LGA 1156 Core i5

[Helloworld_98]

looks like intel has come down competitive.

Hexus is reporting the 2.66ghz lynnfield will be $194, 2.8ghz @ $284 and 2.93ghz @ $584.

ok maybe the last two weren't competitive, now we just need to wait for mobo prices.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Id love to see em try HT in graphics, itd be funny. Everything Ive read, and Ive been keeping up on LRB, shows around 2Ghz, 32 cores, no HT heheh, and according to coding, has very little latency.
On the 80 Tera scale :
"The fundamental performance bottleneck, however, was the fact that one can only load 2 operands from data memory per cycle. Since the FMACs need 2 operands from memory each, the loads limited peak dot product performance to 50% of the total available floating point performance. "
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1413409
So, it appears theres some latency involved, as this was where they figured out the LRB solution, and Im sure they havnt deviated from this, or a few other things.

 

[rags_20]

Doesn't Lynnfield start at 2.13 GHz? That ought to be much cheaper than $194. Perhaps even $150!

Slightly off topic: Why exactly do i7 940s cost so much? Almost twice as much as a 920 with only an increase from 2.66 to 2.93 which can easily be gained by a stock cooler OC? Is there something else that is significantly different between them? I mean what is their clock-for-clock performance? Is it the same?

 

[Helloworld_98]

should be, I think they just advertise that it's better at apps from the extra hz and it gets people to don't want to overclock and don't want to pay for the 965 to buy it.

also I don't think they'd sell a 2.13ghz cpu for the mainstream, servers, but not the mainstream, this is intel we're talking about here.

I'm also regretting having to get my PC for June now, but then again, the P2 might still beat it in games etc since the i5 is just an incomplete i7 and the QPI kinda gave it the extra performance. so I guess I'll have to wait to see if phenom was a good choice to stick with.

 

[apache_lives]

rags_20 the i7 940 is a high end product so they slap a high end price on it

 

[apache_lives]

oh and BTW it cost the same to produce say a Q9300 as it does a QX9650 - go figure

 

[jimmysmitty]

Doesn't Lynnfield start at 2.13 GHz? That ought to be much cheaper than $194. Perhaps even $150!

Slightly off topic: Why exactly do i7 940s cost so much? Almost twice as much as a 920 with only an increase from 2.66 to 2.93 which can easily be gained by a stock cooler OC? Is there something else that is significantly different between them? I mean what is their clock-for-clock performance? Is it the same?

Its the same reason why a Athlon X2 5600 came out at $500+ and the FX series also came out over $1K. Since it rules the high end, they can charge more.

 

[rags_20]

So technically an i7 920 @ 2.93 is the same as a 940 stock?

 

[jimmysmitty]

Yes it is. The same exact chip. Just like a Phenom II 955 is the same as a Phenom II 940. The only true difference is it was binned higher and has a bit higher multiplier.

 

[Helloworld_98]

it is and it isn't.

the higher end cpu's are picked because they run at a lower wattage per clock hence why a 920 and 940 have the same wattage and intel claim the 965 has the same wattage but most of them never do they are 20w higher at load point but you can't blame them for trying.

 

[MU_Engineer]

If i remember correctly even the cores on LRB have hyperthreading so reguardless of core count, if there is more IPC going down and some hardcore memory controller and proper cache sync etc between all the cores (what Intel has been going on about, and what seems to also be giving i7 on the server front a 80% boost) it could be interesting. Wouldnt ATi and Nvidia be pissed off if an Intel first attempt beat them all, even if it did chug power and crap heat like a prescott 😀

Intel will have their hands full with cache synchronization and memory access with a CPU like Larrabee. They will also have their hands full with making and tuning their rendering stack as well, just because they are pretty complex and very performance-sensitive. I haven't seen anybody actually run anything on a Larabee so I can't comment on how well it works or not, but I would expect the first Larabee to be pretty mediocre as a GPU. The biggest reason is that it is simple a huge undertaking with the complex hardware and software stack. Also, Intel doesn't have all that great of a record with designing GPUs and drivers to draw from, although the latest Intel IGPs have progressed to be somewhat competitive with NVIDIA's and ATi's lowest-end IGPs rather than being completely embarrassed by them. Also, the general aim of the Larabee is to use general hardware to perform a function, while ATi and NVIDIA use very specialized hardware. A specific IC for a task is going to be much more efficient/faster at doing the workload than a general piece of hardware. A case in point is H.264 decoding. It takes something like a 3 GHz Phenom or Core 2 to reliably decode high-bitrate H.264, yet you see tiny ASICs in cheap GPUs and chipsets do the same function flawlessly with far fewer transistors.

However, I think that general CPU abilities of Larabee may end up being what Intel is really after. ATi and NVIDIA have started to get into high-performance computing with their GPGPU projects. GPGPUs are not all that flexible but if you have work that works on them, one PC with a few fast GPUs in it can replace entire racks of number-crunching CPUs. Ditto with ASICs, but on a smaller scale (such as the H.264 decode now requiring a $30 Atom or $5 ARM CPU rather than a $250 Core 2 CPU.) Intel sees both a threat and an opportunity with this market. The threat is that fast CPUs are starting to become less important since there is much faster dedicated hardware out there that's less expensive. The opportunity is that ASICs are very inflexible and GPGPUs are not all that much more flexible, but a bunch of small CPUs like what will be in the Larabee would be quite flexible. Thus I think that Intel will really reap the rewards of the Larabee more as a super-powerful FPU/SIMD unit to accelerate many applications rather than as a GPU.

 

[MU_Engineer]

oh and BTW it cost the same to produce say a Q9300 as it does a QX9650 - go figure

No. The QX9650 requires a pair of 6 MB L3 dies, whereas Intel can (and does) put pairs of native 3 MB L2 dies in Q9300s. The smaller dies are cheaper to make, both from a yield standpoint and a die area standpoint. Also, the binning process will result in a greater yield of lower-clocked Q9300s than higher-clocked QX9650s. Higher yield = fewer discards = lower price.

 

[rags_20]

Lol, wonder how larabee drivers will be like!

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The FP does have a 50% latency on LRB. As shown on my link. Theres just no getting around it. Tho LRBs FP is its strong point, even with its latency.
As for drivers, who knows? Unfortunately, the IGP team, and the LRB team are 2 different teams altogether, and Intel has done alot of hiring outside of Intel for LRB, as no one at Intel had the ability to do what needs be done, and only time will tell. Its just that for a startup, theres alot to do, then once its all done, itll need to be tweaked

 

[cjl]

Id love to see em try HT in graphics, itd be funny. Everything Ive read, and Ive been keeping up on LRB, shows around 2Ghz, 32 cores, no HT heheh, and according to coding, has very little latency.
On the 80 Tera scale :
"The fundamental performance bottleneck, however, was the fact that one can only load 2 operands from data memory per cycle. Since the FMACs need 2 operands from memory each, the loads limited peak dot product performance to 50% of the total available floating point performance. "
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1413409
So, it appears theres some latency involved, as this was where they figured out the LRB solution, and Im sure they havnt deviated from this, or a few other things.

Actually, Larrabee cores have 4 way hyperthreading IIRC (4 threads per core) in order to offset the penalty of a completely in-order architecture.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Thats not the way it was written, and thus my response. Its a fixed scenario, not something to be turned on or off. Its simply 4 threads if you will. Coming in at 2Ghz, and under 2 Tflops, you do the math.
Its like saying each "thread" is a shader, so itll have 800 threads for the 4xxx series, as an example.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Heres an easier to understand slide of the "HT". Sorry, as this is just the norm for gpus, and it is different for cpus, as theyre usually stuck on 1 or 2, tho, since its somewhat more parallel, LRB will do 4.
I just had to chuckle tho
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2009/0330/kaigai498.htm

 

[yomamafor1]

Who wants to see how accurate is JDJ's little crystal ball?

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/259526-28-feeling-ripped

Undoubtably, the cf/sli situation is set, and cant be denied, and in this way Intel has set a 2 tier scenario, which is also part of this, I guess. But, from what everything Im hearing, i5 will be pretty much on par with i7, just cheaper, and much much cooler, and lower power needs as well.

Before then, he insisted that Core i5 will be the underdoing of i7, because according to him, its cheaper, cooler, and perform on par with Core i7.

Now, let's see if he got anything right.

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=25883&catid=2

Intel's first Socket 1156 processors are said to be the 2.66, 2.8 and 2.93 GHz-clocked Core i5 models. These processors will all feature four cores and an integrated dual-channel DDR3 memory controller (providing DDR3-1066/1333 support), 8MB of L3 cache and a TDP of 95W.

According to reports, the upcoming 2.66, 2.8 and 2.93 GHz chips will have support for the Turbo Boost technology which will enable single-core overclocks of up to 3.2, 3.46 and 3.6 GHz respectively. In terms of prices, the CPUs would go for $196, $284 and $562, with the cheapest part, the 2.66 MHz model, set to not include features like Hyper Threading, vPro and TXT, which will be found on the 2.8 and 2.93 GHz Lynnfields.

Humm... so the fact that its much cheaper is FUD. Cooler is debatable, as there's only TDP as a measurement, but let's give him this one. Perform on par is also FUD, since some of the Lynnfield will have their HTT and other features disabled.

So let's see how many JDJ got right...

Undoubtably, the cf/sli situation is set, and cant be denied, and in this way Intel has set a 2 tier scenario, which is also part of this, I guess. But, from what everything Im hearing, [strike]i5 will be pretty much on par with i7[/strike][FUD], [strike]just cheaper[/strike][FUD], and much much cooler[arguable], and lower power needs[arguable] as well.

So about 33%~50% accuracy... would you call that an "expert"? 😀 😉

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

What was i7's intro pricing? They currently arent even that cheap now. Cheaper, more than 10%? 20%?30%? HT wont be available on the lowest one. Wanna go way back when I posted that too? When they were first announced ever? And then, you could get into the "whats HT doing for me thing", but since I already knew this, whats the point?
You want to argue/discredit/add words/ whatever, thats fine. Why do I have to be an expert? Your words, not mine. I try, thats all I can do, just like anyone else. I'll respect you here, even tho it apparently isnt mutual, but your preconceptions are way off

 

[yomamafor1]

What was i7's intro pricing? They currently arent even that cheap now. Cheaper, more than 10%? 20%?30%? HT wont be available on the lowest one. Wanna go way back when I posted that too? When they were first announced ever? And then, you could get into the "whats HT doing for me thing", but since I already knew this, whats the point?
You want to argue/discredit/add words/ whatever, thats fine. Why do I have to be an expert? Your words, not mine. I try, thats all I can do, just like anyone else. I'll respect you here, even tho it apparently isnt mutual, but your preconceptions are way off

Core i7's intro pricing is the same as now.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2333783,00.asp

Three Core i7's will be introduced at launch: the 2.66-GHz Core i7-920, priced at $284; the 2.93-GHz Core i7-940, priced at $562; and the 3.20-GHz Core i7 Extreme 965, priced at $999.

Now:
Core i7 920 = 288.99
Core i7 940 = 559.99
Core i7 965 = 999.99

Let's compare that with Lynnfield's pricing
Core i5 2.66 = 196
Core i5 2.8 = 284
Core i5 2.93 = 582

Are they really much cheaper like you said?

I really don't need to go back and examine your every single claim, because to majority of the veterans here, you have pretty lost your credibility a long time ago.

So, how about you do a little more google search before mouthing off your opinion as if its facts? How about think a little before spewing out your bias?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Bias? OK, in your mind, go for it. The i5 is cheaper, itll be cooler, and have lower power draw. So, a 2.8 chip is the same price as a 2.6 chip. OK. Do you think the 2.6 chip is faster? Thats the question here. Its been the reason or one of the main reasons why this post is here. So, Im biased because I feel the i5 fits the needs more for gamers than the more expensive i7? Keep going, tell me more

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Heres the thing. The majority of people here, or anywheres alse dont have super duper killer rigs, or pocketbooks, they dont have SLI or CF, they dont concern themselves with video encoding etc etc, and they want to know if this chip is going to perform in gaming. It seems anytime anyone brings up the fact that i7 isnt that great for gaming, except maybe outside most peoples concerns and needs, theyre attacked for anyone daring to not praise the i7, even in an Intel thread about an Intel processor.
If anyone thinks that a i7 is good for gaming, it is, but itll still cost more. Regardless of what you may say, its 3 sticks of memory, thats pretty much useless for the vast majority. Its also 50% more tracings, a much more expensive board for what?
At the same clocks, the i5 is cheaper, its overall setup is cheaper still. Itll require less power. Run cooler. And this is FUD?

 

[spathotan]

Once upon a time it was the DDR3 and the Motherboards that were viewed as overpriced. Now DDR3 prices have plummeted, motherboards are still a pricey. While the procs themselves have stayed the same price and even gone UP in price and are now considered the bad egg of the build. i7 is a great chip no doubt, but $300 is a joke for what it can do compared to the competition in games and everyday apps. The i7 920 needs to be around $230.

 

[rags_20]

We still don't know what the price of the i5 2.13 will be. That should OC to around 3.33 don't you think? It should be able to beat the 920. From what I've read, it even looks like i5 could beat the 920 clock for clock. That would be interesting. We'll just have to wait for benchies. Thing is, once Intel launches i5 and (it looks promising to me) people start getting i5s and are really satisfied, what is the reason to get i7? (assuming it beats i7) ? Of course, we had an article about the 6-core CPU next year, that might be a reason to stick with LGA1366. But motherboard costs have always been high with Intel. I mean, do you even get an AMD motherboard for over $200? And do you get an X58 motherboard for LESS than $200? I think we can expect motherboard prices to drop significantly with i5. At least $125-150?

 

[jimmysmitty]

The only reason I would think a Core i5 could beat a Core i7 clock for clock in gaming is due to the integrated PCIe controller that a Core i5 will have.

But when it comes to multiGPU gaming the Core i7 will have the advantage since its capable of much higher bandwidth and core to core communications thanks to QPI.

But thats just my guess.