LGA 1156 Core i5

[fazers_on_stun]

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.

It frequently is, at Microcenter 😀

Doesn't Intel have some price drops planned for June? I wouldn't be surprised to see the 920, 940 and 965 all drop with the 950 and 975's coming out then at the former price points.

 

[Hellboy]

a 6 core is already out from intel, albeit it costs $1500 and is a 603 server chip.

6 core from amd? late 2009 and an 8 core from intel around the same time, the amd will come in server and desktop versions iirc, intels will only come in server versions.

Do you honestly think that Intel wont release a desktop 6 and 8 core processor... There working on it right now and they will not let AMD still Intels Thunder.. Not now..

I dont think for one second Intel will go back to their old lazy ways when they had the Prescott.

 

[dragonsprayer]

i am staying out of this!

but #1 this is delayed due to oems? or over stock? or economy?

this is not an upgrade from i7 - i will eat those words later!

you can not go wrong with x58


note: i did not read this thread this is my best guess! i am pretty smart!

 

[rags_20]

Well, 6-core 12-threads is pretty pointless like I said. Unless you're going to run two games simultaneously on two monitors. (Crysis and Crysis Warhead - GTX295 QuadSLI)

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Well, 6-core 12-threads is pretty pointless like I said. Unless you're going to run two games simultaneously on two monitors. (Crysis and Crysis Warhead - GTX295 QuadSLI)

Yep. Just like many people were saying quad core was pretty pointless about 3 years ago .

Software, even games, are gradually moving to being multi-threaded. So maybe 6 cores is overkill right now, who knows this time next year?

 

[MU_Engineer]

Do you honestly think that Intel wont release a desktop 6 and 8 core processor... There working on it right now and they will not let AMD still Intels Thunder.. Not now..

I dont think for one second Intel will go back to their old lazy ways when they had the Prescott.

I wouldn't be so sure. If you look at Intel's history, they've done very well when they are trying to beat somebody but have also been very lazy when they think they are on top of the game. Intel was lazy with the P6 arch in the mid-90s to about 2001 as they slowly introduced barely-faster PII and PIII parts that had very incremental improvements- then AMD kicked sand in their face with the K7 Athlon. Intel was very lazy with the NetBurst as well as it went from 2000 to 2006 with only one moderate overhaul, and again, speed increases were gradual and the CPUs were expensive until the Athlon 64 came and kicked sand in Intel's face again. Intel really only got serious after the AMD had faster CPUs than they did for most of the time between when the K7 Athlon came out in 1999 to when the Core 2 came out in 2006 (yes, the P4Bs and Cs were generally faster than the Athlon XPs- I said *most* of the time.) But now look at Intel. They introduced the Core 2 in 2006 and outperformed AMD, and then largely proceeded to sit on their hands since then. They have gradually upped clock speeds and cache sizes a little, but have held their new, improved Nehalem CPUs back in limited quantities and high prices since the Phenom IIs aren't decisively faster. If AMD were kicking Intel's butt, you can bet your bottom dollar that Intel would have definitely pulled the i5 launch in a lot earlier and I bet we'd probably even be seeing low-end CPUs (i3?) based on the Nehalem out shortly. Nope, instead Intel is sitting on the Nehalems and IIRC had pushed the i5 launch date even further back.

 

[Hellboy]

I wouldn't be so sure. If you look at Intel's history, they've done very well when they are trying to beat somebody but have also been very lazy when they think they are on top of the game. Intel was lazy with the P6 arch in the mid-90s to about 2001 as they slowly introduced barely-faster PII and PIII parts that had very incremental improvements- then AMD kicked sand in their face with the K7 Athlon. Intel was very lazy with the NetBurst as well as it went from 2000 to 2006 with only one moderate overhaul, and again, speed increases were gradual and the CPUs were expensive until the Athlon 64 came and kicked sand in Intel's face again. Intel really only got serious after the AMD had faster CPUs than they did for most of the time between when the K7 Athlon came out in 1999 to when the Core 2 came out in 2006 (yes, the P4Bs and Cs were generally faster than the Athlon XPs- I said *most* of the time.) But now look at Intel. They introduced the Core 2 in 2006 and outperformed AMD, and then largely proceeded to sit on their hands since then. They have gradually upped clock speeds and cache sizes a little, but have held their new, improved Nehalem CPUs back in limited quantities and high prices since the Phenom IIs aren't decisively faster. If AMD were kicking Intel's butt, you can bet your bottom dollar that Intel would have definitely pulled the i5 launch in a lot earlier and I bet we'd probably even be seeing low-end CPUs (i3?) based on the Nehalem out shortly. Nope, instead Intel is sitting on the Nehalems and IIRC had pushed the i5 launch date even further back.

The didnt need to do much with the core 2 design as it was just so good when released all that was needed was a few tweaks here and there and its still faster than anything AMD put out ( top end quads that is ) ...

Hell, even the famous Q6600 still stands its grounds overclocked..

I know I7 initial release was disapointing but i do believe whilst the economic pressures will prevent more frequent releases what it will provide when we need its the time to develope the next step in processing power.. I still feel that more can be done with i7 appart from apps and sli setups...


Only a Octocore in my mind will fit the bill with loads for cache and a dose hyper threading for good measure..

Then the software will have to play catchup with true multi threaded apps to take advantage of the hardware.

I hope Windows 7 utilises multithreading more - with a dose of DX 11 help... A multi threaded capable API... mmm thats a thought - wonder if a version of PHSYX will be in DX11... as standard..

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Better yet OpenCL:
"Additionally, OpenCL has querying tools to test the compute capabilities of an individual platform, so that the processing requirements can be best tuned to the components within an individual computer - if a system has a middle-range CPU but a high-end GPU then the tasks can be biased towards the GPU. Alternatively if the system uses a performance CPU but a mainstream GPU then the tasks can be biased to the CPU so that the user can maintain the best graphics quality whilst still attaining good performance."
http://www.guru3d.com/article/interview-with-ati-dave-baumann/4
Add in the implementation of dx11 MT'ing capabilities, and W7's as well, better memory usage will be seen as well, its looking good

 

[rags_20]

Seems like 2.66GHz is the starting for i5. Wonder why they disabled HT for the 2.66 though. Turbo is nice to hear though. And $196 isn't too bad. What I really want to see are motherboard prices. Seems like its a much better option than the PII.

 

[cjl]

The turbo mode is excellent - it sounds like they really are starting to open up their CPUs to run at the full range of possible clock speeds. I wouldn't be surprised if the high model, which can turbo to 3.6GHz, can beat the i7 965 in many cases (on "stock" clocks). Of course, it all depends on how restrictive turbo is with all cores active, but still, it sounds promising.

 

[rags_20]

Can Turbo mode still work after an OC? Also, is turbo mode going to be introduced to i7 too?

 

[cjl]

i7 has turbo mode, but it is much more restrictive. For example, the 2.93GHz i5 has a max turbo of 3.6, but my i7 965 on stock 3.2GHz settings has a max turbo of 3.46.

 

[jimmysmitty]

i7 has turbo mode, but it is much more restrictive. For example, the 2.93GHz i5 has a max turbo of 3.6, but my i7 965 on stock 3.2GHz settings has a max turbo of 3.46.

Isn't that because the Core i5 is 32nm with their next gen HK/MG? Allows for higher clocks while staying in the same TDP?

If so then the newer HK/MG is progressing nicely and the thing is that these are just the ES chips. I can imagine when they get a newer stepping out they will be able to OC pretty high.

 

[fwupow]

Multiple different cores is the future. One for legacy and several more engineered for perfection.

They keep changing the socket, because they're money grubbing whores. The sockets used to get bigger. Now they go big, then back to small and then big again, just to be different and force the consumer to buy all new everything.

Of course they aren't the least interested in future-proofing a dang thing. They want you to have to build a whole new system almost every time you upgrade your CPU.

Check out how Intel intends to violate 1156 consumers over the coming months:
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/12341/35/

 

[cjl]

Multiple different cores is the future. One for legacy and several more engineered for perfection.

They keep changing the socket, because they're money grubbing whores. The sockets used to get bigger. Now they go big, then back to small and then big again, just to be different and force the consumer to buy all new everything.

As I've explained above, the reason for the different socket is because of the different CPU features. LGA 1366 is meant for server applications first, plus high demand workstation style tasks. This requires huge memory bandwidth and high speed system interconnects. Because of this, Intel added in 3 channels of memory directly controlled by the CPU, and a high speed QPI interface. This makes for expensive motherboards though, due to the many board layers and expensive northbridge.

1156 is the cure to this - due to the on-die PCI-E controller, it will actually perform better for games when used with one graphics card, the lack of an expensive northbridge helps with motherboard costs, and the dual channel memory controller (which reduces the number of layers needed in the motherboard) also reduces the motherboard cost. Intel has always said they intended LGA1156 to be the mainstream model, and you can try to spin it however you want, but the purpose of having two sockets is to offer two completely different (and mutually incompatible) feature sets, not to screw over consumers.

As for that link? Without proof, it is completely useless.

 

[MU_Engineer]

The didnt need to do much with the core 2 design as it was just so good when released all that was needed was a few tweaks here and there and its still faster than anything AMD put out ( top end quads that is ) ...

Hell, even the famous Q6600 still stands its grounds overclocked..

The Core 2 was pretty decent, but it looks a whole lot better compared to an Athlon 64 rather than a Phenom. If AMD had been faster in getting the Phenoms to market than Intel was with the Core 2 Quads, the Core 2 Quads would still have looked solid but wouldn't have completely walked all over AMD's product line like it did with the aging K8 dual cores. Intel would have had to have pulled out something like Nehalem to compare with the Phenom to get the same effect as a Conroe vs. a K8. That's the whole feet-to-the-fire thing I was talking about.

I know I7 initial release was disapointing but i do believe whilst the economic pressures will prevent more frequent releases what it will provide when we need its the time to develope the next step in processing power.. I still feel that more can be done with i7 appart from apps and sli setups...

The i7 release was disappointing? I didn't think so. It would have been disappointing if the i7 didn't perform better than the Core 2s, but it certainly did, and by an okay margin too. The NetBurst -> Core transition was a real anomaly as the Pentium Ds were pretty uncompetitive at the time and priced far too high, while the Core 2s were very good and in all actuality, priced too low (this started a price war that led to Intel losing a bunch of money for a while.) Intel was much more conservative this time in keeping the i7 prices high enough to not kill the market for their existing Core 2-based products. I think the only real disappointment was that the initial prices of an i7 motherboard + three sticks of DDR3 + the i7 were much higher than we'd all been used to paying. The i7s also run hot, but the TDPs are similar to the Phenom X4s and the faster Kentsfields.

Also, the real spot where the i7 shines is in the Xeon form. One look at the architecture of the i7 should tell you that it was designed as a server chip first as it has massive memory bandwidth with a three-channel IMC and the QPI links, plus the ability to handle a bunch of threads with HyperThreading. Almost all other server CPUs out there have some form of multithreading to help with handling highly-threaded server applications (UltraSPARC T1 and T2, IBM POWER6 and POWER7.). The FSB wasn't completely tapped out on the desktop and Intel could have gone a bit farther with 1600 MHz FSB non-Extreme Edition CPUs and been fine, plus many desktop apps couldn't use more than four cores and HT wasn't really needed. But those features were needed in the server space.

Only a Octocore in my mind will fit the bill with loads for cache and a dose hyper threading for good measure..

That's a Xeon MP 75xx "Beckton," which should be coming out sometime here. It has eight cores, HyperThreading, and 24 MB of L3 cache, which I think qualifies as a "load." However, it will probably be one of those "if you have to ask the price..." kind of units. I think we mere mortals will probably have to wait a couple of years for Sandy Bridge to see eight cores at a reasonable price from Intel.

Then the software will have to play catchup with true multi threaded apps to take advantage of the hardware.

I hope Windows 7 utilises multithreading more - with a dose of DX 11 help... A multi threaded capable API... mmm thats a thought - wonder if a version of PHSYX will be in DX11... as standard..

Some software already is playing catch-up with multithreading as tests of the Core i7s with HyperThreading on vs. off have shown. Windows apparently keeps improving multithreaded support, but it's mostly the client applications that need to be improved. IIRC even Windows XP can handle 32 cores, although it isn't that great at scheduling them. I don't know what DX11 will have, but I doubt that Microsoft would make NVIDIA's proprietary PhysX part of it. My money is on MS making their own physics engine and putting it in a future DX revision. They like to keep control over their graphics API and don't want to be at the mercy of a third party. I could only see PhysX being in DX sometime if Microsoft bought it from NVIDIA, and then we'd see PhysX made to work on at least AMD/ATi GPUs if not also Intel's IGPs. I think Intel's IGPs probably can handle some GPGPU type of work like physics since they're DX10-compatible and I think DX10 requires enough FP programmability to make GPGPU work possible.

 

[Hellboy]

The Core 2 was pretty decent, but it looks a whole lot better compared to an Athlon 64 rather than a Phenom. If AMD had been faster in getting the Phenoms to market than Intel was with the Core 2 Quads, the Core 2 Quads would still have looked solid but wouldn't have completely walked all over AMD's product line like it did with the aging K8 dual cores. Intel would have had to have pulled out something like Nehalem to compare with the Phenom to get the same effect as a Conroe vs. a K8. That's the whole feet-to-the-fire thing I was talking about.

I know I7 initial release was disapointing but i do believe whilst the economic pressures will prevent more frequent releases what it will provide when we need its the time to develope the next step in processing power.. I still feel that more can be done with i7 appart from apps and sli setups...

The i7 release was disappointing? I didn't think so. It would have been disappointing if the i7 didn't perform better than the Core 2s, but it certainly did, and by an okay margin too. The NetBurst -> Core transition was a real anomaly as the Pentium Ds were pretty uncompetitive at the time and priced far too high, while the Core 2s were very good and in all actuality, priced too low (this started a price war that led to Intel losing a bunch of money for a while.) Intel was much more conservative this time in keeping the i7 prices high enough to not kill the market for their existing Core 2-based products. I think the only real disappointment was that the initial prices of an i7 motherboard + three sticks of DDR3 + the i7 were much higher than we'd all been used to paying. The i7s also run hot, but the TDPs are similar to the Phenom X4s and the faster Kentsfields.

Also, the real spot where the i7 shines is in the Xeon form. One look at the architecture of the i7 should tell you that it was designed as a server chip first as it has massive memory bandwidth with a three-channel IMC and the QPI links, plus the ability to handle a bunch of threads with HyperThreading. Almost all other server CPUs out there have some form of multithreading to help with handling highly-threaded server applications (UltraSPARC T1 and T2, IBM POWER6 and POWER7.). The FSB wasn't completely tapped out on the desktop and Intel could have gone a bit farther with 1600 MHz FSB non-Extreme Edition CPUs and been fine, plus many desktop apps couldn't use more than four cores and HT wasn't really needed. But those features were needed in the server space.

Only a Octocore in my mind will fit the bill with loads for cache and a dose hyper threading for good measure..

That's a Xeon MP 75xx "Beckton," which should be coming out sometime here. It has eight cores, HyperThreading, and 24 MB of L3 cache, which I think qualifies as a "load." However, it will probably be one of those "if you have to ask the price..." kind of units. I think we mere mortals will probably have to wait a couple of years for Sandy Bridge to see eight cores at a reasonable price from Intel.

Then the software will have to play catchup with true multi threaded apps to take advantage of the hardware.

I hope Windows 7 utilises multithreading more - with a dose of DX 11 help... A multi threaded capable API... mmm thats a thought - wonder if a version of PHSYX will be in DX11... as standard..

Some software already is playing catch-up with multithreading as tests of the Core i7s with HyperThreading on vs. off have shown. Windows apparently keeps improving multithreaded support, but it's mostly the client applications that need to be improved. IIRC even Windows XP can handle 32 cores, although it isn't that great at scheduling them. I don't know what DX11 will have, but I doubt that Microsoft would make NVIDIA's proprietary PhysX part of it. My money is on MS making their own physics engine and putting it in a future DX revision. They like to keep control over their graphics API and don't want to be at the mercy of a third party. I could only see PhysX being in DX sometime if Microsoft bought it from NVIDIA, and then we'd see PhysX made to work on at least AMD/ATi GPUs if not also Intel's IGPs. I think Intel's IGPs probably can handle some GPGPU type of work like physics since they're DX10-compatible and I think DX10 requires enough FP programmability to make GPGPU work possible.

Ok, let me re address the disapointing comment..

Considering the I-Core 7 was such a change in architecture compared to Core 2 - which was basically a revamped and derived from a p3. Look what the Israeli Engineers did with the p3 from the orgional Centrino processor.

The Core 2 Duo was such an improvement over the Prescott, and Pentium D's that the I-7 to me should of been the same speed jump again but applications at the time were quicker by a reduced margin. I was expecting more of a jump in performance.

Who cares what a processor can do, its what it does now that makes sense. We can all wait for tomorrow ( if it ever comes) .
I never understand why Intel cuts the life of a Processor at its prime when it still has life in it. Socket 775 is still a capable chip.
We will have to wait a good year or so for any decent Windows 7 true multi-threaded games to come out as look how many "vista only DX 10" sold the platform. There is still room for some more 775's but i guess it will drop the socket on the developement front.

If a chip needs software to mature then so be it, then Intel should have worked closer with the software creators to get more out of it. The most core usage at that time was the dual core processor which still being appreciated with dual core apps and games today. look at the benches on a e8600.

The P4 Northwood was not a complete disaster but not as good as it should of been and the Prescott variant, - well enough said.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Multiple different cores is the future. One for legacy and several more engineered for perfection.

They keep changing the socket, because they're money grubbing whores. The sockets used to get bigger. Now they go big, then back to small and then big again, just to be different and force the consumer to buy all new everything.

Of course they aren't the least interested in future-proofing a dang thing. They want you to have to build a whole new system almost every time you upgrade your CPU.

Check out how Intel intends to violate 1156 consumers over the coming months:
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/12341/35/

Sheesh - did you check the date on that Fudzilla "article"??? 6 months old. If you're gonna post FUD references, please get some fresh ones 😛.