20

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2008
902
0
18,990
1
The higher clock speeds with 4 logical cores ought to be good for gaming. Can probably get it to 4.5 on water. Pair it with 5870 CF and you're good to go.
 

jerreece

Splendid
I'm interested to see how this Clarkdale i5 dual-core with HT will compare with the current i5-750. Sounds like the i5-750 will be the only "i5" branded chip without Hyperthreading. Different base clocks, but the dual-core using the right applications would have 4 logical cores, versus the i5-750's 4 physical cores.

Probably stand out most in synthetic benches that can use HT well.
 

jerreece

Splendid
Japanese site PC Watch has details on a roadmap leak that details low-powered "S" versions of the Core i5 750 and i7 860, which feature a thermal design power of 82W rather than the usual 95W. These chips will supposedly run all four cores at 2.4GHz for the i5 and 2.53GHz for the i7.
BTW: Is anyone else wishing Intel came out with a low power version without underclocking? Lowering TDP is great, if you can get the same or better performance. Kind of makes me wonder if they only reached the lower TDP simply because they are downclocked.
 

megabuster

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2008
85
0
18,630
0
What's the point of upgrading to the latest and greatest anymore, when ALL games can run 60+ FPS on 4 year old platforms? Instead of killing PC Gaming, consoles are killing hardware innovation.
 

burnley14

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
682
0
18,990
3
The i3 530 looks like it will be an absolute steal. I can do without the Turbo mode, spend the extra cash on a better cooler, and reach 4GHz, all with a processor that costs barely over 100 bucks. Yes please.
 

tayb

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
1,143
0
19,280
0
It looks as if Intel knows it has an architectural advantage at the time being so they are focusing more on ramping up the speeds than improving on their architecture. This is the same sort of pattern we saw from Intel in the late 90's and early 00's that led to AMD grabbing the performance crown for 3-4 years because they focused on improved architecture while Intel focused on ramping up speeds. Might we be seeing history repeat itself in the next couple of years? Is Intel resting on its laurels thinking AMD doesn't have anything up its sleeve? I guess we'll find out.
 

cyberkuberiah

Distinguished
May 5, 2009
812
0
19,010
12
[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]It looks as if Intel knows it has an architectural advantage at the time being so they are focusing more on ramping up the speeds than improving on their architecture. This is the same sort of pattern we saw from Intel in the late 90's and early 00's that led to AMD grabbing the performance crown for 3-4 years because they focused on improved architecture while Intel focused on ramping up speeds. Might we be seeing history repeat itself in the next couple of years? Is Intel resting on its laurels thinking AMD doesn't have anything up its sleeve? I guess we'll find out.[/citation]

yeah , but amd has a lot to cover . intel's leading in IPC as well as TDP as well as manufacturing process . the trio of three will create this new i3/i5 .
 

cyberkuberiah

Distinguished
May 5, 2009
812
0
19,010
12
[citation][nom]pbrigido[/nom]I am looking forward to seeing some benchmarks for the 3.73GHz i5.[/citation]

yeah , and moe so , i want to see the overclocking results on a good air cooler .
 

lemonade4

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2009
78
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]megabuster[/nom]What's the point of upgrading to the latest and greatest anymore, when ALL games can run 60+ FPS on 4 year old platforms? Instead of killing PC Gaming, consoles are killing hardware innovation.[/citation]

You include Crysis in your list of 60+ FPS games? Console hardware having killing hardware innovation? what are you stuck in 2006?
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]It looks as if Intel knows it has an architectural advantage at the time being so they are focusing more on ramping up the speeds than improving on their architecture. This is the same sort of pattern we saw from Intel in the late 90's and early 00's that led to AMD grabbing the performance crown for 3-4 years because they focused on improved architecture while Intel focused on ramping up speeds. Might we be seeing history repeat itself in the next couple of years? Is Intel resting on its laurels thinking AMD doesn't have anything up its sleeve? I guess we'll find out.[/citation]

And AMD releasing a 3GHz Phenom II all the way up to a 3.6GHz Phenom II is what again?
 

dupaman

Distinguished
Sep 21, 2009
45
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]jerreece[/nom]BTW: Is anyone else wishing Intel came out with a low power version without underclocking? Lowering TDP is great, if you can get the same or better performance. Kind of makes me wonder if they only reached the lower TDP simply because they are downclocked.[/citation]
Or you can just undervolt the CPUs yourself... no point in paying intel a huge premium for the same result like with the C2Q S series. See the comparison with the Q9550s VS Q9550 here: http://www.silentpcreview.com/article954-page5.html
 

dupaman

Distinguished
Sep 21, 2009
45
0
18,530
0
wth? Link didn't show up. Just goto silentpcreview and look for it under the CPU/mobo section. Page 5 shows the undervolting results.
 

AtuBrian

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2008
136
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]rags_20[/nom]The higher clock speeds with 4 logical cores ought to be good for gaming. Can probably get it to 4.5 on water. Pair it with 5870 CF and you're good to go.[/citation]
if only everyone had the kind of money indeed yes it would be fine but no
 

enzo matrix

Splendid
[citation][nom]megabuster[/nom]What's the point of upgrading to the latest and greatest anymore, when ALL games can run 60+ FPS on 4 year old platforms? Instead of killing PC Gaming, consoles are killing hardware innovation.[/citation]
Yeah, totally. If I turn off AA, lower all the settings and play at 640*480 I might be able to play... laggy COD4 on my radeon X1300?
Bahumbug, who need DX10?
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
2,447
0
19,790
1
[citation][nom]psycho sykes[/nom]I have a question.. How could the i7 870 operate with the same TDP as the i5 (95W) at higher Freq and turbo boost? This means that the i7 870 is 95W while the i7 860 and the i5 750 have to be lower.. Right? I'm confused.[/citation]
They likely do use less power.
The i7 860 is a higher binned chip however, meaning it can stabiliy run on a lower voltage at the same speed (usiong less power).

I however want 2GHz quad cores with a GPU sitting right next beside them.
 

tmc

Distinguished
Aug 22, 2007
99
0
18,630
0
Perhaps heeding the warnings about only allowing 1 graphics card bus to be utilized got Intel shifting towards improving the i5's and i7's that they already have on the market by updating them at similar price points. This I am happy with... as long as Intel is not slapping consumers in the face with a dead-end to the i5-750/860 chips then I'm satisfied that the mid-grade chips/system have a future at similar price points. That puts AMDs feet to the fire on improving mhz/per watt ratios more BECAUSE intel won't abandon the 2 graphics card entusiast as once thought in the mainstream product lines-- just the budget lines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS